The Difference Between Sola Scriptura And Biblicism (R. Scott Clark)

Words mean things. Show me where I said they died out? I said they were lost for nearly 1000 years. Rome had a choke-hold on Christianity for that period of time. There were sporadic lights as in the Waldensians and John Huss, but not enough to break Rome's domination of Christendom. And because of the verses you quoted, the truth did not die out. When the Reformation occurred it loosened Rome's grip. Contrary to what you protest, there were many aspects of theology that the Reformers and Puritans improved upon in regards to scholarship. The Patristic Age was a time of mixture and error. Arianism was running rampant. Its kissing cousin, the Monophysite controversy, carried over to the 5th-century. The teachings of the apostles and prophets were diluted with emerging Roman paganism. The true faith was persecuted during this time, only to emerge as militant as ever in 1517.

I do not expect you to agree with my rendition, but I am going to put it on record for others to consider.

 

Not to the satisfaction of my Presbyterian friends, but I consider myself very much in the Reformed tradition.

 

Scott is not shy about his opinions. For that matter, neither am I. I think we are more alike than I like to admit.

 

Did you even read what I typed in post #78?

 

Lose an argument and deflect it with semantics? You are better than that.

 

I took you at your word. You wrote:

To which I responded:

You asked me "whether the above describe you"? I answered you point-by-point. Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic in your post and really did not want my answers. I am usually pretty quick on the uptake but I am not a mind reader.

 

What I meant was that you are using the semantic retort as a way to question the veracity of what I wrote in post #70 and #81. Lost and died out are not the same thing and I have no intention of letting you represent me that way. I stand by what I said in both posts. You never responded yea or nay on post #81 except to accuse me of using semantics. I figured you failed to respond to what I said (except for the semantics remark) because you yielded your position.

Your turn.

 

Even a broken clock is right twice-a-day, so I am holding out hope.

 

I used to get upset about that stuff but no more. I have come to expect it which is a sad commentary in itself.

 

Anway, it is 1:52 AM here on the east coast. I should be in bed. Good night, friends. I will check-in later this morning.

 

I agree. It is the polite thing to do. Either that or do not engage.

And with that, I believe my involvement in this thread has run its course. See you in the next fracas.