Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 8,601-8,6508,651-8,7008,701-8,750 ... 12,901-12,905 next last
To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; alamo boy; blue-duncan; George W. Bush; HarleyD
We call that basic philosophy.

It is mystical Voodoo alchemy. If you believe it's Gold, then it becomes gold even though it's still (by all appearances) lead. Hey, can I sell you a box of lead colored gold bricks? Only $200 an ounce.

I'm confused by why you think your position is "philosophical." Are you saying tht "philosophically" the bread is the physical body of Christ, but in reality it is bread?

8,651 posted on 06/15/2006 7:49:58 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8649 | View Replies]

To: Agrarian; kosta50; Kolokotronis
you seem to want to take a literal view of "until he paid off the debt" as being a 'cruel mockery' rather than a simple piece of anthropomorphic hyperbole. Remember that the original debt was one that was so large that not only the man, but his entire family was going to have to be sold into slavery until it was paid off (and how is a slave going to pay it off and get his family back?)

I take the premise of the parable metaphorically: landlord is Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven is a lending institution. This is by necessity, because it is a parable we are dealing with. But I refuse to ignore elements of the parable because if they are mentioned, they are of essence for our understanding. Regarding this question of yours, we are to presume that the proceeds fo the sale into slavery satisfied the debt. There is nothing however in the original judgement that suggests that the slavery was temporary: "his lord commanded that he should be sold, and his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made".

a failure to forgive others is considered to be the single most spiritually dangerous thing that a person can do

Yes, it is a difficulty, because we are certainly commanded to do works of charity and mercy, and the debtor failed at that. I would take into account two factors: (1) the debtor was passionate about the debt owed him (v. 28); (2) the debtor volunteered to pay off the ten thousand talent debt (v.26). It is then reasonable to conclude that the failure to forgive the small debt was a venial sin of passion, -- the debtor was driven by the reasonable to him desire to collect what was rightly his and repay the landlord. This is, of course, the secondary meaning of the parable: that the economic view of sin as debt, under which the debtor invincibly operates, is really supplanted by the law od charity and mercy.

your reading was likewise heavily influenced by the specifics of the Catholic spiritual/confessional life

That could be, but if you carry out of this the impression that a failure of charity is generally treated lightly in Catholicism, that would be a wrong conclusion.

it is *precisely* what St. Gregory of Nyssa is saying, so I'm not sure how you can take him as support.

In the passge cited, he simply states

"...the indebted man was delivered to the tormentors until he should pay the whole debt; and that means nothing else than paying in the coin of torment the inevitable recompense, the recompense, I mean, that consists in taking the share of pain incurred during his lifetime, when he inconsiderately chose mere pleasure, undiluted with its opposite; so that having put off from him all that foreign growth which sin is, and discarded the shame of any debts, he might stand in liberty and fearlessness

This passage is a beautifully stated Catholic concept of redemptive suffering, contains no speculation about forgiveness of every sinner, and describes the conclusion of the parable with precision.

8,652 posted on 06/15/2006 7:54:07 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8614 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; annalex
So don't make me laugh with your accusation that it is "Protestants as usual" who are twisting the scriptures to get what they want.

I made you laugh? Perhaps before you get upset, I ask you to consider the verse in question presented by blue-duncan and tell me if I had a right to refute his interpretation...

BD wrote : Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:8 that when we die (absent from the body) we will be present with the Lord, not waiting in some way station.

I responded (causing to laugh, no doubt) : "As usual, Protestants twist Scriptures to try to get it to say what they want... Paul doesn't say what you claim, he says he desires to be with Christ in heaven than here on earth!"

The Bible, which I quoted, says : "We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." 2 Cor 5:8

Now tell me, Marlowe, does this verse say anything more than "I prefer to be with the Lord absent the body (in heaven)"? Paul says he prefers to be in heaven. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the events that occur after our death, or whether there is or is not a Purgatory. This is a twisting of Scriptures that any thinking person can readily see.

Sorry if I tweaked your button, but before you presume that I don't know how to think, perhaps you should, for yourself, look at the verse in question.

Catholics are not in desperate need for anything but the grace of God. We don't need to "proof-text" our beliefs from the Scriptures, as Apostolic Tradition and Scripture come from the same source. They merely cannot contradict - which they don't. But it is not our belief, nor the Bible, that the Bible alone is the sole source of our faith. THAT, my friend, is NOT found in Scriptures. Perhaps you should practice what you preach by NOT following a "doctrine" that is nowhere in Scriptures.

Regards

8,653 posted on 06/15/2006 8:38:13 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8646 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
I'm unfamiliar with any SCRIPTURE that indicates any supernatural powers extended beyond the Apostles.

