Topic: The origins of "Protestant minimalism?"

[Volnutt]

By which I mean, the rejection of things like infant baptism, prayer for the dead- the kind of things that Baptists love to get on about.

Of course, there's also more specific ancient antecedents like Helvidius on Perpetual Virginity or Vigilantius on relics. But I'm more looking for the sort of "package deal" that seems to emerge in the immediate centuries prior to the Reformation (though that could be a distorted picture based on all our sources being adversarial accounts by Inquisitors). Catharism and Paulicianism likely have a lot of overlap and maybe some influence on proto-Protestantism as well, but I'm mostly looking for non-gnostic examples.


Near as I can tell, the earliest clear examples of what I have in mind are Peter of Bruys (1117-31) and Henry of Lausanne (d. 1148).

The Arnoldists seemed to have been more about Apostolic poverty like the Spiritual Franciscans (though unlike the later, they were also accused of being Donatists).

Were these doctrines something that the many of the Beguinnes were into?

As far as I can tell, Peter Waldo was a pretty run of the mill Catholic. It was only at about 100 years after him that the Waldensians start being accused of rejecting church buildings, relics, Purgatory, etc.

And then of course John Wycliffe comes on the scene in the 1300s and the ball starts rolling from there.

Any others?

[juliogb]

I remember the bogomils that had some anti-sacramental beliefs, but they were gnostic too.

[Nicodemusz138]

It is a recent phemonemon I think, some arguments I often hear from them (that is, not all protestants, virtually speaking I am one myself) is that going to a massive ancient cathedral, full of paintings, gold, decorations, rituals, etc, it is too "religious" looking, not sure what that means, I believe in their vision it makes them look like all of the rest of all religions in the world, and they must look different in some way?









Also, the commands to simplicity and modesty in worship.

[Luke]

Would John Hus be too late?

[Ainnir]

Dualism?

[Volnutt]

Would John Hus be too late?

Yeah. I'm kind of looking for the ancestors of the ancestors of the Reformation.

Dualism?

The Paulicians and the Bogomils and the Gnostics all anticipate a part of it (and the iconoclasts as well). But for some reason I can't shake the idea that they only represent one stream going into it and that there was a point at which it kind of "sprang forth fully formed." Maybe I'm chasing phantoms, though.

[Volnutt]

It is a recent phemonemon I think, some arguments I often hear from them (that is, not all protestants, virtually speaking I am one myself) is that going to a massive ancient cathedral, full of paintings, gold, decorations, rituals, etc, it is too "religious" looking, not sure what that means, I believe in their vision it makes them look like all of the rest of all religions in the world, and they must look different in some way?

Also, the commands to simplicity and modesty in worship.

Well, iconoclasm has its ancient roots but it also appeals to the common modern Christian desire, not necessarily to avoid looking pagan, but imo to avoid looking intimidating to people who have been burned by religion in the past.

And yeah, there's also the tendency to see finery as being inimical to "worship in spirit and in truth," perhaps encouraging an obsession with wealth and power, etc.

[RaphaCam]

Two words: Ockham's razor. Luther was a nominalist who took it too far, in the line of Gabriel Biel. There's an exposition about it in La Formation de la pensée juridique moderne, which is a major hit in Brazilian Law Universities, but doesn't seem to have been translated to English.

I demand arguments not authorities. That is why I contradict even my own school of Occamists, which I have absorbed completely.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/post-tenebras-lux/

[Volnutt]

Two words: Ockham's razor. Luther was a nominalist who took it too far, in the line of Gabriel Biel. There's an exposition about it in La Formation de la pensée juridique moderne, which is a major hit in Brazilian Law Universities, but doesn't seem to have been translated to English.

I demand arguments not authorities. That is why I contradict even my own school of Occamists, which I have absorbed completely.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/post-tenebras-lux/

Makes sense.

[JTLoganville]

Dualism?

Dualism

Docetism

Nestorianism

[NicholasMyra]

Two words: Ockham's razor. Luther was a nominalist who took it too far, in the line of Gabriel Biel. There's an exposition about it in La Formation de la pensée juridique moderne, which is a major hit in Brazilian Law Universities, but doesn't seem to have been translated to English.

I demand arguments not authorities. That is why I contradict even my own school of Occamists, which I have absorbed completely.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/post-tenebras-lux/

IIRC blaming Occam and Scotus is popular among the "radical Orthodox" protestants.

