Does relativism come from Protestantism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black_Jaque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nonsense. Let him back up his statement that Protestantism is not relativistic through and through and then I might reconsider.

CDL
What does that have to do with it? You made specific accusations that were clearly false and unjust. No one on this thread has said the things you have claimed. Therefore, you must retract your claim. You have no right to demand conditions for this–it’s a simple matter of justice.

Whether Protestantism is relativistic or not is a completely separate question from whether Steadfast and I have made relativistic statements on this thread. In Steadfast’s case this is particularly unfair, since he is no longer a Protestant!

I for one have said repeatedly that Protestantism may be the source of relativism–but the specific arguments made in the OP do not hold water.

Edwin
 
Alright, Perhaps for whatever other reason Steadfast may have called the article bunk he may not be saying so because he is not a relativist himself. If that is true, then he can say so and I’ll apologize and ask him for some clarification of his dismissal.

CDL
 
Alright, Perhaps for whatever other reason Steadfast may have called the article bunk he may not be saying so because he is not a relativist himself. If that is true, then he can say so and I’ll apologize and ask him for some clarification of his dismissal.

CDL
It seems to me that you are confusing being wrong with being a relativist. That I think was Steadfast’s point. Not that there are really multiple truths (so that it’s OK for the UMC to be pro-choice), but that holding a false view and acting on it is not in itself relativistic.

It seems to me that you and a lot of other people are using the word “relativist” without a lot of thought.

I think that Protestantism has definitely contributed indirectly to the rise of relativism by its incessant divisions, which have led many Protestants to conclude that there can’t be one universal truth. If that is what you are trying to say, then I agree with you. But that is not what the OP said. The OP spoke of Protestants who do hold to a central core of beliefs but allow for differing opinions on other points. And that is not relativistic. As Chancellare pointed out (mistakenly thinking that it was a point against us), liberty and relativism are two different things. Both Protestants and Catholics can allow for a good deal of liberty to disagree without saying that there is no absolute truth.

One issue that is not getting discussed here is the difference between the existence of absolute truth and our access to it. I believe of course that absolute truth exists, but our access to it is always mediated by our particular perspective. If that is relativism, then I’m a relativist. But that is the subject for another thread, I think.

Edwin
 
Even with that distinction the Church makes the bold claim and I think rightfully so that it proclaims the truth. In fact it is the “pillar and ground of truth”. It is therefore not possible for more than one Church to exist. It follows that this one Church must proclaim and support the truth and that all other such claiments cannot duplicate that accomplishment.

Approaching the issue another way: The Church believes and proclaims that the Truth Himself is Incarnate. It is not a mere abstraction. In some profound way the truth can be known. It is this reality that sets us free. It is this reality that not only Thomas Aquinas affirms but all the saints before him and since him. It is also proclaimed by St. Paul in Romans 1 and 2. The Gnostics insist that the truth is only truly abstract and only known by a few, but that is not the claim of the Church. We say that the truth is known in the breaking of bread.

So the truth is neither relative nor is it unknown and only abstract.

CDL
 
GP,

I am not sure what to say except that we appear to have known very different Protestants and that as Edwin says, there is a vast difference between being wrong and being a “relativist”.

All the best,

Mike
 
GP,

I am not sure what to say except that we appear to have known very different Protestants and that as Edwin says, there is a vast difference between being wrong and being a “relativist”.

All the best,

Mike
Mike,

It’s not so much the members who are relativistic by intention. They believe what they are taught. It is Protestantism…the whole conception of it, tis belief patterns…that is relativistic. The members just follow suit. I suppose if one is committed to relativism one is absolute in relationship to the driving force. But the overriding philosophy is relativistic by intention. But to make such an assertion seems only Orwellian to me and could only be done within a secular context that has no underpinnings.

Have you read Pope Benedicts, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures? I believe he addresses this issue quite admirably.

CDL
 
As defined relativism is the system of thinking that morality is relative to a given culture; what is right in one culture might be wrong in another. It leads us to think that the truth of moral judgments is always relative to a given system of beliefs that itself cannot be proven correct. Moral relativism is synonymous with ethical relativism. They both state that morality is relative to the individuals personal experience, beliefs or culture and therefore become the individuals choice. As such, relativism is the opposite of objectivism.