Can you explain to me why Christ, who promised that the Church would exist for all time, would NOT bestow supernatural powers upon His Church after the first generation? Does not Christ intend for His visible community to continue to preach the Gospel, to Baptize in the name of the Trinity, and to bring the world to Christ? Do you think this is possible by man alone?

I sure don't.

As for Scriptural verses, consult the following:

"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim 4:14

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit." Heb 6:1-3

The Church passes the power of the Holy Spirit through the "laying of hands", a practice found even in the OT when Prophets passed along their mantle to their successors.

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." James 5:14-15

Again, the Church, with supernatural powers given by God, heals the sick and forgives sins. Another supernatural power beyond the Apostles.

Regards

8,654 posted on 06/15/2006 8:46:42 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8648 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
And what the heck are you doing trying desperately to show the existence of a non-existent purgatory with non-existent scriptures to the point where you claim inane stuff like "souls in purgatory have no free will"? Where does that come from?

LOL. Don't you remember? "'Free will' is a "gift from God." /sarcasm

"I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want 'free-will' to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my 'free-will' (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved) ; but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God, Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt' as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfort¬able certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. `No one,´ He says, `shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father which gave them me is greater than all´ (John 10.28-29). Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of ´free-will´ none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.

"Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God." -- Martin Luther, "Bondage of the Will" -- (xviii) Of the comfort of knowing that salvation does not depend on free-will' (783)


8,655 posted on 06/15/2006 8:55:44 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8646 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
HarleyD: Hmmmm....and how do you know the "Lady of Fatima" was really "the Lady"?

jokus: Faith.

Why jokus, you sound positively like an Arminian Protestant. One has to wonder why you don't take Joseph Smith word on "faith".

8,656 posted on 06/15/2006 9:11:06 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8645 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; AlbionGirl; blue-duncan; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Alex Murphy; suzyjaruki; ears_to_hear; ...
Read the link I posted last night by Calvin regarding the Lord's Supper. He was light-years from the RC. It's only revisionism that says otherwise.

Calvin believed, as Presbyterians believe, that the Lord's Supper was more than simply a memorial; he believed that Christ was spiritually present in the sacrament which seems clear from Scripture. How could any Christian deny this?

But in no way did Calvin assert it was anything like what the Romanists believe. Far, far from it.

SHORT TREATISE ON THE SUPPER OF OUR LORD

43. OTHER ABUSES ARISING OUT OF AN IMAGINARY BODILY PRESENCE.

This perverse opinion, after it was once received, engendered numerous other superstitions. First of all comes that carnal adoration which is mere idolatry. For to prostrate ourselves before the bread of the Supper, and worship Jesus Christ as if he were contained in it, is to make an idol of it rather than a sacrament. The command given us is not to adore, but to take and eat. That, therefore, ought not to have been presumptuously attempted...


8,657 posted on 06/15/2006 9:18:24 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8641 | View Replies]

To: annalex; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; jo kus; fortheDeclaration
Leaving aside your Jack Chick version of history, the episode with the sale of indulgences is not an illustration of doctrinal development gone awry.

I know, every time someone points out the errors of Rome then pull out the ol' Jack Chick argument.

We know from our friend jokus discussions with P-Marlowe in #8653 that "Apostolic Tradition and Scripture come from the same source. They merely cannot contradict - which they don't." Yet we know that there WAS a conflict in which the Church first stated if one pays for indulgences they would get out of purgatory. Later the Church reversed that order. What happened? Did the Bible reconstituted into something new to keep in harmony with Apostolic Tradition? Or did the Church fathers misread the scriptures and a mistake was made?

So much for "Apostolic Tradition".

8,658 posted on 06/15/2006 9:28:49 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8603 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; AlbionGirl; blue-duncan; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Alex Murphy; suzyjaruki; ...

Thanks Dr. E. I noticed your excellent post to A-G after I posted my comment. Unfortunately I'm in a hurry so I'll have to read later. Calvin make so much more sense than some of the things I've been reading lately. ;O)


8,659 posted on 06/15/2006 9:31:24 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8657 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; annalex; P-Marlowe; HarleyD; blue-duncan; AlbionGirl; alamo boy; George W. Bush; ...
Thank you, that was a good observation, Dr. E. No confusion. Souls in Purgatory can pray for each other, but not themselves, since they are still part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Annalex apparently is referring to prayers for THEMSELVES.

I appreciate your trying to explain the obvious contradiction in your belief system.

But your explanation isn't exactly accurate. The question was: "Do the souls in purgatory pray each other out of purgatory?"

And annalex' answer, in contradiction to your own, was: "No, the souls in purgatory lack the free will to pray and so they cannot reduce their stay."

It seems disingenuous of you now to say annalex was speaking about their own prayers for themselves, when clearly the question was regarding praying for others.

But you have shown us a good example of how to try and evade uncomfortable errors.

A council has not officially defined the extent of what the souls in Purgatory are capable of doing for the rest of the Body.

