[corrected 2/4/14]
Well, the combox zeitgeist over at Old Life Theological Society for Callers Cognitive Dissonance
seems to have moved on to discussing the quality of home made vs.
Safeway pastry. Still it does provoke us to quietly weep a few
crocodile tears for the eminent first commenter (as always) and his denial (as always) on these kinds of posts at OLTS.
Particularly since the same interlocutor has just given us "Clark, Frame, and the Analogy of Painting a Magisterial Target Around One’s Interpretive Arrow " in which he attempts to frame confessionalist RS Clark in his own words, of committing the same crime as Clark accuses biblicist John Frame to be guilty of: Setting oneself up as the interpretive authority over Scripture.
As in do tell, William Tell.
The
gentleman goes on at length – thankfully not quite as eye glazing as
usual – in appealing to the Prot reader's private judgement in order to
demonstrate the solipsism of that same private judgement and the
subsequent necessity of privately judging that the sacred magisterial
authority of the pope alone can break the solipsistic stranglehold.
Circular pleading indeed, if not sophistical solipsistical.
Oblio's Obligatory Obfuscation/Inexcusable Ignorance
As
for Harry Nilsson, where is he when we need him? You know, the
singer of the song about "Me and my Arrow, taking the high road". Of
integrity, honesty, credibility, stuff like that. Of correctly
characterizing the Prot Roman paradigm if you are going to critique the Prot Roman paradigm? (But Protestants paradigmatically eschew paradigms/the Holy Father hasn't given them one, so no worries?)
As
in the reformed confessions never claim to be above correction from
Scripture, contra our protagonist's assumption/accusation. In short the
whole "norma normans, norma normata" paradigm. The Scripture is the
infallible rule that rules; the norm that norms all other norms, while
the creeds are rules that are normed/ruled by Scripture. And this Mr.
Cross, as someone with an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary, (PCA) an ex-P&R churchman* ought to know. But doesn't. Or at least won't admit for all practical public purposes of his popish propaganda.
Just
as he ought to have known that the Mormon claim to Joseph Smith's
apostolic addition to Scripture in the Book of Mormon was contra
Scripture as WCF Chapt.1 "Of Holy Scripture" confesses. And answered accordingly when the Utah missionaries knocked on his door. Instead, this incident
supposedly precipitated his capitulation to Rome's claim to
apostolicity in order to resolve the existential torment, if not
ecclesiastical angst that resulted from the encounter with the disciples
of the Mormon Apostles.
Apostolic Doctrine, Succession and Anarchy
But maybe from the paradigm
perspective of the romanist in the ditch on the side of the road,
everybody else really does appear to be in the ditch on the other side
of the road, Plato's cave notwithstanding. Yet the reformed argue the
middle of the road for themselves, all the while the anabaptist
biblicists are content to muddle around in the one ditch. As the
papists do in the other, honestly, naively and solipsistically as they
might in fact be.
The reformed again, at least have a case for their apostolic succession of doctrine, while romanists emphasize apostolic succession for their bishop and lump all who disagree into the camp of the anabaptists, who only claim to read the holy Book by the light that comes in the crack in their own individualistic roof, the Scriptures having just dropped out of the sky and down their chimney a half hour ago.
The reformed again, at least have a case for their apostolic succession of doctrine, while romanists emphasize apostolic succession for their bishop and lump all who disagree into the camp of the anabaptists, who only claim to read the holy Book by the light that comes in the crack in their own individualistic roof, the Scriptures having just dropped out of the sky and down their chimney a half hour ago.
As
for the standard charge of question begging from our accuser, to anyone
who dissents from his version of the status questionis, what's with the
implicit charge of solipsism? Doesn't that cancel out the power of
one's private judgement to make an informed decision that the pope's solipsism sacred sacramental authority is more sophistical scriptural superstitious sacred than me or thee's? But again the reformed aren't anarchic individualistic anabaptists.
The
Reformation and the Renaissance were in part the fruit of the
revolutionary technology of the moveable type of Gutenberg's press and
the fall of Constantinople which brought both manuscripts of the Greek
New Testament and the early church fathers west, along with scholars who
could read them, which produced critical editions and translations of
Scripture and the fathers. And contra the Roman narrative, the reformed
can and have demonstrated a reasonable claim on the fathers for their
doctrine.
