Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[NYer]

Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology.

I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians…." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones?

Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.

Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."

Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.

Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!

[SaltyJoe]

Again, my own faults demand that I make use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist.

And in retort:

Allow me to offer an explanation of an American trinitarian model not born of man's efforts, but always was. Does the American model of 3 separate but equal branches of government spring from a creation of man, or has there always been the Perfect Power of a Holy Trinity of 3 separate but equal Persons of God? This is not a Jewish/Catholic/Christian idea (and certainly not Islam/Eastern). This IS the definition of IS to which no creature may claim. That American History and the efforts of Americans to preserve "a more perfect union" means that our sincerest form of flattery has meant the plagarism of the Real Perfect Union of Power. Yet our human efforts to make this mortal institution timeless is beastial at beast unless we can immitate the Life of Christ and be obediant to His command of living the Sacramental Life as He has shown us by His own actions and not just on the Cross (for example, the Holy Eucharist confirmed on the road to Emmaus).

But connecting Stalinism to the Protestant Revolt deserves and explanation.

Why does liberalism "need" a Stalinst master? Rationalizing efforts to satiate human desire leads to idolizing hedonism. The early Bolshevics were both alcoholics and extremely promiscuous. Such absolute debauchary seeks an "iron will" to force the uninvolved innocent to cater to the enslaved human will that offends God and glorifies evil. Don't forget that Lenin was the first to legalize abortion in the Soviet Union.

http://www.forerunner.com/predvestnik/X0057_Rebuilding_Russia_-_.html

"For instance, Vladimir Illych Lenin was the first leader in Russia's history to legalize abortion in 1921. This was part of Lenin's "free-sex, free-love" (read: anti-family, pro-sexual immorality) philosophy."

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/weebies/weebies9.html

"Legalized abortion has it roots in Marxism, socialism, and egalitarianism. Lenin and his communist Bolsheviks were the first ones to widely and openly legalize and advocate abortion as a woman’s right. Communism viewed abortion as a vital part of implementing Marx’s and Engel’s Communist Manifesto and their desire for the “Abolition of the family!” and liberation of women who were oppressed by capitalism, marriage, and the family. Modern day Marxists are proud of their pro-abortion heritage and are still leading proponents of abortion as seen by the short article Marxism and Abortion."

Catholics to ignore the obvious Protestant/Liberalism (Communist/Fascist Socialism)? But "sensible Roman Catholics" have already ruled on the Protestant connection of heresy to abomination. Here's the Vatican's letter in the book's Preface...

http://www.liberalismisasin.com/

Most Excellent Sir:

The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the little work bearing the title "El Liberalismo es Pecado" by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation (pg. iii) was accompanied at the same time by another little work entitled "El Proceso del Integrismo," that is "a refutation of the errors contained in the little work El Liberalismo es Pecado." The author of the second work is D. de Pazos, a canon of the diocese of Vich.

Wherefore the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works, and decided as follows: In the first not only is nothing found contrary to sound doctrine, but its author, D. Felix Sarda merits great praise for his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.

The same judgement, however, cannot be passed on the other work by D. de Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover his injurious manner of speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of D. Sarda, than against the latter's supposed errors.

Therefore the Sacred Congregation has commanded D. de Pazos, admonished by his own Bishop, to withdraw his book, as far as he can, from circulation, and in future, if any discussion of the subject should arise, to abstain from all expressions personally injurious, according to the precept of true Christian charity; and this all the more (iv) since Our Holy Father Leo XIII., while he urgently recommends castigation of error, neither desires nor approves expressions personally injurious, especially when directed against those who are eminent for their doctrine and their piety.

From "Liberalism is a Sin"

"A Protestant may freely range from one end of the scale to the other and still be considered orthodox according to Protestant estimates. A lose, indefinite belief in Christ, either as God redeeming the world (12) or even as a great ethical teacher, not God Himself though sent by God, suffices to place the Protestant within the compass of his own standard of orthodoxy. Any specific expression of dogma or of particular truths, bound up in the acceptance of by any one sect or denomination, can find no authoritative exaction, for the differences between the sects, in the last resort, become mere differences of private opinion, dependent upon nothing but the caprice or choice of the individual."

Thus, an appeal to "sensible" Catholics in this sense is like a liberal Democrat appealing to "moderate" Republicans. The connection is as obvious as Saddam paying suicide/homicide bombers to kill Israelis. We have the checks and bank statements to prove the fact. We know that he was always interested in waging war by any means...including WMD. The evidence is real and the conclussions obvious.

-----
Who influenced Lenin & and Stalin in spite of their Eastern Orthodox ancestry? Who influenced Marx (who in turn influenced Lenin)?

