Differences between Catholics and Protestants

[EclipseEventSigns]

Some Pharisees criticized other Pharisees as being hypocrites, so Jesus was not the only one to do that. People can criticize the members of the group while even be members themselves of that group while not being against the group itself. For example, members of denomination can harshly criticize some of the leaders of that denomination for committing sexual sins while not finding fault with what the denomination itself teaches.

I see how you get around that. Jesus included them all.

 

[atpollard]

I see how you get around that. Jesus included them all.

Degrees of "white-washed sepulcher"?

 

[Soyeong]

I see how you get around that. Jesus included them all.

Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means that most of the books in the NT were written by a Pharisee, and he instructed in 1 Corinthians 11:1 to be imitators of him as he is of Christ, so we are instructed to be imitators of a Pharisee. Moreover, in Acts 15:5, Pharisees were included among the believers and a number of other prominent Pharisees like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were also believers. So it is not the case that Jesus was including all Pharisees as being hypocrites. Like any group, its members are not uniformly flawed. Jesus was referring to the people that he was speaking to.

 

[civic]

Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means that most of the books in the NT were written by a Pharisee, and he instructed in 1 Corinthians 11:1 to be imitators of him as he is of Christ, so we are instructed to be imitators of a Pharisee. Moreover, in Acts 15:5, Pharisees were included among the believers and a number of other prominent Pharisees like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were also believers. So it is not the case that Jesus was including all Pharisees as being hypocrites. Like any group, its members are not uniformly flawed.

But you would say Paul and Nicodemus were the exceptions right ?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means that most of the books in the NT were written by a Pharisee, and he instructed in 1 Corinthians 11:1 to be imitators of him as he is of Christ, so we are instructed to be imitators of a Pharisee. Moreover, in Acts 15:5, Pharisees were included among the believers and a number of other prominent Pharisees like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were also believers. So it is not the case that Jesus was including all Pharisees as being hypocrites. Like any group, its members are not uniformly flawed. Jesus was referring to the people that he was speaking to.

Ummm...have you actually read the context of Acts23:6 or are you playing drive-by Bible verses? Paul was being very shrewd and trying to get a fight going between the Pharisees and Sadducees. It worked. He was not seriously calling himself as part of the Pharisees still.

 

[Soyeong]

Ummm...have you actually read the context of Acts23:6 or are you playing drive-by Bible verses? Paul was being very shrewd and trying to get a fight going between the Pharisees and Sadducees. It worked. He was not seriously calling himself as part of the Pharisees still.

Indeed, Paul was trying to cause a stir, however, that does not mean that he lied about being a Pharisee. Again, in Acts 15:5, Pharisees were counted as being among the believers, so there is no particular reason why a Pharisee would need to stop being a Pharisee in order to become a believer in Christ.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Indeed, Paul was trying to cause a stir, however, that does not mean that he lied about being a Pharisee. Again, in Acts 15:5, Pharisees were counted as being among the believers, so there is no particular reason why a Pharisee would need to stop being a Pharisee in order to become a believer in Christ.

You seem to be implying that being a Pharisee was regarded as a good thing. It was not. Paul appealed to others that he was trained as a Pharisee to say that he was an expert in the Law. He was not proud of this. Afterall, he actually KILLED people because of his zeal for this false religious system. In no way should anyone think he wanted people to follow his example of how he was a Pharisee. Perish the thought.

In that way both the Pharisees and Roman Catholics are similar. The truth and love for others is no where at the core of their beliefs. It's all about doing actions in order to gain favor with God. No one should follow anyone who is of that mindset.

 

[Rapture Bound]

That sounds good. I can see a similarity between the Roman Catholic Church in the Pharisees.

Then You have the Catholic Church Church sequestering their sanctioned Bible from the populace. Like the regular people couldn't be trusted with it, The historic prohibitions against Christians reading the New Testament on their own, or worse, translating the Bible into a native language.

I looked this up...Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

So the people would have no way of knowing what Jesus said about calling no man father. That's pretty much a red flag right there. If Christians had access to the Bible in its entirety, they might have noticed what leaped out at me about calling no man father.

"So the people would have no way of knowing what Jesus said about calling no man father. That's pretty much a red flag right there."

How's this for a modern-day red flag planted directly on top of the Vatcan?! :

"Catholics Worship Allah - PROOF"

 

[Matthias]

I read Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars. Generally speaking, I‘ve found Catholic scholars to be better on the doctrine of the Trinity than Protestant scholars.

 

[Rockson]

I've always wondered why in the Catholic Church they call the priests father. From what I understand that goes against what the Bible teaches.

