The Further Appeal of Sola Scriptura

Published on by D. G. Hart

Why is it that Jason and the Callers use the Bible against Protestants but not against the bishops?

The lesson of all this is that God is not impressed by numbers. Yes, our Lord wants all men to be saved. But they will be saved on His terms, and if they will not heed Him on His own terms, He is willing to wipe them away and start all over again. He has delivered His truth and His commands, and if people are not willing to keep them, He will blot them out – even if He has to blot out an entire nation or even a race and start all over again from scratch. In none of these historical examples does God ever suggest that He will mitigate His law, relax His discipline, or soften His demands just because a large – sometimes very large – portion of His people are living in disobedience. He would rather wipe out the huge amount of dissenters and start fresh than relax even a single point of His commands on their behalf.

This is extremely relevant given current discussions about mitigating the Church’s long standing discipline of denying communion to people living in adulterous “second marriages.” The contemporary wisdom, exemplified by Cardinal Kasper, suggests that because there are so many Catholics living in this state who cannot receive communion, there is an “abyss” between Church practice and the real experience of couples in concrete circumstances. If the Church were to continue to deny these people communion, we might lose a lot of people. Therefore, we need to accommodate their rebellion by softening our discipline.

This is not the way God works. God is not impressed by the number of people living in “second marriages”, nor is God afraid to lose them all and work again from a remnant. Reflect again on that passage from Exodus; God had done wonders to bring these people out of Egypt and had given them the Law in a manifestation of divine glory unsurpassed in the Old Testament. According to the census at the time of the Exodus, Moses led 603,550 men out of Egypt (Num. 1:46); a massive throng of humanity! Even so, when they all rebelled, He was prepared to destroy them all and start all over again with a single man – essentially, go back to the starting point he had established with Abraham centuries before. He was not impressed with the numbers of the rebels; no angels made the argument that an abyss existed between God’s demands and the concrete pastoral circumstances of the Israelites that needed to be bridged; they held no committee meetings on the “problems” of Israelite religion. “Let me alone that I may consume them.” God was ready to destroy them all and start over again with a single man. And note that it was not by pleas of mercy for the Israelites that Moses’ intercession saved them, but by appealing to God’s glory and His own word.

You see, God is not afraid of working through a remnant. Cardinal Kasper is.

Too much skin in the game?

51 thoughts on “The Further Appeal of Sola Scriptura”

  2. Darryl,

    If the Vatican decides to go the route of Cardinal Kasper, then rest assured that Bryan will step up to the plate with 5,000 words that show how the teaching doesn’t contradict any dogma uttered by the pope. Francis won’t care that the change creates issues for infallibility, but the CTC folk will. Funny how that infallibility thing works. The Vatican doesn’t much care about it, and in some ways tries to distance itself from it—when it’s convenient. The CTC folk will work overcome to preserve the audacity of pope.

    I do have to say one good thing about CTC, however, and that is the posted an article by Brandon Addison on the failure of history to match up to the traditional view of the papacy. Of course, the crew is hard at work in the com boxes, redirecting people to other things Bryan has written.

    Like

  3. Robt, yeah.

    I gave it a few days, and got the h**l out of there. Addison did great.

    Jesus was known to slink away on occasions..

    Peace

    Like

  4. There is a religious discussion on this planet, unregulated by Bryan Cross.

    Its on Twitter, talking about the our favorite rock concert growing up, via @reformedpub

    The fact is, these convos will never be real if there’s someone gating what is good and bad. The good comments will find another home.

    Like OL. Where we post with freedom.

    Oh well, its just the inter web. What’s the biggee..

    Right?

    Like

  6. Some just love the ‘religion game’. St. Paul told them that they play it at their peril ( “…you cut yourself off from God’s grace.” -Galatians)

    But hey. That is all they are taught. The church comes ahead of the pure gospel.

    Have at it, Bryan.

    Like

  7. Bryan, I have two comments in your queue for approval. I’d be interested, on a scale of 1 to 5 (using any metric you want) how they are. One I’ve posted here. The other is our little secret.

    Peace

    Like

  9. Kent, he is the pope of the webernet.

    I had a phone convo recently after he told me to call him. It was nice. I would like to golf with the man, maybe have cigars if the course will allow.

