Why do many evangelical protestants not describe themselves as "protestants"

[AbideWithMe]

Hey AbideWithMe!

In addition to all that’s been said by AbideWithMe, I would add that (in contemporary usage as distinguished from the historical usages) evangelicals are those Protestants who

1. would be able to completely agree with the main propositions of the Protestant Reformation: the primacy of Scripture, justification by grace alone through faith alone, and the priesthood of all believers.
2. are usually literal in their interpretation of the Bible (i.e. if the Bible said Jesus was born of a virgin, they believe it actually happened).
3. believe that a conscious conversion experience (what is called being born again, from which derives the label “born-again Christian”) is essential. This is non-negotiable. Evangelicals can and do (such as evangelical Anglicans) believe in infant baptism; however, all evangelicals agree that true conversion is a must.
4. put a high priority on actively spreading the Gospel at home and abroad. They believe the Great Commission was given to the whole church and it is ultimately the central life purpose of every Christian to spread the Gospel by word and deed. It’s not optional and needs to be a priority for every Christian.
5. believe that the Church is made up of all born-again Christians and is not limited to one particular visible church or denomination.

In America, evangelicals tend to fall into two main divisions. One is the Reformed, Calvinistic, Presbyterian evangelicals. These tend to be academically heavy on formal doctrine and until recently were very anti-Charismatic. The other is the Arminian Wesleyans, Holiness, Pentecostals. The latter group tends to be more perfectionistic and charismatic.

Revivalism has been a feature of both branches; however, at this time I think the Pentecostal types tend to display the more revivalistic type of evangelicalism. Reformed and Wesleyan evangelicals have an awkward relationship. Both are evangelicals, but just have different ways of being so.

Evangelicalism has been a feature of American Protestantism from the very beginning. High water marks of evangelical history in the United States are the First and Second Great Awakenings. Research the history of these nation shaking religious revivals to get a feel for American style evangelicalism.

Thanks for the good, informative post, Itwin.

Mark, here’s the wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism It briefly talks about the roots of what we now call Evangelicalism—Methodists and German Pietists. It also explains more about the more recent (relatively) Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy, and how Evangelicals came to see themselves as occupying the middle ground in that controversy. Futher in, it explains some of the diverse movements within Evangelicalism. I was going to quote a few parts here,
but I’m really exhausted from having a bad cold .

Thanks again for asking Evangelicals directly to explain themselves.

 

[WildCatholic]

In about 99% of cases, it’s not an intentional lying, but rather, they simply believe they are the true church. I hate to generalize, but the more “evangelical Christians” I meet, the more I realize they’re not the most educated of individuals regarding their church. At least I met didn’t even know what the word Protestant meant. Many of them I have talked to are under the impression that it was the Catholic Church that changed everything. Their perception of history is distorted to say the least.

It doesn’t seem to be any malice against Catholicism though. They simply have been brainwashed by previous generations and doing what they perceive as right.

I’ve noticed the belief that the Catholic Church changed everything too. I had a girl in a medieval history class who asked our professor about why the Catholics changed christianity. Anyway this professor, who I assume is not a believer told her “well Christian and Catholic were the same thing at this time”. Of course she didn’t believe him about it, but oh well

 

[AbideWithMe]

In about 99% of cases, it’s not an intentional lying, but rather, they simply believe they are the true church. I hate to generalize, but the more “evangelical Christians” I meet, the more I realize they’re not the most educated of individuals regarding their church. At least I met didn’t even know what the word Protestant meant. Many of them I have talked to are under the impression that it was the Catholic Church that changed everything. Their perception of history is distorted to say the least.

It doesn’t seem to be any malice against Catholicism though. They simply have been brainwashed by previous generations and doing what they perceive as right.

Well, Pedro, you are generalizing, but at least you realize that you are!

Some of what you’re seeing among your acquaintances could stem from the fact that Evangelical churches, if they can be said to have a charism, have the gift of bringing in people who may otherwise fall through the cracks in other churches, or who have little or no remaining vestige of Christian upbringing. It’s not then surprising if they know little about the historical Christian controversies.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’ve noticed the belief that the Catholic Church changed everything too. I had a girl in a medieval history class who asked our professor about why the Catholics changed christianity. Anyway this professor, who I assume is not a believer told her “well Christian and Catholic were the same thing at this time”. Of course she didn’t believe him about it, but oh well

I think that “Catholics changed everything” belief is most likely to be found among more fundamentalist-leaning Baptists. They are just one group among fundamentalists and some conservative Evangelicals, and don’t represent the whole by any means. Though I’m sure if one gets in your face, it’s distressing, and it may tempt you to paint the greater body of Evangelicals with the same brush.

