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!

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

Then, you say: "I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact" --> really?  Then, why did you state that it was Church doctrine as above?

Then, you make a silly statement like "My, my, my. Are we a little upset when presented with the truch about our apostate church?"  -- it's hilarious, you jumble yourself, make false accusations, lies and then resort to childish taunts when your errors are pointed out.  Really silly.

Then, you make some more silly comments like "Only your "church fathers, not the trinity or divinity of Jesus"  So I guess you consider the Church fathers who put together the canon and what you now read as Scripture as being false and wrong and you hence reject what they pieced together, so you reject scripture?

And another one "Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the New Testament Church is. All you know is what your "Clergy" tell you."  --  really?  You then reject the scriptures as that is what the clergy told you?  I guess you also, as you pointed out earlier, reject all preachers, teachers, pastors, rabbis and priests.  You alone are the interpreter of the Scriptures, eh?

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

Then, you say: "I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact" --> really?  Then, why did you state that it was Church doctrine as above?

Then, you make a silly statement like "My, my, my. Are we a little upset when presented with the truch about our apostate church?"  -- it's hilarious, you jumble yourself, make false accusations, lies and then resort to childish taunts when your errors are pointed out.  Really silly.

Then, you make some more silly comments like "Only your "church fathers, not the trinity or divinity of Jesus"  So I guess you consider the Church fathers who put together the canon and what you now read as Scripture as being false and wrong and you hence reject what they pieced together, so you reject scripture?

And another one "Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the New Testament Church is. All you know is what your "Clergy" tell you."  --  really?  You then reject the scriptures as that is what the clergy told you?  I guess you also, as you pointed out earlier, reject all preachers, teachers, pastors, rabbis and priests.  You alone are the interpreter of the Scriptures, eh?

You rely too much on the "church fathers." By your own admission they are not infallable. That being the case, how do you know which of their "supposedly inspired" statements are correct and which are incorrect. I am definitely not inspired, so I look to the teachings of the Bible which "is proven to be inspired." You have impelled yourself on your own pickard.

Do you even READ the posts?  I said that the Church as a whole is infallible, individuals Church Fathers have made errors.  Similarly YOU as an individual when trying to interpret scripture are FALLIBLE.  Btw -- the phrase is "hoisted on your own petard" :-P

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

Then, you say: "I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact" --> really?  Then, why did you state that it was Church doctrine as above?

Then, you make a silly statement like "My, my, my. Are we a little upset when presented with the truch about our apostate church?"  -- it's hilarious, you jumble yourself, make false accusations, lies and then resort to childish taunts when your errors are pointed out.  Really silly.

Then, you make some more silly comments like "Only your "church fathers, not the trinity or divinity of Jesus"  So I guess you consider the Church fathers who put together the canon and what you now read as Scripture as being false and wrong and you hence reject what they pieced together, so you reject scripture?

And another one "Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the New Testament Church is. All you know is what your "Clergy" tell you."  --  really?  You then reject the scriptures as that is what the clergy told you?  I guess you also, as you pointed out earlier, reject all preachers, teachers, pastors, rabbis and priests.  You alone are the interpreter of the Scriptures, eh?

You rely too much on the "church fathers." By your own admission they are not infallable. That being the case, how do you know which of their "supposedly inspired" statements are correct and which are incorrect. I am definitely not inspired, so I look to the teachings of the Bible which "is proven to be inspired." You have impelled yourself on your own pickard.

Do you even READ the posts?  I said that the Church as a whole is infallible, individuals Church Fathers have made errors.  Similarly YOU as an individual when trying to interpret scripture are FALLIBLE.  Btw -- the phrase is "hoisted on your own petard" :-P

You don't seem to understand that while my congregation has a preacher, he encourages us to go home and test anything he has said against the Bible. When he is in error, and admits that he sometimes probably is, we have the duty to test anything he says against the Bible. That is exactly what I do and what I tell my students to do when I am lecturing. It would be a good practice for you to adopt also.

What makes you think the Catholic Church doesn't encourage us to read and question?  Some more false stories that you've been fed.

[Cronos]

if Mary didn't have sex with Joseph she sinned big time.

Yup -- and you were there video-taping? You make silly statements like this, then you state that you were close to a Catholic Church and then found out it was false because when you joined some group they told you so. You haven't read Church teachings and you jump to conclusions, you make silly statements like the one above. why?

[Cronos]

That would be wrong because many either never accepted the false teachings of the Catholic church or later left the Catholic church and returned to New Testament Christianity.

