The very reason why there continues to be so many different Evangelical denominations in the world is because each one of them has splintered off of another Evangelical church and believes that they have the truth, thus the other Evangelical/Protestant denominations need to be converted to them. This cycle has been continuing for so many years that some Evangelicals have given up completely and are attempting to teach doctrinal relativism - that none or few are right and no one really knows the truth so everyone should just “work with each other.”

The philosophy of Evangelicalism involves blending into society and other Christian denominations in order to win people over. If a part of the worship service/liturgy is offensive - even essential parts - they will compromise the service to gain converts. Some Evangelicals, even Evangelicals that use the Anglican tradition, go as far as embracing lower churches in hopes of eventually converting them over to what they believe to be the more truthful Evangelical party. This requires serious compromise. The minister must begin to worship as the Evangelical worships and teach only the doctrine that will not offend the Evangelical. He hides much of his doctrine under his hat hoping that the Evangelical will one day seek what is under it.

The conservative Catholic on the other hand does not use the compromising method. The Catholic does not strong arm the Evangelical to come to the “higher truth” as this may be to some the logical conclusion of not using the Evangelical spy method. The Catholic leaves the Evangelical alone doing what St. Paul says; he avoids him; not completely though to the point of not associating or befriending them, but the Catholic becomes a witness in his submission to Christ’s Church - both ethicaly and ceremonialy. The Catholic Church initiates this by declaring whether or not the separated Christian (Protestant, etc.) can commune with them. When the answer is “no,” that they cannot commune, this declaration spreads throughout the church and creates conviction upon the separated Christian. This is known as excommunication (there are a variety of excommunications to lesser and higher degrees).

One will ask, ” what if the lesser truth Christian is interested in becoming a Catholic.” If this be the case, then the enquirer will come to catechism class or to mass but without partaking in the Eucharist. This is how the early Church evangelized! The enquirers came to worship but were not able to participate in the Eucharist. Here evangelism is at work, convicting the soul of the enquirer to repent and submit to the Christ through his Church. This is unlike one of the Evangelical Anglican provinces that teaches in their specialized Prayer Book that both Catholics and Evangelicals can commune together. This seems like a noble thing at first thought but the reality is that it gives false assurance and is actually a form of de-evangelism. Becoming a Christian means that one is willing to submit to higher authority. When a compromised (or autonomous/unsent) group of unqualified individuals decides to “start a church,” they become deceivers. They rail against the Catholic doctrine of excommunication and evangelisation.

The Catholics are not cruel and harsh because they excommunicate. They are patient and humble. They wait and work patiently praying for their unbelieving friends and relatives to one day become full “enquirers.” The traditional Catholics do not compromise their worship standard to participate in whatever it is that the enquirer worships. The Catholic prays and brings his conviction to the altar, hoping and praying that through the Church the enquierer may one day recieve the grace given by Christ.

Fredrich Scheleirmacher says, “[Protestantism] makes the individual’s relation to the Church dependent on his relation to Christ, [while Catholicism] makes the individual’s realation to Christ dependent on his relation to the Church.”

Protestantism makes the individual’s relation with the Church dependent on “his relation” to Christ? I agree with this statement somewhat, but how can a person have a relationship with Christ without the revelation that God gave the Church, known as the Bible. As stated in previous posts, one cannot have the Bible without acknowledging those that put it together (remember, the Bible was not handed over by Jesus or dropped from the clouds by the Holy Spirit)?

This “relation to Christ” that the Protestant believes he has is based on his own authority, or at best a piecemeal authority that only exists as an ideology; an ideology that can never come into existence due to its foundation of esoteric anti-creationism (Gnosticism).

The temptation would be to say that Protestantism is acceptable as an immature stage in ones walk with Christ. Protestantism being a baby-stage is true to the extent of God using everything for his glory (he used an ass to speak to Balaam), but God does not sanctify and “ordain” everything he uses to be ecclesial. We do not go to the local donkey farm to hear God’s revelation and confirm our faith, even though God has used a donekey before to reveal his Word before.

The conversion of ones soul has everything to do with their conversion FROM autonomy TO authority - the authority that Christ has established for us. What authority did Christ establish for us? One will say, “The Holy Ghost.” The Holy Ghost through whom? Anyone and anything? This is known as the heresy of pantheism! Christ did not establish an authority that is esoteric, he established the Church as our authority.

We do not confirm our relationship with Christ by our own heart; our own fallen nature; we confirm our relationship with Christ through the authority that he has given us. Christians are not autonomous people! We are united to Christ’s body, which is His Church.

Regarding Protestantism as being some sort of immature step within the faith: One can certainly “grow out of” Protestantism, but that does not mean that they were once just immature. Repentance needs to be sought when one realizes they have been basing their relationship with Christ on their own sinful nature rather than Christ’s divine ordinance. Next time you Catholics have a religious conversation with your Protestant friends, ask them what is holding them back from being Catholic and you will likely find that they are opposed to the bishopric, the very office that holds the keys to their liberation (Matthew 16:19). Can one enter heaven without the keys; without what St. Paul calls “the pillar of truth?” Well, who would be so bold to chance this?

Origen (circa 185 to 354 AD) Origen is generally considered to be one of the greatest theologians in early Christian movement (If you were a heretic). He stressed Jesus’ humanity, and believed that God might eventually receive all people (even Satan and his demons) into heaven.

Jan Huss, a Bohemian church reformer and martyr, was burned at the stake in 1415 CE.

Michael Servetus who wrote “On The Errors of the Trinity” which led to his execution at the stake in 1553 in John Calvin’s Geneva for his unitarian heresy.

King John Sigismund of Transylvania (now a part of Romania and Hungary) in 1568 issued the first edict of religious freedom. This allowed citizens to hold diverse religious beliefs and still be loyal to the state.

Writers, scientists, and others who promoted religious tolerance, including Alcott, Bryant, Holmes, Locke, Milton, Newton, Florence Nightingale, and Thoreau.

["Founding Fathers"] American politicians such as John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Adlai Stevenson and William Howard Taft.

John Murray, who in 1779 [Gee, just three years after the American Revolution] became the minister of the first Universalist church in the U.S. at Gloucester, MA.

Joseph Priestly, chemist and Unitarian Minister who established the first Unitarian Church in the U.S. in 1796.

Hosea Ballou, author (in 1805) of “A Treatise on Atonement” which argued against the existence of miracles, the Trinity and of Hell. He is sometimes referred to as “The Father of American Universalism“.

Preachers and theologians Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Ellery Channing and Theodore Parker.

Julia Ward Howe, a fighter in the abolition of slavery.

Clara Barton, who worked for penal reform.

Susan B. Anthony, who advocated women’s rights.

Source: EAEC