Hope you all had a great thanksgiving.
Paul: antinomian or catholic?
One of the problems I encountered while still in the evangelical movement was the serious problem of antinomianism, a belief which is opposed to the Law. This is not merely the problem which most sects speak of when trying to create arguments which focus on faith vs works. It is going all the way to the left, and losing the balance between faith and works, predestination and freewill, which has been properly maintained in the church from it's start.
Coming to understand the Catholic position correctly helped me to see this truth and set aside the misunderstanding and false nature of the "faith alone" groups. But in truth most of these groups, which make this claims, actually do practice their faith in a real way by avoiding sin, attending church, being baptized and living a Christ influenced life. Where the antinomian would say do what thou will, the "faith alone" at least still said, don't lie, don't steal and don't commit adultery.
Later I found another line of teaching called dispensationalism which also tended to stumble into the antinomian camp, claiming that with Paul, a new dispensation is brought forth of grace.
The most obvious problem which I would point out with these modern aberrations of Christian doctrine was that to believe them you had to set Peter against Paul, or rather Paul against Peter. Or more to the point, Paul against Jesus.
The claims made about what Paul taught in the epistles, in these different interpretations, would directly contradict the very teachings of Jesus Christ and thus "nullify" the word of God. To get around this the excuse was that Jesus was just speaking to the Jews, or Peter was just for the Jews, but Paul was for the Gentile. One was referring to the Kingdom of Heaven and the other to the Kingdom of God.
I guess that while these new 'gospels' certainly sounded "too good", the truth is that the loss of continuity in the scriptures they created was the main reason that I rejected them. And if something is not true then it isn't "too good" at all.
The point here is that after considering Evan's new pet teaching, I would have to place it in the same exact place as both dispensationalism and antinomianism.. Sounds good but simply isn't the truth.
Sorry evan, and please extend my apologies to Mr. Womack. But without a structure to your belief which doesn't require me to snip out most of the new testament to believe it, I simply cannot go along with your new tradition.
The church never had a problem with Faith and Works, and it understood Pauls claims as in accordance with the claims of James, as both/and and not either/or. Later sects which set scriptures against scriptures created these problems and now we wee the logical fruit of this witchcraft as we see the new gospel isn't that Christ saved us from our sins, but that Christ now permits us to sin. We were saved by grace, but now we are freed by grace to sin and not have to worry about it. They attacked works, which proved faith wasn't dead; expanded works to include even the common sense actions of following Christ; and now they also promote the intentional practice of living a life contrary to that which Our Lord preached and His apostles, (including Paul) taught by their tradition.
Worse is that all those who actually do follow the truth, the teachings of the ancient church, and even those who live by the scriptures are now shunned by these new sects as being opposed to the cross. How could it be that the ones who actually obey Christ are against Christ? We never get that answer from such people. It seems we only get excuses or a video to waste our time with.
The Gospel of Lies
I have come to another conclusion based on the attitudes and nature of posts coming from G4 and Evangelist. It is something I have seen in many other non catholic, but thankfully not all. It is the necessity of using untruth and lying to press their points and spread what they call the gospel. Through manipulation and out right false accusations as well as the very petty name calling which G4 uses to avoid actual discussion when he's getting spanked, it is clear that there is no regard for the simple truth in such people. It is a well known fact to about everyone except the anti catholic that there is a wide gap between the truth and the ravings of conspiracy theorists. And time and again, even after the facts are displayed, G4 and Evan continue to fall back on conspiracies and falsehood in attempts to win an argument. Well I think it only demonstrates that big boys can still have tantrums and they still aren't pleasant to behold.
My challenge to both is this.
If you believe that your doctrine is truth, then stop using the tactics of Satan to promote them. If you cannot then I will simply assume that your beliefs are satanic. Simply put... God doesn't need you to lie and throw tantrums and promote conspiracies for the Gospel bought by His Son Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world.
Winds and waves
I have to say that listening to our two resident non Catholics; the loop king evangelist, and the ever lying and accusing g4; has caused a bit of concern for me. So I guess I'll just get right to it. The crap which they have been pushing here is really nothing like what was generally believed by evangelicals 10 years ago. In fact it was my understanding that what we believed then was a big shift compared to the prior decade. I know there are probably some sects which are more stable in their doctrine, but seriously, only the most liberal or antinomian believer would have come close to even stating anything like this new dualism of soul/body and spirit where sin is now "ok" because your saved already. The hard line osas of my day still understood that sin was bad and if a so called Christian engaged in sin without repenting of it they called them backslider or not really saved to begin with. It seems that such ideas are no longer politically correct and so their doctrines have changed to meet the current fads.
If I offended my brother I used to have to go to him... But no more. My born again spirit is doin just fine so my brother can just deal with it.
Never mind walking in the light... My born again spirit walks in the light for me, so I can go lay with the harlot..
Don't worry about the deeds of the flesh or Paul's warnings. After all your born again spirit will do the fruit of the spirit in your imagination. And Paul got it all wrong anyway. Self control, goodness, faithfulness,,.... Too fleshy. My born again spirit can do without such. (Gal 5)
Anyway this only makes me wonder what we shall see 10 years from now as the winds and waved of man made heresies continue to lead the blind to their doom.
Evan and g4. Wake up!
Shocking truth about C. Moore and Womack teaching.
By saying that a Christian is free to sin... Or that when they sin its not really a sin like everyone else, or that they don't need to repent of those sins because they really don't need to and it's just so embarrassing anyway.
They are basically leaving people with the impression that Jesus has come to steal kill and destroy.
It used to be satan that encouraged sin, and said it wouldn't matter " for we would be like gods". But these new faddish philosophies which hide behind out of context bible verses have gotten so far off the path that they are now calling evil good, and good evil.
