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!

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Jesus failed? God aborted you from the New Birth?"

No, but we can fail. Christ's Sacrifice was sufficient to save everyone because it was Holy and Perfect. Not everyone will accept it.

"If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries."

I think this may have been elaborated upon in more detail in posts 1342, 1343, 1347, and 1348.


"Gotta run, time to get ready for church."

Have a good evening, Full Court, I hope you have an enjoyable time at church.

Kind Regards,

-iq

[InterestedQuestioner]

"If one can make an act of contrition on their own when dying, why must you confess to a priest? Why can't you go straight to our LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST all the time?"

That's a bit like asking, why do I need to go to the Bible for answers, why can't I go directly to the Almighty? Because God set it up that way. He spoke to the Prophets, the Evangelists, the Apostles and others, and it is through their words that we encounter God. In Scripture, we encounter and even confront God, but the Scriptures themselves were delivered through men.

As far as the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we do go directly to God in the Sacrament, but the Sacrament itself is mediated by the Priest, who has been delegated to minister it by Jesus Christ, via the Apostles.

This is the Act of Contritions, it is one of the Prayer you say in Reconciliation:

Oh my God, I am heartly sorry
For having offended you.
And I detest all my sins because of your just punishments,
but most of all because they offend You, my God
Who art all Good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help of thy Grace
To sin no more,
and to avoid the narrow occasions of Sin. Amen

You'll notice that the prayer is addressed to God, directly. As far as being able to go directly to God, sometimes he sets up an alternative arrangement:

"After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Te'manite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the LORD had told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer.
And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friend." (Job: 42: 7-10)

Here we see the Lord delegates Job as an intercessor for his friends. They don't go directly do God, because God has told them to go to Job, and then they were forgiven AFTER Job prayed for them.

Likewise, Christ established a Church on earth.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Scripture commands us to confess our sins to one another,


"Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." (Jas 5:16)

and it also speaks of the Apostles having the ability to forgive sins.

"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20: 21-23)

Here we see Christ sending the Apostles forth as the Father sent Christ forth. He gives them the ability to forgive and retain sins. Christ has sent them as His Representatives. Muslims can pray directly to the God of Abraham, but the Apostles are sent forth as the personal representatives of Christ on earth. and it is through the Church that Christ builds upon these men that people encounter Christ.


From a practical standpoint, most people intend to confess their sins to God, but in practice, we probably don't do it very often or very thoroughly. In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we confess our sins to God in the presence of another Human Being. The very set up of the Sacrament leads us to examine our conscience and consider how we have failed to God. It is a very healthy thing to do.

[gscc]

God inspired the authors of the books in their writing, and then led the Church in the compilation, discerning, vetting and canonizing process

That it is of God's will we can agree.

[wmfights]

"As far as the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we do go directly to God in the Sacrament, but the Sacrament itself is mediated by the Priest,..."

Your church keeps putting people between your parishioners and the LORD.
________________________________________________
"Likewise, Christ established a Church on earth.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." "

This interpretation has been beaten like a rented mule. The rock to which JESUS was referring was his divinity. The church he was establishing was a communion of ALL believers in him. We can go back and forth all you want, but it won't change my interpretation and I'm sure it won't change yours.
___________________________________
"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20: 21-23)

You have an interesting take on this passage. I don't see where JESUS says to the Apostles "and all future priests of the Roman Church will also have this power." I read this passage and see two possible explanations that I believe are more plausible; one, Jesus was empowering these Apostles with supernatural powers because they would be the catalysts for the initial body of believers; two, having given them the HOLY SPIRIT they would be preaching the gospel and all who heard it and believed would be saved (sins forgiven) and all who didn't believe would not be saved.
__________________________________________
"In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we confess our sins to God in the presence of another Human Being."

In this sacrament doesn't the priest then mete out a punishment to the confessor.

[NYer]

And Mary was not the Ark of the New Covenant

"Hail Mary, full of grace!"

That is the angel's greeting to her. Through the angel, God asked Mary to bear His Son, the Salvation of mankind. And what was her response? "Be it done unto me according to thy word". Mary is the ark by virtue of the fact that she carried God in her womb for 9 months and then nurtured Him at her breast. Do you for one second believe that God chose to be born from some woman randomly selected? He is the Creator of the Universe!

Jesus' unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother.  He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man.

It is also further affirmation of the holiness and Deity of Jesus. It would not have been fitting for the womb which bore the Savior to bring sinners into the world (which any hypothetical child of Joseph and Mary would have been). As the ancient ark of the covenant was consecrated for sacred use, so the New Ark could not be defiled by common usage.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

Over the water in a boat, or in a plane? I'm picturing you in some sort of James bond set-up.

An ROV (Remote Observation Vehicle)Vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. The ROV has a 16,000 foot umbilical to dive with, so we can dive that deep. Picture Titanic exploration and thats close to what it is. I provide the acoustic tracking and navigation for both surface positioning(DGPS) and sub-sea acoustic positioning USBL. Most of the work since September of 2005 consisted of the Katrina and Rita damage investigation, been real busy to say the least.

