Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
Dear Mr. Baldwin,
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).
What an extraordinary promise — Believe in Him and we will have eternal life.
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.
Belief is necessary.
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.”
We must do God’s will.
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.”
We must obey Jesus.
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.”
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
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.”
See also: Mark 16:16; Titus 3:5-8.
We must also love God completely and our neighbor as ourselves.
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."
We must keep the Commandments.
John 14:15, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
See also: Matt. 19:16-17,
Good works are necessary for salvation.
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.”
See also: James 2:14,26; Phil 2:12.
We must hold out to the end.
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.”
See also: Mark 13: 13; 1 Cor 10:12, 27.
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.
We must also eat His body and drink His blood.
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.
Let us begin with the creation story in Genesis 1:1-31:
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.
God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
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.
Everything God said came to pass.
"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.
He then took a cup of wine and declared it to be His Blood.
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).
And the Early Church Fathers said,
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]).
The Teaching:
“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.]).
St. Justin Martyr:
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).
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
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.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of Christian service.
In the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
Victor R. Claveau, MJ
760-220-6818
You wrote:
“If this article is an example of “the truth of Catholicism”, it falls short of the Bible.”
Not according to St. Peter:
Acts.4
[1] And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,
[2] Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
[3] And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
[4] Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
[5] And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,
[6] And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
[7] And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
[8] Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
[9] If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
[10] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[11] This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
[13] Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
[14] And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.
[15] But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,
[16] Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.
[17] But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
[18] And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
[19] But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
[20] For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
[21] So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
[22] For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed.
[23] And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
[24] And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
[25] Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
[26] The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
[27] For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
[28] For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
[29] And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
[30] By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
[31] And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Peter took a beating or two for his preaching in the early days. Claveau seems to be taking quite a cyber beating.
You wrote:
“... then perhaps you can explain Chapter 16 of Romans...?”
What is there to explain? Paul had never been to Rome and did not know the Roman Church. He did know some members whom he sent on ahead.
Again, what is there to explain?
Peter took a beating. Agreed. That does little to improve the
weakness of Claveau’s article.
Claveau deserves the beating he received!
v,
1. He didn’t send them all ahead
2. He knew at least 28 by name
3. Those are just the ones he mentioned
4. You specifically said he didn’t know the Romans
He did.
That’s all.
You wrote:
“Peter took a beating. Agreed. That does little to improve the weakness of Claveau’s article.”
There is no weakness in Claveau’s article. It is simply a brief letter when one considers all the details covered.
“Claveau deserves the beating he received!”
The viciousness of people here is astounding. Clearly this bizarre reaction to his simple letter is purely emotional. It certainly isn’t based on rational thought or any great knowledge of Christianity or evangelization.
“There is no weakness in Claveau’s article.”
Thanks. It was a tough day. You brightened it up with that
comment.
“Clearly this bizarre reaction to his simple letter is purely emotional.”
Love it! Thanks!
Thanks for admitting your “tough day”. See, it is just an emotional response on your part.
Thanks for the assist.
People and their “open” letters are such posers. Stephen has all he needs through Jesus Christ.
I have and you disagree. I don't know how you convinced me otherwise because I didn't see it.
No. I said medium. That means type of communication here, not type of porn.
The medium, platform, methodology, let's not quibble over the point of the assertion. You would object to his using the platform/medium/methodolgy of communication through Penthouse. I'm assuming he could skip all the dirty articles and pictures and get right to the letter. I simply stated that medium or the how and the manner of communication does make a difference. You said it doesn't as long as the writer is sincere. I gave you the reductio ad absurdum of that argument. You missed the point or maybe you were not prepared to accept the inevitable result of that argument.
Evangelization is not just preaching to the lost. It can and is preaching to those who identify themselves as Christians but who lack the fullness of the faith.
Actually, without getting in Biblical hermeneutics, or parsing Greek, or an explicitly Protestant/Catholic source let's take the good old Wikipedia definition:
Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non-Christians. I thought the author admits he was Christian?
Because it may be impossible.
Where. Where do you get "it may be impossible." Either it is or it is not.
Maybe yes, maybe no. You don’t know and neither do I.
And you don't care and I do
No, it is done to evangelize - just as it is obvious.
No it isn't "obvious".
You don’t know. And it is not essential. Thankfully Justin Martyr did not follow your tact.
It's not essential to you and you don't care you already stated that.