Perhaps that's because there is no Scripture to support the idea of purgatory and thus it's difficult to defend.

FWIW, if someone or something wanted to keep people enslaved to a bureaucracy, I cannot think of a better plan than to tell them there's a place they have to endure after death before they see the Lord's face. And the length of this deprivation is determined by how "good" a person is and how much money he gives to that bureaucracy.

Ingenious.

8,660 posted on 06/15/2006 9:45:39 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8643 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; George W. Bush; AlbionGirl; fortheDeclaration
Most, if not very nearly all Protestants hold that view of the disreputable history of the RC church

Harley's point, and mine, is whether the historical episode with the sale of indulgences shows unreliability of doctrinal development. It does not, as no previously held dogma was upset by Trent when it declared the sale of indulgencies simony.

You are correct that Jack Chick's views are shared by many Protestants. This follows from the fact that, according to Cardinal Newman, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant, -- it is the jack chicks that you are left with.

8,661 posted on 06/15/2006 9:52:15 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8619 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Why jokus, you sound positively like an Arminian Protestant. One has to wonder why you don't take Joseph Smith word on "faith".

Because I don't feel that "Burning in my bosom" when I read the Book of Mormon!

Trust me, Catholics also consider faith as integral to what we practice.

Regards

8,662 posted on 06/15/2006 9:56:42 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8656 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; George W. Bush; 1000 silverlings; alamo boy; blue-duncan; ...
Later the Church reversed that order.

Seems there's been another turn-around...

INDULGENCE REINSTATED

by Rev. H.A. Bergsma (September, 2005)

A Roman Catholic practice, which gave rise to Martin Luther's reformation in the 16th century, has surfaced again as a topical issue 500 years later. Pope Benedict XVI has promised the approximately 800,000 participants of the current World Youth Day in Cologne, total indulgence, provided they confess their sins, repent and receive Holy Communion. Non-participants may receive partial indulgence if they pray earnestly for a courageous Christian testimony at the mass event. The idea of indulgence is tied to the Catholic teaching of purgatory. In short, it means that temporal punishments for sins in the hereafter can be avoided or shortened by repentance and good deeds in this life. Luther protested not only against the malpractice but also against this Catholic teaching in principle, as the leading bishop of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany, Hans Christian Knuth, points out. Lutherans cannot accept purgatory and indulgence, even in a reformed modern Catholic understanding, as the bishop emphasized in an interview with the evangelical news agency "idea". The teaching of purgatory and indulgence is, in his words, neither in keeping with the Bible nor the central articles of the Christian faith. The wages of sin cannot be removed by any human action, but only by the grace of God and through faith in Jesus Christ. Neither can His redemption be supplemented with good deeds. (From Crosswalk)

Rome has not changed; it may have evolved, and even reformed itself to some degree, but in its reformation to modern Catholic understanding, Rome is still the same. This is proven by how she has reinstated indulgence. Good for the Lutherans that they spoke up. Perhaps not of all their actions, but of this Luther could be proud!"


8,663 posted on 06/15/2006 9:59:31 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8658 | View Replies]

To: annalex

See post #8663. Apparently, old heresies die hard.


8,664 posted on 06/15/2006 10:01:01 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8661 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I know, every time someone points out the errors of Rome then pull out the ol' Jack Chick argument.

Oops, I didn't get my "how to refute a Protestant" manual yet in the mail... I hope I can continue to refute you the old fashion way, with secular history that disproves your point of view regarding the Eucharist and the Crusades...

Yet we know that there WAS a conflict in which the Church first stated if one pays for indulgences they would get out of purgatory. Later the Church reversed that order. What happened?

First, I am not familiar with when the Church did "x", then decided to do "y", so I'd have to read more on what you are talking about. However, this is not a case of "Apostolic Tradition being proven wrong", since the Church never declared "paying for indulgences would get one out of Purgatory" as dogma, but only a commonly held teaching at the time. The Church has the power to bind and loosen to teachings that are not determined dogmatic yet.

For example, the Church of the West currently says that priests cannot be married. They base this on Apostolic Tradition - yet, it is NOT a dogmatic statement, it is NOT a matter of the Creed. Thus, in the future, the Catholic Church COULD say that men could be married and become priests. They already allow Protestant and Orthodox converts to be given a Papal dispensation.

Or did the Church fathers misread the scriptures and a mistake was made?

I couldn't say, since I am not familiar with the two points you are talking about. However, as I said, everything the Church does is not found in the Bible, for example, why a man gives a woman a ring when he gets married...

Regards

8,665 posted on 06/15/2006 10:08:04 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8658 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; jo kus; P-Marlowe; alamo boy; 1000 silverlings; HarleyD; AlbionGirl; ...
Mayhem prevails

Mayhem?

