The Shape of Sola Scriptura

by Keith A. Mathison

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.

Genres: Theology, Christian, History, Church History, Nonfiction, Religion, Christianity

370 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 18, 2001

About the author

Dr. Keith A. Mathison is associate editor of Tabletalk magazine. He is also academic dean and professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla., and author of From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology.

Reviews

[Rick Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Dr. Keith A. Mathison was a delightful read! One of the best books I’ve read this year. In the last few months I’ve ran into more Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Messianic Jews than I ever had, and thus I felt the need to do my best at representing the Protestant position. It has been a fascinating journey. This book would be in my opinion, one of the best representations of Sola Scriptura as exemplified from the Apostolic or early Church and the magisterial reformers. Mathison takes the first few chapters and does a wonderful job taking you through the different epochs of Church history and their views of Scripture and tradition, this historical tour helps the reader understand the later accretions of the Romanist and Orthodox view to what was the first view held by the early church (later espoused by the magisterial reformers), what Mathison deems as Tradition I.

The later half of the book does a wonderful job at defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and also providing incredible critiques towards the views of Scripture & Tradition as defined by Rome, Constantinople, and modern Evangelical Christianity.

The critique leveled to Protestants who are largely unaware of what the actual doctrine teaches was phenomenal. It is the shallow view of Scripture and tradition from many Protestants that has produced this sort of hermeneutical chaos and fracture within Protestantism. I highly commend this work for every person to read.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mathison does a good job in carefully defining his terms and in reading historical movements. The following is not so much an analysis, but a summary of Mathison's main points:

Mathison says any discussion of sola scriptura is meaningless without a corresponding meaning of tradition. This is his strongest argument in the book. Mathison builds his argument from world-renowned medieval scholars and also from the greatest church historian of the past 3 centuries--Jaroslav Pelikan (ironically, an Eastern Orthodox guy).

Tradition 1: This is the view from the early church, or close to it. It says both that Scripture is interpreted by the church, but that tradition and the church can err (and have) and that doctrinal claims are ultimately determined by Scriptrue.

Tradition 2: This arose no earlier than the 4 century. It slowly evolved into the view that tradition is an alternative source of revelation. This crystallized in the counter-Reformation period. Eventually even Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century saw the problems with this view: epistemologically it was unknowable; practically it meant that tradition usurped the role of Scripture. This lead Roman theologians to articulate...

Tradition 3: this is tied in with the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, Mathison demonstrates that the Roman Catholic church at one time repudiated papal infallibility (during the Franciscan controversies) and that man popes have made either contradictory or frankly embarrassing claims and such a doctrine cannot be taken seriously.

Mathison does a good job in disucssing scripture on the church. Even granting Rome's take on Matthew 16:18, it is curious to note that Roman apologists do not deal with Romans 11:22 where God warns the Roman church in particular they can be cut off and are not infallible. They also ignore the fact in Acts 15 where the apostle James, not Peter, ratified the Jerusalem Council. If we wanted to have apostolic authority and succession, perhaps it should go from James!

Mathison ends his book by debunking Evangelical claims to a *nuda Scriptura* reading. This he calls Tradition 0 or solO Scriptura.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb.

[ValeReads Kyriosity · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those books that I couldn't possibly get entirely into my head, so I wouldn't want to be tested on it. But I'm glad I read it because it fortified my understanding and appreciation of what the Bible is and how we got it and why it is such a great gift from God. I appreciated that Keith was equally tough on the Cathodox errors and the solo Scriptura error of modern Evangelicals. I also appreciated how thorough it was, but another round of editing could have tightened it up a bit without losing any substance. And another round of copyediting could have cleaned up a few grammar bloopers I heard along the way. But mostly I'm just grateful for anybody who equips me to love and understand Scripture better.

Joffre's narration was spot-on — he reads with a comprehension that greatly facilitates the listener's own comprehension.

