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!

[InterestedQuestioner]

Thanks for your post. Since we are talking about linguistic fine points, I'd like to take a moment and share one: The word "Til". "Til does not always mean that everything changes after the point that "Til" denotes. Example:

Conservative til I die

This does not mean that you will become a flaming liberal the moment you obtain to the Beatific Vision. It just means that you are Conservative until the end of this life. Presumably if you and I have a chance to meet in Heaven, you may very well still be Conservative.

[gscc]

The One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church did indeed determine the canon.

This is where we part on this issue.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"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."

Another point, the Catholic Church indeed has been given a role beyond handing down the Scriptures. It also has the seven Sacraments, the Apostolic tradition (the sense of the faithful handed down through the centuries from the Church where the Apostles lived and taught for decades, writing their teachings on the hearts of the Faithful) This sense gave rise to the Doctrine of the Trinity, among other important beliefs, in addition to the sense of which of the Scriptures were Inspired. The Catholic Church also has the legitimately ordained leadership of the Christ's Church, and has the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Finally, the Church of Rome has historically been seen as the court of final appeals for Christians in dispute with other Christians.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"The One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church did indeed determine the canon.
This is where we part on this issue."

Well then, Gscc, who do you propose determined the canon, and how do you know what that determination is? How do you know, for example, whether the Book of Wisdom is Inspired or not?

[gscc]

Well then, Gscc, who do you propose determined the canon, and how do you know what that determination is?

The same God that parted the sea for Moses, that kept the Ark safe during the storm, that guided the stone that David slung at Goliath, that breathed His Word through the inspired writers of the Scriptures,  made sure His people received those Words to guide their life by exactly as he intended.

By the way - your little script was quite neat also.

[tenn2005]

You put it very nicely and correctly. Now, would those who believe that Jesus had no half-brothers and sisters please explain Matt 13:54-56.

[wmfights]

"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."
_______________________________________

Thank you, that is well said.

It is the arrogance of man that led to so many false doctrines being taught in the Roman Catholic Church. It was that same arrogance that led to Reformation.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"It is the arrogance of man that led to so many false doctrines being taught in the Roman Catholic Church. "

Which doctrines do you consider to be false?


"It was that same arrogance that led to Reformation."

Unfortunately, wmfights, arrogance and worse was on all sides during the Reformation.

[tenn2005]

Start with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

According to Matt. 13:54-56, the people who knew the family in Nazareth knew that there were other children besides Jesus in that family.

[wmfights]

"Which doctrines do you consider to be false?"

Immaculate Conception

Grace preserved through sacraments

Purgatory

Indulgences

Ownership of Scripture

Transubstantiation

Praying to dead people
____________________________________________

"Unfortunately, wmfights, arrogance and worse was on all sides during the Reformation."

That's a fair statement. Do you think the Roman Catholic Church could have been reformed, or had it already become so corrupted by it's presumed special status that any reform was no longer possible?

[Full Court]

What's Jack Chick about history?

Is Chick so powerful?

I had no idea!

[Full Court]

What if Joseph chose to be celibate as well?

Why would he?

Hebrews 13:4  Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Besides God has already told us that Joseph and Mary consumated their marriage.

Matthew 1:24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

[InterestedQuestioner]

"The same God that parted the sea for Moses, that kept the Ark safe during the storm, that guided the stone that David slung at Goliath, that breathed His Word through the inspired writers of the Scriptures, made sure His people received those Words to guide their life by exactly as he intended."

I agree with you 100%, Gscc, all these things were done for us by a loving and Provident Father. As far as the canon of Scripture goes, I think you know my views on this, Gscc, and I have no interest in trying to force them on you, or even in continuously repeating them. We agree that God does everything that is good, for He is at work in us "both to will and to do the Good." As far as the canon of Scripture, someone had to collect the books and letters into one neatly bound book. You and I didn't sift through hundreds of documents from the first centuries of the Christian era and decide what, if any of it we considered to be inspired. Somebody told you and I which books were in the canon, and frankly, we depend on teachers to show us how to read them as well. God indeed speaks to us and even confronts us in the Scriptures, but we also have human teachers, just as Philip taught the Ethiopian gentleman. A lot of times I have no clue of what I'm reading in Scripture, Gscc, and I would have no way of knowing that those writings were divinely inspired if my Church didn't teach me that they were.