Do not call anyone on earth [who guides you spiritually] your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

I've thought about this verse from time to time. Yes Catholicism does this and I think what it's really meaning is not the actually word FATHER but what the person is meaning when they're saying it. Do we allow any person on the Earth to be like our spiritual guru, whatever they say goes and they never ever should be questioned? Sure some or many Catholics are doing this when calling someone Father.

We're really to be like the noble Bereans in Acts 28 who search the scriptures to make sure things are so. I think in a certain way though Non- Catholics may not actually use the word Father but they can be guilty of the same thing by feeling they can never question their leaders statements about anything.

They are in fact treating such a one, or an organization (like a denomination) as FATHER. Or to put it this way....you could have a RC use the actual word FATHER to a priest....and yet they may not look upon them as one they can't question. They're using that title to them but not be guilty of viewing the one as infallible. Protestants may not use the term but be guilty of considering another as Father. All can be guilty of doing this without using the actual word.

I don't say this to give any defense of Catholicism . It boggles my mind that people can many of their beliefs.

 

[mikepec]

I've always wondered why in the Catholic Church they call the priests father. From what I understand that goes against what the Bible teaches.

Do not call anyone on earth [who guides you spiritually] your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

Ive always wondered why opponents of catholicism take single verses out of context , so called proof texting, at odds with all the other references.
It shows at very least catholic critics do not research before criticise.

God asked Abram to call himself Father. It is the meaning of the name God asked him to call himself!
Paul in corinthians describes himself as spiritual father. So it was clearly a thing, indeed it was a term in wide usage.

What better guides can we have, than God and Paul, and How can this be if Jesus said you cannot use the title?
Did God get it wrong? Did Paul get it wrong? What else do you claim Paul got wrong?

Meanwhile we are asked variously to honour our father and mother, despise our father and mother, in contradiction with each other and also call no man father.
What do we conclude from all this?

First you cannot proof text. You must take an interpretation compatible with all.
Which is Jesus often used hyperbole!
In this case Look past your father(s) on earth to focus more on the one in heaven.
Simple.

 

[mikepec]

One of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the source of God’s special revelation to mankind and teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “sola scriptura” and is one of the “five solas” (sola is Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation.

There are many verses in the Bible that establish its authority and claim it to be sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. One of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16, where we see that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Catholics reject the doctrine of sola scriptura and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic tradition are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Roman Catholics doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc., have little or no basis in Scripture but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions. The Roman Catholic Church’s insistence that the Bible and tradition are equal in authority undermines the sufficiency, authority, and completeness of the Bible. The view of Scripture is at the root of many, if not all, of the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Another disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is over the office and authority of the Pope. According to Catholicism the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” (a vicar is a substitute) and represents Jesus as the head of the Church. As such, the Pope has the ability to speak ex cathedra (literally, “from the chair,” that is, with authority on matters of faith and practice). His pronouncements made from the seat of authority are infallible and binding upon all Christians. On the other hand, Protestants believe that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the Head of the Church. Catholics rely on apostolic succession as a way of establishing the Pope’s authority. Protestants believe that the church’s authority comes not from apostolic succession but from the Word of God. Catholicism teaches that only the Catholic Church can properly interpret the Bible, but Protestants believe that the Bible teaches God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all born-again believers, enabling all believers to understand the message of the Bible (John 14:16–17, 26; 1 John 2:27).

A third major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is how one is saved. Another of the five solas of the Reformation is sola fide (“faith alone”), which affirms the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–10). However, Catholics teach that the Christian must rely on faith plus “meritorious works” in order to be saved. Essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation are the Seven Sacraments, which are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony. Protestants believe that, on the basis of faith in Christ alone, believers are justified by God, as all their sins are paid for by Christ on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to them. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that Christ’s righteousness is imparted to the believer by “grace through faith,” but that in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer. The believer must supplement the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works.

Catholics and Protestants also disagree on what it means to be justified before God. To the Catholic, justification involves being made righteous and holy. He believes that faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation and that the individual must build upon that with good works because God’s grace of eternal salvation must be merited. This view of justification contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in passages such as Romans 4:1–12 and Titus 3:3–7. Protestants distinguish between the one-time act of justification (when we are declared righteous by God based on our faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross) and the process of sanctification (the development of righteousness that continues throughout our lives on earth). Protestants recognize that works are important, but they believe the works are the result or fruit of salvation—never the means to it. Catholics blend justification and sanctification together into one ongoing process, which leads to confusion about how one is saved.

