The Shape of Sola Scriptura

Rating:
Summary: A Solid Case for Sola Scriptura
Review: "Scripture Alone" was the cry of the men that wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Mathison reminds his readers that this phrase meant-Scripture is the sole final authority for doctrine and it is to be interpreted by the Church (though not infallibly) using the rule of faith. The rule of faith is seen in Church history in creeds like Chalcedon and Niceno-Constantinopolitan. Following Oberman's/McGrath's lead, he terms this "tradition 1" and tries to show it is the position of the church for the first 300 years of its existence and the position of Calvin/Luther.

Mathison refutes "solo Scriptura." A position championing the independence of individual interpretation. He terms this "tradition 0." Further, he refutes a Roman Catholic position that Trent espoused which says doctrine is partially in Tradition and partially in Scripture-termed "tradition 2." The current Roman position, writes Mathison, is one that dogmatically declares any teaching of Rome is what the Church fathers taught despite any and all evidence that confronts that particular doctrine. This is termed "tradition 3." Additionally, He also refutes Orthodox arguments against sola Scriptura.

Mathison makes a case that begs a refutation based on historical evidence. His book is a breath of fresh air in the debate. It supplements the Soli Deo Gloria publication with a different apologetic. He doesn't sling mud and names-call, as is common in most Protestant and Catholic books on the subject. I took one star because I thought he failed to cite and refute Catholic writings head-on (Besides "Not by Scripture Alone").

Rating:
Summary: Sola Scriptura IS Historical
Review: Excellent summary of History in this book. I love the fact that each chapter ends in a brief summary of the things talked about on the chapter. Easy read, easy to follow and very informative.

Rating:
Summary: A Must Read for Protestants
Review: I am not in a position to speak to how well this book functions as an entry in the debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics over the nature and authority of tradition, as I haven't kept up with either side of the argument much in the last few years. In any case, judging from his stated intent in the introduction, Mathison is not seeking to directly engage parties on the other side - rather his goal is to inform Protestants about the debate and to clear away their misunderstandings about what sola scriptura actually is.

In the process of doing this, he necessarily engages the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views, especially as offered by Sungenis and Schmemann. Mathison recognises that the word "tradition" is being used equivocally, and appeals to Obermann's distinction between two views of tradition to offer a better way forward.

Tradition I, which he asserts is the position of the fathers and the early Reformation, holds that there is an authoritative tradition, sometimes called the Rule of Faith, about what scripture teaches and how it is to be interpreted. Tradition II, which he says is the teaching of Tridentine Catholicism holds that tradition is instead parallel to scripture and has its own content regarding doctrine and practice. Mathison expands on this by identifying a Tradition-0, or solo scriptura, view, which is that taught by the radical reformers, and which has become the dominant view in American evangelicalism. In this view, the authority of the church is denigrated, and each person interprets scripture autonomously.

Having identified this view, he then demonstrates that many criticisms from Roman Catholic apologists are directed at it, rather than the traditional Protestant view. To that extent, he agrees that many of the criticisms are perfectly valid.

The first section of the book provides the historical context of the development of the two views of tradition beginning with the patristic period and carrying through the Reformation and Counter-reformation. The second part examines the scriptural teaching on tradition, scripture, and the church.

The third part offers a critique of the RC and EO positions, a critique of the solo scriptura view, and a positive statement of the sola scriptura view. The fourth section attempts to answer anticipated objections.

Like Mathison's other books, it is well written. Despite being reasonably comprehensive, it is an easy read that can be digested in just a few short sessions of quiet reading time. It is well footnoted and includes a substantial bibliography should the reader wish to further pursue the topic by reading those opposed to him, historical background, or what not. While the book might perhaps have some value in the debate, I am positive that it will be extremely challenging and stimulating to Protestants coming from a Tradition-0 background.

Rating:
Summary: Honest book but has some mistakes
Review: I recommend this book over the massive Webster/King volumes. Its shorter, more honest, clears up misunderstandings, and concedes a lot of ground to the Catholic/Orthodox position.

The true doctrine of "SOLA scriptura" according to Mathison is that Scripture is the sole source of infallible revelation that is interpreted in and by the visible Church. The false doctrine of "SOLO scriptura" is Scripture as interpreted solely by the individual Christian ignoring the authority of the Church. He brings out that distinction throughout the book and demolishes a lot of so-called "Evangelical" misconceptions, and critiques some Catholic/Orthodox ones.

First, Mathison concedes a ton. For example: We have no evidence demonstrating that the Church considered the Apostles teaching to be entirely confined to written documents (page 21). The concept of tradition in the Fathers designated the body of doctrine committed to the Church by the Lord or His Apostles whether oral or written (21). The Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith). Taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled (this point is constantly repeated and emphasized: page 48, also 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267).

In the early centuries it was not possible to go to a book store and buy a copy of the Bible. Manuscripts were hand-copied, some churches had only portions. Only gradually was the New Testament accepted. Large segments of the Church were illiterate for centuries (247-248).