Yes, folks like Arians or Gnostics and they were HERETICS. The Orthodox follow the Church as defined in the 4th century, as do the Oriental Church. That constitutes all of Christian thought (since most Protestant groups follow those teachings -- including the idea of the Trinity). Your statement is wrong

[Cronos]

Not the apostles, they were inspired. However, one writing a hundred and fifty years after the fact leaves considerable doubt concerning the accuracy of his knowledge. Ever play the game of gosip?

By that margin, you, or your pastor, interpreting on your own 2000 years later would be indelibly wrong. As I pointed out with the bit about Jesus' brothers and sister, a rough interpretation without taking the matter into context IS WRONG.

[tenn2005]

I find myself forced to yeild to the divinely inspired wisdom of Pope Cronos I. Let all the earth keep silent before him.

[Cronos]

Let me understand you correctly. The Pope is infallable since he is a direct successor of the Apostle Peter. However, if a council like Vatican II disagrees with the Pope, then the Council takes president. Kind hard to reconcile for a "poor dumb country boy."

Tenn, I'll say this gently -- your "facts" and statements are wrong. Papal infallibility is purely for extreme circumstances as an arbitrator when a Council does NOT come to a conclusion on a difficult matter of faith. Take the iconoclastic heresy. Who agree with what? Or take the Arian heresy. Who made the decision then? The Emperor Constantine. Was he wrong? Should we all reject the idea of the Trinity because there was an arbitrator? Just wikipedia papal infallibility and read up on it. That's all I say -- it would give you a starting point to understand. Then read the Catholic church's view of it. You've been posting the incorrect anti-Catholic distorted view of things.

[tenn2005]

You have been posting the Catholic view of things. I and others have merely been pointing out where that view differs from the Bible.

[Cronos]

Furthermore tenn, you're the one who refers to yourself as a "poor dumb country boy." and an "old man" -- I don't refer to you as anything but a fellow FReeper

[Cronos]

I find myself forced to yeild to the divinely inspired wisdom of Pope Cronos I. Let all the earth keep silent before him.

And when all else fails, you resort to farce. Since your "examples" have been proven to be false. Since no one has pilloried you as poor or otherwise (except yourself), you resort to this. Don't.

[tenn2005]

That is true, but I know more about the Bible than your Pope does.

[Cronos]

I and others have merely been pointing out where that view differs from the Bible.

Nope tenn, you haven't -- as seen in the earlier posts

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

Then, you say: "I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact" --> really?  Then, why did you state that it was Church doctrine as above?

Then, you make a silly statement like "My, my, my. Are we a little upset when presented with the truch about our apostate church?"  -- it's hilarious, you jumble yourself, make false accusations, lies and then resort to childish taunts when your errors are pointed out.  Really silly.

Then, you make some more silly comments like "Only your "church fathers, not the trinity or divinity of Jesus"  So I guess you consider the Church fathers who put together the canon and what you now read as Scripture as being false and wrong and you hence reject what they pieced together, so you reject scripture?

And another one "Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the New Testament Church is. All you know is what your "Clergy" tell you."  --  really?  You then reject the scriptures as that is what the clergy told you?  I guess you also, as you pointed out earlier, reject all preachers, teachers, pastors, rabbis and priests.  You alone are the interpreter of the Scriptures, eh?

You rely too much on the "church fathers." By your own admission they are not infallable. That being the case, how do you know which of their "supposedly inspired" statements are correct and which are incorrect. I am definitely not inspired, so I look to the teachings of the Bible which "is proven to be inspired." You have impelled yourself on your own pickard.

Do you even READ the posts?  I said that the Church as a whole is infallible, individuals Church Fathers have made errors.  Similarly YOU as an individual when trying to interpret scripture are FALLIBLE.  Btw -- the phrase is "hoisted on your own petard" :-P

You don't seem to understand that while my congregation has a preacher, he encourages us to go home and test anything he has said against the Bible. When he is in error, and admits that he sometimes probably is, we have the duty to test anything he says against the Bible. That is exactly what I do and what I tell my students to do when I am lecturing. It would be a good practice for you to adopt also.

What makes you think the Catholic Church doesn't encourage us to read and question?  Some more false stories that you've been fed.

[tenn2005]

Mo, you have been proven false along with your church and your Pope. You continue to try to defend the indefesable and deny the undenyable. Your Pope is an imposter, your church is apostate and your beliefs and teachings are in direct contradiction of the Bible. You faith, or lack thereof, will not save you, me, or anyone else who follows it.

