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!

[x5452]

It is unlikely that he spoke aramaic exclusively.

Also christ and the apostles quote often from the Greek version of the Torah (which Catholics call the LXX)

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>This Aramaic spin denies that the Ruach haKodesh intentionally breathed the New Testament in Koine Greek for us to understand the mind of G-d

NY>Did Jesus speak Aramaic or not? It's a simple question. Yes or No.

588 posted on 02/16/2006 8:45:03 AM MST by NYer

Are you planning to answer my question in post #210 ?

to wit:

Do you believe that Y'shua was just a bumpkin from Galil ?

Or

do you believe that Y'shua is the creator of the universe?

In answer to your question,
I know that the king of the universe can and most likely spoke Aramaic.

I would not build dogma on that fact however.

b'shem Y'shua

[TradicalRC]

Thank you for agreeing that the Magisterium is prone to error.

Please don't put words in my mouth. People are prone to error. The Magisterium with regard to faith and morals is not.

This point is a perfect example of how different Christians and Catholics are.

Catholics Are Christians.

Christians will leave a church and form a new one, or join another denomination if they find doctrine contrary to SCRIPTURE.

Yet they keep on dividing and dividing, don't they? When will the protestant churches ever learn that all have sinned and that the holier than thou trick ends up with an increasingly smaller group of sinners? Catholics recognize original sin and the fallibility of man. Prots seem to think that if the people we agree with on Scripture form our own church, we'll be untainted. Sorry, I don't think so, otherwise all of the so-called Bible believing Christians would be in one church.

Is this dichotomy because Catholics are taught that defending their church is the same as defending their faith, or is it because the church claims to control their justification?

God gave us the Church and His promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

[SoothingDave]

2 Peter 2:20 -- For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

It does not say that they have been aborted from the new birth and it does not say they have lost their salvation.

Having known Christians who sunk into sin, I can say this verse fits the life they lived, because no one is in a bigger mess than a believer who is not living what they believe.

Such willfull disregarding of the text. "The latter end is worse for them than the beginning." This doesn't mean a backslidden Christian feels really bad or gets in a financial pickle. Of what import could this warning have if it does not refer to salvation? Is salvation of so little value that it is actually better for someone to never have salvation than it is to get "saved" and then fall back into sin? In the first case, the person is destined for hell. In the second, according to you, the person still gets eternal bliss, but their life on earth might suck?

SD

[redgolum]

I think you post is pretty much what I was trying to say, but in a bad way.

The cerimonial law of the OT isn't really followed by Christians. For it was a forshadowing. The thing is that distinction was made after a lot of heated debate.

If I am reading that wrong, or have misunderstood you point, let me know. (Not trying to start a flame war).

[SoothingDave]

The unbelieving baby who dies before before a man gets his head wet is bound for Hell?

No one ever said that. We have no particular revelation about this situation, but trust in the mercy of God.

What if the man who baptizes the unbelieving baby is a child molesting pedophile? What then?

What of it? If God was incapable of using sinful man to further His plan of salvation, we'd all be going to hell. Did anyone ever help you find God? Did you ever help anyone else? Are you without sin or merely under the impression your sin is not so bad as to offend God?

If getting an unbelieving baby;s head wet can save them, then why did Jesus have to die?

Jesus died so that we could bring His salvation to others through His sacraments.

It's stunning how many people can't understand the concept of sacraments.

SD

[pegleg]

My friend...the myth is that Peter was in Rome. You cannot show me, from scripture, that this is not so.

Actually I can but you don’t believe it.

Never met the person....or heard of him.

Not surprising. The first instance we have of anybody denying Peter was in Rome was from William Cave who was the chaplain to King Charles II. He first advanced this claim in his book “The Lives of the Apostles”.

Cave asserts that in the Greek original of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, (written about the year 320), there is no reference to Peter being Bishop of Rome. Boettner accepts this as sufficient “proof” that the apostle was never in the capital of the empire. Had he simply bothered to look at what Eusebius actually wrote concerning Peter’s whereabouts, he would have found in sections 2:25, 3:2, 5:8 and 6:14 exactly what Cave said was not there: Eusebius reports the testimony of the early Church that Peter indeed was in Rome and was martyred there in the year 65. (cf. Eusebius, The History of the Church, [New York: Dorset Press, 1984 ed.]

