[The following is on FK's proposed experiment to put 100 spiritually-neutral, but intelligent people in a room with a Bible. They had to read it cover to cover and then answer a series of fair questions to discern what their respective understandings of "faith" were.]
I would say that you may be correct, by the way: the Reformed theology is far better suited for the modern man. This is why modernity is in such crisis, thanks, chiefly, to Luther.
You're blaming Luther and the Reformers for the cultural crisis we see in America today? :) OK, I suppose that statement just speaks for itself. LOL! Specks and planks, Alex.
I am predicting something a bit different. If your 100 men read the Bible for what is written, ignore all traditional or historical knowledge, but somehow avoid projecting their 21c mentality into what they read, they will be with the Catholics/Orthodox on the role of scripture, on the irresistibility of grace and the role of good works, and on the role of the Church.
Where are you getting this idea that Reformed theology somehow especially caters to a 21c mentality? It obviously catered pretty well to a 16c mentality since it spread so far and so quickly. To a great extent, the Reformers of today believe in exactly the same things as the original Reformers. Our theology has not molded itself for a contemporary audience.
On the results of the hypothetical test, we will just have to agree to disagree. All of the following is based on the premise of a single reading of the Bible by a disinterested, intelligent person. No life-long study is part of the experiment. There is no way in the world the Bible could objectively be read to provide for its equal (in authority) in the form of Tradition. No way. Irresistibility of grace might be a wash, objectively. The role of good works might also be a wash, but for different reasons. All say a saved Christian does and must do good works. I think the reader would probably stop there. And on the role of the Church, the last thing in the universe the reader would ever come up with is the current, or even historical, RCC. It's not even close. The benevolent dictatorship that is the RCC is found no where in scripture. Church melding with state is not found in scripture. No, the reader would have no chance of coming up with how the RCC has defined itself.
They will not know about the lives of the saints, but they will conclude that praying to the Apostles, Mary, and St. Stephen (the saints mentioned in the scripture) for intercession is a good idea.
What do you have, a couple of verses even arguably supporting this view? You would put that up AGAINST what Christ Himself taught, and the thousands of other examples of prayer given to God alone? You can't be serious. :) No one would conclude that attempting to communicate with the physically deceased is Christian behavior based on the totality of scripture.
They will not know whether to baptize babies.
Despite my bias, I still think the weight of example leans toward a believer's baptism. However, I have room for compromise here.
They will not form a solid trinitarian theology.
Depending on what you mean by "solid", I would disagree. I think the principles of the trinity are laid out very well in scripture. They are each spoken of in divine senses, and brought together as persons in the commandment on baptism.
They will be prone to various christological errors. One thing they will not be: they will not be Protestant at the four solas core.
Barring that any of them were memory wizards, yes, they would be prone to errors. That's why teachers are useful to connect different passages of scripture together. That is what Sola Scriptura does. Had I qualified for the experiment, I would not have wound up with all the beliefs I hold now. I do not have the capacity to remember and connect all the ideas in scripture together based on one reading. However, I do maintain that one reading would have left me much closer to Reformed theology than to Catholicism.
But of course, it is not really possible not to inject 21c into that experiment. This is why the entire idea is false: ...
Who cares about 21c.? Why is that such a big deal? I'll take 100 intelligent, disinterested, and unbiased persons from any time since the original Canon and say the results would be the same.
... the only way to objectively read the scripture is to read it in the company of the Church Fathers and through their eyes. If one were to do that, he will be 100% Orthodox or Catholic.
What??? :) That is objective? Is there a new on-line dictionary I am unfamiliar with? :) BTW, how do you figure that anyone reading through the Fathers would wind up "all Catholic" or "all Orthodox"? That's a pretty big difference on some very important things. Since our hypothetical reader is starting from a "blank slate" what about him do you think would lead him into one camp or the other?
----------
There is nothing that separates Catholics and Orthodox about fundamentals of the faith anywhere near the degree of separation between Calvinists and the Arminians. Which difference specifically do you think exists that "comes to mind"?
How about the nature of grace? You also disagree on original sin. As far as I know, Calvinists and Arminians disagree on basically one very big thing. Otherwise, we apologize side by side on almost everything else. When I made my comment, it occurred to me that that one big thing "might" be comparable is size of scope to all of the differences you have with the Orthodox put together. You can't tell me those differences are insignificant because you are in schism, and have been for a millennium.
His infallibility simply means that if the entire college of bishops goes in apostasy, the Pope can correct them alone, and the Holy Spirit guides him: ...
How could the whole Church hierarchy (save the Pope) go apostate if the Church was sanctified (completely) at Pentecost? It would seem impossible, wouldn't it? Therefore, that would seem to eliminate the concept of papal infallibility, and even the need for a Pope.
I think you are greatly denigrating Calvin's accomplishment.
:)
They will not know about the lives of the saints, but they will conclude that praying to the Apostles, Mary, and St. Stephen (the saints mentioned in the scripture) for intercession is a good idea.
What do you have, a couple of verses even arguably supporting this view? You would put that up AGAINST what Christ Himself taught, and the thousands of other examples of prayer given to God alone? You can't be serious. :) No one would conclude that attempting to communicate with the physically deceased is Christian behavior based on the totality of scripture.
= = =
INDEED!
How could the whole Church hierarchy (save the Pope) go apostate if the Church was sanctified (completely) at Pentecost? It would seem impossible, wouldn't it? Therefore, that would seem to eliminate the concept of papal infallibility, and even the need for a Pope.
We keep coming down to another differing assumption. I would say "one and the same Spirit ... diversities of gifts". To me your question doesn't follow at all, because I assume diversities of gifts. And I think the Pentecost experience bears consideration. The Apostles (and Mary) are in the upper room where the rushing mighty wind and tongues of fire are. They are not the whole Church. I'm just asking, not saying.