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:

“The operative word here is doctrine. Doctrines are dictates from man.”

No. Again, and this is the second time I’ve had to tell you this verse, see 2 Timothy 4:3. We once again see that you do not know the Bible.

“How is it the Disciples ever managed before the organized religion of the catholics?”

And once again, Christ gathered and organized 12 Apostles, 70 disciples, taught and trained them for three years and commissioned them to carry out the Great Commission. They were clearly organized. They were organized by God Himself. I have made this irrefutable point several times and you have never once contested it. All you do is ignore it. Can’t you offer some sort of defense of your view? Can’t you show I’m wrong?

“Christ’s True Church started in Jerusalem.”

Yes, it did, and it didn’t stay only there. I doubt you live in Jerusalem today.

“Martin Luther had an epiphany. He wanted the church to get back to the Scriptures.”

No, he knew the Church always was there. He even said it. Martin Luther changes verses to satisfy his needs (especially Romans 3:28). He also dropped books from the Bible to satisfy his own needs. He even boasted at one students exam that he might burn the Epistles of James if Catholics kept using it against him! That is NOT going back to scriptures.

Did you know any of that? Look it up.

“You were as selective as I in what you answered.”

No. I responded to every paragraph. I won’t claim to have responded to each and every point or sentence, but I come rather close to exactly that. You skip almost all verses I mention, on the other hand!

“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.”

Of course not, and no one is claiming that either. Why create a strawman that NO ONE on this earth believes in?

“If you believe that, then YOU are assuming something that isn’t there.”

And you’re wrong because NO ONE believes that. That is not the teaching of the Church either. That still doesn’t change 1 Peter 3:21 or Mark 16:16.

“Because I don’t take my orders from the catholic church I’m relying on myself? I never said I relied on myself.”

You don’t have to. Logically it is impossible to be otherwise. You have already stated your method for using scriptures and logically there is no reason to think that results in anything than self-reliance. Again, Martin Luther knew this to be the case almost 500 years ago shortly after he taught everyone to do what became his complaint!

“I put my faith in Christ, so I’m relying on Him. I can do that, can’t I?”

You can, but no one can say they are relying on Christ while eschewing His body. Christ sent the Church to teach. He did not send you.

“Or should I be clearing my faith in Him through the catholic church first?”

Again, if He sent the Church - and He did - then how can you ignore it? Here you are attempting to say you don’t rely on yourself and yet everything you say indicates you rely on yourself. Saying you rely on Christ is only your claim. No one can honestly say he is relying on Christ but using unorthodox doctrines and attacking His Church. That is a logical impossibility. And if someone believes he is really using the scriptures then how is it possible to not recognize the Church as the teacher sent by God?

“So I need their (church) permission to be able to believe that Christ died for my sins?”

No. And this is a bizarre point to even make. Again, where did you ever learn otherwise?

“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?”

Again, no. And that too is a bizarre point to even make. Where did you ever learn otherwise? Perhaps you thin kyou’re being clever with these ridiculous questions, but you’re not. We could be talking about real issues, but in post after post you simply won’t do it.

“Yeah, right. God is my authority which is contrary to your misguided perception of the catholic church being the final authority.”

No. I have no misguided perceptions of the Catholic Church. God is the final authority, but HE sent the Church to teach on earth. You make the usual Protestant either/or mistake. You say it has to be either God or the Church. It’s both. God sent the Church.

Christ was given all authority by the Father (Matthew 28:18)
Christ expects us to observe all things He commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). Christ is the head of the Church, the Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). Because of that we are to submit to Him in all things (Ephesians 5:23-24). And to properly receive and be obedient to Christ we must receive His Apostles - remember, Apostle means ‘one sent’ (John 13:20). Thus, when Christ talked about ‘whomever I send’ in John 13:20 He meant the Apostles, and not just anyone. The Apostles were ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). And the Church - because Christ arranged and organized it this way - continued to observe His teachings in the doctrines taught by the Apostles (Acts 2:42). The Church is so powerful in her teaching of Christ that even the angels learn from her (Ephesians 3:10).

God sent the Church. To ignore that she is real, has teaching authority and cannot be eschewed without eschewing Christ is not only crazy but spiritual dangerous. Christ didn’t send you. He already sent the Church.

“John 14:16”

A promise to the Apostles, the Church at that time. When Protestants use this verse to apply it to any and all believers who come up with however many differing interpretations of scripture, they are simply taking out of context.

“II Cor 1:21-22”

Again, that was addressed to the early Church. Protestants are not members of the Church let alone the early Church. The verse you picked in no way excuses or legitimizes the fact that Protestants come up with thousands of differing interpretations of scripture.

“John 16:13”

Again, a promise to the Church. Christ was speaking of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the people in the upper room. After that it was the Church who helped people receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-18).

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

From God through His Church. Remember, God sent the Church to teach. He didn’t send you.