So my friend you have bought the blatant lie of William Cave, which was advanced by Boettner who, like you, didn’t bother to check the facts.

[SoothingDave]

The Bible only lists 3 regular people who made it to heaven already (Enoch, Elija, and Moses, and one maybe (one of the guys that was crucified alongside Jesus). The idea that people die and go straight to heaven is Biblically unsound and makes much of the New Testament and Christianity in generally moot.

I'm not sure how you think this makes those things "moot."

In any event, have you ever really thought about the concept of eternity? The idea of "going straight to Heaven" or "going only after the end of the world" are meaningless ideas when contemplated from eternity. Eternity is not living for a long, long time. It is living outside of time. All moments are equally present from eternity.

SD

[redgolum]

What I can figure out is why so many are so against baptism. It is only one of the commands that Christ gave us.

[SoothingDave]

Your witnesses, I see, are all non-scriptural. Peter was never in Rome, was never close to Rome and that can be demonstrated from scripture.

You can use Scripture to prove a negative?

SD

[x5452]

That's pretty much it; obviously we do not adhere to the strict and full mosaic law, as Christ arrival changed many things in it, however we also recognize that there is a signifigant relevance to it, it's not simply history, and many aspects of the old law clearly do carry over. Though which are and are not is still debated among confessions.

[RobbyS]

Except that they adhere to Protestant--as differentiated from Catholic or Orthodox doctrines.I am thinking of sola scriptura and salvation by by grace alone as formulated by Martin Luther/ A certain respect is owed to Luther--wehose followers were the first to call themselves Protestants-- if you appropriate his thinking. In any case, some "Bible" churches call themselves Calvinists even if they can't express his doctrine of double predestination very clearly. (Englishmen tend to get muddled when they deal with French thinkers)

[SoothingDave]

I know that the king of the universe can and most likely spoke Aramaic. I would not build dogma on that fact however.

Then you are willfiully ignoring the very words spoken by Christ and documented in the New Testament. If that's where you want to make your stand, have at it.

SD

[SoothingDave]

What I can figure out is why so many are so against baptism. It is only one of the commands that Christ gave us.

Many get exercised about its application to infants. We present it as an absolute gift given to those completely incapable of having "earned" inclusion in God's people. And we're the ones who supposedly teach you have to merit your way to Heaven. Go figure.

SD

[magisterium]

"My friend...the myth is that Peter was in Rome. You cannot show me, from scripture, that this is not so"

Please. There is a mound of quotes from the early Church that says he WAS in Rome and died there. There is archaeological evidence, verified by highly secular forensic archaeologists, that a Christian memorial over, what early Christians understood to be the remains of Peter, was built approximately 80 years after his death, with overlap of the lifetimes of the builders and those who saw Peter buried MORE than merely possible. There is no other site in the Christian world that EVER claimed to have Peter's remains besides Rome. Yet none of this matters to you because the Bible doesn't mention any of this specifically.

Well, the Bible doesn't even "mention" that St. Peter died at all! Do you acknowledge that he did? After all, he'd be 2000 years old or so by now. That's getting SERIOUSLY along in years! If the criterion you advance about scriptural mention being needed to confirm a fact is valid, then, by your own logic, we must come to the conclusion that Peter never died. Nor did any other Apostle, apparently, except James the Brother of John, whose death IS mentioned in Acts 12. Sure, St. Paul was in a world of trouble at the end of Acts, but it doesn't *say* that he was ever executed.

Your logic is non-existent. The doings, travels and deaths of the Apostles are in NO WAY exhaustively chronicled in the New Testament. ALL of these men died. Only ONE has a specific mention of the event. I assure you, the early Christians took note of the deaths of ALL of the Apostles when they occured. Peter's martyrdom was NOT unnoticed by them. Neither was his burial place, since it was doubtless dug by them. All they had to do was keep the memory of that spot alive for 80 or so years before there is clear-cut archaeological evidence that a monument was built over the grave for *Peter*.

I'm 48 years old. By definition, I have no personal memory of anything before 1957 (actually, 1959, but I digress!). HOWEVER, I have perfectly reliable family memories of events in the lives of my grandparents, that took place in the 1910 timeframe, from the older sisters of my father - my aunts. That's 95 years ago. All of my aunts are now deceased, but their memories live on in my mind and the minds of their own children (even more so, obviously). At least the ones that seem significant. I submit that Peter's burial place would be "significant" to the Roman Christians, and they, just like me, would have NO TROUBLE remembering his Roman ministry and where he was buried.

