Does relativism come from Protestantism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black_Jaque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One more thought. Someone mentioned Lay Investiture as an expression of relativism and then tried to claim that relativism may have been invented by Catholics or at least it was invented prior to Protestantism. Of course relativism exists and existed outside of Protestantism. I doubt that anyone would argue otherwise. Yet one is hard pressed to imagine outside of the influence of Protestantism in Western Society has the idea of relativism been placed front and center as the organizing (disorganizing?) principle of life and practice. Whether Luther fully realized what he had done is another question. In his open letter to the German princes he seems to relish it. In his reaction to the anabaptists he seems to be horrified by it.

Relativism is the reson d’etre for protestantism and as such Protestantism has in many ways has become the reson d’etre for relativism.

CDL
 
Sola Scriptura combined with justification by faith alone,and the idea that everyone should be free to interpret scripture according to his own understanding did indeed encourage the historical drift toward relativism,though that was not the intent. With Protestantism, religious truth can too easily be subjected to a do-it-yourself attitude,becomes changeable,uprooted.
 
Hellisreal said:
These threads end up going no where it seems. I get disheartened seeing how there seems to be a very stubborn streak in some people that when its all said and done, basically have issues with authority.

😦
Click to expand...
Interesting. Chancellare has repeatedly failed to engage with Steadfast’s argument or even try to refute it. Yet somehow we are the ones who are stubborn?

This has nothing to do with having problems with authority. It has to do with a fundamentally flawed argument purporting to show that Protestants are relativists. That is all that is at stake here. Many of you conservative Catholics want to turn everything into an argument about authority. Lighten up! Each thread has its own proper purpose, and this one is about alleged Protestant relativism, and nothing else.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Interesting. Chancellare has repeatedly failed to engage with Steadfast’s argument or even try to refute it. Yet somehow we are the ones who are stubborn?

This has nothing to do with having problems with authority. It has to do with a fundamentally flawed argument purporting to show that Protestants are relativists. That is all that is at stake here. Many of you conservative Catholics want to turn everything into an argument about authority. Lighten up! Each thread has its own proper purpose, and this one is about alleged Protestant relativism, and nothing else.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Protestantism leaves the door open for relativism,and also for fundamentalism,because of its breach with,and lack of rootedness in the apostolic tradition,and because of the combination of Sola Scriptura,justification by faith alone,and the condoning of private interpretion of scripture (the privatization of the Word of God.)
 
anthony022071 said:
Protestantism leaves the door open for relativism,and also for fundamentalism,because of its breach with,and lack of rootedness in the apostolic tradition,and because of the combination of Sola Scriptura,justification by faith alone,and the condoning of private interpretion of scripture (the privatization of the Word of God.)
Click to expand...
I don’t see how one can draw any other conclusion. Don’t be derailed by Contrarini’s red herring about authority. Either there is a truth by which we are guided or there is not. Apostolic Christians are very clear on this point. Protestants are not.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I don’t see how one can draw any other conclusion. Don’t be derailed by Contrarini’s red herring about authority. Either there is a truth by which we are guided or there is not. Apostolic Christians are very clear on this point. Protestants are not.

CDL
Click to expand...
Huh? I am not the one who tried to turn this into a discussion of authority.

Is no one even going to try to answer Steadfast’s point? How can some degree of liberty to disagree be evidence of relativism when this exists in Catholicism as well? That is the only thing I am talking about. It’s really fascinating how desperate you all are to go off on any tangent possible–and then, bizarrely, accuse me of doing so.

I have not even denied that some aspects of Protestantism might lead to relativism. But the two arguments made by the OP do not hold water.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Huh? I am not the one who tried to turn this into a discussion of authority.

Is no one even going to try to answer Steadfast’s point? How can some degree of liberty to disagree be evidence of relativism when this exists in Catholicism as well? That is the only thing I am talking about. It’s really fascinating how desperate you all are to go off on any tangent possible–and then, bizarrely, accuse me of doing so.

I have not even denied that some aspects of Protestantism might lead to relativism. But the two arguments made by the OP do not hold water.

Edwin
Click to expand...
You just did assert the question of authority. Authority is a major part of the question and even in your denial that it has anything to do with it you assert it.

Be that as it may Steadfast hasn’t asserted anything to which a response is required.

Nationalism which is an expression of relativism is possible because of Protestantism. Whether Nationalism would have come about with or without Protestantism may be an interesting speculative question. Sci-fi is filled with such and I do like Sci-fi. But in reality Cynical power hungry princes used Protestantism to further its own ends. They still do. That is pretty relativistic.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
You just did assert the question of authority. Authority is a major part of the question and even in your denial that it has anything to do with it you assert it.
Click to expand...
This claim is genuinely surreal. You start with the assumption that everything is about authority. Then you accuse me of talking about authority. Then when I say I’m not you say that by saying I’m not I really am?

