Judisch responds

Neal Judisch and Bryan Cross wrote a paper effectively dismantling Keith Mathison’s argument that solo scriptura and sola scriptura are two different animals. Mathison replied with a paper that largely hinged on the assertions (which he has so far declined to defend on other than anecdotal grounds) that NJ & BC’s argument doesn’t work because they presuppose Catholic ecclesiology, and that the only way the solo/sola distinction disappears is to make that assumption (consciously or not) of Catholic ecclesiology. NJ has now responded to Mathison’s reply with a masterful essay showing that these assertions simply do not hold water.

In short: NJ & BC’s original article makes no such assumptions, and Mathison will either have to demonstrate that it does or else deal with their actual argument.

It is a fine paper, and I commend it to you.

Posted in Solo Scriptura

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 146 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: