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

[CopticChristian]

Cross-check yourself. I was suggesting to Nicol that the RCC calls it’s membership to true conversion of heart via numerous ways. In an earlier post I actually mentioned Eucharistic devotion.

One common way that the Church calls us to true conversion of heart, which I neglected to mention–is the SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION!!!. Every aspect of that sacrament is meant to be nothing less than a conversion of heart. That so many receive this Sacrament, as well as the Sacrament of the Eucharist, so lightly and so casually is not for want of the Church exhorting us to do otherwise.

As it happens, I do feel the Church doesn’t so good a job of teaching true conversion in the preaching of sermons as many Protestants do. And that, I think, is what Nicol misses in the RCC–the good, sturdy, bracing sermon, the proclamation of the Word in terms which truly stir one’s heart.

Protestants IMHO do that well.

Catholics, badly.

But that is a trade-off wherein Catholics still come out way ahead in the end. We have the Sacraments, which are, each of them, direct encounters with Christ and direct infusions of grace thru the Holy Ghost. Protestants encounter Christ in His Word, the Scripture, but not sacramentally, and so miss so much of Him in their pilgrimage.

And btw–Greg Laurie, with whom I am wholly unfamiliar, may or may not be “preaching nonsense”. My experience with Evangelicals is that for all their flaws, they get a lot of things right. Hopefully enough that many of them live out their lives in some genuine and salvific relationship to Christ

I think you and I are basically on the same side of this discussion.

Flame,

Perhaps you can aid me as Nicol seems to believe I argue. All I ask is to point to me where you see Conversion of the heart in the Catechism. I do have some questions to follow. Guide me.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Justa,

Simple observation of people. There are differences in thinking today in Christendom, there were differences at the time of the reformation obviously, there were differences before the reformation, only silent. People had differences at the time of Jesus, the apostles had a few differences amoung themselves. The idea that people were of one mind at anytime is ludicrous. Why is the obvious, a truth, so hard to accept? There should be rejoicing when someone comes to know Jesus as their Savior, no matter which church they may be involved with.

Roostah,

It is difficult to accept something that isn’t true unless there is proof that it is true.

What is ludicruous is to propose what you propose without proof.

 

[CopticChristian]

**Coptic writes;
Roostah,

Name these groups and their descendants of today.

I recall Nestorians, Arians, Judaizing Christians that Chrysostom dealt with, Gnostics…

There were no

Baptists
Methodists
Anglicans
Presbyterians
Menonites
Amish
Jehovah Witness
Mormon
Pentacostal
Assembly of God
Reformed Baptist
Evanelical Free
Lutheran

What are the names of the goups you believe existed? How do you know this? Who taught you this? **​

Yes Christian history has had many denominations and sects. Who are the decendants? who are the ancestors? The answer is people, some of whom were/are saved by their faith in Jesus and some doomed by not accepting Jesus, his free gift. Remove the labels, we are all in the same predictament. One thing is for sure, the church will not save you./

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes - certainly I agree that this is what Abide said.

Peace
James

James,

Thank you, as Abide has family matters…I will address this with you…

**Yes—I’m an Evangelical Christian, and this is what I more often than not hear from fellow Evangelicals. It’s a sign of openness. I can say for myself and others I know, it’s not a sign of ignorance of history. Somewhat the opposite, it can mean we’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common—Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”. **

Abide says she is Evangelical. No argument here.

She states she hears from others. No argument here.

She states she speaks for herself there is no ignorance of History. I question this because to know the history of Christian thought as has been stated one ceases to be Protestant.

We’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common----Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”…here is where I see a departure and concern that I spoke from…

Ok…so far so good?

 

[JRKH]

James,

Thank you, as Abide has family matters…I will address this with you…

**Yes—I’m an Evangelical Christian, and this is what I more often than not hear from fellow Evangelicals. It’s a sign of openness. I can say for myself and others I know, it’s not a sign of ignorance of history. Somewhat the opposite, it can mean we’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common—Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”. **

Abide says she is Evangelical. No argument here.

She states she hears from others. No argument here.

She states she speaks for herself there is no ignorance of History. I question this because to know the history of Christian thought as has been stated one ceases to be Protestant.

