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!

[SoothingDave]

So you agree that the verse is concerned with establishing Mary's virginity and does not state that the birth is a "turning point" between virginity and non-virginity?

If this is the case, we can agree. You assume that they carried on as a normal average everyday family. We assume differently. But the text itself does not testify one way or another.

SD

[Jaded]

You're assuming also that there were other brothers and sisters and that is part of your argument against perpetual virginity. If so, why did Jesus defy Jewish law and give over the care of his mother to someone who was NOT his blood brother? Someone who had no legal right to his mother?

[Jaded]

Um, no. Unlesssssss.... unless Constantine lived say 250 years. I thought that life spans were significantly reduced in the OT because of sinfulness.

Various Bishops developed lists of inspired books:
Mileto, Bisop of Sardis c 175AD
St. Ireaneus, Bishops of Lyons 185AD
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea c AD325
Pope Damasus AD 382
Council of Hippo AD393
Council of Carthage AD397
Pope St. Innocent AD405 approved and closed the canon.

[OLD REGGIE]

It was canonized by the Constantinian regime. That's good enough for me.

Not really. Why, the RCC version of the Old Testament wasn't canonized for more than a thousand years or so after Constantine.

The Bible, and all the books in it (including many that didn't make the cut) was written hundreds and thousands of years before there was a RCC.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

um yes...they didn't settle on the final one until during
the Constantinian regime.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

70ad in Yavneh for Hebrew scriptures.

[OLD REGGIE]

So you agree that the verse is concerned with establishing Mary's virginity and does not state that the birth is a "turning point" between virginity and non-virginity?

Maybe we can all agree that the correct, original, Hebrew word was concerning a "young woman".?????

Do you agree that there is no correspondence between the Old Testament prophesy of "young woman" and the New Testament use of "Virgin"?

[gscc]

Your list should be preceded by stating that God Himself gave the inspiration of the Scriptures to the writers.

[wmfights]

"Can you lose your salvation if you fail to participate in the sacraments on a regular basis?

Without getting into a messy predestination/free will battle, the simple answer is "yes." We all sin, and sacraments like the Eucharist (Communion) give us strength to grow in holiness and sacraments like Confession restore us to grace after serious sin. Since we all sin, keeping ourselves from the sacraments is a sure way of letting your faith and your soul die from starvation, of falling out of grace."
___________________________________

Thanks for the honest answer. I think this is probably one of the most profound differences we have. According to your response in the RCC you view grace as something you can control through your actions. In my faith grace is a free gift from GOD, which is not the result of works. Also, we do not believe we control GOD, but rather we are GOD'S possession.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

The Bible, and all the books in it (including many that didn't make the cut) was written hundreds and thousands of years before there was a RCC.

You're getting sidetracked anyway. I wasn't talking about when books were written. I was talking about who got to choose which books made the cut and how Protestants are in agreement with these people. And I'm sure doctrine was strongly considered.

[Quester]

You're assuming also that there were other brothers and sisters and that is part of your argument against perpetual virginity.

Actually, I haven't spoken regarding this point ... today. :^)

If so, why did Jesus defy Jewish law and give over the care of his mother to someone who was NOT his blood brother? Someone who had no legal right to his mother?

Jesus' brothers were not believers at the time of his death.

Would you, as a christian, hand the care of your mother utterly into the hands of non-believers, ... or into the care of a trusted disciple ?

[Quester]

You assume that they carried on as a normal average everyday family. We assume differently. But the text itself does not testify one way or another.

If you say so ... ;^)

[Quester]

On some issues ... I agree with you ... on others, I disagree, ... all probably for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do ... with you.

Well that's fine, I just wanted to offer an opinion that if you can trust those who've handed down doctrines that if preached in your congregation of worship would go over like a porkchop in a synagogue and at the same time totally trust their ability to canonize NT writings that is your perogative.

My point is ... that there is plenty of evidence for the inspiration of the New Testament documents ... which has nothing to do with their ultimate canonization.

[Jaded]

According to your response in the RCC you view grace as something you can control through your actions.

IMO, more like maintaining grace through obedience. Even scriptures mention those who fall away. Seeds strewn among rocks or weeds. Some roots are shallow and dry up. Some grow and are choked by weeds.

[wmfights]

"IMO, more like maintaining grace through obedience."
_______________________________

So in the RCC you could be saved today and if you don't do the right things tomorrow you could be lost. Who determines for you what works are sufficient to maintain your state of grace? What happens to the Catholic that dies while not in compliance with the works necessary to maintain their grace?

[JWinNC]

Hmm... interesting, misplaced I think, but interesting... as one whom you could call Catholic or Christian or less accurately a Protestant, I find the author's reasoning a bit off. ...and I don't consider my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters as "separated brethren" even though we may have some serious differences.

jw

[Invincibly Ignorant]

My point is ... that there is plenty of evidence for the inspiration of the New Testament documents ... which has nothing to do with their ultimate canonization.

Agreed. That "alledged" evidence convinces some. I've read the list you're so fond of posting from time to time. :-)

[Gargantua]

"Do you agree that there is no correspondence between the Old Testament prophesy of "young woman" and the New Testament use of "Virgin"?"

All writings have to be read in the context in which they were written. Example:

If Mary were a "young woman" back in that time who had "found favor" with God, that would mean that she lived according to God's teachings at the time and was, without a doubt, a virgin.

Back then, young women living at home with their parents did not consort or associate with men other than their family members; in fact, they often never laid eyes on their husbands-to-be until the day of their wedding.

So, whether one translates it to be "Young woman" or "Virgin," both mean exactly the same thing when read in context.

Secondly, Jesus never taught His followers to repeat 7 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers for forgiveness. He was quite clear on how one would be forgiven: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and NONE SHALL COME TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME . (Emphasis my own)

Catholic rigamarole is man-made paganism. The Catholic church is a cult which leads to death and damnation, because it teaches people lies about thier path to Salvation.

Many Catholics are saved, believing Christians, but not all. It depends on whether they place their faith in that false church, or in Jesus and His Word.

;-/

[Conservative til I die]

Catholic rigamarole is man-made paganism. The Catholic church is a cult which leads to death and damnation, because it teaches people lies about thier path to Salvation.

Many Catholics are saved, believing Christians, but not all. It depends on whether they place their faith in that false church, or in Jesus and His Word.

Zzzzz.....

[Full Court]

have you read the Catechism of The Church?

Yes. Often.