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]

Please supply a scripture that states this

I don't think one can provide what is assumed or a leap of faith!

The verse I heard often used in the pass was upon this rock I build my church!

Matt. 16:
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I want to state even though I disagree with some things in the Catholic doctrine, I have soft spot for that faith!

And if there was only two options for followship I would choose Catholic over Protestant!

It is obvious after the priesthood of the Jesus Christ was taken from the earth

No longer was the heavens open so how much of the offical ordinance of the Lord could be performed?

[Jaded]

Lot of screaming too, been there, no thank you. I've had some remarkably bad experiences with some Baptist Churches at a time when I wasn't a practcing Catholic. Tried church shopping for a while, but I always came home.

Last year we had priest from PA come for Mission Week. (Mission Week is equivalent to a Revival.) A good friend who grew up Southern Baptist and converted remarked that her Baptist mother would have loved this priest except for the Eucharist part...

I do think the really sad part is that we share the 5 Fundamental beliefs, yet we split hairs among Catholics and Protestant and among Protestants and Protestants. We share other Biblical beliefs that are non-negotiable. We will still be arguing each other when Islam/Shari'a comes to a neighborhood near you.

-I've worked very very hard at being Jaded. ;-}

[SoothingDave]

No response to the request to identify which James is the brother of the Lord yet.

You'd think one of these Biblical scholars would take up the argument and explain which of these Jameses is Joseph's son.

SD

[wmfights]

"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."

This is so wrong it's difficult to respond. I have no doubt that you are serious about your faith just based on the quality of most of your posts. You are no where near as prideful as most of the Roman Catholics that are posting on this thread. However, the idea that your church controls the HOLY SPIRIT based on whether or not your members follow your rituals is inconsistent with the teachings of JESUS and his life. It's obvious to me that this idea is the product of an institution that seeks to empower itself and maintain control over its members.

Eph: 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of GOD - not by works, so no one can boast."

We are saved by FAITH. If saved we receive GRACE. It is done through NO WORKS by us. If we are in a state of GRACE even you have admitted that we are INDWELLED by the HOLY SPIRIT.
________________________________________
" 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."

We will just disagree, I have never seen in the SCRIPTURES where our LORD and SAVIOR indicated that any supernatural powers he may have empowered the Apostles with would be passed on to the Disciples who would follow later. Just because you claim to trace your priests back to the time of the Apostles does not give them any special powers. If you choose to call your ordination process "Holy Orders" that does not cause it to have any special power. The authority and respect your priests enjoy is because of their faithfulness and educational training in the SCRIPTURES.

The Apostles, those who actually walked the earth with JESUS, have died. The followers of subsequent generations are Disciples.
The HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTILIC CHURCH is that body of believers who are the "called out ones". The individuals united by FAITH and the HOLY SPIRIT, not the parishioners of the Roman Church.

[SoothingDave]

The Holy Spirit was given the Apostles only (John 15:26-27, John 20:21, Acts 2), ...

Afraid not ...

From Paul's letter to the church at Corinth ... 1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Quester, you are not as ignorant as the rest of the non-Catholics posting here. Surely you can understand that annalex was speaking of the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which was to the Apostles only. The people addressed at Corinth have been baptised.

So of course they got the Holy Spirit, through baptism. Jesus passed the Holy Spirit on to the Apostles then sent them out to baptise the nations, thereby spreading the indwelling of the Spirit.

The claim is not that the Apostles were the only ones every to be indwelt, but that they were the first, and that their ministry was the vehicle used to pass it on to others.

SD

[SoothingDave]

When his blood siblings came to fetch him, thinking him crazy, maybe it meant that they didn't believe in Him. He knew John did. Hence His actions.

Would these "blood siblings" who thought Jesus was crazy and didn't believe in (or have any knowledge of) his mission, include James, the "brother of the Lord"?

One day James thinks his older brother is crazy, the next he is in charge of the church in Jerusalem, making decisions on circumcision, etc. That's some epiphany. Wonder why it isn't mentioned in Scripture?

SD

[annalex]

We do not need to have "church fathers" to explain the scriptures to us

As I look at this thread I see that you need someone. First, an ahistorical and non-linguistical claim is made regarding the word "brothers" despite the contradictions in your interpretation in the history of the language and in the scripture itself (refuted in 1600). Then a forced interpretation of a simple Greek word "eos" is made twisting the scripture into denying the perpetual virginity of Our Lady (refuted in 1633). The foot-stomping about "you can't explain scripture to us!" continues for hundreds of posts. Now I show a scripture that shows that the Holy Ghost has not descended on anyone but the proto-Church, and more feet stomp. The private interpretations of scripture are warned against. This scripture is spun away till only bits of the original meaning remain. You are not doing a much better job than a eunuch on a camel.

