Protestantism caused Atheism ?

[Matto]

http://www.cityofgodblog.com/2009/09/protestantism-is-to-blame/

It's interesting to see a Protestant view of this.

[Ed Pettibone]

http://www.cityofgodblog.com/2009/09/protestantism-is-to-blame/

It's interesting to see a Protestant view of this.

Ed: It is another example of blind men describing an elephant. First off, there has never been a unified protestantism to become fragmented.

And before one starts assigning blame for why atheism exist it would be well to define atheist & atheism.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: It is another example of blind men describing an elephant. First off, there has never been a unified protestantism to become fragmented.

And before one starts assigning blame for why atheism exist it would be well to define atheist & atheism.

Well said Ed. Protestantism never was a single entity. It simply describes those denominations who moved away from Roman Catholicism during the reformation and denominations that are in existence as a result of the reformation. The split had already occurred when Baptists and Methodists came on the scene.

[MJ Willett]

It's oversimplified because the same intellectual trend that caused the protestant movements also caused many other humanist-oriented challenges to authority such as the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, revolutions against absolute monarchy, etc Atheism eventually became one thread in this much larger secular and humanistic landscape, which certainly did not originate with Protestantism. There were intellectual shifts in the latter middle ages, a crisis of the 14th century, the Renaissance, etc.

[Matto]

Here's a Catholic view from the church militant TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rottAKDSDLQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Timothy Bonney]

It's oversimplified because the same intellectual trend that caused the protestant movements also caused many other humanist-oriented challenges to authority such as the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, revolutions against absolute monarchy, etc Atheism eventually became one thread in this much larger picture of secular and humanistic landscape, which certainly did not originate with Protestantism. There were intellectual shifts in the latter middle ages, a crisis of the 14th century, the Renaissance, etc.

And none of the above was helped by the entanglements that existed between church and state. I know we famously talk about the Anglican Church splitting over Henry the VIII's divorce. That was the crisis moment but it is actually more than that. You had the Roman Church wielding secular power in Europe and the English King was just one of the governing leaders who got tired of being told what to do by an outside power.

As you have said, the Reformation was part of an entire movement away from monarchy to democracy both in the world at large and in the church.

[Matto]

English King was just one of the governing leaders who got tired of being told what to do by an outside power.

All Protestants stopped listening to an outside power, they all did as they felt, it was the enthronement of the individual.

[Timothy Bonney]

All Protestants stopped listening to an outside power, they all did as they felt, it was the enthronement of the individual.

No, Protestants didn't stop listening to outside power. Each Protestant Church created its own leadership and structure. So Protestants still had authorities, just not the one in Rome. Democracies created governmental structures with leaders and authorities just not a King on a throne. Protestants refused to believe in the authority of just one man on a throne or the idea that the Body of Christ is just a head.

Nor did Protestants just "do as they felt." They did what they did because they believe the very scriptures and the teachings of Christ demanded it.

Matto you have a very reductionist black and white view of history. There usually is much more nuance to situations than what you project.

[MJ Willett]

It's oversimplified because the same intellectual trend that caused the protestant movements also caused many other humanist-oriented challenges to authority such as the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, revolutions against absolute monarchy, etc Atheism eventually became one thread in this much larger picture of secular and humanistic landscape, which certainly did not originate with Protestantism. There were intellectual shifts in the latter middle ages, a crisis of the 14th century, the Renaissance, etc.

And none of the above was helped by the entanglements that existed between church and state. I know we famously talk about the Anglican Church splitting over Henry the VIII's divorce. That was the crisis moment but it is actually more than that. You had the Roman Church wielding secular power in Europe and the English King was just one of the governing leaders who got tired of being told what to do by an outside power.

As you have said, the Reformation was part of an entire movement away from monarchy to democracy both in the world at large and in the church.

Every society in history has elites and those elites control the government. From ancient times until relatively recently they also controlled the government-sponsored religion. The RCC was hardly unique in doing this, but yes it was one of many things that late medieval and early modern reformers, humanists and liberals challenged in various ways. Of course the Church was using their government-supported privileges to exploit the people but so was the feudal aristocracy, the kings, the guilds, etc.

[Matto]

All Protestants stopped listening to an outside power, they all did as they felt, it was the enthronement of the individual.

