Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
I think it is very good of Baldwin to speak of his faith, especially given his notoriety. But one who expresses his faith publicly should be invited to also rationally explain it. “Sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
annalex,
learn those words. They mean something crucial. You asked
what my beef was. I told you. Now you attack me instead of
dealing with what I said clearly. Was that your intent?
ampu
I don’t like evangelizing? Christ told us to go into the world and preach the “Good News”.
John1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Can’t argue the Scriptures. The Word=Christ.
Baptizing is symbolic. The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized and Christ told him “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise”.
As for purgatory, Luke 16:19-31 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham’, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, becvause I am in agony in this fire.
But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad thing, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.
He answered, ‘Then I beg you father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one come to the Father except through me.”
The only way you will go to Hell is complete rejection of Christ. I’m not talking about people who haven’t heard the gospel, I’m talking about people who heard and rejected the message of salvation.
As far as being a “lone ranger”, I read the Bible everyday and have not let dogmas get in the way of understanding God’s Word. I grew up in a church and it didn’t hurt me any. I have found that too many churches have lost sight of it’s purpose and have become too political. I don’t need someone else to feed me God’s Word. It’s great that people still want to go to church, but as far as I’m concerned, I don’t need someone forcing their doctrine down my throat especially when it isn’t even scriptural. If it’s in the Bible I believe it, if it isn’t I’m not buying it. I have the Holy Spirit to convict me when I’m doing something wrong. I have so much still to learn and God is continually molding me into the person He wants me to be.
Being Catholic is an organized religion, christians are followers of Christ, not a religion.
I agree that not all who are in the church are christians, but you saying that only true believers are Catholic is very arrogant of you. There’s as many charlatans in the Catholic church as any other. How do you justify all the pedophilia in the Catholic Church, much less the homosexuality? This is what you call the True Church? And I’m not saying that that only happens in the Catholic church. I don’t mean to disparage the Catholic Church but they, like other religions, have their flaws. How many people go to church and don’t even believe in God, much less Christ and His sacrifice on the cross? I’m far from perfect and that’s why I need God. As far as confession goes, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteous”. But I don’t need some Priest, or Pastor, to do that, I can go to my mediator, Christ, and do it. And I don’t tailor anything to my liking. I’m so sick and tired of people passing off doctrine as gospel, I, for one, would not want to lead someone astray with something that is not scripturally based. Just cuz the church says it, don’t make it so. I read God’s word, that’s what He wants me to do so I can apply it to my life, and when the opportunity arises I can share the message of salvation with others.
You wrote:
“As I thought. You don’t get the point of sincerity trumps all. Next.”
You wrote: “Moreover you aren’t even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.” Huh?
Are you saying that I said only sincerity is necessary? Where did I say that? The truth is I never said anything like that at all. I just did a word search on the first 50 posts for “sincerity” and “sincere”. You use sincerity in your false claim several times. I never said what you claim I did. Why make things up?
What I wrote was this: “2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.” in post #22 if I remember correctly.
I never said all that mattered was sincerity. Why do you claim that I did?
“And neither do you decide.”
I didn’t.
“So unless the supposed orthodoxy of a definition is agreed upon to appeal to a common source which is not blatantly false is the best approach. You would decide the issue by getting into circular arguments based on Catholic theology. That presumes the answer and is not valid.”
No, the definition of evangelization is clearly broader than you have given it as shown in theology, history and lexicography.
“May indicates and presumes an attempt to weasel out of an answer. It’s like agnosticism - “we just can’t know”. I’m suggesting presumptions like that are predicated on recklessness and disregard for human responses. Just post a letter on the internet - that’s your discussion methodology.”
Like I said before - you really are wringing your hands in angst over this. “May” indicates that YOU DON’T KNOW. Why throw a fir over the word “may” when we both know why “may” is used?
“The letter makes a lot of sound because it is on the internet , can be easily googled and is open for all to see without the necessity or indeed the desire to engage personally. That’s the way of blogging and the internet - it’s not the way of Christian association. That my friend is the new world order for discussion.”
More of your hand wringing. We live in a technological age. There’s no reason why a public figure can’t be addressed in a public way when he has made his faith a public point.
