This is precisely why many of Jesus' own disciples left His side, and "walked with Him no more."
[11:34] <tatrbrain> btw I ran a piece of communion through a mass/spec..and results were it was bread not flesh!
[11:34] <The-Ox> Oh tatrbrain, even if you don't believe in it, please do not do such things.
[11:35] <The-Ox> If you want a basic understanding of the Catholic belief inteh Eucharist, go to ewtn.com or catholic.com. It will explain such things as why for all appearances (including scientific) it still appears to be regular bread and wine. If you have questions after that, come ask us.
[11:36] <tatrbrain> well it is bread and wine
[11:36] <tatrbrain> it looks like bread
[11:36] <tatrbrain> and i took a piece and ran it through a mass/spec
[11:37] <tatrbrain> after the priest prayed for it
[11:37] <tatrbrain> i really think you are superstitious
[11:38] <The-Ox> I understand your skepticism. But if you read the account in John 6 again, you will see that Jesus was confronted with the same skepticism when he gave this teaching. He even lost some followers over it. But he never said "Hey guys, come back, here's what I really mean." No, he only reiterated more strongly what he had already said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
[11:42] <tatrbrain> I understand John 6
[11:42] <tatrbrain> and if this is your "proof" text you have problems
[11:42] <tatrbrain> because ...he was not talking about literal flesh and blood
[11:42] <The-Ox> As for it still appearing to be bread and wine, this is not a contradiction. The Catholic Church uses the term "transubstantiation," meaning that the substance (what it really is) is changed, while the accidents (what appear to the senses and to scientific instruments) remains the same.
[11:42] <tatrbrain> his words were spirit as said by Jesus himself
[11:43] <The-Ox> What does it mean that his words are spirit?
[11:43] <The-Ox> It doesn't mean symbolic.
[11:43] <The-Ox> Nowhere are the two equated.
[11:44] <tatrbrain> yes
[11:44] <tatrbrain> have u read John 6?
[11:45] <The-Ox> Many times. Jesus says at the end "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." That doesn't mean, "The words I have spoken [about the Eucharist] are symbolic." It means, "The words I have spoken [about the Eucharist] are true, and those truths will give you life."
[11:48] <BigSCOTT> tatr... hold on...
[11:48] <BigSCOTT> You are misrepresenting the Catholic teaching on this...
[11:49] <The-Ox> I think tatr is lagged
[11:49] <The-Ox> he's lagged about a minute
[11:49] <BigSCOTT> The Truth of the matter is more clearly expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas.... the ACCIDENTS remain, but the SUBSTANCE changes.... your mass spectrometer is only measuring the accidents.
[11:49] <tatrbrain> i am not
[11:49] <Chemnitz> The Doctrine of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is about as biblical and clear as a doctrine can get.
[11:49] <tatrbrain> I am just using his discussion on this
[11:50] <tatrbrain> i have nt said what the catholic position is..
[11:50] <tatrbrain> all i am saying is I ran
[11:50] <tatrbrain> the elements through a mass/spec to see if they came out flesh..it came out bread
[11:50] <BigSCOTT> You are saying we are wrong
[11:51] <BigSCOTT> You are attempting to apply "science" to "theology."
[11:51] <Chemnitz> To introduce the idea that Christ was speaking figuratively when He instituted the lord's Supper, or that He was doing so in His discussion of the "living bread" in john 6, is to introduce an irresponsible hermeneutic.
[11:51] <The-Ox> tatrbrain, the Catholic position is that it would indeed come out bread under scientific examination.
[11:51] <BigSCOTT> God (Jesus) said the bread IS His Body, and the wine IS His Blood... we do not deny this - you do.
[11:52] <Chemnitz> When Jesus is clearly speaking of an actual, real event, why posiut that He is speaking figuratively? If you are going to do that maybe He was speaking figuratively when he said "I am the Way the Truth and the Life"
[11:52] <Chemnitz> Maybe He's just a symbol for "The Way the Truth and The Life"
[11:53] <Chemnitz> Maybe His Cross didn't really save anyone...maybe it's a symbol.
[11:53] <tatrbrain> why so?..because it comes in as bread..and comes out as bred
[11:53] <tatrbrain> bread
[11:54] <Chemnitz> The bottom line is that there is NO reason to suggest that Jesus is saying anything other than what He actually says in the Eucharistic discourses.