A fourth major difference between Catholics and Protestants has to do with what happens after death. Both groups teach that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell, but there are significant differences about what happens to believers. From their church traditions and their reliance on non-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine of purgatory. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a “place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” (Hanna, E., “Purgatory,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 12. Robert Appleton Company, 1911). On the other hand, Protestants believe that we are justified by faith in Christ alone and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us; therefore, when we die, we will go straight to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6–10 and Philippians 1:23).

One disturbing aspect about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is the belief that man can and must pay for his own sins. This results in a low view of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Simply put, the Roman Catholic view of salvation implies that Christ’s atonement on the cross was insufficient payment for the sins of those who believe in Him and that even a believer must pay for his own sins, either through acts of penance or time in purgatory. Yet the Bible teaches that it is Christ’s death alone that can satisfy or propitiate God’s wrath against sinners (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). Our works of righteousness cannot add to what Christ has already accomplished.

The differences between Catholicism and evangelical Protestants are important and significant. Paul wrote Galatians to combat the Judaizers (Jews who said that Gentile Christians had to obey the Old Testament Law to be saved). Like the Judaizers, Catholics make human works necessary for one to be justified by God, and they end up with a completely different gospel.

It is our prayer that God will open the eyes of those who are putting their faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is our hope that everyone will understand that “works of righteousness” cannot justify or sanctify a person (Isaiah 64:6). We pray that all will put their faith solely in Christ and the fact that we are “justified freely by [God’s] grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith” (Romans 3:24–25). God saves us, “not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5–7).got ?

hope this helps !!!

I will not go blow for blow. There are libraries full of books that discuss and justify it all.
I speak as protestant turned evangelical turned catholic as a result of studying history and the unsupportable protestant dogmas such as sola scriptura..

On the first paragraph agreed. The reliance on sola scriptura is a big difference from which many others follow.
It is also true that protestants quote the following because it is the only support they can find.

“all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Alas that does not say "sola scriptura" nor does it define what is scripture is or what is included in it. For the most part references to scripture in the new testament refer to the old, the only scripture at the time.

Alas sola scriptura is logically, historically , scripturally, and practically false.

Sola scriptura is Logically false because if scripture is the highest truth , then it has to say it explicitly as the highest truth without which it is logically inconsistent. It does not. Anywhere.
It is also logically false, because nor does scripture self identify. It was chosen from many competing books. So how can you say only scripture when you cannot define it from itself? Scripture alone omits a table of contents! So the highest truth "what is God breathed" cannot be determined from scripture alone.

It is somewhat fascinating, that Luther in his intent to avoid some parts of scripture preferred a rabbinic judaist selection of old testament, decisions made long after Christ lef the earth!!! If he had read the same rabbinic decision he would know the same rabbis would reject the entire new testament too. But such was luthers hate for maccabees and judaist tradition prayers for the dead he messed with scripture with no authority to leave out the books he did not like. The question is not why cahtolicism has them, but why did Luther reject them?! Who gave Luther the power to bind and loose? Not Jesus anywhere I can find!!

Sola scriptura is historically false because that is not how the faith was passed in the early church.
The first generation had no new testament scripture. Even in Iraneus time, there was still a discussion of how many Gospels there were! Scripture was not a done deal for some time to come, till the church spoke.

Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" he appointed apostles (who appointed successors) and said "do this and teach this" which was done primarily by word of mouth, and letter. Not surprising. Few could read. There was no printing press for another 1500 years. It took a monk 3 years to copy a single bible!. So few copies of any christian documents existed and the romans destroyed all they found. So the true faith was handed down by word of mouth.

The bible uses the word "paradosis" for "handing down " of the faith " only by those "who were sent" to which Paul tells us to "stay true to what you are taught".
That is the meaning of "tradition" not what protestants later impose on it. It means handing down of the faith . Early fathers only one or two generations separate from the apostles such as iraneus discuss the importance of tradition. Not surprising. The new testament was way in the future.

Sola scriptura is scripturally false, because scripture identifies truth outside of itself.

It declares the physical church the household of God as the "pillar of truth" not scripture. That disputes are to be taken to the church. Why so?
Easy - because Jesus gave the apostles together and Peter alone the power to "bind and loose" which means give definitive judgements on faith morals, law interpretation of scripture and so on, just as was "moses seat" Thatr is what gives church councils power to decide. (apostolic succession) . Without the powerof God using men to steer truth, you would not have a new testament. Men decided the content. Jerome the first translator made his deferral to authority clear.

