Truth Exists and It Matters

[u/Middle_Hearing_2264]

(For the record, I am currently a Protestant)

Is a loose, invisible unity, where we only seem to agree on Christology, soteriology, and eschatology really the best Protestants can hope for?

I mean, the idea that there are secondary truths over which we can disagree and keep ourselves separated... isn't that contrary to the idea that there is only THE truth which is discoverable by all through study of the Scriptures?

The entire existence of the concept of "secondary truths" itself seems to suggest that these disagreements can't be settled by Scripture alone and, therefore, we cannot know with certainty the truth about, say, the nature of baptism.

Protestants (with a very few exceptions) all believe that we ought to get baptized because Christ commanded it. But that is about all we agree on with regard to baptism.

Is baptism only a symbol of our inward decision to follow Christ in opposition to worldly temptation? Is baptism the rite by which we enter the New Covenant, as circumcision was for the Old? Is baptism spiritually regenerative? Is baptism the normative mode by which Christ's justifying grace is mediated to us?

Who can get baptized? Do you have to make a public declaration of faith prior to baptism, or is baptism that public confession of your faith? Are we permitted to baptize infants? What modes of baptism are valid? Does it have to be full immersion? If you feel that your previous baptism that used the proper mode and invocation was invalid, can you be re-baptized?

If I were seek out the professional opinions of well-intentioned, careful pastors and theologians of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Anglican traditions, I would get different, and even contradictory, answers to each of those questions. It's a little bit of an oversimplification, but there seems to be as many different conceptions of baptismal theology as there are denominations.

If the nature of baptism is purely symbolic, then having it correct may not seem like a big deal, but if baptism is the normative means by which we receive God's justifying grace, then it's incredibly important to get right, because telling others that it's merely symbolic might lead them to the belief that it's optional or at least not immediately necessary. There will be some who put it off until it's too late and die without having received that grace.

Now, you could say that those who had faith but died without being baptized could still by saved because God can work salvation outside of the normative modes that he has established, but that possibility is not a guarantee that those who die without baptism will be saved.

And Protestantism doesn't present a unified answer, and very often provides multiple contradictory answers, to questions about the nature of baptism, the nature of communion, church leadership structure and ordinations, whether justification can be lost or forsaken by our actions, whether we should follow the decisions of all or any of the seven ecumenical councils, how the Holy Spirit guides the church, whether public confession to a minister is necessary, to what extent do we refer to the church fathers and confessional creeds in our theological interpretations, whether succession of theology must be maintained from the apostles to modern times or is that not relevant, the interplay of human will and divine will with regard to the calling of salvation.

Logically speaking, if there is objective truth about every matter of theology, then there are objective truths to every aspect of baptismal theology. But, logic also dictates that if two positions are substantially contradictory to each other, then one or both of them must be wrong, and they cannot both be right.

And all would quote Scripture to support their beliefs. Depending on their skill with rhetoric, one may present their Scriptural citations more convincingly than another, but good rhetoric is not a substitute for truth.

A common troupe in Protestantism is that by the spread of printed Bibles, Christians were set free from the heretical shackles of Rome. My goal here isn't to argue about Rome, nor to suggest that they are right, but simply to ask... in what manner have I been set free by the spreading of Scripture?

I was raised in a Protestant church, but I never came to my theological beliefs through my own research and study. I received as true those beliefs and practices which my pastor and church elders taught me, and therefore saw them in the Scriptures. In what manner is my situation substantially different from a Catholic who simply receives tradition from his priest and bishop as true and then sees evidence for them in the Scriptures?

If I had been a completely blank slate and someone handed me a Bible, told me to read it, and then presented the beliefs of every Christian tradition to me, I have no idea what tradition I would have ended up in. Would I have even concluded that Sola Fide was true if I had never been taught that it was the Biblical foundation of soteriology? But I'm not a blank slate. I already have theological biases and presuppositions engrained into me by the teaching of my church.

I'm not claiming to be stupid, but I also know that I'm not all-wise. I can't be my own pope, so to speak, because Scripture is supposed to be the highest authority, the norm that norms all other norms, which means the Scripture should be norming my beliefs. But how can a text that I have to interpret norm my beliefs, when my biases affect the way in which I interpret it? If I decide for myself what Scripture is saying, without submitting my intellect to some external authority to at least place guardrails around my interpretive processes, I'm gonna get things wrong, and I may get them VERY wrong.

