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]

"It just seems that in the sacraments and rituals we are discussing in your church you place barriers between the parishioner and the LORD. My reading of SCRIPTURE has shown me that JESUS took his ministry outside the temple directly to the least acceptable members of society and he made himself available to ALL."

I can understand your concern, Wmfights. If one is in a religious Community that has a tendency to minimize the Sacraments or perhaps even ignore them, they can certainly seem foreign and unneseccary. Shouldn't we just trust Christ, pray to God, and love our neighbors the way Christ loved us?

The Sacraments, however, are extremely important because they bring us to God. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is not merely a ritual. It literally makes two individuals into Husband and Wife, it literally creates a family, a blood connection. The man and woman are joined together by God. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which you might refer to as the Lord's Supper, is not simply a ritual. In the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are literally present, and we eat them. We are, in a very real sense, in direct communion with all those who partake of the Eucharist and we come into contact with the Creator of the Universe in a particular and extraordinary fashion. Likewise, in the Sacrament of Baptism, our sins are literally forgiven, and we become a member of the Body of Christ. In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, our sins are forgiven and we are reconciled with God.

The point is, the Sacraments bring us closer to God. Indeed, Christ made Himself available to all, and He does this through the Sacraments. He is not limited to the Sacraments, but God established the Sacraments specifically for bringing us closer to Himself, for conforming us to the image of His son.

God is available to all, but to insist that one will not avail oneself of the Sacraments is to put oneself in the position of a man sitting on top of his house during a terrible flood. During the course of the flood, a raft, a motorboat, and finally, a helicopter came to rescue him, but he declined their help saying, "God is going to save me, I don't need your help." The man drowned, and when he met God in the afterlife, he protestested that God had not come to save him from the flood, despite the man's faith. God responded, "What do you mean? I sent a raft, a boat and helicopter to rescue you. You refused to be saved three times."

[Tax-chick]

It's these little details that make life bearable :-).

(The content of your posts has been edifying, too!)

[.30Carbine]

Five Cups will be celebrated tonight!

( ; Now that is worthy of an LOL.

[.30Carbine]

That information did indeed bless me very much! Thank you!

[SoothingDave]

"Who told you that all Catholics must partake of all 7 sacraments? Not everyone gets married, does that bother you, too? Many do not receive the Annointing of the Sick (Last Rites) prior to dying. Does this trouble you as well?"

You sure are quick to try and denigrate my questions and posit different motives.

I posited no motives, I merely asked you if your concerns about Holy Orders being non-egalitarian also led to similar feelings about other sacraments that may not be universally applied.

If you are going to start down a path, beware where it ends up. If your objection was that all sacraments should be given to all people, I blew that out of the water. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

"Because ordinary times and extraordinary times are different. Sacramental confession serves many more purposes than just the granting of saving grace. When was the last time you sat down with a disinterested person and took an inventory of your spiritual faults? When did you last seek guidance in overcoming a difficult attachment to sin?"

Here are some of the profound differences between Christians and Roman Catholics. Your saying that communion grants grace in my faith we don't believe this. Also, as a Christian I go straight to my SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST with all my problems, big or small. I'm confident I'm not bothering him.

Yes, this is a huge difference. You embody a church of one, and apparently believe that no elder or other fellow believer can offer you counsel or advice.

This is the same belief shared by many, many people blind to their own sins.

And you're proud of it! I ask if you ever discuss your spiritual journey with another, or seek guidance, and you sniff that you are sufficient in yourself to handle any and all problems.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

May I say that your correct use of "wracked" has absolutely made my day? Thank you very much!

My pleasure to be of service, m'lady.

(The content of your posts has been edifying, too!)

You two wanna get a room? :-)

[wmfights]

"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."

Of course not, because then you'd see where you are lacking.