Let me take this opportunity to say I enjoy being on this forum, and I rarely frequent any other subject matter besides religion. This keeps me in the Word of God at the same time allows me to convey what I have learned and to hear others what they have learned. Emotions sometimes can run high as a testament to this thread but I do feel deeply committed conveying The Word of God.

Used to be politics(still conservative), now it's all God

Also I wish to extend top honors to yourself "Interested" concerning your responses as well as to "Jo kus" whom I've had conversations in the past. Not to leave anyone else out, Titanites and others... SoothingDave ...."Soothing"..Dave? I hope that places a smile on his face because I am just kidding...But is he kidding? :))No a little caustic now and then is okay, Im alright with it... I still have to ask the questions or make my point.

My goodness, I haven't even touch on the subject of prophecy yet, I wonder what thats going to be like. Anyway we must give it go sometime, I'd be interested to hear yours and others opinions.

You summarized in your last paragraph pretty good and again I appreciate the effort and also the compliments on previous posts

In this response I figured I would project a personal side. I recognize all or most of the frequent posters here, although I forget sometimes how they respond..not to others..to me.

Question.. When any of you are about to logon...do you get a certain height of anxiety and anticipation built up.. Oh no.. I've got a new post! Sometimes I just relax and read the subject matter with no interaction. Other times I cannot let it go, I must post and wait for those red letters to come up. :-)

God Bless yall

[.30Carbine]

God bless and multiply you, Clay+Iron_Times. I always enjoy reading your posts and admire the moniker you chose! Your career sounds fascinating.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

Thank you .30Carbine A career it has been I tell ya. The one draw back is being away from home. However I do not put in as much time as in past years.

I go home in one more week...and then its silence on FreeRepublic for a couple of weeks as God and my family take up all my time, then I'll be back.

Thanks for checking in with me with those words of encouragement, I believe 2 times now you have, I appreciate you, God Bless

[Conservative til I die]

Would you care to get to the point and explain exactly what specifically Romans 8:34-39 has to do with the quote you responded to that says

"I can assure you as a Catholic that the Church does not disregard what God says."

These biblical verse deluges really get pointless sometimes. Did'ya ever think that the Catholic Church may *not* separate its adherents from God? Being a Catholic and loving God are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[Conservative til I die]

So this is a sacrament that only a small group participate in, why is it called a sacrament if all RC don't participate in it?

How can marriage be a sacrament if not all Catholics participate in it?

[wmfights]

"So this is a sacrament that only a small group participate in, why is it called a sacrament if all RC don't participate in it?

How can marriage be a sacrament if not all Catholics participate in it?"
______________________________________
I don't know, I'm not the Roman Catholic. A great deal of what you do doesn't make sense.

I can see an argument for marriage as all of your parishioners have the opportunity to participate. Your Holy Orders are restricted to only male parishioners.

The two sacraments taught in SCRIPTURE, baptism and communion, involve ALL of the FAITHFUL.

[Cronos]

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.

You are picking and choosing what you want ---

What does the preceeding verse;

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

mean to you?

Means what Christ said -- He was the servant of the servants -- i.e. to help one another.  BTW, I don't pick and choose like you've done above and say oh, this is Paul speaking for himself, not a commandment of the Lord...

[Cronos]

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

thanks SD -- I wasn't clear enough.

FC -- note, I'm not saying in any way that I as an individual would be any more able to comprehend God than you -- probably I'd be lesser able, God knows. However, I have as they say, a little help from my friends, my family -- the community of Christ: His Church, the wisdom of generations of Christians who have contemplated God.

You take this to mean that Catholics don't read the Bible or think for themselves, just take what The Church says. The Church encourages us to read and learn more. We aren't those who just quote a few verses of ONE Church father and say that's correct (as many protestants do with St. Augustine) -- Augustine MADE errors, he retracted some words etc. as he was only human. However, he persevered in trying to better know God and he did not take people down the wrong path as Arius did. Origen too made serious errors -- his writings are ponderings and some people took them to be theology and they erred. However Origen is still considered a Church father as he was humble enough to learn more from the Spirit and through the community of Christ.

[Cronos]

READ where the Catholic Church places the books in Apocrypha -- note it falls between the OT and NT..

[Cronos]

Cronos: 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.

FC:  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?

Duhhhh...  note the words underlined -- I talk about understanding God, you go off on a tangent and quote about believing God, which we all do and agree on.  You DO understand the difference between understanding and believing, correct?

[Cronos]

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.

God told you eh?  Did He also tell you about Queen Cleopatra and Emperor Hadrian?  That's such a silly statement, I can't even begin to talk about how silly it is.  Firstly, the Bible doesn't say what you infer and make false assumptions.  Secondly, YOU don't know such details.  Thirdly, you say it's a sin to withold sex, so every woman who's done that has sinned according to you, eh? You bring no proof for this except your own ideas

[Cronos]

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

It was enough -- we just have to accept it. And how do we do that? it's as SD says

[Cronos]

well, I don't think you've read it.....

[Cronos]

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

IQ: It doesn't say that in the Bible.

Well, not in my Bible either, maybe in the Gospel of FC?

[Cronos]

A beautiful allegory "Like I said days ago, this is like insisting we don't believe water can wash us if we have installed pipes and faucets. "How come you have plumbing? Don't you believe in water?""