    Like

  10. Bryan, try harder do less. Bryan finishes off his WASPY analysis by trying to refute Cardinal Kaspar, who is leading this brigade of bishops, by linking to Cardinal Burke who Francis REMOVED from the congregation of bishops and then citing another trad who openly contests Kaspar’s views. Hear ye, Hear ye, Bryan is no mouthpiece for RC, but rather his brand. Bryan is doing his best, Mayor of ImaginationLand-see South Park. IOW, Bryan is your quintessential CAFETERIA Catholic but he promotes a brand that only exists on the interweb. Bend the Knee, Flat cap boy.

    Like

  11. In a way it is encouraging that Bryan cares about theology.

    Practically every avowed member of his church that I have met could not possibly care less about allowing any theology to enter their life for knowledge or application, unless events force a tiny bit of spiritual thought into their skulls maybe twice a year.

    Like

  12. Bryan, I don’t think you addressed the way that conservative RCs (or trads) appeal to the Bible to correct bishops — sounds Protestant to me.

    Like

  14. In the quotes Bryan referenced above, he wrote:

    If the Church were (per impossibile) to declare this Fall that marriage is now dissoluble, and that persons living in a second ‘marriage’ while their spouse is still alive are not living in adultery, then you would know that just about everything I’ve claimed about the Catholic Church’s identity and infallibility has been falsified.

    I find this to be a really interesting statement. In his (private?) judgement, the RC’s declaration that divorce can be OK would falsify his belief about magisterial infallibility. Methodologically, this is the same as saying that if the RC’s declaration on X contradicted the scriptures, then the RC church is wrong. Evidently, a layman can (must?) make these judgments for himself. The principled difference between how protestants approach truth claims made by the church and how Bryan approaches truth claims made by the church doesn’t strike me as so principled after all.

    Our judgements may be wrong (we reformed could be wrong in how we read Galatians and Ephesians as it applies to justification), but we aren’t wrong to test Rome’s claims for consistency with some more fundamental standard.

    Like

  15. Been fun, folks. I’ll be back after the weekend to share where we all stand in the OL NCAA march madness tourney. Do think on us poor presbys as we are under a deficit from the mysterious Lutheranman01.

    Go blue, as they say.

    Like

  17. Darryl,

    Bryan, I don’t think you addressed the way that conservative RCs (or trads) appeal to the Bible to correct bishops — sounds Protestant to me.

    Of course it “sounds” that way to you, because you know only the Protestant way of appealing to Scripture. But in the Catholic paradigm there is a Tradition-informed way of appealing to Scripture, as I’ve explained here.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  19. Bryan,

    But in the Catholic paradigm there is a Tradition-informed way of appealing to Scripture, as I’ve explained here.

    Why don’t you give us the place where Rome dogmatically and infallibly tells us the right way of appealing to Scripture in a tradition-informed way. You’ve got people in your communion who appeal to the tradition to tell the pope he’s wrong on contraception and abortion (I’m thinking specifically of Nancy Pelosi). These people are not censured. How do I know they’re way of doing it is wrong and your way of doing it is right?

    Like

  20. Of course it “sounds” that way to you, because you know only the Protestant way of appealing to Scripture.

    Careful Bryan. You are getting very close to an ad hominem there. But there are other problems with your response as well. Firstly, why is it that a protestant can only know the protestant way of appealing to scripture? Secondly, what is THE protestant way of appealing to scripture. It seems that the reformed, methodists, anglican, and restorationists sects all have different ways of approaching scripture. Which is THE protestant one? Thirdly, the essay you linked to is attacking a straw man. It certainly doesn’t describe how the reformed treat scripture anyway. After all where is the biblical text on infant baptism?

    The criticism of attempts to bind men’s conscience with extra-biblical traditions, extra-biblical innovations in how one worships, &c are rooted in Jesus’s criticism of the Pharisees – while they had authority that needed to be adhered to, it was a fallible authority (your appeal to the seat of Moses is not convincing – in other passages they make claims that are clearly wrong). The validity of that authority was rooted in the extent to which it cohered to the scriptures. We reformed rely on tradition to guide our exegesis (as we, for example, appeal to our confessions in theological debate), but we recognize (like you do evidently) that our traditions can be wrong. Our lodestone is scripture – yours is something else.

