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!

[Quester]

The man who calls himself Cronos puts Bible believing Christians with Moslems rather stupidly.

No, he merely pointed out that Islam began as a Christian heresey, exposing the historical ignorance of a "Bible" Christian.

Certainly, ... such a view is quite debatable, ... as Mohammed was never a christian, ... and it is apparent that he only selectively referenced portions of either Jewish and/or Christian belief ... in the course of promulgating his new revelation (i.e. Islam).

In fact ... I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Islam is more connected to Judaism, rather than Chrisitanity ... seeing as Mohammed only accorded Jesus the role of prophet.

[Bainbridge]

As the original scriptures were plainly not written in the language that we are using, the entire Bible is a translation. This is obvious. The questions arise when there are different possibilities of emphasis, nuance, contextual meaning, among other thing. For Cronos to simply bat away the question regarding the meaning of Brothers and Sisters with " you don't get that it means cousin" is not much of a response. You are plainly not interested in convincing others, as you are already on board what you believe to be the one true church and do not think you should try to make your points winsomely. The notion that one is historically illiterate not to concur with Bellocs premise that Islam and Protestantism are related " heresies" is more of you talking to yourself. That is an opinion, not a commonly held view.
I am confused by your then citing the ,in my opinion, false religion of Islam to bolster your Marian beliefs.
You stated in your " disclosure" that you had succumbed to the lies of the Navigators. To lie is to intend to deceive
this implies that they knew that what they told you was not so and did it anyway. Do you actually believe that? I do not believe that the serious Catholics here are lying. I believe that we both see the evidence of reality and Scripture and come away with different takes. Someone has to be wrong on the issues that are absolute. But to say they lied to you shows no charity, and will repel those trying to engage in discussion about points, both doctrinal and theological.

[SoothingDave]

Certainly, ... such a view is quite debatable, ... as Mohammed was never a christian, ... and it is apparent that he only selectively referenced portions of either Jewish and/or Christian belief ... in the course of promulgating his new revelation (i.e. Islam).

Let me put it this way, perhaps more accurately. Islam spread as a heretical form of Christianity among Christian people in the East. So it needed to be understood and combated as a mutation of the Christian beliefs it piggybacked onto.

The severe monotheism found a fertile ground in the minds of the people where Arian views once held sway.

SD

[Bainbridge]

A Roman Catholic named Hilaire Belloc wrote a book call The Great Heresies. It includes Islam and Protestantism.
Many of the more ardent traditionalist RC's subscribe to his theories. The very " conservative" EWTN station offers it in an online version as does some outfit called " marianland".

[SoothingDave]

As the original scriptures were plainly not written in the language that we are using, the entire Bible is a translation. This is obvious.

Yes, it is.

The questions arise when there are different possibilities of emphasis, nuance, contextual meaning, among other thing.

Yes, again. Many of the more unlearned can't grasp this and really do think that whatever the English seems to mean must always be what it means.

I see you are not in that class, and apologize for thinking you were.

For Cronos to simply bat away the question regarding the meaning of Brothers and Sisters with " you don't get that it means cousin" is not much of a response.

Well, these conversations do go around and round. Simply stating his case may not be much of a response for someone who wants to argue the particular sense of a Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic word. But for most people, stuck in their own tongue, to be jarred into thinking differently may work.

You are plainly not interested in convincing others, as you are already on board what you believe to be the one true church and do not think you should try to make your points winsomely.

I call them like I see them. When people put forth specious arguments, I call them on it. You seem to be about the same, perhaps that is why we are now engaged.

The notion that one is historically illiterate not to concur with Bellocs premise that Islam and Protestantism are related " heresies" is more of you talking to yourself. That is an opinion, not a commonly held view.

It's all opinions here, isn't it? Certainly to claim that Islam has nothing to do with Christianity is historically illiterate. Again, I call 'em like I see 'em. And not every criticism I have of every Protestant is a criticism of you personally.

I am confused by your then citing the ,in my opinion, false religion of Islam to bolster your Marian beliefs.

I am confused as well. I merely pointed out that people who share a common culture and language family might have a better insight into what their words and concepts (like "brother") mean than we do. In no way was I using Islam to bolster any argument about Mary. Perhaps you can't seperate my arguments about language from those about religion.

You stated in your " disclosure" that you had succumbed to the lies of the Navigators.

I suppose you meant something when you wrote this. What that might have been remains a mystery. What are you talking about?

