Quote
Astralis said:
The question of whether he was Christian wasn't accusatory. I thought he was discrediting Christianity, perhaps, because he dismissed both the Church and Sola (Solo) Scriptura in his conclusion and I simply wanted to know his faith tradition and would never presume to know his heart.
Perhaps your statement above is indicative of why you are having a problem, at least in part, understanding both Mathisen's article and this errant view called, "SolO Scriptura"? Keith wasn't discrediting Christianity but rather establishing it and what it has believed since the days of the Apostles, i.e., the Scriptures are self-authenticating and possess an inherent authority. Likewise, he didn't and never has "dismissed" the Church or "SolA Scriptura", but rather he dismisses the error of "SolO Scriptura"; distinguishing between it and the historic doctrine of "SolA Scriptura".

The Church's proclamations are subordinate to the Scriptures. Yet, within the Church God has preserved truth. The Protestant Reformation is paradigmatic in that it exemplifies the principle of "SolA Scriptura". The teachings of the Church were subject to the Scriptures, which men like Luther found to be at variance when he studied the written Word of God.

I'm confident that if you would take the time to read those articles which I provided the links for, you will come to see the grave difference between the modern view of "SolO Scriptura" and the historic doctrine of "SolA Scriptura". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]