Individualism and Western Society

Status
Not open for further replies.
arapahoepark

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
Since encountering the New perspective, I have seen more than ever in new works Western society pilloried for being individualist, guilt ridden and juridical; the guilt (supposedly and no pun intended) laid squarely at the Reformers' feet for their interpretations.
Were the Refomers guilty of anything of this sort like ignoring ethnic or corporate dimensions?
Is later Protestant piety too individualistic or are many claims merely rehashed and baseless cliches (after all one has to exercise faith individually)? Somewhere in the middle?
 
arapahoepark said:
Since encountering the New perspective, I have seen more than ever in new works Western society pilloried for being individualist, guilt ridden and juridical; the guilt (supposedly and no pun intended) laid squarely at the Reformers' feet for their interpretations.
Were the Refomers guilty of anything of this sort like ignoring ethnic or corporate dimensions?
Is later Protestant piety too individualistic or are many claims merely rehashed and baseless cliches (after all one has to exercise faith individually)? Somewhere in the middle?
Click to expand...
It's become a canard, a trope. There are examples of these in Protestantism but I they don't hold up as a generalization.

Are various Catholic "alternatives" supposed to be the alternative? A priest transubsantiating in a foreign language with the congregation at his back? An old woman muttering and thumbing a Rosary in he corner rocker?

Another accusation that I'm weary of, and equally baseless, is that Protestantism has no developed social theory. It is as if Luther, Calvin, Rutherford, Dabney, Machen, Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Schaeffer, Rushdooney and many others have never existed.
 
arapahoepark said:
Since encountering the New perspective, I have seen more than ever in new works Western society pilloried for being individualist, guilt ridden and juridical; the guilt (supposedly and no pun intended) laid squarely at the Reformers' feet for their interpretations.
Were the Refomers guilty of anything of this sort like ignoring ethnic or corporate dimensions?
Is later Protestant piety too individualistic or are many claims merely rehashed and baseless cliches (after all one has to exercise faith individually)? Somewhere in the middle?
Click to expand...
I hear this a lot from my former Prot friends that converted to more traditional forms of Christianity (Catholic/Orthodox).
 
In many ways, I'm forced to be individualistic by my conscience. When my church goes whoring after the idols of man-made holidays or neglects the RPW, my conscience cannot follow. While we are one body, united to a common mediator, each of us must behave according to the light he has: to his own master each stands or falls. It drives my elders crazy sometimes, but I'm grateful for the phrase in the LBCF that states: "Christ alone is Lord of the conscience." That means that anything the group tells you must be filtered through God's word, and you are responsible to judge whether it is good or evil.
 
And the current Pope is a communist.

Eastern Orthodoxy was followed by the Soviet Gulags.

We can do this all day. At the end of the day what matters is whether a tradition is true or false.
 
Ben Zartman said:
In many ways, I'm forced to be individualistic by my conscience.
Click to expand...

"It was Jiminy Cricket who said, 'Always let your conscience be your guide.' This is good advice if our conscience is informed and ruled by the Word of God. However, if our conscience is ignorant of Scripture or has been seared or hardened by repeated sin, then Jiminy Cricket theology is disastrous." -- Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (page 151)

My friends that converted have said something along the lines of, "This is good advice if our conscience is informed by holy tradition and ruled by the church. By placing authority outside of ourselves, including interpretation of scripture, etc., we reduce the individualistic tendencies we've seen in Western thought and theology. It's humbling."

How would you respond?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
BayouHuguenot said:
I would ask if they used their own interpretation to evaluate the claims between Rome, EO, Copts, and Assyrian Christians.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have asked that. There seems to be a suspension of the intellect and thinking in general at some point before conversion. They are making an individual, conscience based decision to accept the claims of their jurisdiction.
 
JM said:
Yes, I have asked that. There seems to be a suspension of the intellect and thinking in general at some point before conversion. They are making an individual, conscience based decision to accept the claims of their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Then, they are just being hypocrites. At the end of the day, they don't believe in God's promises about salvation and assurance (faith alone), and they don't believe the Scriptures are sufficient. They also believe they contribute to their salvation with works, so all of that will play a role. If you believe you have to contribute to your salvation, then Rome and EO sound like a logical choice. Unfortunately, they have the gospel wrong.
 
