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!

[OLD REGGIE]

2 Timothy 3:16 is a verse that is commonly misunderstood to support sola scriptura. If one reads the preceding chapters, one discovers that it actually says that a bishop of the Church, having received the Holy Spirit through the sacramental laying of the hands, can use the scripture in a salutary fashion as a complement to the oral instruction. Even the quote alone, outside of the context of the entire letter, does not say that the scripture is sufficient, -- yet it is brazenly quoted as if it does.

Are you brazenly quoting 2 Timothy 3: to support Apostolic Succession?

I'm afraid you are required to step outside of Scripture to "prove" that the laying on of hands is necessary for Apostolic Succession.

Matthi'as was "enrolled" as the successor of Judas and there is no indication of the "laying on of hands" in this "ordination".

Paul was appointed by Jesus and we know there was no "laying on of hands".

The practice of "laying on of hands" frequently had nothing to do with Ordination or Apostolic Succession.

One can only assume that the practice of ordination in the "Apostolic" Churches is based on "Tradition", not Scripture. Is my assumption correct? If you believe I am mistaken you must show Apostolic Succession from Scripture which involves your "magic" "laying on of hands". Remember, we do have examples of Apostles being "appointed" or "enrolled" in Scripture.

[Jaded]

http://miriamwebster.com/

brethren

4 entries found for brethren.
To select an entry, click on it.
brethrenBrethrenbrotherBohemian Brethren
Main Entry: breth·ren

Pronunciation: 'bre[th]-r&n; 'bre-[th]&-, -[th]&rn plural of BROTHER -- used chiefly in formal or solemn address or in referring to the members of a profession, society, or sect

==========================

brother

Main Entry: broth·er
Pronunciation: 'br&-[th]&r
Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural brothers also breth·ren /'bre[th]-r&n; 'bre-[th]&-r&n, -[th]&rn/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English brOthor; akin to Old High German bruodor brother, Latin frater, Greek phratEr member of the same clan

1 : a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another

2 : one related to another by common ties or interests

3 : a fellow member -- used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations

4 : one of a type similar to another

5 a : KINSMAN b : one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially : SOUL BROTHER

6 a capitalized : a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work b : a member of a men's religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders

[OLD REGGIE]

Where does scripture say these brothers and sisters of Jesus were born of Mary? Post scripture, not your speculation.

Let's be reasonable. Full Court cannot prove from Scripture that Mary had other children any more than you can prove she did not have other children.

On the Speculation Scale you both rate a "10".

[Jaded]

It really does come down to the translation of the Bible. You do yourself a tremendous disservice by assuming that you know IQ's heart or the heart of any Catholic.

Some months ago on this forum there was a thread on the Shroud of Turin. One poster made the comment that if you read the Bible you would know the shroud was fake because in his personal edition in his hand it said "linen strips". So, I went to one of the on-line Bibles that had multiple translations and posted a specific verse from 9 different versions... NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, Darby and so on. Only one had that poster's reference. It is, infact, the translator.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hey Full Court,


Thank you for your quote from the Gospel of Matthew. The question is not whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters, it's whether or not Mary had other children. Who specifically are you proposing to be a child or Mary, other than Jesus?

Regards,

-iq

[Conservative til I die]

That's a popular Catholic teaching isn't? "The Bible doesn't means what it says. The Bible can't be trusted, don't read it by yourself."

Quotation marks mean something. It means you are quoting someone or something. Would you care to provide a citation for this quote?

Until then, I will assume you are intentionally propogating falsehoods (i.e., lies).

[Conservative til I die]

It's not for "relegion." It's for the Lord Jesus Christ against a bunch of catholics who would rather call Jesus a sinner than admit that the Word of God clearly shows that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters.

Knowing that you are not an ignorant person, I will have to kindly ask you to retract your intentionally false (i.e., a lie) statement that indicates that Catholics call Jesus a sinner.

