Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by 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!
Be my guest but try using some scriptures, not Catholic theology as amunition.
Huh? Are you a troll?
Fair enough. Since you earlier posted quotes from The Trail Of Blood do you believe this non biblical source is an accurate account of The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day?
Cor 12 says there is one body. Jesus Christ is the head of that body. I believe we agree on that.
Christ is preached in your church. I am certain of that. Christ is preached in my church. You can be certain of that. We should be thankful that the name of Christ is preached in both places. (Phil 1:18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice.)
IMHO, that is the bottom line.
Absolutely ...Pilippians 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.Where-ever Christ is preached, ... there is a membership of His body.
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
I am a Christian who is neither Catholic nor Protestant.
My, my, my. Are we a little upset when presented with the truch about our apostate church?
I have never even heard of the Trail of Blood, let alone posted anything from it. You must have me confused with someone else
I really didn't want to get into this again...but you are just plain wrong in your assertions. I don't want to tarry too long with you, but here's a couple of examples pertaining to relics:
Act 5:15 so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.
Act 19:11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,
Act 19:12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.
2Ki 13:20 So Eli'sha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year.
2Ki 13:21 And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Eli'sha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Eli'sha, he revived, and stood on his feet.
Those are ONLY THREE examples of the use of relics in the Bible. There are more.
(sigh) Really and truly my FRiend, you should make sure that you know what you're talking about before casting stones.
It is called Holy Scripture - God breathed and not the tradition of man or your church. God did not need your church or any man to convey His Word to His people. You misunderstand that those who He conveyed His Word through were tools in His hand and not the authors of Holy Scripture. That you believe your church decided what was Scripture and what was not is just another example of the arrogance of a church that worships itself.
You know, this has become an excerise in futility. Different people keep making the same baseless assertions and people keep giving them Scripture references that they ignore. They don't actually want to know they just want spout Boettener and Chick.
The authority for healing is not of hankerchiefs or aprons or in whoever owned them - the authority is from God. Remember you worship a jealous God and by placing your faith in relics or by bowing in front of a graven image or by using any intermediary between yourself and God other than the Lord Jesus you go against His commands.
Exodus 20:3
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Matthew 4:8-10
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."
(sigh)...I begin to think that you'd rather see Catholics in hell than atheists. I can just feel the love coming through here...
Once again, the same statement made above applies here:
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Jhn 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
1Cr 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
Three more verses to show where you are mistaken...
Could it be that God has blessed this nation which is majority Protestant.
A country that embraces abortion and homosexuality? I cannot fathom God blessing this nation, morally vile as it is.
Well ... of course God has blessed this nation ... and continues to do so.
That He does so is surely not a testament to our national perfection, ... but because America, most recently of all nations, has been the source for the majority of christian endeavor, ... particularly since of the fall of Europe into it's post-christian era.
And certainly it is not, necessarily, America herself, ... which has embraced moral evil, ... but rather, it's (particularly judicial) leadership.
Note that Satan has struck most effectively via our nation's unelected leaders.
It has always been debatable whether the people of America have ever really embraced abortion (though certainly some have) ... and our last national election apparently turned (to the good) ... upon the issue of not allowing gays to encroach upon the godly institution of marriage.
We are, even now, taking back some of the ground that the liberals have stolen over the last 35 years.
You define tradition as the Pharisees defined tradition - tradition, however, is the teaching that the apostles learned from the mouth of the Lord - it is what the Lord has handed down to us as Holy Scripture. Tradition is not the tradition of man. Jesus let the pharisees know what He thought of their tradition.
1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.