[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

[CCWoody]

What has private interpretation led to? To schism, to heresy, and to lots of sects. Just look at all those so-called "Christian denominations." They all claim to go by the Bible alone, yet none of them agrees with another on what the Bible means. Since the Protestant Reformation, thousands of sects and denominations have sprung up and have deceived and confused many Christians and others. That's what private interpretation results in.

So, your position is: 1 Billion Romans can't be wrong!

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Again, I do love the Bible, OP. We share that love as brothers in Christ.

The Bible interprets itself.

Really??? How does "the Bible" interpret these?

1 Corinthians 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."

Acts 8:30-31: Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Matthew 18:18: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

Matthew 16: 15-19 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 6: [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." [59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. [60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? [62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. [65] And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

1 Corinthians 3: [23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. [27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

1 Timothy 3: [15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

1 Timothy 2.15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

*****

And not least of all, what is the "Bible interpreting itself" interpretation of these, OP?

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.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Define heretic? (Somehow I have a feeling it is something like, "anyone who disagree with OPies." Sounds an aweful lot like infallibility.)

Referring to my earlier classifications.... "Heretic": Anyone whose theology directly endangers the Biblical Doctrines of Grace.

• Thus, Reformed Baptists are not inherently heretical. We Presbyterians differ with them on issues of Sacramental practice, but not Salvationist soteriology.
• Orthodox Lutherans are not inherently heretical. We Presbyterians differ with them on issues of Sacramental theology, but not Salvationist soteriology.
• Thomist Romans are walking a razor's edge. Their Augustinianism incorporates much Truth of the Biblical Doctrines of Grace, but Roman Doctrine requires them to incorporate much Error.
• Molinist Romans (the majority of that "church"), Synergist Arminian "protestants", and Eastern Orthodox, are substantially heretical. Their theology directly imperils the Biblical Doctrine of Grace.
• Mormons are not heretics but Pagans. They do not possess any truly Biblical Doctrine of Grace.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The Bible interprets itself. ~~ Really??? How does "the Bible" interpret these?

I could answer, but I am not certain that you are listening. ;-)

[the_doc]

The real issue, as OrthodoxPresbyterian has pointed out, is that of authority. And Rome is not trustworthy as an authority. The final authority is God Himself.

So, when Rome claims to be the final authority concerning God's Word, Rome must NEVER lie, must NEVER make a doctrinal mistake, must NEVER contradict Scripture, must NEVER even misrepresent the teaches of Augustine in order to support some other viewpoint.

But see my #1198 and 1199. See also, #1228, in which proud2bRC has summarized my charges quite nicely.

He thinks I'm a bad guy for being confrontational. The problem is, everything he objected to in my remarks was true.

Proud2bRC, all of your arguments about contraception are built on a rotten foundation. This is one of the main reasons why you have changed the subject.

[George W. Bush]

proud2bRC to Orthodox Presbyterian: We BOTH love the Bible OP, but we disagree on its interpretation. You also have serious disagreements with the Baptists.

With the exceptions of a certain nuanced view of infant baptism and the independence of the governance of individual church governments, there are no truly differences between OrthoPresbies and Baptists. I could easily attend an Orthodox Presbyterian church personally. There are very few remnant strands of any of the Protestant denominations that I would say that of.

And I think that you'll find that if you try to preach baptismal regeneration of infants (or anyone else) to OPie, his reaction will be about as strong as any Baptist. Give it a whirl. I'd enjoy the fireworks.

Wait a second. OPie, you'd better denounce that Baptist preacher your own pastor swaps pulpits with occasionally. Just tell him the Romanists think you have a disagreement with him and boot him out of that pulpit.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

We BOTH love the Bible OP, but we disagree on its interpretation. You also have serious disagreements with the Baptists.

My disagreements are not so serious as you might think. My own Presbyter trades Pulpits with a Calvinist Baptist Pastor several times a year; neither he nor his Flock think that, in doing so, he is putting his congregation in any theological danger.

I regard the Baptist practice of withholding Baptism from their children until the occasion of their actual Profession of Faith as being an understandable deviation from the ancient practice of baptizing infants into the Covenant, one grounded in the Baptists (wholly understandable) revulsion towards the fallacious Roman doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. A difference in Sacramental Practice, but not a grounds for Breaking of Communion.

If the Bible interprets itself while so many interpretations? And the OP interpretation is no more nor less authoritative than any other personal interpretation. Especially regarding predestination.

