# Individualism and Western Society



## arapahoepark (May 25, 2020)

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?


----------



## ZackF (May 25, 2020)

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?


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.


----------



## JM (May 27, 2020)

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?


I hear this a lot from my former Prot friends that converted to more traditional forms of Christianity (Catholic/Orthodox).


----------



## ZackF (May 27, 2020)

JM said:


> I hear this a lot from my former Prot friends that converted to more traditional forms of Christianity (Catholic/Orthodox).


?? I wouldn’t concede the tradition part.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2020)

The most individualist thinker in history, Descartes, was a committed Roman Catholic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (May 28, 2020)

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.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2020)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2020)

ZackF said:


> ?? I wouldn’t concede the tradition part.


Agreed


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> In many ways, I'm forced to be individualistic by my conscience.



"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


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2020)

JM said:


> respond



I would ask if they used their own interpretation to evaluate the claims between Rome, EO, Copts, and Assyrian Christians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I would ask if they used their own interpretation to evaluate the claims between Rome, EO, Copts, and Assyrian Christians.


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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2020)

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.


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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2020)

100 years ago being individualistic was a good thing. Now being "community, brother" is the hip thing. This fad too will pass.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2020)

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.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2020)

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.



Yeah. If you want to know what a faith looks like practiced, go find someone with a Greek or Russian last name.


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2020)

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.



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.


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## ZackF (May 28, 2020)

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.


It’s not “therefore” but because it is the cannon.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2020)

ZackF said:


> It’s not “therefore” but because it is the cannon.


Amen brother


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It's possible some may be saved in spite of Rome.



Very true. We must rely and trust in Christ to save us, even from ourselves, may He have mercy on us!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2020)

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.



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

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.


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.


----------



## Ben Zartman (May 28, 2020)

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."
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

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.



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.


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

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.



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

What would you say about Orthodoxy? Is it a "Greek sect?"


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2020)

JM said:


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



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).


----------



## JM (May 28, 2020)

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).


Yeah, I didn't really buy the Italian sect comment, I thought it was funny.


----------



## Ben Zartman (May 29, 2020)

JM said:


> 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.


We each have the responsibility to search the Scriptures and see which interpretation is in line with them. I'm open to hearing and responding to challenges to the systematic theology I've embraced. I'll never respond to a challenge with, "Well, the Confession says it so it must be true." Rather, I'll seek to bring passages from the scripture to bear on it. The writers of the Confessions weren't claiming authority--they were distilling what the bible had to say about different topics and summarizing them.


----------



## wcf_linux (May 30, 2020)

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).



I wouldn't concede that much even, really. Gregory of Palamas (14th century) helped reshape a lot of doctrinal emphases. Also, despite how many E.O.'s nowadays consider Thomism to be a great heresy, the writings of Thomas Aquinas were actually quite popular for a little while in Constantinople. While Eastern Orthodoxy as we know it now was largely codified at the Council of Jerusalem (1672), there was a lot of Roman Catholic influence in many Eastern Orthodox regions in the 18th and 19th centuries. In Russia, there were a surprising amount of Jesuits teaching in the seminaries during those times. A lot of the current notions about Orthodoxy as some unchanging continuation of the Patristic tradition come from 20th century Orthodox scholars like Meyendorff, who were reacting to those western influences. But most people just aren't familiar with Orthodox history, so enthusiastic converts, their enablers, and outside admirers get away with quite a bit of romantic myth-making.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## JM (May 31, 2020)

wcf_linux said:


> I wouldn't concede that much even, really. Gregory of Palamas (14th century) helped reshape a lot of doctrinal emphases. Also, despite how many E.O.'s nowadays consider Thomism to be a great heresy, the writings of Thomas Aquinas were actually quite popular for a little while in Constantinople. While Eastern Orthodoxy as we know it now was largely codified at the Council of Jerusalem (1672), there was a lot of Roman Catholic influence in many Eastern Orthodox regions in the 18th and 19th centuries. In Russia, there were a surprising amount of Jesuits teaching in the seminaries during those times. A lot of the current notions about Orthodoxy as some unchanging continuation of the Patristic tradition come from 20th century Orthodox scholars like Meyendorff, who were reacting to those western influences. But most people just aren't familiar with Orthodox history, so enthusiastic converts, their enablers, and outside admirers get away with quite a bit of romantic myth-making.


Do you have any sources for the idea that unchanging continuation is a modern idea?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2020)

JM said:


> Do you have any sources for the idea that unchanging continuation is a modern idea?



It's not so much that it is a modern idea. Ancient fathers will say they are simply following the fathers, whether or not that is actually correct. What he is getting at is that modern convertskii talk about how evil the West and scholasticism is. The problem is that much of EO in the past 500 years used Western categories. Palamas himself praised Augustine at times, even sounded Augustinian. Imagine a modern defender of Essence/energies talking like this:

και ούκ εστίν εκεί διάφορα ζωής και σοφίας και αγαθότητος και τών τοιούτων. πάντα γάρ η αγαθότης εκείνη συνειλήμμενως και ενιαίως και απλουστάτως συμπεριβάλλει. 