 

[JRKH]

I have to agree with one thing. evangelical protestants mostly lack the knowledge about modern Christianity

Based on what evidence?

Jon

While I generally disagree with such generalizations…I think that perhaps cargills is referring to the oft encountered evangelical who has little or no idea what the Catholic church actually teaches.

A case in point can be found HERE…Where two evangelical are responding to the question about evangelicals becoming Catholic.

Contained in this one video are a number of things that have been brought up here.
In particular - they

1. Misrepresent Catholic teaching
2. Belittle the usefulness of historical reading. The one gentleman, starting at about minute 5:30, dismisses history - i.e. the Church Fathers as having any relevance and the other Gentleman not only agrees but says this, “If you read the church fathers, I’m not recommending it, but if somebody wants to do it go ahead…”

So - again - while I do not agree with gross generalizations relating to a term as loose as “evangelical”…We cannot deny that this utter disregard for history and the accurate teachings of other churches does exist.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

While I generally disagree with such generalizations…I think that perhaps cargills is referring to the oft encountered evangelical who has little or no idea what the Catholic church actually teaches.

A case in point can be found HERE…Where two evangelical are responding to the question about evangelicals becoming Catholic.

Contained in this one video are a number of things that have been brought up here.
In particular - they

1. Misrepresent Catholic teaching
2. Belittle the usefulness of historical reading. The one gentleman, starting at about minute 5:30, dismisses history - i.e. the Church Fathers as having any relevance and the other Gentleman not only agrees but says this, “If you read the church fathers, I’m not recommending it, but if somebody wants to do it go ahead…”

So - again - while I do not agree with gross generalizations relating to a term as loose as “evangelical”…We cannot deny that this utter disregard for history and the accurate teachings of other churches does exist.

Peace
James

Hi James,
I wouldn’t argue with what you have said here. And you know me, I find the idea that a Christian shouldn’t read the Fathers to be a decision to be intentionally ignorant of the faith. My response was based on the choice of the word “mostly”.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

To expand on my previous post and the linked video, one thing that irked me about the “answer” that these guys gave is how dismissive it was of the “high level” or “notable” people who converted.
Look at the very last comments made…where the older gentleman says that they went to history and NOT to the bible…and the other gentleman says that these people rejected the Gospel…

Well I don’t know about others here, but I have listened to a great many conversion stories on “The Journey Home” and other sources and in every case it was the BIBLE that led them to history and History that gave them greater insight into the bible.

I find it rather insulting to the two men they mentioned early on…one of who had been, “head of the Evangelical Theology Society”…that they summarily dismissed them. Men who obviously knew their bible and were committed to Christ and would not convert without sound biblical reasons.

So again - While I don’t say that all evangelicals take such a dim view of history and the ECF’s - These fellows who are broadcasting this stuff - certainly do.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
I wouldn’t argue with what you have said here. And you know me, I find the idea that a Christian shouldn’t read the Fathers to be a decision to be intentionally ignorant of the faith. My response was based on the choice of the word “mostly”.

Jon

Understood Jon.

I have to wonder…as a matter of quantity - among evangelicals who (like these men) broadcast the evangelical viewpoint, how prevalent this type of view is.

Are their evangelical protestant programs out there that accurately present the views of the Catholic Church?
In other words - who is doing the broadcasting and what views are the spreading?

Not a question that I know the answer to.

Peace
James

 

[AbideWithMe]

Understood Jon.

I have to wonder…as a matter of quantity - among evangelicals who (like these men) broadcast the evangelical viewpoint, how prevalent this type of view is.

Are their evangelical protestant programs out there that accurately present the views of the Catholic Church?
In other words - who is doing the broadcasting and what views are the spreading?

Not a question that I know the answer to.

Peace
James

James, I actually agree with both your previous posts.

