Bury The Word “Evangelical.” Let the rest of us call ourselves Christians.
Dec 14, 2017 09:21:48 #
10/16/2017 Bury The Word “Evangelical.” Let the rest of us call ourselves Christians.
Scott McKnight
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2017/10/16/burying-word-evangelical/
It’s time to bury the word “evangelical.” It’s both past time to bury it but it’s also time yet again to bury it.
I have a strategy for doing so, but first this:
Kate Shellnutt, at CT, writes,
More than 80 years ago, the first president of Princeton Evangelical Fellowship aspired for the organization to allow students “to enjoy Christian fellowship one with another, to bear united witness to the faith of its members in the whole Bible as the inspired Word of God, and to encourage other students to take, with them, a definite stand for Christ on the campus.”
In 2017, the Ivy League student ministry remains fully committed to this purpose … just without calling themselves evangelical.
The long-running organization changed its name this year to become Princeton Christian Fellowship, citing baggage surrounding the evangelical label.
“There’s a growing recognition that the term evangelical is increasingly either confusing, or unknown, or misunderstood to students,” the organization’s director, Bill Boyce, told The Daily Princetonian.
It’s not an issue limited to the 8,000-student campus; a number of evangelicals across the country share his concerns, particularly after last year’s election linked evangelical identity with support for President Donald Trump in the public eye.
Which leads me beyond the obvious: one of the more openly affirming institutions of evangelicalism, CT, records the news that evangelical is an embattled term while CT presses forward with no desire to diminish the centrality of the term for itself. But this essay is not about CT.
It’s about that dreaded term “evangelical.”
It’s a case of only a few who like the term while many despise the term, all the while knowing there’s no other term to use.
The issue is politics; the presenting painful reality is Trump. The reality is 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump. The word “evangelical” now means Trump-voter. The word “evangelical” is spoiled.
Which means the problem is not nearly so large among self-confessed evangelicals. They admit to being evangelicals and voting for Trump and evidently see no dissonance. We don’t know how many of that 81% held their nose when they voted for Trump but this is certain: they weren’t voting for Hillary Clinton. Their evangelical convictions and their political convictions were inter-looped into voting for Trump and not Hillary (or a Democrat).
Evangelicalism and Republicanism —
Trump can’t be called Conservatism — are wrapped in one another’s arms for a long embrace, and one needs only to look back to the Reagan years to see when this became semi-official or more. The Southern Democrats slid over to the Republicans and gave the Republican party more than enough votes but time has proven that the Party is hardly unified in political theory.
Most don’t even know what Conservative means — economically or governmentally especially — while some think Republican means anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-NRA, pro-big business, anti-immigration, anti-Obamacare, anti-same-sex marriage, anti-taxes. Pro Fox News, Anti-CNN.
Populism runs rampant among the Republican voters, not least among evangelicals, and part of this is that evangelicalism is itself populist.
Which now means evangelical=Republican=Conservative=populist=Trump.
The Princeton Christian Fellowship, then, had good reasons to change its name from Princeton Evangelical Fellowship. They buried the term evangelical.
What to Do? Why Do This?
What to do? Here’s what I suggest: if you are embarrassed by “evangelical” quit calling yourself one. When you are asked to check a box, don’t check Evangelical. Check another one.
Why do this? Eventually “Evangelical” will dwindle in numbers down to Republican. When that happens no one will be one bit surprised Evangelical=Republican=Conservative=populist=[Candidate’s name]. That’s what the term will mean because only they will claim the term.
Defining “Evangelical”
At one time we got to define this term by theology as a coalition of post Great Awakening orthodox Christians who affirmed the Bible, personal conversion, the centrality of the cross as God’s saving event, and activism when it comes to evangelism and social goods.
Add to those four elements a non-denominationalist theme and you have a theological orientation to the term. Many embraced and still embrace evangelical on that basis alone. The days when that orientation to the term are behind us. For this approach, see David Bebbington’s The Dominance of Evangelicalism.
When I was at TEDS D.A. Carson and J. Woodbridge were intent on defining evangelical and who was and who was not an evangelical. They held a conference or two, advertised with pomp as the next Nicea, published the papers (Evangelical Affirmations) and it didn’t work.
No one paid attention. They tried other approaches like magazine broadsides. They filled out their lines of affirmation with warnings of denials and gave it all a strong feel. Who defines whom isn’t a game easy to play. They seem to have all but given up, and even if they haven’t, they lost. Someone else has won the game of Who defines this term.
Then some fudged on the meaning of these terms so the term became more sociological — those connected to institutions that called themselves evangelical.