Jo stated in 8589 that both views, -- the commonly held view that souls in purgatory are capable of effective prayer, and the view that they are not, -- are allowable under Catholic doctrine. I did not know that and answered Marlowe the best I could, with my opinion, which was one allowed by the doctrine. Generally, Jo is better informed as I, so if your views are in conflict, his is more reliable.

Now that I have your attention, and on the similar note, I indicated yesterday that the lack of ordained priests is what prevents various Protestant communities to offer the Eucharist. This is correct but incomplete: to offer the Eucharist the valid matter (wheat bread and fermented grape wine) and the valid intention are also necessary, and for a precise and comprehensive response better ask a liturgist.

Another side note: You ping more people than are visible. I generally try to put the same list as the post I am responding to, but in this case I only copy the visible part of the list; it is not my intention to slight anyone.

8,666 posted on 06/15/2006 10:20:06 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8621 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; annalex; P-Marlowe
I appreciate your trying to explain the obvious contradiction in your belief system.

I see you are not convinced. Perhaps I should remind you of the caveat that applies to all of us here - NONE of us are the official representatives of our respective Faiths regarding official teachings. It is quite feasible that I or Annalex, or both, may be mistaken WHENEVER we write something on the Catholic faith. In the same way, you could feasibly be mistaken on a belief of Calvin. I had presumed that you realized this. Just because I and Annalex superficially disagree doesn't mean that the Catholic faith has not decisively answered to the affirmative or the negative on a question. Nor do I expect a Protestant to be aware of every fine point within their own theological system.

With that said, I cannot say what Annalex had in mind when he wrote what he did. I interpreted it the way I have explained, and I still think it is a legitimate explanation. He can speak for himself. I got my information from "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", as, quite frankly, I didn't know the answer to P-Marlowe's question. It is not THE authoritive official word on the matter, but I have found Ott to be reliable in the past. I certainly could have given the wrong answer...

If there is any errors, it is not with the Church, but with our attempt to answer the question. I apologize for any errors that may have crept into my writings. But realize I am not the Pope or a Bishop, I am not a professional theologian. If I err, it is because of my lack of knowledge on a subject, not because suddenly, the Catholic Church is wrong...

Regards

8,667 posted on 06/15/2006 10:21:05 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8660 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg
Dr. E wrote :"Mayhem prevails"

annalex responded : Mayhem?

Agreed. Our response about a teaching of the faith does not indicate any "mayhem" with the Catholic faith, just our lack of knowledge. I am hopeful that Dr. E understands that.

Regards

8,668 posted on 06/15/2006 10:27:57 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8666 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; annalex; HarleyD
Seems there's been another turn-around...[regarding indulgences]

The Church never got rid of the practice, so where is the "turn-around"? The Counter-Reformation merely cleared up abuses, it never did away with the teaching. Consider re-reading the Council of Trent's writings on the subject.

Regards

8,669 posted on 06/15/2006 10:32:54 AM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8663 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; fortheDeclaration; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; George W. Bush
Are you saying there is "no such thing" as blue-duncan's church?

Yes, I do. I believe we already discussed this on this thread. It is of course fine to call Protestant communities "church" in casual talk or in reference to the physical plant, and then it should not be capitalized. Even though Blue Duncan did not capitalize his "church", his meaning was that his community made a dogmatic determination from scripture and guided by the Holy Ghost, contrary to the one held by the Catholic Church and regarding the Purgatory. He therefore meant his "church" as a source of doctrine, and he does not have a Church in that sense.

Why? Because, although the original meaning of ecclesia is merely community, in Christian usage it came to designate a specific apostolic institution whose authority descends from Christ and His apostles in a visible and concrete way. One cannot do a bible study, come up with some conclusions from it and call it Church, -- apostolic succession is needed.

As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.(John 20:21)

how shall they preach unless they be sent (Romans 10:15)

let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him. (1 John 2:27)


8,670 posted on 06/15/2006 10:39:35 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8622 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Agrarian; Kolokotronis
we do certainly agree that (1) the soul gets urified, (2) that this is a process and not an instant [since otherwise we would not offer prayers for the dead], and (3) that the purification of the soul is only for those souls that are destined to be saved.

Therefore, I don not understand your statement that "the doctrine of Purgatory in no way suggests that all are eventually saved." What would be the purpose of purification of a soul in the Purgatory unless that soul was not destined to be with God?

Agrarian was talking about St. Gregory's error in thinking that all, even Satan, are eventually saved, and I responded that the doctrine of Purgatory is exactly as you understand it, as purification of those of the saved that require it, but not of the damned, and not of those who reached purification in the course of their life, such as the saints, or the Good Thief.

8,671 posted on 06/15/2006 10:49:30 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8629 | View Replies]

Self ping for bookmark


8,672 posted on 06/15/2006 11:15:35 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8671 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; George W. Bush; P-Marlowe; Agrarian; Dr. Eckleburg; jo kus; HarleyD; Forest Keeper
John 14:1-3 says Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us so we don't have to worry about being side tracked in any intermediate state.

