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

Catholic Dossier/ CERC ^ | MARK BRUMLEY

[Brian Kopp DPM]

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

---

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

---

Martin Luther

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reformation was Right

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

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

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

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

In other words, "Listen up, Catholics!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reformation was Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Catholic Church and Reformation Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

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

THE AUTHOR

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

Copyright © 2001 Catholic Dossier

[Brian Kopp DPM]

a pr-r-r-roper Pr-r-r-rotestant, perhaps even a Pr-r-r-r-resbyterian

Please see the quotes from Luther and Calvin regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. Seems I'm more of a "pr-r-r-roper Pr-r-r-rotestant" than you (oh, to my shame ;-)

[RnMomof7]

I guess this is very important if your prayer life and salvation hinges on it. Personally I keep saying it ..**Sola Scripture**.The Bible says it clearly to me..she was a sinner in need of a savior just like all of us..

Neithor my salvation nor my prayer life rely on Mary so it is a small matter to me.

I would just remind my friends you live by the sword you die by it :>)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I conclude that it is your belief that any sexual intercourse that is not engaged in solely for the purpose of procreation is sinful and comparable to sodomy and other vile sins?

From our Catechism (obviously, what I believe...)III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."¹⁴²

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.¹⁴³

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."¹⁴⁴ Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.¹⁴⁵

2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Conjugal fidelity

The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."¹⁴⁶ Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.

***

Here I tried to find the old Puritan writings about procreation. I do not need to tell you what I found when I searched for "puritan" and "sex" on Google...

[Brian Kopp DPM]

GW brought it up...not me. I don't prefer to emphasize Marian doctrine but I will point up modern protestant hypocrisy when they denigrate my church but their own reformers agreed with my church.

;-)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

and salvation hinges on it

Nope. Just responding to GW's baiting...

[George W. Bush]

I have just proved to you, irrefutably, that the Catholic position on contraception is the continual Christian position.

You've proved nothing of the sort.

Your pope can't even convince his own flock. And I'm not too convinced his efforts are actually sincere.

And yet, here you are, trying to convince the very latex-peddling Pr-r-r-r-rotestants who have caused the whole situation that they are in the wrong?

What precisely do you hope to accomplish with non-RCs when RCs themselves don't actually accept this teaching?

I notice that you dodged my question about whether sex is sinful except when engaged in purely for procreation. I think you're aware that some of those ancient Christians you quoted did mean exactly that. Some of them believed it was best for a husband and wife to refrain completely from sex except for the purposes of procreation. And the notion of sexual pleasure as, for instance, limned in the Song of Solomon was somewhat foreign to their ideals of married Christian life.

And I do not consider their views on these subjects absolutely binding or authoritative. We really do not know their actual practices and the doctrine (if any) of all of the ancient churches in these matters. However, we do know that to a man, they chose torture and death rather than repudiate Christ by bowing to the emperor's idol or making a token sacrifice. But you want us to obey your pope who kisses Korans.

[George W. Bush]

Please see the quotes from Luther and Calvin regarding Mary's perpetual virginity.

Luther and Calvin weren't popes.

You actually think Protestants recognize authority outside the Word of God as it reveals the teachings of Jesus and the early church. In general, the views of the early church fathers may inform our opinions and understanding of scripture. But it is the Word which is the authority.

You keep pretending you understand it but you keep turning again and again to the opinions of various men.

I was right earlier. You have a manmade religion, not a supernatural one. We are not discussing the same thing. You only talk about men and their opinions. I may be very fond of Calvin but take exception to many things he wrote.

Once again and in small words: John Calvin was not a pope.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

What precisely do you hope to accomplish with non-RCs when RCs themselves don't actually accept this teaching?

You still fail to comprehend what exactly I have accomplished with this thread. Amazing. It has been successful beyond my wildest dreams. Someday you might learn what this thread was all about.

[Squire]

Sorry for the further delay. Lil ole ladies just keep getting cancer. Onward.

