Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians

Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

It is very common today to hear Catholics call a Protestant “a Christian,” or even, “a good Christian.” In the United States, it was already a practice before Vatican II because of the tendency of American Catholics to accommodate Protestantism, whose tonus dominated the social and business spheres. Then, there was the question of adaptation as prominent Protestants joined the Catholic faith, or Catholics entered into marriages with Protestants. It was just easier to call everyone “Christian.” Supposedly it underplayed differences. It was meant to create the impression that Catholics and Protestants were cousins in one big, happy family. Pope Leo XIII condemned this tolerance toward Protestantism under the name of Americanism, the heresy of Americanism, to be more precise. Our Lord delivers the keys of His Church to St. Peter Pietro Perugino, 15th century, Sistine Chapel After Vatican II, needless to say, the practice of calling Protestants Christians has snowballed, with the official conciliar documents assuming this same impropriety. Hence, the Holy See, Prelates and priests have made its use as widespread as possible. Accommodation to Protestantism in our days has reached such a point that some Catholics, to distinguish between Catholics and their Protestant “separated brethren,” call themselves Catholic Christians. A redundancy if I've ever heard one. Only Catholics can be true Christians. No one who dissents from the Roman Catholic Church can be a Christian. The terms are synonymous. Every time I hear the term Christian used for Protestants, I cringe. Its usage clearly nourishes a trend toward a dangerous religious indifferentism, which denies the duty of man to worship God by believing and practicing the one true Catholic Religion. It is an implicit admission that those who deny the one Faith can nonetheless be Christians, that is, be in the Church of Christ. Inherently it leads to the progressivist notion that men can be saved in any religion that accepts Christ as Savior. A “good Lutheran,” a “good Anglican,” a “good Presbyterian – what does it matter so long as they are good people and sincerely love Christ? Regardless of who is applying this usage today, I want to stress that it is at variance with the entire tradition of the Catholic Church until the Council. To consider heretics as Christians is not the teaching of the Church. Before Vatican II, the Magisterium was always very clear: It is not a matter of an individual’s character or traits. No one can be in the Church of Christ without professing the ensemble of the truths of Catholic Faith, being in unity with the Chair of Peter and receiving the same Seven Sacraments. The only Christian is one who accepts Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church he established. Who can have God for Father and not accept the Church for Mother? (Pope Pius IX, Singulari quidem of March 17, 1856) Who can accept the spouse Christ, and not his mystical bride the Church? Who can separate the Head, the only begotten Son of God, from the body, which is His Church? (Pope Leo XIII, Satis cognitum of June 29, 1896). It is not possible. In short, only those who profess the one Catholic Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ are members of the Church of Christ. And only those members can legitimately bear the title of honor of Christian. The Protestant sect started as a revolt, protesting the Church of Christ and, pretending to accept Christ without Peter, the authority He established on earth. With this split, they left the Church and became heretics. This used to be clearly said and understood, without sentimental fear of offending one’s neighbors or relatives: A Protestant is a heretic because he severed himself from the Body of the Church. He is not a Christian, and certainly not a “good Christian.” Scriptures confirm this truth My friend Jan thought I was being too severe on this topic. “You’re making a mountain out of a molehill,” she said. “Don’t Scriptures teach us to love our neighbor and not be judgmental?” It is the same old post Vatican II story, claiming that it is “judgmental” to correct bad practices and false teachings and arguing with disputable interpretations of Scriptures. Luther and Melanchthon broke with the Church of Christ Lucas Cranach the Younger Well, despite these subjective interpretations, the inspired words of Scriptures provide an unambiguous defense that the custody of the vineyard has been committed by Christ to the Catholic Church alone. Let me quote just a few verses: “He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).” It could not be clearer: the Protestant who rejects the head, rejects Christ himself, and should not be granted the name Christian. Christ establishes one Church with a single head: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19). St. Paul is severe in his condemnation of false teachers, e.g. Protestants: “If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1: 9). In another passage he instructs Catholics to remove themselves from the bad society of non-Catholics: “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the Tradition which they have received of us” (2 Thess 3:6). The Apostle St. John forbade any intercourse with heretics: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house or welcome him” (2 Jo 1:10)” Holy Scriptures are clear on the point that only those who belong to the one Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, can rightfully be considered Christians. Popes reiterate this teaching The traditional Papal Magisterium was also clear on this topic. Let me offer a few texts by way of exemplification. Pius IX: "He who abandons the Chair of Peter is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ" Pius XII stated unequivocally: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957). How is it possible to be clearer than this about those who can be called Christian? Leo XIII makes it plain that separated members cannot belong to the same body: “So long as the member was on the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man, so long as he lives on the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic” (Encyclical Satis cognitum of June 29, 1896). Emphasizing the fate of those who break away from the one Faith, he says: “Whoever leaves her [the Catholic Church] departs from the will and command of Our Lord Jesus Christ; leaving the path of salvation, he enters that of perdition. Whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress” (ibid.). Certainly, they do not share with us the same title of Christian. Pope Pius IX stated: “He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ” (Quartus supra of January 6 1873, n. 8). In the Syllabus of Modern Errors, the proposition that Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion was specifically condemned (Pius IX, n. 18)(1). Therefore, there is only one Christian Church, the Catholic Church, and only those who belong to it should rightfully be called Christians. Only inside the Catholic Church can true union be achieved Ottenbeueren Collectarius, 12th century How to fight Americanism? Many persons ask me: What can I do to fight Progressivism? Others have requested: Give me some specific examples of how I can combat Americanism. Let me offer one concrete way to fight in yourself the tendency toward accommodation with Protestantism. When you catch yourself calling a Protestant a “Christian,” stop and correct yourself. Call him a Protestant. It is a way to affirm that you do not accept the Protestant errors and that you acknowledge it for the terrible thing it is: Protestants denied many Catholic dogmas and for this reason caused that first major crack in the unity of the Catholic Church that caused untold damage to Christendom and the perdition of those souls adhering to it. It is a small thing, but by such small customs we as a people have been walking steadily toward religious indifferentism. It is time to set some roadblocks on that path. We should not veil in ambiguous terms our love for the ensemble of the Catholic Faith. The only true union possible for Catholics with Protestants is by their return to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. Only with such a return can they rightfully call themselves Christians. 1. Numerous traditional Catholic teachings on the this topic can be found in Atila S. Guimarães, Aniums Delendi II, Los Angeles: TIA, 2002, pp. 205-217.   See also "Christian Ecuemnism" in Simon Galloway, No Crisis in the Church? New Olive Press, 2006, pp. 1-51.

