Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
You wrote:
“This statement seems to be saying that some people, no matter what they believe, if they wind up saved, it is because of Jesus, even though they never expressed belief in Him. This statement does not seem to be an unequivocal support for His words: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to Father except through me.””
Anyone who ends up in heaven ends up there because of Christ. Deciding who gets there is - thankfully - well above my pay grade. Will children who never knew Christ all be sent to hell? Will all human beings, hundred of billions of them, who never knew Christ, but many millions who sought out God sincerely, be sent to hell? If even one of those kids, or one of those others who never knew Christ is saved, it will be because of Christ. I leave all of that up to Him for He is the Savior.
You wrote:
“You quote a huge section of Acts for no purpose other than to take something out of context?”
No.
“I thought Claveau was speaking to a fellow Christian?”
Yes, but one who lacks the fullness of the Christian faith. Jews lacked the fullness of faith as it stood in their day as well because they lacked Christ.
“Peter is speaking to unbelievers.”
Yes, Jews. But Jews are not unfamiliar with the messiah. Peter and the Jews shared very much in common. Yet the Jews lacked Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith. He shares much in common with orthodox Christians, but still lacks the fullness of Christ.
“How does that make (1) the quotation of the passages relevant;”
Explained above.
“(2) Claveau a cyber martyr?”
You’re certainly trying to make him one. Come to think of it, why are you posting against him here? Why don’t you email him directly? Isn’t that what you have been preaching about contacting Baldwin directly? Interesting.
You wrote:
“The hyperbole in this comment is astonishing. After admitting that the letter is written to a fellow Christian you suggest that the methodology is the same as Justin Martyr’s.”
Actually I said that I’m glad Justin Martyr didn’t follow your tact. His apology was an open letter addressed to the Roman emperor, however. If he followed your tact we would not have the letter and his fellow Christians could not have taken solace or learned from his apology.
“Again, the author is not preaching to a non-Christian or to a tribal cabal in the darkest jungle of South America.”
Justin Martyr’s primary goal was not preaching, but apologetics. Also, Claveau’s primary goal is to evangelize a fallen away Catholic. That fallen away Catholic need only be fallen away - not a non-Christian nor a pagan living in the “darkest jungle of South America.” Many people baptized and even raised as Christians are in need of evangelization: http://www.christlife.org/evangelization/articles/C_newevan.html
http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/Ratzinger.htm
This has nothing to do with Justin Martyr, pagans, etc.
I guess we can say that Paul was a recent convert also. What has being a recent convert got to do with how God uses us to bring glory to His name? Is there a timeframe that has to transpire for us to be effective as christians? What about the Disciples, who dropped what they were doing and followed Christ? Can we say recent converts?
You wrote:
“I guess we can say that Paul was a recent convert also.”
Not now we can’t. ;)
“What has being a recent convert got to do with how God uses us to bring glory to His name?”
In this situation, nothing. No one said it did.
“Is there a timeframe that has to transpire for us to be effective as christians?”
Often, yes. Many new converts have great zeal, and that attracts others. But as CS Lewis noted, God often tests the resolution of the convert to make him stronger. After those tests, if successfully done, the Christian would be more effective as a witness because he could attest to God’s grace in bad times and good times AFTER his conversion.
“What about the Disciples, who dropped what they were doing and followed Christ? Can we say recent converts?”
At one time, yes. Not now. They’ve been at it for almost 2,000 years.
I think your answer can be found here:
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.
The author seems to think that Baldwin is using his fame to win souls for the wrong church.
And in fact, in my opinion the author used the term "new" not to suggest Baldwin was a new Christian, but instead to make a point about how Baldwin had a real faith before, but now was on some "new religious" kick that the author hopes to "save" him from by reminding him of the "true faith" of the Catholic church.
BTW, here is an interesting interview Baldwin gave. You can see in here some of what might prompt a Catholic writer like this one to chide Baldwin on his "new faith":
Stephen Baldwin: I'm going to be a bit of a jerk to make a point. Now you're doing that dance that most people do. And I was at the same place that you are. "I'm a good guy." And even the Roman Catholic Church, nowhere in the bible does it say you can pray to Mary. Prayer is a form of worship and the Lord said that you will have no other God before me. Now look at all of the problems you're seeing in the Roman Catholic Church. Now, am I saying that's God's wrath? That's not for me to decide or even make a statement about. I can't judge that. I'm just little schmuck, Stephen Baldwin. God says that there is only one way and I didn't believe that, myself, until I tried it and his spirit came into my life and into my heart, and confirmed that the Jesus Christ truth was real.