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/hegel.shtml

"Georg Ludwig Hegel instilled an anti-Catholic bias in his children; he was a Protestant."

http://jcrao.freeshell.org/Italy-1900

"But, here, someone might object that Rousseauian influences in Italy were far overshadowed by those coming from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Indeed, no one can deny that Hegel had an enormous and much more demonstrable vogue in official circles of both the Risorgimento and the new Kingdom of Italy. Hegel’s books were smuggled into prisons in pre-unification days for the inspiration and encouragement of righteous suffering nationalists, who needed to be shown that history would vindicate them. His ideas were promoted through the work of Francesco de Sanctis (1817-1883), Minister of Education in the 1870’s, and the academic and literary circles in Naples surrounding Bertrando Spaventa (1817-1883) and his brother, Silvio (1822-1893). Their influence was central to the development of the greatest of Italy’s early twentieth century intellectuals, Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944). Michael Bakunin, the seminal anarchist teacher, sang paeans to his Hegelian heritage, while no self-conscious Marxist, like Labriola, a student of the Spaventas, could do anything but confirm the German’s significance as well.25 "

Here's connecting the dots from Hegel to Marx...

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html

"Marx became a member of the Young Hegelian movement. This group, which included the theologians Bruno Bauer and David Friedrich Strauss, produced a radical critique of Christianity and, by implication, the liberal opposition to the Prussian autocracy. Finding a university career closed by the Prussian government, Marx moved into journalism and, in October 1842, became editor, in Cologne, of the influential Rheinische Zeitung, a liberal newspaper backed by industrialists. Marx's articles, particularly those on economic questions, forced the Prussian government to close the paper. Marx then emigrated to France."

to Lenin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin

The phrase "We will follow a different path" meant that Lenin chose the right way to succeed in the revolution, which was based on a Marxist approach. Indeed, at that time Lenin became interested in Marxism, got involved in student protests and later that year was arrested.

Who were Hegel's heroes? Baruch Spinoza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

In the summer of 1656, he was excommunicated because of apostasy from the Jewish community for his claims that God is the mechanism of nature and the universe, having no personality, and that the Bible is a metaphorical and allegorical work used to teach the nature of God, both of which were based on a form of Cartesianism (see René Descartes). Following his excommunication, he adopted the first name Benedictus (the Latin equivalent of his given name, Baruch). The terms of his excommunication were quite severe; see Kasher and Biderman (19nn).

Immanuel Kant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

"With regard to morality, Kant argued that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God, but rather only in a good will."

(I don't think that this thought is Christ-oriented since ALL Good can only come from God--even "good will" has its source from God. Simply put, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Thus, "good will" is not enough to win Salvation. Good will demands obedience (or surrender/sacrafice of pride))

http://www.antiochian.org/wordjan2005/15.html

The assertions of leading thinkers like Nietzsche, Marx, Kant, as well as those of numerous scientists, together with impressions formed by students exposed to them, can lead students into a real quagmire of doubt, or even further into any number of hellish states of mind.

-------
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

"Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712 – July 2, 1778) was a Franco-Swiss philosopher of Enlightenment whose political ideas influenced the French Revolution, the development of socialist theory, and the growth of nationalism."

Rousseau is clever, but incomplete:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04335a.htm

"Rousseau maintains that society arises through the total alienation of the personality and rights of each associate; hence, for the absolute individualism of nature he substitutes an absolute socialism in the civil state. It is the general will which is the ultimate source and supreme criterion of justice, morality, property, and religion. Then we have, in spite of all the explanations advanced by Rousseau, the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the crowd, the destruction of true freedom, morality, and society. The French Revolution was the realization of these principles. Society has not its foundation in the free alienation of personality and rights, but in the natural union of all personalities, or, rather, families, with a view to reach their perfection. Society is not the source of duties and rights of families or individuals, but the protector and helper of families and individuals in the fulfilment of their duties and rights; its existence is commanded, its authority is limited, by this very end. Society is not formed from elements all individually equal, but is organized from graduated elements. These degrees of authority, however, in the social organization are not by nature the exclusive possession of anybody, but accessible to the capacities and the efforts of all. Society is made up of authority and subjects; and this authority, while it may be determined in its subject and manner of exercise by the people, has not its foundation in their will, but in human nature itself as God created it."

The morbid fatalism of von Goethe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe

"The short epistolary novel, Die Leiden des jungen Werthers, or The Sorrows of Young Werther, published in 1774 recounts an unhappy love affair that ends in suicide."

"The fact that it ended with the protagonist's suicide and funeral--a funeral which "no clergyman attended"--made the book deeply controversial upon its (anonymous) publication, for it seemed to condone suicide. One would have expected a clergyman to attend the funeral service and condemn an act considered to be sinful by Christian doctrine."