Last edited:
Further, the only people who are really eaten up with "the quest for certainty" and "individualism = bad" are the ones who have converted from Protestantism. Cradledox don't care. I suspect the same is true for Cradle Catholics.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Further, the only people who are really eaten up with "the quest for certainty" and "individualism = bad" are the ones who have converted from Protestantism. Cradledox don't care. I suspect the same is true for Cradle Catholics.
Click to expand...
I have never seen these terms before, but am very amused now (they are very clever). Is Cradledox and Cradle Catholics people who were "born" into the religious system? If yes, I believe your comment is SPOT ON.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I have never seen these terms before, but am very amused now (they are very clever). Is Cradledox and Cradle Catholics people who were "born" into the religious system? If yes, I believe your comment is SPOT ON.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If you want to know what a faith looks like practiced, go find someone with a Greek or Russian last name.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
Then, they are just being hypocrites. At the end of the day, they don't believe in God's promises about salvation and assurance (faith alone), and they don't believe the Scriptures are sufficient. They also believe they contribute to their salvation with works, so all of that will play a role. If you believe you have to contribute to your salvation, then Rome and EO sound like a logical choice. Unfortunately, they have the gospel wrong.
Click to expand...
They refuse to accept that it's an individual choice and see it as a humble submission to authority. Another point they hit me on, that scripture belongs to the church, not the individual and outside of the church services there is no context for individual use (unless ordained by the church for such purposes). Protestantism is therefore a humanistic endeavour - not a Christian one.
 
JM said:
They refuse to accept that it's an individual choice and see it as a humble submission to authority. Another point they hit me on, that scripture belongs to the church, not the individual and outside of the church services there is no context for individual use (unless ordained by the church for such purposes). Protestantism is therefore a humanistic endeavour - not a Christian one.
Click to expand...

Well, we could use the same humble submission argument, only to God and his word rather than a group of fallible and sinful men. I agree that Scripture belongs to the church, but to me the church is the assembly (Ekklesia) of God's elect. Michael Kruger also gives a great treatment on this subject in a few of his books. "Canon Revisited" is one that immediately comes to mind. I guess you could also push back on them and ask them what gives Rome the right to call themselves THE CHURCH? Because of the conversation they misinterpret between Jesus and Peter? Even though "The Rock" or rock-related language all throughout the OT and elsewhere in the NT always refers to a person of the Godhead. I know they are your friends, but if these are their best arguments, they are pretty weak from what I have heard elsewhere.

Mark 7:13: thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.

To me, this is still the greatest condemnation of "Holy" tradition (or whatever they call it). I have heard people like Trent Horn try and address this passage and they basically give a non-answer and throw out a bunch of red herrings.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
Well, we could use the same humble submission argument, only to God and his word rather than a group of fallible and sinful men. I agree that Scripture belongs to the church, but to me the church is the assembly (Ekklesia) of God's elect. Michael Kruger also gives a great treatment on this subject in a few of his books. "Canon Revisited" is one that immediately comes to mind. I guess you could also push back on them and ask them what gives Rome the right to call themselves THE CHURCH? Because of the conversation they misinterpret between Jesus and Peter? Even though "The Rock" or rock-related language all throughout the OT and elsewhere in the NT always refers to a person of the Godhead. I know they are your friends, but if these are their best arguments, they are pretty weak from what I have heard elsewhere.

Mark 7:13: thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.

To me, this is still the greatest condemnation of "Holy" tradition (or whatever they call it). I have heard people like Trent Horn try and address this passage and they basically give a non-answer and through out a bunch of red herrings.
Click to expand...
I have Kruger's Canon Revisited. Isn't his argument reduced to, "the covenant community recognizes the canon as God's word therefore it's the canon?" When discussing this with converts they exlaim, "now you must be apart of that covenant community!"

It becomes exhausting.
 
JM said:
I have Kruger's Canon Revisited. Isn't his argument reduced to, "the covenant community recognizes the canon as God's word therefore it's the canon?" When discussing this with converts they exlaim, "now you must be apart of that covenant community!"

It becomes exhausting.
Click to expand...
It’s not “therefore” but because it is the cannon.
 
