Is Protestantism by its nature promote Relativism?

[Dancelittleewok]

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

True, the Apostles did teach with OT. Just because one teaches from Scripture, it doesn’t follow that one believes that Scripture is a the sole rule of faith. (Ex: Catholics teach from Scripture but do not believe in Sola Scriptura.)

 

[Joshua27]

True, the Apostles did teach with OT. Just because one teaches from Scripture, it doesn’t follow that one believes that Scripture is a the sole rule of faith. (Ex: Catholics teach from Scripture but do not believe in Sola Scriptura.)

That’s fine…I just wanted to point out that the foundation of Choy’s statement was wrong. The Apostles taught with Scripture (text).

Up to this point I hadn’t read a post where anyone (Catholic or Non-Catholic) had corrected him on this point. I guess I should’ve waited longer. I was hoping this wasn’t a “truth” relative to people.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Based on my observation Protestantism promote Relativism indirectly. It is traditional that if a Church goers disagrees with the pastors, he leaves the church and creates his own and form his or her doctrine, and claim their Church teaches the truth.

Does anyone noticed this pattern?

That is an interesting point Manny. I think from your perspective you find this to be true. I guess it can also be said based on my observation Roman Catholicism leads to militant Absolutism. Should anyone disagree with the Roman Church on a matter, they can be subjected to threats of punishment even if their ideas can be found to be empirically true. I think the prime example is Galileo Galilei and heliocentrism.

 

[Nicea325]

Why do you call it a “need”?

The question was too vague. I don’t personally know anyone who has ever started his/her own church. I know that it happens, but I have never met a denominational founder.

But the question was whether Protestantism promotes relativism.

One must first begin with what one means by “Protestantism” and then secondly by “relativism.”

What else would you call it? If it is not a ‘need’ then exactly what is it? If one leaves one church and decides to open up shop,then I would not rule out the fact he or she felt it is necessary to open up a new shop for whatever reasons.

Protestanism promotes relativism? I am sure some sects do while others do not.

What does one mean by Protestanism? Is the term being used more loosely today?

 

[simspt]

Based on my observation Protestantism promote Relativism indirectly. It is traditional that if a Church goers disagrees with the pastors, he leaves the church and creates his own and form his or her doctrine, and claim their Church teaches the truth.

Does anyone noticed this pattern?

I dont see the logical relation to people leaving and starting other churches. Im sure historically people have left the CC or got excommunicated and started other churches some lasting hundreds of years (Marcion). i dont think we could say this somehow makes the CC a promoter of relativism.

 

[simspt]

if you mean by relativism lack of unity then any group of Christians that divorce the scriptures from the authority of the church interpretation will promote a lack of unity and doctrinal relativism. History has proven this.

 

[simspt]

. 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.

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.

moral freedom or lack of Freedom? who truthfully is the free one?
If your agnostic morality is not defensible objectively, only subjectively.

 

[choy]

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.

in Christianity, gretting the correct teaching is crucial. its in Scripture itself, many times the faithful are asked to guard against those who will lead them to error. St. Paul even says, “if you are being taught a Jesus other that the Jesus we teach…,” which means not just because one says “Jesus” automatically validates his teaching and his faith. he could be teaching the wrong Jesus, and therefore the people are following the wrong person.

 

[choy]

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.

my apologies, i should have been more specific and said without the New Testament

 

[KathleenGee]

In the context of the origins of Liturgy, the Nazarene Jews who followed Jesus continued to attend the Jewish synagogue. So we can assume they continued in following protocol. In about 80 AD, the Jews placed a malediction on the wall of the synagogue, and the Nazarenes left to form their own synagogues. The Nazarenes retaliated by letting go of the 40 day fast and moving their worship to Sunday. So it is assumed that the Nazarene Jews continued to listen to the teachings of the Torah, and other books of the Jewish Scripture.

The Palestinian Christians, those remaining, according to this local Maronite priest, are descendents of a mixture of the original Jewish, Arab and other Christians who have lived there for 2,000 years who practice the Jewish custom of breaking of bread.

Ss Peter and Paul were both led to Rome; St. James the Lesser was the head of the church of Jerusalem until the all Jews had to flee.

The Acts share of the works and travels of the Apostles.

 

[c_martyr]

how can the Bible be authoritative . . .

The Bible is authoritative, because it is the word of God.

Just like if the father of a family sets certain rules for his house, and writes them down on a big poster board, and hangs it in the kitchen. That poster board contains the very authority of the one who wrote it, being his own word. Wouldn’t you expect those rules to be designed with a certain amount of clarity? so that the father (who loves his children) would secure their ability to obey his will?

The question is this: Do you trust God as your Father? If so, then do you not expect that his word to you will be understandable?

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.

Actually, from the very beginning of the apostolic era, the apostles taught from the scriptures (see 1 Cor. 15:1-4). They, just like Jesus, preached the Gospel from the Old Testament (see Luk 24: 25-27; 32) and all the while, the apostles were inscripturating for us the fulness of the revelation of Christ through their New Testament epistles.

