An open letter to Mr. Stephen A. Baldwin, Actor, and “born again” Christian.

Praise God, you have become a strong voice in winning souls for Jesus as one who has experienced the saving grace of the Redeemer. May you always use your notoriety to spread the Good News.

It has been my experience that when an individual submits themselves to Christ, they undergo a deep conversion of heart. A tremendous weight is lifted, and they receive a sense of inner peace and joy. There is also the need to share this wonderful experience with others in the hope that they too will come to know Him intimately.

“Jesus said to them, … “For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).

But, what does it mean to truly believe in Him? Does it not mean that we must believe that everything He said is true? Does it not mean that we must be in total submission to His will in our lives? Does it not mean that we must obey His every command?

Many Christians believe that when Jesus died on the Cross he paid the ultimate price for all of man’s sins and therefore nothing is required of us except making a “personal commitment to a personal savior.” Let’s take a more in-depth look at what the New Testament Scriptures teach on this subject.

Rom. 10:9, “Because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Matt 7:21, "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

John 3:5, “Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Luke 10: 25-28, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live."

Romans 2:7, “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”

2 Tim 2:12-13, “If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself.”

I write to you as one Christian to another in order to share with you the opportunity to experience a deeper dimension of intimacy with our Lord and Savior.

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (John 53-59).

Would Jesus command us to do something impossible? Jesus would have had to have made some provision for His followers to carry out the command to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”.

One of the fundamental differences between Catholics and the hundreds of different denominations is how the above verses are understood.

Isn't it true that all Christians are taught to interpret the Bible literally, except where the use of symbolic or figurative language is obvious? So the issue is: “Did Jesus really mean that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood?”

“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

The fact that the Jews questioned the words of Jesus tells us that they understood Jesus’ words literally.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus was speaking literally, and this can it be proved by the Bible and Church history.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

"So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

Jesus, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the Word, and the Word was and is God (John 1:1).

As God, Jesus performed numerous miracles. He cured the sick, gave sight to the blind, made the deaf to hear, and raised people from the dead. Whatever he declared came to pass.

Jesus declared that His flesh is real food: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn. 6:51; 53-55).

During the Last Supper, as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you” (Lk. 22:19-20).

Who, not what, was Jesus holding in His sacred hands at that moment? He was holding Himself! At that moment, the bread became His Body, simply because He said it was His Body.

Once again, Jesus held Himself in His own hands! At that moment, the wine became His Blood, simply because He said it was so.

I repeat, As soon as he declared the bread and wine to be His Body and Blood, they became His Body and Blood. As you may know, Catholics call this food Eucharist.

He then commanded His disciples to do the same, “Do this in remembrance of me”, thereby empowering them to do so. This was the beginning of the New Covenant Priesthood.

St. Paul was certainly a believer in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist:

And St. Paul said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

And St. Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostle John for over thirty years, before suffering a martyr’s death in the arena in Rome.

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Pay close attention to those who have wrong notions about the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and note how at variance they are with God's mind. They care nothing about love: they have no concern for widows or orphans, for the oppressed, for those in prison or released, for the hungry or the thirsty. They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God's gift face death” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6, 19-20, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God's will” (Letter to the Philadelphians, 4, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Try to gather together more frequently to celebrate God's Eucharist and to praise him. For when you meet with frequency, Satan's powers are overthrown and his destructiveness is undone by the unanimity of your faith” (Letter to the Ephesians, 13, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

“You must not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord's name. For in reference to this the Lord said, ‘Do not give what is sacred to dogs’" (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Commonly Called the Didache, [ca. 70 / 80 A. D.]).

Justin Martyr, an early Church Father (105-165 A. D.) is the first person to furnish us with a complete description of the Eucharistic celebration (c. 150). He speaks of it twice, first in regard to the newly-baptized and secondly in regard to the Sunday celebration.

And St. Justin Martyr said, “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion” (I Apol. 65).

Justin goes on to specify that the bread that has been consecrated by the prayer formed from the words of Christ.

“And this food is called among us Eucharisti'a [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn” (I Apol. 66).

A second description of the Eucharist complementing the first is found a little later in his Apology with regard to the Sunday liturgy.

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration” (I Apol. 67).

