Is Protestantism by its nature promote Relativism?

[larkin31]

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.

If theism or atheism had any strong effect on morality of behavior, we would see much clearer signs in the aggregate of behavior. I have never heard of any research that shows this, however. I consider empathy much more important than belief in God in terms of what contributes to the control of behavior. But I am no expert.

 

[c_martyr]

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.

Likewise, to be Protestant, one must also believe in a set of dogmas and doctrines.

And therefore, though we all hold to certain fundamental truths and principles, we each have different ways of explaining them. On the essentials, however, we are unified in the faith. This is what it means, not simply to be Protestant, but also to be united to the true Christian Church, which has been functioning according to this principle of grace and humility for over 2000 years now.

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.

Protestants do not be-little the gifts of pastors and teachers, which Christ has given to his church (Eph. 4:11). We need godly and learned men to expound the Scriptures unto us, for this is the way God has ordained it - *“faith cometh by hearing.” *

But here is the issue. Though the Bible is in fact an object (it is a book), it is nevertheless the record of the testimony of God, and therefore pastors and teachers are only being faithful insofar as they speak according to that which God has spoken. Faith cometh by hearing, “and hearing from the word of God” (see Romans 10:17; Isaiah 8:20).

Holding to objective truth is never easy, just ask the martyrs.

You wouldn’t be talking about the millions of Protestant martyrs who were murdered by your church, would you? You know, those who were burned alive at the steak, with their bibles tied around their necks, simply because they would not bow down to your pope or your eucharist? Yes, they are a testimony of what it costs to follow Jesus Christ and his word with all your heart, and I am greatful for my fore-fathers in the faith.

 

[c_martyr]

Please clarify what you mean by “official”.

I mean to say that the word of God did not become the word of God by the will and determination of men. That which is the word of God today, was already the word of God the moment it was written. Therefore the word of God is officially authoritative, whether men accept it or reject it. Whether they admit it or deny it. Whether they immediately “canonize” it, or call it into question, and debate over it for years. The word of God recieves its officiality not from men, but from He which hath breathed it out.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I mean to say that the word of God did not become the word of God by the will and determination of men. That which is the word of God today, was already the word of God the moment it was written. Therefore the word of God is officially authoritative, whether men accept it or reject it. Whether they admit it or deny it. Whether they immediately “canonize” it, or call it into question, and debate over it for years. The word of God recieves its officiality not from men, but from He which hath breathed it out.

Are you saying that Scripture–due to sacramental nature and divine origins–in itself authoritative regardless of men? This still begs the question how mankind can know and (subsequently canonize) Scripture from non-Scripture.

Since God Himself cooperated with men to write down His Holy Word and subsequently used men that He authorized and inspired to know Scripture from non-Scripture, Catholics believe that we can base canon upon the same Church He created and later officiated and inspired to know the correct canon.

To a Catholic, there’s no man vs. God when it comes to Scripture. Nor do we see the Church as taking away credit from the God. It’s a cooperation between God and man from its inception to canonization.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Likewise, to be Protestant, one must also believe in a set of dogmas and doctrines.

And therefore, though we all hold to certain fundamental truths and principles, we each have different ways of explaining them. On the essentials, however, we are unified in the faith. This is what it means, not simply to be Protestant, but also to be united to the true Christian Church, which has been functioning according to this principle of grace and humility for over 2000 years now.

You might be interested in reading my “What truths must you hold to be considered Protestant?” thread. I spoke primarily to liturgical/confessional Protestants as well an Assemblies of God forum-er. Since you are listed as “Protestant”, I don’t know where you fall on the spectrum but I’m curious about what you believe is non-essential and essential. Since reviving old thread is discouraged, you are welcome to PM me to share your thoughts.

Protestants do not be-little the gifts of pastors and teachers, which Christ has given to his church (Eph. 4:11). We need godly and learned men to expound the Scriptures unto us, for this is the way God has ordained it - *“faith cometh by hearing.” *

But here is the issue. Though the Bible is in fact an object (it is a book), it is nevertheless the record of the testimony of God, and therefore pastors and teachers are only being faithful insofar as they speak according to that which God has spoken. Faith cometh by hearing, “and hearing from the word of God” (see Romans 10:17; Isaiah 8:20).

We agreed except the Church believes that both Sacred Scripture and Tradition encompass and are equal as the Word of God. (See here from the Catechism). While “faith competh by hearing” and “hearing from the Word of God”, Jesus said, “Whoever hears you, hears me.”

