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!

[SoothingDave]

I like your post #2061 I just don't like the only two conclusions you come to.

Fair enough. Thank you for responding.

The first Bishop of Jerusalem was James the brother of Jesus. This is the same James referenced in Matthew Matthew 13:55.

Is there Scripture for this reference to James being a "bishop of Jerusalem"? Or are you relying on some external tradition?

When Luke narrated the story of the Jerusalem council, it was "James" who made the final ruling on the situation with Gentile believers. (Acts 15:13-21) Although it was not made explicit in Acts who this James was, Paul's epistle to the Galatians provide the clarification. This is how James was introduced in Galatians:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother.

So you agree that this new James appears out of nowhere in the narrative in Acts and his coming is not mentioned, but rather must be intuited?

How can one be expected to read Acts and know the person referred to as "James" suddenly changes? Is this some extra-Biblical tradition that explains who this actor is?

Why would you assume that a person called an "apostle" named James in Galatians is not, in fact, the apostle named James referenced in Acts 1 and in the listing of the apostles in the synoptic Gospels?

Where is this new, third James elevated to apostolic status and where can we find it in Scripture? How many other men were made apostles without any mention in Scripture and what were there names?

Why is it not a reasonable interpretation that James in Acts 15 is the same James in Acts 1? That the original apostle James, who had brothers named Joses and Judas; and the "brother of the Lord" James, who had brothers Joses and Judas are the same person?

SD

[Quester]

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother.

So you agree that this new James appears out of nowhere in the narrative in Acts and his coming is not mentioned, but rather must be intuited?

How can one be expected to read Acts and know the person referred to as "James" suddenly changes? Is this some extra-Biblical tradition that explains who this actor is?

Why would you assume that a person called an "apostle" named James in Galatians is not, in fact, the apostle named James referenced in Acts 1 and in the listing of the apostles in the synoptic Gospels?

Where is this new, third James elevated to apostolic status and where can we find it in Scripture? How many other men were made apostles without any mention in Scripture and what were there names?

Why is it not a reasonable interpretation that James in Acts 15 is the same James in Acts 1? That the original apostle James, who had brothers named Joses and Judas; and the "brother of the Lord" James, who had brothers Joses and Judas are the same person?

The James referenced in the passage above is called ... the Lord's brother.

This wouldn't have been any of the original twelve Apostles ... because scriptures tells us that Jesus' brothers did not believe on Him.

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

It is inferred that James, the brother of the Lord ... became a believer ... and, from the Galatians passage above, ... an Apostle, ... after he was confronted by the resurrected Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Actually, the passage above clears up a few things here ...

The James which this passage speaks of ... was not one of the original twelve ... for he saw the resurrected Christ after the twelve did.

Also ... that there were other Apostles ... not of the twelve ... which saw the risen Christ around the same time this James did.

[wmfights]

"You proceed to make a different argument, that of the role of grace and works."

No because you are justified by FAITH and once justified the HOLY SPIRIT indwells you. The key phrase in Acts 2:38 is REPENT. Repentance is a recognition of your fallen state and need of JESUS CHRIST in order to be saved.

In the Roman Catholic Church you believe you can lose your justification (GOD'S GRACE) if you don't adhere to your sacraments. Thus, the church "controls" your justification.

[annalex]

The key phrase in Acts 2:38 is REPENT.

This is your spin. The scripture simply enumerates the steps that lead to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost: repentance and baptism.

you believe you can lose your justification (GOD'S GRACE) if you don't adhere to your sacraments

It is true that the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, received through the sacraments of baptism and confirmation is not the same as final justification, as baptised men can lose their salvation through their condemnable works, or lack of salutary works. The reception of the sacraments is a small part of it. However, it is inambiguous:

5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(John 3)

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

(John 6)

There is ample scriptural support for necessity of works of charity as well (quoting from my previous post on another thread):

Good Works Are Required For Salvation, Scripture Says

Christ was asked what one needs to do in order to be saved. His answer was, obey the commandments (work); give everything to the poor (work), pick up the cross and follow Him (work). Indeed,

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good master, what shall I do to possess everlasting life? 19 And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone. 20 Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honour thy father and mother.

21 Who said: All these things have I kept from my youth. 22 Which when Jesus had heard, he said to him: Yet one thing is wanting to thee: sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 He having heard these things, became sorrowful; for he was very rich.

(Luke 18, similar Matthew 19:16-22)

If you fail to show mercy and charity (work, work) do not call on Christ with your faith because He will say, "Do I know you?". Indeed,

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

(Matthew 25)

*** 16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. 24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

(Matthew 7, similar in Luke 6:46-49)

For good measure:

12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

(Apocalypse 20)

[Full Court]

The Bible clearly says he knew her not.

The Bible says he knew her not TILL she had Jesus. Until.

[Full Court]

40 days with no Catholics? Man, I will be so bored.

