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

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

You would do well, proud2bRC, to be consistent in the Charity which you often (but apparently not always) demonstrate in your argumentation.

I.E. -- The charitable position would be to assume nothing about your opponents which you do not know to be factual. If you want to know our position... just ask.

In fact, the_doc and I are well familiar with the distinction between the strict-Calvinist position on Preservation of the Saints, and that of the Lutheran-Augustinian school (which I am comfortable lumping together, because Luther was a true Augustinian, whereas Thomist Catholics are not). Contrary to your presumptions, "the_doc" and I do know the distinctions (and respectfully, we do not need you to teach us; in fact, I say in all modesty, it is we who are able to teach you); and we are theologically comfortable aligning ourselves with Calvin and against Luther and Augustine on the nuanced distinctions between the two positions.

Since I have claimed that I am able to teach you the nuanced distinctions between the Schools, I will not attempt to merely "stand above you" in some presumptuous claim of superiority (I HATE that kind of mental arrogance, as you will see in my recent fiery exchanges with the Mormon "white mountain" and the Romanist "squire"), but will rather submit my analysis for your consideration.

You will note how the doctrine of "Baptismal Regeneration" is a key point of distinction between the "Lutheran-Augustinian" and the "Calvinist" School. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION -- This will be a "quick and dirty" summary (RnMomof7 recently asked if I gave classes... LOL!!), so I beg the consideration of all readers in remembering that I am attempting a summary exposition, not an exhaustive one:

JESUIT-MOLINIST ROMAN/Eastern Orthodox School -- NOT AUGUSTINIAN. The dominant position within Roman Catholicism (it is the jesuit view, after all) and the universal view of the Eastern Orthodox communion. Essentially denies any real, God-ordained ("monergistic", "God-alone") doctrine of Predestination. Teaches "Baptismal Regeneration" and the Primacy of human Free Will. The sinner must Elect Himself, of his own free will, to come to God, or be Elected by the Baptism chosen for him by his Parents. At that point, Baptism saves him, actually and efficaciously. He must, of his own free will, then Elect Himself to Persevere.
THOMIST ROMAN School -- HALF AUGUSTINIAN. A rear-guard action in Catholicism against the Jesuit-Molinist view, but generally held by the more thoughtful Roman Catholics. Teaches "Baptismal Regeneration" and a half-monergistic doctrine of Predestination. The sinner is Elected by God to come to Salvation; either by God's grace through the Gospel, or by the Baptism chosen for him by his Parents. At that point, Baptism saves him, actually and efficaciously. Those who Persevere, are those whom God has Elected to Persevere. Those who Fall Away, fall away of their own free will.
LUTHERAN/AUGUSTINIAN School -- TRULY AUGUSTINIAN. Teaches "Baptismal Regeneration" and a FULL-monergistic doctrine of Predestination. The sinner is Elected by God to come to Salvation, either by God's grace through the Gospel or by the Baptism chosen for him by his Parents. At that point, Baptism saves him, actually and efficaciously. Those who Persevere, are those whom God has Elected to Persevere. Those who Fall Away, fall away because God has Elected to actually reprobate them to Damnation (which their free will, not being sanctified by Grace, does then confirm); alternatively, being Reprobate, they are never brought to Saving Baptism in the first place.
CALVINIST School -- SUPER-AUGUSTINIAN. Full-monergist Predestination; goes beyond strict Augustinianism in the matters of Baptism and Perseverance. Presbyterian and AnaBaptist. Teaches "Salvation by Faith", NOT "Baptismal Regnerationism", and a FULL-monergistic doctrine of Predestination. The sinner is Elected by God to come to Salvation. Baptism is NOT an efficacious Saving Work, it is a Sign of Faith (administered as a "Seal of Covenant" by Presbyterians unto both Confessed Believers and their Covenant Children; administered as a "Seal of Belief" by AnaBaptists unto Confessed Believers). Those who Persevere, are those whom God has Elected to Persevere. Those who are Reprobate, are either never brought to a Profession of Faith (being Reprobate); or, alternatively, are "Tares" who do not truly Confess Christ in their hearts, so Baptism (whether Presbyterian or AnaBaptist) never Saved thwem in the first place (for both the Presbyterian and the AnaBaptist confess that Baptism, in and of itself, does not save).
ARMINIAN/FINNEYITE/HYPERWESLEYAN School -- NOT AUGUSTINIAN. Modern "American Protestantism" -- Free Will brings you to God, and Free Will keeps you in God. Baptism is a Work which you perform in Obedience to God. These people have no theologically-valid reason to be out of communion with the Molinist Roman School, so are unworthy of further consideration.
MORMON School -- NOT CHRISTIAN. Hyper-Finneyist Paganism. Require Evangelism, not theological discussion. These people are NOT SAVED. Let us pray for their souls. Any Romanist (such as "Squire") who would affirm their salvation is doing them an everlasting dis-service -- these Pagans DO NOT have the Gospel, and they NEED IT real bad. That's the truth.

