The hidden exodus: Catholics becoming Protestants

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....

We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.

While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.

Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.

Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.

Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.

One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.

Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.

The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.

Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.

Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.

Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.

If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.

Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.

Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.

Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).

What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.

Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.

Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.

There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.

First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.

While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.

Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.

The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.

Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.

Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.

The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.

If you reject Christian history how will you ever find the Truth? Any comments on...

Truth is found in the word of God, not history.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

2 Corinthians 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

Ephesians 1:13-14 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

“Truth is found in the word of God, not history.”

You are correct, metmom. It is not about ‘Early Church Fathers’, Constantine or any other of the lies that come out about ‘truth in history’. The ‘church’ was not built on Peter, it was built if you will, on Jesus Christ.

The church has never been about bricks and mortar, hierarchies, etc. It is ‘us’...those of us who are His Body.

Your reference passages are excellent...we know truth by the Spirit.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-14)

It says of John (the Baptist) “The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.”

We too are here to bear witness of the Light.

“How do you know that all those *prophecies* that you’ve been posting are from God? What test do you apply to those pronouncements to determine their veracity? Or do you just believe anyone who comes along and says *Thus sayeth the Lord,....?

There MUST be some way of determining their veracity to know that they are from God. If it’s not using Scripture, then what does one use?”

~ ~ ~

Thank you metmom, a great question. Catholics have been sharing, we can know via the authority of the Church. Look to the Church Fathers, Magisterial teachings, Scripture AND private revelation (there is some private revelation (prophecy) given to canonized saints, one recent, St. Faustina). The reason why 1 Cor 12:28 is so important. “Prophets”, God’s Word in prophecy is listed second.

Here is example, God explains further something written in Revelation with prophecy...private revelation.

Revelation 16-17
And they say to the mountains and the rocks: Fall upon us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb: [17] For the great day of their wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?

http://www.drbo.org/

This is the Great Warning, will you be able to stand seeing your life in review, seeing your soul as God sees it? Pray every day, repent from the heart and confess your mortal sins to God now. Catholics go to Confession.

Prophecy makes explicit the last verses in Revelation 6.

GOD SPEAKS WILL YOU LISTEN

June, 07 A.M.

The Secrets of Man’s Hearts

...My people lay aside your secret sins. Focus on your Jesus, not on this world. REMOVE the sins from your life now in the hour of mercy by the light of my spirit. ALL OF MANKIND WILL SOON HAVE MY LIGHT SHINE INTO THEIR SOULS. WILL YOU BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND THAT DAY? OR WILL YOU CRY TO THE ROCKS AND THE MOUNTAINS TO COVER YOU AND TO TRY AND HIDE FROM MY PRESENCE? Better to be humble in my sight today than to wait until that hour. Take advantage of my mercies and graces today. For now is the acceptable time. Now is the day of salvation. Do not presume on my mercy. Cleanse your soul in my precious blood and make your soul acceptable in my sight today. The words of the Lord.

see page 42

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22505473/God-Speaks-Will-You-Listen

Martin Luther's opinions are not holy script so they are or may be of historical note but then what? We're not to be followers of men.

“Timothy only knew the written OLD Testament from infancy.”

Not necessarily so as most of Paul's writings were in existence, perhaps two the Gospel accounts, perhaps more, and it was these that Peter included in “Scripture”.

“Jesus teachings were all oral. The Apostles shared them in the same way, passed them on orally. It was later SOME of Jesus’ teachings were written down and compiled...the Bible.”

True, there's no record of Jesus writing anything down, whether others did or not is unclear given the comments Luke made at the beginning of his gospel writing. Clearly Jesus had time enough to say a lot more than what is recorded in the Bible, no question.

But would those words not available to us now change what Jesus taught? Is there some “lost teachings of Christ”?

No. Jesus said the holy spirit would help his disciples recall and understand what he had said so having every word Jesus ever spoke is not necessary to understanding his message.

“You accept part of the Oral Word even though you profess “Bible Alone.”

I don't profess “Bible Alone”. God's spirit is necessary also and that spirit guided which of those oral teachings became part of “all scripture” so we can agree with Paul that “all scripture is inspired of God....”

Just as in Jesus day today there are teachings that were never part of Scripture and are contrary to Scripture, the “gold standard” of truth.

Therein is the value of God's written word, we can have a record to examine as Paul said. “All these things were written....”. (Romans 15:4)

“Truth is found in the word of God, not history.”

Natural Law:
The Word of God is history. It is not some fictitious fable told to frighten misbehaving children or to entice the self-serving. It is very, very real. The fact that actual history is also the history of the Catholic Church is not a reason to disbelieve.

~ ~ ~

Thanks NL!!, you explain much better than I do.