    Like

  22. Bryan, and the tradition-informed way of appealing to Scripture is not to appeal to it? At least the folks at Unam Sanctam actually quote Scripture.

    Like

  24. Darryl,

    Bryan, and the tradition-informed way of appealing to Scripture is not to appeal to it?

    I don’t know where you’re getting that idea, but no, it is not true that the tradition-informed way of appealing to Scripture is not to appeal to Scripture. That would be a straw man of the Catholic approach to Scripture.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  25. Bryan, in the comments to which you linked, you never cite the Bible once. Unam Sanctam does. Surely you have more Protestant experience in you than that.

    Like

  26. Hmm..the golf images dangle around here. Is it just me, or was this a good convo between these two docs?

    Don’t answer the me part. Just see what golf brings out in us. We have good things to look ahead to, my friends.

    Like

  27. Darryl,

    Bryan, in the comments to which you linked, you never cite the Bible once.

    That’s because I’d already done so in the link embedded in comment #48.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  29. Bryan Cross
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:16 am | Permalink
    Darryl,

    Bryan, in the comments to which you linked, you never cite the Bible once.

    That’s because I’d already done so in the link embedded in comment #48.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    D. G. Hart
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:37 am | Permalink
    Bryan, right, your references to the Bible grow increasingly indirect.

    Interesting. The Calvinist apostates actually quote the Bible more than Old Life.

    Like

  31. vd, t, wrong again. Read much?

    I won’t presume to speak for Andrew, but the Church cannot contradict her previous and present teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Any authentic development of the doctrine must retain that truth. Any proposed ‘development’ that rejects or denies that truth is not a valid development of doctrine. I’ve laid out a good bit of the evidence for the indissolubility of marriage from the Tradition in “What Therefore God Has Joined Together: Divorce and the Sacrament of Marriage.” See there the section on the Council of Trent, and especially the 7th Canon of the 24th Session. That’s infallible, and therefore cannot be nullified, retracted, or rescinded. If you’d like to discuss the marriage question on that thread, feel free.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Remarried Catholics can already receive communion: i.e. when one’s spouse dies, one can remarry and receive communion. So if you mean “If the fall synod declares that married Catholics who contract a ‘civil divorce’ and then a ‘civil marriage’ with another person while their spouse is still alive, and engage in sexual relations with that person are not committing adultery …” then my reply to you is that the Church does not have the authority to revoke or rescind its doctrine concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

    This is just a subtle ad hominem, i.e. Catholics are more likely to be blind to actual doctrinal contradictions. I recommend that we avoid all that sort of thing, because it is always so easy in this way to discredit those who disagree with us by claiming that they are blind or stupid, etc. Catholics could say the same thing to Protestants about problems with Protestant doctrines, and where would that get us? Nowhere. Trading personal attacks is worthless; they cancel each other out, and only detract from the possibility of fruitful dialogue. Hence it is better to forgo the bulverism route, and just stick to the evidence and argumentation.

    If the Church were (per impossibile) to declare this Fall that marriage is now dissoluble, and that persons living in a second ‘marriage’ while their spouse is still alive are not living in adultery, then you would know that just about everything I’ve claimed about the Catholic Church’s identity and infallibility has been falsified.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Of course no one would call for a break with established doctrine. And changes in Church practice are possible, as you know. But you need to distinguish between those sorts of changes in practice that would not contradict doctrine, and those sorts of changes that would contradict doctrine. So long as that distinction is conflated, the worry about changes in practice is understandable, but groundless. Once you make that distinction, however, then you can acknowledge the possibility of changes in practice without thereby being open to changes that contradict doctrine.