I applaud your recognition of the fact that the matter especially concerns Predestination. There is a reason why Luther regarded the doctrine of Predestination as the crux of all his critical disagreements with Rome.

So let's indulge in a little "private interpretation" for a moment. I'm afraid I can't grant much weight to Roman comprehension of the Patristics at this point; I tried debating Patristics with "Squire", and he first botched his own reading of Augustine, then botched again by attributing to Augustine an "theological escape-hatch" argument which Augustine specifically said was not his; then botched yet again by ridiculously claiming that Augustine endorsed this theological "escape hatch" (in regard to Matthew 11) which, in fact, Augustine harshly and unequivocably refuted.

So I am a little disillusioned with Roman comprehension of the Patristics at the moment. "Squire" possessed the most encyclic mental cognizance of the writings of Augustine which I have encountered from a Roman in a long time (and is a self-professed "Mensa" member and a one-time lawyer at that, whoop-de-doo), and yet my debate with him was an embarassment to me... I honestly felt (I am telling you frankly) as though I were wasting my time upon a dull child.

So you'll forgive me if I humbly request of you, who I affirm to have been thoughtful this far (did you not just admit that Predestination was an "especially" important issue? Indeed. So said Luther. So said his Roman opponents), that we temporarily dismiss the Patristics (whom I do not at this time regard Rome as mentally competent to read) and simply ask your own "private interpretation" -- or put another way, simply read what Jesus says, and comment thereupon:

---

Matthew 11: 20 - 27 -- Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
• God CHOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew.

  True, or False?

---

If Rome cannot even get this right, she is a rotten tree. The occasional manifestation of edible Moral Fruit (sandwiched between the morally-reprehensible slaughter of Protestants) will not, in that case, excuse the theological Rot at her very Roots.

• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
• God CHOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew.

  True, or False?

God is Omniscient.
What say you?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

With the exceptions of a certain nuanced view of infant baptism and the independence of the governance of individual church governments, there are no truly differences between OrthoPresbies and Baptists. I could easily attend an Orthodox Presbyterian church personally. There are very few remnant strands of any of the Protestant denominations that I would say that of.

I would even add that a Presbyter would have no theologically valid reason to refuse your participation at our Supper... even if you had chosen to excuse yourself from a child's Covenant Baptism conducted in the Church mere moments before.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Supper is required to be administered to all Biblical Christians who have Membershipped themselves to a Bible-believing Local Church. Provided that the Christian is under the Teaching of a Local Church, the Presbyter cannot deny the Table, differences in baptismal practice notwithstanding.

And I think that you'll find that if you try to preach baptismal regeneration of infants (or anyone else) to OPie, his reaction will be about as strong as any Baptist. Give it a whirl. I'd enjoy the fireworks. Wait a second. OPie, you'd better denounce that Baptist preacher your own pastor swaps pulpits with occasionally. Just tell him the Romanists think you have a disagreement with him and boot him out of that pulpit.

You anticipated my own post. See #1387.

[George W. Bush]

Now I no longer have to debate with them durn Baptists...

Dream on.

BTW, this Baptist has never used contraceptives and has no expectation of ever using them. And, while I don't generally discuss such private matters with anyone, I do know two Baptist couples who never use contraceptives.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Still, I suspect you'd feel better if only I would consent to wear the Protestant Condom Of Shame for the rest of my life.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: proud2bRC Now I no longer have to debate with them durn Baptists... Dream on. BTW, this Baptist has never used contraceptives and has no expectation of ever using them. And, while I don't generally discuss such private matters with anyone, I do know two Baptist couples who never use contraceptives. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

LOL!! You know, I had to walk a very fine line in explaining to Proud2bRC why (some, not all) Orthodox Presbyterians do not inherently regard the usage of "barrier methods" between newly-married Presbyterians as any more "inherently Onanistic" than Roman "natural family planning", given that the purpose of NFP is the deliberate intent to... ahem... "cast the seed upon infertile ground" (in fact, this is why some Presbyters would regard either "barrier" or "NFP" as being borderline Onanistic, and so are pure Providentialists).

Discussing the nuances of such doctrines can be a cautious subject on a "family forum".
If any of us were to use "Song of Solomon"-style language, I suspect that we would be RIGHT OUT!!

[George W. Bush]

Absolutely correct. The "protestantism" within the church of Rome is, in sheer numbers, probably greater than the number of Protestants (and Baptists, evangelicals, etc.).

