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:
“This statement seems to be saying that some people, no matter what they believe, if they wind up saved, it is because of Jesus, even though they never expressed belief in Him. This statement does not seem to be an unequivocal support for His words: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to Father except through me.””
Anyone who ends up in heaven ends up there because of Christ. Deciding who gets there is - thankfully - well above my pay grade. Will children who never knew Christ all be sent to hell? Will all human beings, hundred of billions of them, who never knew Christ, but many millions who sought out God sincerely, be sent to hell? If even one of those kids, or one of those others who never knew Christ is saved, it will be because of Christ. I leave all of that up to Him for He is the Savior.
You wrote:
“You quote a huge section of Acts for no purpose other than to take something out of context?”
No.
“I thought Claveau was speaking to a fellow Christian?”
Yes, but one who lacks the fullness of the Christian faith. Jews lacked the fullness of faith as it stood in their day as well because they lacked Christ.
“Peter is speaking to unbelievers.”
Yes, Jews. But Jews are not unfamiliar with the messiah. Peter and the Jews shared very much in common. Yet the Jews lacked Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith. He shares much in common with orthodox Christians, but still lacks the fullness of Christ.
“How does that make (1) the quotation of the passages relevant;”
Explained above.
“(2) Claveau a cyber martyr?”
You’re certainly trying to make him one. Come to think of it, why are you posting against him here? Why don’t you email him directly? Isn’t that what you have been preaching about contacting Baldwin directly? Interesting.
You wrote:
“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.”
Actually I said that I’m glad Justin Martyr didn’t follow your tact. His apology was an open letter addressed to the Roman emperor, however. If he followed your tact we would not have the letter and his fellow Christians could not have taken solace or learned from his apology.
“Again, the author is not preaching to a non-Christian or to a tribal cabal in the darkest jungle of South America.”
Justin Martyr’s primary goal was not preaching, but apologetics. Also, Claveau’s primary goal is to evangelize a fallen away Catholic. That fallen away Catholic need only be fallen away - not a non-Christian nor a pagan living in the “darkest jungle of South America.” Many people baptized and even raised as Christians are in need of evangelization: http://www.christlife.org/evangelization/articles/C_newevan.html
http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/Ratzinger.htm
This has nothing to do with Justin Martyr, pagans, etc.
I guess we can say that Paul was a recent convert also. What has being a recent convert got to do with how God uses us to bring glory to His name? Is there a timeframe that has to transpire for us to be effective as christians? What about the Disciples, who dropped what they were doing and followed Christ? Can we say recent converts?
You wrote:
“I guess we can say that Paul was a recent convert also.”
Not now we can’t. ;)
“What has being a recent convert got to do with how God uses us to bring glory to His name?”
In this situation, nothing. No one said it did.
“Is there a timeframe that has to transpire for us to be effective as christians?”
Often, yes. Many new converts have great zeal, and that attracts others. But as CS Lewis noted, God often tests the resolution of the convert to make him stronger. After those tests, if successfully done, the Christian would be more effective as a witness because he could attest to God’s grace in bad times and good times AFTER his conversion.
“What about the Disciples, who dropped what they were doing and followed Christ? Can we say recent converts?”
At one time, yes. Not now. They’ve been at it for almost 2,000 years.
I think your answer can be found here:
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.
The author seems to think that Baldwin is using his fame to win souls for the wrong church.
And in fact, in my opinion the author used the term "new" not to suggest Baldwin was a new Christian, but instead to make a point about how Baldwin had a real faith before, but now was on some "new religious" kick that the author hopes to "save" him from by reminding him of the "true faith" of the Catholic church.
BTW, here is an interesting interview Baldwin gave. You can see in here some of what might prompt a Catholic writer like this one to chide Baldwin on his "new faith":
Stephen Baldwin: I'm going to be a bit of a jerk to make a point. Now you're doing that dance that most people do. And I was at the same place that you are. "I'm a good guy." And even the Roman Catholic Church, nowhere in the bible does it say you can pray to Mary. Prayer is a form of worship and the Lord said that you will have no other God before me. Now look at all of the problems you're seeing in the Roman Catholic Church. Now, am I saying that's God's wrath? That's not for me to decide or even make a statement about. I can't judge that. I'm just little schmuck, Stephen Baldwin. God says that there is only one way and I didn't believe that, myself, until I tried it and his spirit came into my life and into my heart, and confirmed that the Jesus Christ truth was real.