[Logan Heinrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is fantastic. Anyone wrestling with authority and tradition as it relates to Scripture and the church must read this book. Matheson explains that there is only one escape from the twin errors committed by much of Protestantism and all of Rome which is the centralizing of authority over Scripture either in and individual, private interpretation (many Protestants) or in the institution of the Roman church (all of Roman Catholicism) and that escape is found is retrieving the historical understanding of Sola Scriptura. Read this book and lean how to read the Bible with the church universal and gain a proper understanding of Sola Scriptura.

[Tim Maddock · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a really helpful and comprehensive introduction to the issues surrounding doctrinal authority and arguments in favour of Sola Scriptura. Mathison offers a nuanced conception of Sola Scriptura that helpfully distinguishes the doctrine from Solo Scriptura - a doctrine embraced by many evangelicals and one often mistaken for that of the Reformers. He helpfully engages with a range of objections from Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals and considers historical, scriptural and logical arguments.

To date, I have been greatly concerned both with protestants little regard for the importance of tradition in interpreting scripture as well as with the lack of unity in the Church. This book has provided some comfort, and I greatly appreciated Mathison's appeal to evangelicals to embrace the historical roots of the faith to avoid the risk of the Church becoming even more fragmented. I am not yet as fully persuaded as Mathison regarding Sola Scriptura being capable of achieving church unity, given that Churches who consider themselves grounded in historic or apostolic Christianity differ in understanding on what seem to be significant issues. But I'm keen to explore Mathison's proposition further.

My overarching critiques of the book are 1) it is noticeably repetitive and 2) it seems to exaggerate the lack of evidence for the Catholic view in places as well as the implications of holding the Catholic view. As an example, Mathison claims that the Catholic view implies rejecting God's authority and therefore rebelling against God. Even if the Catholic view is incorrect, this seems to be a great exaggeration in my view. I am also a little skeptical of Mathison's claim that the early Church clearly supported the view of Sola Scripture, though I am not well-read on the subject so I will certainly reserve judgement.

For those interested in building on their understanding of the subject, this book will likely not disappoint.

[Konrad Helliesen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Denne boken var nyttig for å sortere i hva vi faktisk mener når vi snakker om Sola Scriptura og hva det innebærer for hvordan vi skal forstå tradisjonens verdi.
Mathison bruker Luther-forskeren Heiko Obermans ulike tradisjonsbegrep til å inndele kirkehistorien. Tradisjon I viser til den tidlige oldkirkens (minimum de første 300 år) og reformatorenes (Luther og Calvin) forståelse av forholdet mellom Skrift og tradisjon. Her sammenfaller Skrift og tradisjon: NT er "the inscripturisation" av den apostoliske forkynnelsen og sammen med GT fungerer det som høyeste autoritet, norm og kilde for åpenbaring - foreløpig kjent stoff - men Skriftene skal også fortolkes i og av Kirken innenfor den hermeneutiske kontekst av regula fidei (altså de klassiske oppramsingene av det sentrale i den kristne tro som vi senere kaller bekjennelser). Mot denne tradisjonsforståelsen settes så Tradisjon II som handler om et to-kilde-konsept av tradisjon. Her adskilles Skriften og tradisjonen i større grad og denne forståelsen preger så den historiske romersk-katolske kirke (og ortodokse kirke) helt frem til i dag. Men i tillegg til denne tradisjonsforståelsen mener Mathison å vise til en Tradisjon III-forståelse som har vokst frem i den romersk-katolske kirke de siste århundrer koblet med læren om pavens ufeilbarlighet: kilden til åpenbaring synes her å være det nålevende magisterium.
Men til sist, den mest gjenkjennelige tradisjonsforståelsen, Tradisjon 0. Dette er arven vi har fra de radikale reformatorene og som gjerne impliseres når man snakker om Sola Scriptura i våre kretser, men som er en forvrengning av hva både Luther og Calvin mente med uttrykket. Her kunne vi, som noen endrer utrykket til, kalle det: solo scriptura eller kanskje enda bedre nuda scriptura. Den individuelle troende trenger bare Skriften og Den hellige ånd. Til syvende og sist er det det autonome selv som er autoriteten i møte med Skrift og tradisjon. Kirkens bekjennelsesdannelse har ikke noen reell autoritet over bibelfortolkningen, ikke på annet plan enn som andre samtidige lærde.
Et sentralt poeng i Mathisons analyse er dermed at det er denne posisjonen som assosieres med protestantisme og dermed angripes av alle katolske apologeter og som likeledes forlates av våre dagers protestantiske kirkepilgrimer som strømmer til Rom. For Mathison er det derfor et viktig poeng å rehabilitere det han mener både den tidlige kirke og reformasjonen lærte om saken og hvordan Bibelen selv forutsetter om Skrift og tradisjon.

