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!

[Knitting A Conundrum]

You can say what you want about the canonization of the Bible, but the history is:

Catholics gathered the scripture.

Catholic bishops and priests discussed among themselves what was canon and what wasn't.

Catholic bishops and their people put the New Testament together after a fairly drawn out process that is well documented.

This is history. Whether you want to believe it or not is another story.

By the end of the 1st century, some Letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and were known to Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (died 117 AD), and Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 115 AD) but they weren't called scripture as the Septuagint was and they weren't without critics. In the late 4th century Epiphanius of Salamis (died 402) Panarion 29 says the Nazarenes had rejected the Pauline epistles and Irenaeus Against Heresies 26.2 says the Ebionites rejected him. Acts 21:21 records a rumor that Paul aimed to subvert the Old Testament. 2 Peter 3:16 says his letters have been abused by heretics who twist them around. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.38 says the Elchasai "made use of texts from every part of the Old Testament and the Gospels; it rejects the Apostle (Paul) entirely"; 4.29.5 says Tatian the Assyrian rejected Paul's Letters and Acts of the Apostles; 6.25 says Origen accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but Paul "did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines." Bruce Metzger in his Canon of the New Testament, 1997, draws the following conclusion about Clement:

Clement's Bible is the Old Testament, to which he refers repeatedly as Scripture (graphe), quoting it with more or less exactness. Clement also makes occasional reference to certain words of Jesus; though they are authoritative for him, he does not appear to enquire how their authenticity is ensured. In two of the three instances that he speaks of remembering 'the words' of Christ or of the Lord Jesus, it seems that he has a written record in mind, but he does not call it a 'gospel'. He knows several of Paul's epistles, and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which he is well acquainted. Although these writings obviously possess for Clement considerable significance, he never refers to them as authoritative 'Scripture'.

Marcion of Sinope: c. 150, was the first of record to propose a definitive, exclusive, unique canon of Christian scriptures. He rejected the teachings of the Old Testament, which he claimed were incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke, which Marcion called simply the "Gospel", he edited to remove any passages that connected Jesus with the Old Testament. This was because he believed that the god of the Jews, YHWH, who gave them the Law of Moses, was an entirely different god than the Supreme God who sent Jesus and inspired the New Testament. By editing he thought he was removing judaizing corruptions and recovering the original inspired words of Jesus. He also used ten Letters of Paul (excluding Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles) assuming his Epistle to the Laodiceans refered to canonical Ephesians and not apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans or another text no longer extant. To these, which he called the Gospel and the Apostolicon, he added his Antithesis which contrasted the New Testament with the Old Testament. Marcion's canon and theology were soundly rejected as heretical; however, he forced other Christians to consider which texts were canonical and why. He spread his beliefs widely; they became known as Marcionism. Henry Wace in his introduction [3] of 1911 stated: "A modern divine ... could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author." The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 stated: "they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known."

Muratorian fragment [4]: this 7th Century latin manuscript is often considered to be a translation of the first non-Marcion New Testament canon, and dated at between 170 (based on an internal reference to Pope Pius I and arguments put forth by Bruce Metzger) and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary). This partial canon lists the four gospels and the Letters of Paul, as well as two books of Revelation, one of John, another of Peter (the latter of which it notes is not often read in the churches). It rejects the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Epistle to the Alexandrians both said to be forged in Paul's name to support Marcionism.

Diatessaron: c. 173, a one-volume harmony of the four Gospels, translated and compiled by Tatian the Assyrian into Syriac. In Syriac speaking churches, it effectively served as the only New Testament scripture until Paul's Letters were added during the 3rd century. Some believe that Acts was also used in Syrian churches alongside the Diatessaron ^{[citation needed]}, however, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 4.29.5 states Tatian rejected Paul's Letters and Acts. In the 4th century, the Doctrine of Addai lists a 17 book NT canon using the Diatessaron and Acts and 15 Pauline Epistles (including 3rd Corinthians). The Diatessaron was eventually replaced in the 5th century by the Peshitta, which contains a translation of all the books of the 27-book NT except for 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation and is the Bible of the Syriac Orthodox Church where some members believe it is the original New Testament, see Aramaic primacy.

