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!

[Full Court]

No offense, but most Christians do not believe that Rome is the true Church.

In fact, even her adherents, most of which are born into it, not converted, do not even know if they are saved, because Rome forbids that.

[TradicalRC]

Did Jesus Christ say these Creeds?

Did He ever utter the phrase "sola Scriptura" in any language?

[Full Court]

The vast majority of Protestors are left wing. A group many Protestants want to move as far away from as possible.

I think a better way to explain that is "Most Protestant mainline churches are Liberal, which Evangelicals would like to move as far away from as possible."

[Theoden]

I think everyone here is getting hung up on names like the liberals do. You can change the name all you want, but not the meaning behind it.

When you say that you are Catholic or Protestant, it is understood that you ARE Christian.

For example, if you ask someone on Free Republic where they are from, they will probably tell you which state they live in. A state specifies an area, and it is understood that you ARE American. The same logic applies to Christianity! (Religious Sect = State --- Christian = American)

My opinion on this is that a most of the people who are identifying themselves as Christian rather than Protestant or Catholic, are just trying to separate themselves from the liberalism in the mainstream Protestant churches. I also feel that a small number of them are intending to marginalize Catholics by doing this, because they know we are Christians, but enjoy the fact that we identify ourselves specifically as Catholics instead, making it seem like we have a problem being called Christian. They are simply ignorant and enjoy angering others. I am Catholic, and my first name is, *gasp*, Christian!

Please don't get caught up on titles and wording.

[Full Court]

I just came out of a "cult"

Which one?

[NYer]

Then there is no scriptural basis for calling the Antioch Church "Catholic" nor is there a scriptural basis for it being founded by Peter.

This is where one leaves Acts and reads extant literature for an understanding of the early Church.

* * * * *

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

MORE

[Full Court]

They don't like it that the Pope is the Leader of Worldwide Christianity, but deep down they know its true.

It certainly is not true in my case. I wouldn't follow a Pope out of a burning building.

[Full Court]

In fact, the church of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and it was there that the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" were first used. The first Christians were Jews and entire communities came to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

The Bible says they were first called Christians there, but it says nothing at all about Catholic.

Acts 11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I'm enriched by every one of your posts. You should write a book.

[Full Court]

When Billy Graham passes to his reward, there will be the same media frenzy recounting his life decade by decade and a televised funeral.
He did serve the Lord faithfully as a Protestant. Do you think that the Catholics will spew venom over him? I don't.

here is something to consider, Graham is not the Protestant version of a Pope. He may be respected by some people, but he is not followed.

He was a baptist, but even his own wife didn't leave her denomination to join his.

Also, Graham has many enemies (of sorts) in fundamentalist circles because of his compromises with Rome and his little known but dearly held belief in infant Baptism.

So when Graham dies, there might be some spewing, but I doubt it would be from Catholics. Graham was and is very cozy with Rome and her teachings.

[kerryusama04]

Did I ever utter those words? I don't necessarily agree with "sola scripture". I think that prophets have and will come and since scripture was closed. But their words cannot contradict scripture.

[markomalley]

It's normally considered polite for one to cite his sources when making extensive quotes for an argument

---

http://the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18


An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

(Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys)

By William Webster

---

I'll work on this later on...don't have adequate time to fully digest this document now in order to knock holes in it, but I'll try to get to it in the evening.

Cheers!

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"And the only church that is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. Protestant Churches do not have those four marks of the Church as Catholics do. "

So labels and authority of men make all the difference for you.

Whatever.

[Full Court]

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.

This is a totally untrue statement.

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife
during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.
" (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.

Sir Isaac Newton:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran):

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists.
Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

[Flavius Josephus]

I beg your pardon, but most Christians DO believe Rome is the True Church.

[Full Court]

Oh Baloney. I was raised in a Baptist church. 4 and 5 year olds were baptised all the time as along as they responded to the "alter call". In my book, that age aint much different from an infant. Protestants beleive in justification by faith alone. What do you beleive?

I personally am very leery of baptizing little kids, especially the way Baptist churches are run today. No one talks about sin, they just tell kids to come ask Jesus into their hearts so they won't go to Hell.

What kid wouldn't do that?

However, the major difference here is that getting the head of a baby wet and calling him baptized it patently ludicrous and completely unscriptural.

And while I am leery of kids as young as 4 0r 5 answering an altar call, AT LEAST you know that the kid has some knowledge of whats going on.

[Full Court]

I beg your pardon, but most Christians DO believe Rome is the True Church.

No they don't. Rome doesn't have the marks of the Body of Christ.

"MARKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH"

1.Its Head and Founder--CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive.
(Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)
2.Its only rule of faith and practice--THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)
3.Its name--"CHURCH," "CHURCHES." (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)
4.Its polity--CONGREGATIONAL--all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)
5.Its members--only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)
6.Its ordinances--BELIEVERS' BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD'S SUPPER.
(Matt. 28:19-20)
7.Its officers--PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)
8.Its work--getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements
of God's Word), teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you").
(Matt. 28:16-20)
9.Its financial plan--"Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they
which preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (I Cor. 9:14)
10.Its weapons of warfare--spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)
11.Its independence--separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

In any town there are many different churches -- all claiming to be the true church. -- Take the marks, or teachings, of the different churches and find the ones which have these marks, or doctrines. The ones which have these marks, or doctrines, taught in God's Word, are the true churches.