(moved) Can the Philosophical Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

[Wgw]

I don't care if they are (more likely) driftwood.

Which just goes to show how Calvin's argument was both superfluous and self-defeating; I regard it as hubris. He damaged his own credibility either by playing fast and loose with facts, or by ignoring them altogether.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I voted other because I consider the Catholic approach to be the rationalist approach. Calvinism comes out of a particular intellectual trend which developed during the 12th century, namely Voluntarism, an over-emphasis on the Will of God as absolute. This intellectual trajectory carried quite a bit of baggage and amongst it was also a particular emphasis on emulating the earliest possible form of Christianity, viewing everything which developed out of it as secondary at best and superfluous at worst and finally attempting to strip Christianity of everything which could never be considered earliest. Rationalism may be viewed as part of this intellectual trajectory however, rationality itself would be more critical of this.

 

[SkyWriting]

Which just goes to show how Calvin's argument was both superfluous and self-defeating; I regard it as hubris. He damaged his own credibility either by playing fast and loose with facts, or by ignoring them altogether.

I'll go along with that. Many people do that though.

 

[rakovsky]

You are ascribing the work to people's opinions. I ascribe the miracles solely to God's sovereign choice to perform a miracle. God is under no obligation to perform a miracle regardless of what humans ascribe to an object.

I cannot judge the heart that displays faith in God rather than the relic. If God chooses to heal, great. If God chooses not to heal, great. In either case, God remains good and is to be glorified.

I think your attitude is nonjudgmental, and this is not so bad. Of course, God is not under obligation, but according to Jesus' words, a prayer can be like a child asking a father for something, or a woman asking a judge for a decent ruling. These analogies by Jesus are very pleasant.

It seems to me on the other hand that the Reformed movement typically does not take such a "live and let live" approach to relics like a saint's clothes, though. It is practically something that they would never do. So I am still thinking about what reasons they give for this cynicism about having relics.

 

[rakovsky]

Yep, the cross is down there in front (not in my particular church but in most protestant churches) when we are praising God but we are not praising or worshiping the cross itself. It is a reminder to us of the price that was paid for our salvation.

Sure, I understand this. You originally asked about relics:

Then if you are not using the object for praise why even bother to have it? It serves no purpose if it has no power.....it is just an object from history. ~POST 113 BY CIVIL WAR BUFF

In my example, I asked whether some holy object from a saint could be used in the same way. As you said, the cross is a memorial in front when Christians praise God, but aren't praising/worshiping the cross. Thus, the cross is "used for praise". Why couldn't an object of a holy person be used the same way - put in a place of the church where people pray and praise God?

If the clothes did not have miraculous properties, then in how and why are they being used by Paul to heal people?

Do you believe that God's holiness was contained in the Ark?....or in the Temple of Jerusalem? If the answer is no, as it should be, then what would make you think his holiness resides in cloth or bones or wood?

I am confused what you mean. According to the Torah, wasn't God's presence, the "Shekinah", resting in the Temple or the Ark? I am doubtful whether the "holiness of God" is "resting" in cloth, bones, or wood. But in any case, in the Old Testament objects did have miraculous properties put by God, like Moses' staff or the ephod. Theoretically then, I think God could miraculize objects in the modern era.

"21And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet"
2Ki 13:20 Later, Elisha died and was buried. Now at that time various Moabite marauders had been invading the land each spring.
2Ki 13:21 One day while some Israelis were burying a man, they saw some marauders, so they threw the man into Elisha's grave. But when the man fell against Elisha's remains, he revived and rose to his feet.
It does not say the man they cast down there was dead, does it? You are assuming something that is not stated.

So now you are going to play mind games? Sorry, please don't, my friend Civil War Buff. It's unnecessary.

And besides, let's baselessly imagine that the buried person was not dead, but only comatose and mistaken for dead. Even in that case, the implication is that the bones caused the phenomenon of bringing the person out of the coma.

Peace, brother.

 

[rakovsky]

Within Orthodoxy there are numerous accounts, which I have found to be credible, of people being healed in proximity to icons, relics, and crosses, among other things. These miracles, and other related miracles, and similiar events involving these objects in RCism, have been closely scrutinized by both RCs and Orthodox. In Orthodoxy there is particular emphasis in ascertaining if anything untoward occurred due to diaboloc influence.

