I was sent this link:
Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol
I was pleased to read this entry from Carl Trueman. It was this time last year when he put out "Another Thing Needful". That post deeply troubled myself and some of my blogging friends. This time he's put together a cogent and articulate blog post on the fallacies of some of Rome's blatant double standards in apologetics. The good news about this new post is, it says quite nicely what many of us have said for quite a long time. The bad news about this new post is, it says quite nicely what many of us have said for quite a long time. That is, there's nothing really new here. There's nothing in this post that many people with a lot less academic credentials haven't already pointed out. Ah well.
In terms of apologetics against Romanism, I'm not too sure what more there is to say. The major arguments over Scripture, Tradition, and the Gospel have been done over and over again. So, it appears to me Carl is late to the party. The work has largely been done for him. The curtain, so to speak, has already been pulled back. We all know what the wizard looks like. We've known for years.
In my Luther-research of Roman Catholic argumentation, I've seen a steady drop-off in the typical Romanist slander. I think it's largely due to the Internet. Back when I started looking up Roman Catholic Luther quotes, it was like the whack-a-mole game. Now, I rarely find Rome's bigger stars putting forth the same out-of-context dribble they did previously. The other day I was reading one of Rome's heroes actually defending Luther on the necessity of good works as the result of justification. If you were to go back a number of years and read this same Roman apologist on this topic, he would've been arguing Luther was in some sense an antinomian. Perhaps even I've said all I can possibly say on the topics that interest me. My party may be over as well.