The problem with Evangelicalism in turn though, is that it doesn’t have very fixed – or reliable – doctrines.

First: 1) gifts of the “spirit” are notortiously subjective. Lots of silly things are allowed in Evangelicalists; believing the the Holy Spirit told us to vote Republican in every election, etc.. Many hear something they think is the Holy Spirit … that is not really so holy after all; but a “false spirit.”

Worse, 2) the very name puts the emphasis on converting – “evangelizing” – others. On vociferously telling everyone what your idea of God is; even as there is no assurance that your personal idea is accurate.

For that reason? My vote is still: no church at all.

It’s a shame that sacerdotalism reared its head so early in the history of the church, supplanting the charismatic operation of the Spirit and the church’s growth and instruction through the apostles and prophets and teachers with the resurrection and reinstitution of the Old-Covenant mediatorship of a human priesthood between Christ and His Body.

To mbaker and all: As a concluding note and clarification on my previous comments I wish to note I agree with Michael on the following points and really all his positions.

But particularly when Michael said:
1.Evangelicals are free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change to an extent that dogmatic traditions are not. Again, this is risky, but, in the end, it does not mandate a certain conclusion and can evaluate the evidence more objectively. In other words, Evangelicals don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but they are instead investigators of truth.

2.Evangelicals, with all their faults, do consistently present the need to have a personal conversion to Christ.

3.The cross is the apex of history, and we must personally have a conversion experience by trusting in Christ as our Lord and Savior. The focus is not the church, liturgy, or traditions.

I agree with Michael especially on the 3rd point I quoted of his. When I was a roman catholic I received communion every Sunday at mass. I also went to communion regularly while and Episcopalian. However when I became a Presbyterian we only celebrated the Lords Supper on the first Sunday of each month. Gradually my view of sacrament or ordinance became more Reformed Protestant and I began to believe that the sacraments , and the church were not the primary mode of salvation as had been ingrained in me as a roman catholic. A personal conversion to Christ and believing we are saved and justified by faith in Him alone. I now center my Christian experience on the Gospel and scripture and less on sacrament or ordinance.
I can say I experienced a “True Protestant Conversion” as John Calvin also described.

As my knowledge of Protestantism expanded I became a Reformed Protestant and an Evangelical because I believe Reformed Evangelical Protestantism is the most purely and authentically Protestant. I believe we are against heresy and popery as a corrupt and evil institution and as Protestants we promote the truth of the true church and Gospel founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Evangelicalism and Reformed Protestantism is a return to the true church. Even the roman church taught me that Presbyterians and Baptists were the furthest from Rome in their theology and teachings , worship and sacrament, ordinances. That is true and the only thing I will now agree with the roman church on. I am a Reformed Protestant because we are further from the corruptions of Rome than any other branch of Protestantism. I am beginning to think that the Reformed Baptist fold of the Reformed branch of Protestantism is even more so Protestant then Presbyterians which again is leading me towards the Reformed Baptist fold. I am and want to be purely most Protestant in my expression of the Christian faith. It is my belief that reformed Protestantism and Protestant Evangelicalism is the true Church and teaches the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

In faith,
Dudley

I also concur with Zwingli that there is no real presence and that Christ becomes present in communion by our common faith. I have also come to the conclusion I like the Baptist position of ordinance because it further removes us from the corruptions of the papist teachings they also call sacrament. Therefore I now think I prefer the Baptist teaching of the two ordinances baptism and the Lords Supper. I am studying the London Baptist confession of faith and I am attending services in the Reformed Baptist congregation and am in an inquirers class. I am considering being baptized by immersion as a Protestant in the reformed Baptist fold.

In faith,
Dudley

PS Just curious .. Are you also a Reformed Protestant?

. I am a Reformed Protestant currently Presbyterian but also consider being Baptized in the Reformed Baptist fold of Protestantism. I came to believe the only way to return to the truth was to also renounce roman catholicism and all her apostate teachings.

I have found there are only a minority of cradle Protestants who understand that it was the roman catholic papists who broke from the true ‘catholic “church and it was Calvin and the Reformed Protestants who restored the church to its uncorrupted foundation. Papists think it is we, the Reformed Protestants who separated and left the true church.

I came to truly believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel. Roman Catholicism stands against the gospel thus I renounce roman Catholicism! It is why I became a Reformed Protestant. The pope gives teachings which contradict scripture ,it is why I initially left the roman church and at first became an Episcopalian Protestant , I too renounced the pope!

I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the reformed Protestantism and belong to a Reformed protestant Church in doctrine and life.

I also concur with Zwingli who believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. The only way to legitimately resolve Roman excess was to reinterpret the nature of the sacraments. Pruning the tree was not enough; pulling the tree up from its roots was the only action that could actually fix the problems. Another reason why I became a reformed protestant and not a Lutheran.

Applying his modified understanding of the sacraments to the Eucharist led Zwingli to affirm its primary purpose as the proclamation of salvation and the strengthening of faith in the hearts of believers. Zwingli insisted that the biblical text taught that the Lord’s Supper was a sign, and that to make it something more violated the nature of the sacrament. However, this caution did not keep Zwingli from strongly affirming a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist brought by the “contemplation of faith.”

I also concur with Zwingli that there is no real presence and that Christ becomes present in communion by our common faith. I have also come to the conclusion I like the Baptist position of ordinance because it further removes us from the corruptions of the papist teachings they also call sacrament. Therefore I now think I prefer the Baptist teaching of the two ordinances baptism and the Lords Supper. I am studying the London Baptist confession of faith and I am attending…

To mbaker: It was initially the Lords Supper and interest in the sacraments and worship which led me to become a reformed Protestant. Later on I became more of a Reformed Evangelical protestant and became very much less sacramental altogether. I now also even renounce the rc mass as an abomination and have become more Baptist in my view of the ordinances which I now prefer to say rather than sacrament.

When I was contemplating becoming a Presbyterian I studied Calvin, Knox and Zwingli in great depth. I have adopted besides the Westminster standards and Confession of faith the teachings on Calvin, Knox and Zwigli and those three Protestant reformers had more of a basis on what I now believe as a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I am also now considering a move to the Reformed Baptist fold .

I was an Episcopalian for a while after leaving the roman catholic church. I initially left the roman catholic church in 2006 because the current pope and his policies alienated me from that church. I was still very roman catholic however in theology , sacrament and worship. I joined an Episcopal congregation at the invitation of friends who were Episcopalians. It was high Anglican Episcopal and they even called their Sunday service a mass which was very much similar to the roman liturgy. I knew technically I had become a Protestant by joining their Episcopal church but really did not understand what it meant to be Protestant or what the different Protestant denominations taught in faith.

I began to read and study the Protestant Reformation and also explored other Protestant denominations during my first year as a Protestant after leaving roman catholicism. I did not become a Lutheran for the same reasons Zwingli renounced Luther’s teaching on the sacrament. I did attend services with a Methodist congregation for a brief period while exploring Protestantism. I was invited to the Lords Supper with them on one occasion, they open their table to all believers even if not yet officially a member of the Methodist church. I did like and think their position and teaching while very Protestant theologically on the Lords Supper that it is primarily a memorial, and not a sacrifice anew as roman catholicism teaches, the service of the Lords supper is a re-representation of the one and only needed sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for all who accept him in faith. I also believe that is a fine view for Protestants to take even Reformed Protestants, as long as we see it as symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice and not the sacrifice which Rome claims and which I now and Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians reject. I did decide to become a Presbyterian because I believe like Calvin as well as Knox and Zwingli that the Roman church was so corrupted the only way to return to the truth was to renounce her and her pope and its false teachings and return the Gospel and the Church to its true roots and foundation and teachings. I am a Reformed Protestant currently…

Dudley,

Some things I can agree with you on.

“I also did not become a Lutheran because Luther only trimmed the branches of the corrupted tree of roman Catholicism, Calvin , Knox and Zwingli and the Reformed branch of Protestantism restored the church to its true gospel and its true form that Christ intended.”

Although I am not a Lutheran, it would be most helpful if you elaborated on that. I have heard from more than a few than a few Lutheran folks that they believe they have the best take on true evangelicalism, but never specifically.

Why, and where are the differences?

I have read this entire forum today and found it very interesting and I learned much reading it. I am a reformed protestant who also is an ex roman catholic so I would like to comment on a few comments made in the forum for one who has been in both camps.