John 14 in no way excludes various intermediate destinations, both in this life and after death. Note that Christ is referring to His second coming (verse 3), so John 14 is not referring to the Church Suffering (i.e. Purgatory) by definition.

Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:8 that when we die (absent from the body) we will be present with the Lord, not waiting in some way station.

This passage, unlike the preceding one from John, indeed refers to Particular Judgement (i.e. immediately after death). What does it say?

6 Therefore having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord. 7 (For we walk by faith, and not by sight.) 8 But we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 And therefore we labour, whether absent or present, to please him. 10 For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.
No way station is referred to directly, so your conclusion is incorrect. When a train leaves Boston for Philadelphia, one cannot conclude that New York does not exist because it is absent from the display. This is what is mentioned: that we "labor" both before and after death; and that every one receives in the measure of the things he is done good and bad. This indicates that souls undergo some kind of labor after death that corresponds to our works. This is another passage that is difficult to explain outside of the doctrine of Purgatory.

Paul also says Phil. 1:21-23 the options are to live here for Christ or die and be with Him, not in some holding pen.

Again, nothing excludes the "holding pen". St. Paul does not mention Hell either in that passage, -- would you conclude form it that Hell does not exist?

the loose translation and spiritualizing of the scriptures done at: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

I don't know what you mean by "spiritualizing", but please tell me which translations used at that site are inaccurate in a way that misrepresents the true teaching regarding the progression of souls after death. If you mean that the translations are generally inaccurate but not in the sense that introduces a bias for purgatory, then I agree, of course. When in doubt, check the Greek original and the patristic understanding.

8,673 posted on 06/15/2006 11:18:33 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8637 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I generally try to put the same list as the post I am responding to, but in this case I only copy the visible part of the list; it is not my intention to slight anyone.

No problem. I ping with abandon.

Better pinged than unpung. 8~)

8,674 posted on 06/15/2006 11:41:26 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8666 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

"I'm unfamiliar with any SCRIPTURE that indicates any supernatural powers extended beyond the Apostles.

Can you explain to me why Christ, who promised that the Church would exist for all time, would NOT bestow supernatural powers upon His Church after the first generation?"
________________________________________

IOW, it is not in SCRIPTURE.

This is a perfect example of why it's so important to rely on SCRIPTURE and not "Tradition". Your church has decided that they have "special powers" even though no evidence of this exists in SCRIPTURE.

The CHURCH is doing well despite pretenders.


8,675 posted on 06/15/2006 11:43:29 AM PDT by wmfights (Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The WAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8654 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; AlbionGirl; HarleyD; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; alamo boy; 1000 silverlings; ...
SHORT TREATISE ON THE SUPPER OF OUR LORD

I scanned this drivel for scripture references and found these:

John 6:55 is graced with the following commentary: "If these words are not to go for nothing, it follows that in order to have our life in Christ our souls must feed on his body and blood as their proper food." OK.

John 1:32 is mentioned because St. John the Baptist saw a dove and identified it as the Holy Spirit. OK.

The discourse on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11 is mentioned in two ways, that is shows the death of Our Lord and that it should be taken worthily. OK.

Finally, Luke 22:19 is said to indicate that when Christ gave the commandment to "do this in memory of Him" to the Apostles, He did not give it to them as priests. No further scriptural support is offered for this, we are to take Papa Calvin's word that this is what that simple commandment of Christ really meant.

So, except for the last one, Papa Calvin has only trivial and non-controversial observations to offer about the scripture. Indeed, the Eucharist is Christ's body, appears under the accident of bread just like the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove, is to be taken reverently and is to remind us of Christ's death and redemption of sin. Regarding his fantastic reading of St. Luke, we have mere "Calvin said so".

So wat fills this 60 chapters that an AWANA kid would not figure out from the scant verses mentioned? Angry extrascriptural speculation. Here is a sample of Papa Calvin's reasoning skill:

the devil has introduced the fashion of celebrating the Supper without any doctrine, and for doctrine has substituted ceremonies partly inept and of no utility, and partly dangerous, having proved the cause of much mischief. To such an extent has this been done, that the Mass, which in the Popish Church is held to be the Supper, is, when well explained, nothing but pure apishness and buffoonery. I call it apishness, because they there counterfeit the Lord's Supper without reason, just as an ape at random and without discernment imitates what he sees done.

Wipe the froth off his mouth and you'll see -- nothing.

8,676 posted on 06/15/2006 11:49:31 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8640 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; alamo boy; blue-duncan; George W. Bush; HarleyD
Are you saying tht "philosophically" the bread is the physical body of Christ, but in reality it is bread?

