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!

[Jaded]

One could ask why you are so obsessed with sex.

If you knew anything about Jewish history or ancient Jewish customs you would know that under Jewish Law Jesus was obligated to give care of his mother to a living sibling. Anything else was a violation of Jewish Law, thus a sin. Jesus Christ DID NOT sin because there was no lawful brother or sister to give care of her to. That is the point.

[Conservative til I die]

Nothing you have posted here states that Scripture is sufficient or the end-all be-all of Christian faith.

In actuality, you spoil your whole argument as the verses you cite due say that Scripture is "profitable" for teaching, correction, etc.

It is also "profitable" in helping to make the man of God perfect and able to do good works.

Sounds to me that Scripture is used as a means to an end, rather than being the end itself.

But *you* can feel free to reject what God's Scriptures say. *Your* soul is the one in peril should you decide to do so.

[Jaded]

Paul did not learn at the feet of Jesus Christ. Paul himself said "what I have taught you by word of mouth or by letter." Word is tradition. Letter became Scripture.

[Conservative til I die]

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..

It's like you just ignore what people say and keep spouting your unfounded and refuted statements (i.e., that Catholics teach that Jesus sinned).

At this point, I think it might be time to part ways with you for awhile. I hope that when I interact with you again, you will be more open and receptive to the truth.

I pity you but will pray for your conversion.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Thank you for quoting the Catechism, OLD REGGIE.

The two claims here are not equivalent. On the one hand, we have someone floating three ideas:

1) The Bible doesn't mean what it says.
2) The Bible is not Trustworthy
3) Don't read the Bible yourself.

Furthermore this person insinuated that those false beliefs are a "popular Catholic teaching." This is of course false.

Now the quote from the Catechism which you referenced, (and quite rightly so, it's entirely germane to the subject at hand,) states that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium work hand in hand for the Salvation of souls, and none of these three can stand alone. This means, among other things, that the Church cannot stand apart from the Scriptures.

The Catholic Church (Roman and Orthodox Catholicism) Canonized the Bible under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To claim that the same Church teaches the Scriptures are untrustworthy is a contradiction in terms. (And I understand that you are not making that claim, by the way, I'm referring to comments by other participants in this conversation.)

[Conservative til I die]

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

Really? You sure seem to have a lot of paranoia about a mere 6 letter word. However, granting that other words such as "profitable" are used (depending on translation) in "useful's" place, I will have to ask you why you have such an aversion to God's word? God's word itself says that Scripture is "profitable" or "useful" as a teaching tool and as a way to help a man to become more perfect. Do you disagree?

The SCRIPTURES are more than "useful".

But are they "sufficient"? Because my Bibles (NIV and NAB) sure don't seem to say that they are sufficient anywhere. Again, please tell me what I am missing in that verse from Paul's letter to Timothy that says Scripture is sufficient.

PS - I would also like to correct you again. You seem to use the word "Christian" as a term mutually exclusive from the term "Catholic". I ask you to please recognize again that Catholics are indeed Christians. More accurate terms you could use to differentiate between us include "Catholic Christian" or "Protestant Christian" or "Orthodox Christian".

[Conservative til I die]

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.

Isn't this what every Christian does? That's why you need a final authority.

[Jaded]

Timothy 3:14-16
New International Version (NIV)

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[a] appeared in a body,[b]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

[Conservative til I die]

(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)."

I stand by my assumption. You do not prove an argument by fabricating quotes. It's dishonest. This is aside from other claims she has made that are questionable. Because I do not think her to be ignorant, I have to wonder about her motives.

As to your quote from the Catechism, there is nothing there that indicates the Church thinks the Bible "doesn't mean what it says" or that it "can't be trusted." There is quite a difference between something being "profitable" yet not "sufficient" and saying it's somehow untrue and not trustworthy. A world's difference.