And here is a 700-club interview:
Baldwin: Sure. Raised Roman Catholic up until 11 or 12, didn’t stick. Went out into the world and did my own thing. But you have to understand at the time, I was functioning in Hollywood. All kinds of different things, perspectives, lifestyles, perceptions, [and] to me this was just okay. This is the new kooky housekeeper. OK, what’s next? What do we do now? How about a reality show?I hadn't known that his wife was a Christian before he was....
Baldwin: September 11th kind of freaked me out. I said, “Hey, what’s this all about? My wife’s a Jesus freak. Maybe it’s time I begin thinking about this faith thing.” Pursued it, became born again, accepted the Lord, baptized in water.
You missed the point. Moreover you aren't even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.
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/
I took a common definition as stated, without regard to any blatant appeals to theology. You've done contrawise so the result of your link speaks for itself.
Again, unless you know all the circumstances, “may” is the proper word. Do you know all the circumstances? No, you don’t. May is equivocal. Like your responses to this issue.
I don’t care because it is essentially irrelevant.
It's quite relevant. If I shout in your ear out of sincerity is that appropriate? Again, sincerity is conditioned. If it isn't it would lead to absurd results as I have demonstrated.
Yes, it is. The author clearly states that’s what he’s doing.
If it were self-evident you wouldn't have a number of posters other than me questioning his methodology.
It is not essential, period. The letter has been released whether you like it or not, thus, it is not essential, period.
In abrogation of common principles of man to man speech and the conduct of a gentlemen. Instead, take the easy way out and splash your personal issues on the internet. I think one poster described him as a poser. I would agree.
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.
What's hilarious is the lack of spine to face your accuser man to man. Instead, hide behind the internet and call the man out. What a waste of human integrity.
The motive is listed in the letter. There’s no reason to doubt it.
I'm sure you believe everything you read and never question the method and motive.
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.
The only absurdity is suggesting you take everything at face value and suggesting that sincerity is all that is necessary.
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.
Christianity is not being attacked here. The letter writer's method and motive is.
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.
Ah, revisionist Catholic history at work. You can post anywhere as I suggested could have been done. Point missed again.
It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.
You are actually denying that an individual can write a letter to a church? You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.
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.
No you're backtracking and implicitly conceding that how something is delivered is important. Furthermore. you misconstrued or rather misstated my original point. I stated "press" as in open publication - not letter carrying. Stop playing fast and loose with the points. If indeed your are suggesting he would have used open Roman press this would be in contradiction to your point the letter was written in secret and to protect and thus in further contradiction of your point that sincerity is all that mattered.
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?
Reckless means exactly what it is. Someone publishing an open letter to someoone without having a personal dialogue with them before taking it public. I guess honor means nothing in your world.
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?
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 thought this letter writer was of the same body of Christ. I guess not.
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.
Everything could be in dispute including his own theology. Let's start putting quotes around everything that will certainly solve the issue. It will also serves to highlight disrespect. It's patronizing.
Incorrect. Claveau merely uses quote marks to show the phrase is in dispute not that Baldwin’s conviction is unreal.
The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.
You wrote:
“On the other hand, his whole family was raised Catholic. His “committed christian” life was largely a breakaway from the Catholic faith. So if the author believes the Catholic faith was correct, he actually has been a believer most of his life.”
Incorrect. It is clear from what all the Baldwin brothers have said that the faith played essentially no part in their lives besides the barest of formalism when they were young.
“And in fact, in my opinion the author used the term “new” not to suggest Baldwin was a new Christian, but instead to make a point about how Baldwin had a real faith before, but now was on some “new religious” kick that the author hopes to “save” him from by reminding him of the “true faith” of the Catholic church.”
No. The very first line of the letter is this: “Praise God, you have become a strong voice in winning souls for Jesus as one who has experienced the saving grace of the Redeemer.”