This worked and works but is too ambiguous to define the term. Evangelicalism then becomes a diverse coalition. Molly Worthen’s book (Apostles of Reasons) proved this, but many didn’t harmonize their voices to her tune.
The Reformed side of evangelicalism didn’t want the Holiness and Anabaptist and Restorationist crowds as equals and those last three have basically avoided the term for themselves.
Then came Reagan and Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and James Kennedy and theology and sociology were usurped by politics. Evangelical meant Republican. What they didn’t recognize is that “evangelical” became “whiteness” and many Latin Americans and African Americans and Asian Americans were excluded.
Then came 81% for Trump. Something’s very very wrong here.
Add now evangelicals from the United Kingdom and New Zealand and Australia (and continental Europeans and South America and South Korea and big chunks of Africa). This politicization of evangelicalism ignores them and excludes them.
Folks, very few English and Irish and Scottish evangelicals, not to ignore the others just mentioned, are politicals like our Republicans; many of them are more like our Democrats and many are more like Bernie Sanders than ordinary Democrats. What do you think they hear or think when they see evangelical=Republican=Conservative=populist=Trump?
They often say to me, “Don’t call me ‘evangelical’ if you mean Republican!”
Strategy
Today the term evangelical in the USA means (supposedly) conservative in politics, and hence “Votes Republican.” This definition is not going away. The political folks have won.
Let the political evangelicals have the term.
Everyone else walk away. Call yourself something else. Perhaps Christian will come back in vogue. Maybe our denominational affiliation will work — I can call myself Anglican. You may be Presbyterian or Methodist. Maybe using those terms will help us bury the term “evangelical.”
The one thing I despise about Christianity in the USA is its aligning with a political party. Mainliners have done it; they’re Democrats. Evangelicals have followed suit; they’re Republicans.
Politicization is accomplished.
Let the rest of us call ourselves Christians.
Scott McKnight
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2017/10/16/burying-word-evangelical/
It’s time to bury the word “evangelical.” It’s both past time to bury it but it’s also time yet again to bury it.
I have a strategy for doing so, but first this:
Kate Shellnutt, at CT, writes,
More than 80 years ago, the first president of Princeton Evangelical Fellowship aspired for the organization to allow students “to enjoy Christian fellowship one with another, to bear united witness to the faith of its members in the whole Bible as the inspired Word of God, and to encourage other students to take, with them, a definite stand for Christ on the campus.”
In 2017, the Ivy League student ministry remains fully committed to this purpose … just without calling themselves evangelical.
The long-running organization changed its name this year to become Princeton Christian Fellowship, citing baggage surrounding the evangelical label.
“There’s a growing recognition that the term evangelical is increasingly either confusing, or unknown, or misunderstood to students,” the organization’s director, Bill Boyce, told The Daily Princetonian.
It’s not an issue limited to the 8,000-student campus; a number of evangelicals across the country share his concerns, particularly after last year’s election linked evangelical identity with support for President Donald Trump in the public eye.
Which leads me beyond the obvious: one of the more openly affirming institutions of evangelicalism, CT, records the news that evangelical is an embattled term while CT presses forward with no desire to diminish the centrality of the term for itself. But this essay is not about CT.
It’s about that dreaded term “evangelical.”
It’s a case of only a few who like the term while many despise the term, all the while knowing there’s no other term to use.
The issue is politics; the presenting painful reality is Trump. The reality is 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump. The word “evangelical” now means Trump-voter. The word “evangelical” is spoiled.
Which means the problem is not nearly so large among self-confessed evangelicals. They admit to being evangelicals and voting for Trump and evidently see no dissonance. We don’t know how many of that 81% held their nose when they voted for Trump but this is certain: they weren’t voting for Hillary Clinton. Their evangelical convictions and their political convictions were inter-looped into voting for Trump and not Hillary (or a Democrat).
Evangelicalism and Republicanism —
Trump can’t be called Conservatism — are wrapped in one another’s arms for a long embrace, and one needs only to look back to the Reagan years to see when this became semi-official or more. The Southern Democrats slid over to the Republicans and gave the Republican party more than enough votes but time has proven that the Party is hardly unified in political theory.
Most don’t even know what Conservative means — economically or governmentally especially — while some think Republican means anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-NRA, pro-big business, anti-immigration, anti-Obamacare, anti-same-sex marriage, anti-taxes. Pro Fox News, Anti-CNN.
Populism runs rampant among the Republican voters, not least among evangelicals, and part of this is that evangelicalism is itself populist.
Which now means evangelical=Republican=Conservative=populist=Trump.
The Princeton Christian Fellowship, then, had good reasons to change its name from Princeton Evangelical Fellowship. They buried the term evangelical.
What to Do? Why Do This?