No, Protestants didn't stop listening to outside power. Each Protestant Church created its own leadership and structure. So Protestants still had authorities, just not the one in Rome. Democracies created governmental structures with leaders and authorities just not a King on a throne. Protestants refused to believe in the authority of just one man on a throne or the idea that the Body of Christ is just a head.

Nor did Protestants just "do as they felt." They did what they did because they believe the very scriptures and the teachings of Christ demanded it.

Matto you have a very reductionist black and white view of history. There usually is much more nuance to situations than what you project.

See the problem is Timothy, that an atheist can pick up a Bible and quote it with the same authority as any Protestant.
A Protestant self interprets Bible the same as any Atheist can. If the Bible can mean anything then the Bible is meaningless.
Protestantism presents a broken face and a garbled conflicted message to the world.
Why should anyone believe the Bible if Protestants have made it mean what ever they want.

Thousands of different and conflicted interpretations depending on who interprets it, and thousands of denominations and non denominations divided on the Bibles meaning.

An atheist looks at that mess and it confirms him in his atheism.

[Matto]

Each Protestant Church created its own leadership and structure. So Protestants still had authorities, just not the one in Rome.

Protestantism has continuously created it's leadership structures from continuous rebellions. Each leadership structure teaches different and conflicted interpretations from the same Bible.

Thousands of denominations and nondenominations all with human founded leadership, all teaching conflicted interpretations of the Bible.

If a man doesn't like his pastors interpretation, he can find another denomination or better yet found his own denomination on his interpretation, taking half the flock with him.

[Timothy Bonney]

See the problem is Timothy, that an atheist can pick up a Bible and quote it with the same authority as any Protestant.
A Protestant self interprets Bible the same as any Atheist can. If the Bible can mean anything then the Bible is meaningless.
Protestantism presents a broken face and a garbled conflicted message to the world.
Why should anyone believe the Bible if Protestants have made it mean what ever they want.

No Matto. The Bible has intrinsic value and meaning. It can't mean whatever you want it to mean, it means what it says it means. But when you pass the authority for what the Bible means to the Pope or another individual you are really saying the Bible means nothing without the Pope to interpret it. In other words giving that interpretative power to the Pope alone is to lower the Bible and make the Bible not God's written word but simply a blank slate for the Pope and the Church to interpret as they see fit. If I believed what you believe I'd not even bother to read the Bible.

No, when Martin Luther told the Diet of Worms he couldn't recant it wasn't because if his personal interpretation instead it was because the he was bound to stand by what the Bible says rather than what a man in Rome says. Simple as that. The scripture holds Primacy in Protestant denominations.

[Matto]

See the problem is Timothy, that an atheist can pick up a Bible and quote it with the same authority as any Protestant.
A Protestant self interprets Bible the same as any Atheist can. If the Bible can mean anything then the Bible is meaningless.
Protestantism presents a broken face and a garbled conflicted message to the world.
Why should anyone believe the Bible if Protestants have made it mean what ever they want.

No Matto. The Bible has intrinsic value and meaning. It can't mean whatever you want it to mean, it means what it says it means. But when you pass the authority for what the Bible means to the Pope or another individual you are really saying the Bible means nothing without the Pope to interpret it. In other words giving that interpretative power to the Pope alone is to lower the Bible and make the Bible not God's written word but simply a blank slate for the Pope and the Church to interpret as they see fit. If I believed what you believe I'd not even bother to read the Bible.

No, when Martin Luther told the Diet of Worms he couldn't recant it wasn't because if his personal interpretation instead it was because the he was bound to stand by what the Bible says rather than what a man in Rome says. Simple as that. The scripture holds Primacy in Protestant denominations.

Really? So do you believe Luther's interpretation of the Bible Timothy? Why aren't you Lutheran Timothy?
Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches Baptism is Salvific and essential to Salvation Timothy, why doesn't the rest of Protestantism believe that essential doctrine of Luther Timothy.

[Matto]

The scripture holds Primacy in Protestant denominations.

No it doesn't, opinion holds primacy in Protestant denominations, they don't agree on scriptures meaning Timothy.