Good grief, man, your botch was, and remains, thunderous. The argument which you are attempting to use as your "escape hatch" for Matthew 11 Augustine does not endorse; he soundly refutes it...Since you still manage to miss this point (again proving that, for your own good, you should certainly not attempt to demonstrate your "proficiency" with Augustine at the next My Ego Needs Some Affirmation show-and-tell), it appears that I shall have to hammer you with it again...

In the immortal words of breathless Klintonite Ann Lewis, "I think we all need to step back and take a deep breath." Please re-read this paragraph on Augustine. Augustine is saying that he agrees with the notion that God did not give the Tyrians and Sidonites the Faith in order to avoid their greater guilt upon later losing it. To the quasi-objection, "why didn't God just give them the Faith and take them from this world before they lost it," he essentially answers, "good question." He is not writing in a hectoring or ironic tone -- as you seem to believe. Augustine honestly does not know how to answer that question. Here again, one can almost hear him tuning up to chant that Pauline hymn to the unfathomable depths of the Divine Mystery.

As for the MENSA crack, probably well-deserved, and, admittedly, pretty funny. But to tell the truth, I have enough self-affirmation from knowing that I am a son of God, a son of Mary, and a son of the Church of Jesus Christ -- Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.

Oops... Calvinists do not teach "reprobation without demerit". Election confirmed by the calling of God. The reprobate bring upon themselves the righteous destruction to which they are doomed. -- chapter heading, Chapter 24 Book III, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin.

I haven't seen any rock-solid historical evidence in support of this theory, but I believe that Calvin was somehow paid by the word. He has no desire to say in 100 words what might be said in 10,000 words. For the sake of FreeRepublic disk space, I will turn to Calvin's beloved disciple, Beza, to sum up Calvin's teaching on predestination.

In the Mombelghartes Conferences, Beza writes, "God, an infinitely wise architect, and whose wisdom is unlimited, when He determined to create the world, and especially the human race had a certain proposed end...For the eternal and immutable purpose of God was antecedent to all causes, because He decreed in Himself from eternity to create all me for His own glory. But the glory of God is neither acknowledged nor celebrated, unless his mercy and justice is declared. Therefore, He made an eternal and immutable decree by which He destined some particular individuals, of mere grace, to eternal life, and some, by an act of judgment, to eternal damnation, that He might declare His mercy in the former, but His justice in the latter...."

The Calvinist teaching then, is that certain men are created specifically for the purpose that they be damned. OP, think about it -- such a teaching represents reprobation without demerit par excellence. Calvin did not necessarily use the words "reprobation without demerit" -- he may even have denied that he was teaching that heresy -- but for all practical purposes, the created-to-be-damned model is reprobation-without-demerit on a scale of which the early heretics could not have conceived. By claiming that Augustine endorses the notion of so-called double predestination, Calvinists attempt to make Augustine complicit with Calvin in this error.

On account of this created-to-be-damned teaching, Trent sensed a neo-Manichean flavor in Calvin -- that there is a good side of God (i.e.., creating-to-save) and an evil side of God (i.e., creating-to-damn). I myself will not at this time apply the neo-Manichean label to Calvin, primarily because I don't want to insult the Manicheans.

The created-to-be-damned idea, of course, cannot fly because it makes of God the Author of Sin. While Calvin claimed not to teach that God is the Author of Sin, his theology cannot logically be reconciled with any other conclusion. His teachings were thereby unforgettably overthrown by the Dutch Protestant theologian Arminius in his epistolary discussion with Junius -- seeResponse to Junius on the Fourth Proposition.

One sad note of history, by the way, is that Beza came within a hair's breadth of converting to the Catholic Faith while taking instruction from St. Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva. I've always thought that at the end of his life, Beza was in the Erickson stage of "integrity vs. despair," and couldn't ultimately bring himself to convert -- it would be a tacit admission that he had deluded both himself and others for most of his life.

To sum up, I think you should reapproach the De Dons. Pers. without reading an ironic, hectoring tone into Augustine's writing. He is agreeing with the notion that God wanted to avoid loading additional guilt on the Tyrians and Sidonians, then legitimately wonders aloud -- as it were -- why God didn't just give the Tyrians and Sidonians the Faith and take them to Himself before they lost their faith. I also think that perhaps you might read Calvin a little more critically. Human nature being what it is, people often say that they don't mean "A" when "A" is exactly what they mean.