What to do? Here’s what I suggest: if you are embarrassed by “evangelical” quit calling yourself one. When you are asked to check a box, don’t check Evangelical. Check another one.
Why do this? Eventually “Evangelical” will dwindle in numbers down to Republican. When that happens no one will be one bit surprised Evangelical=Republican=Conservative=populist=[Candidate’s name]. That’s what the term will mean because only they will claim the term.
Defining “Evangelical”
At one time we got to define this term by theology as a coalition of post Great Awakening orthodox Christians who affirmed the Bible, personal conversion, the centrality of the cross as God’s saving event, and activism when it comes to evangelism and social goods.
Add to those four elements a non-denominationalist theme and you have a theological orientation to the term. Many embraced and still embrace evangelical on that basis alone. The days when that orientation to the term are behind us. For this approach, see David Bebbington’s The Dominance of Evangelicalism.
When I was at TEDS D.A. Carson and J. Woodbridge were intent on defining evangelical and who was and who was not an evangelical. They held a conference or two, advertised with pomp as the next Nicea, published the papers (Evangelical Affirmations) and it didn’t work.
No one paid attention. They tried other approaches like magazine broadsides. They filled out their lines of affirmation with warnings of denials and gave it all a strong feel. Who defines whom isn’t a game easy to play. They seem to have all but given up, and even if they haven’t, they lost. Someone else has won the game of Who defines this term.
Then some fudged on the meaning of these terms so the term became more sociological — those connected to institutions that called themselves evangelical.
This worked and works but is too ambiguous to define the term. Evangelicalism then becomes a diverse coalition. Molly Worthen’s book (Apostles of Reasons) proved this, but many didn’t harmonize their voices to her tune.
The Reformed side of evangelicalism didn’t want the Holiness and Anabaptist and Restorationist crowds as equals and those last three have basically avoided the term for themselves.
Then came Reagan and Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and James Kennedy and theology and sociology were usurped by politics. Evangelical meant Republican. What they didn’t recognize is that “evangelical” became “whiteness” and many Latin Americans and African Americans and Asian Americans were excluded.
Then came 81% for Trump. Something’s very very wrong here.
Add now evangelicals from the United Kingdom and New Zealand and Australia (and continental Europeans and South America and South Korea and big chunks of Africa). This politicization of evangelicalism ignores them and excludes them.
Folks, very few English and Irish and Scottish evangelicals, not to ignore the others just mentioned, are politicals like our Republicans; many of them are more like our Democrats and many are more like Bernie Sanders than ordinary Democrats. What do you think they hear or think when they see evangelical=Republican=Conservative=populist=Trump?
They often say to me, “Don’t call me ‘evangelical’ if you mean Republican!”
Strategy
Today the term evangelical in the USA means (supposedly) conservative in politics, and hence “Votes Republican.” This definition is not going away. The political folks have won.
Let the political evangelicals have the term.
Everyone else walk away. Call yourself something else. Perhaps Christian will come back in vogue. Maybe our denominational affiliation will work — I can call myself Anglican. You may be Presbyterian or Methodist. Maybe using those terms will help us bury the term “evangelical.”
The one thing I despise about Christianity in the USA is its aligning with a political party. Mainliners have done it; they’re Democrats. Evangelicals have followed suit; they’re Republicans.
Politicization is accomplished.
Let the rest of us call ourselves Christians.
Dec 14, 2017 14:27:32 #
Doc110 wrote:
...Let the rest of us call ourselves Christians.
I abhor the term "Christian." I prefer to be called a disciple or a follower of Jesus Christ.
There are way too many out there that call themselves Christians who aren't even aware what it means to be one.
Do you know what it means to be a disciple or a follower of Jesus Christ Doc?
Dec 14, 2017 15:22:08 #
mwdegutis,
Still trying to be your own Independent thinking Pope ? Scripturally Speaking -- Christian is 100% accurate . . .
mwdegutis, you still seem to be mighty silent . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
You still haven't Scripturally responded to the 12/07/2017 Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)
Still waiting, for some scriptural facts.
So are we waiting for the game of wack-a-mole, when you rear your ugly Independent Christian anti-Catholic head once again.
Here are the Questions and the answers to the 21 questions, summary and foot note's.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
There are 21 questions and Reasons to Reject "Sola Scriptura," Misguided Protestant, Evangelical Independent theology.
1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.
5. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa.
8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.
11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.
Summary:
For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected.
Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught. – Even if those contradict one’s current religious system. – This should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this Protestant doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.
The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established.
According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority.
Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:
a. The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church;
b. The Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation –
c. Both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or
indirect rule of faith.
d. Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church –
e. A historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession –
f. Is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine.
g. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20).
