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!

[Jaded]

What happens to Protestants when they back slide? What happens to people who are "born again" and quit?


There's also purgatory. While not mentioned by name, it is similar to the OT Sheol. The threshing floor, the refiners fire that Paul talks about.

Ephesians and James both talk about the fact that we are made for works because of God, that is obedience.

[Jaded]

The same can be said of a lot of non-Catholic Christians.

[Coleus]

there's a lot of comments here and don't have time to read them all.

[Cronos]

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 only see the word ROMAN, you forget that the APOSTOLIC Church consists of the Oriental (Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian), Assyrian, Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc.), Catholic (Roman, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Chaldean etc.) Churchs. This APOSTOLIC Church has existed, as the name tells you, since they were founded by the APOSTLES i.e. to the 1st century. The Canon was decided by this overall Church. The RCC is a branch of this Apostolic Church.

The Canon was closed by this Apostolic Church WITH the Pope's decision. Do YOU accept other works like the Gospel of Thomas? that was tossed aside by the Church, so I guess that's a good enough reason for it to be accepted by you

[Full Court]

Also, did God tell you that He is odds with evolution.

God hates liars. I'd call that at odds with evolution and evolutionist.

Where is the current Pope on evolution?

Is he in agreement with God?

Or not?

[Full Court]

In post # 741 you say

That wasn't my post.

But the point remains that Either Mary has sex with Joseph or she sinned by with holding sex from Joseph.

Take your pick.

[Cronos]

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

Jesus, His mother and His Apostles were all Jews until they died

[magisterium]

True. But isn't the controversy surrounding the word "until" simply one of whether or not the word inherently implies a change of state after an event? If that is so, then usages of the word contradicting that assumption should be sufficient to prove the point, regardless of whether they form an "identity" with the circumstances in the "until passage" at issue. Mere analogy, rather than identity, should suffice.

[Full Court]

Only a group of persons can even START to comprehend the enormity that is God.

That's crazy.

Paul started preaching on his own. He didn't wait years.

You are brainwashed to think that you couldn't read and understand the Bible on your own when you very well could if you were born again.

[gscc]

When Noah built the Ark and weathered the flood he did not take credit for saving mankind. When Moses led the Jews out of Egypt he did not take credit for delivering them to the Promised Land. They were tools in the Lord's hands. So why is it that the RC Church takes credit for canonizing the Scriptures?

[Full Court]

The Bible says that husband and wife do not withhold sex from one another except for prayer and fasting.

1 Corinthians 7:4  The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

[Cronos]

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.

And you believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

I'm copying Mark in this as he pointed out something very insightful the other day, lemme paraphrase it: there are only a few hundred or a thousand people in the US who hate the Catholic Church, however there are millions who hate what they THINK the Church is....

Statements like Full C's answer to my question have you read the Catechism of The Church?  Yes. Often.

make me realise that many of those who don't belong to The Church have no idea what the Church is about and seem to rely on Jack Chick tracts or medieval concepts or the following centuries of propaganda for what they think The Church is about.

Sadly, they're wrong and they move away from The Church.  This is pretty akin to believing in such outright lies as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. 

[magisterium]

No. The entire canon of the Bible (OT & NT) was ratified by four separate Catholic councils and their respective papal concurences between 382 and 419. Trent dogmatically declared the canon in the 16th Century because Protestantism had already moved to alter the OT canon and was still toying with the idea of altering the NT canon as well. It decalred the canon dogmatically to act as a bulwark against the spirit of the age in which Trent existed.

If you look at the history of ecumenical councils, you will find that such is usually the case - dogmatic assertions about such-and-such are not made until there is a controversy anout such-and-such, and the correct teaching must be publicly promulgated. Case in point: the Trinity was defined at Nicaea in 325 NOT because it was all of a sudden dreamed-up then, but because there was enough controversy denying what was *already* taught in the Catholic Church that formal definition of the Trinity was needed to set everyone straight.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

What happens to ProtestantsBelievers when they back slide? What happens to people who are "born again" and quit?

2 Peter 2:20 For if they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (they were saved by trusting Christ and the Cross), they are again entangled therein, and overcome (proclaims the fact that if the Believer ceases to place his Faith and trust in what Jesus did at the Cross, that entanglement in the pollutions of the world will once again become a fact; it cannot be otherwise), the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

2 Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of Righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the Holy Commandment delivered unto them.

2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true Proverb [Proverb 26:11], The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (this completely refutes the Unscriptural Doctrine of Unconditional Security, and gives the reason...a departure from Christ and the Cross.)

Jesus Speaks...