(unless it's “Christian” Scientist pulling the trigger on himself or his starving disabled spouse…again, a phenomenon not possible without the history of social suffering from the devastating effects of the Protestant Revolt)

Dangers of Protestant Liberalism
(funny how conservative Christians, like old-school Baptists, can point to the errors of Protestant Liberalism with ease. It's only a matter of time before the Sacrament of Baptism takes full effect on the heart's desire for the rest of the Sacraments…especially the Holy Eucharist)

http://www.jesuswalk.com/lamb/classic_liberalism.htm

---

AnalogReigns, I sometimes wish I were a mere "load of biggoted crock". But, when a simpleton only plagiarizes from well referenced sources or from the rebellious' own words, then I'm just the little kid who simply states that the emperor’s has no clothes.

http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/newclothes.html

But enough of me insulting myself.

Mussolini and Hitler were baptized Catholics? Well so were/are Henry VIII, Martin Luther, John Kennedy, and John Kerry. Does that make them practicing Catholics worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist? And if excommunication was needed in 20th Century as a means to stop European Fascism, how many Christian preachers kick out of their flocks those wayward American politicians and judges in attempts to stop legalized abortion on demand?

The promiscuous Henry VIII was excommunicated and it led to an outrageous civil war as well as a global British Imperial anti-Catholic effort to destroy Papal Authority. In recent contrast, American Catholics were well advised on the Teachings of receiving Holy Communion and it led to a very embarrassing and extremely costly defeat for John Kerry and company. But there's a difference in dealing with an absolute monarch and a democratically elected president. For the later, "the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner" while the former population of subjects needed to know who their True King is. How else would the Scottish and Irish Catholics have spread the Gospels except to be harried out of their native lands?

[Diego1618]

He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day

Where in scripture does it say you cannot help heal someone or feed yourself on the Sabbath?

St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5).

Friend....you need to think like a Hebrew if you are going to read Paul's letters. The Colossians were Gentile Pagans prior to their conversion. They had no knowledge of these things before and Paul is instructing them in their observance! He is saying....pay no attention to criticism of these observances. Look at verse 8; of Colossians 2. He is talking about deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition. Do you really thinks that God's Holy Days and Sabbaths are derived from "Human Traditions"?

Galatians 4:8 tells us that these folks formerly knew not God.....so the enslavement they were turning back to sure wasn't scriptural....it was Pagan!

Romans 14:5 is one of my favorites to refute. Paul is not talking about Sabbaths. He is talking about "Fast Days". Jesus himself mentioned it in Matthew 6:16. It is mentioned again in Luke 18:12. Fasting was very customary to Jews and some fasted more than others. Some fasted on particular days....others did not. If you notice in verse 1 of Romans 14 it says these are disputable opinions! Do you think Paul would be calling Sabbath observances disputable?

The 14th chapter of Romans is talking about vegetarianism and fasting....not Sabbath Day observances. Some folks in Rome did not want to eat meat as they thought it may have been sacrificed to idols in the meat market. See 1 Corinthians 8 for an explanation of this. Paul is saying "no big deal".

[whispering out loud]

nah, I doubt that, because until all other denominations submit themselves to the authority of the catholic church, they, "catholics" will deny our Identity as Christians. I've already engaged this debate, and their reluctance to bring any evidence other than Catholic writings, and refusal to debate standing upon scriptures, makes this an exercise in redundancy, and inevitably a circular argument going nowhere.

[NYer]

I don't know where you got that idea about the Catholic church supporting communism but I hope it wasn't from a comic book. The Catholic Church has always been against communism.

Jack Chick tracts. Here's an example:

"Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin" to create Communism, and it was "believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican."[5] It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family.[6] The Communist "liberation theology" movement also is a Vatican plot."

Chick is a recluse. Little is known about him and only two pictures of him have surfaced over the years. It’s tempting to laugh off Jack Chick’s tracts and comic books. Their lurid tales and paranoid conspiracy theories make them hard to take seriously. But millions of people take them very seriously. That is why Chick has been able to distribute more than half a billion of his tracts. What is worse, many are aimed directly at Catholics, attempting to convert them to Fundamentalism. His most anti-Catholic tracts tend to conclude with a final panel like this one, urging Catholics to repudiate their faith.

READ MORE

[twidle]

Full Court: I am so enthralled with this post and glad that I came to Free Republic site today. I never knew about Tartullia or the Baptists before Luther. It is true that John the Baptist baptised Jesus. Just didn't think.
John was cousin of Jesus. (according to my readings which is very limited). Will list this as my favorite "Favorite" on the internet.

Am currently reading Billy Graham's autobiography. It is true that he is loved by people from many religions. Most people no matter what religion respect both the Pope and Billy Graham, but neither of them take place of Jesus (God).

Don't understand how Catholics can justify they are the first christian church. Glad that was pretty well covered today. Didn't know Catholics believed that. I like the enlightenment about works. Was never clear to me 'til today. One must believe in Jesus before expecting his good works to help him get into heaven. (I think that is gist of what I read).

Thanks again for this site!! and especially this thread.