And here is a 700-club interview:
Baldwin: Sure. Raised Roman Catholic up until 11 or 12, didn’t stick. Went out into the world and did my own thing. But you have to understand at the time, I was functioning in Hollywood. All kinds of different things, perspectives, lifestyles, perceptions, [and] to me this was just okay. This is the new kooky housekeeper. OK, what’s next? What do we do now? How about a reality show?I hadn't known that his wife was a Christian before he was....
Baldwin: September 11th kind of freaked me out. I said, “Hey, what’s this all about? My wife’s a Jesus freak. Maybe it’s time I begin thinking about this faith thing.” Pursued it, became born again, accepted the Lord, baptized in water.
You missed the point. Moreover you aren't even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.
Sorry, but that is not all evangelism is. 1) The Bible was written when there were really only Catholics and non-Christians. Today, the situation is different. Today, not only do non-Catholic Christians need to be evangelized but even lapsed but baptized Catholics. http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/
I took a common definition as stated, without regard to any blatant appeals to theology. You've done contrawise so the result of your link speaks for itself.
Again, unless you know all the circumstances, “may” is the proper word. Do you know all the circumstances? No, you don’t. May is equivocal. Like your responses to this issue.
I don’t care because it is essentially irrelevant.
It's quite relevant. If I shout in your ear out of sincerity is that appropriate? Again, sincerity is conditioned. If it isn't it would lead to absurd results as I have demonstrated.
Yes, it is. The author clearly states that’s what he’s doing.
If it were self-evident you wouldn't have a number of posters other than me questioning his methodology.
It is not essential, period. The letter has been released whether you like it or not, thus, it is not essential, period.
In abrogation of common principles of man to man speech and the conduct of a gentlemen. Instead, take the easy way out and splash your personal issues on the internet. I think one poster described him as a poser. I would agree.
Yeah, actually that’s exactly what you’re doing. These repeated angst filled posts are hilarious examples of someone getting upset over something that not only has NOTHING to do with him, but something that won’t be a big deal in the first place.
What's hilarious is the lack of spine to face your accuser man to man. Instead, hide behind the internet and call the man out. What a waste of human integrity.
The motive is listed in the letter. There’s no reason to doubt it.
I'm sure you believe everything you read and never question the method and motive.
I always oppose absurdity wherever I find it. And the belligerence, anger and sheer paranoia expressed in responses to this simple letter are truly absurd.
The only absurdity is suggesting you take everything at face value and suggesting that sincerity is all that is necessary.
True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here. The real reason why I responded is simply this: those attacking the letter are over-reacting and wrong.
Christianity is not being attacked here. The letter writer's method and motive is.
All mail was hand delivered - especially if you were trying to remain secret. Also, be careful of the Wittenberg door analogy. There is ample reason to believe that is a myth.
Ah, revisionist Catholic history at work. You can post anywhere as I suggested could have been done. Point missed again.
It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.
You are actually denying that an individual can write a letter to a church? You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.
No. Paul would have used the Roman press to EVANGELIZE if such an open press existed. The Letter to the Romans was a secret one to protect himself and them from the Roman authorities. If, however, Paul could have used the Roman press - if such a thing existed - then he would have used it. I made no contradiction at all.
No you're backtracking and implicitly conceding that how something is delivered is important. Furthermore. you misconstrued or rather misstated my original point. I stated "press" as in open publication - not letter carrying. Stop playing fast and loose with the points. If indeed your are suggesting he would have used open Roman press this would be in contradiction to your point the letter was written in secret and to protect and thus in further contradiction of your point that sincerity is all that mattered.
There is nothing reckless about the letter or its distribution. It’s an open letter. Look at the word you’re using here “reckless”. And you say you’re not wringing your hands in angst? Reckless?
Reckless means exactly what it is. Someone publishing an open letter to someoone without having a personal dialogue with them before taking it public. I guess honor means nothing in your world.
He’s a public figure who openly talks about his faith on TV. There is no logical reason to believe this would offend him. Again, why are wringing your hands in angst over this letter?