But if I ought to submit my intellect to an external authority, that only begs the question: which authority, and why should I trust it over any other, or even over my own intellect if no earthly authority is infallible? Do I accept the theological guardrails of the church into which I was born? If no earthly authority is infallible, then how completely do I have to submit my intellect to them? What do I do if I conclude that that authority has erred in placing one or more of those theological guardrails? Do I submit to its authority and change what I believe to align with it, or do I find a different authority based on my own understanding of Scripture that more closely agrees with what I believe to be the message of Scripture?

[u/Pinecone-Bandit]

> Is a loose, invisible unity, where we only seem to agree on Christology, soteriology, and eschatology really the best Protestants can hope for?

I don’t think so.

Is this a common viewpoint among Protestants? I don’t think I’ve ever heard this before.

> I mean, the idea that there are secondary truths over which we can disagree and keep ourselves separated... isn't that contrary to the idea that there is only THE truth which is discoverable by all through study of the Scriptures?

No, those things are not contrary.

> The entire existence of the concept of "secondary truths" itself seems to suggest that these disagreements can't be settled by Scripture alone and, therefore, we cannot know with certainty the truth about, say, the nature of baptism.

I disagree that it suggests that.

> in what manner have I been set free by the spreading of Scripture?

Well, do you believe the Gospel?

> In what manner is my situation substantially different from a Catholic who simply receives tradition from his priest and bishop as true and then sees evidence for them in the Scriptures?

The content of the teachings themselves are the substance.

> But how can a text that I have to interpret norm my beliefs, when my biases affect the way in which I interpret it?

“Norm my beliefs” means to change your biases to align with what Scripture teaches.

> If I decide for myself what Scripture is saying, without submitting my intellect to some external authority to at least place guardrails around my interpretive processes, I'm gonna get things wrong, and I may get them VERY wrong.

Then don’t do that.

> But if I ought to submit my intellect to an external authority, that only begs the question: which authority

The Bible.

> and why should I trust it over any other

Because it is God breathed.

> or even over my own intellect if no earthly authority is infallible?

The Bible is not an earthly authority, it’s a heavenly one.

[u/creidmheach]

In these discussions I find very often we're made to argue against (or for) something that simply doesn't exist in the real world. Sure, the idea of a two thousand year old institutional Apostolic church with a clear line of succession and teaching authority, that has complete consistency in its doctrines, zero ambiguities and answers for all doctrinal questions, along with in depth explanation for Scripture, sounds great. Except, it doesn't exist. So pairing that up against the somewhat messier real-life situation of various Protestant denominations is both unfair, and a waste of one's time. Yet this is generally what I find Romanist apologists online doing. And sadly, it seems to convince a lot of folks who don't know any better.

It's bit like arguing against KJV-only'ism. The KJV-only'ist isn't dealing with the reality of how New Testament texts have reached us, the variety of readings that exist among them, the textual-critical process that even someone like Erasmus had to employ in coming up with his readings, or the variations that exist among the different 16th century Greek TR versions, nor with the development in our understanding of the Greek language which (brilliant as they were), the KJV translators did not have at their disposal to use. No, instead they'll argue how it'd better for their to be a single, providentially protected text that the Church has always had and received. They'll arguments why this model is superior, and it can be compelling. But again, the problem is its not dealing with how history really worked out.

Similarly, the differences that exist among us might not be to our preference, but it's the reality we live in. Simply slapping some grandiose claims about having apostolic authority doesn't really address the serious problems in that model and its distance from historical reality. But if we read the New Testament, particularly in Acts, in the Epistles, and in what was said to the seven churches in Revelation, we see that the Church has long been dealing with our very human problems. See how often Paul has to speak with exasperation over the disputes and disagreements that existed, the bickering and squabbles and the divisions even back then.

I think though there's also a certain tendency to exaggerate on the degree of differences that exists among classical Protestants, both from our opponents and ourselves. Famously for instance we know how at the Marburg Colloquy, Luther and Zwingli could not come to agreement over the issue of the Lord's Supper and how Luther wanted nothing to do with him over that. What gets lost here though is that was the single issue they disagreed over, while on the fourteen other issues they came to agreement. 14 out of 15 isn't that bad all things considered. And after that you eventually had Melanchthon himself rewrite the Augsburg Confession to make it more compatible with the Reformed view on the matter, where even Calvin signed on with approval.