[Jaded]

Like till/until the end?

[Jaded]

No. And I doubt you'd be bored on FR.

[Cronos]

Thanks -- ah, the errors of assumption and reading into words.....

[Cronos]

scientific dating has shown it to be of Renaissance dating

Actually further scientific study has proven that to be false -- the research was on strands used to mend the shroud in the middle ages, hence they date from that period. Other studies indicate that it DOES date from the time of Christ. However, whichever way the proof goes remember that your statement "Should the Catholic Church be arrested for perpetrating this fraud on the world?" is wrong -- the Catholic Church allowed the studies and it does consider the Shroud worthy of devotion but not unprovenly the shroud of the Christ..

[Cronos]

The Catholic church tells us that

The Catholic Church doesn't --- legends tell us that. The Church's opinion on the Shroud is ambiguous: it has never claimed that it is definitely the Shroud, but it has said it's worthy of respect for what it symbolises -- Christ.

[Cronos]

Why they won't address my 2061 remains as much of a mystery as the sudden appearance of the third James.

it could be that they dont know....

[Cronos]

The passage says that all went to be taxed.

Yup, like ALL Americans pay correct tax, eh? The Bible doesn't comment one way or the other if St. J had an earlier family. Just like it doesn't prove your point either....

[Cronos]

Actually read that as catholic with a small c and orthodox with a small o. If you are His faithful servant you will be both...

[restornu]

Why is it the Bible calls it Godhead and those after the Lord and his Apostles are no longer on earth decide to call Trinity?

Now Trinity means 3 which is true there are 3 members in the Godhead, but it seems when Trinity is defind it changes the concept that was given in the scriptures even in some passages Jesus makes a distinction between Him and His Father in heaven!


John 20
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
but go to my brethren,
and say unto them,

I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father;

and to my God,
and your God.

So here Jesus CLEARLY SAYS THAT HE ASCENDS UNTO

His Father and Our Father!

To His God and Our God!

Jesus does say he must return to his present self or anything like it he declears there is a Heavenly Father, another being beside him!

Myself I could call those who choose to embrace the Trintiy definition are not Christains but that would be rude, nor do I feel threathen by those who understand it differently!

Some get upset with Catholic because their understanding of certain scriputers as in the Magisterium does not make you unChristian!

Just becasue all agree on the Tinity version does not make you Christian!

It is the belief in Jesus Christ that makes you Christians!

In the mean time while all these other issues are debate on terminology "free will/predestant" "seperate being/all in one substance" "bio sibling/spirital brethrens" etc.

those who are followers of Jesus Christ, believes Jesus Christ is the Savior and "Keeps His Commandments!"

[restornu]

"If James is, as some of you suggest, the blood brother of Jesus and an Apostle or the very least a follower of Christ, WHY did he give care of His mother to John, a non-relative?"

Could it be becasue the Jesus knew that John was going to be the Last Apostle standing?

[restornu]

I think it will always be a mystery unless Archealogsit happen to find an early NT Bible manuscript it might shed some light?

JAMES

An English form of the Hebrew name Jacob. There are several persons of this name mentioned in the N.T.

(1) Son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, brother of John. His call is given in Matt. 4: 21; Mark 1: 19-20, and Luke 5: 10. He was given the name Boanerges (Mark 3: 17), and was one of the inner circle of three chosen to be with our Lord on certain special occasions: at the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5: 37); at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17: 1; Mark 9: 2; Luke 9: 28); and at Gethsemane (Matt. 26: 37; Mark 14: 33; see also Mark 10: 30, 41; Mark 13: 3; Luke 8: 51; Luke 9: 54). He was beheaded by Herod (Acts 12: 2).

(2) Son of Alphaeus, also one of the Twelve (Matt. 10: 3; Mark 3: 18; Luke 6: 15; Acts 1: 13).

(3) Brother of the Lord (Gal. 1: 19) and of Joses, Simon, Jude, and some sisters (Matt. 13: 55; Mark 6: 3; Jude 1: 1); known as James the Just. He occupied an important position in the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12: 17; Acts 15: 13; Acts 21: 18; Gal. 2: 9-12; 1 Cor. 15: 7), and was probably the writer of the Epistle of James.

(4) James, called “the Less,” son of Mary and brother of Joses (Matt. 27: 56; Mark 15: 40; Luke 24: 10). Nothing further is known of him, unless he is, as some think the same as number 2 (above).

[Quester]

Why they won't address my 2061 remains as much of a mystery as the sudden appearance of the third James.

it could be that they dont know ...

It's addressed in post #2242.

[Full Court]

I totally enjoy discussing doctrine with Catholics.

[gscc]

The Catholic Church maintains that the Renaissance dating is due to the mending, yet it will not give a sample of the shroud that was not mended to retest and confirm that the mending caused a false dating. There are no studies that definitively date the shroud to the time of Christ.