Om han enn kunne hatt med mer fyldig stoff om Luthers tradisjonsforståelse (som ble stemoderlig behandlet, kanskje ikke så overraskende fra en reformert teolog) og senket polemikken til tider, så gav det hvert fall meg nyttige begreper å tenke i og dessuten en bred historisk, bibelsk og systematisk innføring i en viktig og aktuell debatt.

[Jake Litwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mathison does a good job exposing the major problems of “solo Scriptura” - enlightenment rationalism, individual hermeneutical thinking in Evangelicalism today as well as documenting some major holes in Roman Catholicism. He emphasizes the important distinction between solo vs sola but I wasn’t completely satisfied with his overall thesis of defending sola Scriptura. There is still an itch I can’t scratch on how to harmonize “the rule of faith” and hermeneutics with the ultimate authority being Scripture. Can Creeds develop in maturity over time? Or are they infallible exactly as they stand? How does Mother Church navigate this today? The East and the West even have a difference in the Nicene Creed. For me these issues were only addressed at the surface level and has encouraged me to go deeper on these foundational issues. This book is a good resource but not the one stop shop go to book for sola Scriptura.

[Scott W. Blankenship · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for every Protestant wrestling with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Simply excellent and historically illuminating!

[Blake Marretta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this in depth Birds Eye view, if I can call it that.

It made me enjoy reading my Bible even more, and love the tradition that stems from it.

Chuckling to myself, I couldn’t help but thank the Lord for my fantastic elders.

[Vinnie Santini · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book that seeks to recover what the magisterial Reformers meant by "Sola Scriptura". I would recommend this with the book "Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings" by James Payton. I have never heard of the view of Heiko Oberman that breaks the whole thing down to different views of Tradition. Tradition I= Single exegetical tradition of interpreting Scripture (i.e. Early Church view, what the reformers were trying to get back); Tradition II= Two source exegetical tradition of interpreting Scripture, Allows for extra-scriptural revelation as authoritative as Scripture itself; Tradition III= Infallibility of the Church or Sola Ecclesia (i.e. modern Roman Catholic view) I learned that the issue of papal infallibility started with a dispute with the Pope and the Franciscans around 1300 A.D. He got his information from a scholarly book "Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350" by Brian Tierney. There is a section that answers objections that Catholics and Orthodox raise and most of it comes down to them confusing Tradition I with Tradition 0 (i.e. no Tradition). I did not give it a 5 star rating just because I think much more needs to be done with the Early Church Fathers. I am still reading and reaching this subject so if you have any suggestion from any perspective I would love to hear about them. I am going to start reading parts of John Morrison's Book "Has God Said:Scripture, the Word of God, and the Crisis of Theological Authority". Then I am going to start the book "Not by Scripture Alone" which Peter Kreeft said was one of the best treatments against Sola Scriptura. We will see!

[John Dekker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read the review: The perilous and exciting doctrine of Sola Scriptura

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Going into reading this book, I had no expectations of what was going to be talked about, so like all things I kept an open mind. There were two points in which I am grading this: 1) if the section on the development of tradition in the early church through the medieval era; and 2) what positive scriptural case it gave for the doctrine of sola scriptura.