Historical facts suggest that this secular and relativistic thinking was closely linked, if not the came animal as Radical Enlightenment, which was the precursor of secularism. Radical Enlightenment occurred beween the 1650 to 1750 in Europe. According to Jonathan I. Israel in his exhaustive book entitled Radical Enlightenment, Radical Enlightenment was a revolutionary set of ideas which helped lay the foundation of the modern world on the basis of equality, democracy, secular values and universality. The author reveals the pivotal role of Spinoza and the influence of the widespread underground philosophical movement known initially as Spinozism.

Not coincidentally, the period preceding and during this Radical Enlightenment was populated with major contributions from the following personalities, as mentioned by Jonathan Israel, among others:
Erasmus: in 1503-1525, advanced the philosophy of Humanism.
Luther: in 1517, nailed the 95 Theses on the portals of Wittemberg Church. Solar scriptura, sola fide, etc.
Calvin: in 1550 converted Central Europe into Calvinism by teaching the newly minted Lutherans the strict literal interpretation of Scriptures and asserted that salvation belonged only to the elect (predestination).
Descartes: in 1600, published his Discourse on Method, dualism in body and mind and rejection of scholastic Aristotelian theology.
Spinoza, in his Tractatus, completed the teaching of total rejection of theology as a means to understand man’s relationship with God. This laid down the foundation of the rest of the Enlightenment thinkers in advancing secular thinking and atheistic philosophy.
By 1650, the rest of Europe went under the process of rationalization and secularization, what started as rejection of Catholic dogma, but eventually led many to reject religion and theology and ultimately to challenge the veracity of the BIble and the Christian faith - as “free thinkers”. These radical thinkers targeted revealed religion and ecclesiastical authority.
 
Chancellare,

You’ve hit the nail on the head. I would add that the French Revolution and finally the Thirty Years war ending with the Peace of Westphalia as visceral challenges against any obedience to truth. Christians have been fighting a defensive war against relativism ever since. It has pretty much overtaken Protestatism and is a serious challenge to Catholicism.

I’d like to think that all of this was an unintended consequence of Luther’s actions but his open letter to the German Princes seems to indicate that this is what he intended.

CDL
 
Steadfast,

Here are some examples of posts that I get from Non-Catholics, that lead me to initiate this thread.

In a discussion about the Eucharist: note the IMHO which indicates opinion
IMHO- It is a memorial…has nothing to do with salvation…but a way of honoring the unmatchable sacrifice he gave for us.
Posted by the board “owner” as a sticky explaining what the “apologetics forum” is about:
Yes catholics and mormons this is where you can try to convince the rest of the world you’re the ONLY one who’s right. Just don’t expect me to believe you.
When asked what the original church that Christ established was:
…and what I believe Christ’s original and present church was and is. I have said repeatedly for months and months, that [Christ’s original church] was, is, and always has been the BODY OF BELIEVERS. Just about everyone but the catholic agrees on this premise.
A comment about the early Christian Church at the time of the canonization of the New Testament:
The people that did the work then were the majority, but Christiian Faith at that time was no more one single entity than it is now.
As I indicated earlier, the Catholic Church allows room for disagreement about matters that are not yet clear [to the magesterium], or in which a matter requires prudential judgement. With respect to a matter that is not yet clear: the Church is not saying “both are right”, she is simply saying she doesn’t know which is right.

There’s a huge difference in not knowing which is right and relativism which professes that both are right. The above quotes seem to indicate that Protestants believe there are lots of right answers.
 
Code:
  	 				IMHO- It is a memorial..has nothing to do with salvation..but a way of honoring the unmatchable sacrifice he gave for us.
That’s not relativism. It’s a statement of belief in contradistinction to what we as Catholics believe.

It would be relativism if the author said, “But you guys could be right too…”
Yes catholics and mormons this is where you can try to convince the rest of the world you’re the ONLY one who’s right. Just don’t expect me to believe you.
This isn’t relativism either, its a snarky rejection of exclusivist claims, just exactly like what we sometimes give when Baptists tell us that Baptism is only to be administered to believers subsequent to a public profession of faith or that we have to “make a decision to accept Jesus as our Personal Lord and Savior” in order to be saved.
…and what I believe Christ’s original and present church was and is. I have said repeatedly for months and months, that [Christ’s original church] was, is, and always has been the BODY OF BELIEVERS. Just about everyone but the catholic agrees on this premise.
This also is not relativistic. It would be if it said that it doesn’t matter what you believe, or that all churches are equally right. All it is is a statement to the effect that the constitution of the church is not located in human institutions but rather in the election and call of God.