And St. Irenaeus of Lyons said, “And just as the wooden branch of the vine, placed in the earth, bears fruit in its own time-and as the grain of wheat, falling into the ground and there dissolved, rises with great increase by the Spirit of God, who sustains all things, and then by the wisdom of God serves for the use of men, and when it receives the Word of God becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ-so also our bodies which are nourished by it, and then fall into the earth and are dissolved therein, shall rise at the proper time, the Word of God bestowing on them this rising again, to the glory of God the Father” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, [Inter A. D. 180 / 190]).

It is clear from the words of Jesus, St. Paul, and the Early Church Fathers that Jesus meant it when He said that we must eat His body and drink His blood.

There is an avalanche of evidence is support of the Catholic understanding and absolutely none to support the Protestant contention. Jesus was not speaking symbolically. The only refutation offered by Protestantism is opinion, as no proof exists.

To be fully Christian is to believe in these words of Jesus and come home to the Catholic Church. There is no greater intimacy than eating His flesh and drinking his blood.

I invite you return to your Catholic roots and invite all “Bible Christians” to explore the truth of Catholicism.

Jesus came that we may have life, and have it abundantly. This can only be fully experienced in the Catholic Church.

I don’t like evangelizing? Christ told us to go into the world and preach the “Good News”.

John1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Can’t argue the Scriptures. The Word=Christ.

Baptizing is symbolic. The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized and Christ told him “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise”.

As for purgatory, Luke 16:19-31 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham’, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, becvause I am in agony in this fire.

But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad thing, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.

He answered, ‘Then I beg you father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one come to the Father except through me.”

The only way you will go to Hell is complete rejection of Christ. I’m not talking about people who haven’t heard the gospel, I’m talking about people who heard and rejected the message of salvation.

As far as being a “lone ranger”, I read the Bible everyday and have not let dogmas get in the way of understanding God’s Word. I grew up in a church and it didn’t hurt me any. I have found that too many churches have lost sight of it’s purpose and have become too political. I don’t need someone else to feed me God’s Word. It’s great that people still want to go to church, but as far as I’m concerned, I don’t need someone forcing their doctrine down my throat especially when it isn’t even scriptural. If it’s in the Bible I believe it, if it isn’t I’m not buying it. I have the Holy Spirit to convict me when I’m doing something wrong. I have so much still to learn and God is continually molding me into the person He wants me to be.

Being Catholic is an organized religion, christians are followers of Christ, not a religion.

I agree that not all who are in the church are christians, but you saying that only true believers are Catholic is very arrogant of you. There’s as many charlatans in the Catholic church as any other. How do you justify all the pedophilia in the Catholic Church, much less the homosexuality? This is what you call the True Church? And I’m not saying that that only happens in the Catholic church. I don’t mean to disparage the Catholic Church but they, like other religions, have their flaws. How many people go to church and don’t even believe in God, much less Christ and His sacrifice on the cross? I’m far from perfect and that’s why I need God. As far as confession goes, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteous”. But I don’t need some Priest, or Pastor, to do that, I can go to my mediator, Christ, and do it. And I don’t tailor anything to my liking. I’m so sick and tired of people passing off doctrine as gospel, I, for one, would not want to lead someone astray with something that is not scripturally based. Just cuz the church says it, don’t make it so. I read God’s word, that’s what He wants me to do so I can apply it to my life, and when the opportunity arises I can share the message of salvation with others.

You wrote:

“As I thought. You don’t get the point of sincerity trumps all. Next.”

You wrote: “Moreover you aren’t even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.” Huh?

Are you saying that I said only sincerity is necessary? Where did I say that? The truth is I never said anything like that at all. I just did a word search on the first 50 posts for “sincerity” and “sincere”. You use sincerity in your false claim several times. I never said what you claim I did. Why make things up?

What I wrote was this: “2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.” in post #22 if I remember correctly.

I never said all that mattered was sincerity. Why do you claim that I did?

“And neither do you decide.”

I didn’t.

“So unless the supposed orthodoxy of a definition is agreed upon to appeal to a common source which is not blatantly false is the best approach. You would decide the issue by getting into circular arguments based on Catholic theology. That presumes the answer and is not valid.”

No, the definition of evangelization is clearly broader than you have given it as shown in theology, history and lexicography.