But really I'd say middle and neoplatonic mystery religions.

[RaphaCam]

But really I'd say middle and neoplatonic mystery religions.

How so?

[Volnutt]

But really I'd say middle and neoplatonic mystery religions.

How so?

Because they deemphasize/denigrate matter in favor of pure spirit?

[recent convert]

Iconoclasm? 

[Volnutt]

Iconoclasm?

Kind of? Like I said, I was more looking for the complete package of anti-sacrementalism. NickMyra's answer is probably the best we'll be able to do.

[walterturkey]

Among Presbyterians, it stems from sola scriptura, covenant theology and zwingli. the New testament didnt institute icons and liturgy, so those are man made traditions to be avoided. which is why there is only baptism and the lords supper, chrismation is left out because it can be argued that the its not formally instituted by anyone, only that they laid hands

[NicholasMyra]

But really I'd say middle and neoplatonic mystery religions.

How so?

Because they deemphasize/denigrate matter in favor of pure spirit?

I don't think it's any one thing. It seems like every time I hear about one of these "anti-sacramental" positions pre-1200 AD, it's attributed to a group or figure affiliated with (rightly or wrongly) the mystics, sages, gnostics, etc. of middle/neoplatonic religion--that strange, vague milieu ranging across a vast spectrum from middle/neo-platonized Abrahamic religious (The Fathers, Avicenna, Maimonides) on the one hand, all the way down to distinct religions (manicheanism, pre-Christian hellenistic mysticism) on the other.

I'm becoming more familiar with the accounts of such groups in the West, but I'm just starting. What I can say by way of initial observations is that the western sources can be divided into two rough groups:

First, the outsiders, like Catholcis, who focus on how the groups' actions appear to them and the scandalous implications of their supposed practices (they "abhor" liturgy, have women "lead" things as prophets, share things in common). It may be that these commenters don't have the philosophical/theological/historical context to understand these movements the same way that, say, Alexius's Constantinople did, so for all we know they are radically misunderstanding them. It could be that these groups like the cathars are just classic bogomils with a few quirks. It could be that the western commentators (to be very speculative) couldn't recognize, say, archontic cosmology because the Waldensians kept it relatively quiet and it would've seemed rather odd and confusing and nonsensical to the uninitiated.

The second group is the "victors" who wrote history--the zwinglians, anabaptists, baptists, etc. They tell the story as it suits them: Groups like the anabaptists and their supposed spiritual predecessors rejected authority in favor of a return to the perspicuous early church, had biblical doctrines, the authorities came and martyred astronomical numbers of them for it while they were minding their own business (the anabaptists seem to believe that 4 out of every 2 anabaptists were killed--can't pick them out for it, the Russians do the same about the Soviet persecutions). Maybe these accounts fail to convey the "secret" doctrines of their groups because they're scandalous, were lost, were superceded, or they never existed in the first place. Once again, highly speculative.

Will say, though that the bogomils were in Strasbourg, IIRC.

[NicholasMyra]

edit

[David Young]

Among Presbyterians, it stems from sola scriptura, covenant theology and zwingli. the New testament didnt institute icons and liturgy, so those are man made traditions to be avoided. which is why there is only baptism and the lords supper, ...

Three comments briefly, then it's time to put on my minimalist smart suit and tie and go and preach at the equally minimalist Baptist chapel in Penycae! -

1) I think this post comes near the truth, though not only regarding Presbyterians; and I don't think that covenant theology or a Zwinglian view of the 'ordinances' comes into it, for one could have those with an ornate building.

2) I wonder whether this whole thread has the question back to front, or at least starts in the middle not at the beginning. I would rather ask the question, where all the accretions come from that now æsthetically adorn Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Not when did we lose them, but when did you gain them.

3) The person who posted the lovely photographs earlier in the thread has a good point; nonetheless, both my wife and I like visiting the simple chapels one often finds in Greece, often in remote places, and many of them we do not find religiously off-putting or offensive. Nonetheless, for me at least - and this may be nothing more than culture and personality - I find a simple and if possible old church (anything from 150 to 1500 years) more conducive to prayer, worship and spiritual meditation than an ornate one.

[Vanhyo]

Spiritual things always manifest themselves in one form or another, just because protestants hide theirs doesn't make them good or correct.

