Customer Reviews

The Shape of Sola Scriptura

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

On the initial outset of reading this book, it may appear as an educated, well sourced attempt to bring us back to the original definition of the phrase sola scriptura as well as its relationship with tradition. Part of the problem, Mathison explains, is the "ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word `tradition,'" and so there must be a reevaluation of how the early Church and the Reformers intended it to be. However, what the book eventually dissolves into is a misunderstanding of history as well as Mathison's own negligence to full understand the opposing viewpoints.

Before starting, I have to confess I was a tad bit put off by the opening of the book. If you are going to attempt to explain to various groups of people why their theology is mistaken, it might be best not to alienate yourself from the majority of your readers at the beginning of the book. On page 15 the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views of sola scriptura are described as "a deadly poison in the body of Christ." These are pretty strong words that might have been better illustrated with a picture of a Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant priest stabbing Jesus on the cross. Imagine if I wanted to reconcile differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches by explaining the Orthodox viewpoint, but opened up my book with, "The Roman Catholic church today is an evil, vile dictatorship oppressing God's people." Do you think I'd get many Catholics coming to Amazon and giving me 5-star reviews? Probably not.

One of my most major problems with the book is the opening chapter dealing with the "historical context" of scripture. Mathison's conclusion, after quoting several early Church Fathers, is that they put scripture above everything and saw tradition only in the context of being alongside scripture. This is true, but some of the quotes are taken out of context, or shortened to only what Mathison would want his readers to see, or the real opinions of their authors are ignored, either intentionally or unintentionally. The biggest example is the quote by Saint Athanasius from "Against the Heathen," which says holy scripture is sufficient. Yes, Saint Athanasius said holy scripture was sufficient TO FIGHT HERESY, however if you read the entire passage you'll find that, right after saying that, Athanasius adds that there are "other works of our blessed teachers" (referring to the early Fathers as well as his peers) to be used. Furthermore, Tertullian, who Mathison quotes saying scripture gives the Church its Rule of faith, also spoke of the Church of being "depositories of faith" (something Mathison claims would be anachronistic on page 21).

Most interestingly, the early Fathers Mathison quotes had their own opinions on scripture as well. If Mathison respects the opinion of these men in regards to scripture and tradition, does he also accept what they considered scripture? Irenaeus believed I Clement and Shepherd of Hermas to be of value; Clement of Alexandria used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, Preaching of Peter, I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter; Tertullian, like Irenaeus, considered Shepherd of Hermas to be of value; Athanasius, in his Paschal Letter, wrote a list of books that should be considered canon, and he included among the Old Testament the apocrypha which the Orthodox and Catholics accept in their books but the Protestants do not; finally, the eastern churches were hesitant to accept Revelation as scripture, while the western churches questioned the Epistle to the Hebrews - both books very nearly never made it into scripture. In fact one of the earliest councils to attempt to canonize scripture, the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD, did not list Revelation. This doesn't include that as late as the late second century many parts of Christianity still did not have all four gospels.

The problem Mathison has in this section, and much of his treatment of the early church in general, is that he seems to skip over the historical context of the canonization of scripture. As many are aware, the scripture we know today in our Bible (all the books of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament together) did not become organized in a final form until the late 4th or early 5th century. Before then there was much debate on what should and should not be considered useful for Christians. Thus, when Mathison speaks that the early fathers accepted scripture as the sole source of anything, he should question which fathers, which scripture, and how much scripture did they even use? Many of the ones I mentioned never even quoted II Peter, James, and II John or III John.

Moving along, a fellow reviewer stated that at some points in the book they felt like they were reading a Catholic apologist; likewise, at times I felt like I was reading an Orthodox apologist. Take for example these quotes from Mathison:

"Scripture and Tradition were in no way mutually exclusive concepts because they coincided with each other completely." (pg 19)

"[Tradition] was committed to the Church by the Lord and His Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication." (pg 21)

Now compare this quote by Peter Gillquist regarding the Orthodox opinion on Scripture and Tradition:

"The Scriptures teach us, then, that the holy tradition passed on by the Apostles of Christ included both what they said, as they visited the Churches, and what they wrote, which we know today as the New Testament. According to the Bible, Scripture itself is a part of holy tradition - the inspired, written part." (Becoming Orthodox, pg 64)

As well as the 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement:

"Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate `sources of revelation' must be rejected."

Likewise on pages 309-310, when Mathison says the Church's responsibility is to help interpret difficult or disputed passages, I again felt like I was reading an Orthodox apologist. All this is congruent with Orthodox thought regarding tradition, the Church, and scripture. Could Mathison have a grasp on Orthodox theology?

This is dispelled when Mathison begins to attack the Orthodox opinion on tradition, right after a lengthy attack against the Roman Catholic opinion. He starts by calling Orthodoxy's opinion on tradition "highly mystical" (pg 227), suggesting the Church itself is mystical. This, of course, is wrong. Orthodoxy does not consider the Church nor tradition mystical, but rather we consider God to be mystical. We understand this in the sense that we cannot always explain God the same way you could explain the actions or thoughts of a best friend. Any one who tries to truly understand God in a broader sense is a liar, or as Saint Gregory of Nyssa put it more eloquently, "Anyone who tries to describe the ineffable Light in language is truly a liar - not because he hates the truth, but because of the inadequacy of his description."

Mathison's first attack, this against Orthodox canon, is hilarious for avoiding the argument I gave earlier. Quoting Chrysostomos' explanation that the Church canonized scripture through the early centuries (the councils, the debates, etc) Mathison declares, "This is simply not true. The Church received the Old Testament from Israel. She received the New Testament from the Apostles of Christ." (pg 227) Yes, the Church did receive the Old Testament from Israel, no Orthodox denies this - but they were not given the New Testament from the apostles. The apostles wrote what was later collected INTO the New Testament, but even the phrase "New Testament" itself was not used until the dawn of the 3rd century AD. Furthermore, what of the other heretical works such as the Gnostic gospels? Mathison admits that "there were spurious books being circulated at the same time as apostolic books," but that "Christ's Church, His sheep, heard His voice" and were able to discern which books were right (pg 228). I wonder if Mathison would still hold the early fathers so highly if he was aware some of them apparently were not Christ's sheep and could not hear His voice so well? Were both the western and eastern churches a bit hard at hearing because they weren't sure if Revelation or Hebrews were God's voice? I might add that before the Old Testament there was (get ready for it) unwritten Jewish tradition.

The second attack, this against the ecumenical councils, is even more hilarious. Realizing that ecumenical councils are an integral part of Orthodox tradition, Mathison cites a quote from one book by Timothy Ware, which questions the definition of an ecumenical council, and then declares, "It is simply pointless to claim that ecumenical councils are infallible and binding if there is no way to identify an ecumenical council." (pg 230) This is an incredibly silly assumption - virtually any Orthodox Christian scholar knows the difference between an ecumenical or local council. In fact, if you read any book explaining the history of the Orthodox Church you will (100% of the time guaranteed) find the major seven ecumenical councils listed. Even more ironic is when Mathison attacks the idea of an ecumenical council, saying, "Suppose an ecumenical council is called. The heretical position might gain the upper hand and carry the council." The ecumenical councils were designed after the council held by the apostles in Acts 15 (look ma, a tie between scripture and tradition in the Orthodox church) - is Mathison suggesting Christ's apostles were all idiots for nearly handing Christianity over to the Judaizers? Also, for all seven ecumenical councils, Christ's church was undivided and one body - is Mathison assuming that Jesus, our Lord and Savior, LIED when He said "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against His church?

Mathison's later attacks (such as claiming Orthodoxy puts the Church Fathers on the same level as scripture) are equally as laughable, taking one or two quotes out of context and presenting an opinion even a catechumen in the Orthodox Church could refute.

The only other complaint I could have is the statement on page 308 that Evangelical-convert to Orthodox Clark Carlton, in his book "The Way," is wrong in his opinion of sola scriptura because he does not define tradition. In fact, all of chapter 7 of his book is dedicated to defining and explaining tradition.

Again, I was very disappointed not because I disagreed at times with the author, but because much potential was wasted for a fine piece of scholarly work. I especially liked the differentiation between true sola scriptura and the distorted form of it ("solo scriptura"), but I think in the end this book falls short of real potential due to Keith Mathison insulting the groups he is debating by not presenting a real presentation of their beliefs, as well as a poor explanation of the history and development of scripture as a whole. What should have taken us two steps forward has kept our feet firmly in place.

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.

I am working on issues in hermeneutics and came to this book as a constant recommendation. It really is a definitive, must read, first book in the field of sola scriptura.

Breezy style, even to the point of being a little choppy. Excellent references, nice bibliography make it a tool to put into the hands of anyone interested in the issues of tradition and Scripture. He uses H. Oberman's tradition 0,1,2,3 as a systematic entry point into the various ideas, which is an excellent way to remember as well as structure the discussion.

I found it a little repetitive, the central chapters on the church and roman & eastern critiques a little slow, so i would certainly start from the back with this book:
chapter 8- Critique of Evangelical Doctrine
and chapter 9-Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
are the two key chapters, next is chapter 3-Martin Luther and John Calvin.....

It is not a hard read, i'd see no problem with giving it to high school students who had the motivation to read and understand their church's doctrine. It is probably a little long for an adult education class, but a few key chapters are certainly a good idea.