Those who dispute the power to bind and loose, can look in strange places to find it. Even Calvin in commentaries does not dispute that this was a power given to to sucessors of Peter. It is hard to dispute given the "office of Keys" . Calvin just considered that somehow the pope had "relinquished it"

So both "tradition" and "authority" of church decisions are truth outside scripture.

Sola scriptura is also a practical failure. Because protestants come to opposite meanings for almost all of doctrine. Eucharist. Baptism. Priesthood. Moral issues. End times. Protestants disagree on it all. Then they schism because they have nowhere to turn.

So Tradition and Authority are also truth that hand down the meaning of scripture. You cannot choose what it means.

I left anglicanism because it held different views of even the eucharist. But the real truth is easily found by studying tradition.
That is - what the disciples of John said the eucharist is. A eucharist of the real flesh, valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.

I have never understood the protestant claim that catholics do not do scripture. We revere scripture.
As a nomad from protestant to evangelical to catholic, I can say there is far more scripture in catholic mass than any other service.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I have never understood the protestant claim that catholics do not do scripture. We revere scripture.
As a nomad from protestant to evangelical to catholic, I can say there is far more scripture in catholic mass than any other service.

It's all in how the scripture is used....and abused...and hidden....and added to.

 

[civic]

I will not go blow for blow. There are libraries full of books that discuss and justify it all.
I speak as protestant turned evangelical turned catholic as a result of studying history and the unsupportable protestant dogmas such as sola scriptura..

On the first paragraph agreed. The reliance on sola scriptura is a big difference from which many others follow.
It is also true that protestants quote the following because it is the only support they can find.


Alas that does not say "sola scriptura" nor does it define what is scripture is or what is included in it. For the most part references to scripture in the new testament refer to the old, the only scripture at the time.

Alas sola scriptura is logically, historically , scripturally, and practically false.

Sola scriptura is Logically false because if scripture is the highest truth , then it has to say it explicitly as the highest truth without which it is logically inconsistent. It does not. Anywhere.
It is also logically false, because nor does scripture self identify. It was chosen from many competing books. So how can you say only scripture when you cannot define it from itself? Scripture alone omits a table of contents! So the highest truth "what is God breathed" cannot be determined from scripture alone.

It is somewhat fascinating, that Luther in his intent to avoid some parts of scripture preferred a rabbinic judaist selection of old testament, decisions made long after Christ lef the earth!!! If he had read the same rabbinic decision he would know the same rabbis would reject the entire new testament too. But such was luthers hate for maccabees and judaist tradition prayers for the dead he messed with scripture with no authority to leave out the books he did not like. The question is not why cahtolicism has them, but why did Luther reject them?! Who gave Luther the power to bind and loose? Not Jesus anywhere I can find!!

Sola scriptura is historically false because that is not how the faith was passed in the early church.
The first generation had no new testament scripture. Even in Iraneus time, there was still a discussion of how many Gospels there were! Scripture was not a done deal for some time to come, till the church spoke.

Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" he appointed apostles (who appointed successors) and said "do this and teach this" which was done primarily by word of mouth, and letter. Not surprising. Few could read. There was no printing press for another 1500 years. It took a monk 3 years to copy a single bible!. So few copies of any christian documents existed and the romans destroyed all they found. So the true faith was handed down by word of mouth.

The bible uses the word "paradosis" for "handing down " of the faith " only by those "who were sent" to which Paul tells us to "stay true to what you are taught".
That is the meaning of "tradition" not what protestants later impose on it. It means handing down of the faith . Early fathers only one or two generations separate from the apostles such as iraneus discuss the importance of tradition. Not surprising. The new testament was way in the future.

Sola scriptura is scripturally false, because scripture identifies truth outside of itself.

It declares the physical church the household of God as the "pillar of truth" not scripture. That disputes are to be taken to the church. Why so?
Easy - because Jesus gave the apostles together and Peter alone the power to "bind and loose" which means give definitive judgements on faith morals, law interpretation of scripture and so on, just as was "moses seat" Thatr is what gives church councils power to decide. (apostolic succession) . Without the powerof God using men to steer truth, you would not have a new testament. Men decided the content. Jerome the first translator made his deferral to authority clear.

Those who dispute the power to bind and loose, can look in strange places to find it. Even Calvin in commentaries does not dispute that this was a power given to to sucessors of Peter. It is hard to dispute given the "office of Keys" . Calvin just considered that somehow the pope had "relinquished it"

So both "tradition" and "authority" of church decisions are truth outside scripture.

Sola scriptura is also a practical failure. Because protestants come to opposite meanings for almost all of doctrine. Eucharist. Baptism. Priesthood. Moral issues. End times. Protestants disagree on it all. Then they schism because they have nowhere to turn.

