5 Thoughts After Reading the First 83 Pages of Mathison's "The Shape of Sola Scriptura"
5. To "win" this argument, you must prove 2 things re: Tradition; first, that the Roman Catholic use of it is not substantially of the first type, and second, that any instances of the second must be accretions.
4. I definitely want to hear more about the rebellious Franciscans who defined papal infalliability...while disobeying the pope.
3. As I understand it, finding an instance of a church leader who denied a currently defined dogma of the Catholic Church doesn't prove anything; it may have legitimately developed later, or been so defined after that person lived. (Or, of course, they were in error)
2. If you happen to win the Tradition argument, Keith, you also have to prove that your ecclesial community is part of the Church within which the Scriptures may be rightly interpreted. Boy, these Catholic apologists are clever, aren't they?
1. This is a hugely important book that, I can already tell, will be read and discussed for generations.
5. To "win" this argument, you must prove 2 things re: Tradition; first, that the Roman Catholic use of it is not substantially of the first type, and second, that any instances of the second must be accretions.
4. I definitely want to hear more about the rebellious Franciscans who defined papal infalliability...while disobeying the pope.
3. As I understand it, finding an instance of a church leader who denied a currently defined dogma of the Catholic Church doesn't prove anything; it may have legitimately developed later, or been so defined after that person lived. (Or, of course, they were in error)
2. If you happen to win the Tradition argument, Keith, you also have to prove that your ecclesial community is part of the Church within which the Scriptures may be rightly interpreted. Boy, these Catholic apologists are clever, aren't they?
1. This is a hugely important book that, I can already tell, will be read and discussed for generations.
Comments