Is Protestantism by its nature promote Relativism?

[nhylan]

Relativism consents to abortion, euthanasia, chimeras. It consents to hopelessness…kids are going to do it anyway, when our culture did not have the tremendous social problems 40 years ago that we are having now.

In recent times, it is relativism that says it is OK people manipulate votes, deliberately plunder the benefits system because different people have different social mores, so let them do ‘their thing’.

So you have at present our state of government, a divided country…and no common base.

I have to look at relativism for what it is and how it is impacted real life.

I am no friend to relativism because it creates indifference, ‘loose’ living, broken homes, and death.

Because relativism didn’t exist 40 years ago? People need to choose, and they have been given the ability to choose by God. The reliance which the Catholic Church has on relativism seems only to serve as a device to assert papal and church primacy. Its circular logic. It is, because it is. God deserves a little more thought than that I think.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Church has always upheld the sanctity of human life, marriage and family life, the base of society.

I would not use relativism in relation to the Church stating there is salvation outside itself.

People of religion and convictions that practice fraternal charity, the Golden Rule, treating others the way one wants to be treated that are universal are demonstrating they are all drawing from one source…however one defines it.

The Church’s stand of having the fullness of salvation is meant in how it defines and teaches about God in relation to us and creation, and in the Church’s ability to fully nurture us to salvation through worship, sacraments, and ecclesial life in general. You don’t have to draw on the Church, but you are missing out in living a more sanctified life and enlightenment of who you are and what life is about, and where you are going … in a communion…

 

[choy]

Why does this matter? Why do humans need to establish a hierarchy of correctness with their religions?

of course it matters. getting something this important correct is crucial. what we seek here is salvation and a wrong understanding of something could lead to the wrong path

 

[larkin31]

Relativism is opposite of objective truth. That means, in relativism, there is no right or wrong.

No, it does not mean this.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I talk a lot about faith with protestant students, and I definitely think there are relativistic trends in the protestant faith. They usually don’t care much about truth or ‘what is true and what is false’. For instance, many of them hold that the practice of baptizing infants and the practice of baptizing convinced believers is not logically contrary. Even when I tell them that the theology behind both practices is mutually opposed, they really don’t care much and don’t want to declare the particular practice of their church to be the ‘true’ one.

The same goes for the Real Presence. When I tell them that I believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, they very much love the idea, but they don’t consider it to be of any impact on their own beliefs or faith. They think that it is perfectly fine for me to believe A and them to believe B and consider both just as right. When I tell them that logically it is either A or B, the usual answer is: I don’t think God cares very much (literally!).

So yes, I am not sure if Protestantism necessarily, by its nature, leads to relativism (might be so), but I definitely recognize relativistic tendencies in most protestant faiths.

 

[larkin31]

of course it matters. getting something this important correct is crucial. what we seek here is salvation and a wrong understanding of something could lead to the wrong path

Perhaps your efforts about establishing “right paths” is a flawed endeavor, and that the manner in which one conducts oneself along any of the paths (since there are and have been so many many religious paths over human history) is what matters most.

What is the value in “my religious path is better than yours”? So many claim this.

 

[nhylan]

The Catholic Church has always upheld the sanctity of human life, marriage and family life, the base of society.

I would not use relativism in relation to the Church stating there is salvation outside itself.

People of religion and convictions that practice fraternal charity, the Golden Rule, treating others the way one wants to be treated that are universal are demonstrating they are all drawing from one source…however one defines it.

The Church’s stand of having the fullness of salvation is meant in how it defines and teaches about God in relation to us and creation, and in the Church’s ability to fully nurture us to salvation through worship, sacraments, and ecclesial life in general. You don’t have to draw on the Church, but you are missing out in living a more sanctified life and enlightenment of who you are and what life is about, and where you are going … in a communion…

Admitting that Salvation may be found outside the RCC infers that the ideas found in other denominations, which are perhaps different that what the RCC teachers and which are valid to that denominations followers do not interfere with salvation ergo the RCC basically condones the following of these truths and thus encourages what could be considered a form of relativism. That is what I was referring to in regards to salvation being found outside the RCC.

