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!

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Hey old man I'm just getting around to ya.

I'm working more not less these days, I started buying and selling used Corvettes and am looking at buying another business, I know I'm nuts :)

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

Name one person in Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

Name one verse in Scripture which says Mary was a Perpetual Virgin, was Bodily Assumed into Heaven. Just one.

While we're at it, do you intend to answer my question regarding the possibility of you having any position concerning the brothers/sisters of Jesus other than the "official" RCC (infallible) teaching?

[restornu]

"You're absolutely right, God didn't need the Apostles Paul and Peter to write Scripture, nor did He need to use the Church to determine the canon.

But the fact is, He did choose those means."

Now this is interesting IQ after Revelation many have agree the Heavens are closed!

Therefore no more Revelations!

Now you make a statement like this-

nor did He need to use the Church to determine the canon.

But the fact is, He did choose those means."

To make a detemination one has to beable to receive revelation!

To received revelation one has to do it through the Lord annoited, not the self appointed nor a political clergy of the Pagan Constantine!

Just curious how you can make an allowance for God?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Is it possible that if Roman Catholic's recognized that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was wrong they might have to recognize their doctrines about her Ascension and ability to amplify prayers for consideration by the LORD could be wrong too.

Thats the very reason it will never happen, the whole of Catholicism would come tumbling down.

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).
Thats 4 and if you count the sisters....but still you will not accept this because it would kill the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I understand your problem Dave, you're in a no win situation here.
When you have studied both sides and shaved away (Occam's razor) everything the plain truth screams thru.
BigMack

[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
[56] And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"

Oh Mack you just don't get it. The four brothers/brethren were all the men there. All the sisters weren't identified but we are fortunate that the entire group of men (brothers/brethren) were identified.

Get it now?

By the same token Mark 3:32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." The "crowd" sitting about him didn't include any "brothers", they were all outside with his mother.

Now do you get it?

[OLD REGGIE]

I'm working more not less these days, I started buying and selling used Corvettes and am looking at buying another business, I know I'm nuts :)

You probably have to be busy in order to stay out of trouble. :)

I, on the other hand, am too worn out and feeble to get in trouble. I think trouble but can't act on it.

[Full Court]

Reggie, why would God provide a bunch of different ways to Heaven and then kill his own Son?

[SoothingDave]

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are thy not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matt. 13: 55, 56).

Thats 4 and if you count the sisters....but still you will not accept this because it would kill the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I understand your problem Dave, you're in a no win situation here.

OK, let's take James and study what the Bible tells us about him, besides that he is "brother" of Jesus.

Galatians 1:19: 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

So James the brother of the Lord is an Apostle.

Matt 10:2Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

There were two Apostles named James: son of Zebedee, and the son of Alpheus

Acts 12:1Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

In Acts 12 a James is killed. In Act 15 the famous Jerusalem council is held during which James speaks. We must assume this was not the dead James.

So which James was this brother of John?

Mark 3:17And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

So the James with the brother John, the James that was dead, was the son of Zebedee. So the Apostle James, the Brother of the Lord must be the son of Alphaeus.

So if Joseph is not his father, either Mary (the mother of Jesus) slept with this Alpheus guy, or else "brother" doesn't mean co-uteral sibling.

Can you stand more?

Matt 27:54Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
55And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
56Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children

If, as you insist, "James and Joses" are two of the natural brothers of Jesus, (that is children of Mary the mother of Jesus), why would a "Mary mother of James and Joses" be listed like this at the cross?

If Jesus' own mother was there at the cross why would she not be identified as such? Isn't that odd?

So, to sum it up. We have two James apostles. One has Zebedee as a father and is not the James who hosts the Jerusalem council. The other James has Alpheus as a father and Joses as a brother and another woman named Mary as a mother.

Is that too complicated for you? Do you still want to just use your razor and rest on "English words have simple meanings." Do you want to claim the author of Scripture places the Virgin Mary, mother of the Lord at the cross and calls her "Mary the mother of James and Joses"?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, why would God provide a bunch of different ways to Heaven and then kill his own Son?

Please see my tagline.

[SoothingDave]

Name one person in Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

Name one verse in Scripture which says Mary was a Perpetual Virgin, was Bodily Assumed into Heaven. Just one.

Who is on the sola scriptura team? Not I. Mary's perpetual virginity is consistent with Scripture as is her Assumption.

SD

[restornu]

Reggie, why would God provide a bunch of different ways to Heaven

I want to know what you mean by bunch of different ways!?

and then kill his own Son?

The Father did not Kill his Son!

There were two who wanted this mission!

Lucifer wanted to go but he also wanted all the glory and over throw the Father and he was going to use a plan simular to communism which means free will would be revoke!

Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of the Father also said he will to go and do the will of the Father and give all the glory to the Father!

In order to redeem us it had to be one who was perfect and was able satisfied the Justic Law or all would be lost!

[SoothingDave]

While we're at it, do you intend to answer my question regarding the possibility of you having any position concerning the brothers/sisters of Jesus other than the "official" RCC (infallible) teaching?

With God, all things are possible.

First, someone would need to make a good argument. I'm still waiting for that. Absent a very good reason to disbelieve millennia of Christians: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant to take up newfangled interpretations, I will hold steady.

SD

[SoothingDave]

[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
[56] And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"

Oh Mack you just don't get it. The four brothers/brethren were all the men there. All the sisters weren't identified but we are fortunate that the entire group of men (brothers/brethren) were identified.
Get it now?

By the same token Mark 3:32 And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." The "crowd" sitting about him didn't include any "brothers", they were all outside with his mother.

Now do you get it?

---

If this was supposed to make any sense, you failed on this end. Who said anything about the people listed being inclusive or exclusive or all there or all not there or whatever? This is confused.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Name one person in Scripture who is a child of Mary. Just one.

Jesus. :-)

[SoothingDave]

LOL. You got me.

One other person, then.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Dave this is such a mess.

And you over look and use the very plain message that James IS called the Lords brother

Galatians 1:19: 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

But that don't really mean it was his brother in the flesh (wink wink)

If Jesus' own mother was there at the cross why would she not be identified as such? Isn't that odd?

Nope not in the least, she was just a sinner like the rest of them there.

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

This is confused.

Yup! So is the idea that only 4 "brothers" would be identified by name. Why these 4?

[SoothingDave]

Dave this is such a mess.

This is your answer? I go through the Bible, identify the people who it is talking about, point out their parentage and you answer with nothing except the same old refusal to engage in the discussion.

And you over look and use the very plain message that James IS called the Lords brother

Yes, and Lot is called Abram's brother. Guess what? Brother can mean more than former occupants of the same womb.

If Jesus' own mother was there at the cross why would she not be identified as such? Isn't that odd?

Nope not in the least, she was just a sinner like the rest of them there.

Jesus's own mother would be identified as the mother of some other people during the most crucial event in the world's history? This is preposterous.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Yup! So is the idea that only 4 "brothers" would be identified by name. Why these 4?

What point are you trying to make, cause it's not getting through?

The point of the discourse in question is the citizens of Nazareth scoff at the idea Jesus might be something special due to their familiarity with Him and His family.

"Who's this kid think he is? Ain't he just Mary's boy? Aren't Joe and Jim his kin?"

SD

[SoothingDave]

And you over look and use the very plain message that James IS called the Lords brother

Which James? The son of Alpheus or the son of Zebedee? Or some other James to be named later?

SD