“May indicates and presumes an attempt to weasel out of an answer. It’s like agnosticism - “we just can’t know”. I’m suggesting presumptions like that are predicated on recklessness and disregard for human responses. Just post a letter on the internet - that’s your discussion methodology.”

Like I said before - you really are wringing your hands in angst over this. “May” indicates that YOU DON’T KNOW. Why throw a fir over the word “may” when we both know why “may” is used?

“The letter makes a lot of sound because it is on the internet , can be easily googled and is open for all to see without the necessity or indeed the desire to engage personally. That’s the way of blogging and the internet - it’s not the way of Christian association. That my friend is the new world order for discussion.”

More of your hand wringing. We live in a technological age. There’s no reason why a public figure can’t be addressed in a public way when he has made his faith a public point.

“The absurd results is presuming that sincerity alone guides the method of discussion.”

Which I NEVER did. Again, I wrote: “2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.”

“You have no idea whether Baldwin would be offended at being called out, effectively as a wayward Catholic!”

Many people are offended by the truth. Some people are offended by the simplest and least offensive of things. If Baldwin is offended over this then let him say so. Claveau intended no offense as is clear.

“Indeed the letter is so blatantly propagandist maybe he should have addressed it to Baldwin’s pastor if he has one to engage in theological discussion rather than propaganda.”

Examples of Baldwin’s own “propaganda” were posted earlier. If Baldwin can make a case for his beliefs in TV and online why can’t Claveau make one for his beliefs to Baldwin in an open letter?

“False. I never attacked the letter writer for his internal comments and indeed I stated that Christians should not engage in the bully pulpit by letter writing in public, in this case, as the message it sends is arrogance and chauvinism.”

Sorry, but I don’t think you can label the contents of the letter as propaganda and then claim you have no problem with the contents. Make up your mind.

“Now you’re presuming. Classic.”

No. Labelling him as a poser - without any knowledge of him whatsoever is presumption. For me to determine that he - working his whole adult life to evangelize others probably has accomplished more good than you while you sit around and attack him calling him a poser is just common sense.

“He’s accusing him of living under false presumptions of Christianity.”

No. There is no accusation there. There is no criminal or moral fault there. There is no accusation nor is there any accusatory language involved. He INVITES him to learn more. Invite is not accusatory. Again, you are just making things up out of thin air.

“I thought that was clear enough by his quotation marks around ‘born again’ and his Catholic propaganda.”

Wow, look at the accusatory language in your post - “Catholic propaganda”. So, when a Catholic says something - apparently anything that is staunchly Catholic - it is propaganda? Oh, no, no accusation in that!

“If Baldwin was presumptively acting as a Christian according to what the letter writer thinks he should he wouldn’t be wasting his time with him.”

There is no wasting of time when addressing a Christian and encouraging to seek the fullness of the faith.

“Yes he is hiding. If he is so bold to put his phone number on the internet why does he think he needs to cloak his presumed propaganda with a letter rather than a verbal conversation.”

How would he have this verbal conversation? How would he get Baldwin to call him without an invitation - and this is one right there!

“It is saying: ‘I don’t need to talk to you personally (fill in the blank why not) so I’m writing you a letter.’ No I would say speak personally and don’t use blogging as a method of communicating to a fellow Christian who apparently you are so concerned with coming back to the Catholic Church you can’t bring yourself to deal with it on a man to man basis.”

Again, more made up nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual letter. It’s an open letter. Get over it.

“Secondly I’m not mad about anything, I’m responding to your posts. But I guess presumptions don’t work both ways.”

I don’t presume - it’s all over your posts.

“Quite the contrary. I posted from an understanding of custom where Christians use to communicate face to face or at least voice to voice instead of their faith being subject to scrutiny by someone who is engaging in propaganda for the Church over the internet.”

Incorrect. You posted your feelings without any supporting evidence. The simple fact is a face to face may be impossible here. Why don’t you get on a plane and have a face to face with Baldwin? Oh, I know, you have no desire to, but if you did, would it happen anyway? Would he speak to you? Would you even know where to go?

“You could care less. For you it’s all about the message and to hell with how it’s delivered.”

There is nothing wrong with a public figure being sent an open letter.

“Yes I have a rational reason and you don’t care for it.”