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 thought this letter writer was of the same body of Christ. I guess not.
No, it isn’t. The use of quote marks is perfectly good simply because the term is in dispute as to its meaning and course.
Everything could be in dispute including his own theology. Let's start putting quotes around everything that will certainly solve the issue. It will also serves to highlight disrespect. It's patronizing.
Incorrect. Claveau merely uses quote marks to show the phrase is in dispute not that Baldwin’s conviction is unreal.
The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.
You wrote:
“On the other hand, his whole family was raised Catholic. His “committed christian” life was largely a breakaway from the Catholic faith. So if the author believes the Catholic faith was correct, he actually has been a believer most of his life.”
Incorrect. It is clear from what all the Baldwin brothers have said that the faith played essentially no part in their lives besides the barest of formalism when they were young.
“And in fact, in my opinion the author used the term “new” not to suggest Baldwin was a new Christian, but instead to make a point about how Baldwin had a real faith before, but now was on some “new religious” kick that the author hopes to “save” him from by reminding him of the “true faith” of the Catholic church.”
No. The very first line of the letter is this: “Praise God, you have become a strong voice in winning souls for Jesus as one who has experienced the saving grace of the Redeemer.”
Clearly Claveau neither dismisses Baldwin’s recently discovered religious faith nor cheapens it in any way.
“BTW, here is an interesting interview Baldwin gave. You can see in here some of what might prompt a Catholic writer like this one to chide Baldwin on his “new faith”:”
I’m sure that Baldwin’s ignorance regarding orthodox Christianity is definitely one of the reasons Claveau wrote to him.
And by the way, the interview you posted merely proves me right:
Baldwin: Sure. Raised Roman Catholic up until 11 or 12, didn’t stick.
Clearly he was at best a nominal Catholic and nothing in particular after age 12 until he his religious experience at age 35.
“I hadn’t known that his wife was a Christian before he was.”
He credits her in many interviews with showing him the way towards faith.
The Roman Emperor was a pagan! So you approve of the same methodology of addressing pagans as fellow Christians? That's precious. Better stop with the appeals to historical contexts because it is not serving you well.
I'm addressing your defence of this writer's screed. If he wants to take his theological debate to the internet than that's where it will be questioned.
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. This is, again, another good example why I don’t subscribe to any religion, it distracts us from Christ, who is the only One who’s gonna save us. God was always God and Christ was always Christ long before there ever was a Catholic Church.
On the subject of being a Catholic, there is only One True Church and it’s not a building or a religion. The True Church is the body of believers, and that emcompasses all who believe that Christ died for us. There is no purgatory, no prerequisite to be baptized in order to be saved from hell, or have to confess our sins to anyone (priests, pastors etc.) but God. And all the “hail Marys” is not going to save you from hell if you don’t believe Jesus is the only way to save us from ourselves and hell.
Because he evidently left Rome for Christ, and they want him back. That’s what I get from it.
You wrote:
“You missed the point. Moreover you aren’t even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.”
Is that even English? Seriously, what does that even mean? The logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results? What?
“I took a common definition as stated, without regard to any blatant appeals to theology. You’ve done contrawise so the result of your link speaks for itself.”
Yes, it speaks to the fact that you are grossly unprepared for this conversation. 1) YOU do not decide what the common definition of evangelization is, 2) we don’t live in the first century anymore but in a post-Christian world where orthodoxy has been debased by Christians themselves who do not know any better and therefore need to be evangelized.
“May is equivocal. Like your responses to this issue.”
“May” reflects the fact that we don’t know all the circumstances while you keep pretending that you do. The simple fact is not only do you not know what’s going on here but you understand it even less.
“It’s quite relevant. If I shout in your ear out of sincerity is that appropriate?”
If you’re shouting over a great deal of noise to save my life, yes. There is no shouting in the letter either. It’s a letter. It makes no noise, no sound. Baldwin can ignore it if he wishes. I could hardly ignore your shouting in my ear.
“Again, sincerity is conditioned. If it isn’t it would lead to absurd results as I have demonstrated.”
There are no absurd results - other than the posts by Claveau’s critics in this thread. Again, what are the absurd results? Baldwin will either be interested or not. How is either outcome absurd?
“If it were self-evident you wouldn’t have a number of posters other than me questioning his methodology.”
