Here we stand.

Turretinfan and James Swan recently tag-teamed the saying that justification is the article upon which the Protestant Reformation stands or falls.

T-Fan, for example, cites the Smalcald Articles (an early Lutheran confessions) to the effect that:

nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.

Steve recently called attention to the fact that Bryan Cross has crossed over into a foreign land when he decided to bring up the doctrine of justification on a confessional Presbyterian discussion board:

Bryan Cross normally plays it safe by taking refuge in the never-never land of hypotheticals. “Can’t catch me!” However, this time around he slipped up. He's drawn Lane Keister into a debate over justification. Even as a general proposition, whenever the issue turns to exegesis, Pastor Lane can run circles around Bryan. But it gets worse for Bryan. Pastor Lane has become a specialist on the doctrine of justification. This is going to end very badly for Bryan:

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/list-paradigm-versus-agape-paradigm/

One result of this has become evident, and I’ve used something else that Steve said to draw attention to the flip-flopping and dilemma that Bryan and his called-to-confusion crowd have gotten themselves into:

Bryan #9, you have a problem.

I keep asking you, “how do you know what ‘the Church that Christ Founded’ looked like?” And of course, you keep ignoring the question.

The obvious response at that point would be for you to say, “we look at Scripture. The New Testament offers the best source of information about what the earliest Christian church was like”.

When Protestants argue directly from Scripture and the church fathers to rebut the claims of Rome, you say that’s not allowed: it’s “question-begging” because our interpretations of the historical evidence are paradigm-dependent – dependent on “sola Scriptura”.

But if you are going to go that route in response to Protestant critics, to disallow Scriptural and historical evidence, then you have engaged in a double standard now in lodging evidentiary appeals to Scripture regarding Justification. In invoking the Greek of Galatians, you have taken your “interpretive paradigm” off the table, and have now, in effect, begun to argue “sola Scriptura” in favor of your view of justification. Interesting twist.

This is a dilemma that you have created for yourself: Until now, you won’t discuss the [lack of] biblical and historical evidence of the early papacy, but here, now, you have just brought this type of evidence back onto the table.

If you can cite direct evidence in favor of your view of justification, and I don’t have any doubts that the Greek scholars on this site are more than up to the task of addressing you on this issue, then you certainly must also cite your direct evidence for the papacy, as and you have now committed yourself to interact with our direct counterevidence.

Now that they’ve tossed their “Catholic IP” aside, the smokescreen behind which they have typically hidden to avoid inconvenient historical facts, they are rolling in the mud, so to speak, and having to deal with real evidence.

They have taken themselves out from behind the smokescreen, and into an exegetical and historical discussion they are bound to lose.