Clearly Claveau neither dismisses Baldwin’s recently discovered religious faith nor cheapens it in any way.
“BTW, here is an interesting interview Baldwin gave. You can see in here some of what might prompt a Catholic writer like this one to chide Baldwin on his “new faith”:”
I’m sure that Baldwin’s ignorance regarding orthodox Christianity is definitely one of the reasons Claveau wrote to him.
And by the way, the interview you posted merely proves me right:
Baldwin: Sure. Raised Roman Catholic up until 11 or 12, didn’t stick.
Clearly he was at best a nominal Catholic and nothing in particular after age 12 until he his religious experience at age 35.
“I hadn’t known that his wife was a Christian before he was.”
He credits her in many interviews with showing him the way towards faith.
The Roman Emperor was a pagan! So you approve of the same methodology of addressing pagans as fellow Christians? That's precious. Better stop with the appeals to historical contexts because it is not serving you well.
I'm addressing your defence of this writer's screed. If he wants to take his theological debate to the internet than that's where it will be questioned.
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. This is, again, another good example why I don’t subscribe to any religion, it distracts us from Christ, who is the only One who’s gonna save us. God was always God and Christ was always Christ long before there ever was a Catholic Church.
On the subject of being a Catholic, there is only One True Church and it’s not a building or a religion. The True Church is the body of believers, and that emcompasses all who believe that Christ died for us. There is no purgatory, no prerequisite to be baptized in order to be saved from hell, or have to confess our sins to anyone (priests, pastors etc.) but God. And all the “hail Marys” is not going to save you from hell if you don’t believe Jesus is the only way to save us from ourselves and hell.
Because he evidently left Rome for Christ, and they want him back. That’s what I get from it.
You wrote:
“You missed the point. Moreover you aren’t even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.”
Is that even English? Seriously, what does that even mean? The logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results? What?
“I took a common definition as stated, without regard to any blatant appeals to theology. You’ve done contrawise so the result of your link speaks for itself.”
Yes, it speaks to the fact that you are grossly unprepared for this conversation. 1) YOU do not decide what the common definition of evangelization is, 2) we don’t live in the first century anymore but in a post-Christian world where orthodoxy has been debased by Christians themselves who do not know any better and therefore need to be evangelized.
“May is equivocal. Like your responses to this issue.”
“May” reflects the fact that we don’t know all the circumstances while you keep pretending that you do. The simple fact is not only do you not know what’s going on here but you understand it even less.
“It’s quite relevant. If I shout in your ear out of sincerity is that appropriate?”
If you’re shouting over a great deal of noise to save my life, yes. There is no shouting in the letter either. It’s a letter. It makes no noise, no sound. Baldwin can ignore it if he wishes. I could hardly ignore your shouting in my ear.
“Again, sincerity is conditioned. If it isn’t it would lead to absurd results as I have demonstrated.”
There are no absurd results - other than the posts by Claveau’s critics in this thread. Again, what are the absurd results? Baldwin will either be interested or not. How is either outcome absurd?
“If it were self-evident you wouldn’t have a number of posters other than me questioning his methodology.”
Yes, actually I would. I am convinced anything a Catholic does will draw fire from Protestants here at FR.
“In abrogation of common principles of man to man speech and the conduct of a gentlemen. Instead, take the easy way out and splash your personal issues on the internet.”
These are not Claveau’s personal issues and it is HIS letter. Also, Justin Martyr did NOT conduct himself as a gentelman according to you - nonsense!
“I think one poster described him as a poser. I would agree.”
Sheesh! The man has committed his whole life to evangelization. He is not a poser. I’m willing to bet he has accomplished more good in his life than anyone who labels him a poser.
“What’s hilarious is the lack of spine to face your accuser man to man.”
What accuser? This is what I mean when I say that your posts are angst filled. What accuser? Who is accusing who of any wrong doing in Claveau’s letter? Claveau never once accuses Baldwin of any wrong doing. Not once. Yet you talk about lack of spine and facing your accuser? Over what accusation? What are you talking about?