These discussion have been enjoyable, but I must now sign off. I simply have not enough time to do them justice, and I don't see what we're accomplishing. You have a certain view of God, and I, as a son of the Catholic Church, in which I hope to live and die, have a very different one. I think this difference of one of essence. When two individuals cannot agree on points of essence, discussion is rarely productive.

I will continue to pray that the Holy Spirit will guide all of us in Truth and that you, particular, will begin to hear the calling of Christ to join Him in His Spouse, the Catholic Church. The Church of the Holy Apostles; of St. Justin and all the martyrs of the Colosseum; of St. Patrick, St. Boniface, and all the great missionaries Europe; of St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Prosper; of the Irish monks who "saved civilization"; of St. Thomas and all the Dominican Order, which invented the university; of the holy mystics St. Bernard, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and all the great monastic, contemplative orders; of St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, and all the spectacular missionaries of the Age of Discovery; of St. Francis de Sales. St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Therese of Lisieux and all those who so brilliantly taught souls to hide themselves in the gentle heart of Christ; of Blessed Pius IX, who, from Peter's Throne, condemned communism before Marx and Engels had even finished their Manifesto, and, indeed, all the popes who have battled for 300 years this incessant, rising tide of secularism; of Pope John Paul [the Great] who teaches that the mercy of God and the justice of God are not independent -- that God's mercy perfects His justice.

In Christian charity, I leave a final thought for you. I hope that Our Lord will not take offense at what I am about to say. I'm going to say it because I don't think He will take offense. Here it is: when we leave this world, everything passes away, and there is nothing left but each of us as an individual -- an individual standing face-to-face with Jesus Christ and Him alone. I think at that ultimate moment in each of our individual existences, He is going to have a certain look or expression on His Holy Face congruent with the particular "issues" He has had with the way in which we've each lived our lives.

With the Calvinists, I think it will be a pained expression. And along with this expression will be two important questions:

(1) How could you convict Me of the evil of creating men for the purpose of damning them?

(2)Believing Me capable of this evil, how could you, by either divine or even human logic, still worship Me as God?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Luther and Calvin weren't popes.

Thank you. You admit now that their own personal interpretation of scripture is no more authoritative than any other individual's personal interpretation of scripture. Neither is your personal interpretation of scripture authoritative. Neither is OP's personal interpretation of scripture authoritative. Neither is mine.

So there is no way for you to tell me I'm wrong with my own personal interpretation of scripture. OP's definitions of heretic and relative chances of salvation are just that, relative. OP's insistance on Calvin's predestination understanding are not authoritative. Augustine's supposed support for Calvin's predestination is not authoritative.

In short nothing is authoritative.

We must all grope around in the dark for the true meaning of scripture, never knowing who is right, who is wrong, why its OK to contracept but not abort, etc etc etc.

Unless this scripture is true after all, and Christ did indeed ordain authority somewhere somehow:

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.

"How can I, unless someone instructs me?"

Yet you claim that we should listen to no man.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I may be very fond of Calvin but take exception to many things he wrote. Once again and in small words: John Calvin was not a pope.

You better ping your standard bearer OP back to this thread. You've undercut so many of his fine apologetic efforts and individual debate victories, and the excellent debating points he fought so hard to win, that if you continue you will further erode the OP position credibility beyond even OPie's talents to repair.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

By claiming that Augustine endorses the notion of so-called double predestination, Calvinists attempt to make Augustine complicit with Calvin in this error.

On account of this created-to-be-damned teaching, Trent sensed a neo-Manichean flavor in Calvin -- that there is a good side of God (i.e.., creating-to-save) and an evil side of God (i.e., creating-to-damn). ...The created-to-be-damned idea, of course, cannot fly because it makes of God the Author of Sin. While Calvin claimed not to teach that God is the Author of Sin, his theology cannot logically be reconciled with any other conclusion. By claiming that Augustine endorses the notion of so-called double predestination, Calvinists attempt to make Augustine complicit with Calvin in this error. With the Calvinists . . . will be two important questions

(1) How could you convict Me of the evil of creating men for the purpose of damning them?

