As online discussion and debate about Catholic/Protestant issues have been pretty abundant of late, I wanted to share a frustration that I have been feeling.

If a Catholic argues with a Protestant based upon the infallible pronouncements of some ecumenical council or another, he will be immediately told that such a tactic is out-of-bounds since Protestants don't consider Tradition or Church dogma to be infallible. So, we're told, in order to fairly engage the Protestant, the Catholic must do so on the basis of what they both believe is infallible revelation, namely, the Bible.

This is why I have made it my aim to try to make a case for some basic Catholic positions from Scripture here and elsewhere. But when I do, here're the responses I get:

Jason, ever since you resigned from the PCA I knew it was too late to debate with you on these issues.... Now it is way too late to bring up counter-arguments. I just want to point out that the answer that you gave to my question still sounds Protestant to me.

Why didn't you include in your answer the many requirements of the Roman Catholic Church? 

You still sound Protestant to me.

Maybe the problem is that we are only talking about Scripture, but that's only part of the original revelation that God has given to us. Wouldn't you now as a Roman Catholic (you are for all intents and purposes all the way across now I believe) affirm that the deposit of faith is that which is laid down in Scripture but also that which has been passed down via oral tradition?
 
I don’t really know why you are shying away from including the very clear statements of Trent on justification.

Come back to us when you have considered what Trent said on justification (and related concepts like the sacraments) in light of the Scriptures.
 
Now what I’m suggesting is that you move onto Trent where we really get into the distinctions between Catholic and Protestant formulations of justification.

Jason has made so many statements that do not set apart Roman Catholicism by appealing to Scriptures that could be taken either to support Catholic or Protestant understandings of justification. My suggestion was to go to Trent because here you have statements that stand in stark contrast to Protestant dogma.

So if we are going to discuss justification and related concepts, don't you want to challenge us with this other infallible source on the matter? Shouldn't we be exegeting the extra-biblical infallible sources with the same intensity as the biblical infallible sources on what we are to believe concerning justification and salvation?

There is so much interesting material in the history of justification. It's just a shame to leave that alone since there are so many Catholic "infallible" statements on justification which stand in such stark contrast to Protestant dogma. IOW, between Catholics and Protestants, there is far less debate on what Trent says about justification than on what Paul and James say on it.

As a Catholic you cannot argue solely on the basis of Scripture. We can.

My point in adducing these responses is to point out that this seems like a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't type of situation. If we argue with Catholic presuppositions we are begging the question, but if we argue from Scripture, we are dismissed for sounding too Protestant.

Yet despite these kinds of objections, I plan to continue to argue from Scripture -- not for every single technical aspect of Catholic dogma (for not even all Protestant formulations can be prooftexted with explicit statements from the Bible), but rather for the basic elements of Catholic soteriology. As I have been attempting to demonstrate, things like the progressive nature of justification, the efficacy of baptism, and the contributory nature of Spirit-wrought works of love are clearly taught in the New Testament. And I will also continue to maintain that, often times, the reasons for rejecting these ideas appear to be ones that have little to do with the biblical texts under consideration, but have much more to do with prior-held systematic paradigms that stifle the Scriptures and prohibit them from speaking for themselves.

I know a lot of you will think I am dead wrong on this. Fine. Then let's return to the source of infallible revelation that we all agree is primary and seek to discern together the gospel contained therein.