Irenaeus of Lyons: c. 185, claimed that there were exactly four Gospels, no more and no less, as a touchstone of orthodoxy. He argued that it was illogical to reject Acts of the Apostles but accept the Gospel of Luke, as both were from the same author. In Against Heresies 3.12.12 [5] he ridiculed those who think they are wiser than the Apostles because they were still under Jewish influence. This was crucial to refuting Marcion's anti-Judaizing, as Acts gives honor to James, Peter, John and Paul alike. At the time, Jewish Christians tended to honor James (a prominent Christian in Jerusalem described in the New Testament as an apostle and pillar, and by Eusebius and other church historians as the first Bishop of Jerusalem) but not Paul, while Pauline Christianity tended to honor Paul more than James.

Codex Claromontanus canon [6]: c. 250, a page found inserted into a 6th Century copy of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews, has the 27-book OT plus Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-2,4 Maccabees, Barnabas, Hermas and the 27-book NT plus 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter but missing Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews.

Eusebius: c. 300, listed a New Testament canon in his Ecclesiastical History 3.3 and 3.25 [7]: Recognized are four Gospels, Acts, 10 traditional Letters of Paul, Pastoral Epistles, 1st Peter, 1st John; Disputed are Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Diatessaron, Gospel of the Hebrews, Hebrews, Acts of Paul, James, 2nd Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter; Rejected are Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and unnamed others.

Cheltenham Canon ([8], [http://www.ntcanon.org/Cheltenham_Canon.shtml), (also known as Mommsen's): c. 350, a page found inserted in a 10th Century manuscript, has a 24 book OT and 24 book NT which provides syllable and line counts but omits Hebrews, Jude and James, and seems to question Epistles of John and Paul beyond the first.

Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, was one of the first synods that set out to judge which books were to be read aloud in churches. The decrees issued by the thirty or so clerics attending were called canons. Canon 59 decreed that only canonical books should be read, but no list was appended in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts recording the decrees. The list of canonical books, Canon 60 [9], sometimes attributed to the Synod of Laodicea is a later addition according to most scholars and has a 22 book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation).

Athanasius: in 367, in Festal Letter 39 [10] listed a 22 book OT and 27-book NT and 7 books not in the canon but to be read: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Didache, and the Pastor (probably Hermas). If you ignore the additional books to be read and exclusion of Esther from the canon, this list is the same as the modern Protestant canon and so Athanasius is often considered the father of the modern Protestant canon.

In c. 380, the redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions attributed a canon to the Twelve Apostles themselves ([11]) as the 85th of his list of such apostolic decrees:

Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. [A list of books of the Old Testament ...] And our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles. (From the Latin version.)

Some later Coptic and Arabic translations add Relevation and the Epistles of Clement.

Pope Damasus I: is often considered to be the father of the modern Catholic canon. Though purporting to date from a "Council of Rome" under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called "Damasian list" appended to the pseudepigraphical Decretum Gelasianum [12] is actually a valuable though non-papal list from the early 6th century. Denziger's recension is found in the links at Decretum Gelasianum. The "Damasian Canon" was published by C.H. Turner in JTS, vol. 1, 1900, pp 554-560. In 405, Pope Innocent I in Letter #6 (to Exuperius) described a canon identical to Trent (without the distinction between protocanonicals and deuterocanonicals).

In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon ([13]) in verse which agreed with that of his contemporary Athanasius, other than placing the "Catholic Epistles" after the Pauline Epistles and omitting Revelation.

Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus ([14]) written some time after 394, discusses debate over the canonical inclusion of a number of books, and almost certainly rejects the later Epistles of Peter and John, Jude, and Revelation.

3rd Synod of Carthage [15]: in 397, ratified the canon accepted previously at the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa in 393 and which was supposedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I, but the acts of which have been lost. The 27-book NT canon included the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the Epistles of Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews; one Epistle; of Peter, two; of John, apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John.

When St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books, but did not personally translate them anew. This period marks the beginning of a more widely recognized canon, although the inclusion of some books was still debated: Epistle to Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Grounds for debate included the question of authorship of these books (note that the so-called Damasian "Council at Rome" had already rejected John the Apostle's authorship of 2 and 3 John, while retaining the books), their suitability for use (Revelation at that time was already being interpreted in a wide variety of heretical ways), and how widely they were actually being used (2 Peter being amongst the most weakly attested of all the books in the Christian canon).