If you will examine the orthodox iconography you will find out heavenly principles within

If you will examine the pegan religion's arts you will find out demonic principles within

You can't examine protestant arts obviously, but if they ever put their principles into art you will find the following: lawlessness, self-authority, individuality, rock-star guruism, self-promotion, scholasticsm, rebellion, chaos, disorder, disobedience, self-righteousness, the idea that you know better than the ones that came before you therefor you will reinvent the wheel, absence of God and theorizing about Him each according to his passions & darkened heart.

[Ainnir]

2) in a tent in some Middle Eastern desert, then Solomon.

I guess if we want to get uber technical, God on Mount Sinai...

[Volnutt]

Among Presbyterians, it stems from sola scriptura, covenant theology and zwingli. the New testament didnt institute icons and liturgy, so those are man made traditions to be avoided. which is why there is only baptism and the lords supper, ...

2) I wonder whether this whole thread has the question back to front, or at least starts in the middle not at the beginning. I would rather ask the question, where all the accretions come from that now æsthetically adorn Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Not when did we lose them, but when did you gain them.

2) in a tent in some Middle Eastern desert, then Solomon.

I guess if we want to get uber technical, God on Mount Sinai...

Essentially this. The fact that the first Christians worshiped in the Jerusalem Temple and then in the synagogues until they were kicked out (I guess we could also talk about Eusebius's account of James and John dressing like Jewish priests, though it's not of guaranteed provenance) is highly significant to me. So is the fact that Gnosticism and Doceticism were there from the beginning as anti-matter (no pun intended) thought movements. It makes it seem more likely to me that the service of the first century was, if not recognizably Orthodox or Catholic, at least what we would call High Church and that the problematic accretions in history could just as easily have gone in the other direction

Not that I'm necessarily saying that the First Century Church had icons or something, but that such things wouldn't be completely at odds with their attitudes. I really don't think they were Baptists.

I feel like a mistaken reading of Hebrews 8:13 by many Protestants leads them to assume that the Church saw itself as radically reinventing the wheel instead of just adjusting and correcting things from their background Judaism in light of the truth of Christ (which reading, in a way, kind of flies in the face of the "it's not in the Bible" conservatism that a lot of Protestants apply to things like icons).

3) The person who posted the lovely photographs earlier in the thread has a good point; nonetheless, both my wife and I like visiting the simple chapels one often finds in Greece, often in remote places, and many of them we do not find religiously off-putting or offensive. Nonetheless, for me at least - and this may be nothing more than culture and personality - I find a simple and if possible old church (anything from 150 to 1500 years) more conducive to prayer, worship and spiritual meditation than an ornate one.

I'm not talking about ornateness, not essentially. I'm talking about sacrementalism and maximalism. A small chapel in Greece will still have an icon or two to be venerated, and if an Orthodox priest is there he can celebrate a version of the same Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that you'd find in the grandest cathedral (even if his vestments have been reduced by poverty to tattered rags).

[Volnutt]

Spiritual things always manifest themselves in one form or another, just because protestants hide theirs doesn't make them good or correct.

If you will examine the orthodox iconography you will find out heavenly principles within

If you will examine the pegan religion's arts you will find out demonic principles within

You can't examine protestant arts obviously, but if they ever put their principles into art you will find the following: lawlessness, self-authority, individuality, rock-star guruism, self-promotion, scholasticsm, rebellion, chaos, disorder, disobedience, self-righteousness, the idea that you know better than the ones that came before you therefor you will reinvent the wheel, absence of God and theorizing about Him each according to his passions & darkened heart.

Umm, there's plenty of Protestant art in many different mediums.

[Vanhyo]

Umm, there's plenty of Protestant art in many different mediums.

can you show me some ?

[juliogb]

Umm, there's plenty of Protestant art in many different mediums.

Well, due to the ban on visual arts, some protestants specially in the lutheran world, dedicated to music, Bach comes to my mind and several others that composed christmas concerts and hymns.

Nowadays there is a lot of theater, specially in evangelical youth groups, and of course, the jesusy rock/hipsters band, or worse, the denominations made out from overproduced concerts that sheepsteal the youth to mega churches (Hillsong and others come to my mind).

