In Remembrance of a True Hero of the Faith--- St. Patrick: The Greatest Missionary Since St. Paul

We live in a time of the anti-hero. Too often, the good guys are the bad guys and vice versa. Celebrities are often held up as heroes, until we learn too much about them.

But to see a true hero, look at the real St. Patrick, who has a day dedicated in his honor. Unfortunately, many people only observe his holiday, March 17, by drinking themselves silly, which is totally contrary to the spirit of the man who Christianized Ireland.

In fact, Patrick shows what God can do through someone who is committed fully to Him.

Thomas Cahill, author of the book, How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe, notes that Patrick and the Irish came at the moment of a cultural cliff-hanger and played a key role in helping to save civilization.

In the 5th century, barbarians overran the Roman Empire---which was the repository of much of Western civilization---until it finally collapsed. Meanwhile, through the missionary work of Patrick (387-461), the gospel was brought to Ireland; and numerous men became monks as a result, who meticulously copied manuscripts of the Bible and of many of the writings of antiquity.

Cahill writes: “For, as the Roman Empire fell, as all through Europe matted, unwashed barbarians descended on the Roman cities, looting artifacts and burning books, the Irish, who were just learning to read and write, took up the great labor of copying all of Western literature---everything they could lay their hands on.”

He notes, “These scribes then served as conduits through which the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures were transmitted to the tribes of Europe, newly settled amid the rubble and ruined vineyards of the civilization they had overwhelmed.”

Cahill adds, “Without this Service of the Scribes, everything that happened subsequently would have been unthinkable. Without the Mission of the Irish Monks, who single-handedly refounded European civilization throughout the continent in the bays and valleys of their exile, the world that came after then would have been an entirely different one---a world without books. And our own world would never have come to be.”

Many of the details of his life we learn through a document he wrote late in his life, Confession. This was not a book of confessions of his sins, but rather a statement of his beliefs. It is autobiographical in nature.

Patrick (to the surprise of many) was not Irish by birth, but rather grew up in England as a nominal Christian. He said in Confession, “I did not know the true God.”

At the age of 16, marauding Irish pirates laid waste his city and captured slaves, including Patrick. Later he would write of this: "As a youth, nay, almost as a boy not able to speak, I was taken captive, before I knew what to pursue and what to avoid."

Patrick said, “I was taken into captivity to Ireland with many thousands of people---and deservedly so, because we turned away from God, and did not keep His commandments."

For six years, he worked as a slave for a landowning chief. Cahill notes that during this time, Patrick had two companions---hunger and nakedness.

While he served as a shepherd, he remembered his prayers of his youth and came to know God truly through Christ. After six years of captivity, he was able to providentially escape from Ireland.

The late Dr. D. James Kennedy notes, “[Patrick] vowed revenge---the noble revenge of sharing the gospel with the people who held him captive. He believed that he had been called by God to return to the land of his slavery.”

So Patrick, after some theological training, eventually returned to Ireland where he spent the rest of his life (about thirty years) as a missionary. Patrick may well have baptized about 120,000 souls. Some scholars note that he was the most successful missionary since the Apostle Paul.

Patrick wrote this, "Daily, I expect murder, fraud or captivity…but I fear none of these things because of the promises of heaven. I have cast myself into the hands of God almighty who rules everywhere.”

There’s a famous prayer attributed to Patrick that was inspired by him---although in its present form, it was likely written later. This beautiful statement of faith is called “St. Patrick’s Breastplate.”

Here is a portion of the prayer: “I arise today through God’s strength to pilot me: God’s might to uphold me, God’s wisdom to guide me…Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me…”

So remember the next time you see someone get drunk on St. Paddy’s Day, they dishonor the memory a great hero of the faith and of the ages.

RE: False. I am not “ROMAN Catholic”. I am just Catholic.

Well, in which case, welcome to the club... I am a member of the catholic ( i.e. UNIVERSAL ) church too.

As for not being ROMAN catholic, I’ll have to determine that from the ensuing statements that you make.

RE: I never said it did. I said BELIEVING IN CHRIST AND BEING BAPTIZED did. I suggest you spend more time actually reading what I post rather than making things up out of thin air.

Well, if BELIEVING IN CHRIST AND BEING BAPTIZED makes one a Christian, then James Kennedy IS Christian. He has DONE BOTH.

RE: Nope. Believing in a false gospel makes someone a heretic. Believing in Christ and being baptized makes you a Christian.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. You MUST believe in the TRUE gospel to be a true Christian.

Gnosticism was considered a heresy (Ireneaus fought against it in his work AGAINST HERESIES).

The Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs.