No, all you post is emotional stuff - it’s offensive (which you don’t know it will be offensive to him), it’s wrong, it’s not done by Christians (when it is done, has been done, etc.).

“The nailing of the theses whether it occurred or not was merely used a an example of what could have been done. You attenuated the example to get into an irrelevant issue of whether it occurred or not. That was not the issue. It was a simple assertion that you could make something public by posting it anywhere. I guess the point wasn’t enough for you.”

Luther supposedly was calling for a public debate to anyone in his university town or nearby. Claveau is trying to get the attention of a public figure to evangelize him by posting an open letter. How is Claveau supposed to get his attention? Are you going to determine that for him?

“It may be myth and it may be the truth but that point was irrelevant!

“How I can question? The issue is not how many people he was writing to but whether or not it came from a human being with his personal experiences and revelation of Christ. It wasn’t a form letter to the church. You seem to have problems with simple terminology. Personal as opposed to impersonal. Yikes. If you have problems with this then I can see how you can misread motive and have little regard for issues such as methodology and form.”

Start at the beginning then: why do you assume this letter of Claveau’s is personal and therefore must be kept private? Do you assume it is “personal and therefore must be private” because it is written by one man to another in name? Do you assume it is personal and must be kept private because of the contents?

In reality, none of that applies. An open letter is written for more than just the man receiving it - as was done by Justin Martyr’s apology. Its contents touch on issues that Baldwin himself made public on TV and online so there can’t be a problem there. So why the angst? Why the hand wringing?

“Quite obviously the problem is yours.”

No, not at all.

“Again you missed the point about methodology and manner of delivery so it doesn’t surprise me you restated your error.”

I never stated an error in the first place. You are not making any point about methodology that isn’t just emotional on your part. So far you have not posted any rational reason to oppose an open letter.

“And so then knowing subject A the Romans and subject B Paul’s intention you surmised that open propaganda wasn’t necessary.”

No, I surmised that getting everyone killed was not necessary. Have you forgotten that open persecution of Christians existed?

“Do you know Subject A, Mr. Baldwin here, as to his state of acceptance of an internet letter? No of course you don’t and you don’t care.”

Does it matter what his acceptance is? Seriously, can you make any case that it does? 1) Sharing the truth with someone is not wrong even if the truth is rejected. 2) You ask if I know if Baldwin would accept this letter. Do you know he would reject is JUST BECAUSE it is on the internet? 3) It wasn’t written just for him, but for those others who could learn from it.

“So don’t make the same assumptions on how the message is communicated or should be without speaking to the subject A, here Mr. Baldwin.”

Again, you have this weird fantasy that contacting Baldwin would be a breeze. What’s his home phone number? His cell? What’s his address? And if I called his house and literally spoke to the man, how would that help others like him directly? It wouldn’t. An open letter that will be seen, discussed and undoubtedly forwarded to him is a better way to make sure he gets the letter. You’re helping by all your hand wringing because you’re ensuring that more people see the thread and spread the letter. Thanks.

“I feel certain that he would communicate personally before he made a grand show of it on some blog.”

So he would never use TV? Are you serious? Then why did he bother writing? Wasn’t because he COULDN’T BE EVERYWHERE IN PERSON?

“And you know Baldwin. You can presume to suggest that he doesn’t need to be spoken to personally.”

No, can you attest otherwise, however? Please post all of your evidnece. What’s that? You have none? Imagine that. Again, you make this absurd and outright weird fantasy that people - anyone - can just magically talk to Baldwin in person whenever they want. Do you really believe that’s the case?

“That he likes to have his Catholic background now become the object of speculation and theological chauvinism particulalry by putting his stated belief under quotations.”

It was someone opposed to this letter in this thread who posted Baldwin’s thoughts on Catholicism. Baldwin made comments about the Catholic faith in public. So why can’t a Catholic respond in some way.

“As I stated, that’s not Christianity. That’s religious propagandizing.”

So, what were Baldwin’s comments? Propaganda, right?

“Boy for someone who stated he doesn’t presume and in fact doesn’t know you sure want to assume a lot.”

No. You said “Oh I see. So because he is a “public figure” and a Christian one at that, he is not entitled to the same courtesy of your friend.”