All in all, it failed on both points. While a much better book than my recent read through of Doug Wilson and James White's books on Catholicism, it still did not ultimately meet me where I need to be met. On the first point, the vast majority of Mathison's work through the early church and medieval era was a short overview, the vast majority of his citations are from historians or theologians. He bases his evaluation on schemas received from other historians/theologians, and runs with it. While this is not bad in-and-of-itself, it is impotent when it comes to bringing a positive historical case for what he is proposing. All that is to say, if his version of sola scriptura is correct, he needs to provide an actual historical case for this so that there is no doubt that he is correct. There has to be actual evidence, unanimously agreeing on this point from the Fathers. Basing research on modern historical and theological analysis from other scholars fails in bringing a good case forward. On the second point, He really doesn't provide a good scriptural basis for this. The vast majority of his time was spent dealing with what others say about sola scriptura regarding specific passages in the scriptures. I view this the same as the previous point, not providing a conclusive positive case from the scriptures is an impotent evaluation. If sola scriptura is true historically, we need to have undeniable proof from the historical record that it was held for the last 2,000 years, or that it was severed in the medieval era. Likewise, we need irrefutable proof that the doctrine is true from the scriptures themselves. As this is the very nature of the doctrine. Neither of these has been brought to the table in this book.

As a secondary note on why I gave this three stars, instead of one. On page 255, he states that the current arguments are usually scripture versus tradition, but he says the better question is scripture and which tradition. He provides his argument based on a version of scripture and tradition, that said tradition not going outside of what is found in scripture. This is a far better argument than any version I have heard. However, I still do not find it a compelling argument. Because if the dividing line is over tradition, then you truly cease to be protestant as we know of it now. There is also no real argument to be had with Catholics on this subject, because it is a difference of traditions, and not a difference of authority in that tradition. It would be no more a discussion than a Presbyterian talking with an Anglican on their traditional differences. The argument is set to hedge against modern Protestants and evangelicals, and say "I'm different, I'm unique from those people", when in fact the argument isn't all that different because you still fight against Catholics in the same way, over the same things. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, you aren't an eagle. You're a duck, simple as.

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid book defending the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I particularly appreciated the historical overview that both grounds the Reformational view solidly in the views of the early Church Fathers and points out the many times when Catholic tradition solidly contradicts itself. I would have appreciated more of a focus on defending the Reformational view against the modern evangelical view, particularly since I have some concerns with the Reformational view. (While I don't hold the modern evangelical view, I think traditional Reformational rhetoric needs to be nuanced some in order to deal with certain longstanding traditions that contain theological errors, particularly with regards to gender issues.) That being said, while I would have loved to see Mathison dialogue with the modern evangelical view as extensively as he does with the RCC view, this was still a helpful book to read.

Rating: 4 Stars (Very Good).

[Zach Scheller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has been, by far, the most helpful book on this topic. (My notes on the book exceeded 7000 words!)

Using Heiko Oberman’s definitions of Traditions 0, 1, 2, and 3, Mathison explains both the historical and biblical cases that Sola Scriptura is, in fact, Tradition 1 (Scripture is the final authority and rule of faith, but can not be divorced from other authorities like the church) and not Solo Scriptura or Tradition 0 (which says scripture is the ONLY rule of faith.) In addition to that, he spends time going through claims and objections and how they, most of the time, simply misunderstand Tradition 1.

This is one of those books that have changed my thinking and I likely will use it for the remainder of my Christian walk.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 5 out of 5]

Très très bon livre sur Sola Scriptura, une défense à la fois historique (qui à elle seule vaut le coût du livre), exégétique et philosophique de ce principe, et un souci d'équilibre doctrinal remarquable. A la fin de ce livre, je suis plus que convaincu que nous devons nous éloigner des interprétations solitaires des écritures, et embrasser le modèle d'interprétation qui a toujours prévalu depuis les apôtres: Seule l'Ecriture est l'autorité suprême, mais la Tradition aussi a son autorité sur l'interprétation de l'écriture. Sola Scriptura et non Solo Scriptura.

A lire pour tous ceux qui sont intéressés par le débat ou même le problème de l'interprétation protestante.

