Protestants: If it's not mentioned in Scripture, is your fall-back position that it's prohibited, or permissible? And how do you know?

[Bluegoat]

Adiaphorism has the fancy appearence of a word resembling nothing more than theological laziness IMHO.

On one side there appears to be the “purist” looking to be spoon-fed verbatim.

On the other, the liberal who is inclined to abuse the lack of constraint and add just about everything else not in scripture to the point of burying the truth in well intentioned piety.

Either way, I fear a lack of willingness exists in proponents of adiaphorism to learn the faith as God intended, choosing their own means instead.

Piety, within the confines of Church teaching, seems to me a middle ground to the extremes of adiaphorism and subsequently, requires more effort to enrich faith rather than twist it to man’s own ends.

A noted Protestant by the name S. Werenfels once said, “Men ope this book, their favourite creed in mind; Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find.” …or doesn’t find, in which case that’s good, too? Sounds like a dangerous proposition to me.

This really doesn’t make sense. There is no such thing as “adiaphorism”. Adiaphora is anything on which members, as individuals or communities, can individually differ legitimately. These things exist in Catholicism as much as in Protestantism.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. I try not to group Protestants into a uniform entity. In fact I have stated many times here that it’s almost impossible to try to characterize Protestants into any uniform belief or doctrine.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7254040&postcount=358
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5988516&postcount=319

Regardless, the fact remains that there are some Protestants who profess this adiaphora.

And some Protestants who proclaim its corollary–that which is not mentioned in Scripture is forbidden.
And, then, there are some (perhaps most?) who use it willy-nilly and permit/forbid that which is not mentioned in Scripture depending upon the particular practice or doctrine.

I’m not convinced that the bolded is a corollary to adiaphora. As hn160 provides, the confessions are rather clear as to what is or isn’t adiaphora.

And yes, I know you to be honest inyour posting, not tryng to paint one communion with the teachings of another, simply because they are both western n-C’s.

Jon

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I think you are right.

Except that in the thousands and thousands of non-denominational churches (one on every corner in my large metropolitan area!), it does seem that the individual (read: pastor) does get to decide what’s adiaphora and what isn’t.

Well, non-denominational parishes are not, by definition, main-line churches.

But while you may find these groups do have different teachings and traditions, my guess is that if you tried to pin them down on what is essential to being a Christian, or to be saved, or whatever terminology they use, it is actually fairly consistent.

Remember, thinking that something is adiaphora doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t one answer that is better than another. It simply means that it is not an essential teaching. It may be the case that it is simply a matter of preference, or what is practical in a given situation. But while one group may teach that musical instruments really are not to be used, usually they would not say this is an essential, salvation issue.

 

[JonNC]

Adiaphorism has the fancy appearence of a word resembling nothing more than theological laziness IMHO.

On one side there appears to be the “purist” looking to be spoon-fed verbatim.

On the other, the liberal who is inclined to abuse the lack of constraint and add just about everything else not in scripture to the point of burying the truth in well intentioned piety.

Either way, I fear a lack of willingness exists in proponents of adiaphorism to learn the faith as God intended, choosing their own means instead.

Piety, within the confines of Church teaching, seems to me a middle ground to the extremes of adiaphorism and subsequently, requires more effort to enrich faith rather than twist it to man’s own ends.

**A noted Protestant by the name S. Werenfels once said, “Men ope this book, their favourite creed in mind; Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find.” …or doesn’t find, in which case that’s good, too? Sounds like a dangerous proposition to me./**QUOTE]

The problem with this quote is the “open this book” part. Adiaphora is out of the mix, essentailly, where scripture is concerned. This may be a poor generalization, but if something is not in scripture, and it does not do damage to Christ or His word, it can, by the Church, be considered adiaphoron. If the Church considers something adiaphoron, then the faithful may choose to believe it or not. For example, for Lutherans, many of the marian teachings are considered adiaphora, the Virgin birth and Theotokos being a couple of exceptions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So, are you saying that the majority of “mainline” Protestants reject this adiaphorism theory? (A Christian Protestant theological theory that certain rites and actions are matters of indifference in religion since not forbidden by the Scriptures.)

Would you agree with that, Jon? Do most mainline Protestants reject adiaphorism?