“The absurd results is presuming that sincerity alone guides the method of discussion.”
Which I NEVER did. Again, I wrote: “2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.”
“You have no idea whether Baldwin would be offended at being called out, effectively as a wayward Catholic!”
Many people are offended by the truth. Some people are offended by the simplest and least offensive of things. If Baldwin is offended over this then let him say so. Claveau intended no offense as is clear.
“Indeed the letter is so blatantly propagandist maybe he should have addressed it to Baldwin’s pastor if he has one to engage in theological discussion rather than propaganda.”
Examples of Baldwin’s own “propaganda” were posted earlier. If Baldwin can make a case for his beliefs in TV and online why can’t Claveau make one for his beliefs to Baldwin in an open letter?
“False. I never attacked the letter writer for his internal comments and indeed I stated that Christians should not engage in the bully pulpit by letter writing in public, in this case, as the message it sends is arrogance and chauvinism.”
Sorry, but I don’t think you can label the contents of the letter as propaganda and then claim you have no problem with the contents. Make up your mind.
“Now you’re presuming. Classic.”
No. Labelling him as a poser - without any knowledge of him whatsoever is presumption. For me to determine that he - working his whole adult life to evangelize others probably has accomplished more good than you while you sit around and attack him calling him a poser is just common sense.
“He’s accusing him of living under false presumptions of Christianity.”
No. There is no accusation there. There is no criminal or moral fault there. There is no accusation nor is there any accusatory language involved. He INVITES him to learn more. Invite is not accusatory. Again, you are just making things up out of thin air.
“I thought that was clear enough by his quotation marks around ‘born again’ and his Catholic propaganda.”
Wow, look at the accusatory language in your post - “Catholic propaganda”. So, when a Catholic says something - apparently anything that is staunchly Catholic - it is propaganda? Oh, no, no accusation in that!
“If Baldwin was presumptively acting as a Christian according to what the letter writer thinks he should he wouldn’t be wasting his time with him.”
There is no wasting of time when addressing a Christian and encouraging to seek the fullness of the faith.
“Yes he is hiding. If he is so bold to put his phone number on the internet why does he think he needs to cloak his presumed propaganda with a letter rather than a verbal conversation.”
How would he have this verbal conversation? How would he get Baldwin to call him without an invitation - and this is one right there!
“It is saying: ‘I don’t need to talk to you personally (fill in the blank why not) so I’m writing you a letter.’ No I would say speak personally and don’t use blogging as a method of communicating to a fellow Christian who apparently you are so concerned with coming back to the Catholic Church you can’t bring yourself to deal with it on a man to man basis.”
Again, more made up nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual letter. It’s an open letter. Get over it.
“Secondly I’m not mad about anything, I’m responding to your posts. But I guess presumptions don’t work both ways.”
I don’t presume - it’s all over your posts.
“Quite the contrary. I posted from an understanding of custom where Christians use to communicate face to face or at least voice to voice instead of their faith being subject to scrutiny by someone who is engaging in propaganda for the Church over the internet.”
Incorrect. You posted your feelings without any supporting evidence. The simple fact is a face to face may be impossible here. Why don’t you get on a plane and have a face to face with Baldwin? Oh, I know, you have no desire to, but if you did, would it happen anyway? Would he speak to you? Would you even know where to go?
“You could care less. For you it’s all about the message and to hell with how it’s delivered.”
There is nothing wrong with a public figure being sent an open letter.
“Yes I have a rational reason and you don’t care for it.”
No, all you post is emotional stuff - it’s offensive (which you don’t know it will be offensive to him), it’s wrong, it’s not done by Christians (when it is done, has been done, etc.).
“The nailing of the theses whether it occurred or not was merely used a an example of what could have been done. You attenuated the example to get into an irrelevant issue of whether it occurred or not. That was not the issue. It was a simple assertion that you could make something public by posting it anywhere. I guess the point wasn’t enough for you.”
Luther supposedly was calling for a public debate to anyone in his university town or nearby. Claveau is trying to get the attention of a public figure to evangelize him by posting an open letter. How is Claveau supposed to get his attention? Are you going to determine that for him?
