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!

[annalex]

The point is, the Ark is called the "Ark of the Covenant" but its function was to carry the Word as the Hebrews knew it, and hence the analogy with Our Lady.

[restornu]

THEN JESUS SHOULD HAVE LEFT CARE OF HIS MOTHER TO HIS BROTHERS. What about that do you not understand? You want to slice and dice scriptures to fit YOPIOS. What doesn't fit nicely you completely ingnore.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.


Don't blame it on Jesus blame it on the Scribes and Handlers who put all this togather!

[Full Court]

And Noah's Ark was called the Ark.

But Mary is not the Ark, because Jesus is not the new covenant, he is the MEDIATOR of the new covenant.

[annalex]

Don't be tiresome, dear.

[Full Court]

Luke 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.


suggenes {soong-ghen-ace'}


Part of Speech:
adjective
Usage in the Bible:
kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1

[annalex]

Yup, that's the word.

I transliterate Ypsilon as either "u" or "y" depending on what it developed into in romanesque languages. In Omega-Ypsilon I would transliterate "ou" because it suggests the "oo" sound which it is in modern Greek. Following Sigma I would tranliterate "y" because of words like "synchronize".

[Jaded]

It is not your place to say that Jesus should of done ANYTHING, especially when Scripture is silent on it.

Oh puhleeze.

[wmfights]

"But Mary is not the Ark, because Jesus is not the new covenant, he is the MEDIATOR of the new covenant."
_______________________________

Thanks for not backing off. Your right.

I doubt you will get anywhere with the Roman Catholic's though. They have a huge investment in their veneration/worship of Mary even if it's not SCRIPTURAL.

[Jaded]

Jesus was not the new covenant. He was the mediator of the new covenant. That's what God says, so the issue is settled. if you chose to believe a myth over the clear teaching of Holy Scripture then I can't help you.

What part of "My blood of the covenant" says mediator?

New International Version

Matthew 26:26-28
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:22-24

22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." 23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

Luke 22:19-20

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

[Full Court]

Sweetie, every one knows the NIV is a perverted bible. It's not real.

[Jaded]

Look little boy, no need to be so condescending. You couldn't be bothered to read the post with several different bible references. Spare me the KJV is the end all garbage. It wasn't the first and is several translations/copies removed.

[Full Court]

I'm not a little boy, I am a grown woman who has studied many of these issues for many years.

Take the NIV test.

Test your NIV

TRY ANSWERING THESE FROM YOUR NIV!!!

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text)

Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?

According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?

In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________

According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?

In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?

Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.
 

 
By Rex L. Cobb

---

[ventana]

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.

But doesn't this (following your rule) imply the Cephas was not of the twelve?

If Cephas could see him, and then James could see him ans then the Apostles...Could not that just mean that First Peter alone, Then all, Then James alone, then all again? And do you agree that the word referring to James the Lords Brother and the word referring to the 500 brethren of the Lord is the same Greek word adelphos? What do we make of that?

[Jaded]

One has to wonder based on the games you play and what you willfully ignore. Thanks for playing.

[Jaded]

Authorized by whom? King James and 47 learned men in 1611?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You have been told this many times on this thread. Perhaps you will look at the argument. You don't even have to accept the argument, only that it is a possible meaning of the words. And if it is possible that this verse was written to mean "They had no sex before Jesus was born" (i.e. this was a miraculous conception), then it is possible that the tradiational Catholic (and Protestant) interpretation is valid.

Yeah its possible OJ didn't kill his wife and the other guy.....Lawyer talk Dave...is thats the best you can come up with?

When the simple is right in front of your nose you come up with tortuous ridiculous stuff like the above.

Dave you're not a stupid man, look at what you're having to swallow to believe this.

BigMack

[Quester]

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.

But doesn't this (following your rule) imply the Cephas was not of the twelve?

If Cephas could see him, and then James could see him ans then the Apostles...Could not that just mean that First Peter alone, Then all, Then James alone, then all again? And do you agree that the word referring to James the Lords Brother and the word referring to the 500 brethren of the Lord is the same Greek word adelphos? What do we make of that?

First, I recall that Peter and John made a special trip to the tomb.

It is highly likely, and perhaps confirmed here, ... that Peter did see the resurrected Christ before the other disciples.

And Christ did appear to all of the disciples (including Peter) at some point.

But I think that it is stretching the credibility of the passage to suggest that the James of the passage was also one of the Apostles.

This would imply that Jesus made a special appearance to this particular disciple ... not impossible, of course, ... but the context doesn't really support that interpretation.

Think of all of the questions that arise from such an interpretation.

For nstance ... why is it never mentioned before ... that one of Jesus' disciples ... was kin to Him.

And, of course, ... there is the fact that the scriptures clearly state that ... Jesus' brethren did not believe on Him.

I think that would have made it kinda tough for one of them to be a disciple.

How this James was Jesus' brother is not my point.

Only that it is quite unlikely that James, the brother of Christ, ... was one of the twelve.

[Full Court]

Take the NIV test then tell me it's a correct Bible.

[Cronos]

interesting point, let me thing about that.

[Cronos]

The Catholic Church maintains that the Renaissance dating is due to the mending

Actually a scientific group came to that reasoning. The Catholic Church allowed BOTH the scientific groups (those who said medieval and those who said no) to come to their own conclusions. It's own stance is clear -- it holds the shroud as something worthy because of WHAT IT Signifies -- the Christ, not because of itself. Whether it is true or not, doesn't matter, as The Christ is always true.