Book Review: The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison

In The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison intends to accomplish two purposes regarding the doctrine of sola scriptura.  One purpose he attempts is to clear away some of the historical and theological misconceptions surrounding the debate about sola scriptura.  Much of the debate, he contends, on both sides of the argument, is marred by confusion from unclear or contradictory definitions, mishandling of the historical facts and evidence, and in many cases arguments that knock down only straw men.  Mathison’s second purpose is to present a clear and consistent doctrine of sola scriptura.  Mathison accomplishes these purposes by organizing his book into four parts.  Part One consists of a historical survey from the times of the apostles to beyond the reformation of the doctrine of Scripture.  This part is the majority of the book.  Part Two is a discussion of what Scripture states about itself, tradition, and the church.  Part Three is a discussion of the theological necessity of sola scriptura, consisting of critiques of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Modern Evangelical positions, and an exposition of the proper doctrine of sola scriptura.  Part Four is a brief objection and answer section, and a brief but weighty discussion of the importance of the Canon, the Church, and Creeds. 

Part One of Mathison’s book is a brief yet comprehensive survey of the historical context of the doctrine of Scripture, consisting of four chapters: the early church, the middle ages, the reformation with a specific focus on Martin Luther and John Calvin, and the post-reformation.  Beginning in part one and running throughout this book, Mathison uses four terms to describe the church’s view of Scripture and tradition.  Those four terms and definitions are:

• Tradition 0: often defined as solo scriptura. This view of scripture can be defined as the use of only scripture and nothing else. This view prohibits the use of any other tradition outside of the scripture in any form or fashion, and often leads to subjectivism and individualism.
• Tradition I: also defined as sola scriptura. This term is defined as the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority, and interpretation of the Scriptures is done in and by the Church within the context of the regula fidei, or rule of faith.
• Tradition II: known as a two-source concept of tradition. This view proposes that Divine Revelation consist equally of both Scriptures as well as a secret oral tradition handed down through the ages. This is the typical Roman Catholic position dogmatized since the Reformation.
• Tradition III: a relatively new Roman Catholic position, states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth.

The brief yet comprehensive historical survey that comprises part one of this book demonstrates that for the first three hundred years the Church exhibited a general consensus on the doctrine of Scripture.  The Church held that the New Testament was the apostolic divine revelation written down, and together with the Old Testament, was the sole source of divine revelation by God to man.  Scripture was the authoritative norm for Christians, and was to be interpreted in and by the church in the context of the regula fidei.  Essentially, the doctrine of Scripture for the first three centuries of the Church was Tradition I.  In the fourth century, however, in the writings of Augustine and Basil, there appeared for the first time hints of a two-source concept of tradition and revelation, known in the book as Tradition II.  While the language they used in describing this two-source view of tradition was vague, and perhaps it was not apparent that either of these two church fathers actually adhered to this view of Scripture, their writings were later used to support the Roman Church’s position of a two-source view of Scripture. 

It was during the Middle Ages that the move towards Tradition II began.  Up to the 12^th century, the general consensus of the doctrine of Scripture was still Tradition I. Around the 12^th century, the writings of the canon lawyers began to exhibit a two-source view of Scripture.  However, in the early 14^th century, William of Ockham was the first to openly and clearly espouse and teach the two-source concept of tradition known in this book as Tradition II.  From the 14^th century onwards, up to the reformation, the concepts of both Tradition I and Tradition II ran a parallel developmental course.  The degradation of the church in the middle ages into all forms of worldliness, corruption, and greed contributed to this shift from a high view of Scripture to a view that other extra-biblical sources of revelation were equally as authoritative as Scripture. 

The reformers of the 16^th century are often credited with the formulation of a new doctrine called sola scriptura, when in fact they simply returned the church to the concept of Scripture and tradition held by the early church for the first three centuries.  They asserted that the Scriptures were the sole source of authority and revelation and denied the equality of extra-biblical writings and tradition with the canon of Scripture.  They asserted that the Scriptures were to be interpreted by the Church, not each individual, and in the context of the regula fidei.  Rome had been flirting with the idea of two sources of revelation for some time, and with its idea of papal infallibility, had itself become an autonomous entity incapable of self-correction.  However, after the reformation, Rome reacted by officially embracing the two-source (Tradition II) concept of revelation and eventually officially recognized the pope as infallible. 

After the reformation, the Protestants adopted the Tradition I concept under the name of sola Scriptura.  The Roman church reacted by officially adopting and dogmatizing the Tradition II two-source concept of revelation.  The radical reformers, on the other hand, adopted a concept that was influenced by the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment called Tradition 0.  This doctrine has prevailed to the present time and is essentially the concept that is followed by many evangelical churches in America today.  This individualistic and rationalistic concept of Scripture has led to the challenge and degradation of many of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. 

Part Two of this book consists of discussions on the witness of Scripture on Scripture and tradition, and the witness of Scripture on the Church.  Mathison examines several of the main Scripture passages that Scripture says about itself and tradition.  These include Acts 17:10 – 11, 2 Timothy 3:16 – 17, 2 Peter 1:19 – 21, and Revelation 22:18 – 19.  Passages from Scripture on tradition include Luke 1:1 – 4, Mark 7:5 – 13, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.  Mathison observes what the Scriptures say, and he notes several objections to the arguments.  He also examines several Scriptures on the Church, including Matthew 16:17 – 19, Luke 22:31 – 32, John 16:12 – 15, John 21:15 – 17, Acts 15:6 – 29, Romans 11;17 – 22, Galatians 1:8 – 9, and 1 Timothy 3:15. 