I wouldn't stop my education on these issues with this book, but i would just as certainly start it here.

With this book, Dr. Mathison has cleared away much of the confusion concerning the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scripture. Too often apologists from the Roman, Eastern and Protestants churches have debated a false concept of Sola Scriptura. Finally, the doctrine has been clarified and all disputants can point to a definition that will bring greater clarity to the discussion. In this book, he begins by establishing the history of Scriptures place in the church. Traveling from the Bereans in the New Testament through the Early Fathers, Mathison presents a compelling case for the authority of the Bible in determining all doctrinal conflicts. He quotes from the magesterial reformers to show that Sola Scriptura was not new and that they were returning to something that had been lost in the church. He also shows how Protestants have lost the meaning of the doctrine and have embraced a doctrine that would not be recognized by Luther or Calvin. This is a book that should be read by all Christians so that once again the Church can return to the authority of the Scriptures and a hermeneutic that can solve many of our conflicts, if we will only listen.

I do not wish to resay what previous reviewers have said. Needless to say, this book is about clarifying the relationship between Scritpture and tradition; clarifying what sola scriptura actually is, saving the doctrine from Rome and from modern evangelicals in a balanced, historical perspective.

Mr. Mathison has done the church quite a service. For those who hate the authority of the church and for those who elevate the church above Scripture, this will not be a popular book. It will produce a lot of dialogue, I hope, but it won't sit well.

The book is methodical in its historical overview of the role of Scripture. Many things will become apparant from this book: 1) Sola Scriptura or Tradition I(as it is in the book) is the early church's position 2) numerous (and I mean numerous) examples of the fallibility of infallible Roman Catholicism are on display in this book. Rome is ruled by the magesterium of the moment. Since they are assumed to be infallible, they cannot be corrected. Even though any reasonable unbiased person can see that some of their current positions are not ones the church has held in the past. Although, in the end, it is admitted that Rome is part of the visible church. 3) The individualistic notions in modern evangelicalism is really really bad. Too much of the Anabaptists and not enough of the Reformers.

Along the way, Mr. Mathison deals with objections and raises many issues. This is highly deserving of his five stars. It is time to place Scripture, tradition, and the church in its proper and historical place. Towards that end, we should pray. And towards that end, I highly recommend this book.

Let me preface some comments on this fine book with a quotation from the great Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz, from pp. 208-9 of vol. 1 of his Examination of the Council of Trent:

"This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: 'The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.' And whoever twists the Holy Scripture so that it is understood according to his preconceived opinions does this to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church."

Mathison should have cited this great passage, in The Shape of Sola Scriptura, where he argues that -- just as we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone, but rather produces good works and spiritual fruit, so the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that "our final authority is Scripture alone, but not a Scripture that is alone." Scripture, the infallible and inerrant word of God, is "the supreme normative standard [but, please note,] Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. It was and is given to the Church within the doctrinal context of the apostolic gospel" (p. 259), which is expressed in the regula fidei, the Rule of Faith, in short, in the creeds, and, moreover, was a means whereby the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the listing of certain books as the canon of the New Testament. "In the final analysis, Scripture, the Church, and tradition (understood as the rule of faith) cannot be separated, but their unique attributes and functions can and must be distinguished" (pp. 232-3).

This doctrine, using a term from the writings of Heiko Oberman, Mathison calls Tradition I. He argues that it was the stance of the early Fathers and the ancient Church, and was the doctrine of Luther and Calvin. The Church recognizes the authority of the canonical Scriptures, but does not confer authority on the canon (p. 265). "The Church [and not the Bible somehow by itself] is the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known." Hence, outside the Church - the visible Church - there is no salvation (p. 268).

Over against Tradition I are, on the one hand, Tradition II (the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine that unwritten traditions are a source of supplementary revelation parallel to Scripture) and Tradition III (the Roman Catholic doctrine that the present magisterium and the papacy are, in fact, the source of revelation) -- and, on the other hand, Tradition 0, the prevalent American Protestant view, which disdains creeds and recognizes no authority in the Church for what is to be believed, requiring instead the false ideal of the individual approaching the Bible with a completely open mind, thus supposedly enabling the Holy Spirit to illuminate him. Mathison does a good job especially of critiquing the Roman Catholic views and "Tradition 0." (His material specifically addressed to Orthodox claims is good, but relatively less developed.)

A book that should be of great interest to many Christians.

Mathison's book is thoroughly researched and teaches vitally important truths. I would consider it essential reading for clergy, seminary students, and serious Christians of all flavors. The Bible and history has shown that Apostles, churches, popes, and theologians (e.g. Luther and Calvin) are all fallible. At the end of the day all we have are Scripture and Christ Jesus to look to for authoritative infallible truth, and perhaps a dash of sound orthodox doctrine to guide us through the forest of Scripture. Read Mathison's book, and then read the Scriptures very carefully.

I gave this book four stars instead of five because I pray there will be a second edition to address some issues:

1) I think the author should find a better way to organize the material, reduce some redundancy, and clarify some points.

2) While the seriousness of his charges cannot be overstated, he sometimes uses emotionally charged language which may affront the very people that need to read his book the most. (Think 1Co 13:1)

3) The book lacks a general index

May God bless you in your quest for truth, and to Christ be the glory.

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

Mathison argues fairly persuasively that when most people today talk about Sola Scriptura, what they really have in mind is Solo Scriptura. "Solo" Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else. If a group or person studies the Bible, and they think they have found some truth, doctrine, or practice in Scripture, then they should believe or practice this idea, whether or not it was ever believed or practiced previously in the history of the church. This is "Solo" Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, as talked about by the Reformers, held to nothing of the sort. They believed that Scripture should be studied in conjunction with the rest of the community of the Saints, especially those Early Church Fathers who helped develop the Creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon.

Keith Mathison defines Sola Scriptura this way:

"The Scripture is to be interpreted by the Church within the hermeneutical context of the regula fidei or rule of faith. The rule of faith has found written expression in the ecumenical creeds of the Church. The Nicene Creed and the definition of Chalcedon are the creedal confessions of all orthodox Christians and serve as the doctrinal boundaries of orthodox Christianity" (p. 337).

Mathison points out in his book that what most Christians believe today is not Sola Scriptura, but Solo Scriptura, and I think I agree with him. However, by definition, Solo Scriptura is an impossible belief. This is what I was trying to say in my previous post. Just to take one example. The simple fact that we have a canon of Scripture, which was compiled and organized by various early Church Fathers, and became a tradition, shows that we must, to some degree, accept and depend upon some forms of Church Tradition. There is no such thing as "Scripture Alone without any Church Tradition whatsoever."

Some tradition is necessary.

The question, however, is "Which tradition?"

And it is here, I think, that Mathison's book failed to provide an adequate answer. In general, he suggested the creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Frankly, I am a little skeptical of some of the elements in these creeds since they were developed after Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and I fear that some of the statements of these creeds were politically motivated, and were heavily influenced by Roman Emperors, rather than by honestly dealing with the text of Scripture. Nevertheless, I do believe almost everything in these two statements, except for one minor little statement near the end of the Nicene Creed ("We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins").

But beyond that, Mathison, who is a Reformed Calvinist, hints at various places that he also thinks that we should include the traditional decrees of the Four Councils of the Church, the Second Helvetic Confession (p. 137), and the Westminster Confession (p. 138). I am definitely not ready to accept these Creeds as hermeneutical boundaries for the interpretation and application of Scripture. Mathison might say that by such a refusal, I am placing myself as an individual above and against the Holy Spirit-guided consensus of the rest of the church, which therefore places me in the category of "heretic." But I, and millions of others, just cannot agree with some of the ideas and statements in some of these creeds.

I think Mathison recognizes this, which is why he usually only mentions the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon. However, accepting these two statements does not come close to solving the problems that Mathison has raised on his book. For example, he talks about the heresies of "justification by faith alone" (p. 237), annihilationism, hyper-preterism (p. 242), Openness of God, and Religious Inclusivism (p. 281). But the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon say nothing about these ideas, so even if we accepted them, they would not help us decide who was right and who was wrong in such theological debates.

So I think that Mathison has correctly diagnoses the problem, but he provided the wrong prescription. Or at least, it is an insufficient prescription. His solution might solve some of the extreme problems, and quiet some of the voices at the fringe who deny the Deity of Jesus, or the Trinity, but his solution will not help us with some of the other theological issues of our day.

Also, I am suspicious that Mathison ultimately wants people to agree to the Calvinistic Creeds. He certainly drew the line from the Church Fathers, through Augustine, to Luther and Calvin pretty clearly.

But Mathison is right that it is impossible (and unwise) to study the Bible all by itself, without reference to what others in the community of Christianity have learned and taught in our own day and throughout history. I think that Mathison has only uncovered a small part of the solution. Sure, we should study and receive guidance from those who have gone before us. But such teachings and creeds should not be the only guiding hermeneutical paradigm.

Rather, I think we should also look at the actions of those who went before us. The teachings of those who exhibit the most love, care, grace, mercy, and forgiveness for others should carry more weight than those who exhibit anger, malice, judgment, hatred, and greed. The actions resulting from a person's theology should help us decide which theology will hold the most weight in our consideration of their interpretation of Scripture.

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.