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]

I would say that it very well may be possible ... that one cannot make up for one's sin ... beyond returning the loot, that is ... ;^) I would say that what one is called to, ... after repentance and forgiveness, ... is a forward walk with God, ... asking God for direction ... and following in the way in which He leads. Much prayer.

And I would say that the Church, in the sacrament, can speak for the hurt that the public has taken because of one's sins, and reconcile the two. How can one know what the public, the community of believers needs for reconciliation if one does not ask?

God knows ...

[SoothingDave]

Isn't this a fundamental issue? Either you believe the community of believers is a party to your transgressions and to your reconciliation, or you believe it is entirely a private matter.

Aren't there examples in Scripture of people being set outside of the community because of their transgressions? Doesn't Jesus tell us (Matt 18) that we should look to the church to arbitrate disagreements and the Church should treat "as you would a tax collector" those who do not abide by the Church's decision?

If one can throw a believer out, is it not logical that the same body has the ability to reconcile with those who show contrition?

I'm not saying you have to believe in priests or hocus pocus. Just taking the Church as a group, a society, there has to be some mechanism there for acceepting and rejecting members.

SD

[wmfights]

What we consider to be sacraments are acts that JESUS our LORD AND SAVIOR performed himself. He was Baptized and he did have Communion with his disciples. The other acts you list as sacraments we consider to be rituals, some I agree with and some I don't.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

It appears pretty clear to me that this was the case. Just to make the conversation a little clearer, however, are you questioning that the New Testament teaches that Jesus' Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist?

I'm saying the NT doesn't. But I understand Catholic "tradition" does.

That Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is what the NT literally says, and it was what the authors of the NT literally meant to convey.

Sorry. I don't do Sola Scriptura. :-)

It's something on a par with the Physical resurrection of Jesus as an historical event, and his virgin birth. You yourself may not believe it, but it is what the New Testament intends to convey, and it unambiguously belongs to the Apostolic deposit of the Faith. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Yes belonging to the deposit of Catholic faith which contains your traditon sounds reasonable. More reasonable than your original statement that transubstantiation is obvious in NT writings. However, your analogy of virgin birth and resurrection to be "on par", as written in the NT, with transubstantiation doesn't seem realistic.

If it does, I think I can make a very argument that the Apostles understood Christ to be physically present long before the New Testament was written.

Claiming tradition you can make that statement but only with selective interpretation can you make that argument from scripture.

[Uri’el-2012]

Here is an interesting website

Tushiyah.org

and a study on His Holy Name

Call on His Name

b'shem Y'shua

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Claiming tradition you can make that statement but only with selective interpretation can you make that argument from scripture.

Oops. Change substitute "NT writings" for the word "scripture". I'm still not deprogrammed as much as I should be. :-)

[SoothingDave]

What we consider to be sacraments are acts that JESUS our LORD AND SAVIOR performed himself. He was Baptized and he did have Communion with his disciples. The other acts you list as sacraments we consider to be rituals, some I agree with and some I don't.

You are certainly allowed to have your own definitions, but you can not say there is no Scriptural support for the sacraments we recognize.

The Apostles did these actions in order to bring about the gift of healing and salvation to the peoples of the world. If you are not doing them, you are not following the model of the early church.

I am curious which actions that the Apostles did that you disagree with.

SD

[Quester]

Isn't this a fundamental issue? Either you believe the community of believers is a party to your transgressions and to your reconciliation, or you believe it is entirely a private matter.

Jesus outlined a process of reconciliation which started at the private end of the spectrum ... and only became a church matter if reconciliation could not be achieved in any other way.

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Per Jesus ... every sin is not a matter for the church to preside over.

[SoothingDave]

I can recognize there are some minor sins that do not have repercussions to the larger society, if you can see how we do consider these repercussions in many cases. Remember, if we are to teach by example, our failings give a bad witness. This hurts both those who may imitate us, and the "cause" of spreading the Gospel in general.

SD

[Jaded]

It shows. Really. Which variety?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.'

Et tu Bruti? Lol.

I can't believe this objection is still around, so I'm going to give you a particularly hard time about it, gscc. This is going to be the FR version of a noogie. And then I'm going to save this post someplace safe where I won't forget it, so that I don't have to re-type it every three weeks.