Yes, actually I would. I am convinced anything a Catholic does will draw fire from Protestants here at FR.
“In abrogation of common principles of man to man speech and the conduct of a gentlemen. Instead, take the easy way out and splash your personal issues on the internet.”
These are not Claveau’s personal issues and it is HIS letter. Also, Justin Martyr did NOT conduct himself as a gentelman according to you - nonsense!
“I think one poster described him as a poser. I would agree.”
Sheesh! The man has committed his whole life to evangelization. He is not a poser. I’m willing to bet he has accomplished more good in his life than anyone who labels him a poser.
“What’s hilarious is the lack of spine to face your accuser man to man.”
What accuser? This is what I mean when I say that your posts are angst filled. What accuser? Who is accusing who of any wrong doing in Claveau’s letter? Claveau never once accuses Baldwin of any wrong doing. Not once. Yet you talk about lack of spine and facing your accuser? Over what accusation? What are you talking about?
“Instead, hide behind the internet and call the man out. What a waste of human integrity.”
Again, Claveau is not hiding behind the internet. If he were he would not have listed his phone number at the bottom of the letter. You attack him and attack him and he has done NOTHING to you nor has he stated a single untruth. Why are you so angry over something that won’t effect you, won’t hurt Baldwin in the least and doesn’t even concern you?
“I’m sure you believe everything you read and never question the method and motive.”
There is no reason to question the method, motive or anything in the letter. Nor have you given a single realistic reason to question any of those things. So far all you have done is post about your feelings.
“The only absurdity is suggesting you take everything at face value and suggesting that sincerity is all that is necessary.”
It is an absurdity for YOU to suggest I take everything at face value and that sincerity is all that it is necessary because that is not what I said or believe. Again, there is no REASON to question the sincerity of the letter nor have you been able to present a single rational reason to doubt the sincerity of this letter. ZERO.
“Christianity is not being attacked here.”
It is on this website - on a regular basis. And I said it was regularly defended here: “True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here.”
“The letter writer’s method and motive is.”
You are attacking the letter, the author and yet you have no rational reason to do so.
“Ah, revisionist Catholic history at work.”
Even Protestant historians recognize there are ZERO contemporary records to show that the nailing of the 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door took place. Did you know that? ZERO. The Lutheran scholar who first broached this subject was Irwin Iserloh. Remember, he was LUTHERAN - NOT CATHOLIC:
http://www.luther.de/en/tanschl.html
“You can post anywhere as I suggested could have been done. Point missed again.”
No point was missed, but clearly you make up fairy tales like “Catholic revisionist history” when you don’t like things people say. Again, the Wittenberg door story may be a myth. Accept the fact that it may be a myth. That doesn’t mean it is, but it certainly could be, Read Iserloh’s book. I read it almost 15 years ago and he makes a good case.
“You are actually denying that an individual can write a letter to a church?”
No, actually that is EXACTLY what I said: “It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.”
Now, how can I state something so clearly and yet you ask a question that clearly shows you believe I did the EXACT opposite unless you’re just not interested in what people actually say? You make the same mistake with Claveau’s letter. What he wrote is there in black and white and yet you come up with all sorts of things that clearly don’t apply.
“You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.”
Incorrect. I clearly have no problems with it at all. You, however, are stating the EXACT opposite of what I actually wrote and trying to pass it off as if I said it.
“No you’re backtracking and implicitly conceding that how something is delivered is important.”
No. There is no backtracking at all. Remember you used the bizarre example of this letter being a porn magazine. I am simply stick to common sense methods - including open letters which have been around among Christians since at least the time of Justin Martyr. You can only call upon bizarre Penthouse and shouting in someone’s ears as your rejoinder examples. Bizarre. Open letters are not bizarre.
“Furthermore. you misconstrued or rather misstated my original point. I stated “press” as in open publication - not letter carrying.”
No. Press is not publication in any case. Your argument is not making any sense.
“Stop playing fast and loose with the points.”
You really aren’t making any.
“If indeed your are suggesting he would have used open Roman press this would be in contradiction to your point the letter was written in secret and to protect and thus in further contradiction of your point that sincerity is all that mattered.”
No, not at all. The two issues are separate as I already said: 1) If the press of today existed in ancient Rome, Paul would have used it to preach. 2) He wrote the letter to the Romans SECRETLY to protect their lives because they didn’t live in a free society.