For this is what Catholicism professes.

Indifferentism–This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.

I would agree with Bluegoat that adiaphora is NOT something each individual sets for himself or herself, as in picking and choosing anything. There are limits set by the Church. And as Bluegoat sets forth, how that is determined may depend on the communion. For example, Lutherans are strongly linked to our confessions, while Anglicans to liturgy and tradition.

To be sure, adiaphora is NOT indifferentism.

Jon

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

"Bluegoat:

This really doesn’t make sense. There is no such thing as “adiaphorism”. Adiaphora is anything on which members, as individuals or communities, can individually differ legitimately.

No such thing as adiaphorism? Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees…adiaphorism, (from Greek adiaphora, “indifferent”), in Christian theology, the opinion that certain doctrines or practices in morals or religion are matters of indifference because they are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Bible. Two adiaphorist controversies occurred in Germany after the Reformation. britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/5921/adiaphorism

Bluegoat:

These things exist in Catholicism as much as in Protestantism.

Except that the Catholic Church has authority to decide on these matters whereas protestantism does not (see next response for clarification). Also, matters of piety as determined through Sacred Tradition shouldn’t be confused with adiaphorism.

Jason L Barnes;8033495:

Adiaphorism has the fancy appearence of a word resembling nothing more than theological laziness IMHO.

On one side there appears to be the “purist” looking to be spoon-fed verbatim.

On the other, the liberal who is inclined to abuse the lack of constraint and add just about everything else not in scripture to the point of burying the truth in well intentioned piety.

Either way, I fear a lack of willingness exists in proponents of adiaphorism to learn the faith as God intended, choosing their own means instead.

Piety, within the confines of Church teaching, seems to me a middle ground to the extremes of adiaphorism and subsequently, requires more effort to enrich faith rather than twist it to man’s own ends.

A noted Protestant by the name S. Werenfels once said, “Men ope this book, their favourite creed in mind; Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find.” …or doesn’t find, in which case that’s good, too? Sounds like a dangerous proposition to me./

QUOTE]

The problem with this quote is the “open this book” part. Adiaphora is out of the mix, essentailly, where scripture is concerned. This may be a poor generalization, but if something is not in scripture, and it does not do damage to Christ or His word, it can, by the Church, be considered adiaphoron. If the Church considers something adiaphoron, then the faithful may choose to believe it or not. For example, for Lutherans, many of the marian teachings are considered adiaphora, the Virgin birth and Theotokos being a couple of exceptions.

Jon

How is something determined to not be in scripture without the “open this book” part? The point speaks to extremes as I stated and most definitely is in the mix simply because one must rely on scripture to determine what is or is not in scripture. The Sola Scriptura thread demonstrated quite aptly that scripture may be twisted to whatever one of it’s proponents wants it to mean, or in this case “contain”.

What exactly do we refer to as a Church in protestantism? I can think of three mom & pop “non-denominational Christian” Churches less than three miles from my home. They are protestant, they are therefore laity, and they make these decisions - mainstream or not, like it or not, all laity, no authority.

All said, anything that promotes purity and love of God is a good thing, no qualms there. It gets dangerous when things are taken too far and become so divergent from Christianity as to be hardly recognizable - JH, LDS, etc…

Where do we draw the line? I draw it at Magisterium.

 

[Bluegoat]

No such thing as adiaphorism? Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees…adiaphorism, (from Greek adiaphora, “indifferent”), in Christian theology, the opinion that certain doctrines or practices in morals or religion are matters of indifference because they are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Bible. Two adiaphorist controversies occurred in Germany after the Reformation. britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/5921/adiaphorism

What I meant is that no group take about adiaphora as being a central tenet to their belief system. It is an aspect of howe they understand a larger system.

Except that the Catholic Church has authority to decide on these matters whereas protestantism does not (see next response for clarification). Also, matters of piety as determined through Sacred Tradition shouldn’t be confused with adiaphorism.

Only Catholics believe this. If you want to comment on non-Catholic groups, it is pretty silly to complain they don’t accept the same assumptions as Catholics.

