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!

[wmfights]

"Insert eye-roll here."
___________________________________

Why?

I honestly never heard that RC's don't believe that the HOLY SPIRIT indwells believers. What do you believe about the HOLY SPIRIT?

[Conservative til I die]

The only one of the three that is named as a congregation of the saints in the early is The Assembly of God.

Are you saying that this phrase appears in the Bible, hence the group that exists today is the same as the aforementioned group in the Bible?

I've also heard this claim used by "The Church of Christ."

Just because a particular group's "brand name" doesn't appear in the Bible doesn't mean that group didn't exist. Just like because the Pope didn't always wear red robes and a miter doesn't mean the office didn't exist.

[Jaded]

Catholics have NEVER thought that. For you to even imply that is, creative at best.

Perhaps you should actually experience Mass. Just as research. I think alot of people posting have absolutely no actual experience with a Catholic Mass. Only what they've been taught. Then afterward go to your own service. However, as with a few Protestant churches, there are a few parishes and Diocese that should be avoided. Rochester, Boston and Los Angeles spring to mind.

The answer, the Holy Spirit, the third part of the Trinity, the Advocate that came at Pentecost, indwells in members of Christ's body.

[tenn2005]

I am merely stating a fact. And yes, the church of Christ is also a name found in the Bible along with several others. It would appear that those groups did exist and called themselves by those names. I find that to be proof of their existance. You on the other hand are trying to claim that a group never named in the Bible is the true church of Christ. It would seem to me that the people in the Bible called by those names by the Apostle Paul have a claim to existence far superior to any group not named in the Bible.

[wmfights]

"The scripture expressly warns against private interpretation of the scripture, see 2 Peter 1."
____________________________
Reading this now with the understanding that the HOLY SPIRIT does not guide you I see how you can think it means don't study SCRIPTURE outside your church.

As a Christian who has been blessed with an indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT because my FAITH is in JESUS CHRIST alone as my SAVIOR and his sacrifice for me at Calvary I read this differently. 2PET 1:20-21 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of SCRIPTURE came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from GOD as they were carried along by the HOLY Spirit."

I read that GOD is the origin of prophecy and any true prophet is only speaking what he has been directed to by GOD. I don't see any condemnation of studying SCRIPTURE outside your church.

[tenn2005]

Amen. I made the same point earlier buy you did a better job of expressing the true meaning of the scripture than I did.

[annalex]

The Holy Ghost indwells in baptized Christians and in a special way in confirmed (or chrysmated) Christians. It is received through the sacraments of the apostolic Church.

The apostolic succession continues through the sacraments of the Holy Orders. Each bishop can trace his consecration through a line of popes to St. Peter, and each priest to a bishop.

Yes, most Protestant and Baptist baptisms are valid baptisms provided the new Christian has not been validly baptised before, in which case that original baptism is valid, and the second one has no consequence other than perhaps, mockery of God. That is because a priest is not necessary for baptism. This is by the way why all basptised Christians are really Catholic, whether they think of themselves that way or not.

[annalex]

He misunderstood my 2060. The Holy Ghost ordinarily indwells in baptised Christians, but it is the Church, represented by the Eleven Apostles, that the Holy Ghost was originally given.

[tenn2005]

I am a baptized Christian and deny that I am in any form or fashion a Catholic, either in name or practice.

[wmfights]

"When a teaching conflicts with the Bible as many teachings do then that teaching is false. Pure and simple."
____________________________

Amen!

[Titanites]

Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch

Hey CTID, I think the market is open for a denomination to call themselves the Whole Church. You could point to the Bible and claim to be an apostolic church from the time of Christ.

[tenn2005]

The depth of your reasoning is truly astounding. Unfortunately it would require that one not understand the meaning of the phrase "whole church."

[restornu]

Logic means avoiding the fact that the Bible says Mary and Joseph had sex?

Now to you your joining of the bodiees is called sex, those who do not live under the law, but under grace have a beautiful bond!

You must have been born in the 70's after which has lessen the concept of the marrriage bed

Children of God don't have sex the world has sex but the children of God have another ingriedent to their relationship LOVE!

coarse people have sex!

when you think of it some of these scripture are baren you think people in those day did not procreate but just had sex!

Jesus words always convey a form of Love when he speaks the brethern also carry that over in the message, the narrator when describing events sets up this distance and the reader is not picking up on it!

Some one was gapping the breaks so it made sence to the reader!

Just like the OT there are places that seems to be giving a over view because either there were gaps are adjustments to the events?

Unless a prophet of God was bridging the gap under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but it does not seem like that always and is why so many are disputing over verses and passages for there are contradictions!

