The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

[PRmerger]

For instance, even with his appeal to sola gratia, I’ve always understood that the Catholic church teaches that God’s grace is necessary.

Catholicism proclaims sola gratia, properly understood.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholicism proclaims sola gratia, properly understood.

That’s essentially what Bouyer is arguing for not only sola gratia, but sola fide and sola scriptura as well.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s essentially what Bouyer is arguing for not only sola gratia, but sola fide and sola scriptura as well.

Understood.

I was simply responding to your assertion that Catholicism does not proclaim sola gratia. We do.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Understood.

I was simply responding to your assertion that Catholicism does not proclaim sola gratia. We do.

Ah, OK. Perhaps I wasn’t clear above. I thought it was obvious that Brumley/ Bouyer held their definitions of* sola gratia, sola fide*, and sola scriptura were the correct definitions.

In the linked article Brumley says in part,

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 / Brumley rightly identifies sola gratia as a distinct Reformation slogan. In fact, the emphasis I see in Brumley’s article is that Bouyer (and perhaps Brumley?) see that a good number of Catholics deny* sola gratia* is a Catholic teaching. Bouyer demonstrates that he thinks sola gratia is also a Catholic teaching.

Above I pointed out that I think Bouyer is taking Protestant / Reformation slogans and synthesizing them into Catholicism. From my perspective, I think he redefines these protestant slogans, and when I as a committed heir of the Reformation hear the slogans sola fide, sola scriptura and sola gratia, I’m not using the terms with same meaning Bouyer is. I grant that Bouyer sees his understanding of the terms as correct, and I grant that you likewise see your understanding of the terms as correct. That’s why I say above, “Of course, how Bouyer explains sola fide and sola scriptura is not exactly what I as committed Protestant mean, so there’s certainly room for a healthy debate.”

 

[Kliska]

I’d say Protestants are picking up our slack in some places

:takeoff:

And, Catholic and Orthodox pick up ours in other places… If we’d all “get that” the world would be a much different place.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, OK. Perhaps I wasn’t clear above. I thought it was obvious that Brumley/ Bouyer held their definitions of* sola gratia, sola fide*, and sola scriptura were the correct definitions.

In the linked article Brumley says in part,

Bouyer / Brumley rightly identifies sola gratia as a distinct Reformation slogan. In fact, the emphasis I see in Brumley’s article is that Bouyer (and perhaps Brumley?) see that a good number of Catholics deny* sola gratia* is a Catholic teaching. Bouyer demonstrates that he thinks sola gratia is also a Catholic teaching.

Above I pointed out that I think Bouyer is taking Protestant / Reformation slogans and synthesizing them into Catholicism. From my perspective, I think he redefines these protestant slogans, and when I as a committed heir of the Reformation hear the slogans sola fide, sola scriptura and sola gratia, I’m not using the terms with same meaning Bouyer is. I grant that Bouyer sees his understanding of the terms as correct, and I grant that you likewise see your understanding of the terms as correct. That’s why I say above, “Of course, how Bouyer explains sola fide and sola scriptura is not exactly what I as committed Protestant mean, so there’s certainly room for a healthy debate.”

Then can you explain what you meant by this:

Where I differ as a Reformed Protestant is that God’s grace is not only necessary, but completely sufficient

What is it that you “differ” on regarding Catholic soteriology properly understood?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What a breath of fresh air here on the CA forums to find someone recommending one of the authors typically viewed as part of the Catholic reassessment movement (Louis Bouyer).

Wow. What a breath of fresh air that someone actually read the article I linked to and analyzed it. Thank you.

Now this sort of statement being made here at Catholic Answers is sort of like* giving the store away*. Think of all the discussions and debate over sola fide and sola scriptura that have occurred here… and now a Catholic theologian is saying these things were a return to the clearest elements of the teachings of the apostles?

Before you pop the corks, can I ask for your opinion of this passage:

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.”

I take that last sentence to mean that if Protestants really understood the supremacy of Scripture, it would result in the re-unification of the two sides.

Isn’t it sort of like saying that at some point, the reformation process ought to be completed and those who had objections should be able to return to the Church they left at long last?

 

[JRKH]

That’s essentially what Bouyer is arguing for not only sola gratia, but sola fide and sola scriptura as well.

Which to my simple mind negates the term “sola”…

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

What a breath of fresh air here on the CA forums to find someone recommending one of the authors typically viewed as part of the Catholic reassessment movement (Louis Bouyer).

Indeed, Randy is both a gentleman AND a scholar !

 

[guanophore]

Which to my simple mind negates the term “sola”…

Peace
James

Duh…

This has always been the problem with the Solas for me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Duh…

This has always been the problem with the Solas for me.

That was/is my problem as well.

First time I heard the five solas, I said:

“You know that’s really a quinta” So it should really be called “Sola Quintus”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Indeed, Randy is both a gentleman AND a scholar !

Thanks, but not so much on either count, I’m afraid.

 

[JRKH]

Which to my simple mind negates the term “sola”…

Peace
James

Duh…

This has always been the problem with the Solas for me.

That was/is my problem as well.