“It may be myth and it may be the truth but that point was irrelevant!
“How I can question? The issue is not how many people he was writing to but whether or not it came from a human being with his personal experiences and revelation of Christ. It wasn’t a form letter to the church. You seem to have problems with simple terminology. Personal as opposed to impersonal. Yikes. If you have problems with this then I can see how you can misread motive and have little regard for issues such as methodology and form.”
Start at the beginning then: why do you assume this letter of Claveau’s is personal and therefore must be kept private? Do you assume it is “personal and therefore must be private” because it is written by one man to another in name? Do you assume it is personal and must be kept private because of the contents?
In reality, none of that applies. An open letter is written for more than just the man receiving it - as was done by Justin Martyr’s apology. Its contents touch on issues that Baldwin himself made public on TV and online so there can’t be a problem there. So why the angst? Why the hand wringing?
“Quite obviously the problem is yours.”
No, not at all.
“Again you missed the point about methodology and manner of delivery so it doesn’t surprise me you restated your error.”
I never stated an error in the first place. You are not making any point about methodology that isn’t just emotional on your part. So far you have not posted any rational reason to oppose an open letter.
“And so then knowing subject A the Romans and subject B Paul’s intention you surmised that open propaganda wasn’t necessary.”
No, I surmised that getting everyone killed was not necessary. Have you forgotten that open persecution of Christians existed?
“Do you know Subject A, Mr. Baldwin here, as to his state of acceptance of an internet letter? No of course you don’t and you don’t care.”
Does it matter what his acceptance is? Seriously, can you make any case that it does? 1) Sharing the truth with someone is not wrong even if the truth is rejected. 2) You ask if I know if Baldwin would accept this letter. Do you know he would reject is JUST BECAUSE it is on the internet? 3) It wasn’t written just for him, but for those others who could learn from it.
“So don’t make the same assumptions on how the message is communicated or should be without speaking to the subject A, here Mr. Baldwin.”
Again, you have this weird fantasy that contacting Baldwin would be a breeze. What’s his home phone number? His cell? What’s his address? And if I called his house and literally spoke to the man, how would that help others like him directly? It wouldn’t. An open letter that will be seen, discussed and undoubtedly forwarded to him is a better way to make sure he gets the letter. You’re helping by all your hand wringing because you’re ensuring that more people see the thread and spread the letter. Thanks.
“I feel certain that he would communicate personally before he made a grand show of it on some blog.”
So he would never use TV? Are you serious? Then why did he bother writing? Wasn’t because he COULDN’T BE EVERYWHERE IN PERSON?
“And you know Baldwin. You can presume to suggest that he doesn’t need to be spoken to personally.”
No, can you attest otherwise, however? Please post all of your evidnece. What’s that? You have none? Imagine that. Again, you make this absurd and outright weird fantasy that people - anyone - can just magically talk to Baldwin in person whenever they want. Do you really believe that’s the case?
“That he likes to have his Catholic background now become the object of speculation and theological chauvinism particulalry by putting his stated belief under quotations.”
It was someone opposed to this letter in this thread who posted Baldwin’s thoughts on Catholicism. Baldwin made comments about the Catholic faith in public. So why can’t a Catholic respond in some way.
“As I stated, that’s not Christianity. That’s religious propagandizing.”
So, what were Baldwin’s comments? Propaganda, right?
“Boy for someone who stated he doesn’t presume and in fact doesn’t know you sure want to assume a lot.”
No. You said “Oh I see. So because he is a “public figure” and a Christian one at that, he is not entitled to the same courtesy of your friend.”
I have my friend’s phone number. I don’t have Baldwin’s. Do you? Does Claveau?
“Either Baldwin is in the Body of Christ or he is not. You can’t be a Christian and not be in the Body of Christ. The writer called him a Christian.Baldwin is. How does that make him imperfect?”
1) You can be a Christian and not in the Body of Christ. Protestants use the word “Church” in a way never intended by orthodox Christians. We use the term with its full meaning - that it is a human-theandric body and a concrete historical reality (h/t to Fr. Hopko, who would say I’m not in the Church either).
2) You can be a Christian and not believe in all orthodox beliefs. That would make you imperfect in beliefs.