This is interesting, WGW.
There are so many stories of people being healed in relation to relics that it's comparable to Protestants' own anecdotal accounts of being healed without relics. That is, if converts to Christianity are supposed to believe Protestants' accounts of miracles based on the evidence for the miracles, one might as well believe in the Catholics' comparable stories of miracles involving relics.

But even though there is comparable evidence, the "Reformed" seem to generally take a dim view of miracles done with relics. It's strange and seems to suggest a faith either watered down or partly "enlightened" (as they may have it) by naturalism.

 

[rakovsky]

So, would it be correct to say that the power resides not in the object but in the faith of person's dependence upon God.....

Frankly, I am not sure, because as I said, in the Old Testament God seemed to imbue certain objects like Moses' staff with special "power".
Faith can play a decisive role in miracles. But it is not clear that faith is a necessary factor in whether something supernatural or spiritual happens, since Paul warned the unworthy who couldn't discern the body from partaking the Eucharist because it would hurt them. Naturally, those unworthy lacked faith, and yet there was still a spiritual result to their interaction with holy objects- Christ's body in the form of bread.

 

[rakovsky]

But it seems that even if it could be proven that Peter blessed and wore a certain robe, the Reformed would be rather negative about Christians caring about it. Why?

Simply because of the impossability.

I think that this is not actually "impossible" to find apostolic or other early Christian relics. There are plenty of protestants who think the Turin Shroud is real. You could have a time machine or St. Peter could show up just like Moses did at the Transfiguration, and then verify a robe.

Besides that, I expect that one of the hundreds of collected Bible saint's bones and clothes is from a real Bible saint, so the challenge of getting a real Bible saint's relics is not really "impossible". Even if those hundreds of bones were put in a huge pile so that we had real ones, I don't think that the Reformed movement would be sympathetic to caring about them.

I am not aware that Calvin rejected relics by claiming that it was always and everywhere "impossible" for relics to be real. It seems instead that he and the Reformed would claim other reasons that would apply even if we had a real robe from Jesus or Peter.

That is, if we lived in 150 AD, it seems to me that the Reformed would be rather cynical about passing around Paul's or one of the 70 apostles' robes to be touched and cared for in people's homes to cause miracles. I think it goes against the attitudes of the Reformed about Christian holy objects in general.

 

[rakovsky]

You wouldn't be saying that Messiah must be physically present for a miracle to happen, would you?...as evidenced by His encounter with the centurion. Even today miracles happen without his physical presence, would you not agree?

I am not sure whether it is correct to say that Christ is not physically present. He has a transformed body, and he is the alpha and omega. His body became invisible, moved through walls, etc. Just as Christ may be omnipresent, it may be that his body is no longer confined in place and so it could be that Christ is everywhere present in his transformed body with its divine properties, unconfined in one place. People continue to claim that Jesus comes to them, touches them, etc. John's Revelation described something similar. I think that normal rules of physics don't apply.

But in any case, whether or not Jesus is physically present someplace, I don't know that this means a miracle could not happen involving some relic, as you noted:

"I don't see how the case with the Centurion rules out using holy people's (eg. Jesus' or Paul's or another famous holy person's) clothes in the course of miracle-working."
Nor do I see how it promotes it....do you?

No, so what you gave is not really a counterexample to my question on whether relics can be used. I didn't profess that relics were needed.

 

[rakovsky]

Because "things" are not holy unto themselves? There must be something more out side of objects......

Sorry, I am still confused why that means the object couldn't be involved in a miracle. Couldn't God be the entity/being outside of the object who causes the miracle?

 

[rakovsky]

Did you note carefully what it states in Acts 19:11 and how that relates to your questions? And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul.

Since these were special miracles and it was only Paul performing them, it should be clear that the handkerchiefs and aprons and/or other cloths were merely instruments to convey the power of God to heal at that time and in that place. Perhaps there were too many people thronging him, and this allowed him to contact many more than simply by personal contact.

I am not sure that even if there were a throng of believers visiting a Catholic saint that the Reformed would support him handing out his clothes. Besides, if they were so many and relics are seen by the Reformed as ineffective, why couldn't they form a line like when people line up in huge cathedrals to all get communion? If they can form a line, what is the need for a supposed "one time exception" to such a supposedly good rule against relics?