AND SO IN SUMMATION, here are the representative views worth discussing:

1.) Molinist and Eastern -- Baptism saves, Free Will keeps you in Perseverance.
2.) Thomist Roman -- Baptism Saves, but Predestination will keep you in Perseverance, whereas sinful Free Will will reprobate you to Damnation.
3.) Augustinian-Lutheran -- Predestination determines ultimate Salvation or Reprobation; Baptism Saves, but if you are Reprobate, it will not keep you. Predestination, through Baptism, will keep you in Salvation.
4.) Calvinist -- Predestination determines ultimate Salvation or Damnation. If you are Predestined to be Saved, Baptism will confirm you, but is only a Work of Obedience; if you are Reprobate, Baptism will never keep you, for the Reprobate are never saved in the first place (Baptism does not Save).

Hyper-Wesleyan Finneyism and Mormonism considered unworthy of discussion.

Clear things up a bit?

Sorry, guys, for my delay in responding to your posts. I've been on overnight call twice in the last four days, so when I'm not on the wards, I'm sleeping. Now, for the matter at hand.

FIRST, the argument that "that God foreknew that those of Tyre and Sidon would fall from the faith they embraced after they had believed the miracles" is NOT Augustine's position at all, but a position which he clearly identifies as being advanced by another disputant -- a position he goes on to criticize!! How could you possibly miss this, given that it is Augustine's very first sentence.

I'm actually somewhat embarrassed that, in my zeal, I tried to translate this passage from the Latin, and made an insignificant error. I put into his mouth the words of another whom he is citing approvingly -- whose position he is implicitly adopting.

But it seems that reading it in an English translation (and, let's remember, every translation is an interpretation), OP made a much more serious blunder.

If you will re-read this passage, Augustine is not criticizing the position of the disputant who argues that miracles were withheld from Tyre and Sidon lest they believe and therefore offend God later by abandoning the Faith. He is actually using that very theory (i.e., "that no dead person is judged for those sins which He foreknew that he would have done, if in some manner he were not helped not to do them") to argue against another theory -- the theory that God punishes souls for uncommitted but foreseen sins. That theory is a very different matter -- and that is the theory that he thinks "shame even to refute."

Having corrected your significant misreading of this passage, the remainder of your preening, self-aggrandizing strophes blow away in the wind like so much intellectual flatulence. No offense.

Why, oh why, the persistence of this self-misleading tendency among the Protestants to excise (or, better, "rip") texts out of context in breathtaking disrespect for their true meaning. This is something that must be ingrained in their youth -- and probably results from being taught to treat Holy Scripture in the same manner.

How can you possibly attribute to Augustine an argument ("IT MAY BE OBJECTED THAT THE PEOPLE OF TYRE AND SIDON MIGHT, IF THEY HAD HEARD, HAVE BELIEVED, AND HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY LAPSED FROM THEIR FAITH") which he specifically says is A.) Not his; B.) Fatally vulnerable to the critique that even if God were worried about Tyre and Sidon falling away, He could just call them from life before they fell; and C.) is therefore such a worthless objection he is not even going to waste any more of his valuable time bothering to refute?