One in the bed

One in the mill

One in the field

Jan Luyken's three-part illustration of the rapture described in Matthew 24, verse 40, from the 1795 Bowyer Bible

Christian eschatology
Eschatology views
Contrasting beliefs[show]
The Millennium[show]
Biblical texts[show]
Key terms[show]
Christianity portal
v t e

In Christian eschatology the rapture refers to the belief that either before, or simultaneously with, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to earth, believers will be raised from the earth to meet him in the air.^[1]The concept has its basis in various interpretations of the biblical book of First Thessalonians^[2] and how it relates to interpretations of various other biblical passages, such as those from Second Thessaloniansand the Book of Revelation.^[2]

The exact meaning, timing and impact of the event are disputed among believers^[3] and the term is used in at least two senses. In thepre-tribulation view, a group of people will be left behind on earth after another group literally leaves "to meet the Lord in the air." This is now the most common use of the term, especially among fundamentalist Christians and in the United States.^[4] The other, older use of the term "Rapture" is simply as a synonym for the final resurrection generally, without a belief that a group of people is left behind on earth for an extended Tribulation period after the events of1 Thessalonians 4:17.^[5][6][7] This distinction is important as some types of Christianity never refer to "the Rapture" in religious education, but might use the older and more general sense of the word "rapture" in referring to what happens during the final resurrection.^[8]

There are many views among Christians regarding the timing of Christ's return (including whether it will occur in one event or two), and various views regarding the destination of the aerial gathering described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Denominations such as Roman Catholics,^[9] Orthodox Christians,^[10] Lutherans,^[11] and Reformed Christians^[12] believe in a rapture only in the sense of a general final resurrection, when Christ returns a single time. They do not believe that a group of people is left behind on earth for an extendedTribulation period after the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:17.^[13]

