[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]

I don't usually judge based on these things, but I shoulda known...

rumplestiltskin

member since January 7th, 2002

[the_doc]

as a follow-up to my #357, let me comment on #343, in context. You said

It was, along with your response, the most Prideful and Arrogant statement I believe I have ever seen on FR! You need to hang your head in shame at your unsupported boastfulness!

This traces back to what you said in #336. Taken together, these posts about CCWoody's alleged pride and arrogance backfire on you. You are actually mocking the Scriptures when you say that not all true Christians are saints. The Bible reveals that we true Christians are true saints--ALL of us. If you start reading your Bible honestly, you will discover that I am correct.

It's not that difficult--unless you are a Romanist.

And it's not that difficult to see why we Protestants object to the Romanist determination to have a separate priesthood when the Bible declares that ALL true Christians are priests.

You RCs would say that CCWoody and I are neither saints nor priests when the Bible actually says that we are both. The Pope can't take that away by his threatenings of anathema. The Word of God standeth sure. And we stand on it.

[Bladerunner]

"And this proves that prayer to Mary (or any other saints) is effective how? Or even that one is to proffess an admiration for Mary (supposing we decide to not call it prayer)-she is now dead,"

Mary is not dead. You do believe she is alive in heaven, don't you?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Clarion Call to Christians in the Freeper Wars: How to Win the Culture War--Who, then, is Our Enemy?

[CCWoody]

I'm sorry, I missed this post, cleburne. Honestly, I think it means the former, not the latter. We can choose not to love God and follow Him, thus choosing to forfeit sanctifying Grace. We can "lose our salvation." I think that's the plain sense of the text. We'd like to think we've all kept our own, of course. But everyone knows examples of those who once were committed Christians and seemingly walked away, don't we?

So many ways to address this...

Firstly, if you had merely said We can choose not to love God and follow Him, thus choosing to forfeit sanctifying Grace I would not have any complaint for I will freely acknowledge that all men everywhere freely choose not to love God and follow Him, thus forfeiting the Free Offer, just as Romans 3 and Psalms and Isaiah and other verses teach:

You are indeed angry, for we have sinned--in these ways we continue; and we need to be saved.

But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on Your name, who stirs himself up to take hold of You; for You have hidden Your face from us, and have consumed us because of our iniquities.

But, you mean it in the sense that a person who has been saved can then lose their salvation. And this is another matter entirely and specifically refuted by the scriptures everywhere:

From Psalms:

The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delights in his way. Though he falls, he shall not be utterly cast down; for the Lord holds him with His hand.... For the Lord loves justice, and does not forsake His saints; they are preserved forever.

And the clear message from this scripture is that not only does the Lord order a man's steps and hold him with His hand and does not forsake him and preserves him forever, but by linking this with justice the Lord considers it unjust for a saint to perish after the Lord has saved him. This would also be entirely contrary to the nature of the Covenant.

From John:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

And John specifically affirms that it is the expressed will of God that none of the saints are lost.

And Hebrews:

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"...

And our sanctification is the express will of God and it is by this will that all saints have already been perfected forever and these same saints also have the Holy Spirit to write His laws into their hearts. God does not throw perfect people into hell.

Therefore, your reading of Peter must include a reading that is consistent with all of scripture for scripture can never contradict scripture. This also leaves you in the position of having to maintain good works to keep your salvation and thereby providing your own justification apart from God; I believe that doc has already addressed the verses in James on this thread. Perhaps he will link those posts for you.

From my own 1600 and something Episcopal prayer book:

Articles of Religion

XVII: Of Predestination and Election

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of must unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

And having spent my first 16 years of service to God in the Episcopal church, I was shocked to find that they once believed such sweet things and have fallen into such a state just like the Roman Catholic church which they left.