We’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common----Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”…here is where I see a departure and concern that I spoke from…

Ok…so far so good?

1. For myself - I really don’t like to be yelled at in print by great big red letters. I am perfectly capable of recognizing something emphasized without such drama.
2. your comment about knowing the history of Chrisitan thought and ceasing to be protestant is a fine saying of Bl Cardinal Newman - but it hardly qualifies as something that is always the case. many can be quite knowledgeable in history and remain protestant.
3. I see nothing particularly scandalous in Abide’s comment that she wishes not to fight but to concentrate on Christ. Since we too wish to concentrate on Christ, this all seems to the good. Besides…as I understand it, her comment was within the context of explaining how she understands the evangelical’s desire not to be associated with the term “protestant”.
4. So in conclusion I think that this is probably the point of disconnect between what Abide was trying to convey and what you were hearing. It is probably best to wait until she is able to respond more fully herself.

Peace
James

 

[CopticChristian]

1. For myself - I really don’t like to be yelled at in print by great big red letters. I am perfectly capable of recognizing something emphasized without such drama.
2. your comment about knowing the history of Chrisitan thought and ceasing to be protestant is a fine saying of Bl Cardinal Newman - but it hardly qualifies as something that is always the case. many can be quite knowledgeable in history and remain protestant.
3. I see nothing particularly scandalous in Abide’s comment that she wishes not to fight but to concentrate on Christ. Since we too wish to concentrate on Christ, this all seems to the good. Besides…as I understand it, her comment was within the context of explaining how she understands the evangelical’s desire not to be associated with the term “protestant”.
4. So in conclusion I think that this is probably the point of disconnect between what Abide was trying to convey and what you were hearing. It is probably best to wait until she is able to respond more fully herself.

Peace
James

JRKH,

I understand your perception of yelling…and I would agree

You dont understand me…

directed to you would be yelling…

**
This is what I see…**

is not directed at you…and in my opinion is not yelling…

however if you see it as yelling…I understand…

Does this work for you?

We’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common----Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”…here is where I see a departure and concern that I spoke from…

In consideration that it was my statement that made people ask, how did I make the jump…the issue has less to do with Abide than it does with how I made the Jump…do you agree?

 

[JRKH]

JRKH,

I understand your perception of yelling…and I would agree

You dont understand me…

directed to you would be yelling…

**
This is what I see…**

is not directed at you…and in my opinion is not yelling…

however if you see it as yelling…I understand…

Does this work for you?

We’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common----Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”…here is where I see a departure and concern that I spoke from…

In consideration that it was my statement that made people ask, how did I make the jump…the issue has less to do with Abide than it does with how I made the Jump…do you agree?

Well - it’s better but to be honest - not much…I simply find such things to be distracting rather than helpful. Can’t you simply say what you mean with an occasional bolding or underline?

As to the basic issue of the jump etc…I am not sure anymore…Seems to me that since the jump was made from an apparent misunderstanding between you and Abide, it’s probably best for you to to go back to square one and get that straightened out…

Peace
James

 

[rfournier103]

**Roostah,
Welcome to the boards. Very nice first post.

I think that we can agree on this…but such does not make those people right…and in fact, in following the tradition and example laid down in Acts 15…Such people would be like Judaizers who refused to accept the findings of the Council of Jerusalem.
Would you consider such people to be good Christians who dissented from the decision of the council - who dissented from that which, “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to (Church leaders)…” (Acts 15:28)?

The “Alliance of Church ans State” that you mention is looked at negatively by some in the protestant world. But such people fail to see the great blessing that occurred after the legalization of the faith. It permitted the Church to come together openly in great councils, just as Holy Scripture itself instructs and describes, to deal with various issues and questions. All sides were able to then “Tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church” to whom Christ gave authority to Bind and Loose “Whatever” (Mt 18:17-18) and through whom It is the good pleasure of our God to make known His Wisdom (Eph 3:8-12)

If there were those who chose to defy the decisions of the councils…then they could only be described as like those who St John refers to as, going out from us but never truly being of us…(1John 2:19).
Such ones were people who rejected that which “…seemed good to the Holy Spirit…”(Acts15:28)

Personally I find it impossible to put any faith in such people or groups who acted in such a unbiblical fashion and I cannot give much credence to groups today who seek to embrace such groups and/or ideas.