[Joshua Pearsall · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot reccomend this book enough. Rather than doing a normal review here is my presentation for part of my ministry at SSBS using this book: https://www.youtube.com/live/bJ_1YNB5.... It goes live September 21st, if you see this before then feel free to join us live and interact!

[Isaac · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very important book.

[Matthew Butler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a neat volume. Although a bit repetitive by the end, it puts forth its arguments with clarity. Really appreciated the author's dedication to defining the term Sola Scriptura as well as stating what it isn't defined to be. The number and quality of citations in this book is inspiring.

[Kevin Godinho · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is filled with Church history. The author takes you through the centuries starting with the Church fathers all the way through to our modern day. He attempts to pull out of the writings of the fathers what the Church believed about tradition and Scripture prior to the 4th century. Then, he shows you how various ideas of tradition begin to develop from the 4th century on, namely after the Great Schism.

This book puts on full display the issue with Rome's claim of being the true Church. The fact is, Rome is a schismatic. She did several unorthodox things (adding the filioque to the Nicene Creed, changing out the element of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, etc.), which the rest of the Church, i.e. Constantinople, didn't agree with. Rome eventually "excommunicated" Constantinople and the other 3 patriarchates as a result of her pride. Protestantism, whether we like it or not, is the product of division. We, Protestants, are the children of a schismatic; Rome. Just as wisdom is justified by her children, so is division. Rome divided from the Church in the Great Schism around the 11th century, magisterial reformers (Luther, etc.) divided from Rome in the 16th century (Luther didn't want to divide; Rome excommunicated him), and the Anabaptists further divided from the magisterial reformers for the sake of "solo Scirptura"; absolutely no tradition at all (not to be confused with "Sola Scriptura"). The Anabaptists left the interpretation of Scripture up to the individual and no longer respected the hermeneutical context Scripture is to be interpreted within; the Rule of Faith passed down by the Apostles to the fathers as seen in the creeds. Mix that with the experimentalist movement of the Puritans during the founding of America, the second Great Awakening's revivalism with people like Alexander Campbell (Church of Christ) and the restoration movement, Enlightenment rationalism over systematizing theology in the seminaries, and voila you've got the American church of our modern day.

This book contains some history and positions of the Orthodox church, but since Protestant history is more directly attached to Rome than orthodoxy, Rome is where the author spends most of his time. I would encourage Christians to dive deeper into the other side of the fence (Greek Orthodox), because, disagree with them about the use of icons or not, they are still in communion today and never divided, unlike Rome, of whom we, Protestants, in one form or another, are all children.

Fantastic book! Especially for those who haven't gotten their feet wet in Church history yet. This is a great taste of how recovering an understanding of what the Church has gone through can help guide us today, so we can continue building on the legacy we've been given.

---------------------------

Follow!
www.laymansprogress.com
https://www.instagram.com/laymansprog...

[Giovanni Del Piero · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting read. The book is for the position of “sola Scriptura”. However, though he critiques the Catholic and Orthodox positions on the topic, he also critiques the highly individualistic tendencies of many modern American Protestants, arguing that the classical Protestant view was that the Reformers were not seeking to create a new doctrine but rather return to the structure of the church and the relationship between Scripture and Tradition as they saw it in the early church. I think Catholics should read this book to get a better understanding of the doctrine of Sola Scritptura as the Reformers originally formulated it.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't re-read this book, but I read this: http://johannulusdesilentio.blogspot.... and essentially I agree and, looking back, see all the historical shiftiness about it. I'd still recommend it above most Protestant explanations, but historical theology needs to be more careful and less willing to see the "right answer" as the original one held by the Church Fathers. Also, that our version develops.

[Richard Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best presentation and defense of the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In the end, I still swam the Tiber.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mathison outlines the original position on Church authority in areas of Scriptural interpretation, and submits that what he calls Tradition 1 is the Biblical, consistent, continuous, and Protestant view:

Tradition 1: Original interpretation. Irenaeus, founded on a regula fidei. Scripture is to be interpreted by the church within the context of a faithful hermeneutic. Scripture first and only, and the church faithfully interprets it. Luther, Calvin, and all early fathers held this view.