I am saying that anything has an essence and an accidental appearance. For example (as suggested by Calvin) a dove appeared to St. John as he baptized Christ but he identified that in essence it was the Holy Ghost (John 1:32).

Likewise, the eucharistic bread has every appearance (accident is the technical term) of bread. A laboratory will only discover bread. A zoologist at the scene in John 1:32 would only see a dove. The essence, or substance, of the bread is body, soul and divinity of Christ.

8,677 posted on 06/15/2006 11:59:12 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8651 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
IOW, it is not in SCRIPTURE.

I gave you Scriptures and I gave you common sense that implies that Christ gave His Church the ability to exist for all time. Do you think the Church is a man-only organization? Paul calls it the Body of Christ! Is that not supernatural?

Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide are in the Scripture, yet you find it difficult not to constantly mention "it's not in the bible"?

Can't you see the illogical teachings of Protestantism? Practice what you preach. Get rid of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura...

The CHURCH is doing well despite pretenders.

Yes, it is. Thanks for noticing.

Regards

8,678 posted on 06/15/2006 12:03:10 PM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8675 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; wmfights
Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide are NOT in the Scripture, yet you find it difficult not to constantly mention "it's not in the bible"?

Sorry for the confusion.

8,679 posted on 06/15/2006 12:04:45 PM PDT by jo kus (There is nothing colder than a Christian who doesn't care for the salvation of others - St.Crysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8678 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; jo kus; fortheDeclaration
the ol' Jack Chick argument.

Get better source and there will be no Jack Chick argument. Note that the Orthodox' views on history are treated with respect, -- because they treat history with respect.

Incidentally, adults do not normally make fun of people's screen names. Can we cut the "jokus" crap? Pretty please?

Yet we know that there WAS a conflict in which the Church first stated if one pays for indulgences they would get out of purgatory. Later the Church reversed that order.

There was no dogmatic teaching on the sale of indulgences prior to Trent.

8,680 posted on 06/15/2006 12:09:51 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8658 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; George W. Bush; 1000 silverlings; alamo boy; ...

The granting of indulgences is doctrinally sound. The sale of indulgences has been condemned by Trent and is no longer allowed.


8,681 posted on 06/15/2006 12:12:31 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8664 | View Replies]

To: annalex; AlbionGirl; HarleyD; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; George W. Bush; Forest Keeper; wmfights; ...
Spiritual body and blood. We are acquitted of our sins by Christ's paying the penalty for them by His death and resurrection, once for all time.

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." -- Luke 22:19

But Calvin's words are worth repeating, and thanks for posting them.

"...the devil has introduced the fashion of celebrating the Supper without any doctrine, and for doctrine has substituted ceremonies partly inept and of no utility, and partly dangerous, having proved the cause of much mischief. To such an extent has this been done, that the Mass, which in the Popish Church is held to be the Supper, is, when well explained, nothing but pure apishness and buffoonery. I call it apishness, because they there counterfeit the Lord's Supper without reason, just as an ape at random and without discernment imitates what he sees done."

I intended to ping only you to this post, but restraint was never my strong suit. And it's good for us Protestants to see exactly how John Calvin felt about the perversion of the Lord's Supper (which you thoughtfully posted), both by those who would demean its significance and others who inflate the sacrament into raucous paganism.

8,682 posted on 06/15/2006 12:19:40 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8676 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; alamo boy; blue-duncan; George W. Bush; HarleyD
I am saying that anything has an essence and an accidental appearance. For example (as suggested by Calvin) a dove appeared to St. John as he baptized Christ but he identified that in essence it was the Holy Ghost (John 1:32).

The scriptures say no such thing. It does not say that a Dove descended upon the Lord and that the Dove was an accidental appearance of the Holy Spirit. It says that the Holy Spirit appeared and "descended like a dove".

In order to get to your interpretation, the scriptures would have said that he saw a dove descend and that it was, in fact, the Holy Spirit. None of the gospels state anything like that. They are all in agreement that John saw the Holy Spirit "descend like a dove." Nowhere does it say he saw a dove descend. The scriptures merely state the manner in which the Spirit descended. The Holy Spirit did not become a dove, nor did it take on the substance of a dove nor was there the accidental appearance of a dove. The Holy Spirit appeared as The Holy Spirit and visibly descended "like a dove."

If Calvin stated that the Holy Spirit appeared in the physical form and substance of a dove, then Calvin was wrong. The scriptures say no such thing. It is an illogical stretch to turn that verse into some apologetic for the bodiliy presence of Christ in the eucharist.

8,683 posted on 06/15/2006 12:21:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8677 | View Replies]

To: annalex; P-Marlowe; HarleyD; blue-duncan; alamo boy; George W. Bush; fortheDeclaration; ...

Why must every speck of wine spilled or bread crumb dropped during the mass be consumed immediately by the priest?