We would probably take more of a *both/and *approach to the question than this person but as stated the sentiment is not one completely antithetical to a specifically Catholic perspective on the nature of the Church either.

Rather the opposite, in fact.
The people that did the work then were the majority, but Christiian Faith at that time was no more one single entity than it is now.
I’d have to see a lot more context to judge this but it could be nothing more than a rather more holistic attitude toward the development of doctrine than we would hold.

You seem to have confused relativism for communitarian liberality (and note, I am not talking about “liberalism” but rather the common Protestant attitude which sees the Church first and foremost as the priesthood of all believers and only after this as an entity defined by doctrine or practice).

We can criticise the latter but we have to be careful. We shouldn’t confuse the symptoms for the disease or the fruit for the branch.

Properly speaking “relativism” has existed as long as mankind and while it may have been particularly active during the 16th century, it may be truer to say that, in some sense, “relativism” caused the Reformation rather than vice versa.
 
Steadfast,

Well, it would be pointless to try to post enough of those other threads in order to give you the entire context. Yes, you can nit-pick the statemens and find where they fail to meet a textbook definition of relativism.

But after some time of seeing a pattern develop out of their responses, I am beginning to be convinced that the Protestant denominations depend on some relativism.

No, my O.P. was not intended to be taken as a literal accusation that Protestants invented relativism, or that protestantism is entirely relativistic. But I intended to check if my observations of a connection between relativism and Protestantism are correct.

In the first quote, you seem to miss the emphasis on IMHO, which stands for “In My Humble Opinion.” I could tie up bandwidth with thousands of such references. They seem to have a hang-up with personal opinion. Doctrinal interpretations are always relegated to IMO or IMHO. Which can be indicative of relativism which relegates all truth to matters of opinion. The IMHO is in fact a way of saying “but you guys could be right too.” They are stating that the consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus is In My Humble Opinion a memorial. Well that’s his opinion, and the understood is that our beliefs are merely our opinion too and therefore can’t have any more merit than his own opinion. Relativism.

In the second quote - that is relativism too. What the author is insinuating is that Catholics and Mormons are the only ones with the audacity to say they’re right and everyone else is at least partly wrong. I don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to our responses to baptism and accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. I’m not aware of any Catholic response that sounds like what this man wrote.

In the third quote - yes it is an expression of relativism. These people have made the claim that it doesn’t matter what you believe - so long as you believe that Christ is the Son of God and Savior of Man. It’s as if the only concrete objective belief they hold is this Divinity of Christ and his role as Savior. All else is relative to them.
it may be truer to say that, in some sense, “relativism” caused the Reformation rather than vice versa.
Well OK, then, Did relativism cause protestantism? I’m not so concerned with the nit-picky details of which came first, but I’m more concerned with my observance of a relationship between Protestantism and Relativism. No Protestants are not relativist through-and-through.

But it seems like they’re blind to the fact that the ugly child they seem to hate - when it comes to labelling all morality as relative - actually is a close kin to Protestantism.

When confronted with various doctrines and dogmas that separate them from the Catholic Church, they trot out the IMHO mantras. However, when it’s a doctrine that they are united with the Catholic Church on, it’s simple fact.
 
Mark,

But what you are claiming to be not relativistic is the very definition of relativism. Either something is true or it is not. E.g., either the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ is the Body and Blood or it is not. Both claims cannot be true. Both cannot be true. Either one is or the other is but not both. The truth is not relative to anything. It is itself the truth.

CDL
 
Mark,

But what you are claiming to be not relativistic is the very definition of relativism. Either something is true or it is not. E.g., either the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ is the Body and Blood or it is not. Both claims cannot be true. Both cannot be true. Either one is or the other is but not both. The truth is not relative to anything. It is itself the truth.

CDL
 
I understand relativism, in the context of our discussion, to be the belief that everyone could be right.