[11:54] <tatrbrain> that is inconsistent..
[11:54] <tatrbrain> if you apply one method of intrepretation to all texts...then you are wrong
[11:54] <Chemnitz> And that to do so is to exhibit the same spirit of rebellion exhibited by those who left Him in John 6 because of His "Hard sayings".
[11:54] <tatrbrain> Chemnits you know that some verses in Mark are illistrations
[11:54] <tatrbrain> and some are not
[11:55] <tatrbrain> to say there is only one method of intrepretation for all texts is just wrong
[11:55] <Chemnitz> Tatr, fine, i garee, but neither is there any reason to apply a figurative reading when no figurative reading is implied by the text.
[11:56] <BigSCOTT> tatr... we would all agree that Jesus sometimes used illustrations... but when He DEMANDS we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, then later pronounces bread to be His Body and wine to be His Blood - don't you see the consistency THERE?
[11:56] <The-Ox> I have to go, looks like you three can continue this. Peace all.
[11:56] The-Ox [TheOx@nas-46-36.cleveland.navipath.net] has quit IRC (Leaving)
[11:56] <Chemnitz> "Oh, He couldn't have really meant that we need to eat His Body and Blood...it muct just be a word-picture"
[11:56] <tatrbrain> the "hard sayings" of Jesus was
[11:56] <tatrbrain> Calvinism not the eucharist
[11:57] <Chemnitz> Yes, His "hard saying" was that we must eat his flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us.
[11:57] <BigSCOTT> tatr... I don't recall seeing the word "Calvinist" in John 6!
[11:57] <BigSCOTT> Now you're "adding to what is written here" tatr!
[11:58] <tatrbrain> and if you were right..the amil/premil/postmil intrepretation would be resolved...
[11:58] <Chemnitz> And He never bothers to go after those who left Him and say "No, no, that's not what I meant"...in fact He, in the Eucharistic discourses, repeats a formula which can only confirm a literal sense to His words.
[11:59] <Chemnitz> The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was never in any doubt until Calvin.
[11:59] <BigSCOTT> you've lost tatr... so now don't change the subject to amil/premil/postmil - completely off-topic tatr
[11:59] <Chemnitz> The mode of His presence there may have been hotly discussed, but that His Body and Blood were truly eaten and drunk was never in dispute.
[12:00] <Chemnitz> never
[12:00] <Chemnitz> never ever
[12:01] <Chemnitz> never ever ever
[12:01] <Chemnitz> :-)
[12:01] <BigSCOTT> the point is, and I repeat, your mass spectrometer WILL show bread - for it will show the accidents...
[12:01] <BigSCOTT> the accidents remain - the substance changes.
[12:01] <Chemnitz> Scott, and there is where the rubber hits the road for our difference on this...
[12:02] <BigSCOTT> not really Chem...
[12:02] <BigSCOTT> Lutherans hold to Consubstantiation...
[12:02] <BigSCOTT> they too believe a change takes place, but was is still "sensed" are the accidents.
[12:03] <tatrbrain> bigscott: i am pointing out.in terms of intrepretation..if all could right..then amil/premil/postmil would be resolved
[12:03] <tatrbrain> point is..some verses are literal and some are not
[12:03] <Chemnitz> accidents are a product of substance, indeed, the experience of a substance is the same as apprehending it's "accidents" (which is really just a scholastic invention created to butress an ontological impossibility). So, if you see bread when a consecrated host is spectrometrized, it's because it is still bread...the Body and Blood of our Lord need not admit to any such scientific examination, but they are there too.
[12:04] <Chemnitz> When I receive communion, I receive four things: Body Blood, Bread and Wine.
[12:05] mudVayne has left IRC
[12:05] <Chemnitz> Transubstantiation is, in a way, a recrudescence of monophysitism and a denial of the Chalcedonian definition of the Incarnation since it posits that the Incarnate Christ cannot be both material and divine.
[12:06] tatrbrain [Tupok@c95995-a.saltlk1.ut.home.com] has quit IRC (Broken pipe)
[12:06] <Chemnitz> Not posits, but implies.
[12:06] <BigSCOTT> lost him...
[12:06] <BigSCOTT> oh well...
