Dear Sir, This will be my last word on the matter. Mr. Olasky reported that Le San left the tradition of the Roman communion and through the ministry of an evangelical repented in the face of Scripture, and now is a member of a Presbyterian church. We also know that Le San was at one time impressed by the integrity of a Christian woman. That’s about all we know (from the article) about Le San’s spiritual journey. We know even less from the article about Olasky’s opinion about the Roman communion, Presbyterianism or the biblical gospel for that matter. You, however, insist on calling Olasky’s report “gloating”. I would suggest to you that your conclusion exceeds the scope of any premises that can be derived from the article. You say...

Dear Fabius Cunctator, Maybe we might review the bidding. 1. Mr. Olasky *reported* that Le San left the religious tradition of his family and has pursued Christianity through the tradition of the Protestant Reformers. 2. Mr. Olasky *reported* that Le San found many women he met in college to have no restraint until he met a “Christian” woman, with whom he went to church by invitation. Strictly from those two objective statements, I don’t see how one ascertains that Mr. Olasky applauds Le San’s departure from the Roman communion and actually doesn’t abhor the decision? After all, in the same breath that Mr. Olasky reports that Le San “went his own way” he also informs his readers that Le San was aggressive and insensitive. If...