Protestants don’t believe this. At least not officially, anymore than Catholics do.

You may be able to find a few individuals who believe something like it, but you might be able to find Catholics who do too.

Relativism is not being ignorant as to whether something is true or not; it’s not being strong enough to admit that you believe your doctrine to be really true.
 
Protestants don’t believe this. At least not officially, anymore than Catholics do.
It would be refreshing to see/hear a Protestant who stuck to an official belief. To hear a Lutheran who believed that Lutheranism was the one and only way, and that Methodists were nearly as wrong as Catholics.

But alas, the protestants I encounter seem to have this vein of relativism running in them. It’s like they need to cling to it in order to unite against the Catholic Church.

It would be so nice to read a Lutheran quote Luther, or someone else with some credibility instead of this incessant IMO, or IMHO. Or, accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and all the rest is just man-made dogma.

Perhaps, it would be beneficial to learn some about the various Protestant denominations, then I would at least know what it is that they officially believe, rather than just their “humble opinions.”
 
I understand relativism, in the context of our discussion, to be the belief that everyone could be right.

Protestants don’t believe this. At least not officially, anymore than Catholics do.

You may be able to find a few individuals who believe something like it, but you might be able to find Catholics who do too.

Relativism is not being ignorant as to whether something is true or not; it’s not being strong enough to admit that you believe your doctrine to be really true.
Mark and Contrarini,

I’m convinced. I’m going to backtrack on my conversion. It doesn’t really matter. I’m going to invent some new truth to which I will be firmly committed. I’ve wasted enough time with Catholicism. I don’t need it. I can’t make a decent living being a Catholic anyway so I’m out a here. Whether you join me or not won’t make any difference since your truth is as good as mine. It’s just that I want to retire someday and it doesn’t look good financially that I stay Catholic. Since my knowledge is what determines truth I’ll just make up my own truths as I go along. I guarantee that my truths are going to be less expensive that the Catholic truths. In fact I guarantee that I will make more money.

Let’s see…who will be my Creator? Shall I have sacraments? Most religions do. I wouldn’t have to have any but my tastes run that way so I will. I’ve always liked the smell of burning leaves. So there it is. I’ll burn leaves for my sacrament. I like chant so I’ll play some chant music interspered with a little Rimsky Cosokav and Bach.

I’ll do some more thinking and describe the rest of my religion later. It’s all true and none of it is relativistic because I will believe it firmly. I promise.

CDL
 
Greg,

…Go for it dude! And as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior you’ll share in the brotherhood of all Christians. All the rest? Feel free to make it all up since it’s all going to be man-made dogma anyway and your man-made dogma can’t be any worse than the Catholic man-made dogma.

😉
 
Well, whether there is any “official” acceptance of relativism within Protestantism remains to be argued.

However, I feel pretty confident that the IMHO’s and other such “Big Tent” nonsense has some thread of relativism to it. I just may begin calling them on that…
 
Mark and Contrarini,

I’m convinced. I’m going to backtrack on my conversion. It doesn’t really matter. I’m going to invent some new truth to which I will be firmly committed. I’ve wasted enough time with Catholicism. I don’t need it. I can’t make a decent living being a Catholic anyway so I’m out a here. Whether you join me or not won’t make any difference since your truth is as good as mine. It’s just that I want to retire someday and it doesn’t look good financially that I stay Catholic. Since my knowledge is what determines truth I’ll just make up my own truths as I go along. I guarantee that my truths are going to be less expensive that the Catholic truths. In fact I guarantee that I will make more money.

Let’s see…who will be my Creator? Shall I have sacraments? Most religions do. I wouldn’t have to have any but my tastes run that way so I will. I’ve always liked the smell of burning leaves. So there it is. I’ll burn leaves for my sacrament. I like chant so I’ll play some chant music interspered with a little Rimsky Cosokav and Bach.

I’ll do some more thinking and describe the rest of my religion later. It’s all true and none of it is relativistic because I will believe it firmly. I promise.

CDL
This is a ridiculous caricature of what the Reformers did and isn’t worth my time.
 
This is a ridiculous caricature of what the Reformers did and isn’t worth my time.
Whether it is or it isn’t it is what came to pass. I think this entire thread is ridiculous so I guess we are in the same boat.

CDL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top