“Because he doesn’t subscribe to Catholic ideology?”
Yes.
“Far from it. But that is not the point of this discussion as that will degenerate into schismatic discussions.”
Wrong. Schism is already here. Our discussions are not schismatic.
“As a former practicing Catholic myself, an altar boy even who had experience with the mass before and after Vatican II, who attended Catholic schools all his life, trained by priests and nuns as well, and someone who in the past regularly attended, I’m not prepared to call my Catholic brethren imperfect and need of propaganda.”
There is no propaganda in the letter, but all Catholics are imperfect in that they are fallen creatures. We all near to hear the gospel. I am a Catholic, went to Catholic schools, and know the Mass before and after Vatican II. And I know I and all Christians are imperfect in one way or another.
“The point is using the internet to communicate to someone by name without even knowing or being alerted to something being published concerning you. That’s not Christian - it’s subscribing to blogging mentality without regard to personal circumstances.”
No. Baldwin already made it clear he PUBLICLY speaks about his former faith and his currect faith on TV and online. This letter, therefore, is not wrong.
“Especially someone who has not forsaken his Catholicism explicitly to subject him to being isolated in the virtual world and his faith taken to task I’m going to suggest to you will be counter-productive and not conducive to sensitive discussion.”
Incorrect. His remarks - as posted by someone opposed to the letter - show he has forsaken his Catholic faith. Your suggestions, grounded as they are in errors, are meaningless to me.
“Why doesn’t the writer engage in a discussion with a theologian? Baldwin is a lay person who speaks about his faith. Again, putting quotes around a seminal part of his belief in a public letter is patronizing and arrogant.”
Claveau is interested in evangelizing Baldwin. Baldwin does not need to be a theologian to hear the gospel. You point makes no sense. You would have it that people can only talk to their exact peers? No lay person can speak to a theologian.
I am willing to bet the fact that you once were Catholic but no longer are has more to do with your angst then anything else.
OK, now I’m REALLY confused. You mean when Jesus died and said “it is finished”, it was not? What more is there to do than is indicated in Romans 10:10:
Romans 10:10 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
You wrote:
“I didn’t post to you.”
I NEVER said you did. I said: “You posted in the thread BEFORE me.”
Why do you keep saying or implying I said things I never said?
“I posted to someone who posted this screed on this thread. That entitles me to address it here. What do you think the purpose of FR is anyway?”
I never said you shouldn’t post here. I said you might want to follow your own policy and address an email to Claveau and speak to him directly since that is what you have been hand wringing about in post after post. That is exactly what I said too: “Again, why aren’t you following your own dictates and addressing your complaints to Claveau directly?”
I never said or claimed that you shouldn’t post here at FR about this. Again, you say or imply I said something I never did.
“And did Baldwin post a letter calling this letter writer out?”
No, he instead made statements about the Catholic faith that were erroneous.
“Did he post a letter questioning this blogger’s faith and his Catholic belief? Please answer the question.”
Baldwin made statements about the faith of ALL Catholics - as posted in this thread by someone also opposed to the above letter as you are.
“Claveau is blogging. Here is FR and his letter was published here.”
Not by Claveau - unless annalex is Claveau and I have no reason at this point to believe that.
“His methodology I will use. He’s not writing to me directly he’s blogging. What now is the problem?”
Your hand wringing.
You wrote:
“Christianity is a relationship between man and God through His Son Jesus Christ.”
And it is more than that too. It is about doctrine and the Church.
“You don’t have to be a member of any church body to be a true believer.”
Christ thought differently. He established the Church and appointed her ministers. One of the reasons he died was to empower the Church with His grace. Nothing so important as to be based on Christ’s sacrifice can be so easily dismissed as you have done it.
“It is best to be, for sure, so that you can bless others and learn more about God, but if a person loves and trusts Jesus Christ as Saviour, that person will go to Heaven, just like any church goer who believes.”
No. He has hope of salvation, but only in pale reflection to what is offered through the Church by Christ Himself. Christ sent the Church. Christ did not send vague notions of trust or fantasies about lone ranger Christians making up Christianity as a consumer item as they go along.
