FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sola Scriptura and Relativism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Is Sola Scriptura a form of relativism?
well yes, and other things as far as i can tell so far"
(09-16-2014, 09:41 PM)medievalman86 Wrote: [ -> ]well yes, and other things as far as i can tell so far"

perhaps its the proverbial cess pool?

just thinking about it now, protestantism really isnt new... Its just the same old heresies from the early councils in some way or the other?
Frances de Sales had a good rejoinder to the Calvinists of his day: You think your interpretation is correct, we think ours is. WHOSE AUTHORITY GOVERNS?
Because there are so many Protestant interpretations, many of them wildly at odds with each other.
it seems to me that alot of the one-liners used to attack religion as such are reworkings of old protestant attcks against Catholicism.
If it were really scripture alone, it would be, but a Protestant is not allowed to be sola scriptura in practice, or he is excommunicated by the herd, like the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.  There are absolutes (dogmas) which come from the Apostle's  Creed, although the Baptists, and probably most of the new denominations, claim they reject all creeds.  Nevertheless, they have "statements of faith", i.e., absolutes, which impose limits on interpretation of scripture.  The Trinity is not up for interpretation to Christian sola scripturists, so it's not pure relativism. 
I would say it is technically not relativism--or at least it didn't start as relativism--but it certainly led to it.

The early promoters of this doctrine certainly believe there was only one true interpretation and that all who rejected it were heretics and outside the Church.  Of course, this led to the proliferation of smaller and smaller groups fighting with each other over what was the true interpretation.  Since this became untenable, relativism became the only practical way to maintain some semblance of peace.
Recently, I blogged about the impossible phrase “spiritual but not religious,” and in the post I point out a correspondence between American Protestantism and Relativism. The quote below I think is relevant here:

With this basic understanding of the words involved, we can return to this phrase “spiritual but not religious.” It becomes immediately clear that it is an impossible notion. It attempts to divide that which can’t be divided. It’s a complete misconception. And, this would be enough if the people who use this phrase, Dr. Harris included, actually used it to mean what the words themselves convey. Instead, it is used for something else entirely. It’s not socially acceptable to be completely open and honest about our own egoism. Nor, do I believe, we are completely comfortable with it ourselves. So, we dissemble. To put it plainly, “spiritual but not religious” is code for “I’m interested in the those states, conditions, or qualities of my soul without the bond between myself and God that makes it possible.”

This attitude of unfettered individualism is particularly American. Founded by radical Puritans who valued private interpretations based on the Reformers’ heretical notion of sola scriptura, they colonized this land out of a desire to do things their way; to be their own people, with their own laws, with themselves as their only authority. In fact, the entire “spiritual but not religious” attitude that is so prevalent today is the ultimate outcome of the Protestant program. Once scriptural interpretation becomes a matter of private concern alone, then so too does religious doctrine, based as it is on Scripture. When religious doctrine is a matter of private interpretation, then adherence to religious doctrine becomes merely an option based on individual whim.

Today, there are 40,000 Protestant denominations. Each of them believes, based on their own interpretative authority, that they are the rightful bearers of the full truth of God. Most of these are the product of a denomination or a church splitting over private interpretations, disputes over authority, and the consistent appeal to personal autonomy to believe as they wish. This is the legacy of the Puritans, of George Whitefield, of Jonathan Edwards, of Charles Finney, and even Billy Graham. The Reformers displaced bishops and the Pope by enthroning individual authority and autonomy, so now this individual authority and autonomy is empowered to displace religion altogether.

At its heart, it is the age old sin of pride, of entitlement, of concupiscence. It is the notion that I’m entitled to the things of God without God from whom those things come. My spirit is my own, to do with as I please. Usurping the rightful place of the Essence of our existence with our own ego and its whim, we bind ourselves to it. The self is now god and selfishness, greed, divisiveness, jealousy, and envy are the fruits of its spirit.  Thus, the real significance of “spiritual but not religious.” It is a commitment to the spirit of the ego over against the Spirit of God. It is only one more in a long line of defiant invectives against the fact that we will always be contingent upon God. Its fruits are all around us to see.

"Spirituality is Religious." Ragbag Reflections, 11 September 2014
Well, to say that there's no authority on earth to interpret the Bible basically means, in reality, that everybody is an earthly authority that interprets the Bible.

Let's not forget the Anabaptist rebellion that happened in Münster (descending into polygamous depravity and so forth) happened while Luther himself was alive.

Protestantism from the very beginning couldn't control these divisions we see today under the form of millions of denominations. So yes, I believe there is a relativism at the heart of Protestantism.