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?
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?