do evangelicals or protestant pastors forbidd to their people to study about the history of christianity?

do evangelicals or protestant pastors forbidd to their people to study about the history of christianity?

do evangelicals or protestant pastors forbidd to their people to study about the history of christianity?
because they will find the catholicism as the first church and they want to erase the history of martin luther who wanted to founded his own church from this movement many evangelical churches appear in the world not just in Europe also in the U.S where it is now the main protestant country that export many churches like pentecostals no?
they were not catholics the first churches but they become catholics in the sense universals and follow the doctrines of the ecumenical councils.

Best answer:

Answer by Crybaby Atheist
If the history is written as one run-on sentence, yes.

Leave your answer below.

Be Sociable, Share!

15 Responses to “do evangelicals or protestant pastors forbidd to their people to study about the history of christianity?”

  • websparrow2000 says:

    Catholicism is not the first church, read your History…The First Churches were in Minor Asia-Greece and they were not Catholics!

    God Bless

  • Graham says:

    None that I have ever met or heard of.

  • Funky Chicken says:

    not exactly, they basically teach their own version where there was no official organized religion until i don’t know how many 100’s of years later and therefor Catholics aren’t the first.

    lol its funny when they say they have the real bible yet all they did was take out parts they didn’t like lol

  • Jeff says:


    But intellectual curiosity is very rarely encouraged in evangelical churches (at least, the ones I’m personally familiar with).

  • Andrew H says:

    I think many churches must do that because any time I post basic, uncontroversial facts about the origins of certain bible stories, or of the New Testament, I get thumbed down and called a liar.

    Their ignorance about their own holy book is absolutely incredible.

    Edit: I see the morons are out thumbing me down again. Thanks for proving my point you lying cretins.

  • Knarf says:

    The church I attend is neither Roman Catholic, protestant nor evangelical

    It is God’s True Remnant Church and we teach all Church History.

    Martin Luther did NOT want to start his own church,

    All he wanted was to correct the errors within the RCC.

    If you are really interested in church history, please read:

    “The Great Controversy” by E G White.


  • buruk habba bashem Adoni says:

    Yeah, uh NO.

    We are allowed to do any research we want.

    BTW, the Catholics were not the first Church…Jesus is the beginning of the Christian movement and I do not recall Paul writing any letters to the “Catholic” church…at least none were mentioned in the Bible.

    Perhaps you need to do a little more research and you too will see that the first Churches were the ones that the apostles planted and indeed not the “Catholic” church.

  • Susanna LIVES says:

    why would you ask such a Q? it is clearly apparent and evident that we DO know the history, why does your church condemn Sola Scripture? as IF God’s Holy Living Word is Not suffice? that’s what I’d question if I were you, to “me” that would be a hella big red flag 🙂

    Please know that I am not being snide or anti or hateful, I cannot put a tone here, please realize this,, please? 🙂 I just am seriously curious as to how you can believe a church is “above” the Bible….so for reference I include your own churches words:

    “Of course, the Catholic church claims that the change was her act. And that act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.” James Cardinal Gibbons.

    Another statement: Sunday is our mark of authority…the church is above the Bible, and this transferrence of the Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.:

    Catholic Record, London Ontario, Sept. 1, 1923. On May 31, 1998 John Paul II issued an Apostilic Letter called Dies Domini – The Lords Day. Section 67 says “Christians will naturally strive to ensure civil legislation respects their duty to keep sunday holy.

  • Robert says:

    …No, most churches encourage the study of church history.

    Catholicism was the first church, sort of. In the Early Church / Apostolic Era, there were no church denominations. Yes, there were various views aleady rising up (such as the heresy, Arianism), but there was no real presence of denominations until after the merger of state and church.

    The Great Split around 1000 AD, over various petty issues, was the first formation of sepreate denominations – the Catholic (universal) Church in the west, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the east.

    The Catholic Church, over the two millenia after Christ, increasingly became more of a political than a spiritual institution, and used its religious authority as a power card over the kings and peoples of Europe. After the chaos that the collapse of Rome caused (the Dark Ages), people began to see the corruption for what it was. Martin Luther was one such person, who had the guts to post his complaints in the 95 Thesis, thus starting the Protestant Reformation, which sought to restore the authority of the Bible alone and the salvation by faith doctrine.

    That’s where my answer has to stop, because I can’t understand a WORD of the rest of your question. Learn to type English! I mean, really, how come it seems like the only Christians who come to YA are uneducated morons who just serve to solidify the stereotype?!?

  • Apospao says:

    Sorry to be the one to tell you this ,but the catholic church started from the romans,the first church was in Israel, and they were mostly Jews, Follow Jesus ,NOT a religion

  • Colonel Reb says:

    Actually, my church has encouraged it. You can very easily tell who has and hasn’t been in church lately just by reading these answers. People really should get back into church.

    I don’t mean to make fun of you, but I really don’t understand what you’re saying in your details to comment on that.

  • Farsight says:

    No. They do however, stress over and over, that the bible is all a person needs, which winds up inadvertently discouraging them from studying history. In addition, some evangelical and protestant pastors do encourage their flock to study history, but encourage them only to read documents like “The Trail of Blood” or “Roman Catholicism” or “The Two Babylons”, which are really historical hogwash, but they don’t know that.

    I personally find it rather telling the degree to which proper historians – ones with formal educations – tend to be either Catholic, irreligious, or having large respect for Catholicism.

    nina – what you’re talking about that the church sold were called indulgences and they were almost nothing like how you describe. Money was involved. That’s all you got right. This just reinforces the stance that those opposed to Catholicism are typically woefully ignorant of it.

  • nina says:

    No on the contrary they encourage the study,,,,to know the truly word of God…like for example Lutherans separated from Catholics due to the payments that each member had to give to the church for their sins showing them this was wrong and not written on the scriptures,,,
    Also to differentiate some “christian” churches that called themselves so but are not following the scriptures and making their member go for a wrong path, and still call themselves christians without the proper study of the Bible

  • HM 10 ®™℠ says:

    Only the weak once with no skills at manipulating history to their churches means

  • ♥ SJC ♥ says:


    According to history baptism was ALWAYS administered in the name of Jesus.

    “The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries”

    Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics
    Edited by James Hastings
    Volume 2, page 384–1958 edition
    under Method of Baptism

    “The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name.”

    The Encyclopaedia Britannica
    Volume 3, page 365 and 368 –1910 edition

    under The Baptismal Formula, page 365
    “The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together.”

    under Origin of Christian Baptism, page 368

    Advocates of the Triune formula of baptism based solely on Mat. 28:19 argue against the Jesus name formula for baptism by saying that ‘in the name of Jesus’ does not mean that the baptiser needs to say the name of Jesus in baptism, rather it is just meaning that they are baptising the candidate ‘in the authority of Jesus’.

    However, if this argument is valid then it is equally true that baptism ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Mat. 28:19) also only means in the authority of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost and therefore we do not need to repeat the formula ‘In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ either. This would leave us without any formula that needed to be said!

    In ‘the name of’ does indeed mean in the authority of the person whose name is called. But, the name of the person involved needs to also be called. Which is why the Apostles invoked Jesus’ Name over candidates e.g. Acts 2:38. Also, in Acts 19 Paul invokes the Name of Jesus over his candidates.

Leave a Reply

Article Categories
Most Popular Articles