Peace
James **​

excuse me while I get the hang of copying quotes.

In answer to James: my, you certainly take some liberties with your pre suppositions. I was commenting on why evangelicals don’t call themselves protestants. As I mentioned, there were christian people who opposed the catholic church/state long before the reformation, yes back to the time of Jesus. The apostles were eye witesses, the apostles peformed miracles, they could be relied upon for discernment, and then the apostles died.

People either believed in Jesus or they didn’t. People were able to be believers without joining the club, the club hadn’t even been established yet, but what held people together was they believed in Jesus. The church is the people who believe in Jesus.

Oh the joining of church and state is to be looked at negatively. There’s plenty of history to prove why. The state did it for what it could get them (power and riches) and the church did it for the same reasons. It’s where a 2 tier (at least) system was established, powerful royalty (clergy) types and then the rest of the poor pleebes. Of course not all believers went along with the church state, yet they were people who believed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The point is, there were people from the begining who did not bow to the rulers, the authoritarians and their man made customs through the centuries, yet they were christians.

Why does it bother catholics so much, that people can be free and love the Lord Jesus Christ without the initiations and traditions of the catholic church? Oh it bothers catholics, to the point of rage.

I wouldn’t say is “bothers” us as such, but there just doesn’t seem to be any actual factual documentation anywhere to back up your ‘theory’ of non-Catholic early Christians. Both myself and JustaServant have asked you for PROOF, and you have provided NONE.

In both my High School and College (both public secular schools, BTW) Western Civilization courses, it has been stated as FACT that the Catholic Church was THE ORIGINAL Christian Church. This topic was covered quite extensively because of the huge role the Catholic Church played in world history. The Protestant Reformation was also covered in very great detail.

Tell me, Sir… why would one group of dissenters be covered so thoroughly, and another not covered at all?

Allow me to answer that for you. Because there WEREN’T any Christians who rejected the Church that Christ built until the early 1500s.

I will say that until you bring a little something by way of proof to this discussion, you really ARE just ‘protesting’.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church isn’t a “club” as you say, and the true worship of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit requires a little more than the Holy Bible, which was NOT compiled until c. 393 AD. (Jesus had more than the Torrah, didn’t he? He WAS a Jew, and they have MUCH more than just reading Scripture to live out THEIR faith.) What did these un-affiliated Christians have before the Bible? A belief in Jesus and no priesthood to guide them? The last of the Apostles died around 100 AD. So, who guided the Christians for the next 293 years? Is the Bible “man made”?

So I ask you one more time, Sir; may we see some proof or historical citations, PLEASE?

 

[Kirovsakya]

Could it be said that the further a Christian community strays - from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles - the more “protestant” it becomes?

If so, could not a linear model be applied, that acknowledges a groups history and patrimony, relative to other groups and distance of each from authentic Christian teaching?

Such a model may look like this:

Christ >>> Apostles >>> Orthodox Christians >>> Roman Catholics >>> “mainline” protestants >>> “evangelical” protestants >>> all other “christian” communities.

'Sakya.

 

[RJ_Empson]

I wouldn’t say is “bothers” us as such, but there just doesn’t seem to be any actual factual documentation anywhere to back up your ‘theory’ of non-Catholic early Christians. Both myself and JustaServant have asked you for PROOF, and you have provided NONE.

In both my High School and College (both public secular schools, BTW) Western Civilization courses, it has been stated as FACT that the Catholic Church was THE ORIGINAL Christian Church. This topic was covered quite extensively because of the huge role the Catholic Church played in world history. The Protestant Reformation was also covered in very great detail.

Tell me, Sir… why would one group of dissenters be covered so thoroughly, and another not covered at all?

Allow me to answer that for you. Because there WEREN’T any Christians who rejected the Church that Christ built until the early 1500s.

I will say that until you bring a little something by way of proof to this discussion, you really ARE just ‘protesting’.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church isn’t a “club” as you say, and the true worship of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit requires a little more than the Holy Bible, which was NOT compiled until c. 393 AD. (Jesus had more than the Torrah, didn’t he? He WAS a Jew, and they have MUCH more than just reading Scripture to live out THEIR faith.) What did these un-affiliated Christians have before the Bible? A belief in Jesus and no priesthood to guide them? The last of the Apostles died around 100 AD. So, who guided the Christians for the next 293 years? Is the Bible “man made”?