(2)Believing Me capable of this evil, how could you, by either divine or even human logic, still worship Me as God?

Thank you Squire. You have summarized the debate quite well. Thank you.

[St.Chuck]

But you want us to obey your pope who kisses Korans.

You're quite obsessive about the Koran gesture aren't you? But that's understandable, given that your own inability to demonstrate any respect to a faith other than your own is a completely foreign concept. You are confused by your own bias. A kiss that signified respect and a desire for peace and friendship you mischaracterize as idolatry. Are you serious? Do you honestly think that the pope, who personally has done more to spread the gospel throughout the world than any other man the past quarter century worships the Koran by kissing it? What an absurd postulation!

As for obeying the pope, the repugnance you display can only originate from the individualistic mindset that Protestantism begets. I couldn't imagine any other religion or philosophy that would be so antagonistic to the leader of a church. And of course, it is not he that is to be obeyed, but rather the teaching that he safeguards. Your disdain for obedience would have made you a rotten disciple.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

What precisely do you hope to accomplish with non-RCs when RCs themselves don't actually accept this teaching?

You do not understand the reasons for engaging in Catholic apologetics. The primary goal is to keep Catholics Catholic. And to get them to embrace the whole faith, not just the comfortable parts.

Next is to get Catholics back.

My own third goal is to convert Christians, both non-RCs and RCs themselves, back to the scriptural foundations regarding family planning, and thus turn back the tide of abortion and homosexual juggernaut, and get them to stop using abortifacient contraceptives. With committed Christians this is not difficult, as committed Christians are pro-life. And since barrier methods are Onanistic but also ineffective, the logical next step is NFP for those who have grave reason for not being providentialist.

The next goal is to bring home the non-RC Christians, and finally, the unbelievers.

What precisely do you hope to accomplish with non-RCs

With the ones I am directly debating here? Not much. But they serve a purpose.

Keeping Catholics Catholic is simple. All an average Catholic needs to know is that there are valid answers to the anti-Catholic charges, whether they are scriptural or historical or logical. Catholics just need to know these anti-Catholic charges can be answered. Otherwise in a vacuum, they start to doubt.

For the fence sitting non-RC Christian, these apologetics get them to search deeper and pray. No one will decide based just on this thread.

And the average Catholic or non-RC fence sitter doesn't give a hoot about OP's excellent exegesis of Calvin and predestination. Its too arcane to be the primary reason for conversion. Most reading this thread gloss over posts more than several lines long. OP's posts are highly educated, but their speculative nature precludes them from changing hearts.

Non-RC committed pro-life Christians suffering the teeth grinding frustration of the pro-life battle and the lack of any real victories read a thread like this and realize that abortion is intimately associated with the contraceptive mentality.

It quickly dawns on them that this absolutely essential piece of the puzzle has been withheld from them in protestantism in general and their own church in particular.

The majority of the hundreds of pro-life protestant pastors who have converted to RCC in the last 10 years started down the path of conversion after examining the roots of the legalization of abortion, and why protestantism abandoned its teaching against contraception.

Not all non-RC committed pro-life Christians desire conversion, and that is fine.

But if they too take up this call to reexamine this central teaching of Christian moral theology and its relation to abortion, they have the opportunity to take it back into their own churches and change others hearts, and begin to see a re-evangelization of the Christian churches on this issue.

From that re-evangelization of the Christian churches on this issue, someday will grow the first true victories in the pro-life battles.

Until that re-evangelization of the Christian churches on this issue we will not see any real progress on the pro-life battlefront.

[the_doc]

Since you have thought it a good idea to present such an "awful" catalogue of quotes from me, I will thank you for your trouble--and defend each one of the quotes for the benefit of lurkers.

***

ROME'S PARTY LINE CONCERNING AUGUSTINE--which is, to put it bluntly, an outright LIE.

The standard Catholic references invariably imply that Augustine did not teach an absolute, double predestination. But Augustine did teach an absolute, double predestination. As to its "doubleness," its absoluteness, it was not different from Calvin's position.