OK. You are talking about pink caterpillars. Note that when you say you are not talking about pink caterpillars, you will be proving my point because you have to talk about pink caterpillars in order to say you aren’t talking about them.

So just tell me now–why are you digressing by talking about pink caterpillars?
Be that as it may Steadfast hasn’t asserted anything to which a response is required.
Click to expand...
He has asserted that Catholicism does not try to settle every doctrinal question. Go back and read the OP–this was the second argument given for Protestant relativism, that Protestants think it’s OK to leave some doctrinal questions open.
Nationalism which is an expression of relativism is possible because of Protestantism.
Click to expand...
But that is not the second argument in the OP, with which Steadfast and I are dealing. It is a specific argument, and Steadfast has refuted it.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Interesting. Chancellare has repeatedly failed to engage with Steadfast’s argument or even try to refute it. Yet somehow we are the ones who are stubborn?

This has nothing to do with having problems with authority. It has to do with a fundamentally flawed argument purporting to show that Protestants are relativists. That is all that is at stake here. Many of you conservative Catholics want to turn everything into an argument about authority. Lighten up! Each thread has its own proper purpose, and this one is about alleged Protestant relativism, and nothing else.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Protestants are not relativists. They only change their teachings to fit the times and to conform with popular expediency. For example, before 1930s, all Christian teachings support the idea that artificial contraception was unbiblical. Now most Protestant groups have embraced artificial contraception as an accepted method to limit their family size.

What has changed? The bible or the teachings relative to the times?
 
Steadfast said:
Are you contending that the Church has pronounced definitely and dogmatically on the issues I mentioned in post #51?
Click to expand...
In your post you said:

Disagreements exist among Catholics as to how the Bible is to be interpreted.

Answer:
CC teaches unity of doctrinal interpretation: In the Apostolic Constitution of the CCC, JPII states: “The CCC is a statement of the Church’s faith and catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be the sure norm for teaching the faith and thus the legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion…”

Any disagreement among Catholics is still part of the 'teaching" process which is the mission of the Church Magisterium.

I will not extend this thread but instead I invite you to refer to this excellent document.
 
Chancellare said:
Protestants are not relativists. They only change their teachings to fit the times and to conform with popular expediency. For example, before 1930s, all Christian teachings support the idea that artificial contraception was unbiblical. Now most Protestant groups have embraced artificial contraception as an accepted method to limit their family size.

What has changed? The bible or the teachings relative to the times?
Click to expand...
A most astute observation. I converted precisely because of the obvious truth of this definition. Protestants aren’t relativists they just change with every wind of doctrine. My wife and I got sick of it and now we are Catholics.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
You are joking, right?

CDL
Click to expand...
I was responding to this definition of “relativism”:
the belief that the truthfulness of a tenet is dependent on the believer.
Click to expand...
It has absolutely nothing to do with Protestantism, every variety of which publicly confesses, teaches and believes that truth is objective and ultimately a Person.
 
Chancellare said:
In your post you said:

Disagreements exist among Catholics as to how the Bible is to be interpreted.

Answer:
CC teaches unity of doctrinal interpretation: In the Apostolic Constitution of the CCC, JPII states: “The CCC is a statement of the Church’s faith and catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be the sure norm for teaching the faith and thus the legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion…”

Any disagreement among Catholics is still part of the 'teaching" process which is the mission of the Church Magisterium.

I will not extend this thread but instead I invite you to refer to this excellent document.
Click to expand...
I am very familiar with the document. If I glance to my left, I can see it on my bookshelf.

My point, as simply as I can put it, is this:
  • There is no ontological difference between what you say is “still part of the 'teaching” process which is the mission of the Church Magisterium" for Catholics and what Protestants do when they consider doctrinal adiaphora.
Just because our church is uniform say in it’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper, why should we expect, or in your case, demand similar uniformity on the part of a plural group like “Protestantism”.

Why are we permitted to seek clarity, to learn as we grow, but they aren’t?

They consider this an adiaphora and permit liberty in the matter, but each group believes its doctrine on the matter to be true.

No one is shrugging their shoulders, saying, "Well, we’re pretty sure, but those other guys might be right too."

No one actually does that. If they did it would really be relativism.

But they don’t.

Now, we can interact with them on the idea and seek to convince them that our view is the right one, but we cannot charitably take them to task for holding differing views on what, in their estimation, is a thing about which they firmly believe they have liberty on which to differ.
 
Steadfast said:
Now, we can interact with them on the idea and seek to convince them that our view is the right one, but we cannot charitably take them to task for holding differing views on what, in their estimation, is a thing about which they firmly believe they have liberty on which to differ.
Click to expand...
There is no reason why not?