Which can come from

1- the subject spoken to, is already aware of the background or detail and therefore need not be instructed again.

2- missing or gaps in the manuscript

3- or who ever was in power at the time these documents was being to conform to the political powers to be!

We are lucky for what has survived, but please don't think man never ever tampered with them!

Even King Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church because he wanted a divorce...

The adoption of Protestantism, however, was a political rather than a religious move. King Henry VIII had originally married Catherine of Aragon; since she had been previously married to his brother, though, Henry had to get special papal dispensation for the marriage. Marrying the wife of one's brother was incest; it was almost equivalent to marrying one's sister.

The marriage, however, produced no male children to occupy the throne at Henry's death. Henry began to doubt both of the marriage and the spiritual validity of the marriage. In the mid-1520's, he met and fell in love with Ann Boleyn, a lady in waiting to Catherine. He wished to annul his marriage to Catherine and marry Ann; not only did he love Ann, he feared leaving the throne of England without a male heir.

The WORD always was a thorne to the powers to me and the struggle to hold on to them was not always easy!

IMHO

I bring these issues up because they are real and man has free will even if you are one that don't believe in free will, man still did not like his conscience pricked, and if he could make it go away among his subjects or peers so be it!

I am one who beleives after the birth of Jesus, that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage!

does that not distrub you that this gap exist what happen afterwards someone had that knowledge.

During the find of the Dead Sea Sroll era there were other finds which indicate and they know there are more writtings to the New Testament!

[wmfights]

"Catholics have NEVER thought that. For you to even imply that is, creative at best."

If you've been following along annalex stated to me that the HOLY SPIRIT did not indwell believers. I know we have differences, but I didn't know they were that great. I had never heard this before so that's why I asked what RC's believe about the HOLY SPIRIT.

I think you are impugning my motives because you are Jaded.
___________________________________
"Perhaps you should actually experience Mass. Just as research. I think alot of people posting have absolutely no actual experience with a Catholic Mass."

I've been, not very uplifting or inspiring, too much pomp and circumstance. You should try a Baptist Revival sometime,
short on pomp and circumstance but long on SCRIPTURE.

[Conservative til I die]

I am merely stating a fact. And yes, the church of Christ is also a name found in the Bible along with several others. It would appear that those groups did exist and called themselves by those names. I find that to be proof of their existance. You on the other hand are trying to claim that a group never named in the Bible is the true church of Christ. It would seem to me that the people in the Bible called by those names by the Apostle Paul have a claim to existence far superior to any group not named in the Bible.

I'll try to be as charitable and just say that your reasoning here is really, really ludicrous.

[Conservative til I die]

Hey CTID, I think the market is open for a denomination to call themselves the Whole Church. You could point to the Bible and claim to be an apostolic church from the time of Christ.

LOL, brother. How about The Way, The Truth, and The Life Church (Inc., of course)? Heck Jesus Himself said that phrase.

[wmfights]

"Amen. I made the same point earlier buy you did a better job of expressing the true meaning of the scripture than I did."
__________________________________

Thank You Brother!

[tenn2005]

So your more logical and less ludicrous claim is that these groups named in the Bible did not exist but that groups not named in the Bible did exist? That is a piece if I ever read one.

[annalex]

I don't see any condemnation of studying SCRIPTURE outside your church.

My advice is to study the scripture seriously. Someone who read the scripture and self-interprets it contrary to the teaching of the Church is not doing a serious study, -- simply because he takes on the onus to explain why the Church, including the apostles and their near contemporaries understood the scripture in one way, but he, in 20 century America imagines that he can understand it better than them. This is conceit. If that person, in addition, claims the fellowship of the Holy Ghost as he misreads and misinterprets the scripture, he uses the name of God in vain.

As to 2 Peter 1 it is a warning against private interpretation at least of the prophetic aspects of the scripture:

20. Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

And that is what I said, "The scripture expressly warns against private interpretation of the scripture". The warning is above. It is not the only place where scripture cautions us to read it under the guidance of the Church. Consider this:

30. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
31. Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

The eunuch (symbolic, isn't it?) admits that he cannot understand the scripture by himself.

35. Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
36. And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?
37. And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.
39. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing.

(Acts 8)

A holy man, Philip, guided by the Holy Ghost, explains the scripture and admits the eunuch into the Church by baptizing him. Philip is now gone, but the eunuch is happy. The Church, represented here by St. Philip, did what the scripture did not: it opened his eyes.

[annalex]

deny that I am in any form or fashion a Catholic

You'll probably do so at least three times till your Savior sees you. Try to concentrate on the positive, will you? I thought you said your are not a Protestant. So why do you protest so much?