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.
Aquinas, Etc. 
Leave a Reply