Besides, when it says "special miracles", does that mean that the miracles (healings) were special or that the method was unique? It seems like the normal reading of that verse is that it was just the results that were special, since the adjective special is put before the noun miracles, rather than "specially" being put before the word "wrought". Grammatically, the miracle itself was special, not the way it was wrought.

But anyway, this is not the only place relics are used in the Bible for miracles. Touching Jesus' robe also worked a miracle.

So the real issue is not relics but "the signs of an apostle". The apostles were given the ability to do signs, wonders, and miracles in order to authenticate the Gospel, just as the Lord performed miracles to authenticate exactly who He was -- the Messiah and Saviour.

Of course, if the apostle was not holy, no relic makes a difference in that.
But it seems that in Reformed thinking, even if the apostle is holy, we would not use his relics for miracles.

To just say "the real issue is not relics" just evades the Second Question of the thread of whether or not a relic can be involved in miracles as the Reformed seem to have a rule about. Perhaps I am wrong and the Reformed are fine with miracle relics? I really think they definitely would not use them.

Please note what it says about apostolic miracles in these passages (2 Cor 12:11,12; Heb 2:3,4):

I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds... How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Yes, there is no mention here whether the relics/clothes/bones of an apostle/saint could be part of a miracle if he was an apostle/saint.

 

[rakovsky]

Why not just go to the Savior and be healed? We have direct access to the throne room of God. We can petition God through prayer in the power of the Holy Spirit. Why mess around with old bones, icons, paintings, shrouds and other such things? It's like taking a flight to New York from Chicago by flying west, around the world; no sane person would do that. Just fly directly there. So it is with seeking God's healing. Go directly to the throne room.

Is this the Reformed thinking? Christians should not use relics because Christians can just go to Jesus himself? That this means relics like Paul's or Jesus' robes should be avoided like flying the opposite direction?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think that this is not actually "impossible" to find apostolic or other early Christian relics. There are plenty of protestants who think the Turin Shroud is real. You could have a time machine or St. Peter could show up just like Moses did at the Transfiguration, and then verify a robe.

Besides that, I expect that one of the hundreds of collected Bible saint's bones and clothes is from a real Bible saint, so the challenge of getting a real Bible saint's relics is not really "impossible". Even if those hundreds of bones were put in a huge pile so that we had real ones, I don't think that the Reformed movement would be sympathetic to caring about them.

I am not aware that Calvin rejected relics by claiming that it was always and everywhere "impossible" for relics to be real. It seems instead that he and the Reformed would claim other reasons that would apply even if we had a real robe from Jesus or Peter.

That is, if we lived in 150 AD, it seems to me that the Reformed would be rather cynical about passing around Paul's or one of the 70 apostles' robes to be touched and cared for in people's homes to cause miracles. I think it goes against the attitudes of the Reformed about Christian holy objects in general.

I'm sola scriptura with no particular training in any denomination. The first 10 yrs as a Christian was spent with a bible and concordence only when no churches were near where I lived in rural Canada. But most of my church days have been Pentecostal with a smidgeon of Baptist. So I'm not aware of what reasons other denominations would debate.

The shroud of Turin is just maybe the only cloth item that has an arguable claim on being preserved after 2000 yrs. However when Moses and Elijah showed up at that Mount of Transfiguration there was no mention of veneration of robes, just a voice from God that said "listen to Him"

In 150 AD some may have thought at some stage in their belief that it was necessary to have a relic to cause miracles to happen, just as some do today. (however that in itself is undeterminable as to a belief) The biblical teachings tell us to go beyond elemental things like laying on of hands etc. Grace is conferred thru the Holy Spirit and not relics. It reminds me of Simon the magician trying to buy favors from God who wanted the power of the Holy Spirit thru the laying on of hands. Acts 8:9-24 There is no magic, just the grace of God thru the Holy Spirit.

But to me if your higher power is a light bulb, bone or piece of cloth, whatever, that is a focus outside of self reliance that can only lead upward. Prayfully God's grace will lead then to a place of maturity where milk is no longer needed and the meat of the word will strengthen to teach not just the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God but to Know the Lord concerning all things and even as it has taught each individual, thereby abide in Him.

Whatever the attitude of the reformers or the Traditionists are about veneration of things the only thing that counts is the attitude toward Jesus alone.

