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]

So James the brother of the Lord is an Apostle.

Did Paul come along before or after the crucifiction? Was Paul an Apostle?

We know very well the brothers of Jesus didn't believe in him while he was alive!

1Corinthians 15:

[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
[2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.
[3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
[4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
[5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Did the twelve include Peter?
[6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
[7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Name the Apostles. Are they the same ones referenced in verse 5?
[8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
How many Apostles do you count now?

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit you have surrendered your will and intellect to the Magisterium? You have no choice but to repeat the party line.

[OLD REGGIE]

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

I didn't expect it to. After all, you surrendered your intellect some time ago. You are a one way street.

[Jaded]

[6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

Busy huh?

[Full Court]

2 Peter 3:9
 ¶The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,
as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward,
not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance.

[Quester]

My point is that it's a rather large leap from this which we have evidence for ... to the presumption that scripture has somehow been twisted (or obliterated) beyond recognition.

Well, that is a giant leap from anything I have ever said. I have stated many times (at least a few times :)) that our present day Bible(s) while not perfect are good enough to live by. Any "errors" are inconsequential.

My reply ... in that post ... was to Restornu.

It is standard LDS teaching that the Bible is untrustworthy because ... 'well, ... who knows what could have happened to it in 2000 years ?'

My view on this is very similar to what you state.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

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.

That sounds eerily like what it must have been like for those people not wanting to disbelive a millennia of Nimrod's or Tower of Babel descendants as they banged on the door of the Ark. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Why is it so difficult for you to admit you have surrendered your will and intellect to the Magisterium? You have no choice but to repeat the party line.

Why is it difficult to imagine that I have come to this decision freely and of my own volition? If those engaged in the "plain English" method of interpretation had any type of response to my many detailed expositions of Scripture, I might consider other ideas. As long as they ignore inconvenient evidence and refuse to make any type of logical response, I will stay on the side that has Tradition, Scripture and logic working for it.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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

I didn't expect it to. After all, you surrendered your intellect some time ago. You are a one way street.

I admit when I am not receiving communication clearly. If you choose to castigate me for this rather than explain yourself, you only reveal your own limitations.

SD

[SoothingDave]

So James the brother of the Lord is an Apostle.

Did Paul come along before or after the crucifiction? Was Paul an Apostle?

How is this relevant to my post about the various James and who their parents are? Can you respond to it, or do you need to join the deflectors league?

There are two Jameses identified in Scripture as "brothers" of Jesus and neither one of them have Joseph for a father.

How this can go un-responded-to is a mystery.

What other James is found in Scripture that is the blood half-brother, out of Mary's womb and Joseph's seed, of Jesus?

SD

[Jaded]

You know, if the argument is used that Mary had other children with Joseph, would not the natural assumption be that Jesus was a biological child of Joseph or that his brothers and sister would also be divine? Would not there be a record of it somewhere other than the Bible? Not even the apocrypha. Nobody has explained the 500 brethren either.

And why is this so widely ignored.....especially the call me blessed part.
__________________________________________
Luke 1:36-56 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

51He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

56And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
_________________________________________

[annalex]

Godd thing you are trying. In 1633 I explain that "Until" is but one possible translation for "eos". Another translation we frequently see is "till" or even "even to the time that". See, for example, Matthew 27:8 "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day". This is why there is nothing in Matthew 1:25 to indicate anything about Joseph and Mary after the birth of Christ.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Try reading Matthew 1:24 and 1:25 in context. Its very illuminating.

[annalex]

More accurately I am saying that when a privately arrived at understanding is at odds with the meaning that the Church has held for 2000 years, then the person with that inorthodox opinion has the onus to explain why the Fathers of the Church missed his meaning. Mos tlikely, the error is on the private interpreter, who reads the bible in a translation, often a very bad one, in the context of a very different culture. As we have seen, even very plain words, such as "brothers" did not have the same meaning then.

Of course we don't have to run to the Catechisis or to St. Chrysostom, or to the writings of the Popes, or to the councilar documents each time you read the scripture. Nobody does. About 80% of the Scripture is very clear to a casual reader. But not 100%. In order to read the scripture and profit from it spiritually one has to absorb the Holy Tradition at the same time. Then he can read for wisdom and pleasure and grow in faith with it.

[SoothingDave]

Try reading Matthew 1:24 and 1:25 in context. Its very illuminating.

You used to defend the "plain English" meaning of these verses until you decided to reject the entire idea of the Virgin Birth. So how illuminating was it really?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

What other James is found in Scripture that is the blood half-brother, out of Mary's womb and Joseph's seed, of Jesus?

Are you playing games, looking for the exact words? This is silly coming from one who boldly states the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and Bodily Assumption, of Mary can be read from the Bible.

". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down"

(Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 14; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis not in original)
==============================
This Church Council certainly read it from Scripture - Here!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You used to defend the "plain English" meaning of these verses until you decided to reject the entire idea of the Virgin Birth. So how illuminating was it really?

Very.

[SoothingDave]

What other James is found in Scripture that is the blood half-brother, out of Mary's womb and Joseph's seed, of Jesus?

Are you playing games, looking for the exact words?

No, I've identified two Jameses in Scripture, neither one of which has Joseph for a father. What is so hard about answering which James is supposed to be Jesus's half-brother through the union of Joseph and Mary?

Bringing in non-canonical documents is pointless at this point. We're still establishing what "brother" means or does not mean. One thing at a time.

SD>{?

[annalex]

I would be interested though in learning the earliest dated original documents you use to prove this so-called Tradition.

So would I. I am not a historian (I am a computer engineer). But the difference between Scripture and Tradition is precisely that Tradition is self-correcting, while Scripture is not. If I need to understand the passage I suspect is not self-evident, I can read the Catechism or talk to a priest, till that process brings a better understanding. Usually, a reference to the early Church writings closes the deal, if the Catechism is silent. That way, the meaning of a particular verse, say, Matthew 1:25 or Luke 1:28, is understood not through some archaeological analysis of surviving copies, but by evidence of understanding common to the Fathers.

[annalex]

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

What I gave n 1633 is facts. If you follow the online concordance like I did, you can form your own opinion. If you draw a different conclusion, please explain why.

It is fine to restate the verses, but the issue is not what the text of the verses is, but what they mean. For that one needs a histirical and linguistic analysis, if one is unwilling to listen to the traditional interpretation.