OrthodoxPresbyterian proved this from Augustine's exposition of Matthew 11. Your refusal to believe this changes nothing. The ostrich who stuck his head in the sand before the Flood of Noah just drowned sooner than the rest.

In other words, your recent attaboy in #1432 to Squire's #1429 is a joke. (Ah, but we Calvinists are the only ones on FR who will catch the joke. See Psalm 2:4.)

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

a goat headed for the slaughter

This was a retrospective comment to the effect that Squire never stood a chance against OrthodoxPresbyterian in a debate over Augustine's doctrine of predestination. Squire did not know what he was talking about. And yet he incessantly bragged that he read and understood Augustine, that he even read Augustine in Latin. Well, OP and I warned him, to no avail, that he would be utterly destroyed in the debate. (We have seen this before. RCs do not know Augustine's position. They just assume they do. It's pretty funny.)

Sure enough, the debate quickly turned into a bloodbath ("slaughter" was actually OP's word). The fact that Squire never surrendered means nothing. He is dead in the debate. As a matter of fact, he is dead precisely because he didn't surrender. It is now too late. It's over. His #1429 means nothing except that he's dead.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

the Church of Rome was lying in the sixteenth century and has continued lying to this very day

Rome has never acknowledged that Augustine taught a rigid double predestination. Rome has always pretended that Calvin and Luther didn't understand Augustine. But Calvin and Luther did understand Augustine, just as OP and I understand Augustine. You RCs are the guys who don't understand Augustine. OP proved that in the debate with Squire. The whole thing was a painful black comedy.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

The Church of Rome really is apostate.

Rome has departed from the faith once delivered unto the saints. Augustine would have abhorred the position of sixteenth century Rome and the debauchery which pervaded the RC clergy. Even Bishop Jansen finally realized this.

Rome has never repented of any of its doctrinal prevarication. The article you posted at the top of this thread proves this. You just haven't been able to see this. But we Protestants say that's your own fault.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

certainly appear to be reprobate

I don't remember the exact context of this remark, but it's not worth looking up. I do know that I was alluding to the doctrine which Rome denies. Rome doesn't believe in real reprobation--the God-ordained, predestinarian kind--and will even go to distinctly absurd lengths to insinuate that Augustine didn't either. Is this sort of dishonesty typical of God's elect? No.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

smarmy theological garbage

Bouyer's article is a misleading mixture of half-truths and even more overt misstatements written in a completely phony ecumenical spirit--one in which Rome is designed to come out solidly on top. A consistent, thoughtful evangelical will utterly reject his rhetoric. (I do realize that there are a few chatty "evangelicals" on FR who do not care enough about the Truth to be offended by the article, but most of us do find it offensive.)

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

we regard Bouyer as a pagan sophist, not a Christian theologian

Bouyer has no credibility with FR's Calvinists. Gosh, we frankly don't assume that RCs are regenerate. And it is well-known that Protestants regard RCism as polluted with paganism, so this shouldn't even be news to you. Maybe you don't agree with us, but that's our position. You want to be accepted by us as brothers in Christ, but this is not going to happen unless and until you leave RCism. Our serious Scriptural convictions rule out any compromise with you on this. We will not betray the Truth with a phony kiss. Based on what we know, we can't.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

depraved pride in RCism--

This is a more pervasive problem than you have recognized. Your own screen name proves this. You think of yourself as objective, but no serious RC is objective--and your screen name actually says you are unabashed in your non-objectivity.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction

This is an important phrase from the Bible. It concerns the doctrine which you loathe. And I do dare to apply the phrase in the way of unctuous warning.

My point is that you need to re-think the doctrine of predestination. The RC doctrine is utterly false. There is a predestination unto damnation. And most people are doomed. They will freely choose hell. It is absolutely certain that they will.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

cast my exegetical pearls before someone who is acting swinish [OP]

I do not want to continue to kick Squire while he is down, so I will merely say that OP's complaint was correct.

So, my statement (quoting OP) was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

your arguments will be crushed. You will see them taken apart and cast down before your eyes. Of this, I have not even an inkling of doubt. But I'll not throw pearls into the slop.[OP]

OrthodoxPresbyterian and I gave Squire more than fair warning. And OP made good on his promise in the debate.