 

[JonNC]

=Jason L Barnes;8033907]

How is something determined to not be in scripture without the “open this book” part? The point speaks to extremes as I stated and most definitely is in the mix simply because one must rely on scripture to determine what is or is not in scripture. The Sola Scriptura thread demonstrated quite aptly that scripture may be twisted to whatever one of it’s proponents wants it to mean, or in this case “contain”.

Hi Jason,
I was speaking of the Lutheran approach. What others do or say is upto them to report.

What exactly do we refer to as a Church in protestantism? I can think of three mom & pop “non-denominational Christian” Churches less than three miles from my home. They are protestant, they are therefore laity, and they make these decisions - mainstream or not, like it or not, all laity, no authority.

Again, I was speaking of Lutheranism. You’ll have to ask those folks their POV. I can’t speak for them.

All said, anything that promotes purity and love of God is a good thing, no qualms there. It gets dangerous when things are taken too far and become so divergent from Christianity as to be hardly recognizable - JH, LDS, etc…

On this I agree.

Where do we draw the line? I draw it at Magisterium.

And well you should, Jason.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

This really doesn’t make sense. There is no such thing as “adiaphorism”.

I just did a google search and got this, regarding “adiaphorism”"

google.com/search?q=adiaphorism

At least 10 pages of hits. It seems that there is indeed such an entity as “adiaphorism”.

 

[PRmerger]

But while you may find these groups do have different teachings and traditions, my guess is that if you tried to pin them down on what is essential to being a Christian, or to be saved, or whatever terminology they use, it is actually fairly consistent.

I have not found this to be the case, Bluegoat. There is much disagreement among Christians about what is “essential” to being a Christian.

In fact, just here on the CAFs I’ve found these variegated opinions:

Here’s what I learned from another Protestant on another thread about what’s considered “essential” by Protestants.

1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (1 John 5:7)
7. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)
8. Jesus is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6)."

Then, here’s another different list of “essentials”.

Those “essentials” were written by Matt Slick of CARM, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. The CARM web site states that CARM exists to defend the Christian faith by analyzing religions such as Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and comparing them to the Bible. They give (at least) these scriptural references. Certainly these essentials are lacking per Catholic dogma.

Primary Essentials:

Diety of Christ – John 8:24, John 8:58 + Exodus 3:14.
Salvation by Grace – Gal 5:4, Eph 2:8-9
Resurrection of Christ – 1 Cor 15:14, 1 Cor 15:17
Gospel – Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 15:1-4
Monotheism – Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, Exodus 20:3-6

Secondary Essentials:

Salvation – John 14:6
Trinity – John 3:16, John 5:26, 1 John 4:10, John 14:26, 15:26, Isaiah 44:24, Gal 3:13, Rom 15:16
Incarnation through Virgin Birth – Matt 1:23, John 8:24

And yet here is another list of “essentials”.

1)Love God with all you heart, soul, mind, body, etc.
2)Accept Jesus , because that’s the only way one can have the Father, by having Son., through Him you will live again.
3)Follow His commandments.
4)Preach His Gospel.
5)Wait His Second Coming and do not let, His Second Coming surprise you like a thief in the night, but be prepared for it, because we are sons of light and not of darkness.
6)If you have the opportunity in your lifetime, baptize.
7)Celebrate the Lord’s Supper. (The way you believe it is to be celebrated, God knows your heart, but you have to keep it.)

And I note that there are some egregiously missing “essentials”:
-God is love
-God created us
-Love one another
-God forgives our sins
-Repent and be baptized

At any rate, as Scripture does not delineate what’s essential to being a Christian, Christians must rely on an extra-biblical authority for this.

 

[Mark_David]

For starters: Protestants differ on this; they see it a number of ways. Having been one myself in the past, I know that some will use deductive logic based on the Scripture to decide what is and isn’t permissible. They would consider something like, say, suicide as inherently wrong because of “Thou shalt not murder”. Abortion is another classic example. Jeremiah 1:14 - And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations. Doesn’t prohibit abortion, but makes clear that we’re human while still in the womb; thus abortion is murder. And so on. Which is all well and good, of course - except that they don’t have the Church, so they’re missing a large chunk of the story, the truth, the grace, the love, and many other spiritual and intellectual benefits. Moreover, doctrines such as sola fide are just plain wrong and biased; even if sola scriptura were correct (which it isn’t).