A Multitude of Counselors
H.O.Olds
might have his disagreement with the Second Commandment and the
Regulative Principle of Worship, i.e."whatsoever is not commanded,
explicitly or implictly in Scripture, is forbidden in the worship of
God", but as he says in his Worship That is Reformed According to Scripture
, the "reason the Reformers studied the Church fathers" was because
"They are witnesses to the authority of Scripture. The Reformers studied
the patristic commentaries on Scripture because it enriched their own
understanding of Scripture (2002, p.4)". Likewise, he goes into more
depth in his Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship.
The Reformation was primarily " a return to the Scriptures, but the
writings of the Fathers were read as witnesses to the purer forms of
worship of the ancient church (1975, p.1)".
Warfield's
comment is well known: "(T)he Reformation inwardly considered, was just
the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's
doctrine of the Church" (Calvin and Augustine, 1971, p.322). Or as the
Proverbs has it, "In the multitude of counselors, there is safety
(11:14, 15:22, 24:6)". The official Roman Church's pronouncement of
anathema on the Reformation doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide
did not come until the Council of Trent 1545-1563. Till then Rome truly
was a big tent, (as it is today and promises even more so to become with
the latest occupant of the Petrine throne.)
After all, Luther had acknowledged that his teachers Arnoldi, Trutvetter and von Staupitz had first pointed him to Scripture and helped him clarify the true biblical meaning of repentance in the sense of metanoia or 'an about face turning from sin' contra the prevailing understanding of "doing penance". And all of his teachers were Roman clergy in good standing with the church.
After all, Luther had acknowledged that his teachers Arnoldi, Trutvetter and von Staupitz had first pointed him to Scripture and helped him clarify the true biblical meaning of repentance in the sense of metanoia or 'an about face turning from sin' contra the prevailing understanding of "doing penance". And all of his teachers were Roman clergy in good standing with the church.
But
of all this, not a solipsistic whisper of refutation from our ex-prot
Roman apologist. Rome says it, I believe it, Scripture, reason or
history to the contrary. In other words, this is fideism of the most raw
and rank variety. Implicitly ignorant fideism.
Holy Hegelianism
Regardless
of Rome's prejudiced appeal to history/tradition, for those of us who
don't quite get or buy into the dialectical doublecross - that
Scripture can never interpret itself and that we can never know what Scripture truly says apart from the Holy Spirit
the sacramental magisterial authority of little papa's sacred
chrismata - implicita fides - implicit faith, i.e. ignorant fideism,
fundamental pillar of Romanism that it is, is the sop thrown to your
conscience in order to further beat it into submission. If you haven't
reached that stage upon the end of Mr. Cross's chain of non sequiturs
and misrepresentations, regardless that he does not call attention to
ignotus fide or admit it in any way in his zeal to defeat the
protestant alternative of Sola Scriptura. The sufficient and
perspicuous Scriptures are the only infallible rule for faith and life.
And this from a papist apologist who has told us elsewhere that:
And this from a papist apologist who has told us elsewhere that:
Of course an inquirer who is considering the Catholic paradigm as a whole will consider how the Catholic paradigm (which includes these five doctrines) makes sense of all the available historical, biblical, patristic, and philosophical data, in relation to the other available paradigms.Yet perhaps there really are no other available paradigms, aside from the anabaptist straw man masquerading as the Presbyterian and Reformed paradigm of Sola Scriptura contra the Sola Solipsism parody that Mr. Cross and the Called to Communion cadre continually parrot.
But all it all amounts to in the end is:
Submission.
To the Pope.
End of Story.
Oblio's Obligatory Encore
Me and my Arrow
Straighter than narrow
Where ever we go
Everyone knows
It's me and my Arrow
Straighter than narrow
Where ever we go
Everyone knows
It's me and my Arrow
Evidently for those only capable of licensed with a papal imprimatur to hunt snipe, one's own cognitive dissonance is not on the religious radar screen.
IOW Mr. Cross went a hunting for a target and a target he did find.
The
only one his crooked arrow would allow him to shoot in that by
definition, the sacred sacramental magisterial authority of the pope is
ineffable, indefectable, infallible and unreformable. But for
all practical purposes, he can only "claim" (otherwise known as Mr.
Cross's inevitable
rejoinder of "handwaving assertion") that protestant confessionalism is
contradictory because inescapably it lords it over Scripture. Fine. But
then he needs to make his case rather than resort to misrepresentation,
assertions and accusations of the same to carry his argument.
Scripture Interprets Scripture According To Scripture
The
dogfood version of a pig's breakfast that he serves up regarding
solipsistic private judgement, which curiously enough, can only escape
itself long enough to perceive the pope's perspicuous sufficiency and
authority - but never Scripture's - all the while that he fails to
mention that implicit faith/ignorant fideism is fundamental to and goes
hand in hand with submission to the sacred magisterium's papal
judgement is, at bottom, no more than a dog returning to its vomit.