Here we go again, always the put down. If you are truly attempting apologetics it seems that constantly putting in your little shots is not going to promote discussion.
______________________________________
"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;

And Jesus knew that after the 1st century ended no one would need to have their sins forgiven? Confession of sins and absolution by an Apostle were sacraments, but only temporarily?"

How is it that I'm confident your being snide when you say "but only temporarily."

JESUS did not indicate this supernatural power would continue forever. Is it possible that THE LORD knew the SCRIPTURES would bring believers into a right relationship and as a result their sins would be forgive.
___________________________________
"Maybe the charge to baptise all the nations is a metaphor, too?"

Thanks for your continued insightful comments and points of discussion.
___________________________________
"The confessor" is the priest. Kind of confusing terminology. The person seeking absolution is known as the "penitent."

Granted I made an error in terminology, but was it really that tough to figure out. You just can't help yourself, your always seeking a way to put down the questioner unless of course they walk in lock step with you. In my church we don't have priests who claim special powers and we are always encouraged to go straight to the LORD.

[SoothingDave]

You two wanna get a room? :-)

You kidding? From all accounts she gets pregnant every time you look at her funny. ;-)

I did want to mention something to you. A long time ago, I said I never watched "Everybody Love Raymond" and you said it was really funny.

You were right. The episode was on last night where Ray tries to confront Debra's PMS and it was hysterical.

SD

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Here are some of the profound differences between Christians and Roman Catholics."

Umm, Wmfights, Roman Catholics are Christians. In fact, all Chrisitianity is, in some sense, descended from the Catholic Faith. I have no doubt you understand that Catholics are Christian.

"Your saying that communion grants grace in my faith we don't believe this."

Well, to be fair, in your faith, it's entirely possible that communion isn't necessarily a means of grace. But the teaching of the Bible is that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, so the Eucharist being a source of Grace follows naturally from the Lord's teaching. It's quite possible, however, that your community may not have the Eucharist. With which community are you affiliated, if I might ask?

"Also, as a Christian I go straight to my SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST with all my problems, big or small. I'm confident I'm not bothering him."

Nothing could please God more, wmfights.

[Tax-chick]

Chortle.

You're welcome to stop by for "What's With This Casserole, Again?" any time, and then my baby can spit up on you!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

the PMS ephisode is my favorite. lol. Especially when he tries to hug her toward the end.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

lol

[OLD REGGIE]

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...

Apparently you are not familiar with Paul and his penchant for setting his own rules. Rules which were not a commandment of the Lord!

Have you considered there would be no human race if mankind followed the wishes of Paul?

It is generally clear when Paus is speaking of his own "rules" as opposed to, or in addition to, the commandments of the Lord.

For example: (I have added my editorial comments in red)

1 Corinthians 7:
[1] Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
(The end of the human race. Paul's wishes or those of the Lord?)

[2] But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
[3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
[4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
(Is the husband subject to the wife?)

[5] Do not refuse one another except perhapcolor=blacks by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
[6] I say this by way of concession, not of command.
(Oh, It is not a command of the Lord?

[7] I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
(One more time when Paul, not the Lord, wishes for the end of the human race.)

[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
[10] To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
Note Paul is now speaking for the Lord.

[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
[12] To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
(Paul, off on his own again.

[13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
[16] Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
[17] Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
[18] Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
[19] For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
[20] Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.
[21] Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.
[22] For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.
[23] You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
[24] So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.
[25] Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
Paul's opinion.
[26] I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.
[27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
[28] But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
[29] I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
(Let the race die off with the living generations. Did the Lord let this happen? Was it a command of the Lord?)

[30] and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods,
[31] and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.
[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
[39] A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
[40] But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.

Maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to make an attempt to discern when Paul is talking for Paul and when he is speaking for the Lord.

[SoothingDave]

Of course not, because then you'd see where you are lacking.

Here we go again, always the put down. If you are truly attempting apologetics it seems that constantly putting in your little shots is not going to promote discussion.

