[PleaseReadBeforeJudging] Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Bouyer on Reformation

Catholic Dossier/ CERC ^ | MARK BRUMLEY

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation    MARK BRUMLEY

---

ABSTRACT: Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.

---

Martin Luther

Interpreting the Reformation is complicated business. But like many complicated things, it can be simplified sufficiently well that even non-experts can get the gist of it. Here's what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan's expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary.

Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is "Come out from among them" and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.

Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God "raised up" Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Roman Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work - for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.

In that regard, Bouyer's brief introduction is worth quoting in full:

This book is a personal witness, a plain account of the way in which a Protestant came to feel himself obliged in conscience to give his adherence to the Catholic Church. No sentiment of revulsion turned him from the religion fostered in him by a Protestant upbringing followed by several years in the ministry. The fact is, he has never rejected it. It was his desire to explore its depths, its full scope, that led him, step by step, to a genuinely spiritual movement stemming from the teachings of the Gospel, and Protestantism as an institution, or rather complexus of institutions, hostile to one another as well as to the Catholic Church. The study of this conflict brought him to detect the fatal error which drove the spiritual movement of Protestantism out of the one Church. He saw the necessity of returning to that Church, not in order to reject any of the positive Christian elements of his religious life, but to enable them, at last, to develop without hindrance.

The writer, who carved out his way step by step, or rather, saw it opening before his eyes, hopes now to help along those who are still where he started. In addition, he would like to show those he has rejoined how a little more understanding of the others, above all a greater fidelity to their own gift, could help their 'separated brethren' to receive it in their turn. In this hope he offers his book to all who wish to be faithful to the truth, first, to the Word of God, but also to the truth of men as they are, not as our prejudices and habits impel us to see them.

Bouyer, then, addresses both Protestants and Catholics. To the Protestants, he says, in effect, "It is fidelity to our Protestant principles, properly understood, that has led me into the Catholic Church." To the Catholics, he says, "Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."

The Reformation was Right

Bouyer's argument is that the Reformation's main principle was essentially Catholic: "Luther's basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition."

1. Sola Gratia. What was the Reformation's main principle? Not, as many Catholics and even some Protestants think, "private judgment" in religion. According to Bouyer, "the true fundamental principle of Protestantism is the gratuitousness of salvation" - sola gratia. He writes, "In the view of Luther, as well as of all those faithful to his essential teaching, man without grace can, strictly speaking, do nothing of the slightest value for salvation. He can neither dispose himself for it, nor work for it in any independent fashion. Even his acceptance of grace is the work of grace. To Luther and his authentic followers, justifying faith . . . is quite certainly, the first and most fundamental grace."

Bouyer then shows how, contrary to what many Protestants and some Catholics think, salvation sola gratia is also Catholic teaching. He underscores the point to any Catholics who might think otherwise:

"If, then, any Catholic - and there would seem to be many such these days - whose first impulse is to reject the idea that man, without grace, can do nothing towards his salvation, that he cannot even accept the grace offered except by a previous grace, that the very faith which acknowledges the need of grace is a purely gratuitous gift, he would do well to attend closely to the texts we are about to quote."

In other words, "Listen up, Catholics!"

Bouyer quotes, at length, from the Second Council of Orange (529), the teaching of which was confirmed by Pope Boniface II as de fide or part of the Church's faith. The Council asserted that salvation is the work of God's grace and that even the beginning of faith or the consent to saving grace is itself the result of grace. By our natural powers, we can neither think as we ought nor choose any good pertaining to salvation. We can only do so by the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit.

Nor is it merely that man is limited in doing good. The Council affirmed that, as a result of the Fall, man is inclined to will evil. His freedom is gravely impaired and can only be repaired by God's grace. Following a number of biblical quotations, the Council states, "[W]e are obliged, in the mercy of God, to preach and believe that, through sin of the first man, the free will is so weakened and warped, that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do good for the sake of God, unless moved, previously, by the grace of the divine mercy . . . . Our salvation requires that we assert and believe that, in every good work we do, it is not we who have the initiative, aided, subsequently, by the mercy of God, but that he begins by inspiring faith and love towards him, without any prior merit of ours."