This review will not go into every detail of the discussion on each of these Scripture passages; however, there are a few themes that run through these discussions.  One main theme that runs throughout this section and the rest of this book is the confusion by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists over the differences between Tradition 0 and Tradition I.  Many of the arguments that the opponents put forth as proofs against the doctrine of sola Scriptura are actually arguments against Tradition 0 instead of Tradition I, such as the arguments against using Acts 17:10 – 11.  The Catholics argue that since Paul’s oral teaching was taken as authoritative as Scripture, this proves the equality of Scripture with oral tradition.  However, Tradition I demonstrates that Scripture is being interpreted in accordance with the apostolic rule of faith, which is apostolic revelation.  Paul’s message is revelation.  However, Paul doesn’t tell his audience to go home, open up the Scriptures, and each of them individually come to a conclusion as to whether Paul is being true to Scripture.  Divine revelation from Paul was the same as Divine revelation from the Old Testament, and the Bereans were to determine if Paul was indeed speaking revelation by comparing it with the Old Testament. 

Another theme includes the fact that no one in the Roman Catholic faith has ever been able to indicate or come up with a comprehensive list of all of the unwritten traditions that are supposedly equal in authority with Scripture.  If they exist and are binding on all Christians, it would be of the utmost necessity that all Christians should be aware of them so they could practice them.  However, there has never been a list or canon.  Since the statements of the church are not “God-breathed,” and because there is no canonical list of God-breathed oral traditions, Scripture is the only place we can go with certainty for the authoritative God-breathed revelation.

Part Three of the book consists of three chapters, the first a critique of the Roman and Eastern Orthodox positions, the second a critique of the modern Evangelical position, and a third a discussion of the proper doctrine of sola Scriptura itself. 

The critique of the evangelical doctrine focuses on Tradition 0, also called solo Scriptura. In this concept, Scripture is defined not as the sole infallible authority, but as the sole basis of authority.  Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the creeds are dismissed as unnecessary; and the Church is denied any real authority.  The individual is the only interpreter.  This view of Scripture leads to the individual being the only autonomous authority instead of the church as in Roman Catholicism, and also leads to chaos since there is no rule of faith, the context in which the Scriptures should be interpreted.  Subjectivism and relativism are characteristics of this view.  This view has several scriptural problems, especially where Scripture speaks highly of tradition.  The individualism and subjectivism of this concept create many different hermeneutical problems, and historically, this view of Scripture was not that of the early church fathers or the apostles.  Theologically, this view has a fundamental problem because it puts the individual as the final authority, and all doctrines become dependent on the opinions of the interpreter.  After all, if one person discerns the trinity in the text, but another does not, then, under the concept of solo scriptura, either one has just as much basis for correctness as the other. This also leads to practical problems, where every individual is the interpreter and authority, and what is left are millions of Christians with millions of different beliefs and no unifying factors.  This view leads to hermeneutical and theological chaos.

After critiquing the various erroneous views of Scripture, Mathison explains the proper doctrine of sola Scriptura.  There are four major tenants of sola scriptura:

• 1. It is the sole source of revelation. This means that the scriptures are perfect and complete, inerrant and infallible, and sufficient as our sole source of revelation.
• 2. It is the sole infallible authority and norm. The Scriptures are inspired and are the very words of God, and therefore they are without error (inerrant) and incapable of being in error (infallible). They are also authoritative, meaning that they are binding on us as the Word of God.
• 3. It is interpreted in and by the Church. The Scripture is truth, but the church is the custodian and pillar of truth. Because the church is the body of Christ, and is a spiritual entity, the church has the authority to interpret correctly the spiritual word of God. The church is given authority by Christ to teach and preach the Scriptures, and has authority to set normative doctrinal boundaries for the Scriptures and its members.
• 4. It is interpreted in the context of the regula fidei, or the rule of faith. The regula fidei is a summary of the apostolic doctrines and provides the hermeneutical context for the Church to interpret Scripture. This tradition is incorporated in the creeds and confessions of the Church, which serve as a written summary of what the Church believes the Scriptures to say.

Part Four is a final and brief discussion of several objections and answers, and a brief but very relevant discussion of the canon, the Church, and the Creeds.  Many of the questions have been addressed in previous discussions within the book. This chapter demonstrates that while many opponents can bring substantial and consistent refutations against Tradition 0, the current and predominant evangelical position, Tradition I still withstands those arguments as the concept of Scripture of the early church. 

The final chapter covers the topics of the canon, the Church, and the creeds.  In this chapter, Mathison shows how each of these three relate to one another, and how the Holy Spirit is the ultimate source of truth and bears witness to the Scriptures as our ultimate authority, but also bears witness to both the Church and the creeds as supplements.  The Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth of the regula fidei and to the identity of the Church as the pillar of truth.  The Creeds serve as a hermeneutical framework for the interpretation of the Scripture by the Church.  The Creeds also serve as a summary of the Scriptures and the regula fidei, and are used as criteria by which the true Church can be recognized and through which Church members can be taught and catechized.  The canon of Scripture, the Church, and the Creeds all work together, though the Scripture is the sole infallible authority, in the concept of Tradition I.  This concept of Scripture maintains the authority of Christ in the Church and prevents the Church or the individual from setting themselves up as autonomous.