The following qre the qoutes and then my response.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:51 pm #
Re post 26

I would also disagree that those Catholics who don’t agree with the whole enchilada of the catechism are not really Catholic. Anyone who takes communion in a Catholic church is and remains a real Catholic despite any divergences of belief or practice.

I agree with Michael and not John

C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:05 pm #
J,
By definition, Cafeteria Catholics are not REALLY Catholics. Let’s give Catholicism the benefit there. Just like the Jesus Seminar is not REALLY Protestant (in the historic sense).

I totally agree with Michael.

#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 6:26 pm #
Still, I guess the evangelicals are a bit better because we’ll at least allow a Catholic to take communion in church (even though a Catholic is not supposed to take communion anywhere except in a Catholic church). I agree with John here.

However when I started visiting Protestant denominations and participating in the Lords Supper in the Protestant churches who welcomed me…..I was technically ex communicated from the roman catholic church.

geekborj on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:12 pm #
Somewhere, somebody said: “To know the truth, follow the lies.” (X-Files). I will not argue here at all .. Good statement …I believe the devil is the master of deceit and he will make a truth look like a lie and the lie look like a truth.

I strongly disagree with dozie however on the following statement.
Dozie on 13 Sep 2009 at 7:13 pm #
For any of Protestantism to be true, the history of salvation has to be repeated, beginning from the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation, the selection of the apostles (with Luther at the head), the death, burial, resurrection, and all. It cost God too much to found his Church – the Catholic Church and no man, if he has the fear of God in him, will entertain the temptation create a rival movement in opposition to what God already established. In a sense, the unpardonable sin is the sin of Luther and his cohorts.

I am an adult convert to Presbyterianism as well as Protestantism. I was a
roman catholic until I was and became interested in the study of the Protestant
Reformation and the different branches of Protestantism about 3 years ago.

I now believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation i.e. the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone.

I studied the Protestant Reformation with fervor and I became convinced and a
believer in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. When I accepted the
authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and realized that salvation is
by grace alone could no longer say I was a Roman Catholic

I became a Presbyterian because I believe that Calvin restored the church to
its pure and uncorrupted form.

I will answer by saying I was a cafeteria roman catholic and discovered that Once God removes the veil from the eyes of the Roman Catholic and gives him/her eyes to see and ears to hear and new heart of trust in the real grace of God there is no more Roman Catholicism left in the soul. Hence, to be born again by the Spirit puts an end forever to Roman Catholicism. I really did not leave the roman catholic religion I was no longer a roman catholic. One cannot believe in salvation through the Roman Catholic system of sacraments, etc., and salvation by grace through faith alone at the same time. It is one or the other. I am a Reformed Protestant because I believe that all Christians are catholic, and I made an affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian Protestant because I chose the other as the truth once I was born again. I believe it was Rome that moved away from the true church Christ founded. I also did not become a Lutheran because Luther only trimmed the branches of the corrupted tree of roman Catholicism, Calvin , Knox and Zwingli and the Reformed branch of Protestantism restored the church to its true gospel and its true form that Christ intended.

In faith,
Dudley

The word persecuted is not about being in minority. It is about how the ideals and the Faith itself is challenged. It is how the members are being challenged to live their faith (Catholic practices, traditions[small 't'], and Traditions[big 'T' being Mass, Confession, etc.]) freely and without any hindrance (either by law within the community, or by social pressure). It is also how media, culture, and political communities attack or belittle the Catholic beliefs including the Catholic’s leaders the Pope and the bishops.

As examples: There are a hundreds of jokes about the Catholic practices. Media always try to find flaw(s) on the statements of the Pope and even their respective local bishop conferences. Every political entity cries against the Church whenever the Church leaders issue defense against the State’s “rape” of human dignity.

Many Credal churches and religious organizations exist today as if the main essence is just opposing the Catholic Faith, if not attacking it (being anti-catholic in nature).

[Pure] Evangelism (if any exists), based on the article above, will never be persecuted because its members are free to CHANGE their practices as they please to remove any pressure from any entity (e.g. law) or peers. This is very unlike a “dogmatic” church which cannot change the revealed faith but only develop and elaborate.

How persecuted is the Catholic Church? It has one billion members, and is the largest church in the world. It is not a persecuted minority.