Have at it, Rin Tin Tin.
All this again, contra the countless examples in the Old Testament, never mind that of Christ and the apostles in the New, or even the solitary example of the Bereans Act 17:11, of: "it is written". As in the constant refrain and the repeated appeal in Scripture . . . . to Scripture. Not "it is written in Tradition". Not "it is written by the Magisterium". Not "it is written in the ex cathedra Papal Bull". Rather "it is written" is written in - of all places - Scripture and it refers to - of all things - Scripture, i.e. the written word of God.
Of all this, Mr. Cross writes not, though somebody like the apostle Paul does. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul has the audacity to say that Timothy "from a child (brephos) has known the Scripture which enabled him to become wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15)". Of our roman interlocutor's schtick, that Scripture is unknowable, if not uninterpretable, apart from the sacramental magisterial authority of the Roman bishop, Paul knows and says nothing. But then again, perhaps our Romanist philosophy professor has never been a child and has always been a grown up adult that wears a purplebiretta beret and all this has escaped him. Like the con man Papillon's fraudulent escape from Devil's Island?
All this again, contra the countless examples in the Old Testament, never mind that of Christ and the apostles in the New, or even the solitary example of the Bereans Act 17:11, of: "it is written". As in the constant refrain and the repeated appeal in Scripture . . . . to Scripture. Not "it is written in Tradition". Not "it is written by the Magisterium". Not "it is written in the ex cathedra Papal Bull". Rather "it is written" is written in - of all places - Scripture and it refers to - of all things - Scripture, i.e. the written word of God.
Of all this, Mr. Cross writes not, though somebody like the apostle Paul does. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul has the audacity to say that Timothy "from a child (brephos) has known the Scripture which enabled him to become wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15)". Of our roman interlocutor's schtick, that Scripture is unknowable, if not uninterpretable, apart from the sacramental magisterial authority of the Roman bishop, Paul knows and says nothing. But then again, perhaps our Romanist philosophy professor has never been a child and has always been a grown up adult that wears a purple
But
not to put too fine a point on it, if the Word of God had not come in
the flesh and spoken to us in the Word of God written, we would have had
no sin, but now cognitive dissonance is no cloak for our contradictions
(cf. Jn. 15:22). Better yet, Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind,
ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin
remaineth. Jn. 9:41
Assumptions, Presumptions and Accusations vs. Proof
But if as Mr. Cross tells us elsewhere, "The accuser has the burden of proof", then Mr. Cross assumes what he needs to prove:
One, that the reformed confessions are not in submission to Scripture, but lord it over Scripture contra what they explicitly declare; that they are unreformable not only in principle, but in practice.
Two, Scripture never ever clearly interprets or expressly appeals to itself over and above other authorities, magisterial or no. IOW “it is written” cannot be found within the apostolic deposit of canonical Scripture nor does it refer to the same.
Three, solipsistic private protestant judgement, if it is even capable of understanding his (infallible?) argument for the infallible sacred sacramental magisterial authority of the pope, is just as equally incapable of understanding Scripture.
Assumptions, Presumptions and Accusations vs. Proof
But if as Mr. Cross tells us elsewhere, "The accuser has the burden of proof", then Mr. Cross assumes what he needs to prove:
One, that the reformed confessions are not in submission to Scripture, but lord it over Scripture contra what they explicitly declare; that they are unreformable not only in principle, but in practice.
Two, Scripture never ever clearly interprets or expressly appeals to itself over and above other authorities, magisterial or no. IOW “it is written” cannot be found within the apostolic deposit of canonical Scripture nor does it refer to the same.
Three, solipsistic private protestant judgement, if it is even capable of understanding his (infallible?) argument for the infallible sacred sacramental magisterial authority of the pope, is just as equally incapable of understanding Scripture.
In other words, Mr. Cross needs to come clean about his magisterial witch hunt with a crooked arrow if he really expects to be taken for anything but a sophist for the papal cause; which is to say, a liar for an ecclesiastical regime, which is itself built on lies about Scripture, reason or history (aka tradition). Till then he gets to play bow and arrows all by himself as by all rights he should. But only if his mother, Rome does not come and take his sharp toys away from him for fear he'll hurt himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Correction: with apologies for the mistake. See here for an overview of Cross's background.
*Correction: with apologies for the mistake. See here for an overview of Cross's background.
No comments:
Post a Comment