Finally, were a man, who has been Sealed with the Promise and has the Holy spirit within him, were he to ultimately fall away and lose his salvation, this would require that God no longer be God; for God would have to take back the Holy Spirit which He has given to the saint as a Down Payment of the Promise. Thus, the Blood would be counted by God as a vain thing for it is is this very blood which Sealed the Covenant and He would have to break this Covenant, take back the Blood which has covered the saint and remove the Holy Spirit. And I cannot suffer the thought of such a thing. One could say more, much more...

Thank you for confirming for me that this Protestant can never be a Roman Catholic as such a belief destroys lives, just like abortion.

[Gargantua]

"I was wondering when the Baptists would show up."

Well, for as long as the Catholic Church refused to allow the spread of the Bible to the general populace, it was not possible for "Baptists" to show up. Except of course, the original "John, the baptist."

See, for over a thousand years, the Bible was kept by the Catholic Church as a Latin-only treasure to be reserved for their own abuse. This sin was later corrected when the Bible was translated and made available to the general public, starting in roughly the 1500's.

What do you think it was that the Vatican was trying to hide from the people? God's Word? And... why?

[iranger]

Overpopulation? Whoa....where?

[CCWoody]

P.S. to grumpster-dumpster: According to Scripture, ALL true Christians are SAINTS. You must pardon me for not even acknowledging, under the circumstances of that fact, the Romanist "definition" of a saint. Although you may not be a saint, CCWoody and I are.

Sorry, grumpster, but my prayers are received in the bowl with all the other saints and I am part of a Royal priesthood, just like the Scriptures do say plainly. My justification is not of men, but of God; merely a witness is provided by men, who believe in the command of Scripture to test the spirits to see if they are of God. And it is not built out of arrogance but humility for I acknowledge what the Scriptures say: that a man is completely incapable of even reaching out to graps the corner of Jesus garment to be healed without the Power of God.

I am a wretched worm and unprofitable, just like the Scriptures say, who has only one hope; and that by falling wholly upon the Grace of my God for the glory of His name's sake. I freely acknowledge that even my good works are not my own, but Jesus working through me for I am not the vine. This is the express will of God, that He may be glorified.

Aside to doc: There, I'm staying on the theme of Justification by God alone, not the fake RC way.

[the_doc]

I meant to include you on my #382.

Please notice that the final paragraph explains rwfromkansas's irritation with your statement about confession of sin back on the first part of the thread. Your reference to the statement by the Apostle James does not even begin to support your doctrine of the priesthood.

Please see also the link I gave earlier to PROUDtobRC.

[CCWoody]

Read down Jerry, yet another Roman Catholic who has chosen this time to call Protestants partially responsible for the deaths of babies by abortion. And yet, when I characterize correctly a prayer meeting with the godless infidels as a "spiritual forn****ing o**y" we are the ones who are who are being hateful. Laying aside the charge, the hypocracy is really a slap in the face itself.

Given my thesis, (one no one has tried to debate, whether because folks think I'm nutz, the thesis has no merit, or know it their hearts it is true) the culture of death is holding sway because we have lost 1930 years of traditional Judeo-Christian moral teachings on contraception (all contraception, not just abortifacient contraception).

It lacks merit! I wonder just how many Roman Catholics practice contraception?

To discuss the perceived errors of protestantism is also to discuss the perceived fruits of those errors. Acceptance of contraception is one of them. Abortion is the natural result.

Your anger belies what is in your heart, even if you are unwilling to admit it. You know my thesis is correct, that your own personal interpretation of scripture is responsible at least in part for the deaths of 1 baby every 15 seconds in this country, and you just have no way of dealing with such an earth shattering revelation about your world view. So instead of debating my premise, you resort to personal attack, implying I'm a smug pro-lifer who will rot in hell.

[rumplestiltskin]

You have really no idea how long I've been reading FR! NOW regarding the Pope's physician....if he is indeed a member of the group, I think, yes, that would be a problem. I know the official spokesman of the Vatican Joaquin Navarro Valls is as well.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

There, I'm staying on the theme of Justification by God alone, not the fake RC way

You know, I just carefully and very slowly re read the original article I posted on this thread.