I was so shocked to find this out about our friend Evan. It's actually worse than when he thought Jesus was Mithras. Or Mary was Isis.
It would be nice to ween him off these philosophical tits he keeps sucking off of. But I think the addiction is too strong for him.
As a counter point, we Catholics have remained consistent for the last decade in our beliefs, even though we have been through a few popes. This demonstrates that while we do have popes, we are not treating them the way Evan would treat Womack, or creflo, or the several other clowns he has claimed has the right teaching.
Does a christian have special permission to sin?
Lets face it.. this is really the crux of the issue which Evan continues to bring up. He sees only the old and the new as opposing each other and as such falls into a great many fallacies in his theology as he tries to mesh these concepts together. In doing so he basically leaves us with the idea that sin is no longer a problem and because of this a Christian is free to sin all they want and it wont matter one iota.
Now I know that this is not what most evangelicals believe, even those who do hold to OSAS often still deal with their sins instead of pretending that sin doesn't matter. I think in a way Evan has seen the fallacy of OSAS and is now trying to take out it's inconsistencies by the only means possible.. and that is by calling evil good. What better way to deal with the problem of sin than to simply say there is no sin. It is an idea first presented by Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science crew... not that I'm going to compare Evans modern beliefs to what is clearly a cult. But I will say that Evans claims are wrong for the same reasons that Mary Baker Eddy was wrong; and it would be wrong whether Mrs. Eddy were a pre new age guru or a modern evangelical minister. It is wrong because the whole idea of a sin must be based in free will.
Let me explain. Sin is not just participation in an action which falls under a certain set of rules. It's not just about do's and don'ts or taboo's.. A sin is a sin because it is a choice. No one can accidentally sin. Even in our law courts a person who accidentally kills someone is only guilty of manslaughter if there is culpability, where a person who chooses to kill someone is guilty of the sin of murder. To hold with Evans theology, all sin would have to be of the accidental sort without culpability. But the fact is that sin isn't just accidental. Sin, especially what is understood as mortal sin, is a choice. It has to be a willing choice to do something which you know to be a terrible wrong. And even the accidental can have culpability.
To remove the consequences from our actions is to bypass and nullify free will. It means our choices are in fact invalid. And if this is the case then in the end we do serve a god who is more like a devil.. for he has damned many for the fun of it and not because of their choice.
The truth is that Jesus died for sinners. If we confess our sins, he will forgive us.. It is the only way to tie Grace and free will together, and that is through mercy. There is no place for mercy or forgiveness if a person cannot sin...
Who maintains this site now?
Hey guys, who maintains this site? I have to say that there is way too much spam occurring, and I don't mean just g4s baloney. It would be nice to see a return to a more respectable site with interesting discussions. Several people here have a lot of great things to say but they seem to get lost in endless discussions with people that cannot answer simple questions or accept they were proven wrong.
I vote to get rid of the spam and the trolls.
Erroneous teachings for g4
I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but thanks to a recent post by faith, I realized this may be the answer.. An actual thread for g4 to post all his erroneous teachings, propaganda, lies, manipulations and fantasies about things.
G4 please post your junk here and if there is something worth responding to that is actually based in fact and truth, we will respond. All other bland and false assertions will simply go in the "just ignore" portion of our brains.
Happy Easter everyone!
Made the Easter Vigil last night. Still my favorite mass, loaded with imagery and tradition. Hope everyone has a great day celebrating the Resurrection.
For Con and crew question 1
As with my last series of Questions which were posed to some of the non catholics here and were never answered, I am again offering a series of questions which I hope can at least muster up a reasonable response from some of the anti catholic people here like Con and G4.
Please guys, remember that ad hominem arguments don't prove a case. you can accuse me of anything and everything and it still will not prove you correct or me wrong. So please try to avoid the cop out responses and provide answers.
This first question has to do with the Bible
It is often asserted that catholics are not biblical or that they follow the pope instead of the bible. Some have claimed that you need to support every belief with the bible. And in all of this, we have a great many sects all claiming to have the right interpretation of the bible.
The issue here is about authority.. the church or the bible, or tradition and the bible. The classic understanding is that the bible is a part of our tradition and ultimately it is the church which must interpret it. In the ancient church which is apostolic, we have the pope and bishops who being led by the holy spirit "bind and loose" or determine what scripture is supposed to mean. It is in this manner and through many councils through the ages that all orthodox doctrine, including the canon of sacred scripture, was determined.
Skip forward to the reformation, and we see a sudden change in doctrine but not really a change in practice. Now the bible is said to be the ulitmate authority and there is no need for a pope or magisterium, and yet we see men like luther and calvin filling that role and explaining what scripture means to them and will be held by their followers.. note that the first reformers soon found fault among themselves and could not agree on what the bible meant even if they did agree that they only needed the bible alone.
This has filtered down to the modern sects who, still claiming the authority to privately interpret scripture, will criticize others who accept the interpretation of the ancient church. In fact a person with any amount of common sense will see this dilemma for what it is, a replacement papacy. "Don't listen to the pope, listen to me." is the result of such a flawed belief system and it is no wonder the amount of church splits which occur because of this...
Further even with this strange and fallacious belief it is not understood why so much of the infallible teaching of the church is still held by these people. Why accept the new testament canon if, as you claim the authority which made the claim, is false? why accept our christology or belief in the trinity?
A last question which has been asked many times and never answered is where does the bible explain the bible alone belief? If everything a person does must be explained in scripture then show me where the bible states this. And if it is stated why is most of the new testament an example of apostles teaching instead of christians just following sola scriptura.
Why do you accept the current canon of scriture? What scriptural proof supports the addition of the new testament? and Where does the bible teach Sola Scriptural.