The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

I don’t think the difference is in grace but in justification.

Only by grace we can do anything for sanctification (anything at all really).

However, the differing views on justification will affect all other elements on the economy of salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

From Jimmy Akin:

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, where inspired refers to the action of the Holy Spirit in guiding the human authors to write what God wanted written, in the precise way he wanted it written. Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, to be sure, as they do the teaching ministry or magisterium of the Church. But only Scripture has God as its primary author and in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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 has addressed the question, though for my part, I want to double-check on the issue of Sacred Tradition not being divinely inspired.

However, I am confident in saying that infallible teachings are, well, infallible, but not inspired.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

From Jimmy Akin:

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, where inspired refers to the action of the Holy Spirit in guiding the human authors to write what God wanted written, in the precise way he wanted it written. Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, to be sure, as they do the teaching ministry or magisterium of the Church. But only Scripture has God as its primary author and in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired.

Ah. “God-breathed”…I should have thought of that. Thanks, PR!

 

[TertiumQuid]

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.

From Jimmy Akin: The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, where inspired refers to the action of the Holy Spirit in guiding the human authors to write what God wanted written, in the precise way he wanted it written. Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, to be sure, as they do the teaching ministry or magisterium of the Church. But only Scripture has God as its primary author and in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired.

PRMerger has addressed the question, though for my part, I want to double-check on the issue of Sacred Tradition not being divinely inspired. However, I am confident in saying that infallible teachings are, well, infallible, but not inspired.

Thanks for the clarification. So, if I’ve got it correct:

1. There is only one inspired “Word of God”: the Bible.
2. There is another “Word of God” called Tradition which is not inspired by God but is “assisted by the Holy Spirit.”
3. Only the Bible has God as it’s primary author, and only if something has God as it’s primary author can it be described as “inspired.”
4. Tradition (and the Magisterium) are the primary authors of themselves with God assisting, therefore if God acts as an assistant, he is not inspiring either because He is not the primary author.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah. “God-breathed”…I should have thought of that. Thanks, PR!

:curtsey:

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the clarification. So, if I’ve got it correct:

1. There is only one inspired “Word of God”: the Bible.
2. There is another “Word of God” called Tradition which is not inspired by God but is “assisted by the Holy Spirit.”
3. Only the Bible has God as it’s primary author, and only if something has God as it’s primary author can it be described as “inspired.”
4. Tradition (and the Magisterium) are the primary authors of themselves with God assisting, therefore if God acts as an assistant, he is not inspiring either because He is not the primary author.

Yes. But since “inspired” can have a nuanced understanding, I think if you replace “inspired” with “God-breathed” in your post above, we could all give it a

 

[TertiumQuid]

Yes. But since “inspired” can have a nuanced understanding, I think if you replace “inspired” with “God-breathed” in your post above, we could all give it a

Now wait a minute here- the quote from Jimmy Akin stated,

“Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16).”

Akin appears to use the words interchangeably. Are you saying they are not to be used interchangeably in regard to this discussion?

 

[PRmerger]

Now wait a minute here- the quote from Jimmy Akin stated,

“Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16).”

Akin appears to use the words interchangeably. Are you saying they are not to be used interchangeably in regard to this discussion?

Yes. They are not to be used interchangeably.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Yes. They are not to be used interchangeably.

OK, then… so… are you saying Akin should not have written, “Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16)”? I’m simply trying to figure out what your saying. I don’t have an agenda here.

Edited to add: What’s the source on the Akin quote?

 

[PRmerger]

OK, then… so… are you saying Akin should not have written, “Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16)”? I’m simply trying to figure out what your saying. I don’t have an agenda here.

Akin is being very specific here: when he uses “inspired” he means "God-breathed’.

When you use “inspired”, it can mean anything from “supremely moving” (as in an inspired piece of music) to suggesting divine inspiration (but not actually so), or God-breathed (theopneustos).

I want to be clear that your original post is correct only when you mean theopneustos.

Edited to add: What’s the source on the Akin quote?

Unfortunately, I can’t find my source. The quote is saved on my hard drive.

I can assure you that I did not write the quote myself–it is way beyond my paygrade. I simply cut and pasted it to save for future apologia. I was at fault for not keeping the source.