[Cronos]

AlaninSA: Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings." The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

Tenn2005: Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

Really Tenn --> that's below you, first you make an accusation: the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?  then when asked to prove it you say something really with no proof: The historical writings of the Catholic Church.  Then when asked to cite a source, you go on a tangent to cover your bluff.  You made an accusation, the onus is on YOU to prove it

Then you say : "Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples?  Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath."

WHAT examples?  You just made baseless accusations and hemmed and hawed when asked for proof.  Chill out when someone makes a false accusation?  Wouldn't you like us to forget that FALSE accusation, that LIE?

Then, you say: "I did not state that it was part of your church's teaching, I said that it was a fact" --> really?  Then, why did you state that it was Church doctrine as above?

Then, you make a silly statement like "My, my, my. Are we a little upset when presented with the truch about our apostate church?"  -- it's hilarious, you jumble yourself, make false accusations, lies and then resort to childish taunts when your errors are pointed out.  Really silly.

Then, you make some more silly comments like "Only your "church fathers, not the trinity or divinity of Jesus"  So I guess you consider the Church fathers who put together the canon and what you now read as Scripture as being false and wrong and you hence reject what they pieced together, so you reject scripture?

And another one "Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what the New Testament Church is. All you know is what your "Clergy" tell you."  --  really?  You then reject the scriptures as that is what the clergy told you?  I guess you also, as you pointed out earlier, reject all preachers, teachers, pastors, rabbis and priests.  You alone are the interpreter of the Scriptures, eh?

You rely too much on the "church fathers." By your own admission they are not infallable. That being the case, how do you know which of their "supposedly inspired" statements are correct and which are incorrect. I am definitely not inspired, so I look to the teachings of the Bible which "is proven to be inspired." You have impelled yourself on your own pickard.

Do you even READ the posts?  I said that the Church as a whole is infallible, individuals Church Fathers have made errors.  Similarly YOU as an individual when trying to interpret scripture are FALLIBLE.  Btw -- the phrase is "hoisted on your own petard" :-P

You don't seem to understand that while my congregation has a preacher, he encourages us to go home and test anything he has said against the Bible. When he is in error, and admits that he sometimes probably is, we have the duty to test anything he says against the Bible. That is exactly what I do and what I tell my students to do when I am lecturing. It would be a good practice for you to adopt also.

What makes you think the Catholic Church doesn't encourage us to read and question?  Some more false stories that you've been fed.

Then, in post # 1088 you resort to farce: I find myself forced to yeild to the divinely inspired wisdom of Pope Cronos I. Let all the earth keep silent before him.

But you retract in post #1094: That is true, but I know more about the Bible than your Pope does.

Really -- you know more about the Bible than the Popes and you know more about it than the Church Fathers and every other Christian in the past 2000 years.  Strangely egotistical and definitely false -- as proved time and again in this thread

In post # 741 you say "The fact of the matter is that the Bible is so straigntforward and understandable that to misunderstand it you must have the help of a Priest, Rabbi, or Preacher."

To which I said in post #769: "REally, then what was YOUR interpretation about Christ's "brothers and sisters"

Tenns #775: "Christ brothers and sisters were his half brothers and sisters. Is that hard for you to understand"

You never bothered to read my post number #603: "Exactly -- the problem with personal interpretation is that it is made without any background understanding -- so many readers of the Bible light on the verse "Jesus and His brothers and sisters" and say "AHA!! He HAD brothers and sisters -- perhaps they were born of Mary or just step-siblings" -- these people do not know that in the middle east and even in Greece it is common to call your cousins (first and second) your brothers and sisters"

This was in response to wmfights's #595 "This point is a perfect example of how different Christians and Catholics are. Christians will leave a church and form a new one, or join another denomination if they find doctrine contrary to SCRIPTURE"

And here's Tenn in #1096: Mo, you have been proven false along with your church and your Pope. You continue to try to defend the indefesable and deny the undenyable. Your Pope is an imposter, your church is apostate and your beliefs and teachings are in direct contradiction of the Bible. You faith, or lack thereof, will not save you, me, or anyone else who follows it.

Since you cannot prove anything you resort to a screech which is laughable -- no proof, no nothing.

[Mockingbird For Short]

We do not say there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Like you, that is not our place to say. The Church as well teaches that others may be saved.

Has the CC become politically correct? They used to say that there is no salvation outside the CC, didn't they?

[bcsco]

"I pray that God will help you take your Churchs back."

Your prayers are greatly appreciated. We to pray for the deliverance of all who continue to suffer the misguidance of those who would pervert the true Word.

[Cronos]

I will agree with you on that -- we do have differences of opinion on dogma, but the latest lib agenda has really PERVERTED the true Word.