JM said:
I have Kruger's Canon Revisited. Isn't his argument reduced to, "the covenant community recognizes the canon as God's word therefore it's the canon?" When discussing this with converts they exlaim, "now you must be apart of that covenant community!"

It becomes exhausting.
Click to expand...
Seems like we are right back to the beginning then. Either way you look at it, a decision was made at some point. They unfortunately made a bad one from our perspective. Honestly, if the Word of God is not enough to convince them, that is a sad case. Keep praying, sharing the gospel, reading scripture, and it may yet happen that the Holy Spirit will regenerate them. I guess it also depends on how much of the Roman doctrine they have accepted. It always comes back down to where they think the source of their salvation comes from. It's possible some may be saved in spite of Rome.
 
JM said:
I have Kruger's Canon Revisited. Isn't his argument reduced to, "the covenant community recognizes the canon as God's word therefore it's the canon?" When discussing this with converts they exlaim, "now you must be apart of that covenant community!"

It becomes exhausting.
Click to expand...

The conclusion really doesn't follow. That line presumes that the Roman church is the same as the one at Nicea. It's not. It came into existence at Trent. It is an Italian sect.

What they're argument is intending to say is that the church creates the canon; therefore, you must be a part of that church.

That's wrong, but even then it's not clear why I should be a part of that chuch.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
The conclusion really doesn't follow. That line presumes that the Roman church is the same as the one at Nicea. It's not. It came into existence at Trent. It is an Italian sect.

What they're argument is intending to say is that the church creates the canon; therefore, you must be a part of that church.

That's wrong, but even then it's not clear why I should be a part of that chuch.
Click to expand...
Good point. Anglicans and Lutherans make the same claim. Lutheran especially like to point out that their confessional symbols were created and agreed upon by over 8,000 German Catholic pastors and teachers making their communion truly catholic.
 
JM said:
"It was Jiminy Cricket who said, 'Always let your conscience be your guide.' This is good advice if our conscience is informed and ruled by the Word of God. However, if our conscience is ignorant of Scripture or has been seared or hardened by repeated sin, then Jiminy Cricket theology is disastrous." -- Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (page 151)

My friends that converted have said something along the lines of, "This is good advice if our conscience is informed by holy tradition and ruled by the church. By placing authority outside of ourselves, including interpretation of scripture, etc., we reduce the individualistic tendencies we've seen in Western thought and theology. It's humbling."

How would you respond?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
Click to expand...
I guess I'd respond by saying that I'm placing authority in the Scriptures as systematized in the 2LBCF. The Confession trumps the elders (as per our church constitution), and Scripture trumps all. I gladly submit to the elders in all things agreeable to the LBCF, since it is our confession. If my conscience was against the confession, I'd have to go find another church.
 
Ben Zartman said:
I guess I'd respond by saying that I'm placing authority in the Scriptures as systematized in the 2LBCF. The Confession trumps the elders (as per our church constitution), and Scripture trumps all. I gladly submit to the elders in all things agreeable to the LBCF, since it is our confession. If my conscience was against the confession, I'd have to go find another church.
Click to expand...

I've been told, "I'm placing authority in the Scriptures as systematized by the Roman Catholic magisterium / councillor Bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church. etc."

It always boils down to authority and who has the power or right to interpret God's revelation.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
The conclusion really doesn't follow. That line presumes that the Roman church is the same as the one at Nicea. It's not. It came into existence at Trent. It is an Italian sect.
Click to expand...

I like that, I'm going to borrow that.

What would you say about Orthodoxy? Is it a "Greek sect?"
 
JM said:
I like that, I'm going to borrow that.

What would you say about Orthodoxy? Is it a "Greek sect?"
Click to expand...

Not really. There are multiple patriarchates which roughly reflect an ethnic breakdown (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian/Arab). On one hand the EO can say that they don't change, and that's relatively true. At least in the last 1200 years (minus the changes Patriarch Nikon of Moscow introduced in the 17th century).
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Not really. There are multiple patriarchates which roughly reflect an ethnic breakdown (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Antiochian/Arab). On one hand the EO can say that they don't change, and that's relatively true. At least in the last 1200 years (minus the changes Patriarch Nikon of Moscow introduced in the 17th century).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't really buy the Italian sect comment, I thought it was funny. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top