The advice is for him to stop badgering a fellow Christian with his propaganda. It's not about me addressing Claveau. Please stop with the nonsensical parallels.
Your hand wringing.
The only hand wringing here is your wasted type and misguided apologetic for this screed which is reducible to a propaganda piece of the worst kind.
Thanks for your response, CYC.
You bring up excellent, Scriptural points. I honestly don’t know what these people are hearing in church; maybe they’re not paying attention, or maybe they’re not being taught a message of salvation.
It’s very sad; virtually everyone I know is Catholic and none have a deep acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. (And I am NOT saying that Catholics in general don’t have this faith, but the people around here just use their Catholic Church as a country club!) They speak of God as I have mentioned in earlier posts, and when I tell them of the message of salvation, they, of course, think I’m preaching and want to change the subject.
I’ll pray that the Lord send laborers (other than myself) to harvest these souls (Matt 9:37-8).
Sorry, vlad, but one’s salvation has nothing to do with any church. It’s a personal decision between man and God. Your church has nothing to do with it. My husband prayed over a man in a coma in the hospital. He woke up, asked the Lord to come into his life, and went back into the coma. God had chosen him to be saved at that moment. He didn’t go to church but he went to heaven. Your church has indoctrinated all of you into believing, or so it seems, that you can’t go to heaven without being Catholic and going through all the rites of the church. It just ain’t so.
God established the Body of Christ, THE one true church.
Thank you. I’m enjoying your posts. Keep it up.
TRUE Christianity is between man and God and has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. The church cannot save anyone, annalex. I get tired of Catholics thinking they are the one true and only church that God created. It isn’t. He created the one true church, the Body of Christ, and all believers, Catholic or not, are part of it. I know you don’t believe that but ...
Okay, I take great exception to that comment about “lone rangers making it up as they go”. What are you? A Pharisee? Why do pompous people like you, have to take something simple like salvation and complicate it? To make yourself feel important? God meant for the plan of salvation to be simple, so everyone can understand and accept the offer of eternal life. You are making it sound like one has to jump hurdles and shoot out of a cannon to share in God’s inheritance. SHAME ON YOU!!!!! You could be the reason someone might feel too intimidated to step forward and accept Christ as their Savior, and if that were the case, it would royally suck to be you when you stand before Almighty God, you would not get a chance to plead your case. Lighten up for pity sake. Would you please show me in the Bible where it says Jesus established the Catholic church and her ministers? What is Christ’s doctrine?
You wrote:
“I don’t like evangelizing? Christ told us to go into the world and preach the “Good News”.”
I NEVER SAID you didn’t like evangelizing. You wrote: “Paul evangelized in his time, and likewise Christ’s disciples, in Christ’s time on earth. If I didn’t know better I’d say you are trying to be obtuse.” I responded with: “I’d say you’re just trying to ignore what you don’t like.” That wasn’t about evangelization itself. If you’re going to attack my words, then at least make sure you attack what I actually say.
“Baptizing is symbolic. The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized and Christ told him “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise”.”
The fact that Jesus says that does not mean that baptism is symbolic. You are confusing two issues. 1) baptism washes away sins and the Bible says it saves thereby, and 2) the good thief was not baptized but Jesus said he would be paradise with Him that day. Why would you assume that someone who could not be baptized would not be able to be saved by Christ in some other way through His grace filled mercy?
Luke 16:19-31 is about hell, not purgatory. You yourself said so. Why do you repeat the whole story when it does prove anything according to your point?
“The only way you will go to Hell is complete rejection of Christ. I’m not talking about people who haven’t heard the gospel, I’m talking about people who heard and rejected the message of salvation.”
Sin is a rejection of Christ. Schism is a sin. Apostasy is a sin. Heresy is sinful. Now, granted, people may not always be subjectively blameworthy of those things in all instances, but they are all still sinful. And to top it all off is the simple fact that all of us were born stained with sin. Baptism washes away sins - just as St. Paul said.
“As far as being a “lone ranger”, I read the Bible everyday and have not let dogmas get in the way of understanding God’s Word.”
