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!

[restornu]

The "problem" is that no one here is ignorant of the existence of the verses.

I am sure there are a few like me who like to have the whole picture before me amongst all this jibbering not all have extraordinary intellectual as some you claim to possess!

I am not refusing anything I just did a recap why should bother anyone...just move on its a recap!

All of us know there are two kinds of terms here just depends in the setting!

Are you not the Mother and than to says brother instead of brethern of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?

To me this setting could mean blood line instead of spiriual bond!

***

"male siblings from the same uterus."

How coarse of an expression!

***

This reveasl of lot how sacred one really feels!

none of us were there during that time nor were the ones later on translating this into other languages, and there are no original documents, only a 3rd or 4th generation of the word!

So we do the best we can and be thankful for what we do have!

But everyday more is being discovered by those archaeologist for now it is the Word and common sense in some cases!

To debate and rationalizing over opinions has nothing to do with spiritual truth, its just the tradition of men trying to manitain as arbiter of truth!

[wmfights]

"...its just the tradition of men trying to manitain as arbiter of truth!"

__________________________________________

Amen!

Watch out you will be accused of Roman Catholic bashing.

[restornu]

I really ment that in general for some are so loyal to their traditions that they would feel they betrayed it to ackownledge the obvious...

Yet what is at stake his traditions or truth?

I still can't figure out why how the hoodeedoo over this?

Mary was a pure vessle when she had Jesus, it matters not if she had earthly children afterwards!

These people are living in fantasyland and for what reason?

[wmfights]

"I still can't figure out why how the hoodeedoo over this?

Mary was a pure vessle when she had Jesus, it matters not if she had earthly children afterwards!

These people are living in fantasyland and for what reason?"

_______________________________________

I think that part of it is they believe any criticism of their church or it's doctrines is the same as questioning their FAITH. I always enjoy these threads because there is something new to learn or a different perspective to read SCRIPTURE from.
Unfortunely our Roman Catholic posters are not as open.
Also, in the discussion about Mary and oral tradition they can't give any ground because if they do a lot of false doctrines will be revealed for what they are, FALSE.

Anyway I sure appreciate your posts.

[monkfan]

"If that were true, those children would of been with them on the trip to Bethlhem and they were not."

Not if they were all grown up and out of the house. Bear in mind, Joseph was in his 90's at the time.

"So there were no children from some fictional first wife."

Actually, there were six: four sons and two daughters. The wife's name was Salome.

[Full Court]

Dave, you have ignored clear Scripture saying that Mary and Joseph had sex, and the Greek behind that.

So don't send me melodramatic posts asking me if I am proud of myself for "ignoring" Scripture.

Not to mention the fact that you have ignored all the other Scripture saying that Jesus had siblings.

[Full Court]

Not if they were all grown up and out of the house. Bear in mind, Joseph was in his 90's at the time.

Totally false.

[monkfan]

"Totally false."

If you say so.

[Full Court]

Thank you. :-)

[Cronos]

You need to seek the face of the L-rd. If you follow Him as your L-rd.

Yup, doing that. Are you? If you aren't following the teachings as sent out through Christ's Apostles (i.e. if you aren't part of an Apostolic Church), I would doubt that you are following Christian teachings.

[Cronos]

Your statement doesn't answer my question:

Do you agree with that, or do you think the letters of St. Paul are not scripture and thereby agree with OLD Reggie in post # 1611 "It is refreshing that you recognize Paul frequently speaks for himself and himself only. Please advise some of your compatriots that I am not a bitter "ex" or anything like that when I say that not all of Paul's writings are "Commandments of God"."?

[FormerLib]

Totally false.

Then you'll have no problem proving your assertion.

[Cronos]

It says that the marriage bed is undefiled. It makes clear that sex between Mary and Joseph, which the Bibles tells us happened, was not a sin.

Your personal, individual, flawed interpretation fails again. What DOES the verse say?

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

It says that marriage is honorable (as it is), it says that the bed should be undefiled (i.e. no whoremongers or adulterers). It doesn't say that the two had nuptial relations -- that's your own guessing on scripture.