I’ve run across The Berean Call before, and in my estimation they are sincere but misguided cult hunters. They’re critical, and often misinformed, about all sorts of things, not just Catholicism. Neither of the two men who make up The Berean Call have degrees in theology or backgrounds in ministry before forming TBC.

They aren’t as influential among Evangelicals as they may appear on the web. From their “About” page: “The materials carried by TBC are thought provoking and regarded controversial by some, and are therefore not offered by many Christian bookstore.” I don’t consider them mainstream Evangelical, though certainly they are not unique.

T.A.McMahon, the president of TBC, was Catholic, apparently into his twenties or longer, and that may account for hs animus towards Catholicism if his experience was negative and he was taught poorly. Teach your own better and love them and we’ll have less of this kind of misinformation being spread by former Catholics!

 

[PJM]

=WildCatholic;10305873]Many of my evangelical protestant friends never refer to themselves as protestants. Most of them were members of Campus Crusade, and even this organization didn’t really refer to itself as protestant, only Christian. I even had one of my best friends ask me “what’s a protestant” (no joke, she never heard of the term which surprised me)

So why do evangelical denominations use only Christian when referring to themselves.Do they want to misinform people that they are the only true christians. Do they have a lot of disregard for their protestant history? Or do they just feel they’ve moved beyond the whole Catholic protestant thing, even if they still are protestant? Anyone who can tell me please help

IMO; seriously,

It is because far removed from protesting the CC they now s(name removed by moderator)ly [like blind sheep] follow there own shephards; whose voice ALONE they are willing to accept.

May God help them,

PJM

 

[AbideWithMe]

Are their evangelical protestant programs out there that accurately present the views of the Catholic Church?
In other words - who is doing the broadcasting and what views are the spreading?

Not a question that I know the answer to.

Peace
James

For Evangelicals who partly “get” Catholicism, one’s best bet may be the Evangelical contributors to First Things and Touchstone magazine. I think Phillip Yancey, who was the long time editor of Christianity Today magazine, has a real appreciation for Catholicism----I’m basing that on frequent quotes in his books from Catholic authors, anyway. Christianity Today, the most mainstream and popular Evangelical magazine, has had some Catholic-friendly articles. On the web, there’s The Internet Monk.

But overall, I think a person’s best likelihood of partly understanding Catholicism has to come from going directly to Catholics themselves. Speaking for myself, I apply that to learning about any religion.

 

[JRKH]

For Evangelicals who partly “get” Catholicism, one’s best bet may be the Evangelical contributors to First Things and Touchstone magazine. I think Phillip Yancey, who was the long time editor of Christianity Today magazine, has a real appreciation for Catholicism----I’m basing that on frequent quotes in his books from Catholic authors, anyway. Christianity Today, the most mainstream and popular Evangelical magazine, has had some Catholic-friendly articles. On the web, there’s The Internet Monk.

But overall, I think a person’s best likelihood of partly understanding Catholicism has to come from going directly to Catholics themselves. Speaking for myself, I apply that to learning about any religion.

Thanks for that. Hopefully such articles and sources will help reduce some of the misinformation out there.

James, I actually agree with both your previous posts.

I’ve run across The Berean Call before, and in my estimation they are sincere but misguided cult hunters. They’re critical, and often misinformed, about all sorts of things, not just Catholicism. Neither of the two men who make up The Berean Call have degrees in theology or backgrounds in ministry before forming TBC.

They aren’t as influential among Evangelicals as they may appear on the web. From their “About” page: “The materials carried by TBC are thought provoking and regarded controversial by some, and are therefore not offered by many Christian bookstore.” I don’t consider them mainstream Evangelical, though certainly they are not unique.

Thanks for this. I actually just ran across the linked video when I was looking for something else. So I had really no idea about the organization or the people on it…

I know I probably should not say this…so take it with a bit of “tongue in cheek”…but when I read you comment above, “either of the two men who make up The Berean Call have degrees in theology or backgrounds in ministry before forming TBC.”, by the snarky part of my brain said…yes but the DO have the Holy Spirit guiding them in understanding Scripture……and that’s all you need…

T.A.McMahon, the president of TBC, was Catholic, apparently into his twenties or longer, and that may account for hs animus towards Catholicism if his experience was negative and he was taught poorly. Teach your own better and love them and we’ll have less of this kind of misinformation being spread by former Catholics!