You wouldn’t be talking about the millions of Protestant martyrs who were murdered by your church, would you? You know, those who were burned alive at the steak, with their bibles tied around their necks, simply because they would not bow down to your pope or your eucharist? Yes, they are a testimony of what it costs to follow Jesus Christ and his word with all your heart, and I am greatful for my fore-fathers in the faith.

Actually when I was writing, I was thinking of St. Ignatius and St. Stephen. Since I left it open ended as “martyrs”, you didn’t know that. As for comments, I am not offended (having long heard them before) and accept that *both *Protestants and Catholics did things that weren’t Christ-like but to other Catholics might find this comment inflammatory. A discussion of the blame game during the Reformation isn’t going to help either side in this thread’s debate.

 

[KathleenGee]

There were English priests who were drawn and quartered during the Reformation as well…many died on both sides.

Problem is that now temporal powers ruled their Church in England…and many Catholics in the protestant countries were forced to leave and become protestant.

We cannot judge. But to attempt to divide and fracture the Body of Christ has had many ramifications – the sanction of fracture for one’s interpretation through Sola Scriptura, to divorce and the breakdown of society. Young people today in America do not know what is the base of society…they have a vague notion it is the individual…not the family.

A Hebrew Catholic saw protestantism bring about the breakdown of the family through divorce, enable the Enlightment which in turned brought about a secular, and now atheistic power of society, to the use of contraception which began through the Anglican church in the 1930’s.

Even Raquel Welch can see what contraception has done – it has facilitated free sex and the subsequent effects of free sex – unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, adultery, and the loss of dignity of the woman to a sex object through the use of pornography.

The great access to pornography has in turn brought about sex crimes and many sociopaths have had a use of pornography in their past.

The protestants generally do not have a place for Mary, the Mother of Jesus who is the model and protectoress of women.

Relativism always affects the human being. There is no right or wrong. It is then the weak – generally ascribed to being a quality of woman-- and the children who truly suffer the subsequent inhumanity of men.

Objective truth vs. relativism, always has its moral dimensions. But there is nothing perfect morally in our world…except Jesus Christ…He is Truth and He is human…and it is the objective truth of Jesus Christ that morality stands on for all humanity. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law of the 10 commandments, and He showed us the face of God…and Christ, as God, is reflected in our neighbor…what we do to our neighbor, we do to Jesus Christ.

Relativism is not something to be reduced to an intellectual argument. It is playing with human lives and is the intellectual plague of our world…Pope Benedict speaks of it often.

 

[simspt]

If theism or atheism had any strong effect on morality of behavior, we would see much clearer signs in the aggregate of behavior. I have never heard of any research that shows this, however. I consider empathy much more important than belief in God in terms of what contributes to the control of behavior. But I am no expert.

I agree one cannot argue that theists behave “morally superior” to non-theists. IMO this is obviously false. I wasnt implying that.

 

[simspt]

I mean to say that the word of God did not become the word of God by the will and determination of men. That which is the word of God today, was already the word of God the moment it was written. Therefore the word of God is officially authoritative, whether men accept it or reject it. Whether they admit it or deny it. Whether they immediately “canonize” it, or call it into question, and debate over it for years. The word of God recieves its officiality not from men, but from He which hath breathed it out.

I agree but how would we know it was the word of God today if it wasnt for the early church’s decisions. It seems logical to believe that the officiality and authority was chronologically first given to the church. Its hard to think of one being authoritative without the other being equally authoratitive. The same authority you describe the NT docs possessing would seem to have been possessed by the church since both originated from Christ and the Apostolic community.

 

[KathleenGee]

The foundation of Catholicism is Jesus Christ… We believe in Jesus Christ…we do not carry notebooks around with doctrines and dogmas…

The doctrines define His full revelation of God through Jesus Christ to us…

The focus is Jesus Christ. Always. It is the outsiders who always refer to doctrines and dogmas and not to our faith in Christ.

 

[larkin31]

I agree one cannot argue that theists behave “morally superior” to non-theists. IMO this is obviously false. I wasnt implying that.

ok, thanks. You are one of the few theists on this site to have said such a thing. Sorry if I misread you.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christians claim that whatever morality they have is not of their own but the sign of God’s work in them. We adhere but we do not have righteousness in ourselves but allowing ourselves to be open to the Lord and His life and growth.

 

[ufamtobie]

No

Jon Hus,

Have you been living under a rock, that you have not noticed this truth?

Ufamtobie

 

[KathleenGee]

About Catholic teaching saying we are superior…Heard it again today at Mass…there are no righteous people…righteousness is found in Christ alone…speaking of the lost sheep…first who would go looking for one sheep who has 99…and none of the 99 or the one missing is righteous.

