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!
This is where we part on this issue.
The same God that parted the sea for Moses, that kept the Ark safe during the storm, that guided the stone that David slung at Goliath, that breathed His Word through the inspired writers of the Scriptures, made sure His people received those Words to guide their life by exactly as he intended.
By the way - your little script was quite neat also.
You put it very nicely and correctly. Now, would those who believe that Jesus had no half-brothers and sisters please explain Matt 13:54-56.
"I am not "opposing God to His Church." I oppose the pretensions that the Catholic Church had any other role to play than as a tool in the Lord's hand to convey the Scriptures. I do not dispute the historical sequence or chronology of your history - it is the arrogance of supposing God did not choreograph the canonization of the Bible - instead it was the RC Church. Moses wasn't so arrogant as to believe that he had done anything more than follow God's will in leading the Jews out of Egypt. Noah wasn't so arrogant to believe he had done anything other than God's will in saving mankind."
_______________________________________
Thank you, that is well said.
It is the arrogance of man that led to so many false doctrines being taught in the Roman Catholic Church. It was that same arrogance that led to Reformation.
Start with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
According to Matt. 13:54-56, the people who knew the family in Nazareth knew that there were other children besides Jesus in that family.
What's Jack Chick about history?
Is Chick so powerful?
I had no idea!
Why would he?
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Besides God has already told us that Joseph and Mary consumated their marriage.
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
Actually, in the quote you tried to attribute to me, you added someone elses words, so it must be you who is confused.
The Bible, which is the very word of God, makes it clear that the marriage was consumated.
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
There is no reason at all to believe that Mary or Joseph sinned by with holding sex from one another or that they never had sex.
Matthew 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
So? Mary was his mother. He had a group of relatives there, that many of us, including people from early days of the church believe were the children of Joseph and a first wife. This is the early belief of the church, btw. It is still the major belief of the Orthodox church, I believe.
If Mary had had other children, Jesus would not have given her into John's keeping.
If Jesus had had younger brothers and sisters, they wouldn't have dared try to come up and take him away because they were worried about his mental health. One did NOT treat the elder brother of a family that way. But one certainly wouldn't have problems treating the child of your stepmother that way, if you were worried about him or you thought he was embarrassing the family.
Nothing in that bible passage requires these to be the children of Mary. Only the children of Joesph or Jesus' kinsmen.
Sometimes, we have to just to agree to disagree on that point, then move on to something else that will help us both grow as Christians.
God bless.
The very word of God makes no such claim. It is purely a Full Court assumption that it does. Don't confuse Scripture, the very word of God, with what you think; it's not the same thing.
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS
You posted it once again without ever responding to 1633. Why are you afraid to discuss this post?
There is no reason at all to believe that Mary or Joseph sinned by with holding sex from one another or that they never had sex
Right, because it is not a sin if abstaining is mutually agreed upon.
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.