“Get thee behind me, Satan.”

No, that’s what you implied when you said people were supposed to read the Bible in obedience to God. If that were the case then people who didn’t or couldn’t do it would on some level be failing in a responsibility to obey God. Maybe you should think more carefully about your words before you post them rather then calling me Satan. Not only would that be more effective for getting your point across, but it wouldn’t reflect so poorly on you. I’m not saying this to attack you or pick on you. It’s just common sense that calling people Satan is not going to help you here.

“Are you saying the catholic church is your mediator?”

I said teacher. The Church most certainly prays for me as you could or anyone else could.

“I Tim 2:5-6”

And who here is denying that Christ is the mediator sent by the Father? No one. You once again refute something no one contested. Lovely.

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

One in the same.

“Think about what you’re saying. No matter who teaches it?”

I already thought about what I was saying. That’s why I said it. Notice how I don’t say: “Get thee behind me, Satan” here? Yeah.

And the truth is the truth no matter who teaches it. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult, distort the gospel severely and revel in heresies of every kind. Yet, even when a JW says something that is true (on rare occasions) it is still true. When a Muslim says there’ one God - he’s right. When a Protestant says Genesis is inspired - he’s right. When a Jew says the Ten Commandments are God’s laws and not Moses’ creation - he’s right. Truth is truth no matter who says it. I have noticed before that anti-catholics recoil at the idea that truth is truth no matter what. What does that tell us?

“Then why do you have trouble with the Protestants?”

Protestantism is the problem. Protestants are merely believers in it and witting or unwitting sharers in its errors. Orthodox Christians agree with Protestants on many things. Protestants, however, believe in a false philosophy and a novel gospel. That’s the problem

“I am in the Body of Christ, yet you dismiss everything I say.”

Dismiss it? No. I simply tell the truth. I post verse and you routinely ignore them. That’s dismissing something. I explain how you’re wrong when you are and I agree with you when you’re right (which has been rare to say the least).

“How do you explain the Charismatic Catholics?”

I don’t. Why would I need to?

“Indifferentism? Is that a new word?”

Nope. It’s hilarious that you ask if this word is new but actually pick on me for looking up a word in the dictionary below. How’s the splinter in your eye? Still there? In the dictionary it says the word indifferentism (in English of course) was first used in 1827.

“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?”

Simple. One, the former, is entirely true while the latter is only partially true.

“Just use Scripture to back up what you’re saying, not something the Pope said.”

No. I will use whatever is true. How dare you tell me what I can and cannot use to make a case. Who do you think you are? Besides, I didn’t even post anything from a pope in post #402 so why even say something like that?

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

No. I had to go to a dictionary FOR YOU. You’re the one who kept think one use of “faith” was another. I made no mistake with it.

So you’re using Matthew 18 to excuse making phony apologies? Unbelievable.

“Why stop at two faiths? Why not go the distance and pull some more out of your hat?”

I never said there were two different faiths. I said there were two different definitions dependent upon usage. Here, let me demonstrate this, since this is apparently a revelation to you.

Here’s the Merriam Wesbter definition (actually only part of it):

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Now, see the (1) definition? That’s what you thought I was questioning. I never did. What I was talking about was (2) definition. See the difference? It’s like this:

(1) “I have faith in God to protect me.”

(2) “I have studied the beliefs of the Mormon faith and found them to be lacking in coherence.”

Same word. Two different definitions. You said you’re a homeschooler. You’ve got have a decent dictionary in your house somewhere, right?

“One is doctrine and the other is faith. Are, these two faiths you have, scriptural?”

How scriptural is the word “Trinity”? It isn’t. The concept certainly is, but not every word in English and not every definition of every word in English is in the Bible nor should one expect them to be.

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

Yes, and?

“I agree.”

See? We do agree on something.

“Says who? You? The Pope? The Bible says difference.”

No it doesn’t. The Bible says nothing positive about Protestantism, and in fact denounces the idea of novel gospels which Protestantism is since it began only in the 16th century.

“The catholic church hasn’t cornered the market on salvation. Good News is available to all.”

The Good News is open to everyone, but it is preached only by the Church. When Protestants preach, they only preach a portion of the gospel or they preach a 16th century novel gospel.

“Rom 3:23-24”

And no one here is contesting the fact that Christ is the Savior.

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

No bureaucracy or red tape has ever stopped me from seeing the truth. What sort of weird fantasies have you dreamed up about the Church? I once had to ask my pastor for a letter showing that I was a Catholic in good standing so that I could be godfather to a friend’s daughter. The priest in charge of the baptism lived in another diocese, and didn’t know me so he asked for the simple letter. It took a two minute phone call. Wow! What horrible bureaucracy I’ve had to go through!!! LOL! My gosh, your views of the Church are bizarre. Other than that, I can’t think of a single bureaucratic thing I’ve ever had to do other than take two minutes to register at new parishes when I’ve moved.