I have my friend’s phone number. I don’t have Baldwin’s. Do you? Does Claveau?

“Either Baldwin is in the Body of Christ or he is not. You can’t be a Christian and not be in the Body of Christ. The writer called him a Christian.Baldwin is. How does that make him imperfect?”

1) You can be a Christian and not in the Body of Christ. Protestants use the word “Church” in a way never intended by orthodox Christians. We use the term with its full meaning - that it is a human-theandric body and a concrete historical reality (h/t to Fr. Hopko, who would say I’m not in the Church either).

2) You can be a Christian and not believe in all orthodox beliefs. That would make you imperfect in beliefs.

“Because he doesn’t subscribe to Catholic ideology?”

Yes.

“Far from it. But that is not the point of this discussion as that will degenerate into schismatic discussions.”

Wrong. Schism is already here. Our discussions are not schismatic.

“As a former practicing Catholic myself, an altar boy even who had experience with the mass before and after Vatican II, who attended Catholic schools all his life, trained by priests and nuns as well, and someone who in the past regularly attended, I’m not prepared to call my Catholic brethren imperfect and need of propaganda.”

There is no propaganda in the letter, but all Catholics are imperfect in that they are fallen creatures. We all near to hear the gospel. I am a Catholic, went to Catholic schools, and know the Mass before and after Vatican II. And I know I and all Christians are imperfect in one way or another.

“The point is using the internet to communicate to someone by name without even knowing or being alerted to something being published concerning you. That’s not Christian - it’s subscribing to blogging mentality without regard to personal circumstances.”

No. Baldwin already made it clear he PUBLICLY speaks about his former faith and his currect faith on TV and online. This letter, therefore, is not wrong.

“Especially someone who has not forsaken his Catholicism explicitly to subject him to being isolated in the virtual world and his faith taken to task I’m going to suggest to you will be counter-productive and not conducive to sensitive discussion.”

Incorrect. His remarks - as posted by someone opposed to the letter - show he has forsaken his Catholic faith. Your suggestions, grounded as they are in errors, are meaningless to me.

“Why doesn’t the writer engage in a discussion with a theologian? Baldwin is a lay person who speaks about his faith. Again, putting quotes around a seminal part of his belief in a public letter is patronizing and arrogant.”

Claveau is interested in evangelizing Baldwin. Baldwin does not need to be a theologian to hear the gospel. You point makes no sense. You would have it that people can only talk to their exact peers? No lay person can speak to a theologian.

I am willing to bet the fact that you once were Catholic but no longer are has more to do with your angst then anything else.

You wrote:

“I don’t like evangelizing? Christ told us to go into the world and preach the “Good News”.”

I NEVER SAID you didn’t like evangelizing. You wrote: “Paul evangelized in his time, and likewise Christ’s disciples, in Christ’s time on earth. If I didn’t know better I’d say you are trying to be obtuse.” I responded with: “I’d say you’re just trying to ignore what you don’t like.” That wasn’t about evangelization itself. If you’re going to attack my words, then at least make sure you attack what I actually say.

“Baptizing is symbolic. The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized and Christ told him “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise”.”

The fact that Jesus says that does not mean that baptism is symbolic. You are confusing two issues. 1) baptism washes away sins and the Bible says it saves thereby, and 2) the good thief was not baptized but Jesus said he would be paradise with Him that day. Why would you assume that someone who could not be baptized would not be able to be saved by Christ in some other way through His grace filled mercy?

Luke 16:19-31 is about hell, not purgatory. You yourself said so. Why do you repeat the whole story when it does prove anything according to your point?

“The only way you will go to Hell is complete rejection of Christ. I’m not talking about people who haven’t heard the gospel, I’m talking about people who heard and rejected the message of salvation.”

Sin is a rejection of Christ. Schism is a sin. Apostasy is a sin. Heresy is sinful. Now, granted, people may not always be subjectively blameworthy of those things in all instances, but they are all still sinful. And to top it all off is the simple fact that all of us were born stained with sin. Baptism washes away sins - just as St. Paul said.

“As far as being a “lone ranger”, I read the Bible everyday and have not let dogmas get in the way of understanding God’s Word.”

