I checked out the website for the church that a coworker belongs to. It’s an Evangelical church, and since I don’t really know what an Evangelical is, it seemed like a good place to start. This is what I saw in the description of their beliefs:

“We believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, fully God and fully man, one Person in two natures. Jesus-Israel’s promised Messiah-was conceived through the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father as our High Priest and Advocate.”

Looks familiar. I wouldn’t expect an Evangelical church to believe in the virgin birth. :shrug:

Why would you not expect them to believe in the virgin birth?


I thought all Christians believed in the virgin birth…

All Christians do. Thats showing that Jesus was not conceived by man but by God.

Just because it is not stated does not mean they do not believe in the Virgin birth. Most all Evangicals do even though they don’t treat the Blessed Mother as we all do

When it comes to evangelicalism, you can never go wrong thinking Nicene Christian and Protestant orthodoxy minus the liturgy.

What a weird thing to say :eek: The Virgin Birth is treated as an historical fact in the Bible; therefore, evangelicals believe it is an historical fact and part of the faith. If we deny the historicity of the Virgin Birth, we might as well deny the historicity of the Resurrection.

They do believe that; they don’t believe that Mary remain a virgin for her entire life.

To be truly orthodox one must believe in liturgy,the early Christians did not know or practice free worship or independent worship.In all fairness theirs a lot of things in the bible that are historical fact that evangelicals don’t treat as fact ,such as liturgy .So to say “it’s in the bible so we believe it” doesn’t mean a thing.Confessing one’s sins to a priest is also in the bible ,yet most evangelicals/Protestants reject Sacramental Confession.One can not have it both ways.

Looks like I learned something. All my life I thought one of the primary distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism was disagreement over virgin birth.

Notice I said “Protestant orthodoxy.” :shrug:

I am not going to get into a debate about what is nor is not in the Bible on this thread (since it would be off topic). I’ll say this, when I read Paul saying that “when you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” in 1 Cor. 14:26 and “you can all prophesy one by one” in 1 Cor. 14:31 and the surrounding passage in 1 Cor. 14, I see nothing in this passage that looks anything like a modern day Catholic liturgy. That’s all I’m saying.

What modern Protestants generally disagree about is the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.The belief that Our Blessed Mother was conceived without the stain of Original Sin.It’s interesting to point out though most of the original “reformation” leaders such Martin Luther and others did believe in the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother.


I’m not debating either,but all do respect to "Protestant orthodoxy"their’s nothing in the bible that remotely descibes Protestant worship .And the Church’s liturgical worship developed over the many centurys into what it is today.The Bible itself is liturgical nature.The Mass is completely bibical and what you just descibe sounds awfully liturgical in nature.To make a point ,when Jesus was a baby he was God ,when he become a man he was still God although he looked different in appearence he was still the same person.So it’s the same logic when applied to the Church ,she’s the same Church descibe in the Bible she just looks different.

How do you come to that conclusion? Where in the Catholic liturgy are lay people allowed to sing a hymn, teach a lesson, convey a revelation, interpret a message in tongues, or prophesy one by one?


We sing hymn’s at every Mass,and where is it in the Bible that new revelation is allowed to taught or peached .After the death of the last Apostle all new revelation was closed,so any church who teaching new revelation is not teaching truth.Also lay people in the Church are allowed to teach lessons,if you don’t mind me asking where did you get your info from about Catholics?Read St.Peter’s second letter in the NT about interpreting revelations.

Paul does not speak about participation in corporate singing. He says, “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” “Each one” means “each one,” not “each group” or “each congregation.”

If you disagree, take it up with Scripture, not me. Anyway, I was under the impression that the spiritual gift of prophecy and other revelatory gifts were still affirmed by the Catholic Church. Perhaps I was misinformed? :shrug:

Do they teach them as part of the liturgy? And what are these lessons? Are they spontaneous or at the discretion of the teacher after study or are they simply reading the gospel lessons from the lectionary? Does the liturgy give opportunity for “each one” to in some way participate in the service “one by one?”

Hello everyone.

Evangelicals as stated before certainly do accept the virgin birth. Most of the beliefs that we have and other Churches don’t have, we usually say, “it doesn’t matter.” Often Protestants will fight with Catholics on little things, like whether Mary remained a virgin or whether Peter made it to Rome, how to worship for very selfish reasons. Basically their reasoning is, if they can prove one statement of the CC wrong, then the whole Religion crumbles. It’s silly, immature and does nothing to bring us towards unity.

The only real disagreements Catholics and Evangelicals have is our interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and John 6. Anything besides those two disagreements aren’t worth discussing imo.

For me, it’s the whole Apostolic succession claims that keep me away from the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Mostly, the Orthodox/Catholic one though. Who’s right? And why does it matter, have they not read 1 corin 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It’s so true. We’re all one body, Catholic’s and Protestants. The Anglican Church is not the Catholic Church, yet they are one body in Christ.

First off you should really study Catholic history you will find that the New Testament is a product of the Catholic Church .Also Acts chapter 8 discusses reading and interptering Sacred Scripture.Second you keep refering the bible, where in the Bible does it say that everything to be taught to the Christian Faithful is supposed to be learned in the Bible?I do recall 2:Thess 2:15 saying the exact opposite,also you should taken it up with St.Paul not me when it say’s:The Church is the piller of the truth,not the Bible or individuals on there own.


The only thing I’ll say in defence to your "problem with Apostolic Succession is both the Bible (See Acts Chapter 1 and 2,and history supports Apostolic Succession.And so does the early church fathers.Anyone does not see this in their writings are in denignal.

That’s not what the Orthodox say.

As for the Acts, I could also interpret Isaiah 53 and my interpretation would be in line with Catholic Theology. But are you saying because I’m not Catholic (an apostle or a priest) I cannot explain who Isaiah 53 is about?

Eastern Orthodox formly broke from the Catholic Church in 1054,for a thosand years they were a part of the Catholic Church.So they would state anything that sounds Un-Catholic about there origins.But to answer your question no body said anything about a lay person not able to interpret the Bible in “line” of the Catholic faith ,but that being said the Bible itself states in several areas that not everyone was called to be Apostles ,or teachers.Also in response to an earier post on the "One Body"it’s true the Catholic teaches that all baptised Christians who are not Catholic belong imperfectly to the one body .But we reject the notion of "All Christian Churchs together "make up the “True Church”. The Bible itself doesn’t support The Protestant understanding of what makes up the True Church.St Pauls words in many areas support the Catholic understanding on what the True Church is.Bottom line though with all this being said is this,people are going to believe what they want no matter how much truth is being said or pointed out.The Truth of the matter is this Protestant church('s) have little in common (if )anything with historical Christianity ,today’s Protestant church’s don’t even resemble or have little in common with historical Protestant church('s)!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.