Replies

First, allow me to make one minor correction. Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons was first published in pamphlet form in 1853, and expanded to book form in 1858. As it was first published in Scotland, I wouldn't expect it to have made significant inroads into American Protestant subculture until later, which may account for your 1919 date.

Well, OK, I initially got the information from this page on Amazon.

The Two Babylons was an anti-Catholic religious pamphlet produced initially by the Scottish theologian and Protestant Presbyterian Alexander Hislop in 1853. It was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Roman Catholic Church is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia old conspiracy.

But upon further research, I see that this information is incorrect...but things are fairly inconclusive. This page shows a digitized book dated 1932 that is supposedly the fourth edition (1st Ed, 1916; 2d Ed, 1921; 3d Ed, 1926; 4th Ed, 1929). On the other hand, there is this digitized book, dated 1862, which is supposedly a third edition (with a second edition dated Dec 1857).

So you go figure...

Now, as to your statement, Consider that the more "successful" sects of 19th century restorationism were still on the rise at that time. IMO the bluntness of anti-Protestant media such as "Radio Replies" only dumped more fuel on the "anti-Catholic" fire that, as you rightly point out, was a common theme among the emerging restorationist mindset. Hislop's book, given that Hislop was a member of the recent Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) offshoot, would only serve to enflame the restorationists further, given Hislop's denomination's reputation for having well-educated ministers.

I think you summarize my point very nicely, although I would submit that the bias was not limited to "restorationist" sects, per se. This doctrine existed throughout Protestantism. Remember a couple of years ago when I started posting the anti-Papal portions of the founding documents from the traditional Protestant denominations? (e.g., Smalcald, Westminster, Savoy) These articles were not retracted until well into the 20th Century (and, in the case of some denominations that have further splintered since the Reformation, haven't been retracted to this date( I will be the first to state, however, that the degree to which these positions are actively taught is, especially in these days, minimal, particularly when one considers the very active nature of the Restorationist sects, so I would hate to make something like that a sticking point.

I bring the above up because it's apparent that many of the questions received and answered through these books appear to be, not only from Restorationist Protestants, but from Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Reformation Protestants, as well.

I think that it is fortunate, though, that both sides of the argument have stepped back from the brink in recent decades.

I think you summarize my point very nicely, although I would submit that the bias was not limited to "restorationist" sects, per se. This doctrine existed throughout Protestantism.

And I would agree with you on that point. I would counter, however, that in restorationism the Catholic Church's existence takes on a much larger significance than it does in Reformed circles in two ways. For the restorationist, the Catholic Church embodies not just false doctrine, but is directly to blame for a "great apostasy." And secondly, the restorationist is deeply dispensational-premillennial in eschatology (as opposed to the amillennialist/postmillennialist Reformers, and the classic premillennial anabaptists). Not only is the Catholic Church to blame for the apostasy, it's the "great whore of Babylon" in a coming Tribulation, too! And IMO it was that view that was being advanced and popularized by pentecostals and restorationists at the turn of the century, going way beyond what the Westminster Confession's article 25 and other Reformed views taught, that the Catholic apologists were reacting to in the historical analysis you advanced.

Remember a couple of years ago when I started posting the anti-Papal portions of the founding documents from the traditional Protestant denominations? (e.g., Smalcald, Westminster, Savoy) These articles were not retracted until well into the 20th Century (and, in the case of some denominations that have further splintered since the Reformation, haven't been retracted to this date( I will be the first to state, however, that the degree to which these positions are actively taught is, especially in these days, minimal, particularly when one considers the very active nature of the Restorationist sects, so I would hate to make something like that a sticking point.

I agree - and that reinforces my point about Restorationist activites at the turn of last century.

Not neccesarewly. IMO it would be wrong to just gloss over the strong doctrinal differences (i.e. the Council of Trent) between Catholics and their "seperated brethren" in their "defective ecclesiastical communities", and between the "separated brethren" themselves.

To their discredit, of most Catholic apologetics (but not these articles) usually lump together the worst traits of each group, and then accuse/blame every "Protestant" group (Reformed, Anabaptist, Restorationist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, etc) of jointly believing in all of them. GonzoII's articles are the first I've seen that actually take the time to address individual groups of non-Catholic believers. Hopefully both sides will learn something from them.

Case in point - prior to reading these articles, I'd like to know if you thought that I myself, as a Protestant, believed in a "great apostasy" that removed the gospel from history until [pick a date], in the "trail of blood" maintaining a "pure church" through history, in a Catholic Pope being the Anti-Christ of the coming Great Tribulation?

I think that it is fortunate, though, that both sides of the argument have stepped back from the brink in recent decades.

GonzoII still posted these threads, didn't he? :D Seriously, I don't fault these threads in the slightest for being blunt. Not as long as those same Catholics don't rail against non-Catholics for being blunt in offering their side, too.