 

[JonNC]

For starters: Protestants differ on this; they see it a number of ways. Having been one myself in the past, I know that some will use deductive logic based on the Scripture to decide what is and isn’t permissible. They would consider something like, say, suicide as inherently wrong because of “Thou shalt not murder”. Abortion is another classic example. Jeremiah 1:14 - And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations. Doesn’t prohibit abortion, but makes clear that we’re human while still in the womb; thus abortion is murder. And so on. Which is all well and good, of course - except that they don’t have the Church, so they’re missing a large chunk of the story, the truth, the grace, the love, and many other spiritual and intellectual benefits. Moreover, doctrines such as **sola fide **are just plain wrong and biased; even if sola scriptura were correct (which it isn’t).

We’re missing grace? And love? Really?

What is your understanding of sola fide?

Jon

BTW, you are correct in some of the other things you said.

 

[Mark_David]

We’re missing grace? And love? Really?

Your profile says that you’re an evangelical catholic, so that’s rather confusing. The grace and love of God? Certainly Protestants can have those things - but to a lesser extent, plus it’s never a certainty, since they pay no mind to Christ’s Church and its teachings (which selected the books of the New Testament - which alone defeats sola scriptura).

What is your understanding of sola fide?

That one is saved through faith in Christ, and not by works - which renders a large portion of the Bible irrelevant, because “faith produces works”, so why even have teachings to go by? The Spirit alone would guide us. But it doesn’t work like that. I’m sure you’re familiar with James 2.

 

[JonNC]

=Mark David;8034846]Your profile says that you’re an evangelical catholic, so that’s rather confusing. The grace and love of God? Certainly Protestants can have those things - but to a lesser extent, plus it’s never a certainty, since they pay no mind to Christ’s Church and its teachings

Even from a Catholic perspective: the CCC 818

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

It uses the word “are”, not “can have”. Its is rather definitive. And as for that call to “Catholic unity”? That is what is inferred in “evangelical catholic”, the intention through faithful dialogue to seek reconciliation and unity, and never be content with or revel in division, as the Augsburg Confession says:

Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

(which selected the books of the New Testament - which alone defeats sola scriptura).

As SS is a practice of a communion, it is used in regard to the canon said communion recognizes. It doesn’t set canon. In a way, this is similar to the fact that the CC does not use one of the more expanded Orthodox canons for hermeunetics.

That one is saved through faith in Christ, and not by works - which renders a large portion of the Bible irrelevant, because “faith produces works”, so why even have teachings to go by? The Spirit alone would guide us. But it doesn’t work like that. I’m sure you’re familiar with James 2.

Indeed I am, and in that light, if my communion expressed sola fide in the way you have here, I would leave it!! We access justification by grace alone through faith alone, but faith cannot be alone. A saving faith is one that works through love. A faith that does not work is a dead faith, not a saving faith.
Luther:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[Cat]

Indeed, it was! Thanks for sharing your experience.

So would you say that in your evangelical church the default position was it’s allowed if not mentioned in Scripture, or that it’s forbidden?

It depends on what the parents/husband/church says.

E.g., some parents forbid going to a movie theater. The church will support that. Yet other parents allow going to a movie theater, and the church will also support that.

Another phrase that you will hear evangelical Protestants use is “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things love.” I believe this was originally said by St. Augustine, but many non-Catholic churches use this as a guideline for daily life practices such as going to movies.

 

[Mark_David]

Even from a Catholic perspective: the CCC 818
It uses the word “are”, not “can have”. Its is rather definitive.

1. Notice that it says “many elements”, not “all elements” - thus outside denominations are not the complete Faith, and so are inherently shakier and riskier. 2) “Are” doesn’t equate to “are universally found”. Only God knows which groups are worthy outside the visible Church - some being obviously less effective in bringing people closer to Christ than others. 3) God is not the author of dissension (1 Cor 14:33). Protestantism is very divided; it represents confusion on the whole. The Church doesn’t, and hasn’t since Christ Himself founded it.

We access justification by grace alone through faith alone, but faith cannot be alone.

