All The While Spray Painting Targets And Snipe-hunting For Protestant Fish In a Roman Barrel Full of Cloistered Monkeys
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.
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.
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.
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.
End of Story.
Straighter than narrow
Where ever we go
It's me and my Arrow
Scripture Interprets Scripture According To Scripture
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. Which is appealed to as the final authority, not some monument to an unknown and incomprehensible God that does not and cannot communicate clearly in his Word.
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
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.