Here is what the apostle John said against this belief masking as being Christians:

(1 John 2: 18-20 )

“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”

The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind; and we would still be lost in our sins. Yet, they claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.

So, based on what the apostle John wrote, being a heretic does NOT make one a Christian. They DO NOT BELONG to Christ.

RE: No, but St. Patrick was Catholic. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Nope, Patrick was catholic in the sense that he was a member of the UNIVERSAL ( catholic ) church in the sense that he preached the orthodox, scriptural Christian faith.

Anybody who confesses to Patrick’s faith IS a member of the catholic (universal) church.

RE: He didn’t have to be. He was canonized by acclamation. That was common in his time.

Well in this case, any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).

RE: So? As I said, St. Patrick was canonized by acclamation. That was all that was needed.

Well if so, then I repeat -— any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).

RE: R-I-G-H-T. You’ve already admitted one error (”OK, I admit poor choice of words”)

When one chooses words poorly, one admits it. That does not necessarily mean that other things one says is in error as well.

RE: I never said “those whoa re not ROMAN Catholic [are] non-believers in the Gospel”.

But you said James Kennedy ( a none Roman Catholic ) did not believe in the gospel. It was there in your post above.

RE: So, even when I write very clearly - and that’s all the time - you can’t help but “misunderstand” and “misquote” me.

Again, why is James Kennedy not a believer in the gospel?
I’ve asked you this several times, I’m still waiting for an answer...

RE: I know. And I’m still going to ignore it. My reason is simple: I see you are already completely inventing out of whole cloth things I’ve never said or believed.

Again, I am asking you for you to CLARIFY what you mean by the term “Not believe in the gospel”.

So, I’m still waiting.... why are you ignoring my attempt at seeking clarification?

RE: Nope. I will merely continue to post what I want, when I want, where I want, and how I want - within the rules of the board. Based on your misrepresentations of what.

Well, I guess based on the above response you are making, your statement that “James Kennedy does not believe in the gospel” is just that, a personal belief no one can take seriously.

“Well, in which case, welcome to the club... I am a member of the catholic ( i.e. UNIVERSAL ) church too.”

No, you’re just a Protestant. No Protestant is “catholic” by definition.

“As for not being ROMAN catholic, I’ll have to determine that from the ensuing statements that you make.”

You don’t get to make that determination. The Catholic Church does.

“Well, if BELIEVING IN CHRIST AND BEING BAPTIZED makes one a Christian, then James Kennedy IS Christian. He has DONE BOTH.”

Did I ever say otherwise? No. He believed in a false gospel. I never doubted he believed in Jesus and was baptized.

“Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. You MUST believe in the TRUE gospel to be a true Christian.”

No. You must believe in the true gospel to be a Christian in the fullest sense of the term. You can, however, be a Christian and have false beliefs - even about the gospel - as Protestants demonstrate every day.

“Gnosticism was considered a heresy (Ireneaus fought against it in his work AGAINST HERESIES).”

Yes, and?

“The Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs.”

And they were wrong, of course.

“Here is what the apostle John said against this belief masking as being Christians:(1 John 2: 18-20 )”

John denounced false teachers - just as he would have denounced D. James Kennedy.

“The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent.”

And not at all at issue here so I have no idea why you’re going on and on about it.

“So, based on what the apostle John wrote, being a heretic does NOT make one a Christian. They DO NOT BELONG to Christ.”

1) I never said being a heretic MAKES ONE A CHRISTIAN. The idea that you just spent time and energy to refute something no one ever claimed is hilarious!

2) Gnosticism denied the Trinity, the Incarnation, and numerous other basic Christian doctrines.

“Nope, Patrick was catholic in the sense that he was a member of the UNIVERSAL ( catholic ) church in the sense that he preached the orthodox, scriptural Christian faith.”

St. Patrick was Catholic. He believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the authority of the pope. He believed in a priesthood (he was celibate as well), and sacraments in the Catholic sense. The Church was most decidedly “UNIVERSAL ( catholic )” for it was after all the Catholic Church. Even Protestants have had to admit that St. Patrick was Catholic: James McGoldrick has an excellent chapter about exactly that: http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Successionism-James-Edward-McGoldrick/dp/0810836815

“Anybody who confesses to Patrick’s faith IS a member of the catholic (universal) church.”

Which isn’t your puny, latter day, 16th century or later, invented sect. It’s the Catholic Church.

“Well in this case, any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).”

No. To say that anyone who does anything - no matter how good - has received acclamation for it by the faithful is simply untrue. Also, the saints who were acclaimed as such were known to lived lives of heroic virtue. They need not have ever “preached” a moment in their entire lives. Preaching is no more necessary for canonization that it is for justification of sanctification.