[SoothingDave]

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.

Tell the truth. You're a "lousy FReeper troll" aren't you? No one could seriously be this naive.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

They had found 800 scrolls which it seems the OT only has 39 of those!

No NT was found among this sect because like today so many break away to form their man made concept what the Word of God means!

I may not have made it clear that I was speaking of the documents copied to write our current day Christian Bibles.

There are none, only copies of copies of copies.

[OLD REGGIE]

Is it clearer?

It is clear that you have accepted this 100%.

[gscc]

In short -- you not part of the Assyrian or Oriental or Orthodox or Catholic or some Anglican and Lutheran Churchs (that follow Apostolic succession), you chances are likely that you've not learnt (neat word) Christ's Word and aren't Christian. It's sad to see so many led astray by 'pastors' and others who really deserve the blame for leading Christ's sheep astray.

As a Catholic you really do not want to go there with your clergy and seminaries.

[Jaded]

The Reverend Jim Jones didn't need anyone to explain things to him either. Neither do Reverends Jackson or Sharpton. The later obviously didn't heed Reverend King.

[Jaded]

Well they certainly don't hold a monopoly on that.

[gscc]

No response to the request to identify which James is the brother of the Lord yet.

The James ossuary bears the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."  Following the death of Jesus in A.D. 29, James assumed leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem until he himself was martyred in A.D. 62. According to biblical accounts, he was one of the first apostles to see Jesus after his resurrection.

He is referred to as the brother of Jesus in both the Bible and in contemporary historical accounts. In Matthew 13:55-56, for instance, Jesus is said to have four brothers and two sisters.

If Jesus is only the son of Mary, not of Joseph, which is what the Bible states, and if James is only the son of Joseph but not of Mary, then they have no blood relationship. In other words, the box inscription counts against both the Roman Catholic cousin theory and the Orthodox theory that they are children of Joseph by prior marriage.

[OLD REGGIE]

The scripture expressly warns against private interpretation of the scripture, see 2 Peter 1.

2 Peter 1:
20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21: because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Yes, read and no hint of "private interpretation". Certainly you don't cofuse "prophesy" with "private interpretation of Scripture"?

That said, I agree private interpretation can be misleading, even dangerous. Of course blindly accepting the interpretation of others can be just as dangerous.

[SoothingDave]

No response to the request to identify which James is the brother of the Lord yet.

The James ossuary bears the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Following the death of Jesus in A.D. 29, James assumed leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem until he himself was martyred in A.D. 62. According to biblical accounts, he was one of the first apostles to see Jesus after his resurrection.

Besides being a fraud, this ossuary is irrelevant. The language used is consistent with the Biblical language. What it means doesn't change cause it's written on stone rather than parchment.

He is referred to as the brother of Jesus in both the Bible and in contemporary historical accounts. In Matthew 13:55-56, for instance, Jesus is said to have four brothers and two sisters.

Please see my post 2061. Tell me which Jameses are this "brother of the Lord" and explain to me when he becomes an Apostle. (And where did James the Lesser disappear to?)

SD

[gscc]

Matthew 13:55

⁵⁵ "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

If this is a listing of His cousins why isn't John the Baptist mentioned here?

[Quester]

The Holy Spirit was given the Apostles only (John 15:26-27, John 20:21, Acts 2), ...

Afraid not ...

From Paul's letter to the church at Corinth ... 1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Quester, you are not as ignorant as the rest of the non-Catholics posting here. Surely you can understand that annalex was speaking of the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which was to the Apostles only. The people addressed at Corinth have been baptised.

Actually, Dave, I read and understood the statement in question ... exactly as it was written.

I had no way of knowing ... that the writer might have meant something other than what they wrote.

And ... might I suggest that your haughty spirit (as demonstrated above) ... does nothing to convince any non-Catholics that you may have any points worth considering ... and it is surely not representative of the love of Christ and/or His Church.

Annalex accepted my commrnt with much more graciousness.

[Quester]

That said, I agree private interpretation can be misleading, even dangerous. Of course blindly accepting the interpretation of others can be just as dangerous.

Once again ... we agree.

Both approaches ... are extremes.

There is a place, both, for leadership/followship ... and for scriptural study.

It is the integration of the two that can be a source of difficulty.

[SoothingDave]

And ... might I suggest that your haughty spirit (as demonstrated above) ... does nothing to convince any non-Catholics that you may have any points worth considering ... and it is surely not representative of the love of Christ and/or His Church. Annalex accepted my commrnt with much more graciousness.

Pardon me for thinking you weren't ignorant of Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit is given in Baptism. If you consider it "haughty" to give you credit for having some remembrance of things discussed before, I'll be sure to avoid that mistake again.

SD