So Tradition and Authority are also truth that hand down the meaning of scripture. You cannot choose what it means.

I left anglicanism because it held different views of even the eucharist. But the real truth is easily found by studying tradition.
That is - what the disciples of John said the eucharist is. A eucharist of the real flesh, valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.

I have never understood the protestant claim that catholics do not do scripture. We revere scripture.
As a nomad from protestant to evangelical to catholic, I can say there is far more scripture in catholic mass than any other service.

Thanks for sharing Mike. Just so you know this OP came from Got Questions as a conversation starter. I'm not saying personally that I'm in agreement with their points. I'm a former calvinist of 40 years that left it a couple of years ago so there are many things that Reformers believed that I no longer believe myself.

 

[atpollard]

I have never understood the protestant claim that catholics do not do scripture. We revere scripture.
As a nomad from protestant to evangelical to catholic, I can say there is far more scripture in catholic mass than any other service.

One might ask, "How much arsenic does it take to spoil an otherwise delicious meal?"

It is not the Biblical truth that Catholicism embraced that caused the division, but the extra-biblical Traditions that Rome and Byzantium added [although the Reformation being a Euro-centric event, Rome had more influence than the EOC.]

 

[civic]

Also I became friends with a catholic priest who was a client of mine back in the 80's when I was a Biblical Greek student for 2 years and my Pastor who was a seminary Greek professor was my teacher who happened to also be my next door neighbor.

My friend who was a priest, we would have some really long and in depth conversations and he would share with me his personal beliefs and his personal relationship he had with Christ that was no different than mine. He had a deep love for Jesus and what His sacrifice for his sins meant to him and what his prayer life looked like and what the gospel was and the great commission meant to him. We were on the same page in all those areas. So he opened my eyes to so many things I had misunderstood about Catholics in general. He was and still is a deep spiritual man and we are about the same age in our mid 60's. I about moved away and had not seen him in about 20 years and ran into him at a funeral a few years ago. We had a mutual respect for each other as brothers in Christ that was still there and we had a nice time talking and catching up on life.

And on a other note during this same time I was friends with this catholic Priest brother Ray my wife's grandmother was 97 and approaching the end of her life as a life long catholic. She read her bible every day. My mother in law and wife asked if I would talk with her about Jesus so I said ok because I like sharing the gospel with people. I asked her if she had assurance of her salvation and that she would be with Jesus when she passed from this life. She said no she did not. I said to her that the bible says we can KNOW that we have eternal life. Then read several passages to her from Johns gospel and 1 John on assurance of our salvation. She also told me she did not have a personal relationship with Christ. I asked her if she had ever confessed Jesus is her Lord and believed in her heart that God raised him from the dead as per Romans 10:9-13 and John 1:12-13 and she said no. Then I read 1 John 5:12-13 that he who has the Son has eternal life and that we can know we have eternal life. She said she wanted that assurance so we prayed together for her to receive Jesus as her Lord and Savior and confess Him. She did and we talked about the new birth and being born again, becoming a new creation in Christ.

From that day forward she had this unspeakable joy in her heart and her face. She would look at me with a new kind of love as her brother in Christ now and she had a peace that passed all understanding. She went to be with her Lord a few months later. One of the best moments of my entire life was sharing the gospel with my grandmother and knowing that for her to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. I can’t wait to see her in heaven.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

One might ask, "How much arsenic does it take to spoil an otherwise delicious meal?"

It is not the Biblical truth that Catholicism embraced that caused the division, but the extra-biblical Traditions that Rome and Byzantium added [although the Reformation being a Euro-centric event, Rome had more influence than the EOC.]

And both of those denominations actively fought against the Church of the East. So much so that most Christians in the West don't even know about this other important Christian tradition that spread the Gospel east through the middle east, India, and beyond into China in the early centuries of Christianity.

 

[civic]

And both of those denominations actively fought against the Church of the East. So much so that most Christians in the West don't even know about this other important Christian tradition that spread the Gospel east through the middle east, India, and beyond into China in the early centuries of Christianity.

The Bible Answer man Hank Hannegraff left Protestantism and became E.O. a few years back. That shook things up a bit in Evangelicalism.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The Bible Answer man Hank Hannegraff left Protestantism and became E.O. a few years back. That shook things up a bit in Evangelicalism.

Just to be clear, in case people do not know, Eastern Orthodox is completely different from the Church of the East.

 

[civic]

Just to be clear, in case people do not know, Eastern Orthodox is completely different from the Church of the East.

Sorry I thought you were talking about E.O.- my bad. Thanks for clarifying my friend.