On numerous occasions I have encountered the unbelievable bureaucracy of the local, state and federal governments. Never once did any of it interfer with my seeing the basics of truth about US Citizenship. You almost make it sound like effort of any time frightens you: bureaucracy in the Church, using a dictionary, etc.

“No, dear, Christ established HIS Church.”

That’s what I just said.

“And membership is open to(dare I say it?) ALL who believe, not just catholics.”

Membership is open to all. All can become Catholic.

“Goodnight Vlad”

Good morning.

By the way, to homeschoolers I always recommend the following dictionaries. If you want something fast, light, but still rather complete and very useful at a great price get the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. Try to get the 10th and 11th editions for comparison when needed. One step up from that is the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2 vols. and runs at about $80 to 130. Then there is the microprint OED ($300) and the full 20vol. OED for ($1000).

You wrote:

“Thank you Vlad for enlightening me on the doctrines of the catholic church. I never had any idea the arrogance of this religion.”

Clearly the arrogance is Protestantism. I would show surprise, if I didn’t already know from previous experience, that Protestantism is so strong in its arrogance it apparently sometimes convinces its adherents to eschew the use of dictionaries.

“If I change some things it sounds just like the mormon church.”

If I change some things in Protestantism it sounds just like Mormonism, or some parts of Islam, or other types of Protestantism (ironically).

“This air of supremacy and exclusiveness astounds me.”

Being able to use a dictionary - and having to demonstrate that fact for someone else’s benefit when a basic word’s definition is denied - is not an air of supremacy. I could see where some might take it as such, however.

“You know, even Satan knows the Bible from front to back.”

Yes, he does, but he twists it. I don’t twist scripture, but then again you called me Satan. I would never call you Satan. I also wouldn’t ascribe his ability to know the Bible to you either.

“There is a difference between knowing it and applying it.”

True. How does one apply it by ignoring Acts 22:16 or 1 Peter 3?

“He knew how divisive religion could be and is taking full advantage of that fact.”

I am sure that is true. Then again Christ came to divide. Martin Luther did too but toward different ends than Christ.

“He wants to squelch the Truth. Martin Lutheran saw the catholic church take its eye off the ball and that’s why we had the Reformation, contrary to your opinion.”

No, and it has nothing to do with my opinion. Martin Luther started the Protestant Revolution because he believed he knew better than everyone else. That’s why he rejected the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw” and threatened to burn it. Think about that. He rejected James and said he wanted to burn it. And you think he saw the Catholic Church take its eye off the ball? Luther was off his rocker.

“I am tired of debating the points with you, well not really, there was no debate.”

There always was on my side. I posted verses all the time in post after post and you usually ignored them. When you posted verses they often had nothing to do with what was being debated. On a number of occasions, for instance, you worked to refute things no one actually said.

“You thought you were right all the time and I was wrong because I’m not catholic.”

No. Opinions are erroneous because they are not based on truth. Taking verses out of context, posting myths rather than history (e.g. Luther’s motives, etc.) and refuting doctrines no one here espoused, or ascribing doctrines to someone when no one here espoused them simply got your side nowhere.

“I do know that last year my best friend’s daughter wanted to start going back to church (catholic), I was thrilled, I even bought her a Bible so she could understand His Word better. Now, when I see her next month, I’m going to ask her some very pointed questions and then let her know what God says about it, and not to be ruled by the dictates of the catholic church. It’s been real.”

And will you actually convey the real teachings of the Catholic Church or will you convey only your caricatures and fictions of them? I have no doubt you might be able to trick or fool your friend if she is poorly catechized (and the fact that she has been away from the faith for some time would seem to indicate that), but you’ll have to answer for your actions in that effort one day.

My experience will be different. Tomorrow I will get to visit a good friend of mine and study the Bible after Mass. He is a former Lutheran minister who came to realize that Protestantism was untrue. He believes that Protestantism may be the great apostasy spoken of in scripture. I think he might be right in that it is the beginning of it, but not the be all and end all of it. Over the years to come, with his growing ministry, he will be a source of inspiration for many non-Catholics. Already people are starting to convert because of what the Holy Spirit has worked through him. Another friend I hope to see soon is someone I helped convert. When I met him he was an agnostic after years of outright atheism. He is now helping to bring others into the Church through a ministry he helped create. In July I visited my old parish in another state. A number of the people in the parish are there, or are Catholic, because, at least in part, of me. All of these people love the truth. They didn’t put Protestantism before God. They chose the truth and the truth is a Person - Christ. And they knew they wanted as much of Christ as they could have on this earth and in heaven so they became Catholics. These people were not opposed to using dictionaries. Some of them argued with me for years (no joke). But they were all open to the truth. Will you be open to the truth when you talk to your friend? If using a dictionary bothers you then I don’t see how you could be.

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.