As soon as the apostles wrote their epistles they were “official” no matter if men accepted or rejected them. Of course, the Christian church has always received with gladness the word of the apostles, believing that they preached and wrote the very word of God (see 1 Thes. 2:13).

 

[KathleenGee]

You can say the beauty is relative to the beholder.

But if you are bringing up theology, Catholicism has doctrines that have not changed for 2,000 years. A local woman here was brought up in a very anti-Catholic family. She got hold of a ancient catechetical teachings. She then got hold of a modern universal catechism, and converted when she saw the teachings were the same.

The Church has, through the Holy Spirit, its teaching office and its sacraments to nurture us in the faith. It is not a place where old men rule. We do not even perceive male gender at work, but as Christ said, those who are consecrated in truth and spirit…this is what we as Catholics recognize.

People are mixing up the teachings and sacraments with holiness. The Church has no holiness in itself but only through Christ. Likewise, when it comes to holiness, then we are looking at individual people…no matter the rank, the vocation to holiness and greater faith is the aspiration of all Catholics. Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay can all fail. Our focus is not on them, but on the working of the Holy Spirit through them and the teachings.

These teachings and sacraments are for our sanctity and they are concrete and do not arbitrate the common humanity of all people. Relativism in the context of the Church pertains to humanity and the human condition, and must have a moral dimension.

The moral dimension is always played out in our daily lives. And we see moral relativism and its failure in many broken lives around us.

 

[larkin31]

moral freedom or lack of Freedom? who truthfully is the free one?
If your agnostic morality is not defensible objectively, only subjectively.

Who cares about “objective” defensibility? That is a canard. You need to have a rational basis for morality, not superstition.

 

[larkin31]

in Christianity, gretting the correct teaching is crucial. its in Scripture itself, many times the faithful are asked to guard against those who will lead them to error. St. Paul even says, “if you are being taught a Jesus other that the Jesus we teach…,” which means not just because one says “Jesus” automatically validates his teaching and his faith. he could be teaching the wrong Jesus, and therefore the people are following the wrong person.

This is possible with any denomination, including the RCC. Paul and his followers won the struggle for control. But does that mean that they were “right”? Even the devil wins sometimes, even right in God’s own Garden!

 

[simspt]

Actually, from the very beginning of the apostolic era, the apostles taught from the scriptures (see 1 Cor. 15:1-4). They, just like Jesus, preached the Gospel from the Old Testament (see Luk 24: 25-27; 32) and all the while, the apostles were inscripturating for us the fulness of the revelation of Christ through their New Testament epistles.

As soon as the apostles wrote their epistles they were “official” no matter if men accepted or rejected them. Of course, the Christian church has always received with gladness the word of the apostles, believing that they preached and wrote the very word of God (see 1 Thes. 2:13).

Please clarify what you mean by “official”. I apologize in advance if im not understanding you but it sounds as though you might view the canonization process with a binder approach as if as soon as each NT document was written it was immediately received as authoritative and canonical and then placed in the binder so to speak. Once the last document was written received and accepted the binder was closed forever.

Do you think the leaders of the early church consciously and explicitly formed a closed collection of Christian writings as soon as the documents were available?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

C_martyr…what are your thoughts on post #37?

 

[simspt]

Who cares about “objective” defensibility? That is a canard. You need to have a rational basis for morality, not superstition.

Theism IMHO provides the strongest rational basis for morality (We could start a philosophy thread if you like on the subject). I’m not claiming one cannot provide justification for moral behavior apart from the existence of God. Moral freedoms however amount to licentiousness for many.

 

[larkin31]

Theism IMHO provides the strongest rational basis for morality (We could start a philosophy thread if you like on the subject). I’m not claiming one cannot provide justification for moral behavior apart from the existence of God. Moral freedoms however amount to licentiousness for many.

Licentiousness does and has existed plenty with God in every corner. I don’t argue that theism or atheism is better in this regard; it is willpower and self-control that makes the difference in day to day living, not the actual foundation for one’s morality.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Bible is not the authority…It is God Himself, the Eternal Word Who is Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the authority of the Bible. The Bible is an individual set of books.

Jesus Christ did not pass out Bibles for people to take home and reflect with their own perceptions.

Jesus Christ is the Word Made Flesh…The Word Incarnated into the Eucharist. You cannot have Him sacramentally without the priesthood. When a sacramental Catholic commits serious sin, only a priest’s absolution – from Christ Himself, can absolve and restore the believer to the Eucharist.

Sacramental reception of Jesus Christ is not on the same par as spiritual communion. Catholics participate in both. Protestants participate in spiritual communion.

The sacraments are concrete, not symbolic which is then open to arbitrative relativism.

 

[simspt]

Licentiousness does and has existed plenty with God in every corner. I don’t argue that theism or atheism is better in this regard; it is willpower and self-control that makes the difference in day to day living, not the actual foundation for one’s morality.

True licentiousness has always existed and I find it interesting how the existence of evil has been used both to argue against and for the existence of God. However, I would think that one’s foundation or world view would directly effect that person’s decision and motives in relation to them utilizing their willpower and self-control when making moral decisions. In any case relativism in relation to this thread is not related to the issue of morality as i understand it.