 

[Randy_Carson]

OK, then… so… are you saying Akin should not have written, “Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16)”? I’m simply trying to figure out what your saying. I don’t have an agenda here.

Edited to add: What’s the source on the Akin quote?

THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.htm

The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition
By James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6804

INSPIRATION, TRADITION, AND SCRIPTURE
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INSPIR.htm

First, let me recommend that you simply read the Catechism for yourself…it’s online here (and the search feature is awesome):

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Now, here is what comes just before what I posted previously:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31
I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

 

[TertiumQuid]

Akin is being very specific here: when he uses “inspired” he means "God-breathed’.When you use “inspired”, it can mean anything from “supremely moving” (as in an inspired piece of music) to suggesting divine inspiration (but not actually so), or God-breathed (theopneustos).I want to be clear that your original post is correct only when you mean theopneustos.

I assumed it was clear that in my synopsis above, I was attempting to use the word “inspired” in the same way Jimmy Akin did, particularly noting his distinction between “inspired” and “assisted.” I was careful to use the terms that Mr. Akin used in order to flesh out the position being offered to me.

Granting you believe me, how would you explain 2 Thes. 2:15? Is that which the Apostles passed on by “word of mouth” theopneustos or words “assisted by the Holy Spirit”?

Unfortunately, I can’t find my source. The quote is saved on my hard drive.I can assure you that I did not write the quote myself–it is way beyond my paygrade. I simply cut and pasted it to save for future apologia. I was at fault for not keeping the source.

I’m not questioning that Akin didn’t write it. I simply wanted to read the context from which it came.

 

[PRmerger]

I assumed it was clear that in my synopsis above, I was attempting to use the word “inspired” in the same way Jimmy Akin did, particularly noting his distinction between “inspired” and “assisted.”

Great. Then we have no problem.

Granting you believe me, how would you explain 2 Thes. 2:15? Is that which the Apostles passed on by “word of mouth” theopneustos or words “assisted by the Holy Spirit”?

That which was part of Sacred Tradition was assisted. So, for example, the canon of the NT, received from the Apostles and their successors, was part of ST and therefore not inspired. The part where St. Paul preached for 3 months in the temple was assisted, not theopneustos.

The part which was written, was theopneustos.

I’m not questioning that Akin didn’t write it. I simply wanted to read the context from which it came.

Understood.

 

[TertiumQuid]

That which was part of Sacred Tradition was assisted. So, for example, the canon of the NT, received from the Apostles and their successors, was part of ST and therefore not inspired. The part where St. Paul preached for 3 months in the temple was assisted, not theopneustos. The part which was written, was theopneustos.

Are there any aspects of Sacred Tradition that are theopneustos (or inspired) rather than assisted? I’m thinking of something like the Assumption of Mary. it wasn’t all that long ago that Catholics generally held to the partim-partim view of Tradition and would explain that the truth of the Assumption is contained explicitly in Tradition rather than explicitly (or perhaps even implicitly) in Scripture. I’ve certainly come in contact with Catholics adhering to the partim-partim view on the assumption.

On a related issue, this article linked to by Randy above was interesting. After a number of points about how to use and explain Tradition, Mr. Akin states,

While these considerations may be useful as an apologist explores the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, he ultimately will have to decide how he thinks they fit together. So far, the Church has left him considerable latitude.

My question then becomes as follows. you cited Mr. Akin stating:

Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, to be sure, as they do the teaching ministry or magisterium of the Church. But only Scripture has God as its primary author and in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired.

Is Mr. Akin’s comment about “assisting” rather than “inspired” his own opinion, the opinion of “Theologians” that “talk about sacred Tradition,” or is it a dogmatic pronouncement from the church? If so, where exactly? Is it itself something handed down by word of mouth (2 Thes. 2:15) from the first century? Is it itself a tradition that came down to the church by the assistance of the Holy Spirit?

I’m asking you these questions, not as some sort of “gotcha!” trap, but rather, before I could even think of commenting on what you’re saying, I first have to understand what you’re saying, and what Mr. Akin is saying. My basic question is- is your understanding (or Mr. Akin’s for that matter) of Tradition being “assisted” by God rather than inspired, the official and dogmatic teaching of your church? If so, where? I’m genuinely curious. I assume you folks know your own official documents much better than I do.