[12:06] mudVayne is on IRC
[12:07] tatrbrain [Tupok@c95995-a.saltlk1.ut.home.com] has joined #CathApol
[12:07] <tatrbrain> i think you look at John 6 completely wrong
[12:07] <Chemnitz> hey tate
[12:07] <BigSCOTT> Chem... why do you say Transub does anything to negate Chalcedon? I am sure St. Aquinas was well aware of Chalcedon...
[12:07] <tatrbrain> have u read Dr Whites book potters freedom
[12:07] <tatrbrain> he writes on John 6
[12:07] <BigSCOTT> tatr... John 6 is quite clear
[12:07] <Chemnitz> Of course you do, you're a Calvinist.
[12:07] <Chemnitz> :-)
[12:08] <BigSCOTT> Jesus didn't just say it once, He REPEATS Himself several times... and even after many of His DISCIPLES left Him over this teaching... He didn't say, "Hey wait guys, don't leave, that was only figurative..."
[12:08] <Chemnitz> I didn't say it "negates" it, but it shows a monophysitistic spirit inasmuch as it assumes that the finite cannot be inseparably united but distinct from the infinite.
[12:09] <Chemnitz> It assumes that the divine presence must prevail over the material.
[12:09] <BigSCOTT> THEN at the Lord's Supper Jesus pronounces the means for us to comply with what He ORDERS in John 6...
[12:09] <Chemnitz> The calvinist conception is much worse, it's christological implications are clearly quasi-docetistic.
[12:09] <BigSCOTT> Chem... I disagree wholeheartedly
[12:10] <BigSCOTT> well, not with your last statement... :-)
[12:10] <Chemnitz> Of course you do...
[12:10] <Chemnitz> :-)
[12:10] <BigSCOTT> Catholics do not say the divine presence must prevail over the material... could you cite a Catholic souce on that?
[12:11] <Chemnitz> Indeed, it could be said that there is an insurmountable chasm between the Calvinist profession of faith in the hypostatic union and it's doctrine on the efficacy of the Sacraments.
[12:11] <Chemnitz> Scott, no, it is an implication that I am drawing.
[12:11] BigSCOTT: *pete-* ?drv John 10:34
[12:12] <BigSCOTT> then it is your implication... not our belief or doctrine... you must be careful how you represent your thoughts...
[12:12] <BigSCOTT> you are saying that is what WE believe.
[12:12] <BigSCOTT> and that is what I disagree with.
[12:12] <Chemnitz> Inasmuch as Transubstantiation denies the persistence of the material elements, it mirrors perfectly the monophysitistic/monothelitistic conception that the divine nature in Christ completely replaced the human in the Incarnate Jesus.
[12:12] <tatrbrain> yes John 6 is quite clear
[12:13] ortho is on IRC
[12:13] <Chemnitz> Scott, no, I am NOT saying that this is what you believe.
[12:13] <tatrbrain> ppl left not because of eucharist..but because of calvinism
[12:13] <BigSCOTT> thanks for admitting that tatr
[12:13] <tatrbrain> my suggestion is to read potters freedom
[12:13] <tatrbrain> by Dr White..read the part about
[12:13] <BigSCOTT> again tatr... where is "calvinism" mentioned AT ALL in John 6?
[12:13] <Chemnitz> I am quite clear that the Church of Rome is wholeheartedly Chalcedonian in her Christology.
[12:13] <tatrbrain> John 6
[12:13] <tatrbrain> and if you think he is wrong
[12:13] <tatrbrain> post a refutation..so I can read it
[12:13] <BigSCOTT> White has been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny
This comment was carboned to James White, as you will see later, and brought James into channel for me to answer and ended up in James challenging me to a live debate. Now, take note at what tatrbrain and I were discussing, and then note what James challenges me on. Two different subjects - but I accepted the challenge. I will mark the parts pertinent to James and his challenge in red. Keep reading...
[12:13] <Chemnitz> What I am suggesting is that she is inconsistent with this in her sacramentology.
[12:14] <BigSCOTT> don't rely on him... he is an "extra-scriptura" source!
[12:14] <BigSCOTT> Chem... let's get back to that later...
[12:14] <Chemnitz> okayfine
[12:14] <Chemnitz> :-)
[12:14] <BigSCOTT> I don't have "Potter's Freedom"
[12:15] <BigSCOTT> nor do I plan to "buy" one...
