Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
You used the historical predicates. I didn't. Don't use history to draw analogies if the predicates don't fit. That is simple application of rational thought. This saves people from making or using history as a tool for propaganda.
I didn't post to you. 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?
And if Baldwin takes his religious views onto the internet? Hmmmm...http://www.thelordslounge.com/home.htm
And did Baldwin post a letter calling this letter writer out? Did he post a letter questioning this blogger's faith and his Catholic belief? Please answer the question.
So, you won’t address Claveau directly - even though you insist he should do that with Baldwin and you are question his integrity, sincerity, etc.?
Claveau is blogging. Here is FR and his letter was published here. His methodology I will use. He's not writing to me directly he's blogging. What now is the problem?
Baldwin did a good thing, became a Christian, and the author is happy about that. Now we all want Baldwin to come to the true and authentic Christianity of the Catholic Church so that, now that he is interested in saving his soul, he has a sure way to actually do it.
All I know about Baldwin’s faith is what is in the article.
See my #83.
Baptism is necessary now that there is a Church to which everyone has access (1 Pe. 3:21). It is not necessary when through martyrdom or some other insurmountable circumstance people desire to be baptised but are prevented from doing it.
For the truth of Catholicism go to Mass. In what sense does the article “fall short of the Bible”?
I agree. This is typical of the type of posting here, trying to win the separated brethren back over to the bondages of the church which they escaped, thankfully.
Through Jesus. Easy enough.
It’s the same old same old here. Baptism is NOT salvific. It is necessary AFTER conversion but well, you know the routine here.
Amen.
AMEN. My husband was Catholic and is no longer. His heart has been given to the Lord and he would never go back. Thank God.
Amen. My thoughts exactly.
Christianity is a relationship between man and God through His Son Jesus Christ. You don’t have to be a member of any church body to be a true believer. 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.
True and authentic christianity is between the believer and God. You can go to any church, Catholic or not, and not be a Christian. God knows His own and His sheep hear His voice. Church is desirable for sure, but it doesn’t make you a Christian just by being part of it.
Justification is a process that is between the believer and God. True Christianity is Catholic Christianity because it is conformed to the Sacred Deposit of Faith Christ gave the Apostles in order to teach the world.
It is, of course, true that many Catholics lose their salvation despite the Church’s efforts, but it is foolish and prideful to turn away from the Church purposely; hence this Open Letter.
Very well put!
“For the truth of Catholicism go to Mass.”
I was an alter boy. Been there. Seen it. Many times. The truth that was there was covered up with millenia of accretions that are not
in the Bible.
“In what sense does the article “fall short of the Bible”?”
Poor hermeneutics. Eisogesis instead of exegesis.
Plus the goofy calling out itself...
This is why people of fame are so coy about publicly proclaiming their faith.
It isn’t because of a backlash by non-believers or their atheist peers.
It is because of the avalanche of “you aren’t really a good Christian unless you agree with XYZ of the creed I follow” letters.
The luturgy is not in the Bible in the literal sense, of course, — although I cannot think of any other place one is exposed to so much logically organized scripture than at Mass.
The author made a case for Catholicism from the Bible. If you have a critique of it, pompous throwing of big words like “hermeneutics” around is not going to cut it; you are going to have to be specific.
Interesting how of nearly 100 posts no one really addressed the article.
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.