As explained above, you have completely misapprehended this passage. But let's further examine the crux of this matter -- the Calvinist teaching on divine "reprobation without demerit," and the Calvinists' claim that St. Augustine supports this teaching.

One endorsing the Calvinist claim would have to suppose that Augustine developed his doctrine in absolute contradiction of at least six of his own writings on the subject:(1) "On Correction and Grace," 13, Para. 42; (2) "On Merits and Remission of Sins" 2, Para. 17-26; (3) "Against Felix the Manichean," 2, Para. 8; (4) "On 88 Diff. Ques.," 68, Para 4; (5) "Commentary on the Gospel of St. John," 53, Para. 6; and (6) "On Instructing the Ignorant," 52.

One must then suppose that Augustine also developed this "doctrine" in complete contradiction of all of the Greek Fathers who addressed (and rejected) the teaching -- St. John Damascene, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nazianus, and Theodoret.

One must further suppose that St. Augustine decided to place himself also in opposition to all the Latin Fathers who had decided against this "doctrine" -- St. Ambrose, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Jerome.

Finally (and perhaps most tellingly), one would have to claim that St. Augustine's best and most devoted pupil, St. Prosper of Acquitaine, the great defender of Augustinian theology, just up and contradicted his master on this highly salient point. For St. Prosper, like the Greek and Latin Fathers, wholly rejects this notion of reprobation without demerit. In "Responses to Objections of the Gauls," 3, St. Prosper writes, "for this reason they were not predestined, because they were foreseen as going to be such as a result of voluntary transgression...therefore, just as good works are to be attributed to God who inspires them, so evil works are to be attributed to those who sin." And he further states at 7, Para. 85, "He foresaw that they would fall by their very own will, and for this reason He did not separate them from the sons of perdition by predestination. In "Responses to the objections of the Vincentians," 12, Proper states, "because they were foreseen as going to fall, they were not predestined."

Personally, I have always been fascinated by the way Calvinists fixate on out-of-context quotations from Augustine -- usually over-the-top, imprecise statements made in heat of debate with the Pelagians -- like so many moths to a flame. But, of course, they cannot get too close to the flame, lest they be burned. So they content themselves with their isolated quotations, but generally ignore the full body of his teaching, particularly on the issues of human freedom, the Real Presence, Petrine Primacy, and the indispensable role of the Holy Virgin in God's salvific plan.

Hello! History teaches that Tyre and Sidon were converted within three years of the Resurrection. So it was the same generation. Irrelevant to the case at hand on two grounds.

This is by no means the first time that you claim "irrelevance" on an issue on which you have been pinned. Suffice it to say that whether or not it was the same generation was quite relevant to you in a prior post. As to your two retorts, we don't know how long "long ago" was when Our Lord used the term. When someone says, "such-and-such would have happened long ago if..." the phrase "long ago" is almost always used as an emphatic figure of speech, and, moreover, in such cases time itself is not necessarily even being considered. As to why Sodom was not converted, I'm sure St. Augustine would refer to the Pauline hymn on the unfathomable depths of the Divine Mystery.

I am trying to take it easy on you. We have been examining your citations one at a time, and so far (On Predestination and On Perseverance) you are 0 for 2. That does not bode well for you as we continue.

Thanks for the kind thoughts, but meekness begins at home. I'm thinking you should learn to relax -- that might help you better understand what you read.

Or that, as he matured in the Faith, Augustine deliberately retracted many of the anti-predestinarian positions of his youth... because this learned Doctor of the Church frankly recognized that any deviation from Absolute Predestination was dead wrong.

As I demonstrate above, we know where Augustine stood not only through his own writings, but also through the writings of his most devoted pupil, St. Prosper. And St. Prosper does not endorse reprobation without demerits.

As an aside, OP's little soliloquy immediately above is interesting for an entirely different reason. It is a fine example of the curious Protestant habit of using Catholic terminology as some sort of "window dressing" on Protestant faith and practice. I suppose the point is to give some ersatz credibility to their relatively new-on-the-scene doctrinal innovations. The term "Doctor of the Church," of course, is a title of tremendous honor bestowed by the pope on souls whose writings contributed much to the fuller understanding of the Faith.