On the nature of the Church, Mathison says: The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, established by Christ, given by Him the authority to "bind and loose" that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals. The Church is Christ's body and bride, "the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known" (Eph 3:10). And outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the VISIBLE Church according to Mathison (268). The Church is "our mother," "the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God's Word...the Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her" (Luke 10:16).

And "it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found" (268-270). There are leaders in the Church "to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)" (272).

Wonderful, quite Catholic. The problem is in IDENTIFYING WHICH visible Church and therefore TO WHOM we are to be submitted. And Mathison admits this is a problem and that Evangelical "ecclesiology" is a mess (319-320 and his chapter on "solo scriptura").

But the Church is fallible and "when this fallible Church does err, it is her responsibility to correct herself according to the final and perfect standard of Scripture." (page 269) How is that done? Who speaks for the visible Church when she errs? Who corrects the Church?

On the Fathers and medieval doctors: he cites Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian (22-29) then Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem (29-32) as adherents of "Tradition 1" = one-source concept of tradition which he says "was universally held for the first three centuries of the Church" (page 32).

However: how is this possible when no Fathers before St. Athanasius had a 27-book NT canon? Apparently, the true doctrine of "sola scriptura" can be held to without anyone knowing what the NT Scriptures are. That to me is a problem.

He says "In his entire debate with the Arians, Athanasius never appeals to any plural 'traditions' " (30). But dozens of examples can be found, at least five here (De Synodis 7, 14, 47, To the Bishops of Africa 10, Festal Letter 2:6, 7).

He cites Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Augustine as probable adherents of "Tradition 2" = two-source concept of tradition.

St. John Chrysostom clearly makes "the specific distinction between what is written and what is unwritten..." (39) St. Augustine "clearly asserts the authority of scriptural revelation, he also suggests that there is an authoritative extra-scriptural oral tradition" (e.g. infant baptism) and he "advocated a two-source concept of tradition" (40, 41, 42).

St. Vincent of Lerins rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture, while accepting its material sufficiency (44) and "argues that Scripture must be interpreted by the Church because heretics have repeatedly promoted their own various false interpretations..." (44) Agreed.

After citing the Orthodox scholar Florovsky on Vincent, Mathison says this is "completely consistent with the early father's concept of tradition" (45). I agree since (like Vincent) none of the Fathers taught the "formal sufficiency" of Scripture, even if they may have taught "material sufficiency" or Mathison's Tradition 1 (as Yves Congar has demonstrated in Tradition and Traditions).

On Aquinas (77) he needs to check the Sungenis/Gallegos reference from the Summa Theologica to the teaching of the Catholic Church as "an infallible and divine rule" (ST II-II, Q. 5, A. 3) and Aquinas comments on 1 Cor 11:34 and 2 Thess 2:15 (ST Third Part, Q. 64, A. 2 and ST Third Part, Q. 25, A. 3).

Overall, very helpful book. I disagree with his Catholic critiques and many of the old tired issues he brings up (Matthew 16 and Rock, the Papacy, "problem" popes, Unam Sanctam vs. Vatican II) have been adequately answered by Catholic apologists.

Phil Porvaznik

Rating:
Summary: a must read for all protestants, catholics, and orthodox
Review: this is an excellent exegetical, historical presentation of what sola scriptura meant to the early church, the reformers, and american evangelicalism steeped in democratic individualism....it defines what the proper role of church, tradition, scriptrue, interpretation and councils should be......it should lead to a greater ecumenism and dialouge between historic protestant, roman catholic, and eastern orthodox christians.....it shows us what a charism of a council is, and how the Holy Spirit honors it...it is ecumenical because it shows that counciliar authority based on the word of God is not a matter of private judgement to reject or accept the councils, but that God Himself recognizes the councils and places it in the heart of the ecclessia--or called out ones (the church) ...this book also demonstrates what eastern orthodox and protestants have come to fear the most....that the Roman magisterium is beginning to become a law unto herself without absolutely no way to determine a norm for her doctrines that cannot be found either in the pre-nicene or post nicene church fathers, such as the recent view that anyone with a good conscience can be saved.....this isn't soley an attack on rome either, it shows that the protestant postition of SOLO scriptura is what catholic apologists say it is...illogical, unworkable, unhistorical, and worst of all, unbiblical......we all need to take a look at the mirror and confess our errors....God alone is infallible,and speaks ex cathedra from the mouth of our Lord and Savior, the Christos Rex Regum, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Rating:
Summary: This book needs a catholic answer
Review: When I wrote the review of Sungenis book "Not by scripture alone" I rhetorically asked: Where is the evangelical answer?
Maybe this book is the one. Mathison distinguished severeal forms of tradition (o, I,II). He made it clear that the original reformers don't terminate tradition at all. They tried to put it in the right order of the early church. Scripture is the ultimate norm and infallible, but it is necassary to read it in communion with the church and the rule of faith. All catholic/orthodox critics deal with a anabaptist version of sola scriptura (scripture only authority at all).
It's refreshing to see an evangelical deep in history. This book should be read along with Williams, Retrieving the Tradition.
The best evangelical book on this subject I'v read until now.