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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wrote:

“I never said that I relied on myself.”

You don’t have to say it. Protestants - by the doctrines they espouse - place themselves in a situation in which they must rely on themselves. Martin Luther, himself, the founder of Protestantism, knew this to be true and admitted it.

“Do you read all the words in posts, or do you skim over and post prematurely?”

I read them all. Notice, I, unlike you, respond to almost every single sentence one by one. You have yet to respond to the verses I posted. You still have never toughed Mark 16:16, or Acts 22:16 or Romans 6:3, etc.

“I don’t rely on organized religion to feed me spiritual food.”

You rely on yourself. That’s exactly what I am saying.

“I rely on the Bible.”

You rely on YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. And let’s face it, who knows what the next Protestant, or you, will come up with?

“That’s hardly relying on myself.”

Again, IT IS relying on oneself. That is the ONLY logical explanation as to why their are tens of thousands of Protestant sects who all disagree on this or that but all espouse sola scriptura and use essentially the same Bible.
“You know, God’s Word, the Bible, which we are supposed read in obedience to Him.”

Supposed to read in obedience to Him? You mean illiterate people are in disobedience to God?

“How else are we to know how to conduct ourselves or find comfort?”

Simple. The Church. Christ sent the Church to teach.

“Apparently, after “debating” with you, I think God is trying to humble me, and I need to be more receptive to Him, and less reactive with you.”

Maybe. Maybe He wants you to be more open to His Church.

“YOu don’t think anything you said was offensive because you claim it’s the truth. The truth according to who? You? The catholic church? I am not subject to your churches teachings or rules.”

The truth is the truth no matter who teaches it. No sectarian is subject to the Church for they are outside the Body of Christ.

“If I were to get into a discussion with say, a Methodist. We may disagree with something petty that pertains to church doctrine, but we won’t argue salvation.”

You might. I recently learned that very conservative Lutherans think Methodists are wrong on their teachings about salvation. They’re both Protestant groups, but they disagree and disagree seriously.

“Yet, you did, you insinuated anyone who isn’t catholic is not a true believer. In the long haul we have a common denominator....a belief in Christ as our Savior. Why don’t we just rejoice in the fact that what matters most we agree on, and that’s salvation in Christ. Don’t sweat the other stuff, God can sort it out.”

Indifferentism. That’s what your preaching now. Sorry, I see no reason to sell out the gospel and Church after Christ died to give it to us just to pretend that there aren’t real differences between the truth and Protestantism.

“You weren’t as way off base as I? I will repeat myself, my faith is very important to me, and for you to call it into question was equally offensive to me. And don’t tell me you did’nt, you did.”

I didn’t. Again, for at least the FOURTH OR FIFTH time, I will explain this to you. Look in the dictionary. The two definitions in question are: 1) The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will. And that is the faith you possess and I never once doubted it and I never once questioned it. And 2) The body of dogma of a religion or a set of principles or beliefs. That you do not possess in that you do NOT possess THE universal FAITH of Christianity for that is a fullness of faith that is positively and negatively absent in Protestantism. PERIOD. I have explained this repeatedly. Yet you have repeatedly said I said the EXACT opposite.

“I wasn’t looking for an apology from you. You started again listing all the things I said to you, after I apologized. When someone tells you they are sorry, and you accept it, you don’t keep bringing it up again, because then it appears you haven’t forgiven them.”

No. An apology from someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again (even after the apology) is worth what exactly? Look above. See “faith” vs “FAITH” brought up yet again? Why apologize and then go back to doing the same thing over and over again?

“And if I go by your posting you didn’t. I can assume, just like you.”

I don’t assume. I read your posts. The fact that I just had to explain faith vs FAITH again shows what I have been saying is true.

“You told the truth, I told the truth.”

No. Again, faith vs. FAITH shows otherwise.

“I had’nt looked at your full post until now. I’ll I can say is....wow. I definitely don’t have enought time in my day to pursue this right now, but you can be sure I will work on it.”

Nothing will change.

“I will admit, I do get a little passionate about what I believe, but the true message of salvation should be most important, and it is for me.”

I have been talking about the true message of salvation. It ISN’T PROTESTANTISM.

“Have you noticed that most of the strife in the world is religiously motivated?”

