Book Review: The Real Sola Scriptura

[Cajun Huguenot]

The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. It is a truly great read.

This is the most important book that I have read in a least five years, and very likely a number of years more than that. Mathison’s book is vital for the Christian today. Most importantly, to my mind, Mathison places the classical Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura in an historical context, that is vital to a right understanding of it. Just as importantly, He contrasts the classical Protestant teaching of "Sola Scriptura " with the truncated modern evangelical distortion that passes as "sola scriptura" in the minds of most Evangelicals today. The modern position is a far cry from the historic view of the Reformers.

On page 280 Mathison writes “How can we proclaim the perspicuity [i.e. clearness] of Scripture and at the same time promote doctrines that no one in the Church ever taught for eighteen or nineteen centuries? Evangelicals criticize Roman Catholics for the creation of new dogmas unheard of in previous centuries, yet Evangelicalism has created far more novel doctrines than Roman Catholicism.” The Evangelical criticism is valid, but hypocritical, when Evangelicals too are doing similar things; the invention of dispensationalism in the 1820's and it’s subsequent wide acceptance by evangelicals in the 20th century is a case in point.

I believe his dealing with the modern evangelical distortion of sola scriptura to be one of the most important aspects of this book, because the view that has gained the majority position in evangelical circles is a far cry from the Sola Scriptura that was taught by the Reformers and it is very dangerous.

The modern distortion that passes for Sola Scriptura is radically individualistic and takes place in an historical, theological and doctrinal vacuum. This view of Scripture makes biblical doctrine to be highly subjective, relativistic, and in so doing it virtually makes each individual to be his/her own Pope who infallibly interprets the Scriptures in his or her own subjective vacuum.

In the book Mathison also deals masterfully with the Roman Catholic views of Scripture and tradition. He points out that the view of the Protestant Reformers (the classical Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura) clearly harkens back to the view of tradition and Scripture that was held by early Church and most of the Church during the early Middle Ages. This is plainly seen in St. Vincent’s Commonitory , which I wrote about earlier.

Mathison also sets his sites on the Eastern Church's views in this book as well, and handles their arguments handily.

I can not recommend this important book to strongly.

Dominus Vobiscum.
Kenith

 

[II Paradox II]

The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. It is a truly great read.

For those interested in the topic, I would also suggest reading the section on scripture and tradition in Oberman's book, "The harvest of medieval theology". Mathison takes most of his framework from Oberman, so it helpful to read his treatment of the subject as well.

Here is a quote from it for those interested:

"Tradition I, then, represents the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as understood by the Fathers and doctors of the Church. In the case of disagreement between these interpreters, Holy Scripture has the final authority. The horizontal concept of Tradition is by no means denied here, but rather understood as the mode of reception of the fides or veritas Since the appeal to extrascriptural tradition is rejected, the validity of ecclesiastical traditions and consuetudines is not regarded as "self-supporting" but depends on its relation to the faith handed down by God in Holy Scripture contained in Holy Scripture.



Thomas Bradwardine can be pointed out as one of the first outspoken representatives of Tradition I at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Though his references to the problem of Scripture and Tradition are relatively few and scattered, his emphasis on the exclusive and final authority of Holy Scripture is quite explicit. His position on this issue may well underlie his willingness to attack Occamistic Pelagianism despite his feeling that he stood alone over and against almost the whole church, even the curia.



John Wycliff was undoubtedly deeply indebted to Bradwardine on this issue. It was Tradition I that provided him with the tools he used to evaluate medieval doctrine critically. As we shall see, Huss and Wessel Gansfort must also be regarded as exponents of Tradition I.



The second concept of tradition, Tradition II, refers to the written and unwritten part of the apostolic message as approved by the church. Here it is not the function of the doctors of Holy Scripture but that of the bishops which is relatively more stressed. The hierarchy is seen to have its "own" oral tradition, to a certain undefined extent independent, not of the Apostles, but of what is recorded in the canonical books. Ecclesiastical traditions, including canon law, are invested with the same degree of authority as that of Holy Scripture. Leading spokesman for the nominalistic tradition such as Gerson, Occam, d'Ailly - and even more emphatically Beil - will be shown to champion the position of Tradition II.