AMEN AMEN AMEN
You are absolutely right. Better Catechesis is really a must.

Peace
James

 

[mark_a]

One particularly North America, fairly modern definition emphasizes Evangelicals as a middle ground between (in our view) too-separating, world-condemning fundamentalists and the liberal Mainline churches which may not affirm basic tenets of Christianity. (However, there are certainly some Mainline churches that do retain central Christian beliefs—the Episcopalian, Anglican, and Lutheran posters here are examples of that. And there are Evangelicals within the Mainline churches, sometimes in very important positions—Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby is Evangelical-friendly.)

Hey AbideWithMe!

In addition to all that’s been said by AbideWithMe, I would add that (in contemporary usage as distinguished from the historical usages) evangelicals are those Protestants who

1. would be able to completely agree with the main propositions of the Protestant Reformation: the primacy of Scripture, justification by grace alone through faith alone, and the priesthood of all believers.
2. are usually literal in their interpretation of the Bible (i.e. if the Bible said Jesus was born of a virgin, they believe it actually happened).
3. believe that a conscious conversion experience (what is called being born again, from which derives the label “born-again Christian”) is essential. This is non-negotiable. Evangelicals can and do (such as evangelical Anglicans) believe in infant baptism; however, all evangelicals agree that true conversion is a must.
4. put a high priority on actively spreading the Gospel at home and abroad. They believe the Great Commission was given to the whole church and it is ultimately the central life purpose of every Christian to spread the Gospel by word and deed. It’s not optional and needs to be a priority for every Christian.
5. believe that the Church is made up of all born-again Christians and is not limited to one particular visible church or denomination.

In America, evangelicals tend to fall into two main divisions. One is the Reformed, Calvinistic, Presbyterian evangelicals. These tend to be academically heavy on formal doctrine and until recently were very anti-Charismatic. The other is the Arminian Wesleyans, Holiness, Pentecostals. The latter group tends to be more perfectionistic and charismatic.

Revivalism has been a feature of both branches; however, at this time I think the Pentecostal types tend to display the more revivalistic type of evangelicalism. Reformed and Wesleyan evangelicals have an awkward relationship. Both are evangelicals, but just have different ways of being so.

Evangelicalism has been a feature of American Protestantism from the very beginning. High water marks of evangelical history in the United States are the First and Second Great Awakenings. Research the history of these nation shaking religious revivals to get a feel for American style evangelicalism.

Thanks folks for the good explanations! Is Evangelicalism more of a Christian “style” (for lack of a better term) than a set of dogmatic principles?

Would it be presumptuous of me to think that Evangelicals are all of a like mind concerning moral theology?

 

[ltwin]

Thanks folks for the good explanations! Is Evangelicalism more of a Christian “style” (for lack of a better term) than a set of dogmatic principles?

Would it be presumptuous of me to think that Evangelicals are all of a like mind concerning moral theology?

Evangelicalism is a pan-denominational canopy. It’s not so much a style as a particular way of reading the Bible and a particular understanding what it means to be a Christian. There are many styles that evangelicals utilize. The UK’s Evangelical Alliance (PDF) states:

While the great Reformation solas define the theological foundations of Evangelicalism, its specific social and historical character did not decisively mesh together until the 1730s, when an American Calvinist Jonathan Edwards and two Church of England clergymen, George Whitefield and John Wesley, developed a revivalist application of Reformation principles through itinerant preaching, evangelism and a deepened emphasis on conversion or new birth , assurance of faith, and personal holiness.** In particular, these revivalists stressed that assurance of salvation was the normative pattern of Christian experience, and that this could be given to an individual in a moment. Such assurance gave Evangelicals the freedom and the inner dynamic for their now familiar activism in preaching the gospel and engaging in good works.**

For the specific origins of evangelicalism on the American scene, Wheaton College’s Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals states:

In the English-speaking world, however, the modern term usually describes the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Key figures associated with these revivals included the itinerant English evangelist George Whitefield (1715-1770); the founder of Methodism, John Wesley (1703-1791) ; and American philosopher and theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). These revivals were particularly responsible for the rise of the Baptists and Methodists from obscure sects to their traditional position as America’s two largest Protestant denominational families.