I find quite curious how lots of evangelicals, not all of course, but a lot nowadays, try to avoid completely the appearance of religion, so they made their religious service to look like some sort of TED talk, a motivational lecture or some sort of new iphone presentation.

[David Young]

...lawlessness, self-authority, individuality, rock-star guruism, self-promotion, scholasticsm, rebellion, chaos, disorder, disobedience,... absence of God and theorizing about Him each according to his passions & darkened heart.

Looks like we've got it wrong then.

[Iconodule]

Umm, there's plenty of Protestant art in many different mediums.

Well, due to the ban on visual arts, some protestants specially in the lutheran world, dedicated to music, Bach comes to my mind and several others that composed christmas concerts and hymns.

But Lutherans didn't ban visual arts.

E.g.

[Vanhyo]

This that stream of blood shooting at martin luther ?

[juliogb]

Umm, there's plenty of Protestant art in many different mediums.

Well, due to the ban on visual arts, some protestants specially in the lutheran world, dedicated to music, Bach comes to my mind and several others that composed christmas concerts and hymns.

But Lutherans didn't ban visual arts.

E.g.

Well, I exagerated a little, sorry for that, but usually, in the wider protestant world, most of visual arts (except movies) are quite a taboo.

[Luke]

The Fantastic Voyage scientists originated minimalism.

[Volnutt]

Umm, there's plenty of Protestant art in many different mediums.

can you show me some ?

Aside from what you've already been shown or told about,

https://www.livinglutheran.org/2017/04/reformation-500-50-reformation-artworks/ Here's a good start. I can't tell whether Hans Holbein the Younger was actually Protestant himself, he did work for Protestant clients who certainly weren't opposed to commissioning visual art. The same could be said for Rembrandt.

John Hutton

John Granville Gregory

Also see the paintings of John Holman Hunt, Warner Sallman, Anglican and Lutheran stained glass in general, the engravings in various editions of Pilgrim's Progress.

[Volnutt]

...lawlessness, self-authority, individuality, rock-star guruism, self-promotion, scholasticsm, rebellion, chaos, disorder, disobedience,... absence of God and theorizing about Him each according to his passions & darkened heart.

Looks like we've got it wrong then.

Vanhyo sure loves his sweeping statements.

[walterturkey]

 Protestants didnt ban art, they banned art intended for religious use. You can paint the passion and emotionally relate to it but you cant pray to christ in front of the painting because the Christ in the painting becomes an idol. 

I know a bunch of calvinists who are painters and illustrators whove painted christ, they would never venerate it for the reasons above.

[Volnutt]

Protestants didnt ban art, they banned art intended for religious use. You can paint the passion and emotionally relate to it but you cant pray to christ in front of the painting because the Christ in the painting becomes an idol. 

I know a bunch of calvinists who are painters and illustrators whove painted christ, they would never venerate it for the reasons above.

Technically true, although were also plenty of Protestant iconoclasts (especially in England and the Netherlands) in the early days of the Reformation who would say that having the paintings and such at all lends itself too easily to idolatry. My point is just that all Protestants historically haven't been iconoclasts and I wanted this thread to primarily focus on opposition to veneration of images, but not the images themselves.

But oh well, all threads go off topic sooner or later lol.

[Ainnir]

I say it's not pragmatic.  Why can't someone pray in front of a visual representation of anything regarding Christianity without being accused of idolatry, but one can pray in front of a blank wall, a door, a kitchen table, or their Bible and it's fine?  It sounds like the argument is that one is inherently idolatry because it depicts Christian things, and therefore one must avoid it at all costs.  As in, you can pray anywhere in your house, except near the picture of Jesus hanging in the dining room.  God doesn't exist right there, apparently.   

[biro]

I say it's not pragmatic.  Why can't someone pray in front of a visual representation of anything regarding Christianity without being accused of idolatry, but one can pray in front of a blank wall, a door, a kitchen table, or their Bible and it's fine?  It sounds like the argument is that one is inherently idolatry because it depicts Christian things, and therefore one must avoid it at all costs.  As in, you can pray anywhere in your house, except near the picture of Jesus hanging in the dining room.  God doesn't exist right there, apparently.   

Zing!

[NicholasMyra]

I would rather ask the question, where all the accretions come from

We never got to the bottom of where the idea that God communicates with his children by tagging some of their random thoughts and feelings as "from God" comes from.