To lie is to intend to deceive this implies that they knew that what they told you was not so and did it anyway. Do you actually believe that? I do not believe that the serious Catholics here are lying. I believe that we both see the evidence of reality and Scripture and come away with different takes. Someone has to be wrong on the issues that are absolute. But to say they lied to you shows no charity, and will repel those trying to engage in discussion about points, both doctrinal and theological.

Whom did I accuse of lying? What are you talking about?

SD

[jo kus]

For it is certainly possible to cherry-pick through the scriptures ... in order to find support for any of a variety of beliefs. However, the christian who is open to the message of God ... will be disposed to look at all of the scriptural evidence ... and so, can be brought to faith (or a deeper understanding) through study of the scriptures, IMHO.

Of course it is possible. It is natural for people to approach Scripture with SOME preconceived notion of Who God is - because we have all HEARD the Word according to other people. I would find it difficult to believe that someone took the Bible off the library shelf, unknowing of what is was, read it, and come to what GOD intended for it to mean. Proof of that is the many various heresies that Christianity has experienced, seen even in the New Testament (like 1 John or Jude or Colossians or Revelations readily come to mind). I sincerly doubt that man can read the Scriptures without some "Tradition" that came before to intepret it - even Protestants accept much of what has come before.

And God used Paul's preaching ... and the existing scriptures ... to bring the Bereans to faith.

Of course. But it is not the Scriptures that provided the Bereans with the faith. It was God granting faith to men and those men open to God's word. The Scriptures certainly were involved in confirming Paul's proclamation, like when Paul could have pointed to the Suffering Servant passages and say "see, the Messiah, the Christ, was SUPPOSED to suffer and die". Now, it is up to the men to determine if Isaiah REALLY meant this passage refering to the future Messiah OR the nation of Israel. Thus, the Scriptures alone are not enough. One can conceivably argue for or against the Suffering Servant passages as being applied to Jesus. WE believe they are.

I do not get the sense that these Thessalonican Jews ... who traveled to Berea to stir up sentiment against Paul ... were, in any way, ... truly searching for the truth of God.

I would say they were similar to Saul - before the conversion. They were zealous for God - their idea of God. They saw themselves as the defender of the true faith, the Jewish faith that continued to express itself through the Law, not faith in a slain leader who supposedly rose from the dead. From THEIR point of view, they thought they were interpreting the Scriptures quite correctly! That is the problem with Scripture alone. To read the Scriptures properly, it must be done within the contexts of the witnesses who have gone before us - to the Apostles - who we believe actually witnessed the glorious Christ in person. This is all based on faith, of course. It is not something that is "proveable", although there is plenty of converging evidence that aids our intellect.

Well ... first I think that we must agree ... that these disciples would already have possessed some undertanding and acceptance of Jesus' message.

I am not so sure. I have been involved in Mark lately, so that is my current context - and those disciples were quite confused on who Jesus was, even AFTER the resurrection! I don't think the disciples knew the link between Christ and the Scriptures - remember the words of the Lord? "Didn't the Christ have to suffer and die"? He asked this as if the disciples did not believe or understand this (although Christ had told them that He would).

Scripture is, clearly, ... a tool in the hand of God ... as is any other method of revelation which He chooses. My view on this issue is one which is much more in line with regarding Scripture as the primary source of God's truth (i.e. in the sense of it being the final arbiter in one's search to obtain the truths of God).

I am sure you will agree it is a very powerful "tool"! I agree that it is a primary source of God's truth and in a sense, is the final arbiter of doctrine. Thus, you won't find the Church proclaiming that Jesus was in the tomb for a week. Nothing that God has revealed can contradict what is in Scriptures. Of course, Scriptures can be interpreted in different ways. For example, Catholics interpret John 6 in one way, Protestants in another. How does the Scripture become the final arbiter then?

I came to Christ through the teaching ministry of those whom God placed in my life ... but I have come to a deeper knowledge of His truth by the study of the scriptures.

Well said.

Brother in Christ

[wmfights]

"Note -- Catholics ARE Christians. The Apostolic Churches (from East to west) are:"
_______________________________________
I use to think so, but the more I've studied SCRIPTURE and seen the deviations from SCRIPTURE and promotion of its own institution in the Roman Catholic Church I'm not so sure that's true. BTW if you ask a Roman Catholic what they are more often than not they will say "Catholic" not Christian.

[tenn2005]

Did he also point out that the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?

