# Sola Scriptura (Mathison vs. others)



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 9, 2005)

Is the Protestant view on Sola Scriptura put forth in Mathison's work different than the views of other Protestants today, such as James White? If so, what are the major differences, and has anyone read Mathison's work? Is it good?


----------



## wsw201 (May 9, 2005)

I have read it. Its pretty good.


----------



## Scott (May 9, 2005)

Yes, there are differences. His book is very good and is worth reading. Here is his critique of what he terms "solo scriptura":

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

This is actually a chapter from his book. 

The fundamental difference (Mathison's understanding of sola scriptura vs. the broadly evangelical understanding) in views concerns how to resolve interpretive disagreements. If simple persuasion does not work, and there is a need, is there anyone or anything who can resolve the disagreements. For independents (the bulk of evangelicalism these days), the answer is no. For magisterial Protestants (Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, etc), the answer is yes. The Westminster Confession, for example, says that controversies of faith should be referred to church courts. These courts are to be obeyed not only b/c they are consistent with God's word but also b/c of they have a power derived from God's ordinance. 

Scott


----------



## RamistThomist (May 9, 2005)

In some ways Mathison tries to take the teeth out of the Romanist argument. Mathison shows that Romanists have read into early accounts of Scripture & Tradition later developments of Romanists doctrine. In other words, a Romanist will read into a verse taht says, "hold to the traditions" and they will think, "See there! Paul affirms oral tradition and all the baggage that entails." Not the case, Mathison shows that the Church Fathers spoke of tradition & scripture interpreted by the rule of faith.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 9, 2005)

So is Mathison's book better than, James White's, for example? Different approach?


----------



## DTK (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is the Protestant view on Sola Scriptura put forth in Mathison's work different than the views of other Protestants today, such as James White? If so, what are the major differences, and has anyone read Mathison's work? Is it good?


Perhaps so in terms of emphases. This is the review he wrote of another work on _sola Scriptura_...
http://www.ligonier.org/review/revheader.php?resourceid=657

I have had some very gracious and personal exchanges with Dr. Mathison on this issue. I respect him greatly, and we were both writing our works simultaneously, though his was published first. The next to the last paragraph in the review (mentioned above) discloses what Dr. Mathison thought was lacking in our work. 

In contrast to our work, I think his is slightly weak in dealing with the issue of the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, and that the question of the identification of the "church" in its role as the interpreter of Scripture is not clearly resolved. On another note, I think there is one (somewhat minor) historical error I've noted in his work on p. 29-30, where he wrote: 


> "His [ i.e. Athanasius] tireless efforts were largely responsible for the great ecumenical council at Nicea in A.D. 325, which officially condemned Arianism and vindicated the orthodox doctrine."


I think this is a bit of an historical error. Athanasius' efforts were not responsible for the convening of the council of Nicea in A.D. 325. At that time, Athanasius, although probably present at this council, was only an assistant to Alexander of Alexandria, who was the bishop of Alexandria when the Council of Nicea convened. Alexander of Alexandria was more of an influence for this council than was Athanasius. Nonetheless, it has to be said that Athanasius (who became bishop of Alexandria in *A.D. 328* upon the death of Alexander, and after the council of Nicea) defended Nicene orthodoxy in the years following the council of Nicea. 

Moreover, Keith has also followed the distinction of "Tradition I vs. Tradition II" by Oberman in his work, _The Harvest of Medieval Theology_. I think a more helpful delineation of tradition can be found in A. N. S. Lane's article, "Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey," _Vox Evangelica_ 9 (1975), pp. 37-55, where he describes and employs four categories of distinction, "the coincidence view, the supplementary view, the ancillary view, and the unfolding view." Consequently, Oberman has identified a third view as well, namely "Tradition III" in "Quo Vadis? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis," _Scottish Journal of Theology_ 16 (1963), pp.225-255, which would be close to Lane's "Unfolding view."

But all in all, I think that Keith's book is an excellent and learned work, and well worth the time employed in working through it. He is certainly one of the most gracious men I have ever had the pleasure of exchanging emails with. I understand that the Banner of Truth Magazine has published a critical review of his book, but I haven't read it. Has anyone else read the review of _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ by the Banner of Truth magazine?

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Scott (May 9, 2005)

I have not read James White. From what I understand, their approach is different (I think I have heard someone suggest that but can't remember for sure). In any event, as a baptist White is not from a magisteral reformed tradition (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican) and his ecclesial tradition is independence. I would be surprised if he took a magisterial view.


----------