So I ask you one more time, Sir; may we see some proof or historical citations, PLEASE?

What a really good and well put together post. I genuinely enjoyed reading that thanks!

 

[flameburns623]

Flame,

Perhaps you can aid me as Nicol seems to believe I argue. All I ask is to point to me where you see Conversion of the heart in the Catechism. I do have some questions to follow. Guide me.

The Catechism is not required to replicate everything in the Scripture and the concept is clearly taught in Scripture. It is clearly taught by the Saints–see for instance the Iimitation ofChrist which I read daily. It is clearly taught in the Sacraments, whether Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, or Extreme Unction.

The Catechism likely does teach it, but I don’t have a copy ready-to-hand and I think producing prooftexts is needless anyhow.

And, so far as I can tell, you and I were in agreement on the point I was making. At least until this query, where you give impression that you’re off-the-rails. Or have I misunerstood you?

 

[SteveVH]

Could it be said that the further a Christian community strays - from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles - the more “protestant” it becomes?

If so, could not a linear model be applied, that acknowledges a groups history and patrimony, relative to other groups and distance of each from authentic Christian teaching?

Such a model may look like this:

Christ >>> Apostles >>> Orthodox Christians >>> Roman Catholics >>> “mainline” protestants >>> “evangelical” protestants >>> all other “christian” communities.

'Sakya.

I would first of all think the following is more accurate:

Christ >>> Apostles >>> Catholic >>> Eastern Orthodox>>> “mainline” protestants >>> “evangelical” protestants >>> all other “christian” communities.

The Church was called Catholic in the first century. It has never called itself Roman Catholic. Offically there was one Church until 1054 A.D. when the Eastern Orthodox became their own separate entities (even among themselves). I really don’t want to get into the schism here, as it is off topic, just didn’t agree with your line of succession, so to speak.

The real point, however, is that in our current age I don’t think the same criteria can be used in calling one “Protestant”. The “reformers” truly were “protesting” the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. I’m not sure that the “Bible Church” in the mall is protesting anything. They must live with the fuits of those who protested (individual interpretation of Scritpure, sola scritpura, etc.) but most do not know enough about the Catholic Church to have anything about which to protest. Most are just trying to follow their understanding of the Christian faith as handed down to them. The further removed in time from the Catholic Church the more prevalent the errors, but again, I don’t think it is out of protest, but rather ignorance.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well - it’s better but to be honest - not much…I simply find such things to be distracting rather than helpful. Can’t you simply say what you mean with an occasional bolding or underline?

As to the basic issue of the jump etc…I am not sure anymore…Seems to me that since the jump was made from an apparent misunderstanding between you and Abide, it’s probably best for you to to go back to square one and get that straightened out…

Peace
James

James,

Your lack of surety caused me to point out a few things…

you said this…

That said…I’m afraid that the above response has not cleared up the confusion I expressed in my reply…how you make the jump in your last paragraph…to just giving in on abortion and homosexuality…

I guess I am just entirely missing your intent somewhere along the way…

jmcrae said this…

It is because many non-Catholics say live and let live; let them be homosexual and let them have abortions, Jesus doesn’t care about that stuff. So they wouldn’t stand with the Church but rather against it.

Abide said this…

But Evangelicals stand with Catholics on this. This is a thread about Evangelicals, so I didn’t understand either how Coptic made that jump at the end of his post.

I said this…

I understand. Allow me to explain my understanding by asking a few questions.

First Abide says, let’s stop fighting and just be Christian. This is the premise of my understanding. Do you agree with this as a starting point of my thought process?

Abide said this…

Coptic, that’s not what I said, though it’s apparently what you heard. I’m in the midst of some family concerns; I’ll try to reply to you tomorrow. (Don’t hold your breath on that, as usual…but I will try.)

I clarified what Abide posted as this…

Yes—I’m an Evangelical Christian, and this is what I more often than not hear from fellow Evangelicals. It’s a sign of openness. I can say for myself and others I know, it’s not a sign of ignorance of history. Somewhat the opposite, it can mean we’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common—Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”.