[wmfights]

"REally, then what was YOUR interpretation about Christ's "brothers and sisters" and why do you believe in the Trinity? And didn't the ECUMENICAL COUNCILS determine what was in the Bible (before the Protestants gen 1 removed the Apocryphea)?"
______________________________________
Seems pretty straight forward.

The Ecumenical Councils recognized SCRIPTURE for what it was. They did NOT make SCRIPTURE GOD'S WORD.

[wmfights]

"If your church has had heretical popes in its history, who is to say your current pope couln't be heretical? I am not saying he is at all. I am simply asking why do you blindly trust any man simply because of the title bestowed upon him when history records those bearing the same title have been blatantly out of line with scriptural teaching?"
____________________________

GREAT POINT!

[Quester]

Well ... first I think that we must agree ... that these disciples would already have possessed some undertanding and acceptance of Jesus' message.

I am not so sure. I have been involved in Mark lately, so that is my current context - and those disciples were quite confused on who Jesus was, even AFTER the resurrection! I don't think the disciples knew the link between Christ and the Scriptures - remember the words of the Lord? "Didn't the Christ have to suffer and die"? He asked this as if the disciples did not believe or understand this (although Christ had told them that He would).

… some undertanding and acceptance of Jesus' message :^)

Of course, Scriptures can be interpreted in different ways. For example, Catholics interpret John 6 in one way, Protestants in another. How does the Scripture become the final arbiter then?

Perhaps no further arbitration is needed at this point.

Perhaps … it shall endure as … a mystery.

[Bainbridge]

My most humble apologies. I conflated you with your co-religionist Mark O'malley. Same tone overall( just reread the posts : see his in 795.)
I will stop indulging myself in this as you do not consider me a worthy opponent, and I know when I am licked. Back to my tasks, Protestant work ethic , ya know!

[AlaninSA]

BTW if you ask a Roman Catholic what they are more often than not they will say "Catholic" not Christian.

It's all in how you frame the question. Asking someone what type of church they attend will always result in hearing Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran or, in the case of the non-denominational megachurches along the north side of my town, "Christian Bible."

My point is that saying that Catholics self-identify as Catholics is a strawman - you could say the same thing about nearly all of the non-Catholic Christians as well.

[wmfights]

"Both of us have a hard enough time trying to defend the Apostolic Faith against the invective-laced, non-sequitur filled, doctrinally and historically misinformed avalanche of posts directed at us by our Protestant brethren daily on this forum. Neither of our groups hijacks their threads as they often do ours, or has more than a trace of the malice or disingenuous feigning of "misunderstanding" they so often demonstrate to stir the pot."
_________________________________
If you can't stand an open discussion then please indicate on all your threads "Roman Catholics Only".

[AlaninSA]

Did he also point out that the Catholic church began as a Christian heresey?

What misguided protestant televangelist told you that?

[jo kus]

… some undertanding and acceptance of Jesus' message :^)

Coupled with the other Gospels, I think we can see that the Apostles thought He was the Christ - but ONLY because God had revealed it through Peter (Mt 16:16-18), not their OWN thoughts and ideas of what the Messiah would be - remember right after this what Peter said, in both Mat 16 and Mark 8. "You are thinking as man thinks, not as God". Thus, I think THEY were not very clear on God's plan. We, after the resurrection and the witness of many generations before us, can make the determination from Scriptures much easier. But we have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight! It appears to me when reading the Gospels that even the Apostles had very little clue - the Suffering Servant made no sense to them - just as I say that to a resistant Jew in Thessalonika, it wouldn't make sense either.

The point - Scripture alone didn't "teach" the Word of God. It was ONLY the re-interpretation of the OT writings, "properly understood in light of Christ's Death and Resurrection" that anyone would realize that the Christians possessed the truth. But for every prophesy of the OT, for every passage that "points" to Christ, a "non-believer" could issue another point of view or interpretation of the same passage and deny that it had any relevance to Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, brother, it is faith, activated by hearing the Good News (not reading the Scriptures) that begins to change one's paradigm, to become Christian, in the face of persecution and opposition from his former Jewish friends and family.

Perhaps no further arbitration is needed at this point. Perhaps … it shall endure as … a mystery.

Well, then the Bereans would have never been considered noble if they never made a decision, correct?

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

the more I've studied SCRIPTURE and seen the deviations from SCRIPTURE and promotion of its own institution in the Roman Catholic Church I'm not so sure that's true

The deviation exists only in your personal interpretation. Men quite easily read two or more different meanings from the same Scripture verse. For example, how do you read:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

Seems pretty clear on interpreting what He meant. But you will no doubt say we deviate from Scripture here, as well. The point is that Scripture is subject to interpretation - and even clear-cut verses are taken to mean something totally different by people who claim to be led by the Spirit...