A very sharp and most succinct formulation of Tradition II in contrast with Tradition I is given, not by a professional canon lawyer, but by Ambrosius Of Speier, unfortunately an almost forgotten Carmelite preacher. In a sermon published on the eve of the Reformation, he refers to the formulation of Gratian according to which the responsibilities between the doctors of Scripture and the Pope are divided in such a way that the interpretation of Holy Scripture is to be the task of the theologians, the decision of legal cases that of the papacy. His comment on this is, however, that such am answer should be taken with a grain of salt; then he adds with wry humor: you may rely on the doctors of Scripture in all matters regarding the interpretation of Scripture… unless it regards the sacraments and the articles of faith; since the power to interpret a dubious law has been granted not to the theologians but to the Pope. It is clear that he views Scripture as a divine law of which canon law is an integral part.



Until the beginning of the fourteenth century theologians defined their own task in the terms in which we have described Tradition I, while the enterprise related to Tradition II was more or less an appendix. Yet it was certainly not a sign of "late medieval disintegration" that more and more doctors realized that they had to come to terms with a dual concept of tradition. Rather it indicates theological progress in the period that as a result of their better understanding of the setting and context of biblical passages, more and more theologians either had to call for a doctrinal reformation or to abandon the claim to a biblical warrant for a particular doctrine. Special significance was thus attached to John 20:30: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book…"

Heiko Oberman, The Harvest Of Medieval Theology, Page 372-374



ken

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I noticed Oberman in the foot notes and have orderd on of his books. I've also ordered a number of others that Mathison mentions.

Kenith

 

[Reformationist]

Thank you both for sharing this.

God bless,
Don

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Thank you both for sharing this.

God bless,
Don

yes.
thanks for reminding me of this book. i had only partly finished it for my Institutes class and it got buried.
with the class winding down i need to finish it.

 

[HiredGoon]

I picked this book up by chance a couple years ago at a "Family Christian Stores" (the b&n of christian bookstores), its what first lead me down the path of Reformed theology.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Bringing this up too, since it is germane to a current discussion.

Kenith

 

[edie19]

Bringing this up too, since it is germane to a current discussion.

Kenith

how on earth did you even find this thread??!!??

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

how on earth did you even find this thread??!!??

It took a little work, but I knew it was back there somewhere.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[mlqurgw]

Having only read Mathison in the link provided in another thread and in the introduction to Sproul's book on Scripture Alone I think he misrepresents the Baptist view as solo scriptura. He quotes in the article on the link men such as Stone and Campbell who truly did hold to solo scriptura but it reads as though they represent all Baptists when they weren't even Baptists. I also think he may have an axe to grind in the argument for the authority of the church as in the Presbyterian form of government. I believe that Baptists have not held to solo scriptura as he defines it but to something closer to sola scriptura without putting the emphasis on the authority of the governing body. I believe Baptist have held that Christ, according to Eph. 4:7,8,11,12 and Jer. 3:15 gave as gifts to His local assemblies pastors whom He equips in the knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures. Certainly the Scriptures aren't of private interpretation as he defines solo scriptura but the pastors and elders are given to teach and lead in truth. The unity of the church is upheld in that all God given pastors agree in the important things.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Here's a post I did on Sola Scriptura:


.

The Official, Historic Definition:


"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3). "No human being's writings dare be put on a par with it, but ... everything must be subjected to it" (Ditto, 9).


"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Sola Scriptura IS....


An embrace of God's inerrent, holy, written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.




Sola Scriptura is NOT....


1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.

2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.

3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.



Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.


2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.




Some quotes:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)[/FONT]


"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)



I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





. [/FONT]

It seems to ME that, recently, in some circles, other things have become connected to this praxis - in effect, changing it. This includes that Tradition is to be neglected in all matters (absurd, since Sola Scriptura IS tradition and so is the canon we call Scripture), that Scripture is always "clear" (there wouldn't be disagreements or a need for norming at all if such were the case) and (worse of all) that it includes arbitration by each individual person. These are SEPARATE issues.





.