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]

XeniaSt,


"The spirit of haSatan through the Pagan Emperor Constantine
created what is now know as the roman church.'


So, I'm following you correctly, you believe that the Catholic Church was founded by satan though the Emperor Constatine. May I ask what sources you are working from here?

[Jaded]

Imagination.

[wmfights]

"this verse does not say that all priests in perpetuity have the ability to forgive sins, just as you say. It does say, however that the Apostles were given the ability to forgive and to retain sins, and that the Apostles were sent by Christ in the same sense that Christ was sent by the Father. Christ choose His Apostles to lead His Church in His name."

If this interpretation is correct, I don't believe there is a SCRIPTURAL basis that these humans, empowered with supernatural powers, were given the ability to pass these powers on to whom they choose.
________________________________

"Today's bishops, eparchs, and patriarchs of the Catholic and Orthodox Church are the successors of the Apostles."

This is essentially where we diverge. These individuals may follow a long historical line, but they did not walk with JESUS when he was on the earth. They are not Apostles and I do not believe they were given supernatural powers when they became priests.
___________________________________

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Luke 22: 14-20)

I think the quote "do this in remembrance of me" is perfect illustration of how investing supernatural powers in your priesthood can lead to a body of believers being misled. In my faith we do not believe in transubstantiation. We partake of communion in remembrance of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.
________________________________________

"Note that if there was not a way for the Apostles to delegate the responsibility of "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," then Christianity would only have been for the generations that lived during the time of the Apostles. They had to have successors for the great commission to be fulfilled and continued to the present day."

Is it possible that the SCRIPTURES exist for the very reason of teaching us? The SCRIPTURES existed well before they were canonized.

Obviously, we are looking at this differently. I do appreciate your reasoned responses without the typical put downs.

[SoothingDave]

Was that another of your "breeder" jokes?

I confess I'm a sucker for the well-timed pun.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Chuck, it's still a lie to say Citd or any Catholic thinks of his Church as "man made" or a "corporation."

You believe that. It is a lie to say that we do. And you said:

He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

That is untrue.

SD

[gscc]

Jesus gave the apostles the powers to heal, raise the dead, cast out demons and you claim forgive sins. Can you show me one instance in Scripture when the apostles forgave sins.  Yet you claim that your polity has through apostolic succession been given the power to forgive sins.  How many of these other apostolic gifts do they still retain?

Acts 2:37-38 clearly Peter does not forgive the sins of the people.:

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Christ clearly is recorded as having forgiven sins (Matt. 9:6). Can you point to me an instance where Scripture records that anyone other than Christ forgives sins?

[SoothingDave]

Jesus gave the apostles the powers to heal, raise the dead, cast out demons and you claim forgive sins.

Is the Bible unclear?

John 20:21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Can you show me one instance in Scripture when the apostles forgave sins.

As I already stated, the accounts in the Bible are largely of conversion, where Baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins. There is no record of a "confession" recorded in the Bible.

The power to forgive sins in Jesus' name is.

Yet you claim that your polity has through apostolic succession been given the power to forgive sins. How many of these other apostolic gifts do they still retain?

All of them. Ever heard of exorcism, miracle healing, etc? Granted there aren't a lot of resurrections any more, but we can argue that that the resurrections are only delayed, not denied.

Acts 2:37-38 clearly Peter does not forgive the sins of the people.:

LOL. Baptism comes first. These people had not even been baptised yet, of course he's not going to offer individual confession and absolution of sins.

Do you not understand that confession is for already baptised people whose new transgressions need to be absolved?

SD

[Quester]

Please see my 1426 where I outline several reasons for sacramental confession.

Do you really mean to suggest that, having been given this power by Jesus, the Apostles never forgave anyone, that no one ever came to them wracked with guilt?

Of course I believe that the Apostles assured repentant souls of God's forgiveness ... much as ministers/priests/elders (as well as other associated christians) do today.

What I do not find is that it is required that one seek God's forgiveness in this manner.

[SoothingDave]

What I do not find is that it is required that one seek God's forgiveness in this manner.

Is God the only one affected by our sin?

SD

[gscc]

All of them. Ever heard of exorcism, miracle healing, etc? Granted there aren't a lot of resurrections any more, but we can argue that that the resurrections are only delayed, not denied.