“Instead, hide behind the internet and call the man out. What a waste of human integrity.”
Again, Claveau is not hiding behind the internet. If he were he would not have listed his phone number at the bottom of the letter. You attack him and attack him and he has done NOTHING to you nor has he stated a single untruth. Why are you so angry over something that won’t effect you, won’t hurt Baldwin in the least and doesn’t even concern you?
“I’m sure you believe everything you read and never question the method and motive.”
There is no reason to question the method, motive or anything in the letter. Nor have you given a single realistic reason to question any of those things. So far all you have done is post about your feelings.
“The only absurdity is suggesting you take everything at face value and suggesting that sincerity is all that is necessary.”
It is an absurdity for YOU to suggest I take everything at face value and that sincerity is all that it is necessary because that is not what I said or believe. Again, there is no REASON to question the sincerity of the letter nor have you been able to present a single rational reason to doubt the sincerity of this letter. ZERO.
“Christianity is not being attacked here.”
It is on this website - on a regular basis. And I said it was regularly defended here: “True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here.”
“The letter writer’s method and motive is.”
You are attacking the letter, the author and yet you have no rational reason to do so.
“Ah, revisionist Catholic history at work.”
Even Protestant historians recognize there are ZERO contemporary records to show that the nailing of the 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door took place. Did you know that? ZERO. The Lutheran scholar who first broached this subject was Irwin Iserloh. Remember, he was LUTHERAN - NOT CATHOLIC:
http://www.luther.de/en/tanschl.html
“You can post anywhere as I suggested could have been done. Point missed again.”
No point was missed, but clearly you make up fairy tales like “Catholic revisionist history” when you don’t like things people say. Again, the Wittenberg door story may be a myth. Accept the fact that it may be a myth. That doesn’t mean it is, but it certainly could be, Read Iserloh’s book. I read it almost 15 years ago and he makes a good case.
“You are actually denying that an individual can write a letter to a church?”
No, actually that is EXACTLY what I said: “It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.”
Now, how can I state something so clearly and yet you ask a question that clearly shows you believe I did the EXACT opposite unless you’re just not interested in what people actually say? You make the same mistake with Claveau’s letter. What he wrote is there in black and white and yet you come up with all sorts of things that clearly don’t apply.
“You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.”
Incorrect. I clearly have no problems with it at all. You, however, are stating the EXACT opposite of what I actually wrote and trying to pass it off as if I said it.
“No you’re backtracking and implicitly conceding that how something is delivered is important.”
No. There is no backtracking at all. Remember you used the bizarre example of this letter being a porn magazine. I am simply stick to common sense methods - including open letters which have been around among Christians since at least the time of Justin Martyr. You can only call upon bizarre Penthouse and shouting in someone’s ears as your rejoinder examples. Bizarre. Open letters are not bizarre.
“Furthermore. you misconstrued or rather misstated my original point. I stated “press” as in open publication - not letter carrying.”
No. Press is not publication in any case. Your argument is not making any sense.
“Stop playing fast and loose with the points.”
You really aren’t making any.
“If indeed your are suggesting he would have used open Roman press this would be in contradiction to your point the letter was written in secret and to protect and thus in further contradiction of your point that sincerity is all that mattered.”
No, not at all. The two issues are separate as I already said: 1) If the press of today existed in ancient Rome, Paul would have used it to preach. 2) He wrote the letter to the Romans SECRETLY to protect their lives because they didn’t live in a free society.
Would St. Paul ONLY speak to people in person or would he go ahead and use television if it existed in his day?
“Reckless means exactly what it is. Someone publishing an open letter to someoone without having a personal dialogue with them before taking it public. I guess honor means nothing in your world.”
Oh, there we go - another personal attack because you have no argument whatsoever. An open letter is a perfectly acceptable form of communication on a religious issue when a public personality is addressed who has made his religion a public topic. He’s an actor. He has talked openly about his conversion and his beliefs and ministry. That means there is NOTHING wrong with addressing him in an open letter.
“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.”
1) I have my friend’s phone number and can contact him anytime I choose. I doubt Claveau has Baldwin’s phone number and they have probably never met.