The late-5th or early-6th Century Peshitta of the Syrian Orthodox Church ([16]) includes a 22-book NT, excluding II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Lee Peshitta of 1823 follows the Protestant canon)

List of the Sixty Books [17]: dated to the 7th century, has 34 OT books and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation) and 9 books "outside the sixty": Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1-4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit and a 25 book apocrypha.

Orthodox Synod in Trullo: in 692, rejected by Pope Constantine, approved Gregory Theologus' 22 book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation) and the Canons of the Apostles of the Apostolic Constitutions of which Canon #85 [18] is a list of the 27-book OT plus Judith, Sirach, 1-3Maccabees, Didache, 1-2Clement, and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation), and the Apostolic Constitutions which themselves were rejected because they were said to contain heretical interpolations.

John of Damascus: c. 654 - c. 749, in Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith 4.17 accepted Didache and Apostolic Constitutions.

Nicephorus: the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 806-815, in a Stichometria [19] appended to the end of his Chronography rejected Esther, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Clement, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews, 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter. Source: Wikepedia, but there's a lot of this historical info out there. Clearly, easily traceble. And although people might not want to consider these church fathers and bishops catholic (or perhaps Orthodox), that's what they considered themselves.

[OLD REGGIE]

Were the early Church Councils Baptist or Methodist? Am I missing something here?

The early Church Councils were just as much Baptist or Methodist as they were Roman Catholic.

[gscc]

You can say what you want about the canonization of the Bible, but the history is:

Catholics gathered the scripture.

Catholic bishops and priests discussed among themselves what was canon and what wasn't.

Catholic bishops and their people put the New Testament together after a fairly drawn out process that is well documented.

This is history. Whether you want to believe it or not is another story.

You take too much credit and, as usual, the prerogatives of God for your church, when you dismiss the role of God in forming and transmitting both the Devine nature of God-breathed Scripture and the canonization.  History is quite clear - the deductions you make that your church was anything more than a tool in the Creator's hand is laughable.

[Titanites]

I have posted it (Matt 1:25) time and time again.

Yes, you keep posting it over and over but that doesn't mean it says what you assume it does. We are still waiting for you to address post #1633 by Annalex. Please don't just ignore it and keep on posting the same thing. Try to discuss it.

But you would rather not believe it.

I believe it fully. I just don't assume it means what you assume it means.

[Titanites]

I was speaking of after the birth of Jesus.

If Mary and Joseph could mutually abstain from coming together for more than 40 days before the birth of Jesus, they could certainly do so after.

[OLD REGGIE]

And you?

The same as you. :-)

[Full Court]

It's your opinion that I can't disagree with something without it being personal. That does not make it TRUE.

[Titanites]

Let's be reasonable. Full Court cannot prove from Scripture that Mary had other children any more than you can prove she did not have other children.

Thanks, Reggie, for agreeing with me. You should know that I've not committed myself to the man-made tradition of sola scriptura.

From scripture I can't prove Mary had no other children, just like Full Court can't prove Mary did. The scripture is silent on this fact, which is what we've been claiming all along. To make a claim using scripture only about Mary giving birth to children other than Jesus, or not, one way or the other, requires assumptions to be made.

[Full Court]

Catholics gathered the scripture.

While they were burning people at the stake for having a Bible?

[Full Court]

If Mary and Joseph could mutually abstain from coming together for more than 40 days before the birth of Jesus, they could certainly do so after.Matthew 1:24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

And there was no reason at all for Mary to have sinned by with holding sex from Joseph.

Hebrews 13:4  Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

1 Corinthians 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Why would Mary or all people of placed her husband or herself in a position to be tempted by Satan?

[Conservative til I die]

The early Church Councils were just as much Baptist or Methodist as they were Roman Catholic.

There were Protestants known as Baptist and Methodist in the first centuries AD? These Christians at the Councils were not Catholic or Orthodox? What were they then? And where did they go when the Catholic Church began its "tyranny"? These are not trivial questions.