Authors generally maintain that the pre-tribulation Rapture doctrine originated in the eighteenth century, with the Puritan preachersIncrease and Cotton Mather, and was then popularized in the 1830s by John Darby.^[14][15] Others, including Grant Jeffrey, maintain that an earlier document called Ephraem or Pseudo-Ephraem already supported a pre-tribulation rapture.^[16]

Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,^[17] and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.^[18]

Etymology[edit]

"Rapture" is derived from Middle French rapture, via the Medieval Latin raptura ("seizure, rape, kidnapping"), which derives from the Latin raptus ("a carrying off").^[19]

Greek[edit]

The Koine Greek of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 uses the verb form ἁρπαγησόμεθα (harpagisometha), which means "we shall be caught up" or "taken away", with the connotation that this is a sudden event. The dictionary form of this Greek verb is harpazō (ἁρπάζω).^[20] This use is also seen in such texts as Acts 8:39, 2Corinthians 12:2-4 andRevelation 12:5.

Latin[edit]

The Latin Vulgate translates the Greek ἁρπαγησόμεθα as rapiemur,^[21] from the verb rapio meaning "to catch up" or "take away".^[22]

English Bible versions[edit]

English versions of the Bible have translated rapiemur in various ways:

• The Wycliffe Bible (1395), translated from the Latin Vulgate, uses "rushed".^[23]
• The Tyndale New Testament (1525), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1587) and the King James Version (1611) use "caught up".^[24]
• The New English Bible, translated from the Greek,^[25] uses "suddenly caught up" with this footnote: "Or “snatched up.” The Greek verb ἁρπάζω implies that the action is quick or forceful, so the translation supplied the adverb “suddenly” to make this implicit notion clear."

Doctrinal history[edit]

In 1590, Francisco Ribera, a Catholic Jesuit, taught "futurism" the idea that most of Revelation was about the future, and therefore, not about the Catholic Church. He also taught that the rapture would happen 45 days before the end of a 3.5 year tribulation.

Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. The term Christian Zionism began to be used in the mid-20th century, superseding Christian Restorationism.^[1][2]

Hippolytus^[3] and Irenaeus^[4] foresaw a Jewish return from exile, despite unbelief. Traditional Catholicthought however did not consider Zionism in any form;^[5] Christian advocacy of the restoration of the Jews arose following the Protestant Reformation. A contemporary Israeli historian suggests that evangelical Christian Zionists of the 1840s 'passed this notion on to Jewish circles'.^[6]

Some Christian Zionists believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, though not exclusively, associated with ChristianDispensationalism. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christian, as a means of fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.^[7][8][9] Many Christian Zionists believe that the people of Israel remain part of the chosen people of God, along with the "ingrafted" Gentile Christians. (See ^{[Romans 11:17-24]} and dual-covenant theology.)

History prior to the First Zionist Conference[edit]

Protestant Reformation[edit]

See also: End times and Dispensationalism

Christian advocacy of the restoration of the Jews on their land was first heard following the Protestant reformation, particularly in the English-speaking world among the Puritans. It was common practice among Puritans to anticipate and frequently pray for a Jewish return to their homeland.^[10] John Owen, a prominent 17th century English Covenant theologian, for example, wrote: "Moreover, it is granted that there shall be a time and season, during the continuance of the kingdom of the Messiah in this world, wherein the generality of the nation of the Jews, all the world over, shall be called and effectually brought unto the knowledge of the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ; with which mercy they shall also receive deliverance from their captivity, restoration unto their own land, with a blessed, flourishing, and happy condition therein."^[11] John Gill took a similar position.^[12]

Samuel Rutherford, 17th century Scottish theologian, expressed the ardent spirit of prayer of many of his contemporaries: "O to see the sight, next to Christ's coming in the clouds the most joyful! Our elder brethren the Jews and Christ fall upon each other's necks and kiss each other! They have long been assunder, they will be kind to one another when they meet. O day! O longed-for and lovely day-dawn!"^[13]

In 1762, Charles Wesley wrote:^[14]

O that the chosen band

Might now their brethren bring,
And gather'd out of every land
Present to Sion's King;
Of all the ancient race
Not one be left behind,
But each impell'd by secret grace
His way to Canaan find!

