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!

[Full Court]

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.

Yep. Start with Foxxe's Book of Martyr's.

How many do you think Rome has slain for the Word of God or just having a Bible?

Revelation 6:9
 ¶And when he had opened the fifth seal,
I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God,
and for the testimony which they held:

10  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true,
dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

[gscc]

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

More revisionist history.  Jerome clearly referred to the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books as to be " read in the church, but not to be cited for proof texts of doctrine."  He separated the Apocryphal books from the rest of the Hebrew OT saying that "Whatever falls outside these (Hebrew texts) . . . are not in the canon." He added that the books may be read for edification, but not for ecclesiastical dogmas.

Luther merely returned these books to the status that Jerome had placed them. 

A final irony in this matter is the fact that even Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532) in which he did not include the Apocrypha.

[Full Court]

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.

John 5:46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

[Full Court]

Joseph has sex with Mary, God says so. She was his wife. Either she had sex with him, or she sinned by with holding sex.

Take your pick.

[Full Court]

Dave, can you not understand God?

[Full Court]

By holding it, you say she "sinned"?

if she did not have sex with Joseph, she was sinning, yes.

[Full Court]

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.

Scripture is very clear here that married men and women are not to with hold sex from one another.

James 4:17  Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

[Full Court]

They say that the Bible gives them license to hate

God hates every evil way, don't you?

[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, why did Jesus have to die if his death couldn't be enough to save you?

God says you can know you are saved, He can give you that peace.

1 John 5:13
 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

1 John 5:20  
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Why would you willingly chose to disregard what God says, not believe Him and follow a man made path that leads to an eternity in Hell?

Matthew 16:26  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world,
and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mark 8:36  For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Mark 8:37  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

[Full Court]

Where did Jesus describe baptism as you describe it?

Acts 8:34  And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35  Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

[Full Court]

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

It's online. It's searchable. Any idiot can read it.

My question is why you would believe such man made tripe over the Holy Bible.

[SoothingDave]

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, how do you know you're not a future backslider who is deluding him or herself right now?

You do know what "presumption" means, right?

SD

[SoothingDave]

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

You answered your very own question in your very own next post.

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.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Yep. Start with Foxxe's Book of Martyr's.

LOL. Polemics are not history. No serious person believes this book is accurate.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Dave, can you not understand God?

I'm sorry, what part of that response was you explaining the Trinity in full? Did you not understand the question?

If God is infinite how can your finite mind comprehend Him?

SD

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Full Court,

"Joseph has sex with Mary, God says so."

It doesn't say that in the Bible.

[Titanites]

Gargantua: I was baptized as an adult, as Jesus says we must be

Conservative til I die: Where did Jesus describe baptism as you describe it?

Gargantua claimed Jesus said we must be adults to be baptized. Conservative asked where Jesus said this.

Firstly, the Scripture you posted is not Jesus speaking, and secondly, it does not claim you must be an adult to be baptized. You've in no way supported Gargantua's claim with your post.

[Titanites]

Scripture is very clear here that married men and women are not to with hold sex from one another.

Yes, that is true. If a spouse requests sex and the other refuses on a regular basis, that is a sin. But that does not apply to the situation where both spouses mutally agree to not have sex, which is not a sin.

[Uri’el-2012]

Gargantua: I was baptized as an adult, as Jesus says we must be

Conservative til I die: Where did Jesus describe baptism as you describe it?

Gargantua claimed Jesus said we must be adults to be baptized. Conservative asked where Jesus said this.

Firstly, the Scripture you posted is not Jesus speaking, and secondly, it does not claim you must be an adult to be baptized. You've in no way supported Gargantua's claim with your post.

1,337 posted on 02/22/2006 10:40:35 AM MST by Titanites

If we seek to understand water immersion (baptism in the Greek)
as practiced by John the Immerser, we need to understand the
Jewish culture of Mikvah at the time of Y'shua.

Mikvah

Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the creation of man.
The Midrash relates that after being banished from Eden, Adam sat in a river that flowed from the garden.
This was an integral part of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his original perfection.

Before the revelation at Sinai, all Jews were commanded to immerse themselves in preparation for coming face to face with G-d.

Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the creation of man
In the desert, the famed "well of Miriam" served as a mikvah. And Aaron and his sons'
induction into the priesthood was marked by immersion in the mikvah.

In Temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished entry into the House of G-d had first to immerse in a mikvah.

On Yom Kippur, the holiest of all days, the High Priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies,
the innermost chamber of the Temple, into which no other mortal could enter.
This was the zenith of a day that involved an ascending order of services, each of which was preceded by immersion in the mikvah.

from chabad.org

b'shem Y'shua

[NYer]

Joseph has sex with Mary, God says so.

Where does it say that in the Bible?