Would St. Paul ONLY speak to people in person or would he go ahead and use television if it existed in his day?
“Reckless means exactly what it is. Someone publishing an open letter to someoone without having a personal dialogue with them before taking it public. I guess honor means nothing in your world.”
Oh, there we go - another personal attack because you have no argument whatsoever. An open letter is a perfectly acceptable form of communication on a religious issue when a public personality is addressed who has made his religion a public topic. He’s an actor. He has talked openly about his conversion and his beliefs and ministry. That means there is NOTHING wrong with addressing him in an open letter.
“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.”
1) I have my friend’s phone number and can contact him anytime I choose. I doubt Claveau has Baldwin’s phone number and they have probably never met.
2) Yes, a public figure can be addressed in a public way.
3) There’s nothing offensive about the letter, its contents or the fact that it is open.
“I thought this letter writer was of the same body of Christ. I guess not.”
No, Claveau is in the Body of Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith and that is exactly why Claveau is urging him to look into the Church, the body of Christ.
“Everything could be in dispute including his own theology.”
Not in his own letter.
“Let’s start putting quotes around everything that will certainly solve the issue. It will also serves to highlight disrespect. It’s patronizing.”
No, it’s merely correct. There is no point to dialogue without a committment toward truth. Claveau presents the truth all the way through the letter.
“The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.”
Incorrect. The phrase is in dispute between the Church and those who claim the term against her. Claveau, a member of the Church, presents the side of the Church to Baldwin and therefore writes the term correctly - as one in dispute.
If you are baptised and raised in the Catholic church, you are a christian, according to the Catholic church. If he fell away at 11 or 12, the question is whether he finished Catechism or not I guess. if he did, then he’s a fallen Catholic, not a new believer, according to the Church.
In Catholic church doctrine, you don’t cease to be a believer (or saved) because you fall away from the faith. You simply must return to the faith and confess your sins.
I interpret the author’s glowing words about Baldwin’s faith as cover for his real message, not as sincerely as you take them. Kind of like “It’s nice and all that you have this faith you are sharing, but you really need to get back to the real faith you were born into if you want to do some good, otherwise you are just deceiving those you think you are helping”.
But that’s just my interpretation. I imagine that it looks different to people with different religious backgrounds.
You wrote:
“The Roman Emperor was a pagan! So you approve of the same methodology of addressing pagans as fellow Christians?”
So open letters can only be sent to pagans? What planet are you from?
“That’s precious. Better stop with the appeals to historical contexts because it is not serving you well.”
History is serving me perfectly well. A Christian used an open letter. His name was Justin Martyr. He was separated by great distance form the emperor. That was the reason for the open letter - and to evangelize others. I see Claveau acting the same way. It has nothing to do with the religion of the man the letter is addressed to.
You wrote:
“Your use of Acts is to misuse its context. The writer claims Baldwin is a Christian not an unbeliever in Christ.”
That has nothing at all to do with my use of Acts. There was no misuse.
“I’m addressing your defence of this writer’s screed.”
No. You posted in the thread BEFORE me. Thus, you had a problem with CLAVEAU before you could possibly claim to have had a problem with me. Again, why aren’t you following your own dictates and addressing your complaints to Claveau directly? Why aren’t you following your own advice?
“If he wants to take his theological debate to the internet than that’s where it will be questioned.”
And if Baldwin takes his religious views onto the internet? Hmmmm...http://www.thelordslounge.com/home.htm
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.?
And, on top of that, Baldwin is online with his views, but no one can address an open letter online to him?
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’d say you’re just trying to ignore what you don’t like.
“This is, again, another good example why I don’t subscribe to any religion, it distracts us from Christ, who is the only One who’s gonna save us.”
Christ’s Church in itself cannot distract anyone from Christ because it is His Body.
“God was always God and Christ was always Christ long before there ever was a Catholic Church.”
No. The Second Person of the Trinity became the Christ in the womb of Mary. He was not Christ in the truest sense until He became man for only then could He carry out His redemptive mission. Also, the Church flowed from the side of Christ on the Cross. As St. John Chrysostom wrote: “Water and blood symbolized baptism and the Holy Eucharist. From these two sacraments the church is born: from baptism, the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal from the Holy Spirit, and from the Holy Eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam.”