"And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." ( Matthew 23:9)

Since Roman Catholics address priests as Father, this is a big concern for many non-Catholic Christians, because it clearly shows that the Roman Catholic Church is brazenly ignorant of Scripture, if not willfully disobedient to It. In fact, when the Westminster Confession were written, this was the verse used to justify the doctrine that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

In fact, the problem is much worse than it initially seems, because we refer to the heads of monasteries as Abbots, which comes for the Aramaic word Abba, "Father", and we call the Pope, well, we call him the Pope, which comes from the word "Papa"--Father. So we Catholics are, as many will tell us, undoubtedly in a terribly wrong position, and might as well acknowledge that our faith is a complete sham, if not a diabolical plot.


The problem, however, is that this verse is not a prohibition against the use of the word "father", other than when we refer to God, and if we read the Scripture that way, we miss the entire point of a beautiful passage.


If Matthew 23: 9 is a prohibition against the word Father, then what do you call your father? What do you call "Father's day"? What does it mean that we Americans speak of our founding 'fathers', and that we have erected a monument to the "Father" of our country--George Washington?

If we look at the New Testament, we find over a hundred, and perhaps as many as 200 references to someone other than God being called Father. The first book of the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, the one that contains the Scripture in question, starts off with a long list of "fathers" right from the get-go, in the genealogy of Jesus:

"Abraham became the Father of Issac, Issac the father of Jacob....." (Matt 1: 2)

Jesus uses the terms for people other than God, he speaks of Father Abraham in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

The usage continues in the Epistles.

The Apostle John writes:

"I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father." (1 John 2:13)


Paul seems particularly fond of referring to people by the term "father." He refers to Abraham as "the father of all who believe," and as "the father of us all." He also says:

"For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (1 Cor: 4:15).

It is in this later sense that we Catholics use the term "Father" to refer to our spiritual fathers in the Gospel, namely our ministers. In modern Roman Catholicism, our priests foresake marriage for the kingdom of Heaven. The ideal is that they are to become the Father of a parish family, that they are to act towards the parishoners, with regards to seeking their salvation, as you would act toward your own children.

So what is the meaning of Matthew 23:9?

It is an exceptionally beautiful one. God in Heaven loves us even more than an earthly father loves his own child. Our earthly fathers may love us incredibly much and hope for the best for us, but their love is not even noticeable when it is compared to how much our Father in Heaven Loves us. God wants what is best for us, and He is our true Father. He is looking out for our best interest, and can be trusted beyond any shadow of a doubt. Another example of Jesus using hyperbole is Luke 14:26:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."

The meaning of this saying is made clear in it's parallel in the Gospel of Matthew:

" Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:34-37)

Both of the Evangelists are reporting Jesus' teaching to us. One author, Luke, writes the literal words, while the other author, Matthew, writes the meaning of the words when recalling Jesus' speech. To be sure, there is an edge to what Jesus tells us, and we don't want to miss that. While there are many joys to discipleship, we may have to foresake family to follow him, like the Jews of the first century were put out of their community and perhaps disowned by their families for following Christ. But he is not actually commanding us to hate our families, he is using a dramatic way of speaking to make His point about how important discipleship is, and what costs may be associated with it.

There. That's your internet noogie for the day. I assume you'll repay me in the not so distant future. ;-) By the way, do you check your freepmail more than once a month? I know you're very busy, but perhaps you could hire someone to respond to your emails....


Best,

-iq

[OLD REGGIE]

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?

I assume you are in agreement that the requirement, imposed by the RCC, that a few "miracles" must be shown in order to declare a "Saint" is fallacious and prone to error. Further, that none of us can infallibly declare anyone a Saint.

[SoothingDave]

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?

I assume you are in agreement that the requirement, imposed by the RCC, that a few "miracles" must be shown in order to declare a "Saint" is fallacious and prone to error. Further, that none of us can infallibly declare anyone a Saint.

How do you get that from that?

In one instance we are talking about needing miracles in order to believe in God, to have faith in Jesus, etc.

In the other we are talking about proof that someone is in heaven. Two totally different things.

We would still believe in God without these sainthood-proofs.

Apples and oranges.

SD

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hi XeniaSt,

Thanks for the links. Have you read the book, "Call on His Name"? I'm definitely interested in understanding the Old Testament and the Judaic origin of Christianity. I've read Ellie Wiesel's "Five Biblical Portraits," which is a great introduction for learning how to approach the OT, and started reading Abraham Heschel's "The Prophets." The latter book looked excellent, but a friend borrowed it and I haven't seen hide nor hair since said borrowing occurred.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

The Vatican is not a policital entity?