No, because it isn’t. Most is personal and petty. Religious strife is not personal and not petty by nature. There are far more murders in this world committed for non-religious reasons than religious ones.

“Let me clarify, organized religion, which is manmade.”

No. Christ gathered 12 Apostles. He gathered 70 Apostles. He trained them. He taught them. He commissioned them. That’s organized religion. Christ is God and not just a man. Christianity is not man made. The Church is not man made. Even the name tells you that. “Church” is from the Greek word kryiakos and means “of the Lord” or “belongs to the Lord”. The Church is not man made.

“Maybe, we all, as christians, need to get back to the basics.”

We never left the basics. Christ established the Catholic Church. He gave Catholics the scriptures.

“Not all believers were the Catholic church.”

1) You meant to say, “Not all the believers were in the Catholic Church.”

NO! NOW WAY. Not all believers were Vatican sheeple--PARTICULARLY before the Vatican's existence about 300-400 AD. Through the centuries, God has always kept a remnant here and there who worshiped HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH.

The Vatican power-mongering committee driven pile of heresies beginning 300-400 AD enjoyed military backing . . . but NOT God's anointing nor backing. The same is essentially true only worse today. Thankfully, Some Vatican reps in some Charismatic communities have returned to a Biblical focus . . . largely in spite of the Vatican vs because of it.

2) That is objectively wrong since there was only one Church and believers at the beginning could only be part of ONE Church.

UNMITIGATED HOGWASH!

There were clusters of believers in house churches all over the known world without a shred of authoritarian anything from any political power-mongering oversight commttee AT ALL. Even Paul and crew going down to Jerusalem to deal with the circumcision etc. nonsense did not end up in any kind of routine lines of ecclesiastical authority. INSTITUTIONAL lies to the contrary do NOT turn authentic history into rubber history for the thoughtful and well read.

3) You are admitting that the Catholic Church was there in the beginning. Where was your sect?

BALDERDASH. UNMITIGATED HOGWASH.

A) The Vaticons were NOT there in the beginning. Their political power-mongering military supported pile of stinking bureaucracy didn't arise until 300-400 years later.

B) This compulsion to glorify brazenly fantasized pedigrees is akin to the Jewish Magicsterical's obcessions 2000 years ago with blood descendancy. Christ spoke rather starkly about their priorities then and has not changed HIS TUNE on such in 2000 years.

Prott's spiritual heritage roots are the same place all believers in all Christian groups has always been--rooted and secure in maintaining the overwhelming focus on CHRIST, HIM CRUCIFIED, HIS BLOOD, HIS RESURRECTION LIFE, FOLLOWING HIS SPIRIT into all truth as HE INSTRUCTED.

He didn't think much of the corrupt middle-men in the Jewish Magicsterical 2000 years ago and has routinely removed the anointing from every group's bureaucratic magicsterical ever since. INSTITUTIONS ARE NOTORIOUSLY DEADLY toward authentic RELATIONSHIPS with God.

Father's not all that thrilled with bureaucrats trying to usurp Holy Spirit's roles, either.

“Good grief, there were many different churches in early Bible history, during and after Christ’s death and resurrection.”

No, there were not. There was ONE Church and then there were breakaway sects too.

MORE UNMITIGATED, UNHISTORICAL, INACCURATE BALDERDASH.

There were a plethera of house churches all over the known world from Paul's day to this. Some eras they were few and far between and some eras they were plentiful. God always had at least a remnant who worshiped HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH--REGARDLESS. And usually, those closest to HIM walking most IN HIS SPIRIT were the FURTHEST AWAY from CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS--particularly !!!!TRADITION!!!! BOUND, BUREAUCRATIC POLITICAL POWER-MONGERING HERETICAL INSTITUTIONS such as that which worsened by the century by the Tiber.

“To say they are all Catholic is a falsehood from the Church.”

You sure got that right, Mary.

No, it is simply the truth and reality. Logically, there was only one Church established by Christ.

MORE UNMITIGATED HOGWASH.

ALL THE BELIEVERS in the myriad of house churches worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth were part of the Church Universal--and often--exclusively so as various "CHRISTIAN" institutions LEFT GOD IN THE DUST in favor of their gods of bureaucracy; power-mongering; !!!!TRADITION!!!!; vain-glory; self-righteousness; magicsterical power plays; . . .