The Council of Trent, writes Bouyer, repeated that teaching, ruling out "a parallel action on the part of God and man, a sort of 'synergism', where man contributes, in the work of salvation, something, however slight, independent of grace." Even where Trent insists that man is not saved passively, notes Bouyer, it doesn't assert some independent, human contribution to salvation. Man freely cooperates in salvation, but his free cooperation is itself the result of grace. Precisely how this is so is mysterious, and the Church has not settled on a particular theological explanation. But that it is so, insist Bouyer, is Catholic teaching. Thus, concludes Bouyer, "the Catholic not only may, but must in virtue of his own faith, give a full and unreserved adherence to the sola gratia, understood in the positive sense we have seen upheld by Protestants."

2. Sola Fide. So much for sola gratia. But what about the other half of the Reformation principle regarding salvation, the claim that justification by grace comes through faith alone (sola fide) ?

According to Bouyer, the main thrust of the doctrine of sola fide was to affirm that justification was wholly the work of God and to deny any positive human contribution apart from grace. Faith was understood as man's grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-completed response to God's saving initiative in Jesus Christ. What the Reformation initially sought to affirm, says Bouyer, was that such a response is purely God's gift to man, with man contributing nothing of his own to receive salvation.

In other words, it isn't as if God does his part and man cooperates by doing his part, even if that part is minuscule. The Reformation insisted that God does his part, which includes enabling and moving man to receive salvation in Christ. Man's "part" is to believe, properly understood, but faith too is the work of God, so man contributes nothing positively of his own. As Bouyer points out, this central concern of the Reformation also happened to be defined Catholic teaching, reaffirmed by the Council of Trent.

In a sense, the Reformation debate was over the nature of saving faith, not over whether faith saves. St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine and the patristic understanding of faith and salvation, said that saving faith was faith "formed by charity." In other words, saving faith involves at least the beginnings of the love of God. In this way, Catholics could speak of "justification by grace alone, through faith alone," if the "alone" was meant to distinguish the gift of God (faith) from any purely human contribution apart from grace; but not if "alone" was meant to offset faith from grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-accomplished love of God or charity.

For Catholic theologians of the time, the term "faith" was generally used in the highly refined sense of the gracious work of God in us by which we assent to God's Word on the authority of God who reveals. In this sense, faith is distinct from entrusting oneself to God in hope and love, though obviously faith is, in a way, naturally ordered to doing so: God gives man faith so that man can entrust himself to God in hope and love. But faith, understood as mere assent (albeit graced assent), is only the beginning of salvation. It needs to be "informed" or completed by charity, also the work of grace.

Luther and his followers, though, rejected the Catholic view that "saving faith" was "faith formed by charity" and therefore not "faith alone", where "faith" is understood as mere assent to God's Word, apart from trust and love. In large part, this was due to a misunderstanding by Luther. "We must not be misled on this point," writes Bouyer, "by Luther's later assertions opposed to the fides caritate formata [faith informed by charity]. His object in disowning this formula was to reject the idea that faith justified man only if there were added to it a love proceeding from a natural disposition, not coming as a gift of God, the whole being the gift of God." Yet Luther's view of faith, contents Bouyer, seems to imply an element of love, at least in the sense of a total self-commitment to God. And, of course, this love must be both the response to God's loving initiative and the effect of that initiative by which man is enabled and moved to respond. But once again, this is Catholic doctrine, for the charity that "informs" faith so that it becomes saving faith is not a natural disposition, but is as much the work of God as the assent of faith.

Thus, Bouyer's point is that the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) was initially seen by the Reformers as a way of upholding justification by grace alone (sola gratia), which is also a fundamental Catholic truth. Only later, as a result of controversy, did the Reformers insist on identifying justification by faith alone with a negative principle that denied any form of cooperation, even grace-enabled cooperation.

3. Sola Scriptura. Melanchthon, the colleague of Luther, called justification sola gratia, sola fide the "Material Principle" of the Reformation. But there was also the Formal Principle, the doctrine of sola Scriptura or what Bouyer calls the sovereign authority of Scripture. What of that?

Here, too, says Bouyer, the Reformation's core positive principle is correct. The Word of God, rather than a human word, must govern the life of the Christian and of the Church. And the Word of God is found in a unique and supreme form in the Bible, the inspired Word of God. The inspiration of the Bible means that God is the primary author of Scripture. Since we can say that about no other writing or formal expression of the Church's Faith, not even conciliar or papal definitions of faith, the Bible alone is the Word of God in this sense and therefore it possesses a unique authority.

Yet the supremacy of the Bible does not imply an opposition between it and the authority of the Church or Tradition, as certain negative principles adopted by the Reformers implied. Furthermore, the biblical spirituality of Protestantism, properly understood, is in keeping with the best traditions of Catholic spirituality, especially those of the Fathers and the great medieval theologians. Through Scripture, God speaks to us today, offering a living Word to guide our lives in Christ.

