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

Catholic Dossier/ CERC ^ | MARK BRUMLEY

[agrace]

Not a problem, Dr. :) Please check your freepmail.

[conservonator]

It is unusual that people are so seemingly obsessed with attacking the beliefs of others. Perhaps their doubts about their own beliefs cause them to keep occupied at the task.

Their legitimacy is built on the Catholic Churches illegitimacy. If they don’t take every opportunity to disprove the position of the Catholic Church they are failing to validate their own dogmas and doctrine as defined by their own popes, which are usually themselves.

[attagirl]

fAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. iF A PERSON HAS SAVING FAITH, WORKS WILL BE EVIDENT. wORKS DO NOT SAVE A PERSON. RB--it is really very hard to have a discussion with someone when he: (a) misrepresents what the other person says and (b) refuses to discuss ANY points this other person has raised.

You haven't been listening AT ALL. Agreed: works don't save without faith.

OK, perhaps we can simplify things this way: In your opinion, is it possible for a believer to be saved if he sins grievously and has not taken responsibility, confessed, or tried to turn his life around by the time of his death?

You are saying faith alone. Catholics say faith plus works--and by your own definition, confessing would be a "work."

Also, please SOURCE the Bible quotation that talks about "faith ALONE."

[Jerry_M]

Why would anyone be allowed to post this horrible anti-Protestant screed? Don't you know that Protestant bashing is not allowed on this board?

(At least this is what I assume, since even the most innocuous discussions about RC practice are normally taken as "Catholic bashing", subject to being removed by the moderators, and result in threats of suspension or banishment.)

[RnMomof7]

To: RaceBannon;nmh; rnmomof7 fAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. iF A PERSON HAS SAVING FAITH, WORKS WILL BE EVIDENT. wORKS DO NOT SAVE A PERSON. RB--it is really very hard to have a discussion with someone when he: (a) misrepresents what the other person says and (b) refuses to discuss ANY points this other person has raised.

You haven't been listening AT ALL. Agreed: works don't save without faith.
OK, perhaps we can simplify things this way: In your opinion, is it possible for a believer to be saved if he sins grievously and has not taken responsibility, confessed, or tried to turn his life around by the time of his death?
You are saying faith alone. Catholics say faith plus works--and by your own definition, confessing would be a "work."
Also, please SOURCE the Bible quotation that talks about "faith ALONE."
323 posted on 1/6/02 6:27 PM Eastern by attagirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I would like to know why this was addressed to me? My participation on this thread has been minimal

[CCWoody]

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.

This post is a personal witness, a plain account of the way in which a God-hating pagan (me) came to feel that his only way of salvation was to cast himself fully, wholly, and unconditionally upon the Rock that the LORD built called Christ Jesus; my hope his built upon Him and Him alone. For were I to place my trust upon the institutions of men, then I would have no hope whatsoever.

Out of the most dismal of circumstance and death of a relative Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing; Thou hast put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, to the end that my glory may sing praise to Thee and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever.

I bow and pay my respect only to the God of my strength. There, I avoided offensive Biblical words.

[JMJ333]

Ever wonder why some people have to flag a dozen of their friends to a debate?

[EODGUY]

No, it's very simple. Fear, intimidation, lack of confidence in their argument, insincerity and twisted or complete lack of logic.

[JMJ333]

Can you tell the difference between a well written piece that argues good points, and language spewed from certain posters that belittles others? I can. There is no "protestant bashing" in the article. Its a well rounded piece. Not one person has taken a part the article. I wonder when they'll pop and start spewing the hatred? Can they maintain? The suspense is killing me.

[EODGUY]

I'd have to go with probabilities based on their actions of late.....it shouldn't take long.:)

[RnMomof7]

This post is a personal witness, a plain account of the way in which a God-hating pagan (me) came to feel that his only way of salvation was to cast himself fully, wholly, and unconditionally upon the Rock that the LORD built called Christ Jesus; my hope his built upon Him and Him alone. For were I to place my trust upon the institutions of men, then I would have no hope whatsoever.

Out of the most dismal of circumstance and death of a relative Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing; Thou hast put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, to the end that my glory may sing praise to Thee and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever.

I bow and pay my respect only to the God of my strength. There, I avoided offensive Biblical words.

In keeping with this theme this is a plain account of a woman ,raised in an organized religion that one day saw her life and her false righteousness as the filthy rag it was, suitable only to collect the drainage from her sin. The religion of man of no avail ,falling on her knees before the Holy God she pleaded for His mercy and grace and was washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb,a new creation born of the Spirit of the Creator of all.

Who am I Lord that you should be mindful of me a sinner?

[the_doc]

To RB you wrote:

You are saying faith alone. Catholics say faith plus works--and by your own definition, confessing would be a "work."

You are right about RB's post.

But I would argue that Paul's high-doctrinal statement rules out the simplistic summation-based formula of "faith plus work." By trying to read James and Paul at the same level in the hierarchy of the overall theology, the Roman Catholics are using James to defy Paul.