You agreed with this and then Abide posted this…

Coptic, I didn’t say you misquoted me; you didn’t quote me in the post to which I was responding. I did say you misunderstood me, and that I’d clarify as family matters permitted.

You then discussed use of colors, bolding, and your dislike for same

as well as posting this…

1. I see nothing particularly scandalous in Abide’s comment that she wishes not to fight but to concentrate on Christ. Since we too wish to concentrate on Christ, this all seems to the good. Besides…as I understand it, her comment was within the context of explaining how she understands the evangelical’s desire not to be associated with the term “protestant”.

1. So in conclusion I think that this is probably the point of disconnect between what Abide was trying to convey and what you were hearing. It is probably best to wait until she is able to respond more fully herself.

You then stated this…

As to the basic issue of the jump etc…I am not sure anymore…Seems to me that since the jump was made from an apparent misunderstanding between you and Abide, it’s probably best for you to to go back to square one and get that straightened out…

So, what I see is that there was misunderstanding in my understanding of what I said, an attempt by someone to infer what they think I said and then a belief that I misunderstood Abide and your lack of surety.

So, I will formulate thoughts for you to see what it is I was saying and my concerns with the entire notion, not at all misunderstanding what the words said, however noting my understanding as I see them…

Ok…

 

[CopticChristian]

The Catechism is not required to replicate everything in the Scripture and the concept is clearly taught in Scripture. It is clearly taught by the Saints–see for instance the Iimitation ofChrist which I read daily. It is clearly taught in the Sacraments, whether Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, or Extreme Unction.

The Catechism likely does teach it, but I don’t have a copy ready-to-hand and I think producing prooftexts is needless anyhow.

And, so far as I can tell, you and I were in agreement on the point I was making. At least until this query, where you give impression that you’re off-the-rails. Or have I misunerstood you?

Flame,

Is saying “I am off the ralis” a compliment?

I find it difficult to understand that in the context of this thread, where Nicol has said that Catholics suffer from adequate Catechisis that you say you don’t have a copy. It is available online.

I also find it difficult to understand what it is you are saying here…

The Catechism is not required to replicate everything in the Scripture and the concept is clearly taught in Scripture.

This causes me to reflect. The Catechism is not required?

The Catechism replicates Scripture? Does it? I thought it explained Scripture and represents the deposit of Faith.

You believe that Scripture clearly teaches. Does it?

I still do not understand what is meant by this concept and the reason is that Nicol said that the Catholic Church failed to teach this. I need to know what Nicol and your understanding is concerning the failure of the Church to teach. It was Nicol that said it was in the Catechism, you explained your understanding and then said…

As it happens, I do feel the Church doesn’t so good a job of teaching true conversion in the preaching of sermons as many Protestants do. And that, I think, is what Nicol misses in the RCC–the good, sturdy, bracing sermon, the proclamation of the Word in terms which truly stir one’s heart.

So, if you feel there is something lacking, you cannot tell me what it is or where it is found…

I am trying to get Catechized here…I am lost…what is it you think I am missing here that the Church does a poor job with?

 

[mexolic]

I think Protestants don’t like being labeled as such. The fact that they “protested” against the Catholic Church might not feel right to them. And being that it’s too general a term, they probably want to be more specific in there denomination identity and what they believe in.

 

[Kirovsakya]

I would first of all think the following is more accurate:

Christ >>> Apostles >>> Catholic >>> Eastern Orthodox>>> “mainline” protestants >>> “evangelical” protestants >>> all other “christian” communities.

The Church was called Catholic in the first century. It has never called itself Roman Catholic. Offically there was one Church until 1054 A.D. when the Eastern Orthodox became their own separate entities (even among themselves). I really don’t want to get into the schism here, as it is off topic, just didn’t agree with your line of succession, so to speak.

The real point, however, is that in our current age I don’t think the same criteria can be used in calling one “Protestant”. The “reformers” truly were “protesting” the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. I’m not sure that the “Bible Church” in the mall is protesting anything. They must live with the fuits of those who protested (individual interpretation of Scritpure, sola scritpura, etc.) but most do not know enough about the Catholic Church to have anything about which to protest. Most are just trying to follow their understanding of the Christian faith as handed down to them. The further removed in time from the Catholic Church the more prevalent the errors, but again, I don’t think it is out of protest, but rather ignorance.

