-
Bryan Cross versus the Evidence
Bryan Cross writes: “All the historical evidence Lampe cites in his book, even when taken together in aggregate, is fully compatible with there being a monarchical bishop in Rome. Twelve times zero is still zero; it isn’t greater than one times zero.” (source) This response appears to combine sophistry and ignorance in a particularly insidious…
-
The "One Visible Church" Argument – Response to Bryan Cross
The “Called to Communion” blog has posted a roundup of their previous posts that allegedly provide a positive case for the papacy. Within that round-up, the leading section is entitled, “Christ founded a visible Church and Magisterium.” The first post of that section is entitled, “That Christ founded a visible Church.” The first argument of…
-
Bryan Cross on Trent and 1 Clement
Bryan Cross wrote: The Tridentine bishops were quite aware of 1 Clement, and did not consider, for example, Canon 9 or Canon 24 (of Session 6) to be contrary to St. Clement’s teaching on justification. I have asked Bryan what his evidence of this is. My guess is that he just made this up. After…
-
Clement of Rome and Bryan Cross – Justification by Faith Alone or Faith and Works?
I’m glad that my friend Lane Keister recently highlighted the point that 1 Clement teaches justification by faith alone. The author of 1 Clement (whether Clement is the author or the scribe is an open question) does clearly indicate that justification is by faith alone, and by faith to the exclusion of works of holiness.…
-
Response to Bryan Cross on Penal Substitution
Bryan Cross has provided a significant number of posts in a comment box at the GreenBaggins blog, suggesting that somehow the doctrine of penal substitution is inconsistent with orthodox Trinitarian theology and/or orthodox Christology. Bryan’s argument was provided a variety of different ways with many different tangents, but Bryan’s premises can be reduced to this:…
-
Examining Bryan Cross’s Christology
I’m no fan of James Jordan or his branch of the Federal Visionists. Nor do I in any way endorse Jordan’s recent speculation regarding the alleged eternal maturation of the Son. Nevertheless, I found it interesting that Called to Communion’s Bryan Cross demonstrated his lack of familiarity [UPDATE: see further comments / retractions below] with…
-
Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Apostolic Succession: A Response to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch (by Keith Mathison) [Guest Post]
Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Apostolic Succession:A Response to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch(pdf version here) Keith Mathison Introduction In November 2009, the Roman Catholic website Called to Communion posted an article titled Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority, critiquing one of the claims of my book The Shape of Sola…
-
False Dichotomy Between Infallible Church and "Subjective, Individualistic" Conclusions
Over at the GreenBaggins blog, in a comment box, Roman Catholic Bryan Cross wrote: If we deny that the Church has such a gift [a gift (or charism) of infallibility in matters of faith and morals], then we are left with a subjective, individualistic, “changes hearts” criterion of canonicity, and such a subjective criterion is,…
-
The Fathers, Papal Primacy, and Matthew 16 – Defending Yves Congar contra Bryan Cross
Speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus in Catholic theology, the Roman Cardinal Congar wrote: Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as…
-
Bryan Cross places the Cart before the Horse, Theologically Speaking
Over at Called to Communion, in the comment box, Bryan Cross wrote: In the first century, no one needed to confess that Christ is homoousious with the Father. But after the fourth century, to deny the homoousious is to fall into [at least material] heresy. This is dead wrong and gets things exactly backwards. It…