But... you've just horribly botched two in a row... not good....Especially if you can't even read that single work correctly.... Poor Calvin will have to wait. Right now, even the "simplest child" would be aghast at your string of exegetical mishaps in consideration of just two of Augustine's works. This is the problem which orthodox Protestants face. Rome thinks that we do not sufficiently respect the Patristics; meanwhile, we sometimes wonder if Rome can even manage to read them.

Rich stuff. But, as I have demonstrated above, it is you who misread the passage. I am going to assume that you were not wearing your glasses. Remember -- wearing glasses when you read is essential for the Orthodox Presbyopian.

I will not further publicly humiliate you on this issue. If you wish to continue to publicly humiliate yourself, you are, of course, free to do so.

I gave Squire fair warning about this, so when Squire protested again in his #1042, I knew he was a goat headed for the slaughter in this debate....

The proletarian triumphalism of certain strains of American Protestantism is not least among its unattractive characteristics. But I think you spoke too soon -- and, I will assume, before you read what OP actually wrote.

Since I am the fellow who first informed Squire that he didn't understand Augustine, I think I ought to give a broad outline of our overall exchange with Squire. I believe that this will be important for lurkers who care enough about the overall conflict between Protestants and RCs to go back and re-trace what was said....Squire immediately protested in his #1039 with a cute display of what I would call only a Romanist scholar's general familiarity with Augustine. I responded in #1041 that Squire was still over his head in the discussion. My point was that all Squire really knows about Augustine's position is ROME'S PARTY LINE CONCERNING AUGUSTINE--which is, to put it bluntly, an outright LIE....Unlike Squire, I did already know Augustine's position. Unlike Squire, who presupposes that the Church of Rome is honest, I knew that we could quickly prove that the Church of Rome was lying in the sixteenth century and has continued lying to this very day....My #1043--which I respectfully submit is probably worth reading if you are a lurker on this thread--reiterated my overall warning to Squire concerning his ignorance of Augustine's double-predestinarian teaching and then handed off the argument to OrthodoxPresbyterian. I knew OP would crush Squire pretty quickly.

Quick question -- do you suffer hematochezia when you unload this rubbish? As demonstrated above, you know neither Augustine, nor the Greek Fathers, nor the Latin Fathers, nor the students actually taught by Augustine.

The absolute, double predestinarian position of the Reformers, which position the RCs loathed in the sixteenth century and still loathe to this very day, was AUGUSTINE'S POSITION. And when you grasp Augustine's Scriptural understanding of the doctrine of reprobation--specifically, predestination to hell!--the whole mess is almost hilarious.

What is actually (not "almost") hilarious is how you cling to this fantasy that Augustine supports you when six of his major works (cited above) reject the idea of reprobation without demerit, all of the Greek Fathers who address the issue reject it, all of the Latin Fathers who address the issue reject it, and the great "defender of Augustine," St. Prosper rejects it.

And, oh yes, almost all Protestants reject it. Among the great Protestant theologians, we've already noted Guerillat's position against Calvin. But we also have Cunningham, Dorner, Harnack, and Barth, who cannot even find in the Scripture cited by Calvin any support for this teaching.

Again, the reason why I knew this [that "OP would crush Squire"] is because Augustine really was on the side of Luther and Calvin in this astonishingly important doctrine of the Reformation. And I knew that this is not hard to demonstrate.

Consistency is usually a plus in life, as long as one is not consistently wrong. Please see above -- you are having quite a hard time demonstrating your position.

As I said above, this is a pretty fierce controversy. But it is by no means as fierce as the Reformation itself was. My goodness, untold numbers of Protestants were murdered by Rome. The modern RC's refusal to face that murderous fact reminds me of the anti-semitic freaks who claim that the holocaust of WWII didn't really happen.

