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!

[Conservative til I die]

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.

1) The Gospels contain all the words Christ ever spoke? If so, He sure didn't say much in 3 years of ministry.

2) Why should I accept your view as authoritative that the only things Christ said are in the Bible? Were you around when Christ comissioned (or didn't comission) His Apostles?

3) Christ also respected the Pharisees' authority and told His followers to respect it as well, however, he did have an issue with their conduct (hypocrisy, mostly).

4) It's up for debate, but many historians and scholars believe Jesus belonged to the Pharasiac branch of Judaism.

[gscc]

Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture - God-Breathed - imparted through fallible men to fallible men. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Scripture is our authority: "Not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God" (1 Thess. 2: 13).

You do not believe that Scripture was not in extant until it was written down - it is what Jesus taught His disciples and what the apostles, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit led them to write down. Scripture didn't become Scripture when the RC Church determined it was Scripture. It was Scripture when God breathed it through Paul's teaching, through Luke's writings etc.

[markomalley]

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.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I define tradition in the authentic way: tradition is the oral tradition handed down by the apostles. The authentic definition of authentic tradition. Not the counterfeit traditions of men that "lead captive silly women laiden with sins" (1 Tim 3:6). We are instructed to "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Vain traditions of men, such as those that have come to pass in many new religious movements of the past 500 years, do just that.

Unfortunately, there are many who are so deceived by the evil in these new religions that they are unable to recognize the truth when they see it. Just as the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts and managed to beguile Eve (cf 2 Cor 11:3), those who built that false theology are subtle so to deceive Christ's Church. It's understandable and, in fact, the Apostle warns us of such men coming in the latter times when he said, "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." (cf 2 Cor 11:13-14)

But it's not a matter of grave concern: God has promised us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. (Matt 16:18)

But, as a brother in Christ, I need to caution you in the words of St. Peter, the first Pope, who stated " There are some things in them (St. Paul's letters) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." (2 Pe 3:15). The only way to be certain that you are not deceived is to be dilligent, cutting straight the Word of Truth (2 Ti 2:15) and avoiding the vain and profane babblings of heretics (2 Ti 2:16). The way to do this is through being careful to stay with the historic and authentic teachings of the apostolic Church -- whether the teachings come from Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, or Alexandria is not as important as to ensure that the teachers have the apostolic roots. After all, it was to the apostles that our Lord stated, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Jn 16:13) and that the Spirit would show all things unto the apostles (Jn 16:15). Thus St. Peter gave the caution to "beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability." (2 Pe 3:16)

[Quester]

I've been meaning for weeks to touch on this America-self worship stuff. It's a kind of Protestant-lite sort of Dominionism. As if America is the most loved because we vote and have lots of money and property. It's such a myopic worldview and not dissimilar to how American liberal Catholics view things, as if America is the center of the Catholic world rather than about 5% of it.

And as to Christian endeavor? Joel Osteen books and Pat Robertson TV shows aren't what I'd consider great endeavors. I don't really see what America is contributing to the larger world on a religious level. It's all pretty self-contained.

America has been the base of the christian world's missionary and charitable endeavor for decades now.

As to it being only the politicians (surely only the Democrats, of course) and judges that have embraced evil, think again. On abortion a very good portion of this country accepts it in at least some form. The fight's been lost for decades on contraception. Pretty soon we'll lose it on gay marriage, and shortly after that cloning. And it's not because some politician forced it on us.

This country is in a decrepit moral state, no matter what the unemployment rate or the GDP is. I can't speak for God, but my best guess is he doesn't really care how much the dollar is worth and if manufacturing is up, when he judges a people. This country beter wake up, morally before something happens that'll put 9/11, Katrina, and that tsunami to shame.

I don't believe that I mentioned the unemployment rate or the GDP ... although it is doubtless that America currently holds the most promise of any country of the world, both in terms of material and spiritual blessing.

Much moreso than any of the old Catholic strongholds in Europe ... or even in liberal Canada.

I don't deny that America has it's flaws ... but for right now ... God still uses us.

Of course I cannot predict the future, but it looks like we're turning some corners ... and I pray that God will continue to bless us ... with His spirit, His provision, ... and His protection, ... for decades to come.

[gscc]

The way to do this is through being careful to stay with the historic and authentic teachings of the apostolic Church -- whether the teachings come from Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, or Alexandria is not as important as to ensure that the teachers have the apostolic roots.

The difference being obvious that Scripture tells me to examine the Scriptures every day to see if what is taught is true.  You defer to your church.  Jesus warned the Pharisees of abrogating the Word of God through their own traditions - to avoid these teachings it is apparent He would have us examine their teachings against Scripture.  It seems therefore if a church promulgates dogma that does not conform to Scripture I am commanded to examine it against the Word of God.  The Bereans examined Paul's teaching against the Scriptures that God had entrusted the Jewish people with.  Yet you take just the opposite approach.  You would take the teachings of the Pharisees and blindly follow them even if they circumvent or abrogate the Law of God..

Acts 17:10-12

10As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

[markomalley]

The difference being obvious that Scripture tells me to examine the Scriptures every day to see if what is taught is true. You defer to your church. Jesus warned the Pharisees of abrogating the Word of God through their own traditions - to avoid these teachings it is apparent He would have us examine their teachings against Scripture. It seems therefore if a church promulgates dogma that does not conform to Scripture I am commanded to examine it against the Word of God. The Bereans examined Paul's teaching against the Scriptures that God had entrusted the Jewish people with. Yet you take just the opposite approach. You would take the teachings of the Pharisees and blindly follow them even if they circumvent or abrogate the Law of God..

Acts 17:10-12

10As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

---

See, here we go again. As is the habit of so many people (who were undoubtedly taught incorrectly), you pull a scripture out of context and then make it the source of your dogma.

To understand what St. Luke was relating, you must understand the context. A re-reading of the account of Paul in Thessalonica is important to understand what is being talked about when he fled that city and went to Boerea. Some of the Thessalonian Jews, when Paul preached in their synagogue that Jesus was the fulfillment of OT prophecy, didn't check to see if he was giving them good information; instead, they got angry and got a crowd together, went to Jason's house, and wanted to do something (it doesn't say what) to Paul. The Boereans, instead, checked through the OT prophecies for themselves. Frankly, there are a couple of folks on this thread who have acted like the Thessalonian rabble rousers, when those of us who are members of the apostolic churches have tried to explain, using scripture, our beliefs. Rather than checking for themselves, they instantly go on the attack.

Does the scripture, when you read the WHOLE context of Acts 17, state that they proofed each and every word out of Paul's mouth? No it doesn't. The context for this assertion starts in Acts 17:2

Act 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,

Act 17:3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."

The Boereans checked the scriptures (the OT prophecies) to validate what Paul was saying about Jesus being the Messiah. And that example is exactly what you should be doing: I've made a number of assertions, either directly quoting scripture or giving reference to it. You should check what I've asserted to see if I accurately quoted those scriptures! And if I haven't, then you should call me on it.

---

One thing that I just don't think you are grasping is that Sacred Tradition cannot be at odds with Sacred Scripture. There is no member of the apostolic churches who would ever assert that this was the case. I've shown you already where the apostle exhorted us to pay heed to what he taught, whether in writing or orally. My exhortation to you is to actually look at Tradition, to actually pull up dogmatic works, and to check them. All Modern doctrinal works put out, at least by the Vatican (I'm afraid I can't say one way or the other for the other patriarchies), are extensively cross-referenced. Follow the footnotes. They will, at some point, lead you back to scripture. If you find something that you believe IS offensive to scripture, make sure you understand what it is you're criticizing...then lay it out...

I don't go to Catholic sources to provide specific criticism about Protestants. I will either go to the Protestant source or go to the Scriptures. I would encourage you to do the same: don't go to some Protestant Ian Paisley-type source to criticize Catholic doctrine: check it out for yourself!

FWIW...and YMMV...

[AlaninSA]

No, a bit disgusted when confronted by an ignorant bigot...(that would be you).

[NYer]

They don't actually want to know they just want spout Boettener and Chick.

An excellent observation. I am reminded of Doug Gonzales, a former Nazarene, who totally bought into the Jack Chick comics. His conversion to the Catholic Church, falls into the category of 'extraordinary'. He sympathizes with others who, like him, believe these tracts and is actively trying to correct the situation. You can hear his conversion story at EWTN's link to The Journey Home.

[gscc]

I don't go to Catholic sources to provide specific criticism about Protestants. I will either go to the Protestant source or go to the Scriptures. I would encourage you to do the same: don't go to some Protestant Ian Paisley-type source to criticize Catholic doctrine: check it out for yourself!

Sorry to disappoint you, like the Boreans I go to Scripture as the source to criticize false teachings.  When scripture tells me: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5)  I am then able to see that a doctrine that promulgates Mary and saints as intercessors as a false teaching.

I am also able to discern not to call a religious teacher "Father" or "Holy" for there is no one but God that deserves this honor.  I can see doctrine promulgated that permits the ordination of women or homosexuals and can discern from scripture that this wrong.  I can see someone praying before an  image and I can clearly discern because I "examined the Scriptures" every day that this is wrong.

See, here we go again. As is the habit of so many people (who were undoubtedly taught incorrectly), you pull a scripture out of context and then make it the source of your dogma.

When discussing taking scripture out of context your church has built a house of cards on the poor exegesis of Matthew 16:18

[gscc]

They don't actually want to know they just want spout Boettener and Chick.

This cry always reminds of the definition of a racist:

A racist is a conservative that is winning the debate with a liberal.

[tenn2005]

I am glad that you made it clear that it was me. I first thought you had been looking in the mirror.

[PleaseNoMore]

Your three verses do not (necessarily) bolster your argument of tradition as is practiced in the Catholic church.