Orthodox dogmas do not get in the way of understanding God’s word. They are the only way to understand God’s word. I have seen Protestants - disagreeing with one another - say baptism is a symbol, others say it is more than that; some say this, some say that. The disagreements are endless. And yet all claim they follow the Bible alone. Imagine that. Have they forgotten what St. Peter said about twisting scripture to their own lusts?
“I grew up in a church and it didn’t hurt me any. I have found that too many churches have lost sight of it’s purpose and have become too political. I don’t need someone else to feed me God’s Word. It’s great that people still want to go to church, but as far as I’m concerned, I don’t need someone forcing their doctrine down my throat especially when it isn’t even scriptural.”
You have made yourself your own church. Now, ask yourself: Was I sent by God to minister to myself?
“If it’s in the Bible I believe it, if it isn’t I’m not buying it.”
I don’t believe that’s what you believe at all. Think about it, no where in the Bible does it say that Matthew wrote the gospel named after him, but I bet you still believe it? You do, don’t you? Show me where in the Bible it says that Matthew’s gospel is inspired by God? Can you point to a single verse that says that? Even one? No, not one. These things are traditions - from the Catholic Church.
“I have the Holy Spirit to convict me when I’m doing something wrong.”
That’s what every Protestant claims, and yet they disagree again and again.
“I have so much still to learn and God is continually molding me into the person He wants me to be.”
And yet you don’t believe He wants you in the Church when He established it?
“Being Catholic is an organized religion, christians are followers of Christ, not a religion.”
Christ organized 12 Apostles. He chose 70 Disciples. He gave them explicit instructions. He did not tell them to make it up on their own. Christ sent an organized Church into the world to evangelize it. He did not send you to make it up as you go along.
“I agree that not all who are in the church are christians, but you saying that only true believers are Catholic is very arrogant of you.”
No. I never said that only true believers are Catholics. I will say - truthfully - that only Catholics are true believers. There is a difference. One cannot be a true believer without being a Catholic for only the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the truth. There is nothing arrogant in this. It is simply truth. What is arrogant is for a person to think they can make up Christianity on their own and get it right.
“There’s as many charlatans in the Catholic church as any other.”
I do not follow charlatans and have never been fooled by them. I listen to the Church - because Christ speaks through it. Charlatans are in every field. The Church is not changed by charlatans. She is always true because she comes from Christ.
“How do you justify all the pedophilia in the Catholic Church, much less the homosexuality?”
I don’t. Why would I? Why would you think for a single minute that I would justify objectively sinful and disordered behavior?
“This is what you call the True Church?”
No, I do not call pedophilia nor homosexuality the True Church. I call pedophilia and homosexuality sinful and disordered. What do you call them? What I do call the True Church is the True Church. I do not confuse the Church with the sins of its members. We are all sinful. If your brother was a homosexual, I would not think that makes you a liar, or unfaithful or evil. Your brother is the person with the problem, not you. Likewise, I do not blame the Church - which condemns both pedophilia and homosexuality - for the fact that there are pedophiles and homosexuals who abuse people AND THE CHURCH from within her.
“And I’m not saying that that only happens in the Catholic church.”
Oh, no, gee, you’re not saying that at all. Noooooo. You’re instead somehow saying that the Catholic Church is responsible for the sins of her members even when she teaches against their actions!
“I don’t mean to disparage the Catholic Church but they, like other religions, have their flaws.”
No. People have flaws. The Church doesn’t. Christ sent the Church. She has no flaws. Christ (through the Holy Spirit) sent the New Testament. It has no flaws. What it does have is people who twist it and misuse it. See how that works?
“How many people go to church and don’t even believe in God, much less Christ and His sacrifice on the cross?”
Few. Most believe, but many don’t understand properly.
“I’m far from perfect and that’s why I need God. As far as confession goes, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteous”.”
Yes, but that just brings us back to how we confess. Again, John 20:19-23.
“But I don’t need some Priest, or Pastor, to do that, I can go to my mediator, Christ, and do it.”
But your mediator sent the Church for that job when He left this earth. Again, John 20:19-23. That’s exactly what Jesus says, As the Father sent me, I send YOU. He meant the Church.