First time I heard the five solas, I said:

“You know that’s really a quinta” So it should really be called “Sola Quintus”

Glad to know I’m not alone in this…By the way, I Love “Sola Quintas”……

Peace
James

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Glad to know I’m not alone in this…By the way, I Love “Sola Quintas”……

Peace
James

:tiphat:

 

[TertiumQuid]

Then can you explain what you meant by this: “Where I differ as a Reformed Protestant is that God’s grace is not only necessary, but completely sufficient.” What is it that you “differ” on regarding Catholic soteriology properly understood?

Let me frame my response based on the link provided from Bouyer / Brumley. Citing Bouyer the link states that grace is absolutely necessary:

“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.”

“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.”

The link goes on to point out that Catholics can claim* sola gratia* as well because even after initial grace given, the subsequent works that are done are based on continued grace. This is what Catholics understand by the sufficiency of grace:

“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.”

“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.” (Brumley)

I hold that the historic Protestant position opposes this definition of sola gratia.

1. The issue is whether grace, by itself accomplishes salvation. Trent said the grace of justification can be gained and lost. Therefore if someone doesn’t perform works done in a state of grace, justification can be lost. In the final analysis, the deciding factor as to whether or not someone is eternally justified is decided upon someone’s will. This means that something else (human decision) must be attached to God’s grace, hence gratia is not completely sola. When I as a Protestant say, sola gratia, I really mean sola. God’s grace is the ultimate deciding factor of who will believe, and who will continue to believe.
2. It isn’t any sort of failure on my part to choose to perform works in a state of grace that leads to my eventual salvation or damnation. Rather, the perfect works of Christ are mine now, given to me graciously and eternally. The good works I do now are the fruits and signs of justification, they are not the means to increase my justification. I’ve been given Christ’s works by grace alone.

Obviously, this sort of short answer leads to a many other questions and points. What interests me is that those who read my answer understand that by sola gratia, the Catholic position and the historic Protestant position are not the same thing.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Before you pop the corks, can I ask for your opinion of this passage:
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.”
I take that last sentence to mean that if Protestants really understood the supremacy of Scripture, it would result in the re-unification of the two sides.
Isn’t it sort of like saying that at some point, the reformation process ought to be completed and those who had objections should be able to return to the Church they left at long last?

Well from my perspective, I don’t see the cork popping either until the Catholic side really understands the supremacy of Scripture, and I don’t see that happening any time soon. I don’t mean this at all to be an insult. Rather, I mention it in as merely a response to the notion that “if Protestants really understood the supremacy of Scripture, it would result in the re-unification of the two sides.” I say the same thing, but have simply changed the word “Protestant” to “Catholic.”

In the article, Brumley / Bouyer says:

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.

The debate, as I understand it, is that the Catholic side finds the “Word of God” in another form besides Scripture (Tradition, the Magisterium). I must admit that I’m a bit unsure what is meant above by “the Word of God can be communicated in a non-inspired, yet authoritative form as well.” My genuine concern here is whether or not Brumley / Bouyer want to go so far and say infallible Tradition is not divinely inspired. If so, they’ve set up a situation in which Tradition (and any infallible pronouncement from the Magisterium) is infallible but not divinely inspired.

Again though, thanks for the article. There’s a lot there to chew on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well from my perspective, I don’t see the cork popping either until the Catholic side really understands the supremacy of Scripture, and I don’t see that happening any time soon. I don’t mean this at all to be an insult. Rather, I mention it in as merely a response to the notion that “if Protestants really understood the supremacy of Scripture, it would result in the re-unification of the two sides.” I say the same thing, but have simply changed the word “Protestant” to “Catholic.”

Fair enough. One of the reasons Catholics might argue against the supremacy of scripture is that scripture itself points us not to itself but to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Or as from the NIV:

1 Timothy 3:15
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The debate, as I understand it, is that the Catholic side finds the “Word of God” in another form besides Scripture (Tradition, the Magisterium).

We see the Word of God as two streams flowing from a single source: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which came before the written word). The Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, is the third leg of the stool upon which all rests.

From the Catechism:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[PRmerger]

We see the Word of God as two streams flowing from a single source: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which came before the written word). The Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, is the third leg of the stool upon which all rests.

Indeed.

Christianity is not a religion of the book.

We do not glean our faith from the pages of a book, no matter how holy.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Fair enough. One of the reasons Catholics might argue against the supremacy of scripture is that scripture itself points us not to itself but to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

So Randy… what do think of the Brumley / Bouyer paradigm that appears to hold infallible Tradition (and any infallible pronouncement from the Magisterium) is not divinely inspired? I admit, I’ve not come across this sort of argument before from the Catholic side. I’m not asking because of an agenda, I’m wondering if the statement reflects Catholic teaching correctly.

 

[PRmerger]

So Randy… what do think of the Brumley / Bouyer paradigm that appears to hold infallible Tradition (and any infallible pronouncement from the Magisterium) is not divinely inspired?

This is correct.

Catholicism speaks of only Scripture as being divinely inspired. Sacred Tradition, while also the Word of God, does not have God as its primary author, and, as such, is not consideredc to be divinely inspired.