You can know, sharing again, God’s revelation is made explicit through the prophetic, that’s why it is so important.

Apocalypse 6:12-17
And they say to the mountains and the rocks: Fall upon us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb: [17] For the great day of their wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?

GOD SPEAKS WILL YOU LISTEN

June, 07 A.M.

The Secrets of Man’s Hearts

see page 42

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22505473/God-Speaks-Will-You-Listen

“Martin Luther’s opinions are not holy script so they are or “MAY BE” of historical note but then what? We’re not to be followers of men.”

“Therein is the value of God’s written word, we can have a record to examine as Paul said. “All these things were written....”. (Romans 15:4)”

~ ~ ~

Thanks for your reply. It’s hard to reply to every single
comment.

Where is the assurance in “maybe?”

You say you’re not “Bible Alone” but keep quoting only Scripture not any oral tradition AND using your own private interpretation of the Bible.

Private interpretation of
Scripture is heresy.

The Written Word didn’t drop from Heaven, “Men” could write the words they first spoke orally and passed on assured they were guided by God. So you have misinterpreted, “we’re not to be followers of men.” Without these “men” you wouldn’t have Holy Scripture. Man is involved, this
is God’s way.

How can you say “we have record”...? The Bible isn’t the
complete record of Christ’s teachings. That’s Luther’s
falsehood of “Bible Alone.”

You say you’re not “Bible Alone” but keep quoting only Scripture not any oral tradition AND using your own private interpretation of the Bible.

If Scripture alone, which has been written down for thousands of years and thereby remains unchanged because people can go back and refer to the originals, is not adequate or reliable, then *Oral Tradition* is nowhere NEAR being reliable. There is simply NO WAY of verifying that change has not crept in.

If Scripture alone isn't infallible enough to depend on, no self-appointed group of men who claim to be the infallible mouthpiece of God hear on earth can be counted on either.

Another question.....

Why the NEED for further revelation?

If it can be supported by Scripture, then it's not needed because we can find it in Scripture.

If it can't be supported by Scripture or contradicts it, then it is to be rejected as a lie, so again, it's not needed or even wanted.

Any *prophecies* are either redundant or lies. So what's the point?

Isn't there enough material in Scripture to keep us busy enough for a lifetime? You want MORE????

From what I've seen, most people don't even manage to be able to handle what we have revealed to us therein. Since when is God going to give someone more revelation when they won't even respond to what they have now?

"You can know, sharing again, God’s revelation is made explicit through the prophetic, that’s why it is so important."

It's difficult to discuss these things with the chronically inconsistent because you never really know which side of the argument they are arguing or where their argument is leading. In this case it is preposterous that a proponent of predestination would not recognize that history is nothing more than God's plan unfolding before them. What is in the past was His Word, and what has not yet happened is His Word yet to come.

The really sad thing is that so many let their hatred of the Catholic Church cloud their judgment and blind themselves to the full glory of God.

Peace be with you.

“Thanks for your reply. It’s hard to reply to every single
comment.”

I don't to and it can seem rather tedious to try.

“You say you’re not “Bible Alone” but keep quoting only Scripture not any oral tradition AND using your own private interpretation of the Bible”.

We have the model of Christ who over and over again quoted Scripture saying “it is written”. When he did quote oral tradition it was usually to show it contrary to God's word.

Like wise with Paul. Take a concordance and see how often the apostles cited, “it is written” as support and how often they said “it's traditional to do this and such”.

Private interpretation? If what I say agrees with Scripture then there is no private interpretation, only repetition.
Christians are to preach the Word and examine it on their own as did those “noble minded” Beroeans. (Acts 17:11)

“Private interpretation of
Scripture is heresy.”

And whose interpretation is that?

“The Written Word didn’t drop from Heaven, “Men” could write the words they first spoke orally and passed on assured they were guided by God. (I THINK I SAID THAT VERY THING!!) So you have misinterpreted, “we’re not to be followers of men.” (I SAID THAT IN REFERENCE TO MARTIN LUTHER AND WHY HIS OPINION WAS NOT MY GUIDE OR AM I MISINTERPRETATING MY OWN WORDS???) Without these “men” you wouldn’t have Holy Scripture. Man is involved, this
is God’s way.”

” Without these “men” you wouldn’t have Holy Scripture. Man is involved, this
is God’s way.”

Is this private interpretation and thus “heresy”?

“The Bible isn’t the
complete record of Christ’s teachings.”

Just that which is necessary but there is no complete record as the Bible acknowledges.

"That doesn't mean that history = truth."