 

[KathleenGee]

Larkin31,

I really need to get out to the garden…we have had continuous rain and clouds, but alot of growth…in two days plants grew a feet up…we have to get our seed in.

People project we devout Catholic robots to the pope.

Protestantism led to divorce, breakdown of family, issues with Enlightenment as Hesychios stated, and the rise of the secular state. The Anglican church OK’d contraception in the 1930’s. I think fundamentalist and evangelical churches sanction contraception as well. Contraception led to more premarital sex, teens now at 25% diseased in America, loss of innocence of our children and teens – no more happy days, rampant adultery here, more abortions to support the free sex lifestyle…

Alot of Catholics practice contraception but alot don’t know about Natural Family Planning. Women take the pill but they are also messing with their endoctrinal health as well. I myself personally try to be healthy in every thing.

Those who seek the truth will find it, and not going along with relativism and its death to body and soul also affirms my freedom in objective truth. There is a very active group here in town who is making the rounds to help people with Catholic practices without the issue of leading them into the church.

Husband up now…have to get going!

 

[larkin31]

Relativism consents to abortion, euthanasia, chimeras. It consents to hopelessness…kids are going to do it anyway, when our culture did not have the tremendous social problems 40 years ago that we are having now.

In recent times, it is relativism that says it is OK people manipulate votes, deliberately plunder the benefits system because different people have different social mores, so let them do ‘their thing’.

So you have at present our state of government, a divided country…and no common base.

I have to look at relativism for what it is and how it is impacted real life.

I am no friend to relativism because it creates indifference, ‘loose’ living, broken homes, and death.

If you believe Genesis fairly literally, then it is God’s initial arrangement in Eden that leads to suffering and death for humanity. Don’t blame the modernists.

 

[Major_Minor]

Because relativism didn’t exist 40 years ago? People need to choose, and they have been given the ability to choose by God. The reliance which the Catholic Church has on relativism seems only to serve as a device to assert papal and church primacy. Its circular logic. It is, because it is. God deserves a little more thought than that I think.

Relativism didn’t exist 40 years ago?
You’re joking. Of course it did. That term may not have existed but of COURSE the idea did.

-SOME- things are relative (Musical taste comes to mind)
-SOME- are not… otherwise 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 =5 are equally true statements.

The idea that -Everything- is relative is just lazy thinking.
Because some things are doesn’t mean everything is.

 

[KathleenGee]

We are not talking Genesis here and Catholics look at the bible in layered context…but no part left out…everything whole.

 

[larkin31]

I have a question for Catholics on this website. Why are you guys utterly obsessed with the label of “Relativism?” Seriously… every thread about stuff that’s non-Catholic is blamed on, labeled, or otherwise inferred to be relativistic. I can only assume its because its easy to label things, like labeling things demonic which is another little quirk that people have on these forums.

I would posit that by calling relativism a bad thing you are belittling the majesty and scope of God’s truth to a neat simple little package that’s nice and easy and black and white. Get your hands dirty for goodness sakes!

…reactionary fear of the progress toward greater freedom. Mores without strong rational supports tend to fall over time, and mores around sexuality are rooted deeply in the cultural and individual consciousness. They don’t fall easily, and conservative cultural forces tend to obsess and demonize them.

 

[larkin31]

We are not talking Genesis here and Catholics look at the bible in layered context…but no part left out…everything whole.

you blamed relativism for “death”

I don’t think that that is fair, particularly from an ardent Christian

 

[Major_Minor]

And back on topic:
I think an honest appraisal of the situation is that yes Protestantism allows for relativism much more than Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (To different degrees.)