But yes, you are correct. We do not believe the Bible alone to be sufficient. Quite important? Yes. Inspired by God? Definitely. Extremely profitable to our faith? Of course!

But we're not ashamed to say that using the Bible alone for salvation is insufficient.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"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."

OLD REGGIE, you are being cynical. It's a big deal for a Church to not contradict Scripture on a single point. No Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian believes that their community's teachings are completely without contradiction in Scripture. Everyone I see, at least on this forum, seems to be saying that they feel the doctrines of their community are flawed with respect to Scripture on some point, but they accept it as the best they can do.

Catholicism (Roman and Orthodoxy) are not like that. They simply don't contradict Scripture.

[Conservative til I die]

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".

First, many of them can be inferred from Scripture. The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere. There is no detailed examination of Christ's nature in the Bible. This is why you had various heresies popping up, most of them about just that: Christ's nature and the nature/existence of the Trinity.

Note also that when we infer from Scriptures, we use a variety of verses in their context, not just by selecting one isolated verse, as the Sola Scriptur'ists do. *That's* cherry picking.

Second, the Bible itself is not a checklist or instruction manual. It was a teaching tool used by those authorized to teach. Remember, the Church was in existence at least one decade before the first letter of Paul was written.

[Conservative til I die]

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".

Sorry, forgot to add a third point. If God wanted the Scriptures to be a checklist for the faith that concisely answered all questions, then He would have left us a Catechism-type document that clearly covers all bases. But He didn't. His Scriptures were documents that each existed for a specific reason, but uniformly to teach. Some of it is history (the Gospels, Acts), some of it are responses to specific issues (most of the Epistles), and one is a book that talks about the end of the world (Revelation).

[OLD REGGIE]

If you knew anything about Jewish history or ancient Jewish customs you would know that under Jewish Law Jesus was obligated to give care of his mother to a living sibling. Anything else was a violation of Jewish Law, thus a sin. Jesus Christ DID NOT sin because there was no lawful brother or sister to give care of her to. That is the point.

Am I to assume you are claiming Jesus never violated Jewish Law?

[Conservative til I die]

One could ask why you are so obsessed with sex.

I think part of it is a subtle need to denigrate Mary. Mind you, there is nothing inherently dirty or denigrating about sex. But there's a weird need to have us Catholics admit that Mary submitted hereself to her husband, that she had sex. It's the language that's used, as if we're supposed to visualize this in our minds.

I've seen this elsewhere on FR, but usually more vulgar (references to Mary's uterus, sex organs, here being a mere receptacle, things like that)

[Jaded]

I am refering to a specific event that others seem to disregard.

[annalex]

Bible is the Word of God

Which translation and in which language? You read Greek? I do.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

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?

Personally its none of your business. However, I will offer, because that's just the kind of guy I am, that I observe daily on these threads your ilk having no reservations about distinguishing yourself from, talking about and definining what is Jewish and what isn't. As long as that continues you shouldn't be bothered that I use my rights under the first amendment on the "free" republic to chat about things that are of interest to me. Thanx for asking.

[OLD REGGIE]

In actuality, you spoil your whole argument as the verses you cite due say that Scripture is "profitable" for teaching, correction, etc.

Are you choosing to ignore the following verse?

17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

What does "complete" mean to you?

But *you* can feel free to reject what God's Scriptures say. *Your* soul is the one in peril should you decide to do so.

Do you think it's about time for both Full Court and you to stop passing judgement on each other?

[OLD REGGIE]

In actuality, you spoil your whole argument as the verses you cite due say that Scripture is "profitable" for teaching, correction, etc.

Are you choosing to ignore the following verse?

17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

What does "complete" mean to you?

But *you* can feel free to reject what God's Scriptures say. *Your* soul is the one in peril should you decide to do so.

Do you think it's about time for both Full Court and you to stop passing judgement on each other?

[gscc]

To me "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" is so clear. Those that parse this Scripture reminds me of someone who took great pain to parse the meaning of "is".