    Having a good bit of Church history under your belt is the cure. It has always been like this. Always. There is always controversy, even among bishops and Cardinals. Read the accounts at every ecumenical council; at each one controversy and internal disagreement and debate abound. If the Church were going to contradict herself, or compromise the Tradition, it would have happened a long time ago. The miracle is that the Tradition is preserved and developed intact, in spite of these sorts of disagreements. But, the Tradition is not the present poll of opinions among the bishops when they disagree about some matter. Nor is the Magisterial teaching of the Church the present disagreement among the bishops. The Tradition on this subject is located in what the Church has always taught; see the link in comment #48 above. And the future Magisterial decision (assuming that there is one) resolving the disagreement must be / will be in agreement with that Tradition, even when/if it develops the authoritative doctrine handed down in Tradition.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Reading Bryan using Scripture is like drinking Miller and Bud. What, did I miss my mouth?

    Like

  32. D. G. Hart
    Posted March 30, 2014 at 8:32 am | Permalink
    vd, t, wrong again. Read much?

    I won’t presume to speak for Andrew, but the Church cannot contradict her previous and present teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Any authentic development of the doctrine must retain that truth. Any proposed ‘development’ that rejects or denies that truth is not a valid development of doctrine. I’ve laid out a good bit of the evidence for the indissolubility of marriage from the Tradition in “What Therefore God Has Joined Together: Divorce and the Sacrament of Marriage.” See there the section on the Council of Trent, and especially the 7th Canon of the 24th Session. That’s infallible, and therefore cannot be nullified, retracted, or rescinded. If you’d like to discuss the marriage question on that thread, feel free.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Remarried Catholics can already receive communion: i.e. when one’s spouse dies, one can remarry and receive communion. So if you mean “If the fall synod declares that married Catholics who contract a ‘civil divorce’ and then a ‘civil marriage’ with another person while their spouse is still alive, and engage in sexual relations with that person are not committing adultery …” then my reply to you is that the Church does not have the authority to revoke or rescind its doctrine concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

    This is just a subtle ad hominem, i.e. Catholics are more likely to be blind to actual doctrinal contradictions. I recommend that we avoid all that sort of thing, because it is always so easy in this way to discredit those who disagree with us by claiming that they are blind or stupid, etc. Catholics could say the same thing to Protestants about problems with Protestant doctrines, and where would that get us? Nowhere. Trading personal attacks is worthless; they cancel each other out, and only detract from the possibility of fruitful dialogue. Hence it is better to forgo the bulverism route, and just stick to the evidence and argumentation.

    If the Church were (per impossibile) to declare this Fall that marriage is now dissoluble, and that persons living in a second ‘marriage’ while their spouse is still alive are not living in adultery, then you would know that just about everything I’ve claimed about the Catholic Church’s identity and infallibility has been falsified.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Of course no one would call for a break with established doctrine. And changes in Church practice are possible, as you know. But you need to distinguish between those sorts of changes in practice that would not contradict doctrine, and those sorts of changes that would contradict doctrine. So long as that distinction is conflated, the worry about changes in practice is understandable, but groundless. Once you make that distinction, however, then you can acknowledge the possibility of changes in practice without thereby being open to changes that contradict doctrine.

    Having a good bit of Church history under your belt is the cure. It has always been like this. Always. There is always controversy, even among bishops and Cardinals. Read the accounts at every ecumenical council; at each one controversy and internal disagreement and debate abound. If the Church were going to contradict herself, or compromise the Tradition, it would have happened a long time ago. The miracle is that the Tradition is preserved and developed intact, in spite of these sorts of disagreements. But, the Tradition is not the present poll of opinions among the bishops when they disagree about some matter. Nor is the Magisterial teaching of the Church the present disagreement among the bishops. The Tradition on this subject is located in what the Church has always taught; see the link in comment #48 above. And the future Magisterial decision (assuming that there is one) resolving the disagreement must be / will be in agreement with that Tradition, even when/if it develops the authoritative doctrine handed down in Tradition.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Reading Bryan using Scripture is like drinking Miller and Bud. What, did I miss my mouth?

    Sorry, Dr. Disingenous, you quote Darryl G. Hart much more than the Bible. Sola scriptura my ass. Sola Hart.

    Like

  35. I’m the least of your problems, Darryl. You can’t beat Bryan Cross even when you cheat.

    Like

  37. Kent – If offered $1,000 I might consider bothering to read the nonsense above me.

    LOL

    The Cross/Van Dyke double feature is as tempting as “Showgirls” followed up by “Basic Instinct II”.

