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!

[Casloy]

but I will say I am a Christian.

I have found on several occasions that someone I meet asks me if I am a Christian. I no longer know how to answer because all to often if I say yes the assumption is I am an evangelical Christian, which I am not. So, it puts me in the dilemma of saying, "I am not that type of Christian," which is even more confusing for everyone, since I don't believe there are "types" of Christians. If a Catholic is asked if he is a christian, does he or she say, "no, I am a Catholic?"

[Casloy]

I ended up leaving a forum over the nastiness displayed when John Paul II died by a bunch of people who claimed to be fine upstanding Bible-believing Christians.

Sadly, that attitude tends to show it's ugly head all too often on FR.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You're doing good hang in there, the attack on your character has begun and they even whooped out the old "Jack Chick" angle on ya. :)

BigMack

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

"Do you still beat your wife"

Sure...don't you?

Take stick beat good, make good squaw. :)

Long time no see, how ya doing?

BigMack

[Titanites]

And there was no reason at all for Mary to have sinned by with holding sex from Joseph.

And now we're back to where we started. Do you read what is posted to you? Mutually agreeing to not have sex is not a sin. You can go through the whole cycle of posts again, like you are prone to do, but you have no proof that mutally agreeing to not have sex is a sin.

Why would Mary or all people of placed her husband or herself in a position to be tempted by Satan?

You assume Mary was withholding sex from Joseph, who requested it. You assume Mary and Joseph could not make a mutual agreement to not have sex. You assume that Mary and Joseph had no self control. By your question, you must assume that Mary did not abstain from sex before the birth of Jesus.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Let's see, we know Joseph and Mary had sex."

Full Court, that's your personal opinion, the Word of God does not say this.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"We know Jesus had brothers and sisters."

Incorrect, Jesus had no brothers and sisters. To be his brothers and sisters, they would have to have been fully God and fully man, God as their father, Mary as their mother. That would mean there was more than one messiah. According to your hermeneutic, there would have been at least eight Persons who were fully divine and fully man, and ten persons in the Godhead.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"It is you that does not understand that the Lord's humanity is not secured through Mary if she is not fully human as ourselves."

I haven't said otherwise.

"That you continuously give her attributes that make her less then the human vessel that God intended her to be is what is not Scriptural."

I have not given her any attributes that make her less than human.

"I certainly do not believe that the marriage with Joseph was unfruitful. He took her as his wife. "

No one is arguing that the marriage was unfruitful. Annalex has pointed out that it was particularly fruitful, because in that marriage the Author of our Salvation came into the world and was raised.


"Sorry you view the marriage condition with such low regard."

I take the highest view of marriage possible, it is a Sacrament of the most High God.

[Jaded]

You know if the argument is used that Mary had other children with Joseph, would not the natural assumption be that Jesus was a biological child of Joseph or that his brothers and sister would also be divine?

We've been over this sooooo many times with others who reject everything about Mary including this from the preferred version on the thread this weekend:
__________________________________________
Luke 1:36-56 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

51He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

56And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

_________________________________________

I'm off for a while....

[InterestedQuestioner]

"You take too much credit and, as usual, the prerogatives of God for your church, when you dismiss the role of God in forming and transmitting both the Devine nature of God-breathed Scripture and the canonization. History is quite clear - the deductions you make that your church was anything more than a tool in the Creator's hand is laughable."

This is not about taking credit, it is about historical fact. The Scriptures were written within the Catholic Church, they were preserved within the Catholic Church, they were canonized by the Catholic Church, and they were passed on through the Catholic Church. That is historical fact.

"you dismiss the role of God in forming and transmitting both the Devine nature of God-breathed Scripture and the canonization. "

Gscc, this is exactly the opposite of what we are saying. God utilized the Church, His Church to transmit the Scriptures.

"History is quite clear - the deductions you make that your church was anything more than a tool in the Creator's hand is laughable."

The Church is precisely a tool in the hands or the Creator, or more accurately, a servant of the Creator. But the Church is more than that, the Church is also the Bride of Christ, and Christ sacrificed himself for His Church. It seems to me that you are opposing God to His Church. That makes no sense.

[gscc]

I am not "opposing God to His Church." I oppose the pretensions that the Catholic Church had any other role to play than as a tool in the Lord's hand to convey the Scriptures. I do not dispute the historical sequence or chronology of your history - it is the arrogance of supposing God did not choreograph the canonization of the Bible - instead it was the RC Church. Moses wasn't so arrogant as to believe that he had done anything more than follow God's will in leading the Jews out of Egypt. Noah wasn't so arrogant to believe he had done anything other than God's will in saving mankind.

[SoothingDave]

So, still wish to use 5:13 as some sort of proof text of easy knowledge of eternal salvation?

Yes, absolutely. Because God says that we may know. It isn't "you might be able to know."

This is the long-awaited response to my detailed exposition of 1 John I gave in post 1348? I pointed out that the things John wrote so that "we may know" involve more than just a reflexive self-declaration of one's own salvation. They entail walking in faith, keeping the commandments of Jesus and loving one another.