So, my statement (quoting OP) was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

untold numbers of Protestants were murdered by Rome

This is historical fact. You need to face it. Rome's moral record is actually atrocious. I think that this is the reason why you are so intent on bragging about Rome's stance concerning abortion and contraception.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

RC's refusal to face that murderous fact reminds me of the anti-semitic freaks

See my comments above. If you RCs are such lovely folks, why don't you loudly and clearly abhor the Inquisition and the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre and the murder of literally millions of Christians who dared to disagree with you from the earliest centuries of the gospel?

Can't you see why I think you resemble the anti-semites who ignore what happened in the Holocaust? I don't see any meaningful difference. So, if you won't repudiate Rome, I am duty-bound to do so for you. (And I won't let you gloss over Rome's crimes by bragging about your stance concerning abortion or contraception.)

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

RCism is a pack of lies and has been so since well before the time of the Reformation

In view of everything I have said, in view of the way you have reacted to sharp but completely fair criticism, what do you expect me to say? This is just the nature of the conflict between us.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

malevolent, truth-hating spirit of the RCs on our forum downright Clintonian in its character of pride and vicious perjury.

Over and over you and the other RCs on FR have bashed evangelicals for daring to speak with conviction from the Scriptures. And we have repeatedly demonstrated the dishonesty in the RC approach, including Rome's dishonest approach to its own Patristic teachers. When we catch you RCs in flagrante, we evangelicals get blasted as bigots--for daring to expose your hypocrisies!

Squire even alluded to us Calvinists as Talibans. (Oh, great.) This mess really is Saul Alinsky stuff. It's right out of Hillary's Master's thesis.

So, my statement was appropriate. You just didn't like it. I can't help that. I'm telling you the truth.

***

proud2bRC, you have repeatedly scoffed at me, called me a coward, and have made also sorts of completely unsupported accusations against me personally. You have ignored substantive statements on my part and then turned around and grossly misrepresented me on this Forum.

I personally think that your less-than-stellar behavior, especially your pretense that you have been badly wronged, stems from the fact that you are getting clobbered by the Truth on this thread.

And like I said, your #1432 is a joke. Augustine did teach a double predestination. He got this doctrine in the same place Calvin got it. He got it from the Bible.

So, again, who cares if you don't like my "apologetics"? I don't give a fig for "apologetics" under the circumstances. I just have a responsibility to tell you the Truth. And that's precisely what I have been doing on this thread.

[St.Chuck]

Perhaps the doctrine of predestination has hampered your objectivity. While you may think that your salvation is assured, it doesn't follow that your powers of presentiment pertain to other matters. There was no slaughter of Squire in the debate,as you predicted. Until OP rebuts, it is all over, with Squire the victor. Perhaps #1429 meant nothing to you, "he's dead", but to me it was his piece de resistance.

Rome has always pretended that Calvin and Luther didn't understand Augustine. But Calvin and Luther did understand Augustine, just as OP and I understand Augustine.

If you understand Augustine as Luther understood Augustine you would not trust Augustine. Luther wrote that "Augustine sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good and holy ( Luther was much more charitable than the heirs of his heresy), he was yet lacking in the true faith...But when the doors were opened for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine." ....All over with Augustine. Is that how you understand Augustine? He is not to be trusted, it is all over with him, yet you justify your insipid triumphalism on something he interpreted from MT.11? Interesting.

To Proud2BRC, you wrote, "I personally think that your less-than-stellar behavior....stems from the fact that you are getting hammered by the Truth on this thread.That's not the way it's been. This thread has provided an opportunity to do some massive catechism, on a variety of subjects. It has displayed the difference in tone between the antagonists (myself excluded of late), and to me has revealed a wonderful irony. Proud2BRC went through the list of various Christians and how they might respond but he did not categorize those that tend to be animical toward the RCC. They are actually doing the greatest service to meet Proud2BRC's ends, because they prepare the soil for the seeds to be planted. The critics have become the RCC's greatest assets. Neat huh?