Tradition 2: Roman Catholic view in response to Luther/Calvind. Hinted at by Augustine and Basil, but Mathison submits that this is a misinterpretation of their writings. This view says that the church has *autonomous* authority alongside Scripture.

Tradition 3: Real source of revelation isn't Scripture or tradition at all, but is the modern magesterium of the church. Yikes!

Tradition 0: There's no tradition at all, there's no authority of the church over Scriptural interpretation. You just need the Holy Spirit and Scripture. This is the American evangelical view, and comes directly from an enlightenment view of rationalism and democratic populism. "Just me and my Bible." This has fractured the church in America as, not surprisingly, everyone believes in their own private interpretation.

RANDOM NOTES:

Church Authority as it relates to the interpretation of Scripture:
- Roman Pope Authority - where did it come from?
- Augustin & Basil hint at "Tradition 2", aka, Church's extra-scriptural revelation is itself authoritarian. This is probably a misinterpretation of their writing, but nonetheless, it's been taken that way.
- Fall of Rome in 410 and 476: Political leaders relied on the unity of the church, which led to increasing influence coming out of the church of Rome (as opposed to the church of Galatia, for example)
- There were a number of legitimately good popes (Leo, Gregory) who came from Rome.
- 1054, Leo IX dispute between eastern/western churches on worship rites: Excommunicating Cerularius on grounds of "universal pope authority."
- 1198-1216: Pope Innocent III claimed the title "vicar of Christ", allowing him to deprive entire countries of public sacraments. Regarded as the height of pope power.
- After this, 300 years of corruption and tax impositions leading up to the Reformation in 1516 (Luther).

- Allegory vs. Literal: Pgs 67-68
- Luther on Tradition 1, Pg 100
- Calvin, pg 105: Scripture supersedes the church.
- Regula Fidei, crucial to Tradition 1, pg 23, 147, 148
- Hodge, American theologican, Tradition 1, why do we need the church? 146: "Scripture teaches us all the same, so if there's an outlier who disagrees w/ the rest of the universal church, it's the same as rejecting Scripture itself."

-Texts that subject tradition to Scripture (contra Roman Catholics): Mark 7:5-12 (176), Romans 11:17-22 (199).
-Texts that tradition is important (contra American Evangelicals): 2 Thes 2:15 (180, 204), Acts 15, 6-29 (196), "Peter on this Rock" (189)
- 1 Timothy: "Submit to church authority" and council at Jerusalem in Acts. The church universal interprets Scripture. Pg 267-268. Ephesians 3:10, Luke 10:16.

One big question I still have is, what do we do today with the insane variety in Church denominations? As he says, we claim to have the Truth, but aren't united as Christians in what that truth is for the unbelieving world. Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one "that the world may believe that You sent me." (John 17:21). But the reality is that we aren't one, when we can't interpret the creation account, the role of the law in the life of Christians, the OT prophets, the sacraments, Revelation, etc. Mathison, maybe appropriately, throws his hands up and says it's impossible (pg 275), and we just need to cling to the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition, and other confessions of faith. He says that the "apostolic gospel that served as the hermeneutical context and rule of faith for scriptural interpretation during the early centuries of the Church when she was under attack from numerous heresies must regain its place in our hermeneutics today. Without it, the task of hermeneutics is essentially an exercise in subjectivism and a denial of absolute truth. This hermeneutical context which is so ably and concisely set for in the Nicene Creed and in the Chalcedonian Definition cannot be abandoned in the name of some modernistic appeal to the sovereignty of the individual or the so-called irrelevance of the past."

[Brendan · Rating 3 out of 5]

~everything in quotation marks is summarization/extrapolation, not actual quotes!~

Great historical overview of the development of sola scriptura doctrine. The book begins with a history of the role of tradition within the Church, starting from fairly early sources and concluding with the modern American evangelical movement. The author uses a very helpful disambiguating tool, describing the positions as Tradition I, Tradition II, and Tradition III. The later evangelical variation is referred to as solO Scriptura.

