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!

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Don't get carried away because I agree with you on some points. :-) I have the advantage (disadvantage?) of not being dogmatically committed to any single point of view.

You do agree, don't you, that your view is also based on a man made tradition?

BTW, there are as many definitions of "Sola Scriptura" as there is of "Protestant". For my edification would you kindly tell me the definition you are working with.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

There may well have been some sects called "Baptist". There certainly were none called "Methodist" or "Roman Catholic". They both came later and can trace their heritage to the "catholic" Church.

There are many Protestant Churches which ascribe to the Apostles Creed, a typical version follows:

Apostles' Creed

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You will note verse 9. Many Protestants believe they belong to the holy catholic (universal) church while none belong to the Roman Catholic church.

[OLD REGGIE]

They would rather have Jesus sin than Mary.

If you can't follow my argument there is no sense in carrying on a fruitless dialogue.

You have jumped to a conclusion which is baseless.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Well, since I'm not a Protestant, you may well be wasting your time on me. I would be interested though in learning the earliest dated original documents you use to prove this so-called Tradition.

Remember, not third or fourth generation copies, but original documents.

[SoothingDave]

I don't need to respond to a post that uses a text I do not believe in or a post that tries to make the Bible untrue.

In other words, you're sticking with the Bible in plain English and refuse to examine what it means when it is "translated" into Greek?

Is there any possiblity whatsoever, in your own understanding of your own understanding, that you could be mistaken? Or have you reached fallibility in this area based upon the plain English meaning of words?

Can your mind perceive the distinction between what you think a passage means and what the author of the passage actually meant to convey?

What harm is done to your faith if the "brothers" of Jesus are in fact not children of Mary, but are his kin by other measures? Does it scare you to admit that others may be right?

SD

[SoothingDave]

If you can't follow my argument there is no sense in carrying on a fruitless dialogue.

Amen, Reggie, amen.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

"... it is quite interesting that there are no churches claiming to have possession of her relics."

No one has ever claimed to have Jimmy Hoffa's remains. Is it reasonable to assume he vanished into thin air?

[SoothingDave]

No one has ever claimed to have Jimmy Hoffa's remains. Is it reasonable to assume he vanished into thin air?

You have evidence of a sect that venerates mobster relics? Cause otherwise, this is a pretty silly analogy.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I have no interest in your one liners. Please don't post to me anymore.

[OLD REGGIE]

I have never been "amen'd" so much in my entire life. :-)

[OLD REGGIE]

Guide to Early Church Documents

Itsa no work.

[Full Court]

What harm is done to your faith if the "brothers" of Jesus are in fact not children of Mary, but are his kin by other measures? Does it scare you to admit that others may be right?

Dave, for you to be right, I would have to disbelieve Scripture, and I am not willing to do that.

[Jaded]

http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/activity/c/csa/www/documents/README

itsawork

[Full Court]

In other words, you're sticking with the Bible in plain English and refuse to examine what it means when it is "translated" into Greek?

Matthew 1:25 And knew [ginosko {ghin-oce'-ko} Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman] her not till [heos {heh'-oce}; Until] she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[OLD REGGIE]

You have evidence of a sect that venerates mobster relics? Cause otherwise, this is a pretty silly analogy.

I know. I contemplated suggesting that no one wanted to be caught in a trap such as two churches having Peter's skull but decided I wasn't really in a troublemaking mood today.

[OLD REGGIE]

itsawork

I know, I followed the correct link you posted. Thanks much.

[restornu]

annalex it seems you are the one pretending trying to elevate your opinion as fact

[restornu]

I gave a recap of all of the verses related to this topic what your problem!

[SoothingDave]

I gave a recap of all of the verses related to this topic what your problem!

The "problem" is that no one here is ignorant of the existence of the verses. What is in question is what was meant by the word that ended up being translated into English as "brothers." Some of the more simplistic folks here have steadfastly refused to engage the question that "brother" might have meant something more than "male siblings from the same uterus."

Until the simple-minded side acknowledges that the word in question can have a broader meaning, they will continue to repeat, futiley, the same verses over and over without ever examining the meaning.

This is infantile, to refuse to look at the arguments another makes and to refuse to consider that words can have more than one basic meaning.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Post 1633, by annalex: Regarding the verses. The Greek word in Matthew 1:25 is "eos" and it simply means "prior to".

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25, Douay-Rheims)

kai ouk eginosken auten eos ou eteken ton yion autes ton prototokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou iesoun

Sometimes "eos" means that the action (or in St. Joseph's case, inaction) before the moment it points to has ceased and sometimes it means that the action continued. We understand which is the case from context, and when we need to translate into English, which has a more finely defined words, we choose between "until", "till", "to" or "before". Both Douay and King James translate it as "till"; I am not suprised that mariophobic translations, that abounded in modern times and Harley is using, mistranslate it as "until". It is most similar to the English "till" which also does not have the strict "before, but not after" meaning. For example, if I say "I did not drink alcohol till the blood test" the likely context is that my blood work should be good, not that I went to the bar right after I went to the clinic. But if I say "I did not drink alcohol till I joined a fraternity in college" then the context is, most likely, that I drank once I joined because that is what fraternities are for, are they not? In Matthew 1 the context is that Christ's birth was miraculous, not the relations John and Mary had after the focus of Matthew's story shifted away. It is reasonable to assume that Mathew's focus was on the absence of marital act before the birth of Christ, not after, all the more so since the testimony of Joseph to that effect had to me made at the time of Christ's birth, but testimonies of one's sex life for reasons other than establishing paternity are not common. Matthew simply had no way of knowing what Joseph and Mary's intimate life was the rest of their days.

***************************

SoothingDave:In other words, you're sticking with the Bible in plain English and refuse to examine what it means when it is "translated" into Greek?

Full Court: Matthew 1:25 And knew [ginosko {ghin-oce'-ko} Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman] her not till [heos {heh'-oce}; Until] she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

So, your response to a person who takes you on a careful examination of the Greek word "eos" and provides examples of its usages in the Bible is to simply point out that this word is translated by the KJV as "till" and rest your case on the simplest sense of the word in English.

Are you proud of yourself? Do you think God is happy with you ignoring evidence presented to you about what His Word means in the original languages?

I ask again:

Is there any possiblity whatsoever, in your own understanding of your own understanding, that you could be mistaken? Or have you reached fallibility in this area based upon the plain English meaning of words?

Can your mind perceive the distinction between what you think a passage means and what the author of the passage actually meant to convey?

SD