Regards

[wmfights]

"the more I've studied SCRIPTURE and seen the deviations from SCRIPTURE and promotion of its own institution in the Roman Catholic Church I'm not so sure that's true

The deviation exists only in your personal interpretation. Men quite easily read two or more different meanings from the same Scripture verse. For example, how do you read:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54"
_______________________________

When did transubstantiation become dogma in the Roman Catholic Church?

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Roman Catholic deviations in:
1. Mariology and immaculate conception
2. Creating additional sacraments
3. Failing to correct the mistranslations of Jerome
4. Indulgences
5. Authority of the Pope

[magisterium]

"If you can't stand an open discussion then please indicate on all your threads "Roman Catholics Only"."


Open discussion? Bring it on. Controversial issues? Whatcha got? But it gets tiresome to see the same people asking the same questions, not in a way that looks to be genuinely seeking an answer, but demonstrating over and over some background familiarity and then pretending that the concept involved is all new to the questioner. It gets more than a little annoying when venom is thrown at us, as tenn has done repeatedly on this thread, for example, while coming from a background that displays profound ignorance of even the basics of that which is railed against. Finally, it is a simple fact that the hijacking of Catholic threads here is not reciprocated by us with yours, but a goodly chunk of Catholic threads have their reason for existence totally turned around by people who really have NO vested interest in the matter. Remember this one, from just the past week: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1567919/posts ? I ask you, what would a non-Catholic care about postulated miracles from JP II's possible intercession leading to evidence for his canonization? Yet look at what that thread became! Before post 50, it was off and running toward developing into something *completely* off-point. This was accomplished with a Protestant hijacking, where the theme was successfully changed to a back-and-forth between us over points having *nothing* to do with the original post.

That's a quick example, as I have far less time to fool around here on FR today than I did yesterday. There are more than a few such examples each week, however.

[markomalley]

You stated in your " disclosure" that you had succumbed to the lies of the Navigators. To lie is to intend to deceive this implies that they knew that what they told you was not so and did it anyway. Do you actually believe that? I do not believe that the serious Catholics here are lying. I believe that we both see the evidence of reality and Scripture and come away with different takes. Someone has to be wrong on the issues that are absolute. But to say they lied to you shows no charity, and will repel those trying to engage in discussion about points, both doctrinal and theological.

I believe you did get the two of us confused. LOL

I also believe your post did not accurately reflect what I said, On a personal note, there is one thing you need to recognize: I had a horrible catechesis as a child and fell victim to a group of Navigators while living in a college dorm. As a result of this, I fell into the trap of being in various fundamentalist/evangelical groups for years.

You will please note that I clearly did not use nor imply the term 'liar.' I stated that I fell victim to a group of Navigators.

I later on stated the following: And, of course, when I actually understood the doctrine, I found that most of what I was deceived with first, by the Navigators, and secondly, by a host of various fundamentalist/evangelical groups, were based on rather transparent lies.

You will again note that I did not call either the Navigators nor 'various fundamentalist/evangelical groups' either liars or deceivers.

Having said that, the anti-Catholic rhetoric they spewed was 99% based on lies, distortions, and deceptions. But that is not the same as an accusation of them being liars, distorters, or deceivers. On the contrary, I actually believe both those groups I was involved with for a few years, and my anti-Catholic FReeper colleagues, are all very sincere and are truly concerned with the souls of those of us who are in the historic, apostolic Church.

A person could be brought up to use the word 'Green' when he sees the color the rest of us call 'Blue.' He can be very adamant about the fact that he is seeing 'Green' -- but that doesn't stop him from being wrong and propagating a lie -- he just doesn't realize that it's a lie he's propagating. A child, raised as a member of the Soviet Nomenklatura, could believe that his way of life is the truth...even fight a war over it...the person would actually be the sincerest person in the world, but what this child of the old Soviet elite would be fighting for would still be a lie.

I believe that Jack Chick, Bob Jones, Ian Paisley, et al, are all very sincere people. I am confident that they believe they are doing the Lord's work. But I also know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the information they spread is false (i.e., a lie). So, although Jack Chick, Bob Jones, Ian Paisley, et al, are not liars, if I believe the crap they spew, I have been deceived. Further, what I was deceived with were lies.

Does that make it a bit clearer for you?