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!

[Quester]

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.

Neither of those statements say that a wife sins by not sleeping with her husband, except by your inference, your personal, individual, flawed, interpretation. In fact neither statement even talks about sex ...

So ... what do you think that these passages spek of ... ?

[Quester]

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

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

Yes ... they were.

[Cronos]

well, I read the first as saying that man and women need to work as a team and the second as dealing with prayer.

[Quester]

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.

Neither of those statements say that a wife sins by not sleeping with her husband, except by your inference, your personal, individual, flawed, interpretation. In fact neither statement even talks about sex ...

So ... what do you think that these passages speak of ... ?

well, I read the first as saying that man and women need to work as a team and the second as dealing with prayer.

Is there any for you to report on the 'official' Catholic interpretation of the passages ?

[Conservative til I die]

Then, in my adulthood, I started to read the Bible.

Shame on you for waiting until you were an adult Catholic to read the Bible.

I was baptized as an adult, as Jesus says we must be (as a conscious, public act of obedience to His Word (VERY different from what the Catholics consider a baptism).

Where did Jesus describe baptism as you describe it?

[AlaninSA]

Rote Catholicism does not a participant or expert make. I note that you're like most of the anti-Catholic crowd and unwilling to confess what bizarre sect of protestantism to which you belong.

Were you a true believer in your faith you'd happily share it. But...like your backbone, your faith is evidently small and brittle.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

This protestant coverted to Judaism. :-) In the graffed in sense?

No. In the real sense.

[magisterium]

I think Akin has laid out the arguments very well in his article. I would certainly recommend everyone on this thread read it carefully. He dispels the notion that there is one way and one way only for the 14 statements to be whittled down to ten. He points out that *all* religious confessions holding to the Decalogue at all have had to make truncations somewhere in the text, primarily to make the Decalogue easy to memorize. And, most impotantly from the Catholic viewpoint, he makes it clear to non-Catholics that the Church does not "hide" the full text in any way. It's available in every single Catholic Bible in all its "unabbreviated glory," as Akin says, and it is read in its entirety when the text of Exodus 20 is one of the readings at Mass.

[wmfights]

"I saw what Jesus Christ teaches about the one true path to Salvation, and how it is diametrically opposed by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I was baptized as an adult, as Jesus says we must be (as a conscious, public act of obedience to His Word (VERY different from what the Catholics consider a baptism)."
___________________________________
GOD BLESS YOU BROTHER!

My experience was similar, except I left the Episcopal church.

Watch out for the legalistic thinking.

[NYer]

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

They were not like any other couple; the were the earthly parents of God Incarnate! The wife in this couple was a living, sacred Tabernacle of the Lord, the Ark of the New Covenant, chosen and sanctified to bear the God man. How could St. Joseph even think of having sex with the sacred Ark of the New Covenant? He would have to have been a rash and sacrilegious man to presume to penetrate and impregnate with his own seed the sacred womb which had borne God! And considering Uzzah's terrible fate when he touched the original Ark (II Samuel 6:6-7), Joseph would not have gotten very far had he tried. Yet Scripture portrays him as a reverent man; hardly the type to try something like that.

[gscc]

The Church picked out which books were scriptural in the NT. (Cronos)

This is what I am talking about.

[OLD REGGIE]

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

As my tagline makes clear, I know nothing except your poor attempt at insult/humor.

Is the Bible innerant?

When was this Canon closed and by what Pope?

[SoothingDave]

This should be easily attainable concerning these 2 sets of 10 Commandments illustrated below. Could someone tell me first as to why we have these variations. Please also give me a name or names of the persons involved in making this alteration. Because it is an alteration and not simply a misinterpretation

Just a simple question. What part of the "deliberate alteration" in the Catholic division of the decalogue would seem to sanction the worshipping of idols?

Would it be: I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me.

SD

[Cronos]

The books that constitute the Bible were agreed upon in the 4th century -- only when Martin Luther decided to chop and change the Bible did the Council of Trent STOP the sacrilege and declare the canon closed. Interestingly this canon is the same as what the Orthodox (who were in schism with the Western Church at the time) professed.

[SoothingDave]

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.

No. Grace is something freely given by God to us through the sacraments. Sacraments are not "our actions." They are the Lord's work done through His Body, the Church.

In my faith grace is a free gift from GOD, which is not the result of works.

Same here. Grace is freely given and results in our good works (charity, etc.). Sacraments are not our works. They are God's.

Also, we do not believe we control GOD, but rather we are GOD'S possession.

Again, not a difference. Jesus commanded us to follow his sacraments in order to bring His forgiveness to the world.

Do you believe that if you repent and ask for forgiveness God will redeem you? Is that you controlling God?

Do you ever tell people to get on their knees and ask for Jesus to save them and fill them with the Holy Spirit? Is this you controlling God?

We are no different. God made promises and He keeps them. That is not us controlling God.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Ok, you understand the Bible, take the phrase "Women should submit to their husbands" -- what does that mean according to you?

It is Paul speaking for himself, not a commandment of the Lord.

What does the preceeding verse;

21: Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

mean to you?

[SoothingDave]

So in the RCC you could be saved today and if you don't do the right things tomorrow you could be lost.

No one is "saved" until they actually die and are admitted into Heaven. It is presumptuous to look at human history and all who have backslidden and just assume that you are not going to be one of them.

Walk on the path, you know where the path leads. Don't assume you have reached your destination. It's like not starting your TD dance until you are actually in the end zone.

Some people are in a state of grace today who may die out of grace.

Who determines for you what works are sufficient to maintain your state of grace?

Avoid sin. Do good things. Partake of the sacraments.

It's a poorly formed conscience that doesn't know if it is in a state of grace or not.

I understand the seductive allure of the idea that you are "saved" no matter what you do, but that is a beautiful lie.

If it makes you feel good and encourages you to do the good things necessary to stay in grace, it may lead you to salvation. But it's still a lie. Every one who goes off the path because they believed they were "assured" of salvation is a result of this lie.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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

That's crazy.

Is it?

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.

Perhaps you need to read Cronos's sentence again. He didn't say one could not preach or read the Bible. He is talking about the immensity, the vastness, the ineffibility that is God. If you think you have a full understanding of God, then that only proves you've never even thought about the subject.

Please explain the Trinity in its entirety.

SD

[Full Court]

No one is "saved" until they actually die and are admitted into Heaven. It is presumptuous to look at human history and all who have backslidden and just assume that you are not going to be one of them.

Dave, how does God abort you from the new birth?

[Full Court]

What happens to people who are "born again" and quit?

1 John 2:19  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,
they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.