Thus, writes Bouyer, "the supreme authority of Scripture, taken in its positive sense, as gradually drawn out and systematized by Protestants themselves, far from setting the Church and Protestantism in opposition, should be the best possible warrant for their return to understanding and unity."

The Reformation was Wrong

Where does this leave us? If the Reformation was right about sola gratia and sola Scriptura, its two key principles, how was it wrong? Bouyer holds that only the positive elements of these Reformation principles are correct.

Unfortunately, these principles were unnecessarily linked by the Reformers to certain negative elements, which the Catholic Church had to reject. Here we consider two of those elements: 1) the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the nature of justifying faith and 2) the authority of the Bible.

1. Extrinsic Justification. Regarding justification by grace alone, it was the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the rejection of the Catholic view of faith formed by charity as "saving faith." Bouyer writes, "The further Luther advanced in his conflict with other theologians, then with Rome, then with the whole of contemporary Catholicism and finally with the Catholicism of every age, the more closely we see him identifying affirmation about sola gratia with a particular theory, known as extrinsic justification."

Extrinsic justification is the idea that justification occurs outside of man, rather than within him. Catholicism, as we have seen, holds that justification is by grace alone. In that sense, it originates outside of man, with God's grace. But, according to Catholic teaching, God justifies man by effecting a change within him, by making him just or righteous, not merely by saying he is just or righteous or treating him as if he were. Justification imparts the righteousness of Christ to man, transforming him by grace into a child of God.

The Reformation view was different. The Reformers, like the Catholic Church, insisted that justification is by grace and therefore originates outside of man, with God. But they also insisted that when God justifies man, man is not changed but merely declared just or righteous. God treats man as if he were just or righteous, imputing to man the righteousness of Christ, rather than imparting it to him.

The Reformers held this view for two reasons. First, because they came to think it necessary in order to uphold the gratuitousness of justification. Second, because they thought the Bible taught it. On both points, argues Bouyer, the Reformers were mistaken. There is neither a logical nor a biblical reason why God cannot effect a change in man without undercutting justification by grace alone. Whatever righteousness comes to be in man as a result of justification is a gift, as much any other gift God bestows on man. Nor does the Bible's treatment of "imputed" righteousness imply that justification is not imparted. On these points, the Reformers were simply wrong:

"Without the least doubt, grace, for St. Paul, however freely given, involves what he calls 'the new creation', the appearance in us of a 'new man', created in justice and holiness. So far from suppressing the efforts of man, or making them a matter of indifference, or at least irrelevant to salvation, he himself tells us to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling', at the very moment when he affirms that '. . . knowing that it is God who works in you both to will and to accomplish.' These two expressions say better than any other that all is grace in our salvation, but at the same time grace is not opposed to human acts and endeavor in order to attain salvation, but arouses them and exacts their performance."

Calvin, notes Bouyer, tried to circumvent the biblical problems of the extrinsic justification theory by positing a systematic distinction between justification, which puts us in right relation to God but which, on the Protestant view, doesn't involve a change in man; and sanctification, which transforms us. Yet, argues Bouyer, this systematic distinction isn't biblical. In the Bible, justification and sanctification - as many modern Protestant exegetes admit - are two different terms for the same process. Both occur by grace through faith and both involve a faith "informed by charity" or completed by love. As Bouyer contends, faith in the Pauline sense, "supposes the total abandonment of man to the gift of God" - which amounts to love of God. He argues that it is absurd to think that the man justified by faith, who calls God "Abba, Father," doesn't love God or doesn't have to love him in order to be justified.

2. Sola Scriptura vs. Church and Tradition. Bouyer also sees a negative principle that the Reformation unnecessarily associated with sola Scriptura or the sovereignty of the Bible. Yes, the Bible alone is the Word of God in the sense that only the Bible is divinely inspired. And yes the Bible's authority is supreme in the sense that neither the Church nor the Church's Tradition "trumps" Scripture. But that doesn't mean that the Word of God in an authoritative form is found only in the Bible, for the Word of God can be communicated in a non-inspired, yet authoritative form as well. Nor does it mean that there can be no authoritative interpreter of the Bible (the Magisterium) or authoritative interpretation of biblical doctrine (Tradition). Repudiation of the Church's authority and Tradition simply doesn't follow from the premise of Scripture's supremacy as the inspired Word of God. Furthermore, the Tradition and authority of the Church are required to determine the canon of the Bible.