Here’s another bit of evidence for Protestantism and relativism go hand in hand.

townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=where_are_the_protestant_benedicts&ns=FrankPastore&dt=05/13/2007&page=1

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
There is no reason why not?

Here’s another bit of evidence for Protestantism and relativism go hand in hand.

townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=where_are_the_protestant_benedicts&ns=FrankPastore&dt=05/13/2007&page=1

CDL
Click to expand...
An opinion piece bitching that Protestants aren’t excommunicating people?

Thanks for making my point for me:

Hilary Rodham Clinton is Methodist.

The UMC is, effectively, “pro-choice”

The Bishops of the UMC refuse to excommunicate Clinton.

Now, we can take the UMC and Clinton to task for their view on abortion, but we cannot possibly take them to task for behaving in accordance with their stated doctrine; i.e. for not excommunicating her because if we did we’d be criticising them for behaving in consistency with their confession though not with what we believe to be an objective truth.

In short, we’d be missing the forest for the trees.

Like Frank Pastore does in the article you linked to.

Now, if she were a Missouri Synod Lutheran or a PCA Presbyterian there’d be a point. But, as it is, there is no point and the article is doubly pointless since it merely wrings it’s hands over an injustice it doesn’t ever really get around to substantiating; which is to say, no examples are given of the leadership of Protestant denominations who are pro-life refusing to discipline pro-choice politicians who happen to be members.

So, the article is bunk.
 
Steadfast said:
An opinion piece bitching that Protestants aren’t excommunicating people?

Thanks for making my point for me:

Hilary Rodham Clinton is Methodist.

The UMC is, effectively, “pro-choice”

The Bishops of the UMC refuse to excommunicate Clinton.

Now, we can take the UMC and Clinton to task for their view on abortion, but we cannot possibly take them to task for behaving in accordance with their stated doctrine; i.e. for not excommunicating her because if we did we’d be criticising them for behaving in consistency with their confession though not with what we believe to be an objective truth.

In short, we’d be missing the forest for the trees.

Like Frank Pastore does in the article you linked to.

Now, if she were a Missouri Synod Lutheran or a PCA Presbyterian there’d be a point. But, as it is, there is no point and the article is doubly pointless since it merely wrings it’s hands over an injustice it doesn’t ever really get around to substantiating; which is to say, no examples are given of the leadership of Protestant denominations who are pro-life refusing to discipline pro-choice politicians who happen to be members.

So, the article is bunk.
Click to expand...
Call it what you will. It still demonstrates that Protestants by definition are relativists. Truth is not subject to the whims of this or that organization. Truth is truth. I don’t give a rat’s patuty what this group or that group says is true. It is irrelevant. You apparently have no understanding of truth. You play around with the term as if it were your own creation. That is a secularist and relativist game. There is no such thing as your truth or my truth. There is only truth. The article puts that light upon you and you find it irritating. That’s all.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
Call it what you will. It still demonstrates that Protestants by definition are relativists. Truth is not subject to the whims of this or that organization. Truth is truth. I don’t give a rat’s patuty what this group or that group says is true. It is irrelevant. You apparently have no understanding of truth. You play around with the term as if it were your own creation. That is a secularist and relativist game. There is no such thing as your truth or my truth. There is only truth. The article puts that light upon you and you find it irritating. That’s all.

CDL
Click to expand...
This is raving nonsense. Steadfast has said absolutely nothing to justify such wild accusations.

Apparently when you can’t make your point logically, you sling mud.

No one is saying that truth is subject to the whims of an organization, or that there is such a thing as “your truth” or “my truth.”

Either back up your accusations by showing where Steadfast has said anything like this, or apologize to Steadfast immediately. Those are your only options as a Christian and an honorable man.

Edwin
 
Steadfast said:
I was responding to this definition of “relativism”:

It has absolutely nothing to do with Protestantism, every variety of which publicly confesses, teaches and believes that truth is objective and ultimately a Person.
Click to expand...
All I can say is that I was a protestant most of my life and I was a United Methodist pastor for 27 years. I rarely met anyone who would pass that test…unless you allow for each person making that so called objective truth purely subjective.

CDL
 
Contarini said:
This is raving nonsense. Steadfast has said absolutely nothing to justify such wild accusations.

Apparently when you can’t make your point logically, you sling mud.

No one is saying that truth is subject to the whims of an organization, or that there is such a thing as “your truth” or “my truth.”

Either back up your accusations by showing where Steadfast has said anything like this, or apologize to Steadfast immediately. Those are your only options as a Christian and an honorable man.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Let him back up his statement that Protestantism is not relativistic through and through and then I might reconsider.

CDL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top