That’s by far the best part of this book, and it provides a very convincing argument against the evangelical and Roman Catholic positions on Scripture and Tradition.

The second half of the book consists of
-refutations of the RC, Orthodox, and evangelical positions
-apologetics-based responses to common objections -responses to a few questions about the outworking of sola scriptura on a practical and ecclesial basis.

Once again, greatly effective in its refutation of the RC and evangelical positions, but I found it’s response to Orthodoxy quite lacking. The author seems to know this as well, seeing as the EO position is barely addressed in comparison to the thorough beating the RCC gets. When it is addressed, the author reconstructs the EO argument from repurposed RC statements (“they use the apocrypha!”) and rather obscure/nonstandard sources. (Sergei Bulgakov is hardly a typical source for Orthodox ecclesiology.) I’d have liked to see greater engagement with mainstream Orthodox thought, as I think the author might find more in common than he asserts.

Additionally, I wasn’t swayed by his attempt to address the practical problems that come along with sola scriptura - such as; how can we prevent it from becoming the hermeneutical morass that is contemporary evangelicalism, when that’s where the doctrine has inevitably led every time it’s used?

The author makes the same argument that American Communists tend to make: “but that wasn’t REAL sola scriptura”. By claiming that the fracturing of Protestantism only happened because of a poor understanding of sola scriptura (“if they had just gotten it right this wouldn’t have happened”), the author makes his idealized position unassailable. In the same way that an effective argument for Communism would need to own and address the abuses of Stalin and Mao, an effective defense of sola scriptura needs to own and address its natural result: solO Scriptura.

The book certainly ADDRESSES that problem, but doesn’t OWN it. Instead the hermeneutical chaos is DISowned, dismissed with a handwave-y “but that wasn’t REAL sola scriptura”.

Even with these weaknesses of argumentation, this is 100% worth reading, especially for the historical survey in the first half. Very well-written and easily readable too. Academic without being inscrutable. 😊

[Jody · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great explanation of the difference between Sola Scriptura (taught by the Reformers) and Solo Scriptura (that which is believed today). This book does a wonderful job explaining the historical understanding of Sola Scriptura and the need for it to be tethered to the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. The modern understanding of this teaching is basically every man for himself. That is how we have ended up with the cults such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, The Word of Faith Movement and the Emerging Church. These groups as well as some fundamentalists have ignored the historical teaching of the Church (as taught in the first three centuries) before the corruption was ushered into the organized church. This is a must read to understand how our faith in Christ is should be consitent with the post apostolic age.

[Tyler C · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterclass on the **historic** doctrine Sola Scripture. Mathison not only shows how the arguments made by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox fall short, but also how their arguments really aren't critiquing the historic protestant tradition, but the modern, Enlightenment influenced individualistic **Solo** Scriptura, and are therefore typically presenting a strawman against Sola Scriptura. Mathison is fair, well reasoned, on well versed (especially when it comes to the early church fathers). He's distinction between Tradition 1 (which is the protestant view) and tradition 2 is excellent.

If you have anyone considering Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism because they believe Protestants believe in "hermeneutical anarchy", then hand them this book.

[Adriel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first three parts of the book are great. One would wish even for the historical survey to be even more comprehensive. Also, a greater engagement with scholarly works on those topics of church, scriptures, and tradition would have been appreciated.
I don't know if Mathison's classification of the different views on tradition in history is well grounded. But it looked believable.
Now, the last part of the book was unbearable and tedious to read because of repetition.
Nevertheless, it is a book worth reading, though it could have been much shorter and more to the point, all the while increasing the standard to a more scholarly level.

[Daryl-Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely helpful. From the conclusion:

“The Church must affirm that Scripture is the sole source of revelation. The Church must affirm that Scripture is the sole, final, and infallible norm of faith and practice. And the Church must affirm that Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the communion of saints within the theological context of the rule of faith. Only by rejecting all forms of autonomy, institutional or individual, can any branch of the Church be in obedience to Jesus Christ the Lord.”