You claim your church polity retains all the apostolic gifts and that they only choose to exercise those that are not verifiable.  They forgive sins, exorcise evil spirits, but choose not to heal the blind or raise the dead.  The gifts were given to the apostles to verify the authority which they had to spread the Gospel.  Why would the pope (if he could) not raise the dead to testify to his authority and it's source.  When Terri Schivo lay ill in her bed why did the pope choose to appeal for sparing her life and not heal her, again to testify of his authority.  When the pope addresses a crowd where many language groups are present, does he speak in his own tongue and does the crowd each hear in their own languages?  If he had these gifts why would be choose not to use them as a testimony to his authority?

[Uri’el-2012]

Conservative til I die

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

Chuck, it's still a lie to say Citd or any Catholic thinks of his Church as "man made" or a "corporation."

You believe that. It is a lie to say that we do. And you said:

He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

That is untrue.

SD

1,465 posted on 02/23/2006 10:40:06 AM MST by SoothingDave

Dave; it is not a lie. It is simply imprecise.

Allow me to make it more precise :

He thinks of Church as (a) the man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

I will have to give you a "D" in linguistic parsing none the less.

chuck

[SoothingDave]

Probably cause if the Pope did an indisputable miracle to testify to his powers, all the anti-Cathollc bigots would have heart attacks. And he doesn't want that on his conscience.

At the moment of Pentecost a tremendous outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit happened in a very localised place to a very small set of people. The Church continues to ride the wave of this moment in time. To expect miracles to become routine would be to remove the very element of faith that God desires from us.

People who require miracles to believe have a weak faith (if you can call it faith at all), but blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe. Isn't the story of doubting Thomas in your Bible?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Why not ask him? Instead of putting words into his mouth?

Are you incapable of seeing the difference between saying that you, Chuck, believe the Catholic Church to be a "man made corporation" and that we, Catholics, believe so?

We do not believe the Church is "man made." Nor do we view it as a "corporation," at least not in the way you are using the word. It is a corpus, the Body of Christ on earth.

When you put your (mis)conseptions in other peoples' mouths, it is a lie. Stick to telling us what you believe, not what others do.

What kind of withness to your version of truth are you when you make easily dis-proved lies and stand by them?

SD

[gscc]

Probably cause if the Pope did an indisputable miracle to testify to his powers, all the anti-Cathollc bigots would have heart attacks. And he doesn't want that on his conscience.

You can't seriously be positing this as an answer?  Why is it that when there is serious discussion you almost inevitably fall back to your anti-Cathollc bigots defense?

 

[SoothingDave]

You can't seriously be positing this as an answer?

I thought I posted two more paragraphs following that one. Did they not appear on your screen?

Why is it that when there is serious discussion you almost inevitably fall back to your anti-Cathollc bigots defense?

It's a joke. Lighten up. And we can talk about who is and is not into a "serious discussion" when my posts like 1348 garner any response.

SD

[gscc]

Probably cause if the Pope did an indisputable miracle to testify to his powers, all the anti-Cathollc bigots would have heart attacks. And he doesn't want that on his conscience.

At the moment of Pentecost a tremendous outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit happened in a very localised place to a very small set of people. The Church continues to ride the wave of this moment in time. To expect miracles to become routine would be to remove the very element of faith that God desires from us.

People who require miracles to believe have a weak faith (if you can call it faith at all), but blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe. Isn't the story of doubting Thomas in your Bible?

You can't seriously be positing this as an answer?

[wmfights]

"You can't seriously be positing this as an answer? Why is it that when there is serious discussion you almost inevitably fall back to your anti-Cathollc bigots defense?"
__________________________________
What else is left for him.

[SoothingDave]

You claim your church polity retains all the apostolic gifts and that they only choose to exercise those that are not verifiable. They forgive sins, exorcise evil spirits, but choose not to heal the blind or raise the dead.

There are numerous cases of verified medical miracles on record and there are exorcisms.

If this isn't good enough for you, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

SD

[Uri’el-2012]

I'm lowering your grade in linguistic parsing to an " F "

For failing to understand subject and object.

For failing to understand who is the speaker.

I take full responsibility for not making it patently clear for even you to understand.

In no way was I attempting to put words into his mouth.

[gscc]

I am not disappointed at all - I do not believe that your polity has any of the apostolic gifts given to the apostles. The authority you claim was given to your priesthood to forgive sins is not supported by evidence of the apostles ever having done that. If in fact it was a gift, along with the others, it is no more extant today than the other gifts.