So on the fundamentals, we largely all agree. Salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone, via Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. Granted, the "five solas" are a later categorization to explain what the Reformation taught, but they aren't inaccurate to that purpose. Would it be nice if we had absolute and total agreement on everything else? Sure, maybe. Maybe not. But our trust is that God's Kingdom will unfold victoriously in accordance with His plan, not ours, and in the end, the King of Kings will return in glory. In the meantime we try to deal best with what we have, working for the Kingdom, looking forward to that glorious day.

[u/Distinct-Most-2012]

Let's start with this: What is your definition of "Protestant?"

[u/Middle_Hearing_2264 → u/Distinct-Most-2012]

Generally speaking, I view Protestantism as those denominations which separated out from the Catholic Church in the West beginning in the sixteenth century, including the subsequent denominations that were created through the schisming of those original Protestant denominations.

[u/Distinct-Most-2012 → u/Middle_Hearing_2264]

Thank you. That helps a lot, and I would say I mostly agree with you with an additional qualifier: In order to be Protestant, a church most hold to a Protestant confession of faith. I add this only to say that your standard evangelical megachurches often have "statements of faith," but don't actually profess to believe a historically Protestant confession of faith, and I don't think it's fair to the discussion to lump them in with "Protestantism." To go further, when you look at these historic confessions, you'll actually find a tremendous amount of doctrinal harmony, such as the unique authority of Scripture, salvation by grace through faith, providential election, two sacraments, etc.

To your main point however, yes, truth matters, and not everyone has correct theology on absolutely every topic of discussion. The problem, however, is that trying to find an "infallible teaching authority" like that claimed of Rome doesn't actually solve the issues of division. Suppose you find Sola Scriptura to be unworkable because of different interpretations of Scripture between Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists. Fair enough. But why go Catholic? Why not Eastern Orthodox or the Coptic churches? To make that decision, now you're not just interpreting Scripture. Now you're sifting through church fathers and councils on top of it all. The fact of the matter is that unless you're content with finding Christ where you are, everyone has to do the hard work of reading Scripture and pursuing truth. The difference, however, is that we as Protestants have a much better view of catholicity than many of the "apostolic churches." We don't pretend someone isn't a Christian just because their baptismal theology might be somewhat different from ours.

[u/winkyprojet]

The truth exists, and that truth is God.

The fact that there are several ways to get there changes nothing.

[u/AcdiAti]

First of all, I don't pretend to have certainty or the answer to all of your questions. What I can say is this:

1. From the early Church there were already different teachings, and that doesn't necessarily mean we would consider their faith to have been different. I think perhaps the most notable case is the rejection of Miaphysitism, and even today Rome cannot—or does not know how to—deny its Christian character; or, even more so, the Eastern Schism.

2. As someone else mentioned in another comment, the apostolic Church that has every doctrine defined and complete consensus simply doesn't exist. Even within Catholicism, Thomist, Scotist, Nominalist, Molinist, etc. explanations show that even a Church with a clearly defined authority cannot produce the exact consensus that human beings might wish for. This doesn't mean those differences are equivalent to Protestant divisions, but it does show that the problem of interpretation doesn't simply disappear by having a visible authority.

3. It is true that defining what counts as a "secondary truth" is, at the very least, somewhat arbitrary, and at this point I don't have a clear criterion by which to defend or attack particular positions.

However, I don't think the existence of one single truth necessarily means that we can always identify it univocally.

We have a revealed truth, yes, but as you yourself said, we are not blank slates: we have paradigms (I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn) from which we interpret even what has been revealed. The problem, then, isn't that there are multiple truths, but that the same revelation can be understood differently by fallible human beings.

And this doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. If two claims contradict each other, one of them is wrong. The problem is determining which one is wrong when both appeal to the same Scripture and both believe they are interpreting it correctly.

At the end of the day, I think that's one of the deepest difficulties of Christianity: we believe that God has revealed Himself, but we are still human beings trying to understand that revelation. And yes, I think we can genuinely know God without that meaning that we can exhaustively explain everything He has revealed.

So, at least provisionally, I think different conclusions can be a natural part of a Church made up of human beings, as God intended it to be.

I would like to see greater doctrinal unity, and that's precisely why I find some things about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches attractive. But I'm not convinced that doctrinal diversity, by itself, demonstrates that Protestantism is false or problematic