The Church’s grace is in its teaching and nurturing…but all members are called to go on their own walk in holiness. People outside the Church tend to look at those who failed in faith…but never heard how they hopefully got back on the right track.

It is the Holy Spirit we focus on working through consecrated souls to spirit and truth, not their common, unrighteous humanity.

Vatican II reserves harsh conviction for Catholics who have received the fullness of teaching and nurturing of faith, follow all the rules, but do not have charity in their heart…Not only will they not be saved, but they will be meted just punishment…

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Jon Hus,

Have you been living under a rock, that you have not noticed this truth?

Ufamtobie

Just because it may be self-evident for you, it doesn’t mean it will be for John Hus. John Hus may not be living under a rock, examined the evidence and disagreed it.

 

[Edward_H]

This is a great question and I had never given it a thought.

I would need to look at the development (time-wise) of Relativism, when did it really develop in earnest, against the development of the Protestant reformation. It may be that the Reformation didn’t have real aspects of Relativism in it until later. I don’t know.

I did notice something interesting that I didn’t think through too far and it came from a discussion I had with my Evangelical brother-in-laws (really my wife’s sisters’ husbands).

They found great intellectual help in examining our Country’s (I live in the US) founding father’s documents (not just the formal ones) and they were arguing (not against me) that these docs provide us enormously useful information about what our Constitution means today. I later asked them why they don’t apply the same method to their religion? Why don’t they look at the early church fathers and their writing. No answer, except mumbo jumbo about the Bible is the inspired word of God, it doesn’t need interpreters. (!).

 

[Mannyfit75]

No

Let me explain why I think Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura indirectly promotes Relativism.

Relativism claims that there is no absolute truth. The common argument for relativism is this.

“What may be truth to you may not be truth to me.”

Based on that argument, key Christians doctrines are put to question. We have to keep in mind there is one truth. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Based on Protestantism:

1. Protestants claimed that Jesus have literal brother and sisters.
2. While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not have literal brothers and sisters.
3. Another is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Most Protestants recognized it is only symbolic. While Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxs believe in the Real Presence.

One is correct interpretation and the other is not truth statement.

If you look back in the Early Church, Early Christians worship is Liturgical and the belief in the Real Presence is very clear. Protestantism have departed from ancient Christian Liturgy and deny the Real Presence.

 

[KathleenGee]

MannyFit,

Sola Scriptura is essentially interpreting Scripture to personal level without the church, which in real life doesn’t work. People need to define their beliefs and so there are denominations…many of them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

MannyFit,

Sola Scriptura is essentially interpreting Scripture to personal level without the church, which in real life doesn’t work. People need to define their beliefs and so there are denominations…many of them.

I know Sola Scripture implies that self-interpretation of the Bible by the common folk. As you know, if you read the Bible, you will get a variety of interpretations and which one of them is a true.

I have often notice whether or not infant baptism is necessary or not. They seem to disagree. By its doctrine, Protestantism does imply Relativism.

 

[JonNC]

=Mannyfit75;6738422]Let me explain why I think Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura indirectly promotes Relativism.
Relativism claims that there is no absolute truth. The common argument for relativism is this.
“What may be truth to you may not be truth to me.”

Based on that argument, key Christians doctrines are put to question. We have to keep in mind there is one truth. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Sola scriptura is not a doctrine, at least for Lutherans, but a practice.

Based on Protestantism:

1. Protestants claimed that Jesus have literal brother and sisters.

1. While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not have literal brothers and sisters.

There are many Protestants who believe in the Mary’s perpetual virginity.

1. Another is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Most Protestants recognized it is only symbolic. While Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxs believe in the Real Presence.

Lutherans and most Anglicans believe in the real presence.

If you look back in the Early Church, Early Christians worship is Liturgical and the belief in the Real Presence is very clear. Protestantism have departed from ancient Christian Liturgy and deny the Real Presence.

As per my comments above, you can’t accurately make such a blanket statement, unless you are saying that Lutherans and Anglicans are not “Protestant”, a statement with which most confessional Lutherans and Anglicans would agree.

Jon

 

[larkin31]

Sola scriptura is not a doctrine, at least for Lutherans, but a practice.

There are many Protestants who believe in the Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Lutherans and most Anglicans believe in the real presence.

As per my comments above, you can’t accurately make such a blanket statement, unless you are saying that Lutherans and Anglicans are not “Protestant”, a statement with which most confessional Lutherans and Anglicans would agree.

Jon

Indeed.

I have said this kind of thing many times. “Protestants” come in many stripes, and many of them share doctrinal positions with Catholics.