Glad you agree. Faith and works are the means by which we access justification by grace alone (the only sola that’s accurate). It’s fairly simple.

Luther:

Luther was an arrogant, rabble-rousing heretic; also an alcoholic who preached marital infidelity. Talk about “Catholic unity”, faithful dialogue, and all the other things you invoked. Yes, the truth hurts, but it’s important to let go of myths. I only mention this for your benefit. God bless you.

 

[JonNC]

=Mark David;8035639]God is not the author of dissension (1 Cor 14:33). Protestantism is very divided; it represents confusion on the whole. The Church doesn’t, and hasn’t since Christ Himself founded it.

This is off topic, Mark, and I will not get into polemics with you.

Glad you agree. Faith and works are the means by which we access justification by grace alone (the only sola that’s accurate). It’s fairly simple.

We access justification by faith, a faith working in love.

Luther was an arrogant, rabble-rousing heretic; also an alcoholic who preached marital infidelity. Talk about “Catholic unity”, faithful dialogue, and all the other things you invoked. Yes, the truth hurts, but it’s important to let go of myths. I only mention this for your benefit.

Thanks Mark. After all the time I’ve been here, I’ve never heard stuff like this before.
Actually, I haven’t heard the alcoholic thing before. That, and the infidelity are new attacks.

God bless you.

And you as well.

Jon

 

[lisaraek]

Just a interjection here from a convert to Catholicism from the Southern Baptist tradition. It is simply impossible to make generalizations concerning Protestantism because it is constantly in a state of flux… It isn’t the Lutherans vs the Metholists or the Baptists vs the Disclples of Christ anymore. If anything, the main-line churches are being passed up by young families who are looking for a more entertaining and excitiing worldly style of worship that fits in nicely with their secular tastes. They are finding this sort of worship in the new contemporary non-denominational churches that have the doctrinal freedom to be all things to all people and still keep the form if not the substance of a church. .
Within 10 miles of my home here in Colorado, there must be at least 20 competing independent non-denominational Protestant churches in addition to the main-line denominations. These non-denominational churches are in store fronts, malls, school auditoriums, movie theaters, and homes in addition to their own buildings. Non-denominational churches are unaffliated with any main-line denomination (although they are often the off-springs of splinters off a main-line denomination) with each following their founding pastor’s vision and personality.
So, since doctrinally each one of these churches is being “led by the Holy Spirit” in their own unique direction and are not necessarily in-line with any other competing church in the neighborhood, trying to pin down a generalized view of Protestantism, beyond the basics --sola scriptura, sola fe, the Holy Trinity,the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection ---- is, well, simply impossible…All they really have in common is that they can be defined by what they are not…Catholic…LK

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed I am, and in that light, if my communion expressed sola fide in the way you have here, I would leave it!!

Why would you do that, Jon? Do you not believe that your church is the church that Christ established?

If so, and if that is what she professes, would it not be the right thing for you to do for you to conform your beliefs to that which Christ’s church proclaims, rather than leaving to find a church which professes that which you believe?

 

[Mark_David]

Thanks Mark. After all the time I’ve been here, I’ve never heard stuff like this before.
Actually, I haven’t heard the alcoholic thing before. That, and the infidelity are new attacks.

An unsourced quote I found online:

Accordingly if the devil should say, ‘Do not drink,’ you should reply to him, 'On this very account, because you forbid it, I shall drink, and what is more, I shall drink a generous amount. Thus one must always do the opposite of that which Satan prohibits. What do you think is my reason for drinking wine undiluted, talking freely, and eating more often, if it is not to torment and vex the devil who made up his mind to torment and vex me.
~ Martin Luther

As with his theology: self-serving.

As for infidelity, yes - Luther believed in reverting back to Old Testament times in that a spouse unwilling to do, or incapable of doing, their “marital duties” could have a lover to fulfill that purpose; the other spouse should accept this gracefully.

Even if these things are elaborate lies, the fact remains that Luther preached heresies - teachings contrary to sound doctrine that had been well-established for the prior 1500 years. Do you really think God would allow His Church to be in error and heresy that long until someone finally came along and corrected them? That may even suggest that God was incapable of correcting his church for well-over a millennium. Common sense alone tells you that something is wrong with this picture.