Orthodox dogmas do not get in the way of understanding God’s word. They are the only way to understand God’s word. I have seen Protestants - disagreeing with one another - say baptism is a symbol, others say it is more than that; some say this, some say that. The disagreements are endless. And yet all claim they follow the Bible alone. Imagine that. Have they forgotten what St. Peter said about twisting scripture to their own lusts?

“I grew up in a church and it didn’t hurt me any. I have found that too many churches have lost sight of it’s purpose and have become too political. I don’t need someone else to feed me God’s Word. It’s great that people still want to go to church, but as far as I’m concerned, I don’t need someone forcing their doctrine down my throat especially when it isn’t even scriptural.”

You have made yourself your own church. Now, ask yourself: Was I sent by God to minister to myself?

“If it’s in the Bible I believe it, if it isn’t I’m not buying it.”

I don’t believe that’s what you believe at all. Think about it, no where in the Bible does it say that Matthew wrote the gospel named after him, but I bet you still believe it? You do, don’t you? Show me where in the Bible it says that Matthew’s gospel is inspired by God? Can you point to a single verse that says that? Even one? No, not one. These things are traditions - from the Catholic Church.

“I have the Holy Spirit to convict me when I’m doing something wrong.”

That’s what every Protestant claims, and yet they disagree again and again.

“I have so much still to learn and God is continually molding me into the person He wants me to be.”

And yet you don’t believe He wants you in the Church when He established it?

“Being Catholic is an organized religion, christians are followers of Christ, not a religion.”

Christ organized 12 Apostles. He chose 70 Disciples. He gave them explicit instructions. He did not tell them to make it up on their own. Christ sent an organized Church into the world to evangelize it. He did not send you to make it up as you go along.

“I agree that not all who are in the church are christians, but you saying that only true believers are Catholic is very arrogant of you.”

No. I never said that only true believers are Catholics. I will say - truthfully - that only Catholics are true believers. There is a difference. One cannot be a true believer without being a Catholic for only the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the truth. There is nothing arrogant in this. It is simply truth. What is arrogant is for a person to think they can make up Christianity on their own and get it right.

“There’s as many charlatans in the Catholic church as any other.”

I do not follow charlatans and have never been fooled by them. I listen to the Church - because Christ speaks through it. Charlatans are in every field. The Church is not changed by charlatans. She is always true because she comes from Christ.

“How do you justify all the pedophilia in the Catholic Church, much less the homosexuality?”

I don’t. Why would I? Why would you think for a single minute that I would justify objectively sinful and disordered behavior?

“This is what you call the True Church?”

No, I do not call pedophilia nor homosexuality the True Church. I call pedophilia and homosexuality sinful and disordered. What do you call them? What I do call the True Church is the True Church. I do not confuse the Church with the sins of its members. We are all sinful. If your brother was a homosexual, I would not think that makes you a liar, or unfaithful or evil. Your brother is the person with the problem, not you. Likewise, I do not blame the Church - which condemns both pedophilia and homosexuality - for the fact that there are pedophiles and homosexuals who abuse people AND THE CHURCH from within her.

“And I’m not saying that that only happens in the Catholic church.”

Oh, no, gee, you’re not saying that at all. Noooooo. You’re instead somehow saying that the Catholic Church is responsible for the sins of her members even when she teaches against their actions!

“I don’t mean to disparage the Catholic Church but they, like other religions, have their flaws.”

No. People have flaws. The Church doesn’t. Christ sent the Church. She has no flaws. Christ (through the Holy Spirit) sent the New Testament. It has no flaws. What it does have is people who twist it and misuse it. See how that works?

“How many people go to church and don’t even believe in God, much less Christ and His sacrifice on the cross?”

Few. Most believe, but many don’t understand properly.

“I’m far from perfect and that’s why I need God. As far as confession goes, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteous”.”

Yes, but that just brings us back to how we confess. Again, John 20:19-23.

“But I don’t need some Priest, or Pastor, to do that, I can go to my mediator, Christ, and do it.”

But your mediator sent the Church for that job when He left this earth. Again, John 20:19-23. That’s exactly what Jesus says, As the Father sent me, I send YOU. He meant the Church.

“And I don’t tailor anything to my liking. I’m so sick and tired of people passing off doctrine as gospel, I, for one, would not want to lead someone astray with something that is not scripturally based.”