You know darned well that the point being made was that Jesus had no brothers or sister because if He did, He would have been committing a sin by handing over care of His mother to John, a non-relative. Of course, we Catholics believe Christ was never a sinner of any sort, hence, He could not have had brothers and sisters.

Might I add, you are providing an extremely poor Christian witness to others (not just us hardcore Catholics) if you have to resort to distortions and perversions of the truth.

[Conservative til I die]

All Scripture is given by God, that's the point, whether you like it or not.

Evading the point...as always. No one said Scripture was not given by God, nor did anyone say that it was not useful for teaching and correction. The point made was that Protestants mis-use this verse to prove "Sola Scriptura" when the verse clearly says that Scripture is *useful*, not that it is *sufficient*.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Full Court, the person using the word here is not God, it's the translator.
"If you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God then we have no common ground to discuss issue from."

Full Court, the Bible was written in a different language. In particular, the New Testament was written in a form of Greek. Sometimes when you translate a word into another language, you don't have the exact word in the other language and you have to approximate. In my reading of the Holy Sciptures, that appears to be the case here. Otherwise, the Apostle James appears to have been the brother and the father of the Apostle Jude, which would indeed be a miraculous occurance, and Mary has a sister named Mary.

"I have studied the history of the Catholic church and her actions, so I know that there is no chance at all that she is a correct body of authority."

It sounds like you are quite convinced, and I have no illusions that I'll be changing your mind. However, just reading through your posts, it seems to be your strong conviction that Catholics and the Catholic Church are evil. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, would you mind sharing a few of the reasons that caused you to feel this way?

"The Word of God however is. Yet you reject it."

Full Court, I hold the Word of God in the highest regard.

[Conservative til I die]

What do you care about the text anyway?

Personally, I'm curious as to your stake in this. Aren't you Jewish now (i.e., this week)? Or are you only a Judaizer?

[Full Court]

not that it is *sufficient*.

You are free to reject the Word of God as not being sufficient.

God however says it is to make the man of God perfect and "throughly furnished."

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

17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Your ideas and rejection of the sufficiency of God's word are at odds with God Himself.

John 12:48  He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

[Full Court]

the point being made was that Jesus had no brothers or sister because if He did, He would have been committing a sin by handing over care of His mother to John, a non-relative.

No where in Scripture can you find that false teaching. And the point remains that you and those who expose that false teachings would rather claim that Jesus would be sinning than accept the clear teaching of Scripture that..

1. Mary had sex with Joseph.

2. Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Why is your priority Mary instead of Jesus?

[Full Court]

. However, just reading through your posts, it seems to be your strong conviction that Catholics and the Catholic Church are evil. Am I understanding you correctly?

No, you are not correct.

But anyone who rejects the Word of God for man made tradition has a serious problem.

[Full Court]

The Bible says Mary had sex with Joseph and the Bible says that Mary and Jesus brothers came to see him.

So what would lead you to believe that Mary was not the mother of those children.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"No, you are not correct."

So you don't believe that the Catholic Church is evil?

"But anyone who rejects the Word of God for man made tradition has a serious problem."

Certainly, we're in 100% agreement on that point.

[wmfights]

"No one said Scripture was not given by God, nor did anyone say that it was not useful for teaching and correction."

From a Christian's perspective using the word "useful" is a big red flag saying telling us stay away from this group.

You have created institutions (Magisterium) whom you claim have the final word on how to understand SCRIPTURE. You place oral tradition as equal to SCRIPTURE, even though oral tradition is suspect at best for its veracity. You claim "ownership" of the SCRIPTURES, as though they did not become INSPIRED until you said so.

As a Christian the only sure source of TRUTH is the SCRIPTURES. The Apostles who walked the earth with the LORD and were taught at his feet are gone. However, their WRITTEN teachings are left for us so we can have a right relationship with the LORD.

The SCRIPTURES are more than "useful".

[OLD REGGIE]

The Bible says Mary had sex with Joseph and the Bible says that Mary and Jesus brothers came to see him.

So what would lead you to believe that Mary was not the mother of those children.

