Every liberal Protestant church today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "evangelical". Today they endorse abortion, homosexuality, and every sort of perversion. How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?
Every liberal Catholic parish today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "traditional." And today those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death (like Teddy K.) endorse abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc. And by so doing what Rome teaches by example speaks louder and more effectually than by her words. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. " (James 2:18)
How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?
Because they can and have separated from both dead religion and liberal revisionism, and the evangelical movement began in response such revisionism, and which Rome evidences even in sanctioned Bible scholarship within your own official Bible (for America).
And unlike RCs who are stuck with the liberal majority of their members, we can separate, and so those who hold to the basic historical Protestant convictions on the Bible can and will continue to obey the command to "be ye separate, and touch not the unclean.." (2Cor. 6:17)
And which class (if a remnant, as are conservative RCs), such show more concurrence in basic moral views and questions about core teachings than Catholics overall, and experience a remarkable unity of the Spirit that transcends denominations. Thus they are feared and attacked by both Rome and liberals.
Even your allegedly "conservative" evangelical churches, without exception, permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, among other objectively immoral acts
I challenge you to show where evangelicals favor "other objectively immoral acts" more than Catholics. As for divorce, not all do, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, which believes that marriage is a lifelong bond and that, although an individual may divorce his or her spouse for continued infidelity, the marriage bond is not dissolved apart from death. Hence, neither party is permitted to remarry while the other person is still living. Those who do divorce and remarry while their first spouse is still alive are considered adulterers, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce. (Source ) Any allowance for divorce can only be for fornication and possibly abandonment, (Mt. 19:9; 1Cor. 7:15) and RC "Pauline Privilege" and Petrine Privilege can be interesting). and there are over eight million divorced and remarried Catholics in the US.
Yet the Bible nowhere teaches that any consummated marriage contract was not a marriage, and the broad criteria for annulments (over 60,00 in the US) potentially leaves many Catholics as living in fornication.
Nor does Scripture make celibacy a requirement to be a bishop/elder, among many contrasts btwn Rome and the NT church.
Meanwhile, those whom Rome treats as members in life and in death both support and have more abortions than evangelicals, as well as support other objectively immoral acts, and are not too far behind in practicing contraception. This is what Rome effectually fosters, regardless of her token conservative words. It is when liberal RCs become conservative evangelicals that real concern is shown for their souls, as now they are a threat to Rome's preeminence.
However, i will allow that modern evangelicals overall missed the boat on contraception, partly due to overreaction to the past idea that even marital relations were unclean (as some "CFs" held) and what flowed from that, as well as ignorance that they can act as abortifacients (and i now see Firefox does not even have that word in its spell check dictionary) and which needs to be corrected.
Yet this does not prevent evangelicals from being against contraception in concurring with classic Protestant views, and it is a direction i (and even the NY Times ) see many moving towards.
A evangelical book on the subject and which is even recommended by a Catholic org (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100804) is The Christian Case against Contraception , by Bryan C. Hodge
If one are going to marry, i would advise being like Old-Order Amish communities in which all types of artificial birth control are forbidden, but not go so far as to reject any varieties of natural family planning.
There is a principle in Scripture in which their are consequences to physical pleasure which require responsibility and temperance, and to try to have you cake and eat it too will have negative consequences.
And on a side note, the use of contraception among consevatives overall likely cost them the last election.
daniel212,
Really nice post. Often on FR, the number of “protestant” denominations is bandied about as if that disproves something. Your post lays out clearly that separation from cancer leads away from error and toward truth.
Instead of continually institutionalizing the accretion of errors, rites, continually adding new “authoritative traditions”, pagan practices, etc., it is far, far better to pursue Christ in purity and simplicity, and often this involves separation.
I will readily admit, some churches have split over silly issues - and I don’t believe they honored God. Most splits appear to be over theological issues.