And you respond with the same pap.

Please let us know when you are ready to give serious consideration to the Bible, rather than just pick out the verses that make you happy.

SD

[SoothingDave]

You're doing good hang in there, the attack on your character has begun and they even whooped out the old "Jack Chick" angle on ya. :)

Mack, how could you cheer on her pathetic performance? I thought you were a little more serious.

SD

[SoothingDave]

We know from the Bible that Mary and Joseph had sex, that Jesus was the firstborn, meaning others were born after, and we know that he had siblings from the bible.

This is so pathetically ill-informed there is no point continuing any type of conversation. Full Court, God bless you for your vigor, but please gain some knowledge before attempting to have a serious discussion again.

SD

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Very simple - the only role that man-kind played in the formation of Scripture and the canon was as a tool. God didn't need the Apostle Paul or Peter to write Scripture, he didn't need the Church to tell us what the canon was - the Creator chose to use His creation to convey the scripture and formalize them as canon."

Gscc, I think we're pretty close to agreement on this point. The only point I would nuance is that man is not a tool, he is a man. I know, you are using tool in a metaphorical sense, so we're not in disagreement, but I think it's important to be clear about that clarification.

You're absolutely right, God didn't need the Apostles Paul and Peter to write Scripture, nor did He need to use the Church to determine the canon. But the fact is, He did choose those means. Furthermore, you and I do need the Church to tell us what the canon is, in the same sense that we need the Apostles Paul and Peter to write the Scriptures which come down to us through their authorship. It's not out of an absolute necessity, but rather because that was precisely and uniquely the means that God ordained for you and I to receive the Scriptures.

By the way, I like the font you used on your last response to me. Did you do that just by shrinking it down a size?

[gscc]

By the way, I like the font you used on your last response to me. Did you do that just by shrinking it down a size?

I haven't a clue how I did that.

To place a nuance on your nuance - God used Moses, Noah, Paul, Peter and the early Church to perform His will.  I am tired of hearing how the RC Church was the determiner of the Canon when it was merely the tool that God used to convey the Scriptures to His people.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"This is the long-awaited response to my detailed exposition of 1 John I gave in post 1348? I pointed out that the things John wrote so that "we may know" involve more than just a reflexive self-declaration of one's own salvation. "

Well, Soothing Dave, I liked your post # 1348. Maybe I'm the one who should start replying to your posts.

In brief, I thought it was an excellent exposition on 1 John. It was well written, concise and to the point. Your exegesis was well organized, hit upon the key points of that Epistle, and weaved them together into a coherent picture that was very accessible and easy to understand.

I would recommend it to a friend, and give it a 9.8 out of 10. (You didn't use cool fonts.) ;-)

-iq

[InterestedQuestioner]

"To place a nuance on your nuance - God used Moses, Noah, Paul, Peter and the early Church to perform His will."

A good nuance to be sure. ;-) My nuance to your nuanced nuance is that they willingly participated in God's plan. Abraham, our Father in faith, was after all, a friend of God.

" I am tired of hearing how the RC Church was the determiner of the Canon when it was merely the tool that God used to convey the Scriptures to His people."

Well, it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church, it was the Catholic Church, the only Church there was at the time. It was through that Church that we have received the Apostolic faith, and through which we get the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Faith. And again, there is no "mere" here, God founded the Church, it's His Church, and your darn right he used it to guide the faithful into an understanding of the Canon of Scripture and the nature of the understanding of Scripture.

By the way, my last post to Soothing Dave was supposed to say that he didn't use cool fonts, like Gscc did. However it was that you changed the font, it looked very nice. I just assumed you had gone fancy on us, and were using ninja-like HTML skills to show up the rest of us Neanderthals. ;-)

[gscc]

Please note that I acknowledged it was "early Church" that formed the canon, but it is the RC Church that extols how they were the arbiter of the canon, thereby denying God His authorship.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Please note that I acknowledged it was "early Church" that formed the canon, but it is the RC Church that extols how they were the arbiter of the canon, thereby denying God His authorship."

Well, gscc, you did indeed say the early Church, and I not only acknowledge that you said that, but I also noticed that you said it and have been thinking about it. The Early Church is historically contiguous with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faith. Orthodoxy and Catholicism also contain the deposit of the Apostolic faith handed by Jesus, through his Holy Apostles. That and 2000 years of reflection and lived experience in that faith, guided by the Holy Spirit. If you feel that the Latin Catholics are too irritating with their claims, perhaps you could take it up with the Orthodox. Who knows, they might agree with you on that point, and they have the Apostolic Faith.

"but it is the RC Church that extols how they were the arbiter of the canon, thereby denying God His authorship."

The One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church did indeed determine the canon, and that Church had and still has a pope in Rome who played and continues to play a unique role in the Church founded by Christ. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, was indeed the arbiter of the Canon. That does not mean that the Church denies Divine Authorship of the Scriptures. You and I both depend upon that Church to know that the Scriptures are uniquely Inspired, and not just a collection of authentic historical documents.