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!

[wmfights]

"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."
___________________________________

Two quick points:
1. What was the title of this thread?
"Where have all the Protestants gone?"
Sounds like an invite for Christians to discuss issues with Roman Catholics to me.

2. You accuse those who disagree with you of being "ignorant", "disingenuous" or "vitriolic". Aren't you the one displaying the intolerance?

[PleaseNoMore]

Isn't the number of Catholics determined by baptisms of members, some of whom are not actively involved in the church?

[Quester]

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.

I would argue that the Good News can be found ... in the scriptures.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Is it your belief that one cannot hear the gospel from the scripture ?

Do you suggest that there is some difference between hearing the gospel through one's ears ... and reading the gospel through one's eyes ?

BTW ... I would agree that the Bereans' scriptural search acted to confirm the gospel as preached to them by Paul.

Is it your belief ... that the Bereans' scriptural searching ... made no difference in their spiritual outcome ?

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?

I would presume that the Bereans ... made a decision for Christ.

Is it your belief ... that the Bereans made some sort of decision concerning the Eucharist or needed to ?

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

When did transubstantiation become dogma in the Roman Catholic Church?

That is not pertinent to the question regarding the interpretation of John 6:53-54. The question is "Why don't you interpret it the way it is clearly written in the Bible"? Regarding the rest of your points, I don't see how ANY of them go AGAINST the Scripures. Perhaps you disagree that they are there, but none of them contradict the Scriptures, unlike Protestant Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, which are clearly AGAINST the Scriptures.

Perhaps I should be asking you "Why do you as a Protestant go against the Scriptures"?

Regards

[magisterium]

I wasn't speaking specifically about THIS thread being hijacked. I grant you that this thread IS an "open season" one as far as position defending goes. But, as I said, there ARE many Catholic threads getting hijacked on FR with virtually no reciprocation on our part. I stand by the assertion.

Meanwhile, I do not accuse those who disagree with the Catholic position on the issues as being "ignorant," etc. Serious posters and honest questioners are not even considered in what I said. An objective run-through of this loooonnngg thread should demonstrate my contentions amply.

[jo kus]

I would argue that the Good News can be found ... in the scriptures.

No doubt! And they were given the proper means of looking at the Suffering Servant verses. Thus, other men came to the Bereans, taught by word of mouth the proclamation of the Gospel, it touched the hearts of these Jews, they looked at their Scriptures, meditated on it, discussed it, prayed on it, and began to believe in the Word, due to the faith that God had given them as initially brought to them by hearing (faith comes through hearing).

Is it your belief that one cannot hear the gospel from the scripture ?

To an uninitiated reader, there is a lot of "noise" that can give a person an incorrect reading of WHOM God is and His attributes, for example. Many people thought that the God of the OT was not the same God of the NT. Only by correct teaching were they able to bring the two Testaments together as one integrated whole. Only with external teachings and witness could they receive the correct "lense" to view Scripture through. We take this for granted, 2000 years removed, when we fail to realize that much of our beliefs come from our background and experience with others, and not so much our diligent study of Scriptures. Otherwise, why do so many people believe that by faith ALONE, we are saved? Or that the Eucharist is NOT the Real Presence, despite it being there in plain words? People, even Protestants, have a tradition that they read Scriptures through.

Is it your belief ... that the Bereans' scriptural searching ... made no difference in their spiritual outcome ?

I would say it was secondary. The Bereans AND the Thessalonicans BOTH knew the Scriptures, but the former were open to another way of interpretation - while the latter were not, being more like Paul before his conversion.

Is it your belief ... that the Bereans made some sort of decision concerning the Eucharist or needed to ?

I would presume that they followed what Paul taught, and Paul taught the Real Presence of the Eucharist, as did every other writer that mentions the subject up until the into the next millenium. Paul didn't teach a different Gospel than John 6. I don't think they "excluded" the teachings of the Eucharist - given that they believed that Paul's teachings were from God - likely expressed in the Power of the Spirit. Thus, they accepted all that was given.

Brother in Christ

[tenn2005]

The historical writings of the Catholic Church.

[AlaninSA]

Care to cite a source?

[tenn2005]

Check out the writings of your own church fathers. As time passes you will find them deviating more and more from the scriptures, such a veneration of Mary, asigning people sainthood after then are dear and the false doctrine of Apostolic sucession to name a few.

[AlaninSA]

Share a source, not a vague reference to something like "early church writings."

The Catholic Church is an ancient, large Church. Being ambiguous makes me think you're simply tossing out an accusation you are unable to back up.

[kosta50]

Unfortunately, because of the Eastern schism, the council that took that decision could not be a truly "ecumenical" council (as with all the other councils that preceded it for the past 900 years)

You speak my language, brother. However, it will be difficult to convene the Eight Ecumenical Council when the West has held to the belief that all the councils after 1054 have been "ecumenical."

[tenn2005]

Do you mean to tell me that, as a Catholic you need me, a poor dumb and misinformed christian, to guide you to the source of the doctrine which you espouse? Surely you have concrete information to support your beliefs.

[AlaninSA]

No, I'm aware of my Church's doctrine. I'm certain that you are not. I'd like to see you quote the source of the accusation you make.

It's a lie if you're unable to back it up with source material.

[tenn2005]

Do you deny the theachings of the Catholic church that I gave you as examples? Do hold them to be true? If that is the case then you need to be showing where in the Bible these teachings come from. I didn't make them up. Your church did. And you need to chill out and take a deep breath.

[AlaninSA]

The statement you made that the Catholic Church began as a Christian heresy is simply unfounded, inaccurate and smells of a Chick tract.

Yet you insist that it's part of Catholic teachings.

Can you or can you not cite the source of that statement?

You clearly cannot back it up. Again, show me where - in accordance with our Church teachings - we Catholics believe that our Church began as a Christian heresy.

[Campion]

As time passes you will find them deviating more and more from the scriptures ... the false doctrine of Apostolic sucession

Apostolic succession is taught in Scripture. Who do you think appointed the overseers (= bishops). The Apostles did!

But more to the point, one of the most vehement defenders of Apostolic succession was Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, who was a disciple of Jesus. So three generations (and about 150 years) removed from the "beloved disciple" reclining on Jesus' breast, the true message had already been lost? And you think you've recovered it 2000 years later?

Doubtful, friend. Doubtful.

[tenn2005]

The word bishop, which you like used is translater elder in many cases. These men were not appointed by the apostles. That is unless you consider Timothy and Titus to be apostles. Peter calls himself an elder and an apostle. (I Peter 5:1) Do a little more Bible research and then get back to me.

[gscc]

And didn't the ECUMENICAL COUNCILS determine what was in the Bible (before the Protestants gen 1 removed the Apocryphea)?

I note you use the term apocrypha which means noncanonical.   It must be stressed that these books were not considered canonical by the Jews.  The church inherited the canonical books from God's Old Covenant people, the Jews. (God also gave the church additional books, the New Testament, which completes the Holy Bible).  Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.  Jerome stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. More damning was his statement that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture".  Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the canonical books. The Catholic Church itself did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500's.  Luther did not remove these books - he merely returned them to the status that Jerome recognized.  The RC Church has used them as an authority for bad doctrine - to establish doctrine that inspired doctrine would not give authority to.

[Jaded]

yeah but only when it's convenient.

[Bainbridge]

I am able to comprehend the meaning of your words.As to whether or not I accept and agree with you is another matter. As I mentioned to Mr. Soothing Dave,I believe that this exercise has arrived at a place where it is in fact fruitless.