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!

[kerryusama04]

How on earth can you say that? What of the 24 elders first mentioned in Revelation 4:4, and the multitude of saints praying before God's throne in Revelation 5:8. These people are clearly already in Heaven. The saints mentioned are emblematic of all people who will have died and attained Heaven before the Last Day.

Please, do the italics thingy. I've been posting a lot. I'm guessing you are talking about people being in heaven?

[Full Court]

The bible doesn't say babies, and it does not use the greek words for infants.

[tenn2005]

Revelation is referring to the spiritually, not the physically, dead. Paul before the sanhedrin is speaking of the bodily resurrection. Not the state of the spirit after death. You need to read I Thes 4:13-17. Particularly vs 14.

[magisterium]

Then evidently your God is the Author of confusion. Objectively, there are thousands of differing opinions concerning the Bible among your co-religionists. God CANNOT be the Author of all of them! Yet that is what you claim. How does one distinguish the inspired nature of your opinion from any other non-Catholic on this forum alone? You all certainly do NOT agree on everything? You are your own magisterium, plain and simple. Yet you accuse Catholics of opposition to God's will when at least THEY can provide some scriptural evidence for the application of magisterial authority to the successors of St. Peter. You obviously don't buy that, but at least the case can be made. Where's the scriptural evidence for your assertions regarding YOUR magisterial authority, as opposed to any other Protestant?

[tenn2005]

The poster correctly called it the NKJV, nor the MKJV. There is no such version as the "Modern King James Version." On the contrary, I am a bvery happy person but as Christian I hate to wee the bible distorted and misquoted.

[Diego1618]

You need to read II Cor 5:8. Paul disagrees with you.

You need to read Philippians 1:23 and Philippians 3:10-11. Paul is speaking of the resurrection from the dead. He knew that at death he would know of no passing of time and his resurrection would seem instantaneous.

[dangus]

>> The term presbyter is never translated priest <<

Uh, yeah, that was my point. The King James Bible, fully aware of the power or framing, never once translates "Presbyter" as "priest," in spite of the fact that the word "Priest" simply is an anglicization of "Presbyter." Instead, King James translated "Hierus" as "priest," because the New Testament says that Jesus is the only "hierus" needed. But "hierus" doesn't mean priest, it means "holy one."

So actually, whereas the bible REALLY says we should all be holy ("hieratuna" of all believers), but there should be people especially appointed to be priests ("presbyters"), Protestants THINK it says we should all be priests, but maybe you should have an elder to run the show.

And yes, "presbyters" WERE appointed for special authority (Acts 14:23 : a presbyter is appointed for each church; In numerous places; Paul, Peter and John invoke the authority of being an presbyter in instructing their audiences; 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of presbyters ruling the church)

[magisterium]

Do you even ATTEMPT to read these posts with a view to understanding their implications? These voices from the early Church mean nothing, simply because they post-date the New Testament? The archaeological excavations demonstrating Peter's presence where tradition placed him mean nothing, too? That is sheer, blinder-wearing ignorance.

[wmfights]

"I wasn't mocking. I was stating a fact. You and many of your fellow-travelers are quite presumptuous to say that Catholics don't have a relationship with the Lord. He's in our tabernacles 24/7."
_______________________________________
I don't believe I said your parishioners don't have a relationship with the LORD. I believe it is your institution that confuses that relationship to benefit itself.

BTW the LORD is everywhere not just in tabernacles.

[magisterium]

Prove it from Scripture!

[tenn2005]

The scriptures you quote refer to the bodidly resurrection. How do you know what Paul thought?

[Full Court]

Objectively, there are thousands of differing opinions concerning the Bible among your co-religionists

Like the way the catholics pick and chose what they want to believe from various sources?????

[kerryusama04]

1Th 4:13 But I would not have you ignorant, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, that you be not grieved, even as others who have no hope. 1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will also bring with Him all those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. 1Th 4:15 For we say this to you by the Word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not go before those who are asleep. 1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first. 1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall ever be with the Lord.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works. Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

Jesus hasn't come back yet - there is still sin in the world.

[Diego1618]

So anything about the Apostles that isn't in the Bible must be discounted? That's ridiculous.

Acts 17:11

[tenn2005]

By what means has it been established that the bones found were those of Peter, other than the claim of the catholic church. We have many people today who write their opinions concerning the founding fathers of this nation. e all of them assumed to be correct. Most of them have been written closer to the fact than the writings leaned upon by the Catholic church.

[kerryusama04]

The poster correctly called it the NKJV, nor the MKJV. There is no such version as the "Modern King James Version." On the contrary, I am a bvery happy person but as Christian I hate to wee the bible distorted and misquoted.

My guess is that the author of my bible software put MKJV instead of NKJV. You haven't posted one scripture and the ones you quote are off the mark.

[magisterium]

Uh...the pasage used by Jaded comes from Luke 18:15-17, where the word "infants" is used. Try reading from the verse cited, rather than the parallel text in Matthew 19.

[tenn2005]

You need to learn the difference between the spiritual resurrection and the bodidly resurrection. These are two totally different things. Until then you post display a lack of understanding of scripture.

[wmfights]

"It is an institution of God's, not man's. You sound like those atheists who insist that Scripture is man-made as well."
_____________________________________
The church of the "Called Out" ones has only one head. It does not have a man who claims infallibility. It does not claim "ownership" of GOD's WORD. It does not add sacraments that are not in SCRIPTURE. It does not have a group of weak and fallible men claiming to be the only ones who can accurately interpret SCRIPTURE. Your institution is obviously man made and prone to error as all man made things are.

[tenn2005]

If I have not posted one scripture how is it that the ones I have posted are off the mark. Your post is self contradictery.