That would be absurd - much like your hand-wringing angst over this simple letter.
Not hand wringing over anything. I question the motive and you don't. If I'm hand wringing why spend this time responding? Likely because you believe you need to provide an apologetic for it.
No, there is nothing deficient about my understanding of St. Paul’s letter.
1) There was no such thing as the Roman press, and if there was, Paul - with his great zeal for souls - would have used it.
Indeed there wasn't. My comment was made to suggest that public responses akin to the internet were possible. In fact like Luther he could have had his Christian brothers nail it on a piece of wood in town (or a door to stay with the historical analogy) so that the Roman Christians could find out that he was writing to them. Instead it's hand delivered.
2) It was not a personal letter because it was not written to one person but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”. He wrote the letter to the whole CHURCH of Rome.
It was a personal letter to the Church. What? Do you want to call it an impersonal letter to the church?
3) He wrote the letter in secret. It was not a personal letter. It was a secret letter. It was written in secret to protect the faithful. And it still wasn’t a personal letter of the sort you imagine.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Either it was ok to make it public or not. You just stated above that Paul would have used the Roman press openly if it was available.
How would you know? Also, there doesn’t have to be a physical reason impeding a meeting. That’s just your personal oddity on this. The open letter is about evangelization. Souls will be converted no matter what. The author probably composed the letter because bringing fallen away Catholics back to the Church has been a special concern of his:
So he and you are reckless as to the distribution and publishing of this letter. You could care less whether Baldwin prefers to have personal communication rather than be called out? I see. Thanks for the subtle methodology. And by the way, his use of quotation marks over born again" is rather crude and cynical shot at that phrase in the context of Baldwin. Baldwin states he is a born again Christian and the author, instead of accepting the genuiness of that phrase to Baldwin prefers to treat it in a patronizing way. Nice.
Thanks for this great post.
I guess that’s a matter of interpretation. I don’t think 7 years is “new”. 2 years would be “new”.
You quote a huge section of Acts for no purpose other than to take something out of context? I thought Claveau was speaking to a fellow Christian? Peter is speaking to unbelievers. How does that make (1) the quotation of the passages relevant; (2) Claveau a cyber martyr?
I wouldn’t go back to the Catholic Church on a bet! I stopped being a Catholic when I realized the travesty that the Catholic church had become! That was 38 yrs ago. I assume you’re saying there are no ex-catholics just as the Muslims say to their forced converts that they’ll always be Muslims? Fortunatly,I found my Saviour, Jesus Christ, and began a relationship with Him, rather than cling to a faction(or order) of priest. When I was young,I was forbidden to read the Scriptures on my own. You quasi-spirituals are so full of the “institution” of religion that you’re missing the Man who died for your sins! Salvation is not belonging to a Club by birth or Baptism...it’s giving upi your life to live as Christ lived. He is the object of our Affection and the Ruler of our lives! If you miss this..your ‘good works’ and vain machinations will be for naught!
&&You quasi-spirituals are so full of the “institution” of religion that you’re missing the Man who died for your sins!**
I beg to paprdon with you, but the Mass is full of Scripture. Have you ever looked at a Sacramentary — the book that the priest uses during Mass. Chock full of Scripture. We are not missing Jesus Christ at all.
**Salvation is not belonging to a Club by birth or Baptism...it’s giving upi your life to live as Christ lived.**
And many Catholics choose to live as Christ lived and many others choose to die as Christ died. I would hope you notice all the Optional Memorials and Memorials and Feasts of Saints.
Why do you have such a hard heart against your Catholic Church? Something had to happen somewhere.
(And regardless of what that is, we would welcome you back with Open Arms.)
Sounds like you might have even missed the presence of Christ in ALL the Sacraments. You might consider re-categizing yourself.
The hyperbole in this comment is astonishing. After admitting that the letter is written to a fellow Christian you suggest that the methodology is the same as Justin Martyr's. Again, the author is not preaching to a non-Christian or to a tribal cabal in the darkest jungle of South America. This has nothing to do with Justin Martyr, pagans, etc.
HARD HEART?...Possibly because of the billions that have been led astray by the Institution of the Church...doomed to a life of unfulfilled longing for the hole in their hearts to be filled with something other than indulgences for their sins. Despite its’ ecumenical posturings, the church still maintains it is the only way to eternity in Heaven! It aint happening like that!