[muawiyah]

No, I do not belong to an heretical church. It did not break away from Rome. Actually, it got its start in the 1820/30 period.

To be a real heretic you must, in fact, have been an adherent of the beliefs about which you are commiting heresy. If you didn't believe that stuff in the first place, you are not an heretic.

[NYer]

I think the spin of Aramaic is from haSatan.

So, you are saying that Jesus did not speak Aramaic? What else do you deny about Him?

[Jaded]

A great many non-Catholic Christians were born into their "faith". However there is this mentality in a number of them that they are interchangeable. Just shop for what is convenient to your lifestyle.

[NYer]

Do you believe that Y'shua was just a bumpkin from Galil ? Or do you believe that Y'shua is the creator of the universe?

Do you believe that Jesus was both human and divine?

[Uri’el-2012]

You ignorant fool.

Not a very good Christian witness!

Please review Titus 2

b'shem Y'shua

[ThanhPhero]

A church that breaks away is a schismatic church. You do not belong to a schismatic church. Your church, while nominally Christian and whose doctrines do derive from Christian dogma, holds and promulgates heretical views i.e. doctrines different from those of the Church. Therefore, ergo, and thus- you are a heretic.

[AlaninSA]

Sorry, lady.

I take no counsel from members of your cult.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>I think the Aramaic spin is from haSatan.

So, you are saying that Jesus did not speak Aramaic? What else do you deny about Him?

287 posted on 02/15/2006 5:28:22 PM MST by NYer

I'm sure the king of the universe can do anything He wants to do.

Your whole spin about Peter and the Rock is based on the spin that
Y'shua did not know that He was the Holy Word of G-d
and that He only spoke Aramaic.

The clear reading of the Holy Word of G-d demonstrates that
Y'shua at the age of 12 could read and speak Hebrew.
As He did in the Temple in Jerusalem with the Priests.

This Aramaic spin denies that the Ruach haKodesh intentionally breathed
the New Testament in Koine Greek for us to understand the mind of G-d

b'shem Y'shua

[RKBA Democrat]

This article is really much ado about nothing. I don't care what the "Protestants" call themselves. Christian is just fine by me. It's an accurate term, it isn't perjorative, and it doesn't harm me or my religious beliefs. The term could also be used to describe me: a Catholic who is also, by definition, a Christian. (Or at least tries to be.)

I wonder about articles like this and the underlying motivation of those who write them and/or publish them. Why would we want to sow the seeds of discontent over such a trivial matter as what fellow Christians want to call themselves?

My Christian bretheren who are not Catholic are no threat to me, regardless of what they want to call themselves. The threat to me and my faith is the Culture of Death. The threat to me and my faith are governments who systematically persecute my Christian bretheren. The threat to me and my faith are knuckleheads who think that strapping on a bomb-belt is a real good way to enter paradise.

So how is an article such as this going to focus on the real threats to our future as Catholics and Christians?

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>Do you believe that Y'shua was just a bumpkin from Galil ?

Or do you believe that Y'shua is the creator of the universe?

NY>Do you believe that Jesus was both human and divine?

Should I expect you to answer my question?

b'shem Y'shua

[RKBA Democrat]

"I'm new around here- Are Protestants and Catholics always so hostile to each other on this site?"

No. We aren't. Sometimes the rhetorical furniture gets tossed around a bit, and the debate can get passionate, but it's nothing like the political threads.

Oh and welcome to Free Republic!

[Jaded]

Why do you refer to the Gospel as spin?

[Uri’el-2012]

Sorry, lady.

I take no counsel from members of your cult.

I know that I am "called out" by G-d.

I follow the commandments of G-d.

I do not follow the traditions of man,
the Pharisees,
who add to and change the Holy Word of G-d.
Men who teach that the traditions of man is
to be revered over the Holy Word of G-d.

OBTW why do assume that I am a female?
This seems to be part of a supercilious attitude?

Titus 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

Titus 2:2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self controlled,
and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.

Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way
they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but
to teach what is good.

Titus 2:4 Then they can train the younger women to love their
husbands and children,

Titus 2:5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind,
and to be subject to their husbands, so that no-one will
malign the word of God.

Titus 2:6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled.

Titus 2:7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good.
In your teaching show integrity, seriousness

Titus 2:8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that
those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have
nothing bad to say about us.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to
try to please them, not to talk back to them,

Titus 2:10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully
trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching
about God our Saviour attractive.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

Titus 2:12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly
passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in
this present age,

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing
of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness
and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager
to do what is good.

Titus 2:15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and
rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

b'shem Y'shua

chuck

[Uri’el-2012]

Why do you refer to the Gospel as spin?

No.

[bahblahbah]

"Do you think that the Catholics will spew venom over him? I don't."

Hah, you're kidding right? They'll be Catholics spewing venom on him here.