    I like how Tom reproduces 8 paragraphs followed by one sentence of his own.

    Like

  39. Erik Charter
    Posted March 30, 2014 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
    Kent – If offered $1,000 I might consider bothering to read the nonsense above me.

    LOL

    The Cross/Van Dyke double feature is as tempting as “Showgirls” followed up by “Basic Instinct II”.

    I like how Tom reproduces 8 paragraphs followed by one sentence of his own.

    Yes. it made the point.

    And Bryan Cross has kicked your ass every time you’ve ventured outside of this Old Life bubble, Erik. [Which to your credit, you have. Good on you.] I’ve read your adventures there.

    And the Catholics never called you names or mocked you or cheated what you were saying. They win on kindness and honesty alone. Jesus wasn’t just a theologian, yes?

    Like

  40. Yeah Tom, so says you, non-practicing Catholic Catholic.

    I’m so unimpressed with the Roman Catholic “Motives of Credibility” (rational reasons that Catholicism is true) that I don’t even bother engaging those guys any more. It’s a lost cause. They will believe what the church teaches whether it is reasonable or not.

    If they were that convincing you might take a break from being an a**hole on line and actually go to Mass.

    Like

  41. Erik: If they were that convincing you might take a break from being an a**hole on line and actually go to Mass.

    this ^^^^^

    Like

  42. Some form of mild intellectual assent to Catholicism is by no means enough. Without being in formal communion with the Bishop of Rome (and with his local Bishop in Los Angeles), Tom’s soul remains in mortal peril. He is not partaking of the mass, nor is he receiving any other the other sacraments of the Church. Grace is not being infused into him. God won’t be satisfied that he merely approved of Catholicism online. He needs to be working the steps.

    Like

  43. Erik,

    Some form of mild intellectual assent to Catholicism is by no means enough. Without being in formal communion with the Bishop of Rome (and with his local Bishop in Los Angeles), Tom’s soul remains in mortal peril. He is not partaking of the mass, nor is he receiving any other the other sacraments of the Church. Grace is not being infused into him. God won’t be satisfied that he merely approved of Catholicism online. He needs to be working the steps.

    Oh, I don’t know. Since you can deny the Trinity and still get into heaven as a Muslim, maybe Tom’s okay. Course the infallible church that brings clarity really isn’t all that clear on this point.

    Like

  46. Bryan Cross defines down the Motives of Credibility to the point that he says that if he can find even one well-behaved Catholic Saint throughout history, that’s enough to prove that Catholicism is true, and Tom stands by clapping approvingly and “objectively” (of course):

    Comment #37:

    “For example, one does not have to study the whole of Church history to encounter the Church’s holiness. It can be encountered in a single saint (e.g. St. Francis, St. Padre Pio), or in her doctrine. The prescription of universal extension for avoiding bad judgment in inquiry is fully compatible with the universal accessibility of the evidential character of the motives of credibility.”

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/lawrence-feingold-the-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/

    Like

  47. In other words, we can cherry pick good Catholics to demonstrate that Catholicism is objectively true, but we can’t cherry pick good Reformed people, Methodists, Buddhists, or atheists to show that those theologies/beliefs are objectively true, because, well, just because.

    Like

  48. What??? After Bryan censors and slashes and ignores and delays on putting up what people actually said, he looks good?

    This is the only forum where you can freely speak your mind and not have it tampered with (unless it REALLY needs it.)

    And still Tom Tom Troll Dyke whines about it…

    Like

  49. Another problem Bryan has is the circularity of the term “holiness”. What one religion considers to be “holy” behavior may be considered abhorrent behavior by another religion. A Catholic saint may be considered an idolater who leads people astray by a Protestant. So much for objective evidence, obvious to the impartial observer.

    Like

  50. Here’s a question for the motives of credibility:

    If one saint is enough to show Rome is true, how come one wicked and apostate pope isn’t enough to prove it false? Seems curiously like a double standard to me…

    Like

  51. Robert,

    The answer would be that a wicked and apostate pope is a poor representative of Rome’s teaching because he has ignored it. Only the good popes are accurate representatives of Rome’s teaching and should be considered.

    Only a raging Protestant could be so dull as to miss it.

    Convincing stuff, huh?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.