“On the subject of being a Catholic, there is only One True Church and it’s not a building or a religion.”
No one claims it is a building so I am always amazed that people make a point of denying what no one claims the Church to be. The Church is not a religion, but Christianity is. The one, true Church was established by Christ - the Catholic Church.
“The True Church is the body of believers, and that emcompasses all who believe that Christ died for us.”
No. That was only true when all believers were Catholics. Since the rise of heretical sects, it can no longer be claimed that all believers in Christ are in the Church.
“There is no purgatory,”
Yes, actually there is. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp
“...no prerequisite to be baptized in order to be saved from hell,”
Well, except for in the Bible! http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
” or have to confess our sins to anyone (priests, pastors etc.) but God.”
Well, except for John 20:19-23
“And all the “hail Marys” is not going to save you from hell if you don’t believe Jesus is the only way to save us from ourselves and hell.”
True. But then again no one believes otherwise so why condemn what no one even believes?
Christianity is not about being a Lone Ranger and making it up as you go along. When you wrote: “This is, again, another good example why I don’t subscribe to any religion, it distracts us from Christ, who is the only One who’s gonna save us” you forget that Christ sent the Apostles. Christianity is not a consumer product to tailer to your satisfaction.
You wrote:
“If you are baptised and raised in the Catholic church, you are a christian, according to the Catholic church.”
In Baldwin’s case, he abandoned the Church, ditched some orthodox beliefs, and joined a sect.
“If he fell away at 11 or 12, the question is whether he finished Catechism or not I guess.”
No, that is not the question.
“if he did, then he’s a fallen Catholic, not a new believer, according to the Church.”
He is a fallen away Catholic, but he has discovered faith for the first time in many, many years - perhaps the first time in his life if his background is anything to go by.
“In Catholic church doctrine, you don’t cease to be a believer (or saved) because you fall away from the faith.”
Baldwin has joined a sect and adopted unorthodox ideas. He no longer would be considered a believer in the fullness of the faith (if he ever really was one) though he might be called (as I would say) a believer since he does believe in Christ.
“You simply must return to the faith and confess your sins.”
No, for him there would be more since his marriage might not have been performed by the Catholic Church for instance.
“I interpret the author’s glowing words about Baldwin’s faith as cover for his real message, not as sincerely as you take them.”
Okay, but you have no reason to. Again, what is it that Claveau has said that is so terrible?
“Kind of like “It’s nice and all that you have this faith you are sharing, but you really need to get back to the real faith you were born into if you want to do some good, otherwise you are just deceiving those you think you are helping”.”
I don’t see how that in any way means it is a cover. I firmly believe Stephen Baldwin is a Christian (and a better man because of his faith than he used to be as a lapsed Catholic). At the same time, because Christ established His Church and wanted all men to be one in Him, Baldwin should come home. There is no contradiction there.
“But that’s just my interpretation. I imagine that it looks different to people with different religious backgrounds.”
True. But why do we have different religious backgrounds when Christ established only one Church?
As I thought. You don't get the point of sincerity trumps all. Next.
Yes, it speaks to the fact that you are grossly unprepared for this conversation. 1) YOU do not decide what the common definition of evangelization is, 2) we don’t live in the first century anymore but in a post-Christian world where orthodoxy has been debased by Christians themselves who do not know any better and therefore need to be evangelized.
And neither do you decide. 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.
“May” reflects the fact that we don’t know all the circumstances while you keep pretending that you do. The simple fact is not only do you not know what’s going on here but you understand it even less.
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.
If you’re shouting over a great deal of noise to save my life, yes. There is no shouting in the letter either. It’s a letter. It makes no noise, no sound. Baldwin can ignore it if he wishes. I could hardly ignore your shouting in my ear.
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.
There are no absurd results - other than the posts by Claveau’s critics in this thread. Again, what are the absurd results? Baldwin will either be interested or not. How is either outcome absurd?
The absurd results is presuming that sincerity alone guides the method of discussion. You have no idea whether Baldwin would be offended at being called out, effectively as a wayward Catholic! 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.
Yes, actually I would. I am convinced anything a Catholic does will draw fire from Protestants here at FR.
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.
These are not Claveau’s personal issues and it is HIS letter. Also, Justin Martyr did NOT conduct himself as a gentelman according to you - nonsense!