Luther and Calvin did not follow the Radical Reformation in rejecting any role for Church authority or Tradition altogether. But they radically truncated such a role. Furthermore, they provided no means by which the Church, as a community of believers, could determine when the Bible was being authentically interpreted or who within the community had the right to make such a determination for the community. In this way, they ultimately undercut the supremacy of the Bible, for they provided no means by which the supreme authority of the Bible could, in fact, be exercised in the Church as a whole. The Bible's authority extended only so far as the individual believer's interpretation of it allowed.

The Catholic Church and Reformation Principles

As we have seen, Bouyer argues for the Reformation's "positive principles" and against its "negative principles." But how did what was right from one point of view in the Reformation go so wrong from another point of view? Bouyer argues that the under the influence of decadent scholasticism, mainly Nominalism, the Reformers unnecessarily inserted the negative elements into their ideas along with the positive principles. "Brought up on these lines of thought, identified with them so closely they could not see beyond them," he writes, "the Reformers could only systematize their very valuable insights in a vitiated framework."

The irony is profound. The Reformation sought to recover "genuine Christianity" by hacking through what it regarded as the vast overgrowth of medieval theology. Yet to do so, the Reformers wielded swords forged in the fires of the worst of medieval theology - the decadent scholasticism of Nominalism.

The negative principles of the Reformation necessarily led the Catholic Church to reject the movement - though not, in fact, its fundamental positive principles, which were essentially Catholic. Eventually, argues Bouyer, through a complex historical process, these negative elements ate away at the positive principles as well. The result was liberal Protestantism, which wound up affirming the very things Protestantism set out to deny (man's ability to save himself) and denying things Protestantism began by affirming (sola gratia).

Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them. But how to bring this about?

Bouyer says that both Protestants and Catholics have responsibilities here. Protestants must investigate their roots and consider whether the negative elements of the Reformation, such as extrinsic justification and the rejection of a definitive Church teaching authority and Tradition, are necessary to uphold the positive principles of sola gratia and the supremacy of Scripture. If not, then how is continued separation from the Catholic Church justified? Furthermore, if, as Bouyer contends, the negative elements of the Reformation were drawn from a decadent theology and philosophy of the Middle Ages and not Christian antiquity, then it is the Catholic Church that has upheld the true faith and has maintained a balance regarding the positive principles of the Reformation that Protestantism lacks. In this way, the Catholic Church is needed for Protestantism to live up to its own positive principles.

Catholics have responsibilities as well. One major responsibility is to be sure they have fully embraced their own Church's teaching on the gratuitousness of salvation and the supremacy of the Bible. As Bouyer writes, "Catholics are in fact too prone to forget that, if the Church bears within herself, and cannot ever lose, the fullness of Gospel truth, its members, at any given time and place, are always in need of a renewed effort to apprehend this truth really and not just, as Newman would say, 'notionally'." "To Catholics, lukewarm and unaware of their responsibilities," he adds, the Reformation, properly understood, "recalls the existence of many of their own treasures which they overlook."

Only if Catholics are fully Catholic - which includes fully embracing the positive principles of the Reformation that Bouyer insists are essentially Catholic - can they "legitimately aspire to show and prepare their separated brethren the way to a return which would be for them not a denial but a fulfillment."

Today, as in the sixteenth century, the burden rests with us Catholics. We must live, by God's abundant grace, up to our high calling in Christ Jesus. And in this way, show our Protestant brethren that their own positive principles are properly expressed only in the Catholic Church.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mark Brumley. "Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation." Catholic Dossier 7 no. 5 (September-October 2001): 30-35.

This article is reprinted with permission from Catholic Dossier. To subscribe to Catholic Dossier call 1-800-651-1531.

THE AUTHOR

Mark Brumley is managing editor of Catholic Dossier. A convert from Evangelical Protestantism, he was greatly influenced by Bouyer's book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, when he first read it over twenty years ago. Recently, Scepter Books has republished The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, which can be obtained online at www.scepterpub.org or by calling 1-800-322-8773.

Copyright © 2001 Catholic Dossier

[Brian Kopp DPM]

so take a stand an defend it..stake out a position

I have indeed taken and stand, and defended it, very early in this thread.

No one has answered my question, and I plead yet again for an answer to my question, which came long before the_doc's question, yet still stands unanswered:

NO ONE has pointed out to me exactly where protestantism got the authority to change a continual teaching of Christian moral theology, a change that incidentally has lead directly to the acceptance of legalized abortion, and gutted the ability of protestant Christians to effectively preach against homosexuality.