2) Yes, a public figure can be addressed in a public way.
3) There’s nothing offensive about the letter, its contents or the fact that it is open.
“I thought this letter writer was of the same body of Christ. I guess not.”
No, Claveau is in the Body of Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith and that is exactly why Claveau is urging him to look into the Church, the body of Christ.
“Everything could be in dispute including his own theology.”
Not in his own letter.
“Let’s start putting quotes around everything that will certainly solve the issue. It will also serves to highlight disrespect. It’s patronizing.”
No, it’s merely correct. There is no point to dialogue without a committment toward truth. Claveau presents the truth all the way through the letter.
“The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.”
Incorrect. The phrase is in dispute between the Church and those who claim the term against her. Claveau, a member of the Church, presents the side of the Church to Baldwin and therefore writes the term correctly - as one in dispute.
If you are baptised and raised in the Catholic church, you are a christian, according to the Catholic church. If he fell away at 11 or 12, the question is whether he finished Catechism or not I guess. if he did, then he’s a fallen Catholic, not a new believer, according to the Church.
In Catholic church doctrine, you don’t cease to be a believer (or saved) because you fall away from the faith. You simply must return to the faith and confess your sins.
I interpret the author’s glowing words about Baldwin’s faith as cover for his real message, not as sincerely as you take them. Kind of like “It’s nice and all that you have this faith you are sharing, but you really need to get back to the real faith you were born into if you want to do some good, otherwise you are just deceiving those you think you are helping”.
But that’s just my interpretation. I imagine that it looks different to people with different religious backgrounds.
You wrote:
“The Roman Emperor was a pagan! So you approve of the same methodology of addressing pagans as fellow Christians?”
So open letters can only be sent to pagans? What planet are you from?
“That’s precious. Better stop with the appeals to historical contexts because it is not serving you well.”
History is serving me perfectly well. A Christian used an open letter. His name was Justin Martyr. He was separated by great distance form the emperor. That was the reason for the open letter - and to evangelize others. I see Claveau acting the same way. It has nothing to do with the religion of the man the letter is addressed to.
You wrote:
“Your use of Acts is to misuse its context. The writer claims Baldwin is a Christian not an unbeliever in Christ.”
That has nothing at all to do with my use of Acts. There was no misuse.
“I’m addressing your defence of this writer’s screed.”
No. You posted in the thread BEFORE me. Thus, you had a problem with CLAVEAU before you could possibly claim to have had a problem with me. Again, why aren’t you following your own dictates and addressing your complaints to Claveau directly? Why aren’t you following your own advice?
“If he wants to take his theological debate to the internet than that’s where it will be questioned.”
And if Baldwin takes his religious views onto the internet? Hmmmm...http://www.thelordslounge.com/home.htm
So, you won’t address Claveau directly - even though you insist he should do that with Baldwin and you are question his integrity, sincerity, etc.?
And, on top of that, Baldwin is online with his views, but no one can address an open letter online to him?
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’d say you’re just trying to ignore what you don’t like.
“This is, again, another good example why I don’t subscribe to any religion, it distracts us from Christ, who is the only One who’s gonna save us.”
Christ’s Church in itself cannot distract anyone from Christ because it is His Body.
“God was always God and Christ was always Christ long before there ever was a Catholic Church.”
No. The Second Person of the Trinity became the Christ in the womb of Mary. He was not Christ in the truest sense until He became man for only then could He carry out His redemptive mission. Also, the Church flowed from the side of Christ on the Cross. As St. John Chrysostom wrote: “Water and blood symbolized baptism and the Holy Eucharist. From these two sacraments the church is born: from baptism, the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal from the Holy Spirit, and from the Holy Eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam.”
“On the subject of being a Catholic, there is only One True Church and it’s not a building or a religion.”
No one claims it is a building so I am always amazed that people make a point of denying what no one claims the Church to be. The Church is not a religion, but Christianity is. The one, true Church was established by Christ - the Catholic Church.
“The True Church is the body of believers, and that emcompasses all who believe that Christ died for us.”
No. That was only true when all believers were Catholics. Since the rise of heretical sects, it can no longer be claimed that all believers in Christ are in the Church.