“And I don’t tailor anything to my liking. I’m so sick and tired of people passing off doctrine as gospel, I, for one, would not want to lead someone astray with something that is not scripturally based.”
Really? I’m sick and tired of people claiming they’re Bible Christians and yet they ignore 2 Tim 4:3
“3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.”
You see, the gospel cannot be cut away from sound doctrine. That’s why Paul told Timothy: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
(1 Tim 4:16) Imagine that! People who persevere in good doctrine will be saved!!! And yet they are not left to make it up themselves nor are they handed copies of the NT (which wasn’t finished yet) to work it out on their own.
St. Paul also wrote to Titus:
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:9)
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1)
“Just cuz the church says it, don’t make it so.”
Yeah, actually it does. Again, things from God have no flaw.
“I read God’s word, that’s what He wants me to do so I can apply it to my life, and when the opportunity arises I can share the message of salvation with others.”
No. He sent the Church to teach you. Reading the Bible is great and I do hope you apply it to your life. But most likely you are only applying things you like to your life. Christ did not send you to minister to yourself. He sent the Church. She wrote the scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One day you’ll know.
You wrote:
“The advice is for him to stop badgering a fellow Christian with his propaganda.”
Then follow your own advice about him talking face to face with Baldwin and do that with Claveau. Come on now, be consistent. Also, he isn’t badgering anyone. It’s the internet. Baldwin can turn it off any time he likes.
“It’s not about me addressing Claveau. Please stop with the nonsensical parallels.”
It isn’t nonsensical. Follow your own advise. If you have a problem with what Claveau did then follow your own advise and address him face to face. Be consistent.
“The only hand wringing here is your wasted type and misguided apologetic for this screed which is reducible to a propaganda piece of the worst kind.”
Look at your anger there: wasted type, misguided apologetic, screed, reducible to a propaganda piece of the worst kind? It’s a letter. Everything in it is true. Wring your hands all you like. None of that will change.
Follow your own advice. Have a face to face with Claveau. Be consistent.
You stated that how it was done (medium) was not relevant. And furthermore he was engaging in evangelization. I simply stated that how it was done was relevant. Then you stated the following . 2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.
So first, you do mention sincerity. Secondly, you state that sincerity can exist "irrespective of medium used to communicate." So the medium used to communicate can be through Penthouse as sincerity can be expressed through any medium. My argument for the nth time to you is that medium is relevant and indeed it can condition whatever sincerity you might have. My further argument is that an impersonal screed of propaganda posted on the internet without notice to a fellow Christian is just the kind medium which undermines a claim of sincerity.
No, the definition of evangelization is clearly broader than you have given it as shown in theology, history and lexicography.
That sounds impressive but unfortunately you don't want a broader meaning you want a narrow meaning. Not a secondary meaning. And that's where you get into begging questions by resort to Catholic or Protestant doctrine. Then questions are begged and no one goes anywhere in this issue.
More of your hand wringing. We live in a technological age. There’s no reason why a public figure can’t be addressed in a public way when he has made his faith a public point.
So the hell with personal manners and private discussion. An impressive feat of technological debasement.
Many people are offended by the truth. Some people are offended by the simplest and least offensive of things. If Baldwin is offended over this then let him say so. Claveau intended no offense as is clear.
It's not "clear". Indeed as I stated by bracketing off 'born again' and by taking a shot at Protestantism, "absolutely none to support the Protestant contention," he now sets the scene for a devisive process. Nice guy this Claveau.
No. Labelling him as a poser - without any knowledge of him whatsoever is presumption. For me to determine that he - working his whole adult life to evangelize others probably has accomplished more good than you while you sit around and attack him calling him a poser is just common sense.
Fairly easy to claim with his divisive methodology and chauvinist use of some Protestant phrases, such as 'born again' as a parenthetical anomaly of Christendom.
Claveau is interested in evangelizing Baldwin. Baldwin does not need to be a theologian to hear the gospel. You point makes no sense. You would have it that people can only talk to their exact peers? No lay person can speak to a theologian.
No. There is no accusation there. There is no criminal or moral fault there. There is no accusation nor is there any accusatory language involved. He INVITES him to learn more. Invite is not accusatory. Again, you are just making things up out of thin air.