It does not have Diplomats (by whatever name) in any country in the world which will allow them into the country?

Diocese's (sp?) in trouble throughout the world don't claim the Vatican, not they, own their so-called property?

I could go on and on but I think I'll wait for you to claim that the RCC is nothing but a simple Church with no political or worldly ambitions.

[gscc]

Very nicely written and I will take your gentle rebuke - and now the "however".  Please note how you capitalize the two usages of "Father"- lower case for our earthly biological father and upper case for the pope and the priesthood. To point to the usage when applied to our earthly biological father and then compare it to the meaning in the Scripture citation is not valid. He is clearly speaking of spiritual leaders. You are correct that the Roman Catholic Church does appear very much to be flaunting the meaning if not the spirit of Scripture.

 

[OLD REGGIE]

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

Medical miracles which have not been duplicated outside of a "Saints" intervention? What? When?

How many examples of "miracles" involve the replacement of missing limbs and/or eyes?

[OLD REGGIE]

Apples and oranges.

Limbs and/or eyes. One example?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Yes belonging to the deposit of Catholic faith which contains your tradition sounds reasonable. More reasonable than your original statement that transubstantiation is obvious in NT writings. "

Just to clarify, I.I., I'm talking about the Real Presence, that is, the doctrine that Jesus is phycially present in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is a much later term that describes "how" Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Scripture literally says that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, and it does so emphatically and repeatedly. The only question is whether the words of Christ are to be taken literally, or whether a metaphorical reading should be imposed in such a way as to exclude the the literal reading. There is no reasonable interpretation that would support a metaphor. The Scriptures just don't point to any sort of a metaphorical meaning. Christ says, "Take and eat, this is my Body." Then He counsels His Apostles about his coming betrayal and goes out to the Garden of Gethsemane. What message were the Gospel writers tryng to convey to their readers?

Given that you don't do Sola Scriptura, I'm not going to start quoting chapter and verse to you, but when you think about it, I.I., what kind of metaphor would that be? Usually we explain something we don't understand by making a metaphor that relates it to something we do understand. That idea is half-baked." This means it wasn't thoroughly prepared or thought through, and is lacking. "Invincibly Ignorant is a diamond in the rough." You get the picture on that one. But, what kind of metaphor would it be to tell someone they need to eat someone's flesh? "Running this computer program is as easy as chewing on some dude's flesh, I.I.

To be blunt, I.I. I don't know how the Scriptures could be any clearer. Assume for the sake of argument that the real presence is the message that the authors of the NT were trying to convey. How could they possibly have made it more clear than they did? What could they have said that would have made their point any more clear? "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." "Take and eat. This is my Body," and "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? " So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;" and "Then Jesus turned to His disciples and said, does this shock you?"

The doctrine of the real presence is rejected not because there is a Scriptural reason to do so, but rather because it is a very difficult teaching to accept. The Author of John's Gospel clearly demonstrated that he understood it to be a shocking doctrine.

"However, your analogy of virgin birth and resurrection to be "on par", as written in the NT, with transubstantiation doesn't seem realistic."

It is on a par with those doctrines, and it is a doctrine supported by the universal witness of the Apostolic Faith. There is a mountain of historical evidence ( a metaphor that you can understand,) that demonstrates that the early Christians believed in the real presence. In fact, I'm not even aware of anyone even questioning it until eight hundred years after the time of Christ, and I don't know of any Christians who rejected it until the time of the Reformation.

It is a core doctrine. If a person does not understand the doctrines of the Virgin Birth, the Real Presence, and the Physical Resurrection of Christ, then they do not have a solid grasp of historic Christianity. They may seem far-fetched to contemporary people, but they are absolutely foundational to understanding how historical Christians understood themselves and their religion.

"I'm still not deprogrammed as much as I should be. :-)'

And I hope you always stay that way, Invincibly Ignorant. I wish you the best in your chosen faith, but always remember that it was through Jesus Christ that you came to faith.

[Uri’el-2012]

Thanks for the links. Have you read the book, "Call on His Name"?
I'm definitely interested in understanding the Old Testament and the Judaic origin of Christianity.

1,514 posted on 02/23/2006 3:48:50 PM MST by InterestedQuestioner

Call on His Name is one chapter from the e-book Reuniting the Covenant

I bought a copy in ebook form.

There is also a free book haRabah Haggadah about the Messianiac Pesach story

b'shem Y'shua