This is an observation, not a "put down." You'll know when you are being put down. I'm sorry, but you are lacking by not having access to a priesthood and sacraments. but you have so much tied up in this that you can't see the plain evidence of the Bible, and instead make up reasons why it doesn't say what it says.

How is it that I'm confident your being snide when you say "but only temporarily."

Because it's preposterous that Jesus would establish a sacrament for a few decades, then take it away as unnecessary. What could possibly account for a temporary sacrament? (he asks pregnantly)

JESUS did not indicate this supernatural power would continue forever. Is it possible that THE LORD knew the SCRIPTURES would bring believers into a right relationship and as a result their sins would be forgive.

Ah yes. Jesus gave the Apostles superpowers but only until they could write their Book, then He took them all away. Now that we have the Bible, we don't need sacraments.

What an odd, and yet necessary for you, theory.

But if these super powers are taken away, as unnecessary once the Bible is finished, why retain Baptism and Communion?

"Maybe the charge to baptise all the nations is a metaphor, too?"

Thanks for your continued insightful comments and points of discussion.

Sorry if you don't like the way your metaphorization of one Biblical verse applies to another. Jesus commanded both, so it seems like the same way of interpreting should apply to both.

"The confessor" is the priest. Kind of confusing terminology. The person seeking absolution is known as the "penitent."

Granted I made an error in terminology, but was it really that tough to figure out. You just can't help yourself, your always seeking a way to put down the questioner unless of course they walk in lock step with you.

Now you're just reading things that aren't there. This is a gentle correction. I told you the right terms and granted that the terminology is confusing. How was I to do this without you seeing it as a "put down"?

Am I that deep inside your head now?

SD

[InterestedQuestioner]

SD: "The confessor" is the priest. Kind of confusing terminology. The person seeking absolution is known as the "penitent."

wmfights: "Granted I made an error in terminology, but was it really that tough to figure out. You just can't help yourself, your always seeking a way to put down the questioner unless of course they walk in lock step with you."

wmfights, I don't think there was any put down intended. The terminology is legitimately confusing. One would think that the Confessor was the person confessing their sins. I mentioned the same point to you in my response to your post, and no slam was intended at all. You're not Catholic, there's no reason you could be expected to know this information unless we explained it to you.

[Tax-chick]

What could possibly account for a temporary sacrament? (he asks pregnantly)

Was that another of your "breeder" jokes?

(snicker)

[InterestedQuestioner]

Five Cups will be celebrated tonight!--( ; Now that is worthy of an LOL.

Yes, I was very serious while reading the link until I came to the part about the only difference between grape juice and wine being 12%.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

May I quote your response to me when I said "Paul was speaking for himself, not the Lord?

"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.."

Would you kindly tell me how 1 Corinthians 7:5 fits your understanding of Paul's words and the Lords' commandments. Does this so-called "commandment" have exceptions or does it include all married couples?

1 Corinthians 7:
[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>CtId confuses church with His roman Church. He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

SD>You shouldn't lie.

You are the one who considers the Catholic Church to be a "man made corporation."

SD 1,436 posted on 02/23/2006 9:32:48 AM MST by SoothingDave

I'm afraid you, Dave, are mistaken; however I would never judge you.

The spirit of haSatan through the Pagan Emperor Constantine
created what is now know as the roman church.
the Emperor Constantine called and presided over the first Council at Nicea.

Under Constantine the Holy Day of the L-rd, the Shabbat
was replaced with the the Pagan holy day of sun.
The Passover was replaced with the Pagan feast of Ishtar

The "called out ones" of Y'shua are the only true ekklesia of YHvH.

b'shem Y'shua

[gscc]

If you posted your comment as-is, it would look like ...

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

I would assume they placed them there because they were from the intertestimental period and belong there. Both Jerome and Luther agreed that they were edifying for the Church to read, but not for forming doctrine. It is not the placement that is at issue, it is whether or not they are inspired. The Jews never believed so and did not include them in their canon. Jerome did not believe so.

The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books.

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."

Posting Comment