Please, PLEASE, re read, carefully, the entire article. Read it slowly, and prayerfully. Put down your guard and your defensiveness, and actually read it. Carefully. Prayerfully.

I honestly doubt many fighting on this thread have really done that.

I just realized that even though I read it quick and posted it to start this thread, I did not really sit down and digest it.

It meets all the salvation/justification points brought up by posters on this thread very well.

There is nothing I could possibly add to the discussion in the article itself in response to your post here.

Make sure that what you criticize as "Catholic error" truly is even taught by Catholicism.

Measure your notions of what you think Catholicism teaches against the clear exposition of what Catholicism truly teaches in the original article.

Then we'll start from there.

(And I'm still waiting for anyone to discuss my premise of the onslaught of the Culture of Death having its roots in the protestant change, after 1930 years, in teaching on contraception, which arose out of "private interpretation of scripture" and lead to abortion.)

[CCWoody]

Don't talk to me about the error in Rome, till you straighten out your own house.

My house is just as it should be. Were it not so, I would leave for another church, just as the Protestants left Rome. But, then you proceed from another error of Romanism....

[RnMomof7]

The fact that some are RCs are former Protestants proves nothing. A lot of Protestants are going to burn in hell forever even if they stay in Protestantism.

My point in saying that is to warn you that people are by nature religious fools. And I say again that the former Protestants who are now in Catholicism never understood Protestantism in the first place.

Ditto :>)

[rwfromkansas]

And relying on a church council all the time is not relying on mere men???????

[CCWoody]

It meets all the salvation/justification points brought up by posters on this thread very well.

Post #385 talks about what you must believe concerning justification by works. To deny Eternal Security is to embrace works to maintain salvation. So, I am on topic to both your original post and what you further said in the thread.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

And this is another matter entirely and specifically refuted by the scriptures everywhere:

Really???

"Once saved always saved" is not scriptural:

Matt.7

[21] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

[22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'

Matt.25

[11] Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'

Luke.6

[46] "Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 5:1,4 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

2 Peter 2:15,20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

.

Main Entry: mortal sin
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a sin (as murder) that is deliberately committed and is of such serious consequence according to Thomist theology that it deprives the soul of sanctifying grace -- compare VENIAL SIN

1 John 5: 16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. 18 We know that no one begotten by God sins; but the one begotten by God he protects, and the evil one cannot touch him.

Lots of contradictions here. How do we decide who's INTERPRETATION of all the contradictions is correct.

You rely on the novel interpretations of men 500 years ago. I rely on the interpretations handed down since the apostles.

[RnMomof7]

Don't talk to me about the error in Rome, till you straighten out your own house.

My house is just as it should be. Were it not so, I would leave for another church, just as the Protestants left Rome. But, then you proceed from another error of Romanism

Amen Brother. No man should follow another man."the blind "lead the blind and both fall "into the pit".

We are to follow the one that made us and saved us and that empowers us. Never a man!!

[Jerry_M]

"Once saved always saved" is not scriptural"

Where did Woody say that he believed in "once saved, always saved"?

I know that he holds to the preservation/perseverence of the saints, but doubt that he holds to OSAS.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

It lacks merit!

You cannot even discuss my thesis logically, for to do so would be to question your entire world view. Oh well.

I wonder just how many Roman Catholics practice contraception?

You mean all those individual Catholics following the protestant culture into perdition instead of the actual teaching of Christianity on the issue, now solely taught by Catholicism but once taught by all Christian sects??? I already said on this page that individual Catholics too have fallen away, after their protestant brethren as well as their institutional churches did so several decades before.

But the Catholic Church itself has not. Read Humanae Vitae.

The only debate is whether the falling away on contraception is common sense and according to God's Will, or apostacy.

You know the point I'm making. Why do you refuse to address it?