Paul was speaking of the laws, ordinances and precepts he had previously given to the bodies he was addressing. He was not speaking of ritualistic practices or customs.

References to "tradition" in scripture:

The decisions and minor precepts taught by Paul
1Cr 11:2
R. V.) 2Th 2:15; 3:6

Commandments of men
Mat 12:1-8; 15:2-6; Mar 7:3-9; Luk 6:1-11; Col 2:8; 1Pe 1:18

Not authoritative
Mat 15:3-20; 1Ti 1:4; 4:7

Strong's Number: 3862 Greek: paradosis

"a handing down or on" (akin to paradidomi, "to hand over, deliver"), denotes "a tradition," and hence, by metonymy, (a) "the teachings of the rabbis," interpretations of the Law, which was thereby made void in practice, Mat 15:2,3,6; Mar 7:3,5,8,9,13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8; (b) of "apostolic teaching," 1Cr 11:2, RV, "traditions" (AV, "ordinances"), of instructions concerning the gatherings of believers (instructions of wider scope than ordinances in the limited sense); in 2Th 2:15, of Christian doctrine in general, where the Apostle's use of the word constitutes a denial that what he preached originated with himself, and a claim for its Divine authority (cp. paralambano, "to receive," 1Cr 11:23; 15:3); in 2Th 3:6, it is used of instructions concerning everyday conduct.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

Tradition

any kind of teaching, written or spoken, handed down from generation to generation. In Mar 7:3, 9, 13, Col 2:8, this word refers to the arbitrary interpretations of the Jews. In 2Th 2:15; 3:6, it is used in a good sense. Peter ( 1Pe 1:18) uses this word with reference to the degenerate Judaism of the "strangers scattered" whom he addresses ( Act 15:10; Mat 15:2-6; Gal 1:14).

I DO believe in oral teaching. I also believe oral teaching MUST be in line with the scriptures. I believe this because Jesus alluded to this FACT in SCRIPTURE.

What on earth does John 21:25 have to do with tradition. John was simply saying Jesus did many thngs other than what the Holy Spirit saw FIT to record for our benefit. NONE of the unrecorded acts of Jesus can be a foundation for the doctrine of tradition. No one even knows what the acts were!

[pegleg]

RC traditions such as Thomas witnessing in India, Peter being the first bishop of Rome or Antioch are without historical foundation.

Thus speaketh gscc so therefore it must be true. However, the facts are more stubborn then you so I will respectfully agree to disagree.

[pegleg]

You know, this has become an excerise in futility.

Yes it is however speaking for myself, every now and then I feel the need to respond to some of tripe that's posted.

God Bless

[pegleg]

I have never even heard of the Trail of Blood, let alone posted anything from it. You must have me confused with someone else

Ooops I stand corrected. That was Full Court.

[gscc]

Point to the facts. Show me historically or scripturally your proof.

[markomalley]

Sorry to disappoint you, like the Boreans I go to Scripture as the source to criticize false teachings. When scripture tells me: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5) I am then able to see that a doctrine that promulgates Mary and saints as intercessors as a false teaching.

Gee, I haven't heard one bit of properly understood Catholic doctrine that you've been able to refute with scripture. It would sure be nice if, rather than throwing stones, you would be able to actually do as you've threatened. All I've heard is empty lies and distortions from you. I've heard you say "Mary and saints as intercessors", but I've seen no understanding of Catholic doctrine on the subject...and I've seen no scripture cited to refute that understanding.

A lot of talk, no communication.

FRiend, that is not indicative of one who has any understanding. Rather than being the words of one who has understanding and honest disagreement, those are the words of somebody who merely reflects the bigotry he's been taught. I don't hold it to your charge...I'm confident that this is reflective of what's been spewed at you every Sunday for however many years.

But if you choose to stay in your ignorance, feel free. If you'd seriously like to discuss doctrine, I'll be happy to do so.

[gscc]

If you'd seriously like to discuss doctrine, I'll be happy to do so.

So show how this doctrine is supported by scripture.

The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that

the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Those persons think impiously who deny that the Saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us is idolatry, or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ (Sess. XXV).

 

[Full Court]

Far too many Protestants have the same knee jerk reaction to Catholic teachings -- the vast majority, I'm sorry to say, are brain-washed in it from Child hood and believe the untruths to be the truth.

i'm quite the opposite. I grew up wanting to be Catholic. I had a great aunt who married into the Bruno family. She was my grandfather's baby sister, so her children were older than me by 15-5 years. I watched all of them get confirmed, and be married in the Catholic church. I thought it was lovely and beautiful.

But after I became a believer in jesus Christ, I started reading and understanding the Bible.

I found out that what Rome teaches is very far away from a saving faith in Jesus Christ, which I find heartbreaking.

[Full Court]

The point is that I've been where you are in my beliefs. I was sola scriptura, sola fide 100%.At one point in my life, I had a passion for 'saving' Catholics from the whore of Babylon (God forgive me).

1 John 2:19  
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,
they would no doubt have continued with us:
but they went out,
that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.