No it isn't nonsense. Sheesh! The man has committed his whole life to evangelization. He is not a poser. I’m willing to bet he has accomplished more good in his life than anyone who labels him a poser.
Now you're presuming. Classic.
What accuser? This is what I mean when I say that your posts are angst filled. What accuser? Who is accusing who of any wrong doing in Claveau’s letter? Claveau never once accuses Baldwin of any wrong doing. Not once. Yet you talk about lack of spine and facing your accuser? Over what accusation? What are you talking about?
He's accusing him of living under false presumptions of Christianity. I thought that was clear enough by his quotation marks around 'born again' and his Catholic propaganda. 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.
Again, Claveau is not hiding behind the internet. If he were he would not have listed his phone number at the bottom of the letter. You attack him and attack him and he has done NOTHING to you nor has he stated a single untruth. Why are you so angry over something that won’t effect you, won’t hurt Baldwin in the least and doesn’t even concern you?
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. 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.
Secondly I'm not mad about anything, I'm responding to your posts. But I guess presumptions don't work both ways.
There is no reason to question the method, motive or anything in the letter. Nor have you given a single realistic reason to question any of those things. So far all you have done is post about your feelings.
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. You could care less. For you it's all about the message and to hell with how it's delivered.
You are attacking the letter, the author and yet you have no rational reason to do so.
Yes I have a rational reason and you don't care for it. That's simple enough. Even Protestant historians recognize there are ZERO contemporary records to show that the nailing of the 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door took place. Did you know that? ZERO.
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.
No point was missed, but clearly you make up fairy tales like “Catholic revisionist history” when you don’t like things people say. Again, the Wittenberg door story may be a myth. Accept the fact that it may be a myth. That doesn’t mean it is, but it certainly could be, Read Iserloh’s book. I read it almost 15 years ago and he makes a good case.
It may be myth and it may be the truth but that point was irrelevant! No, actually that is EXACTLY what I said: “It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.”
Now, how can I state something so clearly and yet you ask a question that clearly shows you believe I did the EXACT opposite unless you’re just not interested in what people actually say? You make the same mistake with Claveau’s letter. What he wrote is there in black and white and yet you come up with all sorts of things that clearly don’t apply.
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.
“You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.”
Quite obviously the problem is yours. ” No. There is no backtracking at all. Remember you used the bizarre example of this letter being a porn magazine. I am simply stick to common sense methods - including open letters which have been around among Christians since at least the time of Justin Martyr. You can only call upon bizarre Penthouse and shouting in someone’s ears as your rejoinder examples. Bizarre. Open letters are not bizarre.
Again you missed the point about methodology and manner of delivery so it doesn't surprise me you restated your error.
No, not at all. The two issues are separate as I already said: 1) If the press of today existed in ancient Rome, Paul would have used it to preach. 2) He wrote the letter to the Romans SECRETLY to protect their lives because they didn’t live in a free society.
And so then knowing subject A the Romans and subject B Paul's intention you surmised that open propaganda wasn't necessary. 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. 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. Would St. Paul ONLY speak to people in person or would he go ahead and use television if it existed in his day?
I feel certain that he would communicate personally before he made a grand show of it on some blog.
Oh, there we go - another personal attack because you have no argument whatsoever. An open letter is a perfectly acceptable form of communication on a religious issue when a public personality is addressed who has made his religion a public topic. He’s an actor. He has talked openly about his conversion and his beliefs and ministry. That means there is NOTHING wrong with addressing him in an open letter.
And you know Baldwin. You can presume to suggest that he doesn't need to be spoken to personally. 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. As I stated, that's not Christianity. That's religious propagandizing.
1) I have my friend’s phone number and can contact him anytime I choose. I doubt Claveau has Baldwin’s phone number and they have probably never met.
Boy for someone who stated he doesn't presume and in fact doesn't know you sure want to assume a lot.
No, Claveau is in the Body of Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith and that is exactly why Claveau is urging him to look into the Church, the body of Christ.
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? Because he doesn't subscribe to Catholic ideology? Far from it. But that is not the point of this discussion as that will degenerate into schismatic discussions. 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. 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. 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.
“The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.” Incorrect. The phrase is in dispute between the Church and those who claim the term against her. Claveau, a member of the Church, presents the side of the Church to Baldwin and therefore writes the term correctly - as one in dispute.
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.
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.