What's the fear here?


8,684 posted on 06/15/2006 12:23:49 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8677 | View Replies]

To: annalex; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; jo kus; fortheDeclaration
Incidentally, adults do not normally make fun of people's screen names. Can we cut the "jokus" crap? Pretty please?

Did I miss something?

8,685 posted on 06/15/2006 12:24:01 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8680 | View Replies]

To: annalex; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan; jo kus; fortheDeclaration
What rubbish. I'm not making fun of anyone screen name, never have and never will. You're simply defected an uncomfortable truth. You never addressed the issues I've raised about the arguments being levied here. In case you haven't noticed, paying for indulgences is a historical fact. The Church changing the doctrine is a historical fact. I'm not the one not treating history with respect.

I don't have any complaints with the Orthodox because I can't find any errors like this in their history. They are at least consistent. They are willing to step up to the plate and say they make changes throughout the years, adjusting Church doctrine. They believe this authority was handed down so how can I argue with that. This is their historical belief. If they said, "Well, we believed that 100 years ago but on further reflection we believe such-n-such to be a great truth." what can I say?

But the Catholics with all this wacky, "Apostalistic Tradition matching the scripture" is nonsense. Their history doesn't support this statement. You claim the Church makes infallible decisions guided by the Spirit, and then can't explain the clear truth that not all decisions by the Catholic Church have been infallible. And that is a historical fact.

You're only fooling yourself.

8,686 posted on 06/15/2006 12:56:46 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8680 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; annalex

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


8,687 posted on 06/15/2006 1:00:10 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8686 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; HarleyD; jo kus; P-Marlowe

The issue is spelling of "jo kus" as "jokus" which has become habitual. This is an act of disrespect for a fellow Freeper and I called Harley on it. If he assures us he did not mean it in a derogatory way, this is fine with me as long as he renders jo kus's screen name, and everyone else's properly in the future


8,688 posted on 06/15/2006 1:07:57 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8687 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; HarleyD; AlbionGirl; blue-duncan; 1000 silverlings; alamo boy; George W. Bush; ...
Where Calvin is referenced, I've found it best to go to the source. From Calvin's Commentary on the Gospel of John...

(John 1:32) "I saw the Spirit, descending like a dove." This is not a literal but a figurative mode of expression; for with what eyes could he see the Spirit? But as the dove was a certain and infallible sign of the presence of the Spirit, it is called the Spirit, by a figure of speech in which one name is substituted for another; not that he is in reality the Spirit, but that he points him out, as far as human capacity can admit. And this metaphorical language is frequently employed in the sacraments; for why does Christ call the bread his body, but because the name of the thing is properly transferred to the sign? especially when the sign is, at the same time, a true and efficacious pledge, by which we are made certain that the thing itself which is signified is bestowed on us. Yet it must not be understood that the dove contained the Spirit who fills heaven and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24,) but that he was present by his power, so that John knew that such an exhibition was not presented to his eyes in vain. In like manner, we know that the body of Christ is not connected with the bread, and yet we are partakers of his body.

A question now arises, why did the Spirit at that time appear in the form of a dove? We must always hold that there is a correspondence between the sign and the reality. When the Spirit was given to the apostles, they saw cloven tongues of fire, (Acts 2:3,) because the preaching of the gospel was to be spread through all tongues, and was to possess the power of fire. But in this passage God intended to make a public representation of that mildness of Christ of which Isaiah speaks in lofty terms,

'The smoking flax he will not quench, and the bruised reed he will not break,' (Isaiah 42:3.)

It was then, for the first time, that the Spirit was seen descending on him; not that he had formerly been destitute of him, but because he might be said to be then consecrated by a solemn rite. For we know that he remained in concealment, during thirty years, like a private individual, because the time for his manifestation was not yet come; but when he intended to make himself known to the world, he began with his baptism. At that time, therefore, he received the Spirit not only for himself, but for his people; and on that account his descent was visible, that we may know that there dwells in him an abundance of all gifts of which we are empty and destitute. This may easily be inferred from the words of the Baptist; for when he says, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, it is he who baptizeth with the Spirit, his meaning is, that the reason why the Spirit was beheld in a visible form, and remained on Christ, was, that he might water all his people with his fullness. What it is to baptize with the Spirit I have already noticed in a few words; namely, that he imparts its efficacy to baptism, that it may not be vain or useless, and this he accomplishes by the power of his Spirit."


8,689 posted on 06/15/2006 1:13:40 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8683 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; annalex; jo kus

I don't get the reference either.


8,690 posted on 06/15/2006 1:14:51 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8685 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; HarleyD
Mayhem prevails...

And that's without a low-talker in the mix.

Harley, don't know if you're a Seinfeld fan or not, but didn't want to exclude you, if you are.

P.S. Dr. E., I tried to find a picture of her, but couldn't.