“Well if so, then I repeat -— any faithful Christian who faithfully preaches the gospel and lives for Christ is by virtue of his faith, a saint, canonized by acclamation ( whether the Roman Catholic church officially canonizes him or not ).”

And you’re still wrong - as I already demonstrated. Most people, even those who go to heaven, are never acclaimed a saint after their deaths. No acclamation means no canonization by acclamation. Your premise, therefore, is inherently flawed.

“When one chooses words poorly, one admits it. That does not necessarily mean that other things one says is in error as well.”

But since you have made other errors - as with your flawed premise above - we can all see the direction your error filled posts are going.

“But you said James Kennedy ( a none Roman Catholic ) did not believe in the gospel. It was there in your post above.”

He believed a false gospel. Yes, and?

“Again, why is James Kennedy not a believer in the gospel?”

Shouldn’t you ask him that? He’s dead so I don’t think you’ll be finding out soon.

“I’ve asked you this several times, I’m still waiting for an answer...”

No, you asked perhaps once before this post - when you asked me to elaborate. And I did so. The question is answered. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the answer.

“Again, I am asking you for you to CLARIFY what you mean by the term “Not believe in the gospel”.”

I already stated - in very simple, short sentences for your convenience - all that is needed for clarification on that point.

“So, I’m still waiting.... why are you ignoring my attempt at seeking clarification?”

I didn’t. Maybe you should read the thread. See post #8.

“Well, I guess based on the above response you are making, your statement that “James Kennedy does not believe in the gospel” is just that, a personal belief no one can take seriously.”

No, it was an objectively true statement and irrefutable in fact.

RE: No, you’re just a Protestant. No Protestant is “catholic” by definition.

Nope, Protestants are NOT ROMAN Catholic by definition. The term “Catholic” means UNIVERSAL. As long as one believes in Jesus Christ and His teachings one IS by definition, a member of the catholic (universal) church.

RE: You don’t get to make that determination. The Catholic Church does.

In which case, the CATHOLIC church did make the determination by virtue of the Lord of the Church — Jesus Christ Himself.

RE: He believed in a false gospel. I never doubted he believed in Jesus and was baptized.

Which goes back to the original question which you never answered — what is the true gospel?

I’m still waiting....

RE: No. You must believe in the true gospel to be a Christian in the fullest sense of the term.

Agree. In which case, heretics are NOT Christians. Not in the fullest sense of the word.

RE: You can, however, be a Christian and have false beliefs - even about the gospel - as Protestants demonstrate every day.

NOT NECESSARILY. It depends on the ESSENTIALS of what one believes or denies. Gnostics are not Christians because they DENY an essential of the Christian faith — the INCARNATION of Jesus Christ. They say they are Christians and they practice baptism but John says THEY ARE NOT OF US.

So, simply having false beliefs is not the criteria — it is the ESSENTIALNESS of the false beliefs that differentiates a Christian from a non-Christian.

RE: “Gnosticism was considered a heresy (Ireneaus fought against it in his work AGAINST HERESIES).”

Yes, and?

AND THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT CHRISTIANS EVEN AS THEIR BELIEFS WERE FALSE. They were also considered HERETICAL.

So, a heretic ( one who denies ESSENTIAL Christian belief ) CANNOT BE Christian ( as per John’s epistle ).

RE: I never said being a heretic MAKES ONE A CHRISTIAN. The idea that you just spent time and energy to refute something no one ever claimed is hilarious!

But you said one can have heretical beliefs and still be Christian. So, I guess the question becomes — HOW SERIOUS and ESSENTIAL a heretical belief should be.

I would then say believing in a FALSE GOSPEL qualifies as being a serious heretic, one who CANNOT BE Christian.

So, it goes back to my question TO YOU — what is the gospel?

Since you said Kennedy believes in a FALSE GOSPEL.

I want to understand how FALSE his belief is to you.

RE: St. Patrick was Catholic. He believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the authority of the pope.

Well, I believe in the authority of the Pope — IN SO FAR AS HIS TEACHNGS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCRIPTURE. Does that make me a Roman Catholic?

I believe the Pope’s authority derives from GOD’s word, if He teaches God’s word faithfully, then he has God’s authority. But then I believe that authority applies to every person as well.

As for the REAL PRESENCE in the Eucharist, can you cite me a writing of St. Patrick that shows us that he believes that?

RE: No. To say that anyone who does anything - no matter how good - has received acclamation for it by the faithful is simply untrue.

Says who? YOU? Well that’s just you.

RE: Also, the saints who were acclaimed as such were known to lived lives of heroic virtue.