Until someone shows me why or how protestantism can legitimately change a foundational teaching of Christian morality, I have no reason to listen to any of the rest of their theories or opinions on scriptural exegesis or Augustinian interpretations.

So I ask yet again,

where did protestantism get the authority to change a continual teaching of Christian moral theology?

After someone answers this question, which was ignored contionually on this thread, and which no one has yet attempted to anser honestly, then I will be happy to entertain your and the_doc's other questions.

By the way, protestantism does not have the authority to change a continual teaching of Christian moral theology. So the rest of their claims, so matter how well researched or sophisticated, are moot. Its all a matter of interpretation of scripture and patristics. The Catholic interpretation is there from the beginning and persists to this day. The protestant interpretation is a new false gospel introduced 500 years ago, with some truth yet mixed in, as the original author so eloquently points out.

I have no need to examine the_doc's question any further till he makes his first attempt at answering mine, which preceded his by several hundred posts.

[RnMomof7]

I have no need to examine the_doc's question any further till he makes his first attempt at answering mine, which preceded his by several hundred posts.

So you do not have an answer..best then to read what the students of Augustine ( the real Father of the reformation) have to say in their debate.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

defend it instead of whinning

Not till someone attempts to answer my question in my post above. I brought this question up over 600 posts ago, and you folks have done nothing but change the subject ever since.

The_doc's comments are indefensible. I'm really disappointed you continue to defend his bigotry. I have very harsh views of the reformers, and I could post comments here that would make your blood boil, true comments. Yet I know that deliberate attempts to insult and inflmae are counterproductive, no matter how much truth is in them. Charity demands prudence. The_doc has none. And you defend his lack of prudence.

[RnMomof7]

Not till someone attempts to answer my question in my post above. I brought this question up over 600 posts ago, and you folks have done nothing but change the subject ever since.

The_doc's comments are indefensible. I'm really disappointed you continue to defend his bigotry. I have very harsh views of the reformers, and I could post comments here that would make your blood boil, true comments. Yet I know that deliberate attempts to insult and inflmae are counterproductive, no matter how much truth is in them. Charity demands prudence. The_doc has none. And you defend his lack of prudence.

It was addressed over and over .You simply did not like the answer..now that is your right. But do not pretend that you have not been told that the moral position of born again protestants is almost exactly like yours .The difference is the church is not our god. You look to the church to be the conscience of reprobate man.We look for an act of God's grace to change that man into a new creation with the mind of Christ.

God is God, He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. The reprobate will be cast into hells fire for their rejection of the gospel. The born again and repentant, that sought the washing of the blood will be saved..no one knows who will come or when except the Father.All things are passed away when they " come" even abortions. Killing the message of the gospel my friend is almost universally deadly.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

So you do not have an answer..

My answer is a moot point. You would not agree with it, neither would the_doc. So why bother posting it? But I will none-the-less. Afterwards, I do hope and pray that you and the doc will have the courtesy and charity to answer my central question on this thread.

I cannot waste my time trying to repeat that which others obviously do better than I, so I will simply post this excerpt from A Tiptoe Through TULIP

A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints. The question is how one defines the term "saints"--in the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification (their "saintification") completed. [42] If one defines "saint" in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the gift of final perseverance."

The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. [43] Aquinas (and even Molina) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. [44] Aquinas said, "Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect." [45] But not all who come to God receive this grace.

Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is "the abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance man...needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passions...[A]fter anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not give." [46]

The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, Aquinas, or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite these men as "Calvinists before Calvin." While they did hold high views of predestination, they did not draw Calvin's inference that all who are ever saved are predestined to remain in grace. [47] Instead, their faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it.

If one defines "saint" as one who will have his "saintification" completed, a Catholic can say he believes in a "perseverance of the saints" (all and only the people predestined to be saints will persevere). But because of the historic associations of the phrase it is advisable to make some change in it to avoid confusing the Thomist and Calvinist understandings of perseverance. Since in Catholic theology those who will persevere are called "the predestined" or "the elect," one might replace "perseverance of the saints" with "perseverance of the predestined" or, better, with "perseverance of the elect."

