Jacqueline

Secondly, and most importantly, I once was like you, so unbelievably arrogant as to think correct the theology essentially pulled from the butts of men with authority issues to suit their own neuroses (like Martin Luther- that dude had so many issues that he created Lutheranism in order to make himself sleep better at night).

The knife cuts both ways, afterall there was a split before Luther in 1054 who exactly had the authority problem then? Indeed, if the argument serves against Protestants, it serves against Catholics by the Eastern Orthodox. Your latin bishops had authority issues, and that darn filioque clause didn’t let them sleep at night.

I obeyed Jesus and … Read Morebecame Catholic after 8 years of sola, sola, sola- and discovered that a majority of the crap I thought was true, both about God in general and about the Catholic faith, was indeed just crap. So you expect me to walk back into the darkness after having been rescued from it and now nourished by the actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Really? For some reason, I don’t see that happening.

I don’t expect anything from a Roman Catholic apart from the same rhetoric of ‘the church has always’ and ‘the pope this or that’. I would only tell you that your apostasy served to show that you were never truly of the faith you proclaimed, indeed Catholics who convert from Reformed traditions always demonstrate that the truth they claimed to know, they never really understood. Take your history of Calvin, and you poor understadning of perserverance. Its both awful and disturbing if you were taught this at a Reformed Church, I’d wonder what catechism you were reading.

First, the Church has one doctrine. One. Many spiritualities but one doctine.

No. The doctrine of the Trinity, is different from the doctrine of transubstantiation. Indeed, the church has many doctrines, and one body of doctrine. This is no different than the Protestant the church. The issue is not the doctrine, but the authority.

Each of the 30,000 protestant denominations has it’s own doctrine.

Dead wrong. Most Historic Protestant denominations have the same necessary doctrines. The unity of those in the Gospel can be found anywhere from Presbyterian, to Assembly of God. Secondly, how much unity is there b/w liberal Catholics? Sedevacantists? and Vatican II Catholics?

The Arminian Anathema 1

An email to Professor Nunnally.

W.E. Nunnally, Ph.D., professor of Early Judaism and Christian Origins, Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri.

Greetings,

I was browsing through issues of the enrichment journal, and stumbled upon your article Defective Views of Salvation – http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200803/200803_128_DefectSal.cfm – in it you called the historically Protestant (and arguably ancient) doctrine of Limited Atonement heretical. Can you tell me exactly what you meant by calling it heretical? Its one thing to call something ‘error’ and another ‘heresy’. Now, the Assembly of God was my former denomination and you are published in the AG Enrichment Journal and are teaching men that these doctrines are heretical concerns me, perhaps you were not as clear as you could’ve been, unless of course you meant that the doctrine is indeed damnable.. Can you please clarify? I’d appreciate it.

Grace alone saves,
Javier Hernandez

His response

thanx for your note and your concern.  actually, in the article, i was as specific and as clear as i am capable of being.  limited atonement is a doctrine that impacts salvation, which is grouped among the “Cardinal Doctrines” of the church.  Paul declares heresy any change in the biblical position on salvation in his discussion in Gal. 1.  I am simply following suite with the manner in which such matters were handled by those with apostolic authority and who were writing under divine inspiration.  I have had at least one email complaining that identifying those who believe in Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints and anything that changes the ordo salutis as “heretics” is far too harsh and basically unchristian.  There are a number of problems associated with this complaint.  first, Scripture does so.  Second, i did not call adherents to these doctrines “heretics”; rather, i called the doctrines themselves “heresy” because they have the potential to mislead people with respect to the basics and evnetually place their relationship to God and their eternal destiny in jeopardy. (i am not trying to play semantics here: it is possible to believe certain things that diverge from clear biblical teaching and still be within the bounds of orthodoxy, at least for a time.)  third, the original proponents of these doctrines tried and convicted those who maintained biblically-informed positions, declared them “heretics”, and put the leaders to death or in prison for life.  this is simply a matter of historical record.  google “Council of Dort” for specifics.  I would suggest to you as i did to this earlier author that my words pale in comparison to this in terms of “harshness”.  It took the church five centuries to begin teaching these things–should that not raise a red flag in our minds?  further, when the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that only 144,000 will be saved, we have no problem labeling that as heresy, but when Augustine and all others who have followed him attempt to limit the number of people who can be saved, suddenly we have to adopt a “hands-off” stance?  this would not be logical, ethical, or biblical, and i refuse to engage in it.  if you want to, you are more than welcome to do so, for you have “Free Will”!  May the Lord bless, and lead you as, like me, you seek truth/Truth!

wn

Neat stuff….

Mind Ya Business. 

Is m0rsecode a zombie?

I stumbled onto mOrsecode’s blog again today and ran into his Zombie Post He quotes various criteria that need to be met for one to be considered a zombie. In the end he rightly concludes that Jesus was not a zombie after the resurrection. Lets turn these around and apply this criteria to mOrsecode,

Once mutation is complete, this new organ reanimates the body into a form that bears little resemblance (physiologically speaking) to the original corpse. … This new organism is a zombie, a member of the living dead.

mOrsecode

 

This is mOrsecode, apparently he suffers from a lack of sun exposure and is perhaps smoking too much. Looks like he might have a mad case of the munchies after all of that smoking because he’s got a few extra chins as well. So, we know that he has mutated into something that more than likely bears little resemblance to the original mOrsecode.

 

 

The case isn’t solid, but we know that mOrsecode indeed meets some of those qualifications, afterall by virtue of his atheism we know that he has no real brain. His pasty skin makes him look likes he’s dead and his red eyes are certainly showing that he lacks true judgment given his drug induced state.

 

So, lets look further.

 

He quotes again

 

Humans have been infected by brushing their open wounds against those of a zombie or by being splattered by its remains after an explosion. Ingestion of infected flesh (provided the person has no open mouth sores), however, results in permanent death rather than infection. Infected flesh has proven to be highly toxic.

No one has taken a bite out of mOrsecode so we can’t be sure he’s toxic. He is still living! But, I guess if someone wants to take a shot they can. I would, however; be a bit careful he does like to eat brains:

 I plan on eating the brains of some very delicious looking chocolate bunnies.

 

So, we’ve seen mOrsecode is a zombie. Happy mOrsecode zombie day!