What I am saying, what I said on another thread (see link below), is that Paul is telling us that justification is by faith plus NOTHING. And James is warning potentially presumptuous sinners that REAL faith DOES produce works which MEN will SEE. Both of these points are in the Protestant formula stated so beautifully by John Calvin.

And by the way, I say that confession IS a WORK. It is a work RESULTING from faith. This is important to grasp, because a lot of faithless hypocrites try to fabricate faith by their lipservice. They will burn in hell for their filthiness in this. (They will be right alongside the antinomians in the flames.)

They need to start believing the gospel--i.e., experiencing a LIVE faith, not just continue trying to fake it by their mouthings and doings.

So, I conclude that you do not undertstand what the Protestants are affirming about justification or why we find the Roman Catholic position unacceptable. And neither does the author of the article at the top of the thread.

This is not surprising inasmuch as he is a convert from evangelical Protestantism. I have never met one of these switchover fellows who ever really understood the Protestant position in the first place.

It may help you to read posts 3, 9, 11, 21, 54, 58, 61, and 63 on the following thread:

The Reformers and the Church Fathers [etc.]

[CCWoody]

Ever wonder why some people have to flag a dozen of their friends to a debate?

Thats easy. Its so when somebody is slandering Jesus Christ with so henious a charge that a saint cannot possibly let it lie unrefuted, he can make sure he is not alone in speaking out; seeing how all the Roman Catholics on the thread were more concerned about the Pope than they were about the Lord.

Secondly, it is so he can also show the hateful Roman Catholic lies: 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"?

From the linked post above:

Now, as concerns matters of state, anyone can worship any god they like. But as concerns the Church of Christ, if by "decency" you mean that you consider it indecent of Calvinists to execute our religious duty to maintain an "intolerant" attitude towards the worship of false gods in the Church of Christ, and insist that we enter the debate with a "tolerant" attitude towards the worship of false gods... you are denying us the right to uphold our position before we even enter the discussion.

In essence, your definition of "decency" is not one of "NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts"... that knid of decency, Calvinists are cool with.

Your definition of "decency" is that we must enter the discussion with a "tolerant" attitude towards the worship of false gods in the Church, for "intolerance" towards the worship of false gods in the Church offends you.

As such, you do not deny the rectitude of our position; Rather, you deny that we have a right to present our position.

And, even though nothing need be added to this quote I will nevertheless dare to say that you also want an opportunity to "spew" without an opportunity for us to respond.

[Lady In Blue]

Bumping for a later read.Thanks.

[katnip]

BUMP FOR READING LATER

[grumpster-dumpster]

Thats easy. Its so when somebody is slandering Jesus Christ with so henious a charge that a saint cannot possibly let it lie unrefuted, he can make sure he is not alone in speaking out;

Your a Saint? That's the best laugh of the day! Who annointed you a Saint...Oh, that's right God did, by your own admission.

But if you are a Saint... your the Patron Saint of Delusions!

No where in the article is Jesus slandered!

[RnMomof7]

Ya need to visit Bradd,you are sounding disappointed that no one has called you a heretic or heathan???:>))

I will say the following sentence is absolute foolishness. Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church.

The writer has no clue what the reformation was about or for ,if he can make this statement.....notice no cattle call here! I can run to Bradd *grin*

[the_doc]

Can you tell the difference between a well written piece that argues good points, and language spewed from certain posters that belittles others? I can. There is no "protestant bashing" in the article. Its a well rounded piece. Not one person has taken a part the article. I wonder when they'll pop and start spewing the hatred? Can they maintain? The suspense is killing me.

See my #329. We Protestants think the article was pretty worthless. The problem is, the author was not faithful in presenting the Protestant position in full.

Brumley doesn't even understand our serious concerns or our Scriptural arguments. His article is not worth addressing in detail, in my opinion.

I will defend that claim by urging you to read my #329 honestly. And I will gently warn you that real honesty requires that you consider the possibility that you and Rome are just wrong!

I must go on to point out, however, that this will prove to be impossible for someone who is willing to start off by baiting us Protestants with pugnacious language.

(My point is that your very POST was an example of Protestant bashing. You will never understand us Protestants until you realize that. In other words, I think that your Papal bias, not the suspense, is killing you.)

[JMJ333]

I will always answer your pings. =)

In no way does this article slander Christ as some here accuse. It doesn't. No one ever pulls apart what is said and asks questions. I figure that you have enough integrity to answer questions honestly--so I ask you--Where, in your opinion, does this article slander Christ? Pull it out and we'll discuss it.

I promised my son I would play legos with him--but I'll be back tonight.

[RnMomof7]

I have not closely followed the thead. I have only read maybe 30 posts from it.Could you give me a lead to a couple of those posts?

I hated the article because it is incorrect in it's premise.The author must have come from a church that thought doctrine and church history were optional.

Having been born and raised a Catholic ,till my early 30's I too have seen it from both sides .But the difference is I do understand the doctrinal issues that seperate Catholics and Protestants.This guy is in la la land.

I will have to read some of the posts to see where they see "hatred "of Christ

I took this as a doctrinal/faith Thread...????

Go play legos..