And there is no distinction between life and wisdom and goodness and such kind. For the goodness embraces all things collectively and unitively and in utter simplicity. Gregory Palamas, Physical Chapters, c.34

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## JM (May 31, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's not so much that it is a modern idea. Ancient fathers will say they are simply following the fathers, whether or not that is actually correct. What he is getting at is that modern convertskii talk about how evil the West and scholasticism is. The problem is that much of EO in the past 500 years used Western categories. Palamas himself praised Augustine at times, even sounded Augustinian. Imagine a modern defender of Essence/energies talking like this:
> 
> και ούκ εστίν εκεί διάφορα ζωής και σοφίας και αγαθότητος και τών τοιούτων. πάντα γάρ η αγαθότης εκείνη συνειλήμμενως και ενιαίως και απλουστάτως συμπεριβάλλει.
> 
> And there is no distinction between life and wisdom and goodness and such kind. For the goodness embraces all things collectively and unitively and in utter simplicity. Gregory Palamas, Physical Chapters, c.34


That quote made me chuckle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## wcf_linux (Jun 1, 2020)

JM said:


> Do you have any sources for the idea that unchanging continuation is a modern idea?


For starters, what @BayouHuguenot said.

Most of my understanding of Eastern Orthodox matters comes from a wide bit of reading over the years, often of works that are mainly about other things, so it's not easy to point to one source. I have paid a good amount of attention over the years, because like Jacob I also had for a time considered converting. In my case it was while I was in college, and after college a bunch of my college friends converted more or less as a group.

An interesting (Eastern Catholic) commentator is http://opuspublicum.com/category/eastern-orthodox-church/

Particularly this one about some of the myth-making of Orthodoxy as a pure tradition, untouched by the Enlightenment and other modern woes (I've even heard that myth from a Yale faculty member who taught historical theology, believe it or not): http://opuspublicum.com/the-myth-of-hart/

Or this one about the relative recentness of Orthodox rejections of the validity of Catholic baptisms: http://opuspublicum.com/a-note-on-the-neo-orthodox-attack-on-catholic-sacraments/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM (Jun 1, 2020)

wcf_linux said:


> For starters, what @BayouHuguenot said.
> 
> Most of my understanding of Eastern Orthodox matters comes from a wide bit of reading over the years, often of works that are mainly about other things, so it's not easy to point to one source. I have paid a good amount of attention over the years, because like Jacob I also had for a time considered converting. In my case it was while I was in college, and after college a bunch of my college friends converted more or less as a group.
> 
> ...


I attended a Greek Orthodox parish (St. Nektarios) for a year or so. They had no interest in me sticking around because I wasn't Greek, they were nice enough, but I would show up every Sunday and nothing was explained. The one fella that actually talked to me about Orthodoxy moved. 

I still have my icons and prayer rope from Mount Athos. 

Thank you for the links.


----------



## B.L. (Jun 1, 2020)

JM said:


> I attended a Greek Orthodox parish (St. Nektarios) for a year or so. They had no interest in me sticking around because I wasn't Greek, they were nice enough, but I would show up every Sunday and nothing was explained. The one fella that actually talked to me about Orthodoxy moved.



A coworker of mine whom I've worked with for years is Greek Orthodox and its been interesting to learn more about his church and the ethnic subcultures that are present. This fella is himself Greek American and has spent over 50 years in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The picture he paints is one of an ethnic social club where the center of gravity is the parish church. They have flags of Greece on the walls in their fellowship hall and often host various festivities promoting and celebrating their Greek heritage. He told me there are some Orthodox members of his church from Eritrea and other Slavic countries, but those folks are a minority and only attend because there is no other Orthodox church options for them. I asked him how non-Greeks are embraced and what he described in general is a sort of caste-like system where the purer your Greek ancestry is the more accepted you are. Even the parish priest, who is not Greek, uses a Greek-sounding name...not sure if this happened at his ordination or whether its a personal choice he made to boost his "street cred" among the Greek diaspora. The priest is an Air Force veteran with a law enforcement background and packs a pistol under his clerical attire, which I found to be an amusing tidbit. Lol.

One thing I've found interesting about my coworker is he is on the leadership council at his parish and seems to function in a similar capacity as perhaps a Ruling Elder might and yet he is largely ignorant of Orthodox theology and is unable to articulate responses to basic "why do you do what you do?" types of questions. Most of the activities he's involved in sound more akin to a party planner or committee fundraiser. 

At any rate...



JM said:


> I still have my icons and prayer rope from Mount Athos.



What do you do with these items? Are they tucked away in a shoebox under your bed? Are they displayed in a prayer corner in your house? Just curious...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM (Jun 1, 2020)

BLM said:


> What do you do with these items? Are they tucked away in a shoebox under your bed? Are they displayed in a prayer corner in your house? Just curious...



A couple of icons are hanging on the wall but not facing East. Others are scattered on my bookshelves. I have a bunch, two of Christ Pantocrator, Mary and child Jesus, Our Lady of Walsingham (the only Marian apparition accepted by Catholic, Orthodox & Anglican Churches), Seraphim of Sarov, St. Nektarios, I believe that's it. I have an image of John Calvin on my desk, another of him taken from a stained glass photo and I've thought about making an icon like image of Luther (high quality canvas on board).

Just to note, my kneeler faces a wall. No crosses or icons, just the wall. I keep my Bible, Valley of Vision, Book of Common Prayer, etc. in reach.


----------



## wcf_linux (Jun 3, 2020)

JM said:


> I attended a Greek Orthodox parish (St. Nektarios) for a year or so. They had no interest in me sticking around because I wasn't Greek, they were nice enough, but I would show up every Sunday and nothing was explained. The one fella that actually talked to me about Orthodoxy moved.
> 
> I still have my icons and prayer rope from Mount Athos.
> 
> Thank you for the links.



When, years ago, my wife and I started taking the second commandment more to heart, I got rid of most of the icons I had picked up when younger. A couple were gifts to one of the other of us from friends. So we held onto them (in the storage closet) until we could arrange to lose them in a move.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