[12:15] <BigSCOTT> if you would like to send me a copy, I will gladly post a response.
[12:16] <BigSCOTT> James used to send me copies of all his books.... but when I could consistently answer his claims, he stopped.
(From my perspective, of course - I'm sure James paints a different picture!)
[12:16] <Chemnitz> SCOTT, why not, many Evangelical Apologists have read and responded to Sungenis' "NBFA"
[12:16] <Chemnitz> I'm sure Bob didn't give them all copies.
[12:16] <BigSCOTT> I have more books by James White in my library than I do by Sungenis
[12:16] <Chemnitz> Indeed, Evangelicals have been quite aealous in getting and reading and responding to the works of catholic apologists...
[12:17] <BigSCOTT> I have no desire to buy a copy though... that's the difference.
[12:18] <BigSCOTT> If tatr wants my response... I'll accept his gift of a book
[12:18] <BigSCOTT> and I will post a response
[12:19] <Chemnitz> Okay...
[12:21] <tatrbrain> BigScott you are wrong
[12:21] <tatrbrain> he documents calvinism in his book the potters freedom
[12:22] <Chemnitz> Oye como va...eeyayo...oye como va
[12:22] <Chemnitz> Quando vamosa..oye
And now James (NA27) joins in.
[12:23] NA27away [ortho@cpe-024-221-125-235.phoenix.speedchoice.com] has joined #CathApol
[12:23] <NA27away> <BigSCOTT> again tatr... where is "calvinism" mentioned AT ALL in John 6?
[12:23] <Chemnitz> Why are we discussing "the potter's freedom"...i thought the thrust of that work was to deal with geisler's Arminianism...
[12:23] <Chemnitz> OIC
[12:23] <NA27away> <BigSCOTT> White has been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny
[12:24] Romanist [e@AC8337E3.ipt.aol.com] has joined #CathApol
[12:24] <BigSCOTT> back
[12:24] <Chemnitz> Scott, Dr White is here now.
[12:24] <BigSCOTT> truth is truth - I did it again just the other day...
See: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/cathapol/jw_2pet316.htm
[12:25] <BigSCOTT> I see that Chem... :-)
[12:25] <Chemnitz> truth is truth is something of a tautology I think.
[12:25] <tatrbrain> why dont u join #prosapologian
[12:25] <BigSCOTT> and far be it from me to claim I am alone in that
[12:25] <tatrbrain> and let me see how Dr White is wrong?
[12:25] <NA27away> Hmm, you seemed to say, in the log, which I keep, that you were making no such claim....the inconsistency is striking.
[12:25] <tatrbrain> I would love to see you demonstrate..how he is wrong
[12:25] <BigSCOTT> I have the log too James...
[12:26] <NA27away> I'm becoming accustomed to your dual standards, Scott. One thing in here, one thing on the ACTS list, and then when
I face you, all of a sudden its different.
Please note, James is making it sound like I run and hide from him whenever he shows up, as you can plainly see here, I did not run or cower away when he showed up. Is there any evidence of me cowering in the other log I refered to (above) and that was in his channel! How was anything "different" on this day, or the other day in his channel?
[12:27] <Chemnitz> Tatr is still lagged...
[12:27] <BigSCOTT> are you speaking of the
log from our recent discussion ?
[12:27] <BigSCOTT> I am not running from you, nor did I the other day on your channel.
[12:28] <NA27away> I'm speaking of anything, Scott. What you *mean* in your e-mail to Dave A, posted on the Acts list,
was obvious: when I face you, you back down. And now you tell tatrbrain one thing, but I think you know, in your heart of
hearts, that you could not survive a meaningful discussion of the exegesis of John 6:35-45.
[12:28] <NA27away> So, when I'm not around, you are a brave man. When I am, you change your tune. I don't respect that kind
of behavior, do you?
[12:28] NA27away is now known as NA27
[12:28] <BigSCOTT> I have answered you on Sola Scriptura, from one of your books... tatr if you're interested that's http://www.a2z.org/acts/jwsola.htm
[12:28] NA27 is on IRC
[12:29] <BigSCOTT> James... I am here... so are you...
[12:29] <BigSCOTT> I made a claim that you have been shown to be wrong... I stand by it.
Please note, if what James said here was true, I should have backed down - he's here, so
am I, I stood my ground.
