Private Judgment and the Rise of Relativism

Donatello

This article talks about something I've gone on about for quite a while on this forum. I always use the example of contraception to illustrate my point. You know the drill by now.

The Catholic CHurch teaches that artificial birth control is sinful. The vast majority of Protestants OK it, although some Evangelicals are coming round to the Catholic position. I think of such movements as QuiverFull.

If even leading Christians cannot agree about Truth, then it seems that Truth is simply unknowable.

The Protestant who rejects the Catholic Church's teaching dismisses a vast body of teaching, of evidence, reason, constant Tradition, prophetic teaching documents, and support for the wisdom of the Church's position. The Protestant is also forced to dismiss Christ's promise to guide His Church into all truth when He promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles:

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

- Jn. 16:13

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

- Jn. 14:16

Throughout the succeeding centuries, it was not helpful that Protestantism was so influential in the leading nations and cultures of the dominant West, for the Protestant doctrine of private judgment is in itself a precursor of full-fledged relativism. At first, of course, this doctrine that the Holy Spirit leads each Christian privately into all truth brought its proponents absolute certainty in their beliefs. But against this certainty stood the obvious fact that private judgment led different people, with equally credible claims as good Christians, to different conclusions; and also the obvious result that Protestantism spread through what is called separatism, with one congregation after another splitting off of the family tree to pursue its own distinct understanding of the Truth.

In other words the principle of private judgment is completely incompatible with the idea that truth is one. This creates an unbearable intellectual and psychological tension.The initial outcome may well be an insular conviction that everybody else is wrong, but the secondary outcome, for slightly more reflective people, is the growing suspicion that there is something terribly wrong with our method of knowing, or that spiritual principles and moral values cannot be known, or that there is simply no such thing as absolute and unitary spiritual and moral truth. The inevitable cultural outcome is a pressing need to live as if what seems true to me will work fine for me, and what seems true to you will work fine for you.This is practical relativism.

Where practical relativism leads, true relativism is almost certain to follow, characterized by a deep psychological refusal to acknowledge or consider the question of truth, along with an insistence that the values a person should hold are whatever values make him comfortable with himself.

[...]

My only point here is to trace the clear connection between the Protestant principle of private judgment and the rise of relativism. Interestingly, the war between evangelicals and mainline Protestant churches demonstrates that Protestants who have not yet spun off into relativism generally abhor it. But this war is very different from that between orthodox Catholics and Modernists. In the Catholic case, the orthodox are fighting against a corruption of their faith by the relativism of the surrounding culture. In the Protestant case, the conservative Christian is attempting to stave off an inevitable development in his own fundamentally irrational intellectual and moral culture. Relativism follows from private judgment as night follows day. Private judgment allows no way of apprehending the unity of Truth; relativism simply ceases to seek what so obviously cannot be found.

Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.

Zombrex

By rejecting the interpretations of the Protestant churches (which ever one that may be) are you not doing exactly the same thing, if they turn out to be right and the RCC turn out to be wrong?

Out of curiosity have you ever studied in depth the reasons the various Protestant churches reject the authority of the RCC as the rock Jesus spoke of?

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

By rejecting the interpretations of the Protestant churches (which ever one that may be) are you not doing exactly the same thing, if they turn out to be right and the RCC turn out to be wrong?

Out of curiosity have you ever studied in depth the reasons the various Protestant churches reject the authority of the RCC as the rock Jesus spoke of?

I have indeed. Exhaustively.

The ultimate issue is this: by rejecting the authority given to the Church directly by Christ, particularly to Peter along with the other Apostles, and continued by the Pope, successor of Peter, and the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, one ends up right where that article indicates: finally in the realm of moral relativity. Only by trusting the truth that Christ established the Catholic Church and invested the Church with Apostolic authority, can the trap be avoided. Even if you can, somehow, disregard the reams of apologetics material on the Primacy of Peter, the testimony of history, there is, finally, the psychological argument, which is a useful last resort if you are not sure. That final argument addresses your query about how can we be sure, and in such a case as we are not, what is the best course of action? The best course of action is to follow the Catholic Church, to become a member of the Church. To put your eggs in the basket of the Catholic Church!

philologos

For goodness sakes Donatello, you couldn't have kept this to the other thread?