I was raised Protestant, and as we moved a lot I went to : Presbyterian, Quaker, Nazarene, Baptist, Four Square, Episcopalian, Pentecostal and Lutheran churches growing up and for many years (after the age of about 15) I rejected Christianity altogether because my consistent observation was that everybody was saying different things. Nobody seemed to have any idea what was really important… the sheer number of mixed messages was overwhelming to me. VASTLY different versions… The tower of Babel, basically.

In saying that let me mention that I don’t feel Protestants aren’t -real- Christians, my belief is that real Christians can be found in Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles… just as much as people not worthy of the title Christian can be found in all those circles, too. But back on topic my experience says that yes, the problem of relativism does exist to a higher degree in protestant circles.

It’s also worth noting that one of the main problems facing modern Islam is that in many quarters it is going through it’s own sort of Protestant reformation. Many more people in recent years are deciding to interpret the Koran in their own way ignoring many of the checks and balances that have been there for centuries to correct misinterpretation.
Hence the rise of certain extreme Fundamentalist sects.

 

[Major_Minor]

…reactionary fear of the progress toward greater freedom. Mores without strong rational supports tend to fall over time, and mores around sexuality are rooted deeply in the cultural and individual consciousness. They don’t fall easily, and conservative cultural forces tend to obsess and demonize them.

Yyyyeeeeaaaaah.
Garbage.

You claim to be an ardent Christian?
You are suggesting that Jesus “Obsessed and demonized” your so called progressive thought? Well where is the proof that sexual freedom leads to progress?

Does the fatherless or motherless child, left alone through one parent’s “Progress towards freedom” feel more “free”? I’ve seen these liberal ideas in action up close and they never amount to anything other than people getting hurt through someone rationalizing their own selfishness… which is what most current liberal thought boils down to.

Because ideas swing one way too much (Let’s say overly constrictive and “conservative”) does not mean that the swing the other way (Liberal) doesn’t hold its own share of errors.

There is very little actual “progress” in what people are calling “progressive thought” these days. Just more children rationalizing their selfish behavior with fluffy happy words like “freedom”

 

[larkin31]

Yyyyeeeeaaaaah.
Garbage.

Well. Good thing that I did not say that “politeness” was on the increase. That would have obviously been wrong.

You claim to be an ardent Christian?

No. Look above. “Agnostic, former Protestant”. I was also born again at one point.

You are suggesting that Jesus “Obsessed and demonized” your so called progressive thought?

What? did not say anything about Jesus.

Well where is the proof that sexual freedom leads to progress?

I did not claim this. I claimed that the greater progress toward social and moral freedoms leads to conservative reactionary responses. This has been true for hundreds of years. It is a common truth now.

Does the fatherless or motherless child, left alone through one parent’s “Progress towards freedom” feel more “free”? I’ve seen these liberal ideas in action up close and they never amount to anything other than people getting hurt through someone rationalizing their own selfishness… which is what most current liberal thought boils down to.

I don’t think that we are supposed to argue politics on this forum. I decline to respond to this.

Because ideas swing one way too much (Let’s say overly constrictive and “conservative”) does not mean that the swing the other way (Liberal) doesn’t hold its own share of errors.

True. And I did not say anything counter to this.

There is very little actual “progress” in what people are calling “progressive thought” these days. Just more children rationalizing their selfish behavior with fluffy happy words like “freedom”

Sorry you feel that way about all the progress that we have made this century in terms of individual rights and social freedoms. This is even more of the “reactionary” response that I was referring to. There are large blocks of Americans and other persons worldwide who would beg to differ with you.

 

[dsears]

Whether or not the Protestant Church leads to realtivism depends on the church itself. Many of the more liberal Churches do lead to realitivism, infact that is one of the reasons why I left Protestantism all together. But the more conservative churches do try to stand on the scriptures as their source of faith.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

But I think the differing “truths” are, indeed, tolerated under the same roof which is called Protestantism.

It depends on how you define Protestantism: see this thread. Take regeneration for an example: Lutherans and Calvinists have differing views when this occurs. Lutherans say after baptism while Calvinist say it occurs before conversion. Both faiths must agreed to their said groups confessionals and these beliefs weren’t be tolerated in their different denominations. Yet if you take all the Protestant denominations as a whole, then yes, it is tolerated because there’s no over-arching creed to define the movement.