 

[MennoSota]

Is this the Reformed thinking? Christians should not use relics because Christians can just go to Jesus himself? That this means relics like Paul's or Jesus' robes should be avoided like flying the opposite direction?

It means that our position before the Father through the atoning work of the Son allows us the privelege of asking the Father directly without need for a relic.

 

[rakovsky]

You are making Christ's humanity omnipresent by believing He is physically present in all places.

Perhaps he is. His body was transformed so that normal physical laws do not apply, hence he became invisible, went through walls, rose to heaven, etc.
If He is everywhere as the Logos and is not a disembodied spirit, perhaps his transformed body is omnipresent.

Space and time are really like gravity and are scientific concepts. I don't know why the so-titled "God-man" couldn't travel with his body in time if he could ignore rules of gravity.

 

[rakovsky]

What you cited ("You should shake the dust off your feet and go to a new village") is not actually an exact quote in the Bible, but your own paraphrase.Please check the Cross References of this list of actual verses: http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-14.htm(Mark 6:11 "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.")The saying about shaking the dust off the feet is about villages that reject Jesus. It's straightforward enough that I think Reformed ministers will typically agree with me on that.

They advice is for people doing the will of God.
It has nothing to say to villages. And there is
nothing about dragging bags of bones.

By the way, "Blood" is the issue in Christianity.
That being the case, the bones should still be
meaty and bloody. Did somebody clean off the bones?
Where is the meat and the blood? It should have
far greater significance.

Sky,
I think you are claiming that Mark 6:11 is not about villages and that Mark 6:11 is not about people who reject the apostles and you think that whether there is blood or not on relics is a huge spiritual issue.

I don't think a normal Reformed pastor will agree with you about any of those statements you have just made.

 

[rakovsky]

I've always been taught that we shall inherit all that He is except the essential Godhead. In a very small sense I can relate to what your saying because after the reign of Christ when we shall reign with Him in a human/divine gvmnt then all will be handed over to the Father and all will be divine in eternity, but not before. But even at that it is still a Kingdom that is ruled by God.

1 Corinthians 15:23-25
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.…
Daniel 2:44
In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

Good explanation about this, Cassia!

 

[rakovsky]

That would be a dumb accusation.

25 "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

28 "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,29 yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.</quote>
Yes, here is telling people not to "worry" about their clothes. They should not be scared that they will lose material things. It doesn't say whether they can use clothes for miracles.

<quote>

2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing. 3 And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece.

22 And He said to His disciples, "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.23 "For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing

8 and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff-- no bread, no bag, no money in their belt--9 but to wear sandals; and He added, "Do not put on two tunics."

How do you square this with Acts 19 where Paul gives out clothes for healings.

He also said unto them "Take no bags of bones, sweaty cloths, chunks of the dead, nor splinters of the cross"

When you just make up verse quotes it weakens your arguments.

 

[rakovsky]

These relics are more likely than not pieces of the cross found in Jerusalem by St. Helena;..

I don't care if they are (more likely) driftwood.

OK, so Jesus' actual cross is no different from a piece of driftwood to you?
And yet Elijah's dead bones resurrected someone dead as per the Old Testament chronicles/book of Kings?

This seems strange.

 

[rakovsky]

I voted other because I consider the Catholic approach to be the rationalist approach. Calvinism comes out of a particular intellectual trend which developed during the 12th century, namely Voluntarism, an over-emphasis on the Will of God as absolute. This intellectual trajectory carried quite a bit of baggage and amongst it was also a particular emphasis on emulating the earliest possible form of Christianity, viewing everything which developed out of it as secondary at best and superfluous at worst and finally attempting to strip Christianity of everything which could never be considered earliest. Rationalism may be viewed as part of this intellectual trajectory however, rationality itself would be more critical of this.

What you say makes some sense. Maybe a better word than "rationalist" could be naturalistic?
After all, the plain meaning of the Eucharistic passages is that it is Jesus' body itself, either spiritually or physically. John's Revelation is about visions, and in the NT we read about lots of supernatural/paranormal stories, including saintly visions, apparitions, and relics. In the earliest times of Christianity, there were lots of beliefs in these kinds of experiences. But with the Reformed, which started in the age of Enlightenment, there seems to be a more skeptical attitude about many of these kinds of experiences compared to those in the Catholic church. It seems that this is rather grounded in naturalism.