You wrote:
“The medium, platform, methodology, let’s not quibble over the point of the assertion. You would object to his using the platform/medium/methodolgy of communication through Penthouse. I’m assuming he could skip all the dirty articles and pictures and get right to the letter. I simply stated that medium or the how and the manner of communication does make a difference. You said it doesn’t as long as the writer is sincere. I gave you the reductio ad absurdum of that argument. You missed the point or maybe you were not prepared to accept the inevitable result of that argument.”
My argument was sound and your attempt at reductio ad absurdum was just absurd rather than meaningful. I said medium - as in open letter - and not as in published in a smut magazine. That is not reductio ad absurdum. It is merely absurd.
“Actually, without getting in Biblical hermeneutics, or parsing Greek, or an explicitly Protestant/Catholic source let’s take the good old Wikipedia definition:”
Wikipedia? Oh, here we go.
“Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non-Christians. I thought the author admits he was Christian?”
Sorry, but that is not all evangelism is. 1) The Bible was written when there were really only Catholics and non-Christians. Today, the situation is different. Today, not only do non-Catholic Christians need to be evangelized but even lapsed but baptized Catholics. http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/
“Where. Where do you get “it may be impossible.” Either it is or it is not.”
Again, unless you know all the circumstances, “may” is the proper word. Do you know all the circumstances? No, you don’t.
“And you don’t care and I do”
I don’t care because it is essentially irrelevant.
“No it isn’t “obvious”.”
Yes, it is. The author clearly states that’s what he’s doing.
“It’s not essential to you and you don’t care you already stated that.”
It is not essential, period. The letter has been released whether you like it or not, thus, it is not essential, period.
“Not hand wringing over anything.”
Yeah, actually that’s exactly what you’re doing. These repeated angst filled posts are hilarious examples of someone getting upset over something that not only has NOTHING to do with him, but something that won’t be a big deal in the first place.
“I question the motive and you don’t.”
The motive is listed in the letter. There’s no reason to doubt it.
“If I’m hand wringing why spend this time responding?”
I always oppose absurdity wherever I find it. And the belligerence, anger and sheer paranoia expressed in responses to this simple letter are truly absurd.
“Likely because you believe you need to provide an apologetic for it.”
True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here. The real reason why I responded is simply this: those attacking the letter are over-reacting and wrong.
“Indeed there wasn’t. My comment was made to suggest that public responses akin to the internet were possible. In fact like Luther he could have had his Christian brothers nail it on a piece of wood in town (or a door to stay with the historical analogy) so that the Roman Christians could find out that he was writing to them. Instead it’s hand delivered.”
All mail was hand delivered - especially if you were trying to remain secret. Also, be careful of the Wittenberg door analogy. There is ample reason to believe that is a myth.
“It was a personal letter to the Church. What? Do you want to call it an impersonal letter to the church?”
It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.
“Now you’re contradicting yourself. Either it was ok to make it public or not. You just stated above that Paul would have used the Roman press openly if it was available.”
No. Paul would have used the Roman press to EVANGELIZE if such an open press existed. The Letter to the Romans was a secret one to protect himself and them from the Roman authorities. If, however, Paul could have used the Roman press - if such a thing existed - then he would have used it. I made no contradiction at all.
“So he and you are reckless as to the distribution and publishing of this letter.”
There is nothing reckless about the letter or its distribution. It’s an open letter. Look at the word you’re using here “reckless”. And you say you’re not wringing your hands in angst? Reckless?
“You could care less whether Baldwin prefers to have personal communication rather than be called out?”
He’s a public figure who openly talks about his faith on TV. There is no logical reason to believe this would offend him. Again, why are wringing your hands in angst over this letter?
“I see. Thanks for the subtle methodology. And by the way, his use of quotation marks over born again” is rather crude and cynical shot at that phrase in the context of Baldwin.”
No, it isn’t. The use of quote marks is perfectly good simply because the term is in dispute as to its meaning and course.
“Baldwin states he is a born again Christian and the author, instead of accepting the genuiness of that phrase to Baldwin prefers to treat it in a patronizing way. Nice.”
Incorrect. Claveau merely uses quote marks to show the phrase is in dispute not that Baldwin’s conviction is unreal.
You wrote:
“I guess that’s a matter of interpretation. I don’t think 7 years is “new”. 2 years would be “new”.”
He is 42 years old. So, according to his understanding, he has been a committed Christian for only 1/6th of his life. To Claveau that might seem like a recent conversion.
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.