“There is no purgatory,”
Yes, actually there is. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp
“...no prerequisite to be baptized in order to be saved from hell,”
Well, except for in the Bible! http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
” or have to confess our sins to anyone (priests, pastors etc.) but God.”
Well, except for John 20:19-23
“And all the “hail Marys” is not going to save you from hell if you don’t believe Jesus is the only way to save us from ourselves and hell.”
True. But then again no one believes otherwise so why condemn what no one even believes?
Christianity is not about being a Lone Ranger and making it up as you go along. When you wrote: “This is, again, another good example why I don’t subscribe to any religion, it distracts us from Christ, who is the only One who’s gonna save us” you forget that Christ sent the Apostles. Christianity is not a consumer product to tailer to your satisfaction.
You wrote:
“If you are baptised and raised in the Catholic church, you are a christian, according to the Catholic church.”
In Baldwin’s case, he abandoned the Church, ditched some orthodox beliefs, and joined a sect.
“If he fell away at 11 or 12, the question is whether he finished Catechism or not I guess.”
No, that is not the question.
“if he did, then he’s a fallen Catholic, not a new believer, according to the Church.”
He is a fallen away Catholic, but he has discovered faith for the first time in many, many years - perhaps the first time in his life if his background is anything to go by.
“In Catholic church doctrine, you don’t cease to be a believer (or saved) because you fall away from the faith.”
Baldwin has joined a sect and adopted unorthodox ideas. He no longer would be considered a believer in the fullness of the faith (if he ever really was one) though he might be called (as I would say) a believer since he does believe in Christ.
“You simply must return to the faith and confess your sins.”
No, for him there would be more since his marriage might not have been performed by the Catholic Church for instance.
“I interpret the author’s glowing words about Baldwin’s faith as cover for his real message, not as sincerely as you take them.”
Okay, but you have no reason to. Again, what is it that Claveau has said that is so terrible?
“Kind of like “It’s nice and all that you have this faith you are sharing, but you really need to get back to the real faith you were born into if you want to do some good, otherwise you are just deceiving those you think you are helping”.”
I don’t see how that in any way means it is a cover. I firmly believe Stephen Baldwin is a Christian (and a better man because of his faith than he used to be as a lapsed Catholic). At the same time, because Christ established His Church and wanted all men to be one in Him, Baldwin should come home. There is no contradiction there.
“But that’s just my interpretation. I imagine that it looks different to people with different religious backgrounds.”
True. But why do we have different religious backgrounds when Christ established only one Church?
As I thought. You don't get the point of sincerity trumps all. Next.
Yes, it speaks to the fact that you are grossly unprepared for this conversation. 1) YOU do not decide what the common definition of evangelization is, 2) we don’t live in the first century anymore but in a post-Christian world where orthodoxy has been debased by Christians themselves who do not know any better and therefore need to be evangelized.
And neither do you decide. 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.
“May” reflects the fact that we don’t know all the circumstances while you keep pretending that you do. The simple fact is not only do you not know what’s going on here but you understand it even less.
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.
If you’re shouting over a great deal of noise to save my life, yes. There is no shouting in the letter either. It’s a letter. It makes no noise, no sound. Baldwin can ignore it if he wishes. I could hardly ignore your shouting in my ear.
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.
There are no absurd results - other than the posts by Claveau’s critics in this thread. Again, what are the absurd results? Baldwin will either be interested or not. How is either outcome absurd?
The absurd results is presuming that sincerity alone guides the method of discussion. You have no idea whether Baldwin would be offended at being called out, effectively as a wayward Catholic! 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.
Yes, actually I would. I am convinced anything a Catholic does will draw fire from Protestants here at FR.
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.
These are not Claveau’s personal issues and it is HIS letter. Also, Justin Martyr did NOT conduct himself as a gentelman according to you - nonsense!
No it isn't nonsense. Sheesh! The man has committed his whole life to evangelization. He is not a poser. I’m willing to bet he has accomplished more good in his life than anyone who labels him a poser.
Now you're presuming. Classic.