I never said Mary was not the mother of other children. In fact, I personally believe she and Joseph had additional children.

What I said was neither you or the "Perpetual Virginity" advocates can prove your case from Scripture; you each take your beliefs from your interpretation of Scripture.

Scripture does not specifically say she was the mother of those children nor does it say the brothers and sisters of Jesus were not the offspring of Mary.

You each state your case from silence and I don't think it will have any bearing on the salvation of either one of you. But then, I am a Unitarian. What else would you expect of me? of

[InterestedQuestioner]

"From a Christian's perspective using the word "useful" is a big red flag saying telling us stay away from this group."

Not at all, wmfights, we recognize that Scriptures to be Inspired by God, useful, and profitable. Saying that Scripture is useful does not exclude these other meanings.

"You have created institutions (Magisterium) whom you claim have the final word on how to understand SCRIPTURE."

The Magesterium is not an institution, it is the authority of the Church to teach correct doctrine and condemn error. We didn't create the Magesterium, Jesus did.

"You place oral tradition as equal to SCRIPTURE, even though oral tradition is suspect at best for its veracity."

Our traditions do not contradict Scripture in the least bit. By tradition, we are talking about the Historical understanding of Christianity, this includes the faith handed down by Jesus Christ through the Apostles, to the Church. This also includes important traditions from after the time of Christ, such as the understanding that the New Testament is is Inspired, and the understanding of which books do and do not belong in the Bible. (This is not something determined by the individual, but rather by the Church.) Also, there is a large body of written records which document what Christians believed and how they interpreted the Scriptures in the 1st,2nd, 3rd century. We have written documents from men who were taught by the Apostles over periods of decades. Those writings are called the writing's of the early Church Fathers.

"You claim "ownership" of the SCRIPTURES, as though they did not become INSPIRED until you said so.'

Not at all, the point of saying that the Scriptures were written within the Church, canonized by the Church and preserved within the Church is to point out the appropriate relationship between the Scripture and the Church. The two go together.

"As a Christian the only sure source of TRUTH is the SCRIPTURES.

That's incorrect.

"The Apostles who walked the earth with the LORD and were taught at his feet are gone. However, their WRITTEN teachings are left for us so we can have a right relationship with the LORD."

Yes, that is true. They also left us successors who retained a correct understanding of what authentic Apostolic Christianity is.


"The SCRIPTURES are more than "useful""

Certainly, they are vital.

[OLD REGGIE]

(Full Court) "That's a popular Catholic teaching isn't? "The Bible doesn't means what it says. The Bible can't be trusted, don't read it by yourself.""

Quotation marks mean something. It means you are quoting someone or something. Would you care to provide a citation for this quote?

Until then, I will assume you are intentionally propogating falsehoods (i.e., lies).

You are correct in that Full Court used quotation marks inappropriately, however, I think it is a stretch to claim he/she is "...intentionally propogating falsehoods (i.e., lies)."

Maybe it would be better if Full Court identified such statements as paraphrase.

I believe the Catholic Catechism makes it prety clear that Scripture is not sufficient in and of itself.

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

[OLD REGGIE]

Our traditions do not contradict Scripture in the least bit. By tradition, we are talking about the Historical understanding of Christianity, this includes the faith handed down by Jesus Christ through the Apostles, to the Church. This also includes important traditions from after the time of Christ, such as the understanding that the New Testament is is Inspired, and the understanding of which books do and do not belong in the Bible. (This is not something determined by the individual, but rather by the Church.) Also, there is a large body of written records which document what Christians believed and how they interpreted the Scriptures in the 1st,2nd, 3rd century. We have written documents from men who were taught by the Apostles over periods of decades. Those writings are called the writing's of the early Church Fathers.

How convenient. No, many of your "Traditions" cannot contradict Scripture simply because they refer to events never mentioned in Scripture nor things, to our knowledge, ever taught by the Apostles. You can then cherrypick from the writings of the early Church Fathers to support these "Traditions".

Fine, if you can get away with it.