[12:29] <NA27> Scott, you have attempted to reply to many things. You get offended when the facts are stated, but,
the fact is, you are not capable of dealing with the level of information necessary to provide a meaningful response.
[12:29] <NA27> Sadly, you lack the humility to recognize your own limitations.
Nothing like a little ad hominem thrown in. And yes James, this time it is ad hominem. When you use the
word "you" and go further to apply labels on what I am capable of or that I am offended are clearly statements intended to enflame,
though I am not enflamed.
[12:30] <BigSCOTT> You have never answered my claims
This is not a true statement, I apologize. James has answered me in the past, so the word "never" is a bit strong here.
Although I will say there are presentations I have made, directed to James, that have "never" been answered.
[12:30] <BigSCOTT> I am not offended...
[12:30] <NA27> Every time I have invested my time, I have shown you utterly incapable of dealing with the issues.
Scott, I ignore most of your stuff because it is silly.
More attempts to belittle his opponent. But let me say:
[12:30] <BigSCOTT> I got defensive in my answer to you regarding Augustine's Sermon 131 - another
point you were "wrong" about
[12:30] <NA27> Your apologetics are the corresponding level to Jack Chick----they have no substance.
[12:31] <NA27> I was not wrong about it, and if you ever debated me in public, you KNOW you would lose.
[12:31] <BigSCOTT> You are the one resorting to ad hominem here... not I... shows how "strong" your arguments are.
[12:31] <NA27> You hide behind your website, like many of your compatriots, who will NEVER face me in public.
[12:31] <BigSCOTT> We are here... this is public...
[12:31] <NA27> If I were saying, "You are wrong about X because you are ugly," that would be ad-hominem.
[12:32] <BigSCOTT> Yes... "technically" you are correct on what is an ad hominem... but comparing my arguments
to Jack Chick was nothing short of a flame.
[12:32] <NA27> Demonstrating that you have no training in biblical languages, no experience teaching, nothing
published, etc., is not ad-hominem. It is an explanation as to why I have basically ignored your diatribes: they
are not worthy of the time it takes to do them.
[12:32] <tatrbrain> BigScott: you going to address his this?
[12:32] <tatrbrain> <BigSCOTT> again tatr... where is "calvinism" mentioned AT ALL in John 6?
[12:32] <tatrbrain> <BigSCOTT> White has been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny
[12:33] <NA27> I am often taken to task for "picking on easy targets." You would be an easier target than
Catholic Answers, Envoy, Hahn, Ray, etc. Hence, you are simply mistaken to take my ignoring you as a sign of
your abilities. It is a sign of your *in*ability, Scott.
[12:33] <NA27> And again, that is NOT ad-hominem.
[12:33] <BigSCOTT> James, can you show tatr the word "calvinism" in John 6? He seems a bit confused on that
issue... and he said your book contains it...
[12:33] <tatrbrain> so you are saying
[12:33] <NA27> That is silly, Scott. No one has ever claimed the word "Calvinism" is in the Bible. Get real.
[12:34] <BigSCOTT> that's what drew out my statement...
[12:34] <tatrbrain> that no calvinism is taught in John 6?
[12:34] <NA27> The BELIEF is easily demonstrated from Scripture, just as the Trinity is, but the WORD is not. Gracious.
[12:34] <BigSCOTT> tell that to tatr
[12:34] <tatrbrain> Dr White..this is what exactly he wrote
[12:34] <tatrbrain> <BigSCOTT> again tatr... where is "calvinism" mentioned AT ALL in John 6?
[12:34] <tatrbrain> <BigSCOTT> White has been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny
[12:34] <BigSCOTT> tatr... you don't have to keep repeating...
[12:34] <NA27> ~nas John 6:37
[12:34] <Logos10> John6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly
not cast out. (NAS)
[12:35] <NA27> How much more simple can that be, Mr. Windsor?
[12:35] <BigSCOTT> <tatrbrain> ppl left not because of eucharist..but because of calvinism
[12:35] <BigSCOTT> <BigSCOTT> thanks for admitting that tatr
[12:35] <BigSCOTT> <tatrbrain> my suggestion is to read potters freedom
[12:35] <BigSCOTT> <tatrbrain> by Dr White..read the part about
[12:35] <BigSCOTT> <BigSCOTT> again tatr... where is "calvinism" mentioned AT ALL in John 6?