By the 1820s evangelical Protestantism was by far the dominant expression of Christianity in the overwhelmingly Protestant United States.** The concept of evangelism—revival-codified, streamlined, and routinized by evangelists like Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)—became “revivalism” as evangelicals set out to convert the nation.** By the decades prior to the Civil War, a largely-evangelical “Benevolent Empire” (in historian Martin Marty’s words) was actively attempting to reshape American society through Bible and tract distribution, the establishment of Sunday Schools and through such reforms as temperance, the early women’s movement, various benevolent and betterment societies, and—most controversial of all—the abolition movement.

Revivalism continues as does activism for such causes as pro-life and a growing one is the new abolitionist movement to end human trafficking.

 

[batman1973]

You are absolutely right. Better Catechesis is really a must.

Peace
James

So, how do you go about getting proper Catechesis? I myself get PJM’s weekly studies, but, I’m sure not all Catholics have that advantage.

 

[Zooey]

More and more, I tend to identify myself as Christian too. Once it is noted how politics drove the major divisions of Christianity much more than doctrinal differences, what is different becomes less and less important.

I agree. We all need to communicate better with one another, because we have so much in common.
I notice this is especially true in the language we use…Often, I see the same words used to describe very different ideas, & completely different language used to speak of the same things. I sometimes describe myself as a “translator” from one group of Christians to another. (For an English teacher’s daughter, this is a pretty natural process).

The Wikipedia article linked above is very well done, by the bye. I read it with a sense of feeling that "Wow! Wiki gets it!! (They even made the distinction between evangelical & fundamentalist clear, without attacking anyone in the process–no small feat!)

 

[CopticChristian]

So, how do you go about getting proper Catechesis? I myself get PJM’s weekly studies, but, I’m sure not all Catholics have that advantage.

Bat,

The Adult Catechism USA for Adults is Audio and Written. I like the audio version because I can listen while I drive and have been through it now many times. This Catechism tells me that Catechesis means to echo and in that regard hearing these teachings I am able to echo what I hear much easier than what I read. I recommend it for Catholics, non-Catholics and anyone wanting an entertaining and lively introduction to the Faith. It is based on the Universal Catechism and is oriented towards understanding the roots of Faith in the USA.

Many claim other Catechisms and their value however this is the only one available on Audio I could find…

 

[CopticChristian]

Many of my evangelical protestant friends never refer to themselves as protestants. Most of them were members of Campus Crusade, and even this organization didn’t really refer to itself as protestant, only Christian. I even had one of my best friends ask me “what’s a protestant” (no joke, she never heard of the term which surprised me)

So why do evangelical denominations use only Christian when referring to themselves.Do they want to misinform people that they are the only true christians. Do they have a lot of disregard for their protestant history? Or do they just feel they’ve moved beyond the whole Catholic protestant thing, even if they still are protestant? Anyone who can tell me please help

Wild,

How many people of any ethnic identity in the 3rd or 4th generation retain their original language in the USA? A very small percentage. Each generation gets inculturated and loses much of their identity of that from which they came.

How many Italians do you know that do not speak Italian?

How many Mexicans don’t speak Spanish?

How many Asians have no clue about Chinese, Japanese or other languages?

They do retain some of the customs and some of the particularities and I am sure you have heard…

I am an American…when asked who they are…so with that in mind consider…

Anglican begat the Methodist begat the Holiness movement begat the AOG and the Pentacostal and begat the Non-denominational or denomination of non…

and

Lutherans begat the Lutheran Church of Sweden that begat the Evangelical Free Church of Sweden that Begat the Evangelical Free Church in America…

and

as those that begats get further from their source they mix and mingle and distance themselves from NAMES of origin including Protestant…

They just don’t know who and where they came from…

A simple question for each and every Evangelical would be

Do you believe that all you need to know what you need to know about Christianity is found in the Bible?

Uh huh

Do you believe that you are saved by Faith alone?

Uh huh

Do you believe unless you accept Christ as savior then you cannot go to heaven?

Uh huh

You can say…did you know that this is Protestant thought that originated some 500 years ago?

Then ask some questions like the following…

Do you know where the bible comes from?
Are you aware that there are no original Scriptures and all you have is translations?
Who decided on what books to put in the Bible?
How many books in the Bible?

66?