To bring this all back around after this tangent, whatever pedigree the Word of God takes in Tradition (inspired or assisted), the Bouyer / Brumley paradigm (“the Word of God can be communicated in a non-inspired, yet authoritative form,”) is still unacceptable to the the historic Protestant position of sola scriptura. As i stated earlier, I can appreciate that Bouyer is taking distinctly Protestant slogans and attempting to synthesize them into Catholicism. On the other hand, I’m leery of attempts of taking historic terms and redefining them so as to fit into another system of thought.

I realize I threw a lot of stuff at you. I’m probably not going to be able to interact with anything for a bit, so if you choose to respond, there’s no need to rush out any answers. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[TertiumQuid]

THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.htm

The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition
By James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6804

INSPIRATION, TRADITION, AND SCRIPTURE
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INSPIR.htm

Unless I didn’t search these documents correctly, the quote in question isn’t in any of these documents. In fact, I did a quick search of them for the word “assisted” and didn’t come up with anything either (recall Akin states, “Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church”).

That been said, I did appreciate the links, particularly “The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition.”

 

[steido01]

Randy, PR, Tertium, et al. - I just want to thank you for this excellent academic discussion on the last few pages. I’m learning so much, and seeing that the Catholic understanding of the relationship between Magisterium and Scripture sounds excitingly close to the Lutheran practice of Sola Scriptura. Agreement might yet be found!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, PR, Tertium, et al. - I just want to thank you for this excellent academic discussion on the last few pages. I’m learning so much, and seeing that the Catholic understanding of the relationship between Magisterium and Scripture sounds excitingly close to the Lutheran practice of Sola Scriptura. Agreement might yet be found!

I’m happy to hear that, Don.

I posted my thread concerning the Royal Stewardship of Peter with the hope of providing you with a scriptural basis for understanding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

Baby steps.

 

[guanophore]

Are there any aspects of Sacred Tradition that are theopneustos (or inspired) rather than assisted?

Is Mr. Akin’s comment about “assisting” rather than “inspired” his own opinion, the opinion of “Theologians” that “talk about sacred Tradition,” or is it a dogmatic pronouncement from the church? If so, where exactly? Is it itself something handed down by word of mouth (2 Thes. 2:15) from the first century? Is it itself a tradition that came down to the church by the assistance of the Holy Spirit?

While I have great respect for Mr. Akin as an apologist, I am not fond of his choice of words here. Certainly the CC teaches that only the Scriptures are theopneustos. However, to say that there is Word of God that is not “inspired” does not make any sense to me. Our reception of the Word of God in two forms indicates an equality between them (2 Thes. 2:15) . We also cannot forget that the Church is also “God Breathed”.

Some more official statements that might help you:

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.” 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”.

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”

95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

 

[TertiumQuid]

While I have great respect for Mr. Akin as an apologist, I am not fond of his choice of words here. Certainly the CC teaches that only the Scriptures are theopneustos. However, to say that there is Word of God that is not “inspired” does not make any sense to me. Our reception of the Word of God in two forms indicates an equality between them (2 Thes. 2:15) . We also cannot forget that the Church is also “God Breathed”.

In fairness to Mr. Akin, I’m not sure exactly where the quote is from. I would like to see a context to see if he explained himself further. He typically is very thorough in what he states.

I don’t consider myself any sort of expert on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, but in what I have read, I don’t recall ever coming across a dogmatic pronouncement making a distinction between a Word of God that is “assisted” rather than “inspired.” I skimmed through* Dei Verbum* last night, and nothing jumped out at me suggesting this distinction. Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps the same point is there presented in a different way, and i’m just not seeing it.

Or: perhaps it’s one of those debatable issues. Mr. Akin makes a helpful point when he states in one of the links offered by Randy, “…as an apologist explores the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, he ultimately will have to decide how he thinks they fit together. So far, the Church has left him considerable latitude.” This is one of the reasons I’ve asked PRmerger for clarification of the view being put forth- to discover if it’s one view among a number of acceptable views, or if it’s a dogmatic view of the church. My curiosity is piqued.