A Thomistic TULIP

In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP:

T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance. [48]

47. The fact Calvinists are not aware of this shows a lack of scholarship. Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul attempts to redefine Calvinism as the "Augustinian" view. While Calvin's view of predestination might be a variation of Augustine's view, the two are not the same. Augustine did not believe in Calvin's understanding of the "perseverance of the saints," and neither did the broadly Augustinian tradition. That understanding was new [i.e., false, untrue--proud2brc]with Calvin. For an accurate historical discussion of perseverance of the saints, see J. J. Davis's article "Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine," in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991), 213-228. Davis is himself a Calvinist, and it is fitting a Calvinist help correct the errors of other Calvinists on the history of their doctrine.

48. This has important applications for Calvinists who are thinking about entering the Church, and it has implications for Catholics who want to know what the Church requires them to believe and how they might defend the Church against anti-Catholic Calvinists. For further reading on Catholic teaching in this area, see Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (St. Louis: Herder, 1939). Pope John Paul II studied and wrote his dissertation under Garrigou-Lagrange.

*****

PREDESTINATION. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. A masterful theological exposition of the classic Thomistic teaching on this, the most difficult of all theological tracts, showing the reconciliation of the various elements of hte Church's teaching on Predestination. Based on Scripture & Tradition, this [online] book gives the history of Catholic thought on this topic, showing how centuries of Catholic theologians have wrestled to reconcile the 2 truths of divine predilection & the damnation of souls. Explains the teachings of Sts. Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, Robert Bellarmine, etc. Also analyzes the problems with Protestantism, Pelagianism, Jansenism & more. Sheds great light on these quesions, emphasizing the gratuity of Predestination & the absolutely fundamental principle of the divine predilection. The author also covers efficacious & sufficient grace, free will, God's justice, mercy, & the question of whether foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination. A magnificent exposition for serious students seeking a deep, theological understanding of the Catholic mystery of Predestination.

*****

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. is one of my favorite authors. After the_doc has read and digested PREDESTINATION by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. online at the link provided I will be happy to discuss Augustine with him.

But I doubt the-doc is interested in true interpretation of Augustine, or learning the fatal flaws of Calvinistic thought.

Therefore, I do not plan on engaging him further when his own formation on the subject is so clearly lacking objectivity.

And if you are weak on Augustine and predestination as you say, I suggest you read this too, if you are willing to examine that which might be threatening to your own personal interpretation of scripture and history in your pursuit of Truth.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

It was addressed over and over

On the contrary, NO ONE has pointed out to me exactly where protestantism got the authority to change a continual teaching of Christian moral theology, a change that incidentally has lead directly to the acceptance of legalized abortion, and gutted the ability of protestant Christians to effectively preach against homosexuality.

If this was addressed, I missed it. My apologies.

So, Please, review for me or point me to the post where someone pointed out to me exactly where protestantism got the authority to change a continual teaching of Christian moral theology, (a change that incidentally has lead directly to the acceptance of legalized abortion.)

[RnMomof7]

grange, O.P. is one of my favorite authors. After the_doc has read and digested PREDESTINATION by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. online at the link provided I will be happy to discuss Augustine with him. But I doubt the-doc is interested in true interpretation of Augustine, or learning the fatal flaws of Calvinistic thought.

My guess is he will be happy to discuss the doctrine of Grace with you........in the meantime you may want to read what OP wrote to see if your link contains the same fatal flaws that squire had:>)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

the moral position of born again protestants is almost exactly like yours

Show me any references where born again protestants condemn the use of contraception as gravely sinful. If you find one, it is a rare occurence and represents less than 1/10 of 1% of born again protestants.

Because they allow contraception, they are guilty of apostacy on a matter of Christian moral theology equal to adultery, homosexuality, and abortion, at least according to the reformers upon whom born again protestants base their personal interpretation of scripture.

To review (from an article by Prof Janet Smith that readers may view posted on my profile page):

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the US Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade [U.S. decision to permit abortions] stated “in some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception… for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail”.

The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary, any efforts to “expose” what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and a half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives. The “intimate relationships” facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions “necessary”. “Intimate” here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word “intimate” means “sexual”; it does not mean “loving and close”. Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse.

Too bad the secular SCOTUS has candidly addressed that which no protestant has dared to address honestly on this thread.

You really want me to abandon Catholicism for a personal interpretation of scripture that is blind to the roots of legalized abortion, roots even a secular court plainly sees and acknowledges?

Never! You and the_doc offer nothing to me.

Christ built a Church and gave it authority to loose and to bind and promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it, and that it would be lead by the Holy spirit to all TRUTH!