[12:35] <NA27> That is the Reformed faith in a short compass, and I have yet to find a single person who can
provide a consistent, textually-based interpretation of John 6:35-45 that does not teach the Reformed view of
soteriology.
[12:36] <BigSCOTT> Oh yes... a misinterpretation of that verse out of the context of the REST of the
Scriptures leads to Calvinism... I agree... but THAT verse is NOT what the Disciple of Jesus left over... and
BOTH of you KNOW that!
[12:36] <NA27> I do not believe for a moment that you will be the one to provide that, Scott.
[12:36] tatrbrain [Tupok@c95995-a.saltlk1.ut.home.com] has quit IRC (NewYork-R.NY.US.Undernet.Org McLean.VA.US.Undernet.Org)
[12:36] <NA27> And that is an argument, Scott?
[12:37] <NA27> Why not spit while you are at it? Has as much meaning.....
[12:37] <NA27> Care to even *attempt* to exegete the passage?
[12:37] <BigSCOTT> the point was between tatr and myself... that the disciples left Jesus over a Calvinistic
teaching... and CLEARLY it was due to the "who can tell us to eat His Flesh..." teaching that they left over.
[12:37] <NA27> Tell me about how didwsin is in the present in 37 and the perfect in 39, and what that means....
[12:38] <NA27> Explain how you relate the verbal time elements between didwsin and Hxei?
[12:38] <NA27> Or maybe you have an infallible interpretation from your Roman leaders you'd like to offer, Scott?
[12:39] tatrbrain [Tupok@c95995-a.saltlk1.ut.home.com] has joined #CathApol
[12:39] <tatrbrain> back
[12:39] <BigSCOTT> What's your point James? I refuted tatr soundly... HE brought your name up...
[12:39] <BigSCOTT> HE claimed the disciples left over some Calvinistic teaching...
[12:39] <NA27> Oh please, get a grip, Scott. You misinterpreted him as if he was saying the WORD was in
John 6 rather than the BELIEF.
[12:39] <NA27> Sheesh, any person operating on 10% brain capacity can see that.
[12:39] <NA27> Come on!\
[12:40] <BigSCOTT> I overstated my position stating there was NO Calvinism in John 6 - I agree that is where
you get THAT teaching... but that has NOTHING to do with what tatr and I were discussing...
[12:40] <BigSCOTT> I misrepresented nothing from tatr...
Well, what just preceeded is what led to James challenging me to a live debate. If I were "true to form" in James' eyes, I would have cowered and refused. What did happen next? Read on...
The Challenge:
[12:41] <NA27> Tell ya what, Scott....our webcast is about to begin. Want to debate me on Calvinism in the NT, right now, live?
[12:41] <BigSCOTT> He said the disciples left Jesus (in John 6) over some Calvinistic teaching... he was wrong... and you're looking foolish to support him on this.
[12:41] <NA27> We archive all our shows and they are listened to all across the nation, and in Europe and Australia.
[12:41] <NA27> We have a toll-free number, or, we will call you.
[12:41] <NA27> How about it? We go on the air in 23 minutes.....
[12:42] <NA27> You can show everyone how I am misinterpreting John 6.
[12:42] <NA27> You just said I am, so, how about showing it to everyone else?
[12:42] <BigSCOTT> Well... that is a bit of short notice... I would accept your challenge if I could have some more notice....
[12:43] <tatrbrain> well you did say he has been proven wrong so many times
[12:43] <NA27> <BigSCOTT> White has been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny
[12:43] <NA27> Hmmm.....
[12:43] <BigSCOTT> I'd like to be a little more prepared... plus I do have obligations this afternoon...
[12:43] <NA27> Strange. It surely ISN'T funny, is it?
[12:43] <NA27> OK, when will you do it, then?
[12:43] <NA27> Give me a date.
[12:43] <tatrbrain> I would love to see both sides of the issue
[12:43] <NA27> We can record it at another time and play it, if you wish.
[12:44] <NA27> So we can accomodate your work schedule.
[12:44] <NA27> When shall we do it this week? What works for you?
[12:44] <BigSCOTT> next week might work for me... are you saying an evening?
[12:44] <NA27> We can work it out almost whenever....
[12:44] <NA27> It would be more fun to have it live, though.
[12:44] <NA27> Callers and all.