Notice that proud doesn't really want to discuss the use of birth control or abortion among Rome's flock, instead pretending that us nasty Protestants cunningly deceived those nice RC folks into wearing latex almost a century ago.

Listening to proud, one would think that the Fall was not caused by the Snake offering the Apple to Eve, but by a Protestant druggist offering condoms to witless Catholics.

I had no idea just how naughty Protestantism really was. It all started so innocently with Luther and Calvin re-affirming Augustine's predestination. Next thing you know, everyone's lurking down at the apothecary's and furtively eying latex goods.

[St.Chuck]

Are these the verses ( Matthew 11:20-27) that the whole doctrine of predestination hinges on? If so, Luther, Calvin, Augustine and you could be reading a lot more into it than what it says. Is not the Lord encouraging his listeners to take advantage of his presence and his work? His message of repentance? Couldn't he be employing reverse psychology by bringing up cities noted for their paganism. Saying that Sodom ( a city destroyed by God ) would be more receptive than their's is quite a denunciation. Could he not be making a comparison that those who have heard and seen him and rejected him are worse off than those who didn't? Am I taking it too literally? It seems to me a lot is added when one comes away with " God chose not to perform these miracles..."

[White Mountain]

Your #1325: I have a real regard for you as a decent and caring human being who makes a personally sincere claim upon the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.

Thanks. I feel the same way about you.

You write: But there really are three "camps" in modern Christianity, more or less. Rome, Protestants, and Mormonism. ... They're simply not the same. And if you have any real regard for LDS teachings, you should acknowledge it.

I do. I am not sure what I said that led you to think otherwise. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neither Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Protestant.

You write: There are distinctions between these three camps which do not allow us to simply label them all Christian without doing violence to each of the three and their individual merits, history and tradition.

Let's go back to the opening quote. I accept anyone as Christian who affirms that Jesus Christ is our Lord and God -- the Savior of the world, the Son of God the Eternal Father, who created this earth, was born of Mary, made Atonement for our sins on condition of repentance, died on the cruel Cross, rose again the third day from the grave, breaking the bands of death and opening the door to eternal life, showed the wounds in His hands and feet and side to His apostles, ascended into heaven, and promised that He would come again -- and who is sincerely trying to live as He taught us to live.

I accept such a person as a Christian and I say let God, who is merciful and just, be the Judge and decide that person's eternal destiny.

Acts 15:11
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 16:31
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

These verses say that such a person will be saved. There are other verses in the Bible, many of which give other requirements for salvation. We need to give heed to them all.

You write: You are saying that they are ultimately saved by their works [because you said we are saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel]. This is why Protestants would say that LDS is similar to Romanism. Again and again, you and the Romanists deny salvation by works. And, again and agina, you refute salvation by grace and ultimately turn to works in the final matter of salvation. Really, there are times when I think the concept of salvation by the pure grace completely eludes both you and the Romanists.

I think the so-called faith vs. works debate is incorrectly framed:

Galatians 2:16
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Let us not focus so much on this verse (and others like it that speak of "saved" rather than "justified") that we ignore the rest of the Bible. Luther and others seized upon these verses in order to justify the break with Rome and the extra-Biblical Roman requirements for salvation.

Paul is talking about the works of the law of Moses that do not save or justify. Both Paul and James talk in positive terms about good works, small acts of kindness, not that they save us, but that they show that we have faith in Christ and love for our neighbor. If we don't do them, we are unbelievers ("I was hungry and ye gave me no meat"). As Paul says to Titus:

Titus 3:1-8
1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

There are also the Biblical requirements for salvation (faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion by one having authority for the remission of sins (followed by the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost), enduring to the end) (verse 5 above, Acts 2:37-38) that must not be dismissed as unacceptable because you choose to call them "works". They are Biblical requirements. This is what I mean by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. This is not salvation by works! This is paying attention to what the Bible says.

One might say, looking at the time of the Reformation, that the RCs had added to the Biblical requirements for salvation, while the Protestants, protesting this, and in overreaction, had taken away from the Biblical requirements for salvation. The Anglicans tried a middle ground, observing them all without adding to them, and claiming apostolic succession, although Henry VIII's motivation for breaking away from Rome was less than altruistic.

Now we come to Ephesians 2:19-20

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The Keys of the Kingdom were not given by Jesus to Peter the devoted disciple, but Peter the Chief Apostle. For a time, vacancies among the Twelve Apostles were filled:

Acts 1:24-26
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Perhaps because the flock kept straying -- we see many examples in the New Testament -- the Lord stopped filling vacancies in the Twelve, and when the last apostle was taken, the Keys of the Kingdom went with him. Without apostles and prophets, the foundation of the Church was not there, and a restoration would be needed at the proper time.

