Wednesday, February 16, 2011

“The only relevant question … is whether certain claims are true …”

Keith Mathison responds to Bryan Cross at Turretinfan’s blog.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

5 comments:

John Bugay said...

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I think that Mathison is taking precisely the right approach. Sola Scriptura is a rejection, in history, of historical Roman claims, for which there is no basis.

In section II.B, Cross quotes Augustine:
There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism.

Perhaps, but there is also nothing more ironic than the original schismatic, the bishop of Rome, defining schism in relation to himself.

He repeatedly cites "Rome's claims," which gradually, over time (and with the great wealth that emperors gave to the Roman church), pressed themselves on an unsuspecting (and largely good-faithed) church and took control of things, with all the diabolical might of the enemy behind it.

The "church healing" is a church rejecting these claims.

6:52 AM, February 16, 2011
James Swan said...

I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to read this- I've got a ton of reading to do.

Perhaps you could read it over John, and add a summary statement to your blog entry.

I'm a big fan of getting to the point and synopsis statements. I'm currently reading a book on panentheism. The author summarized the entire book in the introduction, chapter by chapter.

3:43 PM, February 16, 2011
Ken said...

A whopping 52 pages ! I sure hope Ligonier will put this in booklet form and that Keith will add it to the next edition of his book.

It looks really good. Cannot wait to be able to sit down and read it all.

Printing it out - there goes $ 16.oo for a new print cartridge. (smile)

Thanks to Keith Matthison for taking the time to do this! Very important!

5:43 PM, February 16, 2011
John Bugay said...

Ken, I'm going to try to do that summary that James suggested.

But you're right. This was a tremendous response.

6:01 PM, February 16, 2011
Viisaus said...

"Sola Scriptura is a rejection, in history, of historical Roman claims, for which there is no basis."

The way I see it, the Reformation rests on two main pillars (Boaz and Yakin?): Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Sola Scriptura is "the attacking weapon" of Protestants, the means to weed out un-Biblical falsities. Its character is thus inevitably "negative".

Whereas Sola Fide is the great truth about the Gospel of Grace, the "positive" message of the Reformation.

Only when these two are properly combined - the "negative" denial of Romish novelties, legalisms and superstitions together with the positive message of free grace, is the Protestant worldview balanced.

11:07 AM, February 18, 2011

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)