Yet the_doc maintains ( and you defend him ) that

ROME'S PARTY LINE CONCERNING AUGUSTINE--which is, to put it bluntly, an outright LIE.
a goat headed for the slaughter
the Church of Rome was lying in the sixteenth century and has continued lying to this very day
The Church of Rome really is apostate
certainly appear to be reprobate
smarmy theological garbage
we regard Bouyer as a pagan sophist, not a Christian theologian
his depraved pride in RCism--
a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction
cast my exegetical pearls before someone who is acting swinish [OP]
your arguments will be crushed. You will see them taken apart and cast down before your eyes. Of this, I have not even an inkling of doubt. But I'll not throw pearls into the slop.[OP]
untold numbers of Protestants were murdered by Rome
RC's refusal to face that murderous fact reminds me of the anti-semitic freaks
RCism is a pack of lies and has been so since well before the time of the Reformation
malevolent, truth-hating spirit of the RCs on our forum
downright Clintonian in its character of pride and vicious perjury.
problem lies in the souls of those who are offended by the Truth
refusing to read Augustine with any real honesty
Church of Rome...guilty of the most flagrant of perjuries
pompous defenders of the Papacy
Sin is intellectually incapacitating in ways which proud sinners will not face squarely. And that refusal to face
reality squarely is the incapacitation itself.
Rome's very real apostasy is actually a fulfillment of Augustine's warnings concerning reprobation
profoundly dishonest about almost everything of real importance

If you and the_doc are correct here, then Christ lied when He said that He gave it authority to loose and to bind and promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it, and that it would be lead by the Holy spirit to all TRUTH.

Do you not understand that if you convince me that what the_doc says is true, I cannot be a born again Christian?

All I could be, at best, is an agnostic, for if the_doc is correct in his attacks on Christ's Church then Christ was a liar, because His Church did fall into error despite His assurances it would not, and we all believe in vain.

[RnMomof7]

On the contrary, NO ONE has pointed out to me exactly where protestantism got the authority to change a continual teaching of Christian moral theology, a change that incidentally has lead directly to the acceptance of legalized abortion, and gutted the ability of protestant Christians to effectively preach against homosexuality.

If this was addressed, I missed it. My apologies.

Somehow when slander rolls off the tongue of a Catholic it is acceptable.

You choose to lump all Protestants together.As has been explained to you the "liberal " churches that call themselves Christian or Protestant are usually apostate not only in the matter of sexual morals but in other doctrinal areas as well. We do not defend error or heresy. As bible believers we find them repugnant and apostate .

The real question you ask is "how dare they leave the church of Rome", because that is your source of authority. The Reformation was a moral movement that grew out of the apostasy of Rome .If a tree bears bad fruit ,it is to be chopped down.The Reformers left for that reason. Today the followers of Jesus Christ see bad fruit in the liberal mainstream churches too...and they offer no apology for either leaving Rome or vocal condemnation of the protestant apostate churches..we are about seeking Christ not pleasing men!

We stand together with you in the fight against abortion..and I include those methods of Birth control that cause abortions .We condemn homosexuality as a crime against Gods creation plan.

But you would prefer to paint us all with the heathen brush for your own slanderous anti- Protestant purposes

[imsosickofrcbashers]

Take the remark as read "those people" mean those who try to convert or change with anger and nastiness.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. ...the same fatal flaws...

If you only comprehended how preposterous this statement is, you would be laughing with me too. I'll take the views of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. over OPie any day.

you know how OPie arrogantly said that "if you meet me in exegetical battle, your arguments will be crushed. You will see them taken apart and cast down before your eyes. Of this, I have not even an inkling of doubt. But I'll not throw pearls into the slop.

That was arrogant blather.

Yet if OPie ever met Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. in exegetical battle, it would be true, yet Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. would not bluster and blather about it.

Gosh, this really does make me laugh. I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

[RnMomof7]

If you only comprehended how preposterous this statement is, you would be laughing with me too. I'll take the views of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. over OPie any day.

You are allowed to wallow in your deception..this is America...

[RnMomof7]

Take the remark as read "those people" mean those who try to convert or change with anger and nastiness.

And of course that is anyone that has the audacity to disagree with you right?

The problem is the inability to separate personal attacks and doctrinal discussions (even if hard hitting)

Would you like an example of "personal"? I have been called crazy, schizophrenic ,an old hag, judgemental (when I dared to post scripture) and the best was "talibornagain"

Now my friend that is PERSONAL..

I have no problem if you want to tear apart my doctrine word by word.. that is debate and discussion ....the problem is most Catholics do not know the difference

[Brian Kopp DPM]

We do not defend error or heresy...and I include those methods of Birth control that cause abortions

You cannot have it both ways. If you condemn error and heresy, then you must condemn all forms of birth control, not just those that are abortifacient. All of Christianity for all times condemned all contraception till 1930. Now you allow contraception, but Catholicism still teaches it is gravely sinful. You do not have a leg to stand on in this.

But you would prefer to paint us all with the heathen brush for your own slanderous anti- Protestant purposes

I'm not the one saying protestants are pagan sophists damned to hell. I'm not painting all protestants with a broad brush. I have coned down my focus quite clearly and distinctly.

Yet you and the_doc and others still persist in defending statements like the ones the_doc made above, with its clear implicit and explicit message that Catholics are damned for being Catholic.

I defy you to find anything I have ever written that would in any way imply protestants are damned for being protestant.

But I am implicitly and explicitly told Catholics are damned for being Catholic time and time again here. You did it implicitly just a few posts above.

It is the anti-Catholics who are guilty of exactly that which you charge me here, for your own slanderous anti-Catholic purposes.

At least I grant you and your fellow anti-Catholics that you are committed and saved Christians. The same is not granted to us in return. At least I ascribe noble and honorable and holy motives to your efforts, even though in many ways you are in error.

Yet you have the temerity to insist that I, a fellow committed Christian, do what I do for slanderous anti- Protestant purposes? How dare you ascribe immoral motives to my words and acts? How dare you imply, implicitly and explicitly, that I as a Catholic am damned? How dare you defend the_doc's indefensible statements, and call yourself Christian?

That is why we protest you folks' slander, not any other reason. You folks take it upon yourselves to judge men's souls. For that reason alone your efforts at evangelization shall fail.

[imsosickofrcbashers]

How wonderful! I've done a lot of praying over these threads, about whether to post of not but now that I see the fruits of the Holy Spirit maybe I will post a little more.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

You are allowed to wallow in your deception

Ad hominem. Poor form. I'm really disappointed in you today.

If you knew who and what this priest is, you would understand my reaction.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Please, tell me, where did protestantism get the authority to change a continual teaching of Christian moral theology?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Excellent. Remember, the convert is rare. Most often it is simply necessary to point out for fellow Catholics that there are indeed scriptural and rational arguments to be made against bigoted anti-Catholic attacks. The goal is just as much to help prevent folks from being deceived as it is to convert non-Catholics.

If someone had been around to answer my questions in the summer of 1991, I would have never left the Church then for a brief time.

Fortunately I was lead by the Holy Spirit to the Truth and returned. I would never have left if I had read only a few of these threads on Free Republic. In a vacuum, what the anti-Catholics say starts to sound like it has some basis. In the vacuum of poor post-Vatican II catechesis many Catholics are sitting ducks for professional anti-Catholic evangelists, because they were never taught real Catholicism, its scriptural foundations, and the early church fathers.

Apologetics on Free Republic gets results---by keeping Catholics Catholic, and bringing others home.

One last point...don't get too upset with those who attack Catholicism. Usually their motives are noble, holy, and honest, even if their words may be vile lies and patently false. They are simply ignorant, and deserve your prayers, patience and charitable debate.

and when they post the most vile attacks, just remember the one comment I hear most often from converts here:

. If the cogent, well reasoned Catholic posters weren't enough to buttress my faith, the vile attacks certainly were.

See my reply to viva la homeschool in post number 249.

[imsosickofrcbashers]

They got their authority from the same place they got the authority to personally interpret Scripture. They have strayed from the Body and the Blood of Jesus because "This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?"

Contraception is one of those hard sayings.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

They have strayed from the Body and the Blood of Jesus because "This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?"

RnMomof7 is a good honest believing Christian woman committed to Christ. I fully respect her, even though this debate today has had a bit of a harsh tone, and I have tried earnestly to be charitable. I can usually debate the Real Presence with a non-Catholic without becoming uncharitable. However, I cannot debate the Real Presence with a former Catholic without being tempted to uncharitable comments, and therefore I have requested RnMomof7 to not debate this subject with me. (The only time I question in my mind the salvation of a protestant is when they are a former Catholic who, like those in scripture, have said "This saying is hard, who can bear it?" Yet God is merciful and we cannot fathom His designs, and we MUST NOT judge the souls of others, even when they deign to judge ours.)