[Full Court]

Your "it is specific" is a perfect example of cherrypicking. Jesus violated Jewish law and, by your standard, sinned. Now you feel qualified to determine which Jewish Law he would or would not obey.

They would rather have Jesus sin than Mary.

[Conservative til I die]

You take too much credit and, as usual, the prerogatives of God for your church, when you dismiss the role of God in forming and transmitting both the Devine nature of God-breathed Scripture and the canonization. History is quite clear - the deductions you make that your church was anything more than a tool in the Creator's hand is laughable.

Where in the Bible does it say what the Canon is? How did you come to know what the Canon is? A Canon which matches that of the Catholic Church nminus 7 books? And if you didn't decide on your Canon personally, by whose authority was the Canon set>

[Conservative til I die]

It's your opinion that I can't disagree with something without it being personal.

Nope. Keep twisting others' words. It's really making you look good.

[Conservative til I die]

While they were burning people at the stake for having a Bible?

Is there a reason you feel the need to jump into this Jack Chick-esque accusations whenever someone makes a particular point? Again, it doesn't make you look like a good witness to others.

BTW, to answer your question...no. We set the Canon before we started burning all those alleged pre-Reformation Baptists, Calvinists, and Episcopalians.

[Conservative til I die]

1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Why would Mary or all people of placed her husband or herself in a position to be tempted by Satan?

What if Joseph chose to be celibate as well? Are you saying he could not withstand the temptations of the devil?

Why do you denigrate Joseph?

PS - Don't you love these little "Do you still beat your wife" asides we're throwing back and forth? Do you dislike them as much as we do when you throw them at us?

[Conservative til I die]

Your "it is specific" is a perfect example of cherrypicking. Jesus violated Jewish law and, by your standard, sinned. Now you feel qualified to determine which Jewish Law he would or would not obey. They would rather have Jesus sin than Mary.

You've twisted this argument so much on this thread, that it now you're rambling incoherently about it.

[annalex]

No, not the same. I make reference to the Tradition, which never contemplated the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. That Tradition was formed when copies not lost were available and oral memory was also available. Besides, the Tradition was formed by men who spoke Koine as a living language. In contrast, a typical Protestant mariophobe works from late translations into English, often done tendentiously by people with a destructive agenda. Note that I invited everyone to analyse Matthew 1:25 in Koine with tools readily available (1633); and likewise InterestedQuestioner provided a complete analysis of the usage of "brother" and "sister" in the Gospel, incompatible with the notion that Mary had other children beside Jesus, in 1600. In response we got stubborn unencumbered by any analytical thinking one-liners, which still do not prove the mariophobic point. It is exercises like this, -- which give me a certain guilty pleasure, I confess, -- that convince me that late Protestantism, at least in its popular variety, completely lost the ability to understand the scripture, and does not seem to care.

[Conservative til I die]

My main issue with the Protestant theological worldview, which you touched on here and in other posts, is that Protestants look at Christianity in the vacuum of the Bible. The Early Fathers are completely ignored, linguistics are completely ignored, historical context is completely ignored.

While no one is saying that the words of historians or the Early Church Fathers are on par with the Bible, their writings are very relevant when one talks about things the Bible is silent or iffy on.

For instance, one might say that Mary definitely had children and was not a perpetual virgin. OK, that's a valid thing to claim. Scripture is somewhat ambiguous about this. However, if you look at what the earliest fathers of the Church taught, they almost uniformly teach that Mary was a perpetual virgin. There simply is no Tradition of Mary as mother of several children.

Similarly, when we talk of Mary's Assumption, again this is something that simply is not covered in the Bible at all. But, when we look back on the historical writings, it is quite interesting that there are no churches claiming to have possession of her relics. No one claims to have built their Church over or near Mary's grave site. This is all indicates that while we can never prove without a shadow of a doubt she was assumed bodily into Heaven, that there is a longstanding, uniform Tradition that she was.

Many Protestants tend to ignore this simply due to an aversion to Tradition. However, it *is* important and relevant.

[gscc]

Very simple - the only role that man-kind played in the formation of Scripture and the canon was as a tool. God didn't need the Apostle Paul or Peter to write Scripture, he didn't need the Church to tell us what the canon was - the Creator chose to use His creation to convey the scripture and formalize them as canon.