Wow

It seems the video I have posted on you tube has created a bit of a firestorm among Christians. Intersetingly I have not found one website defending John Hagee.

I give it about 6 months before Hagee abandons Christianity all together.

Tim Staples v. Matt Slick

I have been listening to the "debate" between Matt Slick (founder of CARM) and Tim Staples (Apologist for Catholic Answers).

As I listen, I recognize that Matt is using a lot of the tactics he uses on CARM. He likes to keep his opponents on the defensive. But so far what is interesting is that Tim is using far more scripture to support his position than Matt is. But in the few discussions I have had with Matt at CARM, this is a common tactic, to keep you on the defensive so that he does not have to expound on his own beliefs. Thus, to those that agree with Matt, it appears that he is just wiping the floor with his opponents. When in reality it is the other way around.

Like when Matt brought up forgiveness of sins. He could not provide any scriptural support for "confessing directly to Christ" when Tim brought up the scriptures that speak of confessing to one another and forgiving "in persona Christi". So, Matt promptly changed the subject.

Also, Matt was trying to trap Tim into saying that faith alone is all that is necessary. What kind of apologetics relies on verbal traps and not the Word of God? Sometimes, I guess it is better to win at any cost, then to risk being shown a fool

Jesus NOT the messiah.

This startling assertion comes from the Rev. John Hagee of Cornerstone church. Christianity has held for years that Jesus is the Messiah. John Hagee claims he is not. The Rev Hagee has crossed into complete heresy with these statements. See it in his own words:

It is time for all Christians to anathematize this heretic. He has denied the Christ, we should pray for his repentance.

The "tightrope" of some Protestants.

Over at "Beggars All", Carrie is once again trying to show that Catholic notions of Salvation are false and legalistic. Of course, the implicit point is that their brand of Christianity is not legalistic. In my apologetics online I have discovered that there is a real tightrope that they feel a christian must walk.

Catholics are constantly accused of doing "too much" or "adding to" what (they interpret as) God's plan.

But simply having faith (faith alone) apparently is not enough. It must be a "saving faith", but keeping in mind what they say about "adding to" that creates a problem.

We apparently, in order to be saved, must add enough to our faith to turn it into "saving faith" without over doing it and adding too much. Hence the tightrope. It appears that the evangelical is always walking a fine line, trying to do just enough to be saved without overdoing it and thus being damned. That is a very difficult target to hit.

What is an "Anti-Catholic"?

Recently, over at "Beggars all", Carrie accused me of saying that everyone who disagrees with Catholicism is an "anti-catholic zealot" who "harbors an irrational fear or hatred" of Catholics.

I do not throw around the phrase "Anti-Catholic" lightly. I equate it with racism, sexism and extremist fundamentalism.

An example of a "anti-catholic" is Eric Phelps his bigoted rantings against Catholics go to the point of calling for their "righteous execution".

Most Protestants are misinformed, what they know about Catholicism comes from well meaning but equally uninformed pastors, who draw their information from the likes of Hislop (in the case of Tim LaHaye) or Boettner (a la John MacArthur). Now, go into any Catholic bookstore or any apologetics website and you will see these books and many other refuted many times over. I do not consider these men "anti catholics", now if they have read the Catholic position and dismiss it because it is not what they want to believe, then yes, they would be considered anti catholic, but I know neither of these men, so I will not make that determination.