I say Protestantism is easily to lump together but hard to define.

c_martyr:

This comment is hypocritical. It is funny how catholics can accuse protestants of holding “differing truths” and yet when catholics are shown to also hold a whole host of differing views on various issues of theology, their excuse is, "Well, this is permitted because there is no ‘official’ statement from our church on those particular topics . . . "

Oh, that expains it!

So then, I guess, until their church leaders finally make up their minds as to whether a thing should be regarded as truth or not, all catholics are encouraged to simply tolerate one another in their differing truths. Sounds like relativism to me . . .

No, rather it’s more of a differing explanations to said truths. To be Catholic, one must believe in a set of dogma and doctrines.

I agree.

But just so you know, Protestants do have an authoritative external standard of truth, and that is the Holy Bible, the same standard of truth upon which the Christian Church has stood for the last 2000 years.

The Bible, while holy, is an object. Being an object, it cannot speak for itself, hence it needs a person–with a will and intellect–to interpret from its holy pages. To say the Bible is the authoritative truth begs the question, since Catholic, Protestants, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witness, SDA, etc. all use it to discover the truth: what truths are gleaned from the Bible really depends on what denominations you are from.

nhylan:

I would posit that by calling relativism a bad thing you are belittling the majesty and scope of God’s truth to a neat simple little package that’s nice and easy and black and white. Get your hands dirty for goodness sakes!

Catholics believe that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditions must be preserved as the deposit of faith. Hardly, belittling God’s truth. Holding to objective truth is never easy, just ask the martyrs.

LongJohnSilver:

For instance, many of them hold that the practice of baptizing infants and the practice of baptizing convinced believers is not logically contrary. Even when I tell them that the theology behind both practices is mutually opposed, they really don’t care much and don’t want to declare the particular practice of their church to be the ‘true’ one.

Through RCIA, the Church baptizes, confirms, and gives the Eucharist to adults as well. These adults well exceed the normative ages for the conferring these Sacraments.

 

[Joshua27]

how can the Bible be authoritative? if one protestant denomination interprets it one way, and another protestant denomination interprets it another way, how does the Bible say who’s right or wrong?

that is why the Church is need. the Apostles and their successors taught without any scripture for at least 30 years. and for another 300 years after, there was no official canon of Scripture. but Christianity thrived not because of Scripture, but because of the Church. Jesus passed his Authority to the Apostles, who then passed it on to their successors. Jesus didn’t pass the authority to written text

Not True, Choy. The Apostles did indeed teach with Scripture, specifically “the Torah and Prophetic books”.

Acts 18:28 - “He [Paul] mightily convinced the Jews, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”

at the times of the Acts (of the Apostles) the “Scriptures” are the Jewish Torah and the Prophetic books since the Bible wasn’t fully assembled as it is. This shows that long after Christ’s ascension, but well before the additional New Testament, the Torah and Prophetic books were still the valid scriptures used.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Admitting that Salvation may be found outside the RCC infers that the ideas found in other denominations, which are perhaps different that what the RCC teachers and which are valid to that denominations followers do not interfere with salvation ergo the RCC basically condones the following of these truths and thus encourages what could be considered a form of relativism. That is what I was referring to in regards to salvation being found outside the RCC.

Sure ideas can be found outside other denominations, but that doesn’t make that correct. Beliefs that are outside the Church in Protestant denominations–such as the real presence, Sacred Scripture, etc.–were first held in the Church first. The Church doesn’t condemn beliefs that adhere to the Truth but rather only the wrong ones. Since the Church has a set of dogmas and only accepts the right ones (whether outside or inside), you cannot say it encourages relativism.

It would be incorrect to say that salvation can be found outside the Church but rather individuals that are outside of the Church are saved through the Church. But “no salvation outside of the Church” topic goes beyond the scope of this thread.