And so? What about those other Christians who have lived lives of heroic virtue that men do not know of but God knows of? Why can’t they be acclaimed?

RE: They need not have ever “preached” a moment in their entire lives. Preaching is no more necessary for canonization that it is for justification of sanctification.

Canonization is only a process for those who MEN KNOW ABOUT.

It is not necesssary for considering someone a true saint.

There are MANY Saints we do not know of that are true saints in God’s eyes.

RE: Which isn’t your puny, latter day, 16th century or later, invented sect. It’s the Catholic Church.

If one is faithful to the ORIGINAL teachings of the apostles as given in scripture, it is NOT your puny, latter day invented sect. It IS the faith as originally given by Jesus Himself.

RE: And you’re still wrong - as I already demonstrated. Most people, even those who go to heaven, are never acclaimed a saint after their deaths. No acclamation means no canonization by acclamation. Your premise, therefore, is inherently flawed.

Nope, it is your premise that is false. One does not need men’s acclamation, one need’s GOD’s acclamation whether men know it or not.

RE: he Church was most decidedly “UNIVERSAL ( catholic )” for it was after all the Catholic Church. Even Protestants have had to admit that St. Patrick was Catholic:

I never said St. Patrick was not catholic, I simply question your definition of the word — catholic as exclusive to those who go to the church that you go to.

Catholic is the Greek phrase (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general”. One is a member of Christ’s CATHOLIC church by virtue of belief in Him and His teachings.

“For whosoever BELIEVES in Him HAS everlasting life” ( John 3:16 ).

St. Patrick is catholic, yes, but so are those who are NOT in the ROMAN catholic church.

RE: He believed a false gospel. Yes, and?

And it begs the question -— WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

You have to DEFINE it for us to determine whether your statement is right or wrong.

RE: No, it was an objectively true statement and irrefutable in fact

If it is an objectively true statement, then you should be able to tell me — WHAT IS THE TRUE GOSPEL? You have been avoiding the question and thus far, doing a very good job of NOT ANSWERING it.

Here is what the apostle Paul said about the gospel:

1 Corinthians 15 ( I use the Douay Rheams version ):

Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; [2] By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: [5] And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.

Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. [7] After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. [8] And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. [10] But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.

[11] For whether I, or they, so we preach, and so you have believed.

_________________

OK, that is what St. Paul preached as THE GOSPEL.

Why in your opinion, does Kennedy NOT believe in that?

“Nope, Protestants are NOT ROMAN Catholic by definition.”

No, Protestants are Protestant by definition. To say they aren’t “ROMAN Catholic by definition” might make them Melkite Catholics or Maronites or Eastern Orthodox. Notice how you said they were not Christian by definition? You apparently have a lower opinion of Protestants than someone might first think – and you’re one of them.

“The term “Catholic” means UNIVERSAL. As long as one believes in Jesus Christ and His teachings one IS by definition, a member of the catholic (universal) church.”

Protestants believe in heresies so they do not believe all that is necessary to be in the Church. They have sects, tens of thousands of them, but no Church.

“In which case, the CATHOLIC church did make the determination by virtue of the Lord of the Church — Jesus Christ Himself.”

The Catholic Church already has determined that Protestantism is heresy. Protestants are not in the Church.

“Which goes back to the original question which you never answered — what is the true gospel?”

I did answer why his was false.

“I’m still waiting....”

Great. You’re going to be waiting until the thread dies out. Get comfy.

“Agree.”

If you did, you would have just contradicted yourself.

“ In which case, heretics are NOT Christians. Not in the fullest sense of the word.”

A heretic can be Christian – hence, Protestants are Christians. They just aren’t Christians in the fullest sense.

“NOT NECESSARILY. It depends on the ESSENTIALS of what one believes or denies. Gnostics are not Christians because they DENY an essential of the Christian faith — the INCARNATION of Jesus Christ. They say they are Christians and they practice baptism but John says THEY ARE NOT OF US.”

Being “NOT OF US” does not stop a Protestant from being a Christian. It means he is not a Christian in the fullest sense and is not in communion with the Church.

“So, simply having false beliefs is not the criteria — it is the ESSENTIALNESS of the false beliefs that differentiates a Christian from a non-Christian.”

Protestants are “NOT OF US”.

“AND THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT CHRISTIANS EVEN AS THEIR BELIEFS WERE FALSE. They were also considered HERETICAL.”

Gnosticism was not Christian. Gnostics were luring Christians into their sects. Some Gnostics even entered the Church and lived as Christians for some years. Hence, the worry over their doctrines as heresies was very real and realistic.

“So, a heretic ( one who denies ESSENTIAL Christian belief ) CANNOT BE Christian ( as per John’s epistle ).”