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

This article talks about something I've gone on about for quite a while on this forum. I always use the example of contraception to illustrate my point. You know the drill by now.

We do. You supply extensive links and diaappear from view when it comes to actually defending the nitty gritty of your view.


Of late these involve:

1) Special Pleading in the case of your own personal interpretation

2) Unequivocal reliance on what early Christians do to support your position when the Bible declares unequivocally on the error capabilities of early Christians

The Catholic CHurch teaches that artificial birth control is sinful. The vast majority of Protestants OK it, although some Evangelicals are coming round to the Catholic position. I think of such movements as QuiverFull.

Protestants and Roman Catholicism differ in view - check

The Protestant who rejects the Catholic Church's teaching dismisses a vast body of teaching, of evidence, reason, constant Tradition, prophetic teaching documents, and support for the wisdom of the Church's position. The Protestant is also forced to dismiss Christ's promise to guide His Church into all truth when He promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles:

Protestants and Roman Catholicism differ in how they form their views - check

Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.

Self-evident.




Donatello. You've taken the time to format an OP that says absolutely nothing by way of substance (given the context of a discussion forum). Soon to be locked I predict.

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic wrote: »

Soon to be locked I predict.

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven..."

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven..."

In that case...

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

1) Special Pleading in the case of your own personal interpretation

---

Case Study:

Wicknight spots the obvious problem with Donnatello's position and poses the obvious question.

Wicknight wrote:

By rejecting the interpretations of the Protestant churches (which ever one that may be) are you not doing exactly the same thing..

Donatello pointedly ignores the question and answers that segment of the post which suits his book

Donatello wrote: »

I have indeed. Exhaustively.

The ultimate issue is this: by rejecting the authority given to the Church directly by Christ, particularly to Peter along with the other Apostles, and continued by the Pope, successor of Peter, and the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, one ends up right where that article indicates: finally in the realm of moral relativity. Only by trusting the truth that Christ established the Catholic Church and invested the Church with Apostolic authority, can the trap be avoided. Even if you can, somehow, disregard the reams of apologetics material on the Primacy of Peter, the testimony of history, there is, finally, the psychological argument, which is a useful last resort if you are not sure. That final argument addresses your query about how can we be sure, and in such a case as we are not, what is the best course of action? The best course of action is to follow the Catholic Church, to become a member of the Church. To put your eggs in the basket of the Catholic Church!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

philologos

That's why I suggested that we should bring back the megathread where all this stuff could go. We need to have a similar arrangement in respect to this as we have with the Young Earth Creationist debate.

Fanny Cradock

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's getting tedious, isn't it?

Donatello, it is clear you have a major beef with any other Christian tradition other than your own. We get that. Now stop prattling on about it. I suggest you show your fellow sisters and brothers in Christ a little more respect.

Fanny Cradock

philologos wrote: »

That's why I suggested that we should bring back the megathread where all this stuff could go. We need to have a similar arrangement in respect to this as we have with the Young Earth Creationist debate.

We might have to revisit that thread at some stage. Still it would be nice if there was a sufficient spirit of ecumenism that we didn't require a megathread. All it takes are a few individuals to foment trouble which then gets everybody hot and bothered.

For now I'm asking those who favour the RC v Protestant arguments (you know who you are) to lay off them.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's getting tedious, isn't it?

Donatello, it is clear you have a major beef with any other Christian tradition other than your own. We get that. Now stop prattling on about it. I suggest you show your fellow sisters and brothers in Christ a little more respect.

Can't we have the mega-thread reopened? And perhaps a Roman Catholic announcements thread for spam-like material?

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's getting tedious, isn't it?

Donatello, it is clear you have a major beef with any other Christian tradition other than your own. We get that. Now stop prattling on about it. I suggest you show your fellow sisters and brothers in Christ a little more respect.

With this thread, I present the major conundrum facing non-Catholics: the impossibility and evasiveness of truth (despite God's promises to the contrary) and the inevitable fragmentation of Protestantism . This argument is irrefutable. If anyone can address point by point the issues raised in the OP, I'm all hears.

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can't we have the mega-thread reopened? And perhaps a Roman Catholic announcements thread for spam-like material?

I'll have a chat with PDN. But I think in the short term some people will have to do without their hobby horse.