[Cronos]

A Solo Scriptura person posts quotes from the Bible that have no relevance to the question -- that's a quote-based group.

[Cronos]

Nope, all I said was that you seemingly treat the Bible as only a quote-book, not one to be understood and studied. The Bible and it's meanings need to be looked at, in the whole context of the meaning. you've erred innumerably in the course of this thread by looking at only one verse at a time or not seeking to know more about God. A quote-based solo scriptura belief system errs badly as we see here. You don't understand the concept that in the M-E brothers and sisters could mean close family upto second cousins (unlike in the Anglo-Saxon world where it narrowly means siblings) -- so you can't step out of the context of your own ephemeral time and culture. You also take St. Paul's ONE verse about "wives to submit to their husbands" and don't read the entire statement where St. Paul preaches equality. You have clearly illustrated the pitfalls of an induhvidual man based faith.

We catholics put GOD at the Centre, GOD in control and LEARN through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit through the ages, through millions of mortal men, instead of trying to force scripture to follow what we want.

At least you don't err as some who seek to deny that Paul's epistles are scripture.

[Cronos]

If that were true, those children would of been with them on the trip to Bethlhem and they were not.

Really? Do you KNOW that or are you speculating? The Bible doesn't mention if anyone else went along to Bethlehelm -- it deals with the bigger picture in all. You cannot twist scripture to reflect what you want it to.

[Cronos]

When the RCC was burning people at the stake for professing faith in Christ and for having a Bible, who was in charge then?

Ah, more falsehoods that you have been brainwashed into believing. The Catholic Church never burned anyone for professing faith in Christ or for having a Bible

The ones who were burned were a) burned by secular courts and / or were b)heretics preaching falsehoods as diverse as unitarianism or gnosticism or equally dire errors.

And if you want to push horrible persecutions -- note that there were persecutions of Catholics in England and in Germany and Scandanavia.

That right there precludes the Roman Church from being a true church because it was an enemy of Christ and his Word.

Nope, The Roman Church is one of the Catholic Churchs (there are 21 others you know) and of the Apostolic Church. These ARE the True Church. These ALL are the seed of Christ and His Word and are NOT His enemy. False cults break away from The Church, The Church remains true...

Revelation 6:9 ¶And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

?Yes, that is for the Catholics who were massacred by protesters. And their blood has been justified now that the protestant churchs in NA and Europe are decaying rapidly

[Cronos]

We are reminded that they do not look at the entire Bible either, thus large swaths of Christian theology, such as Communion of Saints and treasure of merits remain off limits

Yes, on this very thread we've seen quote-based believers and also persons who doubt the very nature of scripture -- stating that Paul's writings may not all be inspired.

[Cronos]

Why do you look for reasons to reject the clear words of God?

Oh, I don't -- I think you (unconsciously) do by looking at the trees not seeing the forest.

you forget completely the FACT that in the M-E cousins, even nephews (as in the case of Lot) were called brothers, brethern. Since you do not understand this or know this, you dismiss it and replace it with erroneous statements. I wouldn't say you are lying as I think you genuinely believe you see the truth, but the fact is that you err (twice as we've shown), you err purely because a quote-based faith errs -- it's like someone trying to understand Casablanca when they are only shown the quotes ("Play it again Sam", "This could be the start of a beautiful friendship") -- you don't see or know what's happened. What you see in one quote may be true, but it doesn't encompass the meaning of the movie or by analogy, of scripture.

Do I know the meaning of scripture in entirety as an induhvidual? Nope. But as part of The Church, yes I (or rather WE) do.

[Cronos]

Yes, the Bible is true. It is your solo scriptura interpretation of it that isn't, which is what we don't believe.

Well put Titanites -- FC, your individual interpretation is flawed, just as any one of our individual interpretations would be flawed. This is not due to a flaw of the Holy Spirit, but rather as our limitation -- like an ant trying to understand the intricacies of nuclear physics. But when we meet as a Church, we act as a mega-organism and know more. As time has progressed and more and more of us ants have pondered on Scripture, our knowledge has grown.