By the by, I thought it interesting that you declined Squire's offer to debate the doctrine of sole scriptura, and prefered the rather arcane notion of predestination. What should one deduce from that?

[the_doc]

There was no slaughter of Squire in the debate,as you predicted. Until OP rebuts, it is all over, with Squire the victor. Perhaps #1429 meant nothing to you, "he's dead", but to me it was his piece de resistance.

You need to be more honest in reading Squire. That means that you have to figure out where he is being intellectually amd spiritually dishonest. Since you haven't figured it out all by yourself, I'll give you some hints:

1) We cannot ignore Calvin's own Institutes and make an appeal to a statement by Beza which has distinctly arguable significance and then twist that into an excuse to throw out everything in favor of an appeal to human reasoning in a matter which is ultimately beyond our ken anyway!

2) Besides, the RCs run into the same problem with Augustine's arguments based on Matthew 11. My goodness, man, READ the debate between OP and Squire. OP actually proved that IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER WHAT THE RCs WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE DEMERIT ISSUES WRAPPED UP IN A DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION. AUGUSTINE CLEARLY TAUGHT A DOCTRINE OF **PRE**-DESTINATION TO HELL. AND THEY ARE CHOKING ON THAT.

Squire's argument is, to put it delicately for you, HOGWASH.

All over with Augustine. Is that how you understand Augustine? He is not to be trusted, it is all over with him, yet you justify your insipid triumphalism on something he interpreted from MT.11? Interesting.

I will cheerfully STIPULATE that I don't "trust Augustine." I think he was pretty far off-base in some areas. As Luther realized, Augustine didn't understand justification and sanctification very well. And Augustine fiercely defended Constantinianism, which is one of the very worst monstrosities ever perpetrated by Rome on mankind.

So, your supercilious chiding of me means NOTHING.

Chuck, you have refused to notice that we are not getting our position from Augustine anyway. We are merely pointing out that Augustine saw what we saw in the matter of an absolute, double predestination. And today's RCs have a laughable inability to see that.

The real issue, then, is this: DO RCs HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTY TO SEE WHAT AUGUSTINE WAS EVEN SAYING? AND THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO.

The critics have become the RCC's greatest assets. Neat huh?

The blind will always follow the blind, with disastrous results, even when there are sighted people like OP and me warning them about the ditch.

(Neat, huh? That's part of the Augustinian and Biblical doctrine of reprobation.)

By the by, I thought it interesting that you declined Squire's offer to debate the doctrine of sole scriptura, and prefered the rather arcane notion of predestination. What should one deduce from that?

It's the pearls and swine thing. I suspect that Squire would turn and rend me with the abuse button if he heard my ferocious argument. OP treated him with kid gloves. I wouldn't do that.

But why should I even bother?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I personally think that your less-than-stellar behavior, especially your pretense that you have been badly wronged, stems from the fact that you are getting clobbered by the Truth on this thread.

LOL. This latest post has been a wonderful aid to my cause. You are doing the work of the Lord, doc. Thank you.

[George W. Bush]

You still fail to comprehend what exactly I have accomplished with this thread. Amazing. It has been successful beyond my wildest dreams. Someday you might learn what this thread was all about.

Actually, you managed to convince me that there is no reason to take the RC teaching on contraception seriously. I've discovered it is as bankrupt as the pope opposing capital punishment because all life is sacred and therefore an heartless murderer has as much right to live as an unborn child.

So, you have freed me from my previous regard for the RC teaching on contraception. I guess now I'm a true Pr-r-r-rotestant.

So, are you going to tell us exactly what you think you've accomplished here after 1400 posts of stringing us along?

[George W. Bush]

You admit now that their own personal interpretation of scripture is no more authoritative than any other individual's personal interpretation of scripture.

Exactly what part of sola scriptura did you fail to grasp?

Yet you claim that we should listen to no man.

I am saying that we are to be led by the Spirit and instructed by the Word. Without those, we have nothing. The opinions of men may help and may illuminate. But the tests of the Word and the Spirit are all we really have. Of course, there will always be those who prefer a manmade religion with all its sacerdotal trappings.