That isn’t what John says. The fact that he says they are not “of us” does not mean they are not Christian. It means they are not in the Church.

“But you said one can have heretical beliefs and still be Christian.”

Protestants are living proof of that.

“So, I guess the question becomes — HOW SERIOUS and ESSENTIAL a heretical belief should be.”

No, the question should be: why belong to a heretical group or why embrace any heresy like Protestantism?

“I would then say believing in a FALSE GOSPEL qualifies as being a serious heretic, one who CANNOT BE Christian.”

Since what you say simply doesn’t matter, and you don’t get to decide these things, it’s still certain that Protestants believe in heresy but are Christians nonetheless.

“So, it goes back to my question TO YOU — what is the gospel?”

You still comfy?

“Since you said Kennedy believes in a FALSE GOSPEL. I want to understand how FALSE his belief is to you.”

It doesn’t matter how false his beliefs are to me.

“Well, I believe in the authority of the Pope — IN SO FAR AS HIS TEACHNGS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCRIPTURE.”

I don’t believe you for a second on both counts.

“Does that make me a Roman Catholic?”

Ask one. I’m Catholic.

“I believe the Pope’s authority derives from GOD’s word, if He teaches God’s word faithfully, then he has God’s authority. But then I believe that authority applies to every person as well.”

Sorry, I have no reason to believe you are being honest in your answer.

“As for the REAL PRESENCE in the Eucharist, can you cite me a writing of St. Patrick that shows us that he believes that?”

Read James McGoldrick’s book.

“ Says who? YOU? Well that’s just you.”

No, it’s just objective fact.

“And so? What about those other Christians who have lived lives of heroic virtue that men do not know of but God knows of? Why can’t they be acclaimed?”

Because they’re not known. You answered your own question when you said, “What about those other Christians who have lived lives of heroic virtue that men do not know of but God knows of?” Do you think about what you post?

“Canonization is only a process for those who MEN KNOW ABOUT.”

Did anyone ever claim it was a process for those who were
not known?

“It is not necesssary for considering someone a true saint.”

So you’re claiming it is necessary for considering someone an untrue saint? Do you actually pay attention to what you write?

“There are MANY Saints we do not know of that are true saints in God’s eyes.”

Of course. Is anyone claiming otherwise? Why are you spending so much time – again – arguing against things no one has posted???

“If one is faithful to the ORIGINAL teachings of the apostles as given in scripture, it is NOT your puny, latter day invented sect. It IS the faith as originally given by Jesus Himself.”

No Protestant is faithful “to the ORIGINAL teachings of the apostles as given in scripture”.

“Nope, it is your premise that is false.”

Nope, only yours. No acclamation means no canonization by acclamation. That is irrefutable.

“One does not need men’s acclamation, one need’s GOD’s acclamation whether men know it or not.”

Again, who here is claiming otherwise?

“I never said St. Patrick was not catholic, I simply question your definition of the word — catholic as exclusive to those who go to the church that you go to.”

The very understanding of “catholic” precludes the inclusion of Protestantism. It’s not about my definition of the word. It’s about THE definition of the word and THE definition of Protestantism.

“Catholic is the Greek phrase (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general”. One is a member of Christ’s CATHOLIC church by virtue of belief in Him and His teachings.”

Nope. One is catholic only when he is Catholic. No Protestant can be Catholic because he is a Protestant. He must leave behind his heresy to be Catholic. No one can be Protestant (i.e. a holder of heretical doctrines lumped together under the banner of “Protestantism”) and be “universal” at the same time. Heresies are particular untruths. Holding to them draws you away from what is Catholic.

“St. Patrick is catholic, yes, but so are those who are NOT in the ROMAN catholic church.”

The only Catholics are Catholics. No Protestant is a Catholic. St. Patrick was Catholic.

“And it begs the question -— WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?”

It doesn’t beg the question. Still comfy?

“You have to DEFINE it for us to determine whether your statement is right or wrong.”

I post what I want, where I want and how I want – within the rules. You have no claim to determine what is right or wrong and your track record so far doesn’t inspire confidence.

“If it is an objectively true statement, then you should be able to tell me — WHAT IS THE TRUE GOSPEL?”

I am able. That doesn’t mean I’ll do what you want. Still comfy?

“You have been avoiding the question and thus far, doing a very good job of NOT ANSWERING it.”

Stay comfy.

“Here is what the apostle Paul said about the gospel:”

And yet Protestants teach a false gospel.

“OK, that is what St. Paul preached as THE GOSPEL. Why in your opinion, does Kennedy NOT believe in that?”

He didn’t. I already said why.

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.