[Volnutt]

I say it's not pragmatic.  Why can't someone pray in front of a visual representation of anything regarding Christianity without being accused of idolatry, but one can pray in front of a blank wall, a door, a kitchen table, or their Bible and it's fine?  It sounds like the argument is that one is inherently idolatry because it depicts Christian things, and therefore one must avoid it at all costs.  As in, you can pray anywhere in your house, except near the picture of Jesus hanging in the dining room.  God doesn't exist right there, apparently.   

That's a good point, though it's also probably why I've gone through periods of my life where I was afraid to pray with my eyes open.

[biro]

2) I wonder whether this whole thread has the question back to front, or at least starts in the middle not at the beginning. I would rather ask the question, where all the accretions come from that now æsthetically adorn Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Not when did we lose them, but when did you gain them.

You lost them in the Reformation.

I still don't know why they let you continue to be on this board, when you say things like this.

It's not polite to go to someone else's house and say that it's ugly.

[Volnutt]

2) I wonder whether this whole thread has the question back to front, or at least starts in the middle not at the beginning. I would rather ask the question, where all the accretions come from that now æsthetically adorn Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Not when did we lose them, but when did you gain them.

You lost them in the Reformation.

I still don't know why they let you continue to be on this board, when you say things like this.

It's not polite to go to someone else's house and say that it's ugly.

That's not fair. This is the Orthodox-Protestant debate section and we're having a debate. I welcome Pastor David's honest opinions in this thread.

[biro]

2) I wonder whether this whole thread has the question back to front, or at least starts in the middle not at the beginning. I would rather ask the question, where all the accretions come from that now æsthetically adorn Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Not when did we lose them, but when did you gain them.

You lost them in the Reformation.

I still don't know why they let you continue to be on this board, when you say things like this.

It's not polite to go to someone else's house and say that it's ugly.

That's not fair. This is the Orthodox-Protestant debate section and we're having a debate. I welcome Pastor David's honest opinions in this thread.

I think he goes beyond the pale when he says we pretty much made stuff up.

I don't welcome him, and I don't have to. Just because this is the Orthodox-Protestant section doesn't mean you can say any old thing you like. How much garbage did Alfred Persson and Yeshuaisiam flood us with, and they got warned lots of times?

I don't go to a Baptist church and say they made stuff up.

[Volnutt]

2) I wonder whether this whole thread has the question back to front, or at least starts in the middle not at the beginning. I would rather ask the question, where all the accretions come from that now æsthetically adorn Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Not when did we lose them, but when did you gain them.

You lost them in the Reformation.

I still don't know why they let you continue to be on this board, when you say things like this.

It's not polite to go to someone else's house and say that it's ugly.

That's not fair. This is the Orthodox-Protestant debate section and we're having a debate. I welcome Pastor David's honest opinions in this thread.

I think he goes beyond the pale when he says we pretty much made stuff up.

I don't welcome him, and I don't have to. Just because this is the Orthodox-Protestant section doesn't mean you can say any old thing you like. How much garbage did Alfred Persson and Yeshuaisiam flood us with, and they got warned lots of times?

I don't go to a Baptist church and say they made stuff up.

1. oc.net is not a Church (at least I hope to God it isn't).

2. As I recall, Persson and yesh were warned for crossing the line into outright proselytism or for being rude (I haven't seen Pastor David do either of those things), not for making Protestant arguments.

Saying that Orthodox stuff is "made up" is about the only claim one can honestly make if they want to continue to be Baptist and not Orthodox. He's just responding to the thread with what he believes. If he can't be allowed to do that, then what's this section even for?

[biro]

I guess because you're Protestant, you see it that way. I've never been, so I don't.

[Volnutt]

I guess because you're Protestant, you see it that way. I've never been, so I don't.

I don't see how the same reasoning can't be used in the RCC section where both Xavier and Wandile have been admonished recently. And while YMMV as to where the line between argument and proselytism is, I just don't see Pastor David as being anywhere near a reasonable one.

[biro]

I guess because you're Protestant, you see it that way. I've never been, so I don't.

I don't see how the same reasoning can't be used in the RCC section where both Xavier and Wandile have been admonished recently. And while YMMV as to where the line between argument and proselytism is, I just don't see Pastor David as being anywhere near a reasonable one.

I still think he's wrong, and I think you are. But I'm done wasting my time.