Thankfully, God has always had a people, even when INSTITUTIONS which bore His Name have behaved the opposite of His priorities.

You know, as a missionary having served in two countries where the churches either have to meet in secret underground, or have had to do so in their recent history, I have viewed hundreds of illustrations of why what you say concerning “primitive” or early Christianity to be correct. I mean that they form a basis for illustration for the plausibility of your position being correct.

In these countries are congregations which form two basic types with regard to the circumstances surrounding their founding:

1. There are those that form as a result of an evangelist/missionary/apostle - type of preacher out of another indigenous congregation who goes to a place where the Gospel has never been preached. Or sometimes the Gospel had been preached there in the past but not accepted by a sufficient number of people to bring forth a stable congregation.

2. There are also those that formed when individual believers, who learned the Gospel of the sufficiency of Christ's Redemption work directly from the Scriptures, began to meet, and pray, and study the Scriptures, and worship and serve, and evangelize. From within that group, the Lord would either call and raise up an undersheperd, or the Lord would send a pastor to them as a result of their prayers.

Churches have been established by both of these methods and led by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures without any kind of “world-wide” religious organization ever being within a thousand miles.

When, from-time-to-time, many of these churches come across each other's existence, it is amazing how that they are able to fellowship with each other around the Person of Jesus Christ their Saviour. It is amazing how that they come to doctrinal agreement and position from the Scriptures, and even their practices.

Now to be honest and fair, with the global proliferation of the Internet, there are new congregations forming that are simply copy-cats of something that they might see on the Internet (or now on TV). But this wasn't the case before the mid 1990s, where the smaller towns and more remote areas of these countries yet didn't have ready access to the Internet.

It didn't take long during the days of the Apostles for the Gospel of the Grace of God to spread by the agency of simple Christian people who moved around the Roman Empire. And the Scriptures were spreading by copy after copy after copy pretty quickly, too. To think that, for example, the Book of 1 Thessalonians (Paul's earliest book) didn't begin to be copied locally in Thessalonica and distributed widely, would be ridiculous.

The Scriptures were not sitting unused, uncopied, and undistributed before some councils somewhere, 150 years later, thought that they were smart enough to decide what was the Word of God. Someone might want to argue that it was some council that “determined” the canonicity of the books of the New Testament. Guess what! every Book of Scripture was ALREADY being read, copied, carried far and wide, and being believed, L O N G before any council ever got so big for their britches that they thought they could decide the issue.

Let's take the Corinthian Epistles for example. At some point, some council (we don't care WHAT council it was!) came up with the conclusion that Paul's letters to the Corinthian church were genuine and canonical. So what?! What if they hadn't? It would not make them any less the Word of God! And by the time that council decided for their canonicity, there had already been hand-written copies of the Epistles by the hundreds, and perhaps thousands. First and Second Corinthians were being proliferated far beyond the reach of any council L O N G before that council ever thought there need be an examination of them.

Just as indigenous congregations of believers form (as described above) in communist countries, so congregations formed all over the Roman Empire and beyond. And it was happening without a hieraechy, without a council, without a missionary society, without a denomination, without a so-called “successor of Peter,” or anything else liturgical or regurgical.

It was only later that bishops in certain areas got together under Constantine (who had armies and police and assassins, etc., etc.) and appointed themselves the judges over the churches, and decided that they would pretty much rule a big church like the Emperor ruled Rome, which was a violation of the instructions to the Apostles in Matthew chapter 20 altogether.

Thanks, Quix, for your remarks.

“You don’t have to say it. Protestants - by the doctrines they espouse - place themselves in a situation in which they must rely on themselves. Martin Luther, himself, the founder of Protestantism, knew this to be true and admitted it.”

The operative word here is doctrine. Doctrines are dictates from man. How is it the Disciples ever managed before the organized religion of the catholics? Christ’s True Church started in Jerusalem. Martin Luther had an epiphany. He wanted the church to get back to the Scriptures.

“I read them all. Notice, I, unlike you, respond to almost every single sentence one by one. You have yet to respond to the verses I posted. You still have never toughed Mark 16:16, or Acts 22:16 or Romans 6:3, etc.”