I'm assuming that you have not studied European history in depth, or, if you have, that you did not write the above statement with a straight face. Many, many people died at the hands of both Protestant and Catholic during and after the so-called Reformation. The formally canonized English martyrs under Henry VIII, Edward VII, "Queen" Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I number in the hundreds. But those who were actually martyred at Protestant hands number in the thousands. And what of those secular martyrs, the tens of thousands of "The Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants," whom Luther offered up in sacrifice to curry princeling favor?

One of the more interesting statements of the rabidly anti-Catholic historian Edmund Gibbon is that all the auto-da-fe's of Spain [the number of which English historians habitually obscenely exaggerate] do not collectively enrage him as much as Calvin's judicial murder of Servetus. I think Gibbon traces his disgust of Calvin to the manner in which Calvin cloaked himself in pharisaical, doctrinal robes in the matter, when, in fact, he wanted Servetus dead because Servetus had bested him in a debate. And then, of course, the mendacious way in which Calvin tried to later deflect his responsibility in the matter and claim that he had sought mercy for the man. Outrageous.

No one's hands are clean in this business. The only real difference is that the Catholic Church, in the persons of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II [the Great], has acknowledged the sins of Catholics in this matter and asked forgiveness.

Under the circumstances of what we Protestants do know and what today's RCs do not know, we cannot help but maintain this to our FReeper friends. Therefore, insinuating that we are Talibans for being so bold as to take a stand on a terribly important matter--as Squire did insinuate in his #1034--is just an example of the malevolent, truth-hating spirit of the RCs on our forum.

Actually, my reference to the Tora Bora caves was not to compare you to the Taliban per se. It was to suggest that your silence (and the silence of others) in the face of several of your friends' pleas for help was, perhaps, a little cowardly. The reference had nothing to do with religious practices. Don't be so touchy.

My take on this debate, the take of any honest lurker, is that OrthodoxPresbyterian has made good on his promise to crush Squire in the argument.

Um...that was your take on the debate before it even began.

The Church of Rome, which Squire has defended doggedly and with as much skill as a former lawyer could muster, is found guilty of the most flagrant of perjuries concerning the doctrine of predestination and specifically concerning Augustine's teachings concerning the absoluteness of God's predestination.

"My take" on this statement is that you indict yourself with this kind of twaddle. Pun intended.

The pompous defenders of the Papacy scoffed at Calvin and Luther for not understanding Augustine. But Calvin and Luther did understand Augustine, just as OrthodoxPresbyterian and I understand Augustine!)

As demonstrated above, you and OP misunderstand Augustine just as Luther and Calvin misunderstood. Call it tradition with a lower-case "t."

As for pompous, no papal bull I've ever read can touch the Institutes on the big ole "P" meter.

As an aside, I will point out to lurkers that Squire is quite bright (especially for someone who is now in medical school). No question about it.

Thanks, bro!

But when OrthodoxPresbyterian charged that Squire is intellectually incompetent to understand Augustine or the Bible, OP was merely making a spiritual observation.

Oh, okay.

Sin is intellectually incapacitating in ways which proud sinners will not face squarely. And that refusal to face reality squarely is the incapacitation itself.

Indeed.

Maybe Squire will come up to speed--and admit that he has been on the wrong side the whole time. Then again, maybe he won't. How about the rest of my FReeper friends?

What did Will Durant say about Calvin, something like, "unforgettable is the stain his teaching placed on the human consciousness." The unspeakable notion of reprobation without demerit is something that I will never endorse. But there's hope for you! The gentle St. Francis de Sales managed to re-convert to the Faith both the Chablais and most of Geneva. His has a way with the Calvinist mind, I think. For you, doc (and OP), I prescribe a healthy dose of his Introduction to the Devout Life. It's a true classic, and will help you better understand the notion of divine filiation. Also terrific (better?) on this issue is St. Therese of Lisieux's Story of a Soul. By the way, she's our latest "Doctor of the Church."

Time to hit the sack. It's gonna be a bad week on Gyn Onc. Time is increasingly short owing to wards responsibilities, an upcoming presentation, and a looming heinous OB/Gyn test. I'll check back when I can. It would also be helpful to me if y'all's future posts were a little more "economical." More substance, less bloviation. OK?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.