Some would say that Reformation “protestants” separated themselves from the Roman Church in the 16th century in the same way that Latin “protestants” separated themselves from the doctrines and practices of Christ and the Apostles in the 11th century. If true, that would suggest Luther and Calvin had no credible claim of the word “protestant” since the Latin Church had actually practiced and propagated “protestantism” for five centuries before Luther was born.

Right?

 

[CopticChristian]

Some would say that Reformation “protestants” separated themselves from the Roman Church in the 16th century in the same way that Latin “protestants” separated themselves from the doctrines and practices of Christ and the Apostles in the 11th century. If true, that would suggest Luther and Calvin had no credible claim of the word “protestant” since the Latin Church had actually practiced and propagated “protestantism” for five centuries before Luther was born.

Right?

Kirovsakya,

No, this is incorrect. Latins and Orthodox schismed. It is uncharitable as a Catechumen in Orthodoxy to propagate false teaching and label schism as you have.

The Orthodox see Latins as heretics in some quarters and the anathemas have been lifted by the leaders as I recall…so you are out of sych here…

Are you trying to separate yourself into you have the only truth and no one else does, because the Latins seem to say that Orthodox profess Catholic teachings…

What is your purpose in proposing this?

 

[flameburns623]

Flame,

Is saying “I am off the ralis” a compliment?

I find it difficult to understand that in the context of this thread, where Nicol has said that Catholics suffer from adequate Catechisis that you say you don’t have a copy. It is available online.

I also find it difficult to understand what it is you are saying here…

This causes me to reflect. The Catechism is not required?

The Catechism replicates Scripture? Does it? I thought it explained Scripture and represents the deposit of Faith.

You believe that Scripture clearly teaches. Does it?

I still do not understand what is meant by this concept and the reason is that Nicol said that the Catholic Church failed to teach this. I need to know what Nicol and your understanding is concerning the failure of the Church to teach. It was Nicol that said it was in the Catechism, you explained your understanding and then said…

So, if you feel there is something lacking, you cannot tell me what it is or where it is found…

I am trying to get Catechized here…I am lost…what is it you think I am missing here that the Church does a poor job with?

Can someone clarify for me what it is that Coptic Christian and I are disagreeing over.

BTW–I own two copies of the Catechism. And a Baltimore Catechism, and perhaps a half dozen others, both traditional and contemporary, orthodox and of dubious orthodoxy.

However, none were nor are ready-to-hand. And I am not accessing the Internet via a traditional computer, which would allow me to have one window open to the CCC AND ANOTHER OPEN TO THIS FORUM.

God bless, Brother/Sister. I am uncertain if our conversation will produce much fruit.

 

[SteveVH]

Some would say that Reformation “protestants” separated themselves from the Roman Church in the 16th century in the same way that Latin “protestants” separated themselves from the doctrines and practices of Christ and the Apostles in the 11th century. If true, that would suggest Luther and Calvin had no credible claim of the word “protestant” since the Latin Church had actually practiced and propagated “protestantism” for five centuries before Luther was born.

Right?

Wow, that is the first time I have ever been called a Protestant. Your posts have such an endearing quality to them. Welcom to CAF. Hope you get to stick around for awhile.

 

[CopticChristian]

Can someone clarify for me what it is that Coptic Christian and I are disagreeing over.

BTW–I own two copies of the Catechism. And a Baltimore Catechism, and perhaps a half dozen others, both traditional and contemporary, orthodox and of dubious orthodoxy.

However, none were nor are ready-to-hand. And I am not accessing the Internet via a traditional computer, which would allow me to have one window open to the CCC AND ANOTHER OPEN TO THIS FORUM.

God bless, Brother/Sister. I am uncertain if our conversation will produce much fruit.

Flame,

I asked for an explanation of what it is you and Nicole say that the Church fails to promote…Conversion of the Heart.

I asked you to provide me the source, since Nicole said it was in the Cathechism and I asked you to find it since you mention it as well.

There is no agreement or disagreement. I asked a question.

Can you answer this question?