You were as selective as I in what you answered. I have no issue with being baptized. I was baptized when I was a teenager, am I saved now? Even though I’m not catholic? There is no Scripture that says if you believe in Jesus Christ, but don’t get baptized, you are condemned to hell. If you believe that, then YOU are assuming something that isn’t there.

“You rely on yourself. That’s exactly what I am saying.”

Because I don’t take my orders from the catholic church I’m relying on myself? I never said I relied on myself. I put my faith in Christ, so I’m relying on Him. I can do that, can’t I? Or should I be clearing my faith in Him through the catholic church first? So I need their (church) permission to be able to believe that Christ died for my sins? So I should go to the nearest catholic church and ask them if it’s okay that I believe that Christ died for my sins? Yeah, right. God is my authority which is contrary to your misguided perception of the catholic church being the final authority.

“You rely on YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. And let’s face it, who knows what the next Protestant, or you, will come up with?”

John 14:16 “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—The Spirit of Truth.”

II Cor 1:21-22 “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set His seal of ownership on us, and put His Spirit in our heart as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”

John 16:13 “But when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.”

Pray tell, where do you get your interpretation? From the Pope?

“Supposed to read in obedience to Him? You mean illiterate people are in disobedience to God?”

Get thee behind me, Satan.

“Simple. The Church. Christ sent the Church to teach.”

Are you saying the catholic church is your mediator?

I Tim 2:5-6 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.”

“Maybe. Maybe He wants you to be more open to His Church.”

I am more open to His Church. My dispute is with the catholic church.

“The truth is the truth no matter who teaches it. No sectarian is subject to the Church for they are outside the Body of Christ.”

Think about what you’re saying. No matter who teaches it? Then why do you have trouble with the Protestants? I am in the Body of Christ, yet you dismiss everything I say.

“You might. I recently learned that very conservative Lutherans think Methodists are wrong on their teachings about salvation. They’re both Protestant groups, but they disagree and disagree seriously.”

How do you explain the Charismatic Catholics?

“Indifferentism. That’s what your preaching now. Sorry, I see no reason to sell out the gospel and Church after Christ died to give it to us just to pretend that there aren’t real differences between the truth and Protestantism.”

Indifferentism? Is that a new word? You seem very bitter toward the Protestants. I am not a sell-out of the gospel of Christ. What’s the difference between the truth and Protestantism? Just use Scripture to back up what you’re saying, not something the Pope said.

“I didn’t. Again, for at least the FOURTH OR FIFTH time, I will explain this to you. Look in the dictionary. The two definitions in question are: 1) The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will. And that is the faith you possess and I never once doubted it and I never once questioned it. And 2) The body of dogma of a religion or a set of principles or beliefs. That you do not possess in that you do NOT possess THE universal FAITH of Christianity for that is a fullness of faith that is positively and negatively absent in Protestantism. PERIOD. I have explained this repeatedly. Yet you have repeatedly said I said the EXACT opposite.”

You have to go to a dictionary to find the definition of faith?

Eph 4:4-7 “There is one body and one spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—One Lord, ONE FAITH, One Baptism; One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.”

“No. An apology from someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again (even after the apology) is worth what exactly? Look above. See “faith” vs “FAITH” brought up yet again? Why apologize and then go back to doing the same thing over and over again?”

Matt 18: “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

“I don’t assume. I read your posts. The fact that I just had to explain faith vs FAITH again shows what I have been saying is true.”

Why stop at two faiths? Why not go the distance and pull some more out of your hat? One is doctrine and the other is faith. Are, these two faiths you have, scriptural?

“No. Again, faith vs. FAITH shows otherwise.”

Again, “One Hope, One Faith, One Baptism.”

“Nothing will change.”

I agree.

“I have been talking about the true message of salvation. It ISN’T PROTESTANTISM.”

Says who? You? The Pope? The Bible says difference. The catholic church hasn’t cornered the market on salvation. Good News is available to all.

Rom 3:23-24 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

“We never left the basics.”

How can you see the basics through all the bureaucracy and red tape?

“Christ established the Catholic Church. He gave Catholics the scriptures.”

No, dear, Christ established HIS Church. And membership is open to(dare I say it?) ALL who believe, not just catholics.

Goodnight Vlad

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.