Replies

So exactly how many new followers to Christ does your message bring? Are you even interested in winning over the lost to Christ?

I'll tell you a little story: in 1988 I was a United Nations Truce Supervisor in the Sinai. We had 14 American, 13 French, and 15 Soviet officers in our unit and our duties put us out on outpost at six different sites from el Arish to St, Catherine's at the south end of the Sinai.

We'd spend a week on out post at a time we usually ended up with one Soviet as a partner for that week (we preferred the French because they were better cooks). The Soviets were well-indoctrinated Communists or they wouldn't have been picked to be with us "enemies" and they would almost always launch into atheist monologues before we got everything unpacked for the week.

I would carefully and politely discuss my believer's point of view coupled with discussions about the mathematical difficulty of accepting the idea that everything in existence was a result of random chance.

Over several of these discussions, we got to discussing Christ and Christianity and the stark difference between faith and disbelief. A Greek Catholic priest buddy of mine got me a stash of Russian-Language Bibles to pass to them (which was hazardous for them, since we had a KGB Resident on the team who was closely watching them).

After several months of these discussions, one by one seven of the 15 privately asked me to help them and their families get baptized. I am the Godfather of several Russian children (which is a little unique for a Marine Officer).

I didn't insist that they become Roman Catholics - I only cared that they find their way to Our Lord. We don't gather the flock for Jesus by yelling at everyone: we call them as our Savior and his disciples did.

My point isn't about witnessing to non-believers and helping them find Christ. My point is that once we come to a saving knowledge of Christ, then it is our personal responsibility to come to a correct understanding of scripture. I understand that this is not always possible because bibles may be scarce, church fellowship may be sparse, and there is a tremendous amount of false teaching going on these days. But we should all have the desire to search the scriptures and come to a right understanding of God.

You will find very little "shouting" from me. But where people are scripturally incorrect, then it is important that we challenge each other on our views. I have had several people on this site challenge me on mine views and I can say, I was in error and appreciated the correction. Dr. Eckleburg who I reference in my tag line was a tremendous help to me personally though many failed to understand the great contributions she made.

The question each of us should ask is if we are really interested in knowing God as He truly is in scripture or are we interested in furthering church activities? God has revealed Himself through His word and we each have a bit of understanding. There is a lot of false teaching out there and it is important that we have a right view of God.

So exactly how many new followers to Christ does your message bring? Are you even interested in winning over the lost to Christ? I'll tell you a little story: in 1988 I was a United Nations Truce Supervisor in the Sinai. We had 14 American, 13 French, and 15 Soviet officers in our unit and our duties put us out on outpost at six different sites from el Arish to St, Catherine's at the south end of the Sinai. We'd spend a week on out post at a time we usually ended up with one Soviet as a partner for that week (we preferred the French because they were better cooks). The Soviets were well-indoctrinated Communists or they wouldn't have been picked to be with us "enemies" and they would almost always launch into atheist monologues before we got everything unpacked for the week. I would carefully and politely discuss my believer's point of view coupled with discussions about the mathematical difficulty of accepting the idea that everything in existence was a result of random chance. Over several of these discussions, we got to discussing Christ and Christianity and the stark difference between faith and disbelief. A Greek Catholic priest buddy of mine got me a stash of Russian-Language Bibles to pass to them (which was hazardous for them, since we had a KGB Resident on the team who was closely watching them). After several months of these discussions, one by one seven of the 15 privately asked me to help them and their families get baptized. I am the Godfather of several Russian children (which is a little unique for a Marine Officer). I didn't insist that they become Roman Catholics - I only cared that they find their way to Our Lord. We don't gather the flock for Jesus by yelling at everyone: we call them as our Savior and his disciples did.

Sorry I missed this story, and thank you for your service to this country, but what you described is simply not opposed to substantive pointed debates here with militant Catholics here, while being able to have congenial relationships with reasonable ones in person.

You engaged in debate with militant atheists to a degree, which affirms debate is sanctioned, if with the right spirit, and if it was with members of a group who were likewise devout and contentious that submission to their one true elitist church ensured salvation and was required of you, then if were not one of them you would debate them. Yet which need not mean you cannot have good friendships with them, at least in person, and who may be allies when it comes to political moral issues. Which hs been my experience.

You may allow debate btwn militant atheists and a Catholic, but would you not do so with a evangelizing Mormon? And if so, then were do you draw the line?

A couple weeks ago on a different forum RedLegHunter and I were debating a "evangelical" who insisted born again Christians no longer sin (though they can "trespass" against others), and who continued with his assertions though clearly substantively and reasonably refuted more than once, by the grace of God. Should we have ignored him? Others are watching, and this thread could be found on Google searches, so no.

Likewise when members of a group advertise, promote or contend for their church, especially as traditionalist, which teaches their church is uniquely the one true one, and damns those who persistently resist her elitist claims, including that a proper ritual, even without personal repentant faith, makes one actually good enough to be with God, and thus the same usually need to become so after death thru purifying torments, and do not even consider Prot churches worth of the proper name "church," then are we who hold that God purifies the heart by personal repentant faith, and reject ( Catholic distinctives not seen in the inspired record of the NT church ) to keep silent, and let others be deceived?

Would I expect Catholics (if not agree with all they say) to not debate Mormonic claims to be the unique one true church.

A rhetorical question, and thus the issue is the manner of debate. While we don't gather the flock for Jesus by yelling at everyone, yet neither can we call everyone brethren who profess they call the Lord Jesus their Savior and his disciples did. Mormons or typical Catholics included, for even by the first century we had "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).