Christian support for Jewish restoration was brought to America by the Puritans who fled England. In colonial times, Increase Mather andJohn Cotton, among others, favored Jewish restoration, but it was not until the early 19th century that the idea gathered impetus.

Ezra Stiles at Yale was a prominent supporter of Jewish restoration. In 1808, Asa McFarland, a Presbyterian, voiced the opinion of many that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was imminent and would bring about Jewish restoration. One David Austin of New Haven spent his fortune building docks and inns from which the Jews could embark to the Holy Land. In 1825, Mordecai Manuel Noah, a Jew who wanted to found a national home for the Jews on Grand Island in New York as a way station on the way to the Holy Land, won widespread Christian backing for his project. Likewise, restorationist theology was among the inspirations for the first American missionary activity in the Middle East.^{[citation needed]}

Many Christians believed that the return of the Jews to Judea, as prophesied in the Bible, was a necessary preliminary step towards theSecond Coming. In this particular interpretation, after the Jews returned they would both accept Jesus as their savior and rebuild the Temple, which would usher in the Second Coming of Christ.^[15]

Dispensationalism and pro-Restoration detractors[edit]

As the demise of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be approaching, the advocacy of restorationism increased. At the same time, the visit ofJohn Nelson Darby, the founder of dispensationalism, to the United States, catalyzed a dispensationalist movement and an evangelical revival. This was expressed at the Niagara Bible Conference in 1878, which issued a 14 point proclamation, including the following text:

"... that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking." (Luke 12:35–40; 17:26–30; 18:8 Acts 15:14–17; 2 Thess. 2:3–8; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; Titus 1:11–15)

The dispensationalist theology of John Nelson Darby which motivates one stream of American Christian Zionism is often claimed to be the foundation of American Christian Zionism. He first distinguished the hopes of the Jews and that of the church and gentiles in his ground-breaking series of 11 evening lectures in Geneva in 1840. His lectures were immediately published in French (L'Attente Actuelle de l'Eglise), English (1841), German and Dutch (1847) and so his teachings began their global journey. While there is no doubt that it had a great influence through the Scofield Bible, Christian support of the restoration of the Jews preceded the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible (first published by OUP, 1909) for nearly a century, and many prominent Christian Zionists and Christian Zionist organizations such as theInternational Christian Embassy Jerusalem do not subscribe to dispensationalism. Many non dispensationalist Protestants were also strong advocates of a Jewish return to their homeland, C H Spurgeon,^[16] both Horatius^[17] and Andrew Bonar, Robert Murray M'Chyene,^[18] and J C Ryle^[19] were among a number of prominent proponents of both the importance and significance of a Jewish return to Israel. However Spurgeon, for example, famously reported of dispensationalism, 'It is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement'.^[20]

Dispensationalist Christian Zionism was popularized in the United States by the evangelical Cyrus Scofield (1843–1921), who promoted the doctrine that Jesus could not return to reign on Earth until certain events occurred. In the interim, prior to these last days events, Scofield's system taught that the Christian church was primarily for the salvation of the Gentiles, and that according to God's plan the Jewish people are under a different dispensation of God's grace, which has been put out of gear so to speak, until the last days, when the Christian Church will be removed from the earth by a miracle called the Rapture.^{[citation needed]}

Scofield, writing in the 1900s, said that in those last days the Bible predicts the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and particularly to Jerusalem. Scofield further predicted that Islamic holy places would be destroyed and the Temple in Jerusalem would be rebuilt, signalling the very end of the Church Age when the Antichrist would arise, and all who seek to keep the covenant with God will acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah in defiance of the Antichrist.^{[citation needed]}

Charles Taze Russell was another early Christian advocate of Zionism—but with an altogether different prophetic programme to orthodox Trinitarian Christians.^{[clarification needed]}