Luke 11:23 He who is not with Me is against Me (presents the fact that there is no neutrality with Christ): and he who gathers not with Me scatters (everything is either of the Devil or of Christ, there is no middle ground)

Luke 11:24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man (concerns the efforts of man, whatever they may be, to save himself other than by Christ and Him Crucified), he walks through dry places (waterless, out of the body), seeking rest (concerns the "unclean spirit" which has gone out); and finding none, he says, I will return unto my house whence I came out (unless Christ affects the work, whatever it might be, it is not truly affected)

Luke 11:25 And when he (the evil spirit) comes, he finds it swept and garnished (means it was filled with that other than Christ)

Luke 11:26 Then goes he, (the evil spirit), and takes to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself (concerns the reoccupation by demon spirits) and they enter in, and dwell there (proving that most of the world is controlled by demon spirits): and the last state of that man is worse that the first (this was the state of Israel after they had rejected Christ, which ultimately led to their total destruction)

[Cronos]

What happens to Protestants when they back slide? What happens to people who are "born again" and quit?

[Cronos]

What happens to Protestants when they back slide? What happens to people who are "born again" and quit?

[magisterium]

Uh...because it did?

Whether Noah and Moses took credit for what they did or not, they DID what they DID, no? Whether the Church takes self-conscious credit for what it did regarding the canon of Scripture, its actions in this matter are of historical record. We Catholics, when defending the Catholic nature of the canon of Scripture here on FR and elsewhere, have every right to point out verifiable facts concerning our Church's involvement. I do not think that the Church, per se, trumpets its canonization of Scripture every waking moment, as you imply. Rather, individual members of the Catholic Church on this forum are oftern obliged to bring the matter up when people palpably ignorant of easily attainable and verifiable history attempt to retroactively rewrite that history (or simply ignore it) to further a disingenuous agenda.

[Cronos]

Conservative: Also, did God tell you that He is odds with evolution.

FC:  God hates liars. I'd call that at odds with evolution and evolutionist.

Evolution as defined is not anti-religious.  It, like all sciences seeks to help man understand God's creation.  When taken to extremes (like saying life evolved of it's own), then it becomes wrong.  Physics and Chemistry aren't against the Bible, they only make us learn more about the awesomeness of God.  I see that you don't really know about or have read anything about evolution, but are just spouting the Media's incorrect version. 

Where is the current Pope on evolution?

The Popes have and always will state that God created everything. 

How God created it to the minute detail is something else. 

Is Genesis a way of simple ancient man trying to understand the enormity of God?  Would a man in 2000 B.C. (like Abraham) understand when you spoke about germs, about bacteria and viruses?  Would he understand the concept of millenia?  I doubt it.  God, in His wisdom explained things in simple ways to man: "I (God) created the sun, the moon, the earth and everything on it"  and in a nutshell that IS what he did.  Was man created from Dust (from earth, from the elements on earth)?  YES.  What were the details involved in this fantastic creation?  I dunno, God may explain it to you and me, but we aren't smart enough to understand.  Even less sophisticated were people in 2000 B.C.  You see Genesis says that God put up two lights -- the Sun and the Moon.  Try explaining to a 5 year old.  Which is more easier for the 5 year old to understand -- that there is a gigantic ball of gas and energy that's undergoing nuclear fission and fusion (oh, you'd have to explain those two terms as well -- atoms splitting, electrons being exchanged, neutrons separating etc, then why the energy comes from bosons to quarks etc. then the string theory) and this gigantic ball is millions of miles away from us and sends light and heat, while the Moon is just a big rock that reflects the Sun's light.  Or would it be simpler to just say the simplest that these two give light to the earth.

BOTH the long and the Short tell you that God created these two lights.  It's only when explaining it to the audience that we get stumped.  We will never understand the fullness of God's work, we can only seek to learn more about His works.

Is he in agreement with God?

Yes.

[wmfights]

"There's also purgatory. While not mentioned by name, it is similar to the OT Sheol. The threshing floor, the refiners fire that Paul talks about.

Ephesians and James both talk about the fact that we are made for works because of God, that is obedience."
_____________________________________
Yours is such a "works" based faith. You can be saved, but you can lose that salvation if you don't do the "works" that your church dictates and you still go to purgatory to work off sin after you die.

My readings of SCRIPTURE differ in that once the HOLY SPIRIT dwells in you the HOLY SPIRIT will not abandon you. The works you do after your saved are from a desire to please our LORD JESUS CHRIST, not because they buy you anything.

IMHO, our LORD JESUS CHRIST did not come to sacrifice himself for us to then make it so complicated that a sinner couldn't have the blessed assurance of KNOWING that they are one of the elect and are held in his hand no matter what. Your "works" based salvation leaves you NEVER KNOWING for sure if you are saved or not. Due to this I pray for you that you may come to know the PEACE of being with the LORD ALWAYS, no matter what mistakes you make.

[Cronos]

she sinned by with holding sex from Joseph.

By holding it, you say she "sinned"?