*Why* do you discount their witness as if they had lied about the circumstances of St. Peter's life, death and burial in Rome?

[Uri’el-2012]

k04>The Bible only lists 3 regular people who made it to heaven already (Enoch, Elija, and Moses, and one maybe (one of the guys that was crucified alongside Jesus). The idea that people die and go straight to heaven is Biblically unsound and makes much of the New Testament and Christianity in generally moot.

SD>I'm not sure how you think this makes those things "moot."

In any event, have you ever really thought about the concept of eternity? The idea of "going straight to Heaven" or "going only after the end of the world" are meaningless ideas when contemplated from eternity. Eternity is not living for a long, long time. It is living outside of time. All moments are equally present from eternity.

SD

608 posted on 02/16/2006 9:55:10 AM MST by SoothingDave

I find myself agreeing with you, Dave.

From G-d's point of view as He is outside of our time and space,
having created our time and space,
all things happening in our timeline would seem to occur
at the the same "time" for the king of the universe.

This would permit free will for us in time and space
and G-d to pre-know our outcome.

b'shem Y'shua

[muawiyah]

It's that "properly baptised" part. You guys don't do it the same as we do it, so you are not properly baptised as well.

[wmfights]

"Please don't put words in my mouth. People are prone to error. The Magisterium with regard to faith and morals is not."

How do you explain their failure to recognize SCRIPTURE instructing us we are justified by faith alone.
________________________________________
"Christians will leave a church and form a new one, or join another denomination if they find doctrine contrary to SCRIPTURE.

Yet they keep on dividing and dividing, don't they? When will the protestant churches ever learn that all have sinned and that the holier than thou trick ends up with an increasingly smaller group of sinners?"

It seems that in the defense of your church you are the one claiming that it can't sin. Look above to your comment about the magisterium. Are you now recognizing your church is fallible?

BTW the fastest growing denominations in the world are Evangelical.
_______________________________
"God gave us the Church and His promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it."

You are wrong. GOD gave us JESUS CHRIST and because of our faith in him we are saved and become members of his CHURCH.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Just wanted to say that you can't be surprised others would not trust the Church's contention that Peter was in Rome? I would not blindly accept everything from Church fathers. I'd rather take a pick and choose approach. After all why would one accept everything from the same people that passed down immortality of souls or perpetual virginity to cite a couple of wacky examples. FYI I don't accept every rabbinical tradition passed down to me either. There's trememdous freedom in this approach.

[magisterium]

You said, sarcastically: "The unbelieving baby who dies before before a man gets his head wet is bound for Hell?"
And Soothing Dave responded: "No one ever said that. We have no particular revelation about this situation, but trust in the mercy of God."

This brings out an observation. Soothing Dave is correct when he says this, as the fate of unbaptized infants is not part of the Deposit of Faith, so the Church cannot make a formal pronouncement on the matter.

The Church is a custodian of the Deposit of Faith; it cannot make things up out of wholecloth. Since nothing was said on the matter during the Apostolic Era, nothing can be defined regarding it now. We must, as SD said, simply trust in the mercy of God here. The main reason for the postulation of the existence of Limbo was to explain this situation. It is merely an "educated guess," not a doctrine. People are free to accept (as I do, somewhat) or reject (as in, apparently Pope Benedict XVI) Limbo's reality as an explanation for this difficult question.

But notice: the same Church that so many non-Catholics castigate on this forum for "making up new doctrines" considers itself *incapable* of doing so in matters not in the Deposit of Faith. The issue of Limbo and the salvation of unbaptized infants is Exhibit A. It knows that it *can't* "just make stuff up." Hence the uncertainty in the Church's statements about unbaptized infants.

Everything the Church has defined as doctrine has either scriptural warrant or comes to us through the oral Tradition of the Deposit of Faith. Non-Catholics just cannot understand this or accept it, but it's their loss. They have a ship, and it floats, but the ship has no rudder and tosses to-and-fro "with every wind of doctrine," a la Ephesians 4:14, because unity and fidelity in faith is lacking (verse 13).