[12:45] <BigSCOTT> and when is the live show?
[12:45] <NA27> It begins at 2PM.....today.
[12:45] <NA27> And each Saturday.
[12:45] <NA27> However, I am headed out the 19th of January, and won't be back until mid-February, as far as programs go.
Did I back down?
[12:47] <BigSCOTT> OK... just checked with my wife...
Let me be clear here, I retracted the part that said you could not find Calvinism in John 6. I did not retract
the part about Calvinism being a misinterpretation of that verse. That will be my challenge.
[12:53] <tatrbrain> quite a claim...
[12:47] <BigSCOTT> so far as I know... nothing going on next week... 2pm... I'll be there...
[12:47] <NA27> Excellent.
[12:47] <NA27> We'll announce it on our website.
[12:47] <BigSCOTT> OK...
[12:48] <BigSCOTT> topic?
[12:48] <NA27> John 6:35-45, Ephesians 1:3-11, Romans 8:29-31. It runs from 2PM till 3:30PM.
[12:48] <NA27> Feel free to listen today, if you wish.
[12:49] <BigSCOTT> I'll likely be on the road...
[12:49] <NA27> John 6:35-45, Ephesians 1:3-11, Romans 8:29-31. It runs from 2PM till 3:30PM.
[12:49] <BigSCOTT> but will try to get the station...
[12:49] <NA27> Those three passages are the bulwark of the Reformed faith.
[12:49] <BigSCOTT> So, am I attacking you or defending me?
[12:49] <NA27> If I am misinterpreting them, I'm sure you would be doing a great service to explain that.....
[12:49] <NA27> No, it's a *webcast* Scott.
[12:49] <NA27> Real Audio.
[12:50] <BigSCOTT> ah
[12:50] <NA27> We take live callers from all over the nation.
[12:50] <NA27> 866-550-3915
[12:50] <BigSCOTT> interesting...
[12:50] <BigSCOTT> what's the RA station?
[12:50] <NA27> I will present the Reformed faith based on those passages. You say I've been proven wrong.
Your job is to just repeat what you've claimed has already been done.
[12:51] <tatrbrain> Scott: can you back your claims?
[12:51] <NA27> www.aomin.org....see the link on the main page.
[12:51] ortho has left IRC
[12:51] <BigSCOTT> tatr... I can... but my claims were not restricted to those verses...
[12:52] <tatrbrain> no you claimed John 6
[12:52] <BigSCOTT> lemme see what I can come up with... I will take the challenge...
[12:52] <tatrbrain> lets stick to the text
[12:52] <NA27> <BigSCOTT> Oh yes... a misinterpretation of that verse out of the context of the REST
of the Scriptures leads to Calvinism... I agree...
[12:53] <BigSCOTT> I retracted that part already here... I conceded that 37 is where you derive (however
falsely) the Calvinist position - but tatr, that is NOT why the disciples left Jesus...
[12:53] <tatrbrain> I said BigScott: that you should get Dr Whites book
[12:53] <tatrbrain> Potters Freedom..and read the portion
[12:54] <tatrbrain> on JOhn 6
[12:54] <tatrbrain> and you said
[12:54] <tatrbrain> www.aomin.org
[12:54] <tatrbrain> that
[12:54] <NA27> Well, if you think I derive it falsely, PROVE IT.
[12:54] <BigSCOTT> tatr... what was the teaching that the disciples left Him over?
[12:54] <NA27> You see, Scott, I know you cannot. I'd debate anyone on this.
[12:54] <tatrbrain> Dr White was wrong
[12:54] <tatrbrain> I want to see you prove your claim
[12:54] <tatrbrain> not just say it
[12:54] <NA27> Hahn, Sungenis, Madrid, Keating....I'd take them all on, together, at the same time, on
this topic, with perfect confidence, because the truth is the truth.
Back to the REAL topic that tatrbrain and I were discussing from which an out-of-context statement drew James
into the channel...
[12:55] <BigSCOTT> tatr... what was the teaching that the disciples left Him over?
[12:55] <BigSCOTT> you claimed it was Calvinism...
[12:55] <tatrbrain> the teaching the discples left was Calvinism not the rc teaching of eating flesh and blood
[12:55] <BigSCOTT> and there you are wrong.
[12:55] <tatrbrain> Calvinism: meaning unconditional election..