We are beginning to peal the onion that is the Reformation to reveal the underlying thought processes. Whereas my Catholic mind defines history as the accurate account of things past, verifiable and authoritative, your "Reformed" mind seems to approach it much like it does Scripture; history is a flexible and changeable portrayal in which accuracy does not seem to be as important an attribute as is malleability to fit any argument or position. It certainly explains many of the exchanges on these threads. It is no wonder we cannot agree on either history or Scripture.

"And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us." - Acts 17:25-27

Peace be with you.

“You say you’re not “Bible Alone” but keep quoting only Scripture not any oral tradition AND using your own private interpretation of the Bible”.

CYC:
We have the model of Christ who over and over again quoted Scripture saying “it is written”. When he did quote oral tradition it was usually to show it contrary to God’s word.

~ ~ ~

How do you have the “model of Christ?” Who gave it to you?

Defending the Bible which came from the Church to reject the Church by saying Jesus said “it is written.” Jesus was speaking of the written record of the OLD Covenant. There was no Gospel yet. How many times did He use this term? What of the rest of His words passed down from the Apostles?

Your last sentence, give example. Are you raising up the written tradition by saying the oral tradition is “usually” (your cover) wrong per Our Lord? In talking about Moses’ seat, Jesus was teaching, don’t do as they do. Our Lord mentioning the chair of Moses is proof there is the Oral Word.

Matthew 23:2
Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

“Like wise with Paul. Take a concordance and see how often the apostles cited, “it is written” as support and how often they said “it’s traditional to do this and such”
~ ~ ~

Christ or Paul reminding the people of the time of the
written word of God doesn’t make the oral tradition of the
Old Covenant less. Sometimes it was to remind them the “written” was being fulfilled before their eyes.

Think of the New Covenant oral tradition you do accept, it’s
pretty important, yes?

Here is an Apostolic Father, the 3rd Bishop of Antioch, his name is Ignatius. Notice, there is a hierarchy. Ex: St. Ignatius of Antioch was taught directly by the APOSTLE St. John. St Ignatius was the first to use the term “CATHOLIC Church”. “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church”

Look again at the presumed writings of Ignatius. He does not make the word "catholic" a proper noun - it is not capitalized because it is an adjective describing the church. He used the word to describe what the Christian church in his time was - universal. That is the meaning of the word and just because the Roman Catholic Church comes later and tries to "copyright" the word, doesn't mean they own it. As we have said many times before, the church, the body of Christ, is a spiritual union of all believers and followers of Jesus Christ. He knows His own and He doesn't need a label or sign outside a building to recognize us.

Martin Luther came along in 1517 and threw out 7 books of the Canon. He was NEVER guided by God. Luther tossed out the Old Testament Canon which Our Lord and the Apostles quoted from the most. There were two OT Canons, Jesus referred to the Alexandrian Canon also known as the Septuagint.”

I know you are new here, but this blatant falsehood has been disproved countless times. Perhaps you need to do a bit more "objective" studying before you try to teach everyone. I'm not Lutheran, but Luther did NOT toss out 7 books in the New Testament. He translated the Greek NT into the German common tongue and some books that he questioned, he still included in his translation. He did NOT remove them. Perhaps you are listening to the wrong "prophets".

On the subject of the Apocryphal books, we could spend a whole new thread going over why those books did not EVER belong among the divinely-inspired books of the Old Testament, not the least of which is that were not accepted by the Jewish fathers, who Jesus said were given the "Oracles of God". They refused them for the simple reason that they were NEVER consider as Holy Scripture. They contain many errors, they speak of legend or imaginary happenings and they do not have the "ring" of truth to anyone sensitive to the Holy Spirit as the accepted books are. Tomorrow, I'll post some links to help you get a better knowledge about the Bible and how we can know what is and isn't from God.

“Private interpretation? If what I AGREES WITH SCRIPTURE then there is no private interpretation, only REPETITION.
Christians are to preach the Word and examine it on their own as did those “noble minded” Beroeans. (Acts 17:11)”

~ ~ ~

The Bible doesn’t interpret itself. If only there was “repetition” of interpretation. Every week since 1517, there has been one new Protestant sect established because of private interpretation of Scripture (private judgement). There’s the fruit. God didn’t give each person the authority to interpret Scripture. God gave the gift, the authority to interpret Scripture to Church.

You misinterpret Acts 11:17. Stating “Christians are to examine it on their own”, not true, it is the authority of the Apostles, listen to them and their successors.

[11] MORE NOBLE: The Jews of Berea are justly commended, for their eagerly embracing the truth, and searching the scriptures, to find out the texts alleged by the apostle: which was a far more generous proceeding than that of their countrymen at Thessalonica, who persecuted the preachers of the gospel, without examining the grounds they alleged for what they taught.

http://www.drbo.org/

Acts 17:11
Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.