I see no invitation here. I see rhetoric, confrontation and patronizing attitudes.
How would he have this verbal conversation? How would he get Baldwin to call him without an invitation - and this is one right there!
There are numerous ways none of which need be explained to someone who uses the internet as skillfully as any blogger would. A simple invitation for personal discussion would even do it. But no, this guy wants to grandstand.
It's not evangelization it's propaganda and divisive.
It was someone opposed to this letter in this thread who posted Baldwin’s thoughts on Catholicism. Baldwin made comments about the Catholic faith in public. So why can’t a Catholic respond in some way.
He has views like everyone else. But did he post a grandiose letter somewhere calling this guy out? That's the issue. An issue which you seem incessantly unable to categorize as anything other than full of goodwill. It's not. Calling a Christian out on a blog for the purpose of trying to indoctrinate him is worthless and insulting. I suggest counterproductive and hurtful to any cause of Christianity.
I am willing to bet the fact that you once were Catholic but no longer are has more to do with your angst then anything else.
Boy you're a mind reader now. Can you read Baldwin's mind as well?
There is no wasting of time when addressing a Christian and encouraging to seek the fullness of the faith.
This has all the goodwill and encouragement of a wet rag.
There is nothing wrong with a public figure being sent an open letter.
He's a Christian who happens to be a public figure. So you would advocate exploiting the public figure so you can "evangelize" him or rather propagandize him from my perspective. You and the letter writer are such humanitarians. Full of goodwill.
Claveau is interested in evangelizing Baldwin. Baldwin does not need to be a theologian to hear the gospel. You point makes no sense. You would have it that people can only talk to their exact peers? No lay person can speak to a theologian.
The writer is not talking the gospel. He's talking down to him and insulting him by using 'born again' and suggesting Protestantism has no evidence to support it's contention on the point he is asserting. Well whooptie doo. Isn't he bright. And so appealing in his condescension of the long debate about transubstantiation.
Incorrect. His remarks - as posted by someone opposed to the letter - show he has forsaken his Catholic faith.
You and the writer's attitude make me cheer for Baldwin now because with this debased method of discussion and condescension he should do his best to avoid the likes of your kind if it is representative of Catholic "evangelizers." Muslims would be proud to have this kind of religious shakedown.
You wrote:
“Sorry, vlad, but one’s salvation has nothing to do with any church.”
Christ died in part to establish the Church. He gave to her the power to bind and loose sins and to wash them away threw baptism. If washing away sins isn’t some how about salvation, then nothing is. Christ did not send an empty symbol into the world. He sent the Church.
“It’s a personal decision between man and God. Your church has nothing to do with it.”
The Church has everything to do with it: baptism, teaching authority, binding and loosing, Church Triumphant. Everything.
“My husband prayed over a man in a coma in the hospital. He woke up, asked the Lord to come into his life, and went back into the coma. God had chosen him to be saved at that moment. He didn’t go to church but he went to heaven.”
I hope he did. You assume he’s there. I hope he is there. The Church still had something to do with his salvation. No Church, no Christians. No Church, no Bible. No Church, no witness. No Church, no teaching. No Church, no salvation.
“Your church has indoctrinated all of you into believing, or so it seems, that you can’t go to heaven without being Catholic and going through all the rites of the church. It just ain’t so.”
The Church has not indoctrinated me. I came to the faith fully in adulthood and did it through study and prayer. I studied more in a few years than most Christians do in a lifetime. Also, we do not believe - nor is it taught - that those who are not formally Catholic will be damned. You say we believe it, but we don’t it. Also, a person does not need to go through all the rites of the Church to be saved. That doesn’t change what the Bible says about baptism and salvation, however.
“God established the Body of Christ, THE one true church.”
And she is called the Catholic Church.
You did not say anything of substance. Would you like to try again?
The article addresses your question perfectly.
Of course I don't -- neither history, reason or scripture say so, unless you mean the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and maybe some pre-Chalcedon ones. The communities of faith that emerged from the Reformation are in deep contradiction with the scripture and can lead one away from salvation just as easily as toward it, especially with the indifferentist sentiment that you expressed.
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.