Product Description

In what shape do we find the doctrine of sola Scriptura today? Many modern Evangelicals see it as a license to ignore history and the creeds in favor of a more splintered approach to Christian living. In the past two decades, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have strongly tried to undermine sola Scriptura as unbiblical, unhistorical, and impractical. But these groups rest their cases on a recent, false take on sola Scriptura.

The ancient, medieval, and classical Protestant view of sola Scriptura actually has quite a different shape than most opponents and defenders maintain. Therein lies the goal of this book—an intriguing defense of the ancient (and classical Protestant) doctrine of sola Scriptura against the claims of Rome, the East, and modern Evangelicalism.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #366782 in Books
• Published on: 2001-04-18
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 364 pages

Review
The issue of sola Scriptura is not an abstract problem relevant only to the sixteenth-century Reformation, but one that poses increasingly more serious consequences for contemporary Christianity. This work by Keith Mathison is the finest and most comprehensive treatment of the matter I've seen. I highly recommend it to all who embrace the authority of sacred Scripture. --R.C. Sproul (Chairman and President, Ligonier Ministries)

Charles P. Arand, Concordia Seminary
Too often Evangelicals have allowed a Scripture Alone principle to become a Scripture Only principle that disparages the church's creeds...

About the Author
Keith A. Mathison received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary. He is author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? and Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope.

Customer Reviews

Wasted potential
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.

Excellent defense of the doctrine
Overall I was really impressed by this book. He creates a solid argument for the defensibility of sola scripture by differentiating between the varying views of the relationship between scripture and tradition. He argues that scripture does depend on tradition, but is superior to it (as opposed to the Catholic doctrine that they are equal, or the common Protestant doctrine that tradition should be ignored).

The only complaint I have is that toward the end it got exceedingly repetitive.

I also wasn't sure if his quotes from the early church fathers were taken out of context or not... I don't really have any reason to think that they were, I only wonder because people seem to use the fathers to support a huge variety of viewpoints.

Overall definitely worth the read, even if you disagree.

Synopsis and Summary
In order to establish a useful and reasonable context for an examination of the Classical Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, Keith Mathison first presents an historical overview of the Church's concept and understanding of authority. This he traces from the fathers of the Early Church, through the Middle Ages to the Reformation of the 16th century, and thence to the Post-Reformation and the present day.


Citing many of the fathers of the first three centuries after the apostles, Mathison demonstrates a clear consensus among them that what eventually became the New Testament Scriptures are the inscripturisation of the apostolic kerygma, and as such, together with the Hebrew Scriptures, are inherently authoritative and hence the final court of appeal for all controversies. It is clear that the Early Church understood inspired Scripture to have been entrusted to the Church and that it was to be interpreted in the Church and by Church according the regula fidei, the rule of faith. The regula fidei is the essence of the apostles' doctrine, the foundational and essential truths of the Faith drawn from what was first proclaimed by the living apostles, and then preserved for and committed to the Church in Holy Scripture. The regula fidei finds expression in the ecumenical creeds such as Nicea and Chalcedon. It serves the Church as a compass or guide to the faithful interpretation of Scripture and as a guard against heresy. The Early Church did not conceive of the regula fidei as a separate "tradition" or a second source of authoritative revelation in addition to Scripture, but rather as being of a piece with Scripture, having been deduced and derived from it as a concise summary of the apostolic kerygma.

This view that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for the Church, and that it is to be interpreted in and by the Church according to the regula fidei, the author terms `Tradition I.' This belief continued to be the consensus of the church throughout most of the Middle Ages. It was not until the early 14th century that a two-source conception of authority, termed by the author `Tradition II,' was clearly articulated. Tradition II holds that both written Scripture and some extra-biblical oral traditions are equally authoritative. It was during this period that the Roman church was particularly plagued by corruption and worldliness, and the Tradition II position was used to legitimize skirting the clear commands of Scripture on the authority of some oral tradition. From this point on, the Tradition I and Tradition II positions each had their adherents and they continued in parallel until the Reformation of the 16th century, when they at last came to a head.

As we come to the Reformation, it is critical in any discussion of the doctrine of sola scriptura to understand that Luther, Calvin and the other magisterial reformers were not pioneering a radically new concept of authority in their conflict with Rome, but rather were calling the Church to return to Tradition I, the consensus view for over a millennium. They were indeed reformers, not revolutionaries. To them this battle was unavoidable because the Roman church, upon the strength of Tradition II, had become a law unto herself, whitewashing heinous failures in faith and morals, and causing the sheep of the Lord to suffer under her yoke. While the opponents of the Reformation seek to characterize it as a reckless breaking away from the apostolic mother Church, it was in fact for Luther and Calvin precisely the opposite: an attempt to bring the Church back to her former apostolic state. The reformers' affirmations regarding the authority of Scripture appeared radical and novel to some only because they were made against the backdrop of a church that had become almost completely apostate, no longer submitting to the authority of her Lord in Scripture. The reformers used the slogan sola scriptura to appeal to Scripture alone as being divinely inspired and infallibly authoritative, over against Rome's claims of an equally authoritative tradition, by which she justified her wickedness. For the magisterial reformers this slogan was tantamount to Tradition I, viz. that Holy Scripture, alone infallible, must be interpreted in the Church and by the Church according to the regula fidei. Rome reacted against this threat to her unbridled authority by formalizing her Tradition II position at the Council of Trent in 1546. In the centuries since the council of Trent, Rome has gone the next step to what the author terms Tradition III, the view that neither Scripture nor tradition have final authority, but rather the present living Roman magisterium, thus making her doctrine more internally consistent with her practice. Whatever Rome says now is authoritative and supercedes all prior decrees. Hence it is now the task of her theologians to read today's pronouncements back into Scripture and oral tradition.

Though Luther, Calvin and the other magisterial reformers were not iconoclastic revolutionaries, there were others who pursued a more radical course after the initial break with Rome. Many of these rejected not only the Tradition II concept of authority (Scripture and oral tradition), but also Tradition I, the ancient view of the fathers, as well. They affirmed that the Christian should submit to no authority but Scripture as he understands it. This individualistic concept of authority tends to disregard the legitimate authority of the Church, the lessons of her history, and her ecumenical Creeds. Since whatever the individual believes the Bible to say is authoritative, the inevitable result is that the absolute authority of Rome is replaced by the absolute authority of the individual and his subjective understanding of Scripture. Unlike Tradition I this view has little or no regard for the regula fidei or the consensus of believers through the history of the Church. Hence ecclesiastical tyranny gives place to individualistic anarchy. This concept of authority the author aptly terms Tradition 0.

With these sad features of the radical reformation in mind, it is not difficult to understand why Protestantism has since been a history of schism and fragmentation. Fueled by this individualist doctrine, along with the 18th century Enlightenment emphasis on human reason as the basis of authority and the populist democratic principles of our new nation, the American evangelical Church in the 21st century is still predominantly in the grip of the Tradition 0 view of authority, and thus the fragmentation continues. Not only so, but most of those who are even familiar with the term sola scriptura wrongly believe that they are upholding the Reformation doctrine when in fact they are fighting against it. The misinformation is so pervasive that Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists who do battle against sola scriptura are almost always fighting against Tradition 0, rather than Tradition I. It is largely due to the manifest logical and practical untenability of Tradition 0, wrongly held to be the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, that we find evangelicals in our day leaving Protestantism for Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Having provided an instructive historical overview and analysis of the Church's view of Scripture, tradition, and authority over the centuries, the author turns to examine what Scripture actually says about itself, tradition, and the Church. He does not undertake an exhaustive study on these subjects, but instead seeks to evaluate the particular texts that are most often used by the proponents of Tradition II and Tradition III to make their arguments. On the nature of Scripture he discusses Acts 17.10-11, 2 Timothy 3.16-17 and 2 Peter 1.19-21 et al.; on tradition Luke 1.1-4, Mark 7.5-13 and 2 Thessalonians 2.15 et al.; and on the Church Matthew 16.17-19, Luke 22.31-32 and John 16.12-15, et al. For each text, he addresses the arguments commonly drawn from it, e.g. that Peter's confession in Matthew 16 proves papal supremacy. In this particular case, even were Peter to be positively identified with "the rock," there is still nothing in the text, or elsewhere in Scripture, which legitimizes a human apostolic succession through Peter, which is to reside in the church at Rome. With each of the other texts, the results are similar, viz. that the proponents of Tradition II and Tradition III find more in them than is warranted by an honest reading. All of the texts examined display no inconsistencies whatever with the mainstream teaching of the early church, Tradition I.

In critiquing the respective positions of the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, and the modern evangelical churches vis a vis sola scriptura, the author demonstrates the theological necessity of this doctrine. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions result in an autonomous church, which undermines the sovereign rule of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover they are not only biblically unjustified, but also historically and theologically untenable. And while the evangelical adherents of Tradition 0, or "solo scriptura" (Scripture, to me), may believe that they are honoring the classical Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone), they are in fact making an indefensible travesty of it. By setting aside the legitimate authority of the Church under the keeping power of the Holy Spirit, and hence discarding any sense of a normative interpretation informed by a regula fidei as expressed in the ancient ecumenical creeds, they in effect make the individual autonomous. Rather than relying upon Scripture alone as the infallible authority, they are actually relying on their own fallible, subjective and relativistic interpretation, and thus the Church is plagued with division upon division. There is only one concept of authority which does not inexorably lead to improper autonomy and manifest absurdity: the position held by the early Church for centuries, which the magisterial reformers sought to revive under the banner of sola scriptura. The criticisms raised by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists against sola scriptura, are nearly all made against the Tradition 0 caricature of the doctrine, a very handy straw man indeed. There have been no objections of substance to the doctrine of sola scriptura set forth which are not also objections to the faith taught by the apostles and the early fathers.

In conclusion, the author reminds us that the Spirit of Christ our Head alone is the final arbiter of truth. The Holy Spirit speaks infallibly in Scripture, and also speaks through Christ's body, the Church, to whom He has given His own authority. The voice of the Church is authoritative, while it is in submission to the Holy Spirit in Scripture, but the Church, though having real authority, is fallible because her members are fallible men. The fact of the indwelling Holy Spirit, He who was sent to "lead into all the truth," alone can account for the broad unanimity among the churches on what is indeed canonical Scripture. The Church did not, as Rome claims, authorize what is Scripture and what is not, and therefore has authority over Scripture. The Holy Spirit, the divine author of Scripture, bears witness to His own revelation in the hearts and minds of God's people, whose one accord on the canon is clear evidence of His work. There is a wonderful and perhaps not easily explicable reciprocal relationship between Scripture, the Church and the regula fidei, the Creed. The Scripture testifies to the identity of the Church and the truth of the Creed. The Creed serves as an hermeneutical guide to Scripture and, and provides a means by which the true Church may be recognized. And the Church by the power of the indwelling Spirit bears witness to the voice of her Shepherd in her recognition of the canon, and her faithful confession of the Creed.