What accuser? This is what I mean when I say that your posts are angst filled. What accuser? Who is accusing who of any wrong doing in Claveau’s letter? Claveau never once accuses Baldwin of any wrong doing. Not once. Yet you talk about lack of spine and facing your accuser? Over what accusation? What are you talking about?
He's accusing him of living under false presumptions of Christianity. I thought that was clear enough by his quotation marks around 'born again' and his Catholic propaganda. 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.
Again, Claveau is not hiding behind the internet. If he were he would not have listed his phone number at the bottom of the letter. You attack him and attack him and he has done NOTHING to you nor has he stated a single untruth. Why are you so angry over something that won’t effect you, won’t hurt Baldwin in the least and doesn’t even concern you?
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. 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.
Secondly I'm not mad about anything, I'm responding to your posts. But I guess presumptions don't work both ways.
There is no reason to question the method, motive or anything in the letter. Nor have you given a single realistic reason to question any of those things. So far all you have done is post about your feelings.
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. You could care less. For you it's all about the message and to hell with how it's delivered.
You are attacking the letter, the author and yet you have no rational reason to do so.
Yes I have a rational reason and you don't care for it. That's simple enough. Even Protestant historians recognize there are ZERO contemporary records to show that the nailing of the 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door took place. Did you know that? ZERO.
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.
No point was missed, but clearly you make up fairy tales like “Catholic revisionist history” when you don’t like things people say. Again, the Wittenberg door story may be a myth. Accept the fact that it may be a myth. That doesn’t mean it is, but it certainly could be, Read Iserloh’s book. I read it almost 15 years ago and he makes a good case.
It may be myth and it may be the truth but that point was irrelevant! No, actually that is EXACTLY what I said: “It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.”
Now, how can I state something so clearly and yet you ask a question that clearly shows you believe I did the EXACT opposite unless you’re just not interested in what people actually say? You make the same mistake with Claveau’s letter. What he wrote is there in black and white and yet you come up with all sorts of things that clearly don’t apply.
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.
“You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.”
Quite obviously the problem is yours. ” No. There is no backtracking at all. Remember you used the bizarre example of this letter being a porn magazine. I am simply stick to common sense methods - including open letters which have been around among Christians since at least the time of Justin Martyr. You can only call upon bizarre Penthouse and shouting in someone’s ears as your rejoinder examples. Bizarre. Open letters are not bizarre.
Again you missed the point about methodology and manner of delivery so it doesn't surprise me you restated your error.
No, not at all. The two issues are separate as I already said: 1) If the press of today existed in ancient Rome, Paul would have used it to preach. 2) He wrote the letter to the Romans SECRETLY to protect their lives because they didn’t live in a free society.
And so then knowing subject A the Romans and subject B Paul's intention you surmised that open propaganda wasn't necessary. 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. 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. Would St. Paul ONLY speak to people in person or would he go ahead and use television if it existed in his day?
I feel certain that he would communicate personally before he made a grand show of it on some blog.
Oh, there we go - another personal attack because you have no argument whatsoever. An open letter is a perfectly acceptable form of communication on a religious issue when a public personality is addressed who has made his religion a public topic. He’s an actor. He has talked openly about his conversion and his beliefs and ministry. That means there is NOTHING wrong with addressing him in an open letter.
And you know Baldwin. You can presume to suggest that he doesn't need to be spoken to personally. 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. As I stated, that's not Christianity. That's religious propagandizing.
1) I have my friend’s phone number and can contact him anytime I choose. I doubt Claveau has Baldwin’s phone number and they have probably never met.
Boy for someone who stated he doesn't presume and in fact doesn't know you sure want to assume a lot.
No, Claveau is in the Body of Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith and that is exactly why Claveau is urging him to look into the Church, the body of Christ.
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? Because he doesn't subscribe to Catholic ideology? Far from it. But that is not the point of this discussion as that will degenerate into schismatic discussions. 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. 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. 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.
“The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.” Incorrect. The phrase is in dispute between the Church and those who claim the term against her. Claveau, a member of the Church, presents the side of the Church to Baldwin and therefore writes the term correctly - as one in dispute.
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.
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.