8,691 posted on 06/15/2006 1:14:59 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8682 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"But in this passage God intended to make a public representation of that mildness of Christ of which Isaiah speaks in lofty terms,"

'The smoking flax he will not quench, and the bruised reed he will not break,' (Isaiah 42:3.)

How beautiful, Dr. E.

8,692 posted on 06/15/2006 1:18:44 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8689 | View Replies]

To: annalex; HarleyD; jo kus; Dr. Eckleburg
The issue is spelling of "jo kus" as "jokus" which has become habitual. This is an act of disrespect for a fellow Freeper and I called Harley on it. If he assures us he did not mean it in a derogatory way, this is fine with me as long as he renders jo kus's screen name, and everyone else's properly in the future

Interesting that you would call "HarleyD" on using "jokus" when you call him "Harley" instead of "HarleyD". How do you know he isn't deeply and personally offended by that?

I have always referred to jo kus as jokus. If jokus takes offense at that then I'm sorry. I am referred to as PM or Marlowe and I find no offense in it. I probably never refer to HarleyD as HarleyD in a post, but always as Harley. Nobody ever refers to Dr. Eckleburg as anything other than Dr. Eck or Doc or some shortened version. I have to look up the spelling everytime I ping her, so I'm not about to use her screen name when I'm typing my posts.

If anyone is going to call anyone on the spelling of another freeper's name it should be that particular freeper. This is the first time I've seen anyone complain and it isn't jo kus who's doing the complaining. Frankly I have no idea why anyone named jo kus would be offended by being called jokus. It is his or her screen name. I haven't a clue what it means and I don't really care to know.

So call me Marlowe or call me PM or call me "that idiot" or call me "hey you". Just don't call me late for dinner.

8,693 posted on 06/15/2006 1:20:33 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8688 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Religion Moderator; HarleyD; jo kus; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan

No one is making fun of jo kus' name, least of all Harley, who has discussed this thread with gentlemanly, Christian charity for six months.

Sometimes when posters are at a loss for a sound argument, they go looking for slights where there is none. I hope that's not what you're doing, annalex. You're a much better debater than this stunt.


8,694 posted on 06/15/2006 1:24:43 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8688 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; HarleyD; annalex; jo kus

When I signed up for my FR name, little did I realize it could be shortened to Eck or Dr.Eck...

Yuck. 8~)


8,695 posted on 06/15/2006 1:27:35 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8693 | View Replies]

To: All
Everyone: quit picking at the scab and resume the debate on the issues.
8,696 posted on 06/15/2006 1:28:15 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8694 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; AlbionGirl; HarleyD; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; George W. Bush; Forest Keeper; ...
Spiritual body and blood.

No scripture says "spiritual". A whole lot of disciples left Christ over this point (John 6).

how John Calvin felt about the perversion of the Lord's Supper

How he felt I do not care to discuss. It is how he read the scripture that I find contemptible.

8,697 posted on 06/15/2006 1:37:09 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8682 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
Yes, the internet can take us on all sorts of journeys which end in new displays of Scriptural truths (or Seinfeld truths).

"When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee...

Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears...

I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?" -- Isaiah 43:2;7-8;12-13


8,698 posted on 06/15/2006 1:43:51 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8692 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***Why must every speck of wine spilled or bread crumb dropped during the mass be consumed immediately by the priest?

What's the fear here?***

Don't want church mice to nibble on it and wind up in Heaven do ya?


8,699 posted on 06/15/2006 1:44:18 PM PDT by alamo boy (I left my heart in San Antonio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8684 | View Replies]

To: Campion
You mean that beats out repentance, faith, and charity?

To salvation faith and repentance are what matters, not charity (though charity will be produce through salvation and its affect on the heart). These two elements, faith and repentance, are the complete grace of God. There is nothing man can do to acquire either one without the grace and selection of God the father.

To sum up: you have free will, but that will would 100% of the time lead you to choose your own damnation over the blood of Jesus. However, God shows special grace to those he wills allowing them to accept the gift which he made on the cross and through his resurrection from the dead. He doesn't violate our will, but he changes and alters it through factors that are so much above our understanding, until it conforms to the outcome that he selected in eternity past.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44.
See that? Unless the father draws us, we do not have it within our sinful natures to come to Christ.

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." Romans 8:28-30.
He predestined our calling. There was nothing we could do to ascertain the calling.

Jesus concluded the parable of the wedding banquet with: "For many are invited, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14. The keyword there is chosen. He chose us that we could choose him.

Or take Romans 11. He cut, he grafted the branches. The branches could not be grafted in of their own volition, but rather were grafted in according to the higher will of God.

8,700 posted on 06/15/2006 1:45:32 PM PDT by Seņor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 8,601-8,6508,651-8,7008,701-8,750 ... 12,901-12,905 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson