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: #540556 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)

This work by Keith Mathison is the finest and most comprehensive treatment of the matter I've seen. -- R.C. Sproul, Ligonier Ministries

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

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

A Must Read for Protestants
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.

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.

definitive first read on the topic
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.