Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
The Shape of Sola Scriptura
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Top Customer Reviews
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.
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.
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.