It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.
I'm still Waiting . . . . mwdegutis, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
The correct way to describe your "anti-Catholic, Independent No-Organized Church Theology," is "Do you mwdegutis, put into practice and follow the the teachings of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ?
[quote=mwdegutis
I abhor the term "Christian." I prefer to be called a disciple or a follower of Jesus Christ.
There are way too many out there that call themselves Christians who aren't even aware what it means to be one.
Do you know what it means to be a disciple or a follower of Jesus Christ Doc?[/quote]
Still trying to be your own Independent thinking Pope ? Scripturally Speaking -- Christian is 100% accurate . . .
mwdegutis, you still seem to be mighty silent . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
You still haven't Scripturally responded to the 12/07/2017 Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)
Still waiting, for some scriptural facts.
So are we waiting for the game of wack-a-mole, when you rear your ugly Independent Christian anti-Catholic head once again.
Here are the Questions and the answers to the 21 questions, summary and foot note's.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
There are 21 questions and Reasons to Reject "Sola Scriptura," Misguided Protestant, Evangelical Independent theology.
1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.
5. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa.
8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.
11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.
Summary:
For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected.
Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught. – Even if those contradict one’s current religious system. – This should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this Protestant doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.
The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established.
According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority.
Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:
a. The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church;
b. The Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation –
c. Both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or
indirect rule of faith.
d. Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church –
e. A historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession –
f. Is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine.
g. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20).
It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.
I'm still Waiting . . . . mwdegutis, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
The correct way to describe your "anti-Catholic, Independent No-Organized Church Theology," is "Do you mwdegutis, put into practice and follow the the teachings of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ?
[quote=mwdegutis
I abhor the term "Christian." I prefer to be called a disciple or a follower of Jesus Christ.
There are way too many out there that call themselves Christians who aren't even aware what it means to be one.
Do you know what it means to be a disciple or a follower of Jesus Christ Doc?[/quote]
Dec 14, 2017 16:08:22 #
Doc110 wrote:
mwdegutis, br br Still trying to be your own Inde... (show quote)
I didn't say anything anti-Catholic and I already gave my reply you arrogant ass!
Dec 14, 2017 16:44:20 #
mwdegutis,
No, No you didn't . . . ever give one Scriptural retort on the "Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)"
Once you release the feathers from the pillow, your words are forever spoken . . . You will never change your heart mind and soul.
You still haven't Scripturally responded to the 12/07/2017 Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)
Still waiting, for some scriptural facts. Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
Here are the Questions and the answers to the 21 questions, summary and foot note's.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
It's not arrogance, It's me waiting patiently for over a week now, "Time to put-up or shut-up on your anti-Catholic derogatory statements.
[quote=mwdegutis I didn't say anything anti-Catholic and I already gave my reply you arrogant ass![/quote]
No, No you didn't . . . ever give one Scriptural retort on the "Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)"
Once you release the feathers from the pillow, your words are forever spoken . . . You will never change your heart mind and soul.
You still haven't Scripturally responded to the 12/07/2017 Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)
Still waiting, for some scriptural facts. Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
Here are the Questions and the answers to the 21 questions, summary and foot note's.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
It's not arrogance, It's me waiting patiently for over a week now, "Time to put-up or shut-up on your anti-Catholic derogatory statements.
[quote=mwdegutis I didn't say anything anti-Catholic and I already gave my reply you arrogant ass![/quote]
Dec 14, 2017 17:24:24 #
Doc110 wrote:
mwdegutis, br br No, No you didn't . . . ever g... (show quote)
You say that I am anti-Catholic no matter what I reply so I will now graciously shake off the dust that is on my feet as a testimony against you because you will not receive me and you will not listen to me.
Peace be with you and may God bless you Doc.
Dec 15, 2017 00:29:42 #
At the same time take the plank from your eye, also.
Still couldn't answer the 21 questions that plagues all Protestants, Evangelicals and Independents.
It's called Protestant evasiveness . . .
May God bless you also.
[quote=mwdegutis
You say that I am anti-Catholic no matter what I reply,
So I will now graciously shake off the dust that is on my feet as a testimony against you.
Because you will not receive me and you will not listen to me.
Peace be with you and may God bless you Doc.[/quote]
Still couldn't answer the 21 questions that plagues all Protestants, Evangelicals and Independents.
It's called Protestant evasiveness . . .
May God bless you also.
[quote=mwdegutis
You say that I am anti-Catholic no matter what I reply,
So I will now graciously shake off the dust that is on my feet as a testimony against you.
Because you will not receive me and you will not listen to me.
Peace be with you and may God bless you Doc.[/quote]
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.