[Timothy Bonney]

Really? So do you believe Luther's interpretation of the Bible Timothy? Why aren't you Lutheran Timothy?
Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches Baptism is Salvific and essential to Salvation Timothy, why doesn't the rest of Protestantism believe that essential doctrine of Luther Timothy.

Luther is just another man Matto. You seem to want to place absolute authority is some man. Protestants don't do that. You seem to want to find perfect truth in a human being or an institution. The only perfect truth is found in Jesus Christ himself.

You confuse the individuals responsibility to find the truth with the individual creating the truth. The Bible tells us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We are responsible to dig out the truth ourselves and not to depend on another human being to do it for us.

[Timothy Bonney]

No it doesn't, opinion holds primacy in Protestant denominations, they don't agree on scriptures meaning Timothy.

Matto being a Christian is about having a relationship with Jesus Christ not about believing a list of propositions or beliefs. Being a Christian isn't about perfect beliefs or never being mistaken. It is about know God through Jesus Christ. Relationship not rules.

[Matto]

Luther is just another man Matto. You seem to want to place absolute authority is some man. Protestants don't do that. You seem to want to find perfect truth in a human being or an institution. The only perfect truth is found in Jesus Christ himself.

So is Baptism Salvific and essential to salvation, as the Lutherans teach Timothy ?

Tell me the Truth.

[Matto]

Matto being a Christian is about having a relationship with Jesus Christ not about believing a list of propositions or beliefs.

Sounds great, so I can have a relationship with Jesus without believing any beliefs.

I don't have to believe He is the Son of God, I don't have to believe in sin, I don't have to believe He died to save me from sin.

I might as well be an atheist then.

[Timothy Bonney]

No, baptism is not salvific in and of itself. Baptism is a sign of God's love for us and his prevenient grace offered to us. Most children in my church are baptized as infants. There are already in God's grace. I don't believe in the doctrines of limbo are purgatory either Matto while we are at it.

I have joined a Church that fits what I see that the Bible says. So if you want to good overview of what I believe to be Biblical Christianity you can surf over to UMC.org and find our Articles of Religion.

[Timothy Bonney]

Matto being a Christian is about having a relationship with Jesus Christ not about believing a list of propositions or beliefs.

Sounds great, so I can have a relationship with Jesus without believing any beliefs.

Can you ever take a position that is a nuanced position Matto? Are all positions extreme positions?

Of coure you can't. The very nature of having a relationship with Jesus involves believing in Jesus doesn't it? Do you have a relationship with Jesus Matto or is your faith just a list of rules published by the Church? Surely you would say that you have both a relationship and that you believe the teachings of your Church.

But just believing the rules doesn't make you a Christian. And faith in the Pope, or Luther, or John Wesley or any other person other than Jesus won't save you no matter what rules you believe.

[Matto]

No, baptism is not salvific in and of itself.

Well you are wrong according to the Lutherans Timothy, the Bible teaches them that it is Salvific and essential to salvation.

Which one of you is teaching the truth?

[Matto]

Can you ever take a position that is a nuanced position Matto? Are all positions extreme positions?

Nuanced ? That's code for indefinite and uncertain.

[Timothy Bonney]

Nuanced ? That's code for indefinite and uncertain.

No, that is code for reality. You are living in a fantasy land of ultimate human authorities played off of one another. And to know you have faith you have to know a man with perfect truth or faith? Why not just trust in God?

Here is clear Truth with a capital T.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but will have eternal life." John 3:16 - The very words of Jesus the Son of God.

Belief in Jesus is salvific. If you don't believe it, argue with Jesus about it. But I'll warn you, he always wins the arguments.

[Matto]

You are living in a fantasy land of ultimate human authorities played off of one another.

No that's Protestantism.

Human traditions relying on conflicted human interpretations, and Truth nowhere to be found.

[Matto]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but will have eternal life." John 3:16 - The very words of Jesus the Son of God.

What does believing in him entail Timothy?

You said that you don't need to believe a set of beliefs, that's nonsense.

Not only could I believe anything and be Protestant, I don't have to believe anything and still be Protestant. That's the sad reality of Protestantism, there's no difference between it and atheist thinking.

By that reasoning, I wouldn't have to believe Christ died for my sins and was raised again. Just like the atheist, he doesn't believe it either.