Did you know that the original King James found here…has 73 books

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

Then you have a dialogue…

Now do recall, you too are Evangelical and as they want to spread the good news, understand that their news is lacking all the news and you should continue where they left off and thank God that you have been provided the opportunity to speak with people that

Believe in God
Accept that there is something like the Word of God
They believe in most of what you believe seen here with some exception…

We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."

and what a blessing to have presented to you people that accept and believe this, not knowing the struggles and issues that caused this belief to be written and transmitted in time so that on one would error in belief…They may have good news…you have better news…

and all you have to do is

Evangelize them…now does it get better than this?

 

[JRKH]

So, how do you go about getting proper Catechesis? I myself get PJM’s weekly studies, but, I’m sure not all Catholics have that advantage.

This is a question worthy of it’s own thread and in fact I’m sure that there are threads on this specific question.

You ask how I go about it…well right now I am involved in a program to read the Catechism in a year. However - I’m afraid that I am unable to give it the attention it deserves due to my current circumstances.
I spend a fair amount of time here on CAF because I learn a great deal from here.

In a more general sense and answer…there are a number of ways that Catechesis can be improved but these require the cooperation of the laity and the teachers in the Church.
Ideas include:

1. Meaty homilies that not only address the scripture readings but include (as appropriate) links to the Catechism.
2. Parish level classes to learn the Catechism with a focus on a) addressing questions of the faithful and b) helping the faithful address common questions from non-Catholics.
3. Most importantly…Serious and concerted efforts by parents to see that their children are taught the faith in an orthodox manner. The best Catechesis occurs when we are young. Get a good and proper foundation and our children are less likely to be drawn away by other traditions.
4. Equally important to the above, especially for teens and those preparing to go off to college, is to pointedly give them responses to protestant “objections”.

Of course - All of these are being done to one extent or another, except possibly for #4.
So one might legitimately ask…why do we still have the problem?

I think that this is two-fold.

1. In order for teaching to be truly effective it requires people willing to learn and people receiving good example. Children are not necessarily “willing” to embrace the teachings of the Church and (most unfortunately) many adults are simply not good examples to our children. As a result, young people leave the faith before they really get to know it…or because of some bad experience…or they grew up in a “nominally Catholic” - non-practicing household…and yet, many will say something like “I use to be Catholic”, or “I was raised Catholic” - like this implies that they actually knew they faith that they were baptized into.
   This is something I have noted in listening to many conversion stories…In many cases where a person is said to be a “former (fill in the blank)” it turns out that they were only nominally that thing…growing up the family didn’t practice…that they left it early…etc.
   So when someone says “I use to be (whatever)” this does not necessarily mean that they represent a deep understanding that they now recognize as wrong and have rejected. In the case of many “former Catholics” it is probably a case of never really having the chance to truly be and **embrace]/b] Catholicism.
2. The other issue related to this is that the wider “Sola Scriptura Christian” world has a distinct advantage over the Catholic in that, in the wider Christian world, the one can call themselves Christian and pretty much believe whatever they want. I don’t mean that as a slam to our non-Catholic brethren, but with the wide variety of Communities to choose from - all claiming the Bible and all claiming the title Christian - it really boils down to selecting a community that best fits what you accept. And if a person comes to a different belief - they simply change communities…
   The Catholic does not really have that option. Being Catholic is something much more specific than simply being “Christian”.

Sorry - I seem to be rambling and certainly I am off topic to the thread…so I’ll shut-up now…

Peace
James**

 

[PJM]

=MSSheBear;10306426]A week after the Easter Vigil, I told my former employer and friend that I had become a Catholic. She said that she heard of Catholics who became Christians but never of a Christian becoming a Catholic. (We had attended the same Evangelical Church for several years.) We Catholics are Christians too. Unfortunately many, many Evangelicals don’t recognize that.

I understand the “WHY”?

Divine Justice.

Still the inability of soooo many to uncover the evident truth is astounding

**Psalms 127:1 ** "“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.”

“**Proverbs 30:5-6 ** Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprimand you, and you be proved a liar.

Mark 7:13 “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.”

**“Proverbs 30:5-6 ** Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprimand you, and you be proved a liar.

Mark 7:13 “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.”

“Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprimand you, and you be proved a liar.

1 Samuel 15:22-23 “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king.”

Mark 7:13 “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.”

The eyes that don not see; the ears that do not hear;

Let us pray fo them!

God Bless,

pat/PJM