Really? I’m sick and tired of people claiming they’re Bible Christians and yet they ignore 2 Tim 4:3
“3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.”

You see, the gospel cannot be cut away from sound doctrine. That’s why Paul told Timothy: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
(1 Tim 4:16) Imagine that! People who persevere in good doctrine will be saved!!! And yet they are not left to make it up themselves nor are they handed copies of the NT (which wasn’t finished yet) to work it out on their own.

St. Paul also wrote to Titus:

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:9)

You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1)

“Just cuz the church says it, don’t make it so.”

Yeah, actually it does. Again, things from God have no flaw.

“I read God’s word, that’s what He wants me to do so I can apply it to my life, and when the opportunity arises I can share the message of salvation with others.”

No. He sent the Church to teach you. Reading the Bible is great and I do hope you apply it to your life. But most likely you are only applying things you like to your life. Christ did not send you to minister to yourself. He sent the Church. She wrote the scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One day you’ll know.

You stated that how it was done (medium) was not relevant. And furthermore he was engaging in evangelization. I simply stated that how it was done was relevant. Then you stated the following . 2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.

So first, you do mention sincerity. Secondly, you state that sincerity can exist "irrespective of medium used to communicate." So the medium used to communicate can be through Penthouse as sincerity can be expressed through any medium. My argument for the nth time to you is that medium is relevant and indeed it can condition whatever sincerity you might have. My further argument is that an impersonal screed of propaganda posted on the internet without notice to a fellow Christian is just the kind medium which undermines a claim of sincerity.

No, the definition of evangelization is clearly broader than you have given it as shown in theology, history and lexicography.

That sounds impressive but unfortunately you don't want a broader meaning you want a narrow meaning. Not a secondary meaning. And that's where you get into begging questions by resort to Catholic or Protestant doctrine. Then questions are begged and no one goes anywhere in this issue.

More of your hand wringing. We live in a technological age. There’s no reason why a public figure can’t be addressed in a public way when he has made his faith a public point.

So the hell with personal manners and private discussion. An impressive feat of technological debasement.

It's not "clear". Indeed as I stated by bracketing off 'born again' and by taking a shot at Protestantism, "absolutely none to support the Protestant contention," he now sets the scene for a devisive process. Nice guy this Claveau.

Fairly easy to claim with his divisive methodology and chauvinist use of some Protestant phrases, such as 'born again' as a parenthetical anomaly of Christendom.

I see no invitation here. I see rhetoric, confrontation and patronizing attitudes.

How would he have this verbal conversation? How would he get Baldwin to call him without an invitation - and this is one right there!

There are numerous ways none of which need be explained to someone who uses the internet as skillfully as any blogger would. A simple invitation for personal discussion would even do it. But no, this guy wants to grandstand.

It's not evangelization it's propaganda and divisive.

He has views like everyone else. But did he post a grandiose letter somewhere calling this guy out? That's the issue. An issue which you seem incessantly unable to categorize as anything other than full of goodwill. It's not. Calling a Christian out on a blog for the purpose of trying to indoctrinate him is worthless and insulting. I suggest counterproductive and hurtful to any cause of Christianity.

I am willing to bet the fact that you once were Catholic but no longer are has more to do with your angst then anything else.

Boy you're a mind reader now. Can you read Baldwin's mind as well?

There is no wasting of time when addressing a Christian and encouraging to seek the fullness of the faith.

This has all the goodwill and encouragement of a wet rag.

There is nothing wrong with a public figure being sent an open letter.

He's a Christian who happens to be a public figure. So you would advocate exploiting the public figure so you can "evangelize" him or rather propagandize him from my perspective. You and the letter writer are such humanitarians. Full of goodwill.

The writer is not talking the gospel. He's talking down to him and insulting him by using 'born again' and suggesting Protestantism has no evidence to support it's contention on the point he is asserting. Well whooptie doo. Isn't he bright. And so appealing in his condescension of the long debate about transubstantiation.

Incorrect. His remarks - as posted by someone opposed to the letter - show he has forsaken his Catholic faith.

You and the writer's attitude make me cheer for Baldwin now because with this debased method of discussion and condescension he should do his best to avoid the likes of your kind if it is representative of Catholic "evangelizers." Muslims would be proud to have this kind of religious shakedown.

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.