But the restoration of the Holy Apostleship and the Keys of the Kingdom does not come by the will of man. It comes in the Lord's own due time, and in the Lord's own way, and according to His own will. Why it was that the Christian world went through the Dark Ages, then a Renaissance, then the establishment of a free nation, built on religious principles, where the establishment of a state religion was prohibited and freedom of religion proclaimed, before the Lord restored His Church to the earth, is something known best to Him.

True it is that since the Flood, Biblical prophets and apostles have been on the earth only for fairly brief, intermittent periods, and their contemporary faithful followers few in number. Judging by the charges of apostasy so rampant at FR today -- are we all not witnesses that the Christian world in general has been sliding rapidly into apostasy -- there seems to be a consensus that apostasy is the rule, not the exception.

And yet the Lord still loves us, each and every one, and gives us the light we are willing to receive when we are ready for it. If we do not have the opportunity in this life to accept Christ and His Gospel, an opportunity will be provided, in His Providence, in the next.

1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

To summarize, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neither Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Protestant. It is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, built upon the foundation of true and living apostles and prophets.

[White Mountain]

Your #1325: No, he [OP] does not need to apologize to you or anyone else. I don't know what the point of having a consitutional forum is if you don't allow free speech. If you want to post on aggressive religious discussion threads, there is a certain amount of tough language you'd better expect.

Of course OPie needs to apologize. Just because the offense is so common among Protestants -- telling individuals and entire denominations that they are not Christian, even pagan, by which he means they are going to hell forever because they don't believe the "right" thing -- doesn't mean he can't be called on it. Having free speech doesn't mean you are incapable of giving offense. That is one of the worst things he could say to anybody. He is heedless of the risk of bearing false witness, which is a sin.

Besides, it violates the rules at FR. It is a personal attack as well as a denominational one, and JimRob has specifically forbidden this going-to-hell-because-of-your-beliefs stuff, which may be why OPie does not state it explicitly.

[CCWoody]

and yet my debate with him was an embarassment to me... I honestly felt (I am telling you frankly) as though I were wasting my time upon a dull child.

Please do keep me bumped as I do have an interest in reading your arguments, even if I told squire many day's ago I had no interest in discussing much of anything with him.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

all of your arguments about contraception are built on a rotten foundation.

Hardly. The only one who has had the courage and charity to address my charges regarding contraception has been OP. For that I admire him greatly.

You are a coward, you cannot answer my charges regarding contraception, you insult and denegrate, and when you cannot answer my concerns regarding contraception, you reply like this.

Go read OP's posts again. He is a man I can debate with. You I cannot tolerate.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Frankly I would say I've been listening, honestly listening, far more than I've been listened to. Besides the obvious fact that I am alone in defending the RCC on this particular thread the last few hundred posts while you continually pull in your allies to these posts. I really do not have the time to do this right, but I have felt compelled to persevere, and I have found in you a worthy debate partner, something I really have not found among your compatriots up till now.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

--Can someone Freepmail me the comments from the post that was deleted? I never saw it.

[the_doc]

The only one who has had the courage and charity to address my charges regarding contraception has been OP. For that I admire him greatly.

Well, then go read OP's posts again.

My point is that I don't need to personally answer your charges concerning contraception. I told you way back on this thread that I don't agree with your position on contraception, but also that I don't have all the time in the world to discuss this stuff--and yet OP evidently does (grin).

So, I deferred to him, of course. And OP has answered all of your charges. In fact, he has answered them in essentially the way I would have.

If you will recall, I did the same thing in the debate with Squire, BTW. I could have slaughtered Squire, too. But OP is a little quicker, and I do believe in economy of effort!

You are a coward, you cannot answer my charges regarding contraception, you insult and denegrate, and when you cannot answer my concerns regarding contraception, you reply like this.

Well, my strictly humorous answer would be to urge you to read what you just said. It's a hoot. You condemn yourself--just as Matthew 7:1-5 warns you.

On a more serious note, you need to quit playing hypocritical games. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you definitely need to address the doctrinal issues which we Calvinists have raised. And you have done nothing of the sort--because you know in advance that we will destroy you for your trouble in the debate.

He is a man I can debate with. You I cannot tolerate.

Oh, dear heart!