Alright, this is a tough crowd on this thread today, and I've already lost my patience a few times, (not with you, of course,) so I'm going to log off and leave the last word to you. I'll return and read what you have to say at a latter time, and will give it some thought. Hope all is well for you.

"By the way - your little script was quite neat also.'

Thank you, sir, you were my inspiration. Please place your cursor here--> G'Night Gscc, don't let the bed bugs bite!<----- No, back there!

[Full Court]

You've twisted this argument so much on this thread, that it now you're rambling incoherently about it.

Actually, in the quote you tried to attribute to me, you added someone elses words, so it must be you who is confused.

[Full Court]

Mutually agreeing to not have sex is not a sin.

The Bible, which is the very word of God, makes it clear that the marriage was consumated.

Matthew 1:24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

There is no reason at all to believe that Mary or Joseph sinned by with holding sex from one another or that they never had sex.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"According to Matt. 13:54-56, the people who knew the family in Nazareth knew that there were other children besides Jesus in that family."

Hey Tenn2005,

Thank you for your post, I just saw it, but am headed off to bed. Your question makes excellent sense, and I can see where you are coming from. Can I ping you to post #1600 to see what you think of that, at least for a start? Although it doesn't specifically address the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual virginity of Mary, I think it speaks to Matthew 13: 54-56. I'll come back to look for your post the next time I'm on FR though, and look forward to what you have to say. Best wishes

-iq

[Full Court]

Matthew 13:54  And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

55  Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56  And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57  And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

58  And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

So? Mary was his mother. He had a group of relatives there, that many of us, including people from early days of the church believe were the children of Joseph and a first wife. This is the early belief of the church, btw. It is still the major belief of the Orthodox church, I believe.

If Mary had had other children, Jesus would not have given her into John's keeping.

If Jesus had had younger brothers and sisters, they wouldn't have dared try to come up and take him away because they were worried about his mental health. One did NOT treat the elder brother of a family that way. But one certainly wouldn't have problems treating the child of your stepmother that way, if you were worried about him or you thought he was embarrassing the family.

Nothing in that bible passage requires these to be the children of Mary. Only the children of Joesph or Jesus' kinsmen.

Sometimes, we have to just to agree to disagree on that point, then move on to something else that will help us both grow as Christians.

God bless.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hey wmfights,

All good questions, and excellent points. I'm headed off to bed right now, but would like to give you a quick response and make three small revisions to your list. First of all, the Catholic Church makes no claim to ownership of Scripture. The point in noting that our ancestors (yours and mine) in the Catholic Church preserved, protected, canonized, and handed the Scriptures down to us today is to frame the relationship between the Catholic Church (Roman and Orthodox) in a more productive light than it often is set in some of these conversations. Rome is not the enemy.

Secondly, you mentioned praying to dead people. I understand what you mean when you say that, but we might refer to it as the communion of the saints, or intercession of the saints, as we don't see the saints as being dead but rather alive in Christ, since God is the God of the living and not of the dead, and we are therefore surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses.

Finally, you mentioned Grace preserved through the Sacraments. I think a better description of how we see it is Grace received through the Sacraments.

These are all good points, and would all make for excellent discussion. I'm logging off now, however, so I won't be the one discussing them with you this evening. I think this is the first discussion you and I have had here on Free Republic, and I will look forward to some of these conversations with you in the future.

In the mean time, if you would like a few thoughts about Transubstantiation, you could consider looking at the thread “He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith , post # 267 where I was asked about that doctrine by another Freeper earlier this week. He felt I wasn't using Scripture enough to support my faith, so I spent a considerable amount of time on this post. Unfortunately, he didn't read it, because he said it hurt his finger to scroll down the post. Perhaps you might have better luck.

Kind Regards,

-iq

[Titanites]

The Bible, which is the very word of God, makes it clear that the marriage was consumated.

The very word of God makes no such claim. It is purely a Full Court assumption that it does. Don't confuse Scripture, the very word of God, with what you think; it's not the same thing.

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

You posted it once again without ever responding to 1633. Why are you afraid to discuss this post?

There is no reason at all to believe that Mary or Joseph sinned by with holding sex from one another or that they never had sex

Right, because it is not a sin if abstaining is mutually agreed upon.