[12:55] <BigSCOTT> and if James supports you on this... he is wrong too...
[12:56] <tatrbrain> oh really?
[12:56] <BigSCOTT> James, do you support tatr on this?
[12:56] <tatrbrain> {with exception of limited atonement}
[12:56] <BigSCOTT> James?
[12:56] <tatrbrain> John 6 has preseverance
[12:56] <tatrbrain> John 6 has
[12:56] <tatrbrain> hes probably on air
[12:56] NA27: † Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria! †
[12:56] 4,1 LagMeter for 11,1NA27 14,14 15,15 0,0 15,15 14,14 9,1 lllllllllllll8,1llllllllll4,1lllllll 14,14 15,15 0,0 15,15 14,14 4,1 13 Secs 14,14 15,15 0,0 15,15 14,14
[12:56] <NA27> Scott, Jesus taught the sovereignty of God in divine election and predestination in John 6:35-45.
That is simple. I will prove it to you, if you dare come on the program and attempt to show me how I am "wrong."
[12:57] <BigSCOTT> that's not what I am asking James
[12:57] <tatrbrain> he is already on the program
[12:57] <tatrbrain> he is not going to talk now
[12:57] <BigSCOTT> it's an hour before "airtime"
[12:57] <NA27> If you are asking why the "disciples" walked away, they did so because Jesus taught that He Himself is
the only source of spiritual nourishment.
James confirms that it was NOT over the Calvinistic teaching of unconditional election - rather
it was over Jesus Himself being the only source of spiritual nourishment... thank you - that "wins" my point
against tatrbrain - which was my contention all along.
[12:58] <NA27> It is seven minutes before airtime.
[12:58] <NA27> It is 1:53PM, Scott, in case your clock is busted....
[12:58] <BigSCOTT> oh darn! my computer clock is off again!
[12:59] <BigSCOTT> I am running REAL late...
[12:59] <NA27> Well, shall I let folks know you will be on next week?
[12:59] <BigSCOTT> my computer says it is 12:59 now...
[12:59] <NA27> It is 1:55
[12:59] <BigSCOTT> I will be there...
[12:59] <NA27> Great.
[12:59] <BigSCOTT> got that ... I was supposed to help Grandma by now... she needs some shopping done..
[13:00] NA27 [ortho@cpe-024-221-125-235.phoenix.speedchoice.com] has left #CathApol
[13:00] <BigSCOTT> so tatr... do you accept your reproof from James himself... it was NOT a Calvinistic teaching
that the disciples left over?
[13:01] <tatrbrain> hold on
[13:01] <tatrbrain> where is the site?
[13:01] <BigSCOTT> for what?
[13:01] <BigSCOTT> <NA27> If you are asking why the "disciples" walked away, they did so because Jesus
taught that He Himself is the only source of spiritual nourishment.
[13:01] <BigSCOTT> It was over the lines about "eat My Flesh..."
[13:01] <tatrbrain> I see that
[13:02] <BigSCOTT> nothing to do with Calvinism.
[13:02] <tatrbrain> I will look into it
[13:02] <BigSCOTT> :-)
[13:02] <tatrbrain> but I think it has to do with 2 points of calvinism
[13:02] <BigSCOTT> The responsible response would be, "I formally retract that claim."
[13:03] <tatrbrain> nope
[13:03] <tatrbrain> because I still maintain that the ppl walked away
[13:03] <tatrbrain> because of...
[13:03] <BigSCOTT> YOu can retract with reservations that if further evidence comes up... you retract the retraction...
[13:03] <tatrbrain> 2 points of calvinism and {possibly because of spirtual nourishment}
[13:04] <BigSCOTT> Well... Jesus didn't say "spiritual nourishment" now did He?
[13:05] <BigSCOTT> He said that you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood or you have "no life" in you.... and repeated
that several times... it was over THAT that many disciples left Him, and "walked with Him no more."
[13:06] <BigSCOTT> Well.. time to go shop for Grammy... I've put her off for too long now...
[13:08] <BigSCOTT> nick Scott_awy
[13:09] <BigSCOTT> oops... forgot the slash! :-)
[13:09] You are now known as Scott_awy
[14:13] Scott_awy changes topic to "Next Saturday, Scott Windsor goes LIVE with James White - webcast at 2pm MST"