Keith A. Mathison, author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura

[Chris258]

Hello everyone.

I was wondering if anyone knew what faith tradition Keith Mathison comes from?

I’m about to read his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Contarini]

Hello everyone.

I was wondering if anyone knew what faith tradition Keith Mathison comes from?

I’m about to read his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

Reformed of some sort. Likely Presbyterian but maybe Baptist (both of these are guesses).

His argument in that book is heavily dependent on the categories invented by Heiko Oberman, a great Dutch Reformed scholar (and the teacher of my own grad-school advisor, David Steinmetz, though Steinmetz is in my opinion much fairer to Catholicism than Oberman was). Oberman drew a distinction in his book on late medieval theology (The Harvest of Medieval Theology) between “Tradition I” (material sufficiency of Scripture, authoritatively interpreted by the Church), which he identified with the medieval scholastic tradition (the folks who studied theology per se), and “Tradition II” (Tradition is a separate source of truth), which he identified with the medieval canon-law tradition. This explains why Luther, for instance, could claim to have been taught his views on the authority of Scripture by his Catholic theology professor at the University of Erfurt.

In a later essay, “Quo Vadis, Petre,” written in response to Vatican II, Oberman argued that modern “Roman” Catholicism had added a third concept: “Tradition III,” which he described as the exaltation of the papal magisterium over both Scripture and Tradition. (This essay is one of the few anti-Catholic treatises of the 20th century that needs to be taken seriously by Catholics–i.e., it’s old-fashioned Protestant polemic and not just scurrilous rehashing of slander.) Mathison adds the concept of “Tradition 0,” or the outright denial of the need for tradition by radical Protestants (at least I think this is original with him). So you have two traditional positions (Tradition I and Tradition II, both of which Oberman traced back to the Fathers–Augustine and Basil respectively), and two more recent and radical positions (Tradition III and Tradition 0). This allows Protestant apologists to portray modern “Roman Catholicism” as the counterpart of radical Sola-Scriptura (or, as these apologists like to put it, “Solo Scriptura”) Protestants, with traditional Protestantism and traditional Catholicism both in the middle. (This may owe something to Philip Schaff’s 19th-century Hegelian dialectic of Protestantism and Catholicism, both of which he regarded as valid but each of which he thought needed to be purified of its corruptions.)

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hello everyone.

I was wondering if anyone knew what faith tradition Keith Mathison comes from?

I’m about to read his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

I’m pretty sure he is Reformed (Calvinist).

I have not read the book, but from some Catholic apologetics articles, he attempts to hold a high view of Tradition on the outside, but in fact is no different than the radical Sola Scriptura “Tradition 0” he is attacking.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/Mathison.pdf

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/final-mathison.htm

Also, here is Steve Ray’s account of Mathison’s shoddy research:

“Upon this Rock” Defended Against Mathison in his book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hello everyone.

I was wondering if anyone knew what faith tradition Keith Mathison comes from?

I’m about to read his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

Mathison is a conservative Presbyterian.

The book is quite good…a lot of the conclusions are made to show the Reformed view. The links posted above refuting the work, while they contain a few good points, seem to spend half their energy attacking the author. Which is a tried and true method in the apologetics world, unfortunately.

 

[Chris258]

Mathison is a conservative Presbyterian.

The book is quite good…a lot of the conclusions are made to show the Reformed view. The links posted above refuting the work, while they contain a few good points, seem to spend half their energy attacking the author. Which is a tried and true method in the apologetics world, unfortunately.

Truly a sad state of affairs.

I have read Robert Sungenis’ dialogue with Mathison over his book, and though Sungenis brought up good points, he certainly had an undesirable caustic quality to his comments.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Truly a sad state of affairs.

I have read Robert Sungenis’ dialogue with Mathison over his book, and though Sungenis brought up good points, he certainly had an undesirable caustic quality to his comments.

It is. That is why I caution everyone to avoid professional apologists and stick with those who were able to defend their views in a classy, intellectual, and most importantly, Christian manner.

Sungenis, Ray, Armstrong, James White, et al. are great to listen to for entertainment and not much else. Stick with Chesterton, Belloc, Lewis, and Sproul for actual argumentation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It is. That is why I caution everyone to avoid professional apologists and stick with those who were able to defend their views in a classy, intellectual, and most importantly, Christian manner.

Sungenis, Ray, Armstrong, James White, et al. are great to listen to for entertainment and not much else. Stick with Chesterton, Belloc, Lewis, and Sproul for actual argumentation.

I would not say Sproul provides actual argumentation, I have noted plenty of problematic claims in his work, eg his book Faith Alone.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I would not say Sproul provides actual argumentation, I have noted plenty of problematic claims in his work, eg his book Faith Alone.

You can argue that, sure. I’m not a Calvinist so I disagree with much of what Sproul states. However, I was not referring to whether we agree with the arguments being presented, but rather HOW they are presented.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You can argue that, sure. I’m not a Calvinist so I disagree with much of what Sproul states. However, I was not referring to whether we agree with the arguments being presented, but rather HOW they are presented.

I would say Sproul provides flawed arguments on certain things in books like Faith Alone.

 

[Apologist78]

I’m pretty sure he is Reformed (Calvinist).

I have not read the book, but from some Catholic apologetics articles, he attempts to hold a high view of Tradition on the outside, but in fact is no different than the radical Sola Scriptura “Tradition 0” he is attacking.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/Mathison.pdf

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/final-mathison.htm

Also, here is Steve Ray’s account of Mathison’s shoddy research:

“Upon this Rock” Defended Against Mathison in his book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”

I began reading Steve Ray’s allegid rebuttal to the article, then became angry as he wore as a badge that he had not read the book, nor desires to read the book. Maybe Steve Ray is not worth reading until he actually reads what the author has written.

Perhaps this is why as a Catholic I am embarrased by our apologists, and perhaps this is why they constantly get trounced in debates on these issues when squaring off against protestants.

Let me say it again, and I hope the Catholic apologists read this: It is NOT a badge of honor not to read the arguments the protestants are making. It is NOT a bage of honor to be lazy and refuse to do your homework. You sound like idiots when you write things like “Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scripture is the sole source of Revelation.” “Sola Scriptura is the belief that we are not allowed to have Tradition.” “Sola Scriptura is the belief that any Bible Christian can read the Bible for himself and not have to listen to the Church.” You apologists need to get over yourselves and stop being so arrogant.

Perhaps if you took the time to read and interact with the protestants and their scholary works, rather then creating straw men, and pretending all protestants are like Jack Chick you might actually make some headway with the protestants like James White and the like. White might be arrogant, but let me tell you- at least he does his homework- which is far more then I can say of any Catholic apologist on this site. Not only are they arrogant, but they don’t do their homework and BRAG ABOUT IT! White at least has a right to be arrogant. Catholic apologists until they start doing their homework and actually interacting with what protestants say instead of making it up as they go along have NO RIGHT.

GET OVER YOURSELVES and START DOING YOUR HOMEWORK.

Ray claims that the author never deals with the OT references to the keys and authority claims. White deals with this however. If Ray would bother to have read what White writes, he would know this claim has already been answered.

As for Clement- Scholars are unsure of whether he was even a REAL PERSON! If he was a real person, scholars think he might have been a secretary. Again, if Ray would bother to read protestant literature, he would know this. Even some Catholic historians admit this. And no, they are not all liberal hereitics either.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I began reading Steve Ray’s allegid rebuttal to the article, then became angry as he wore as a badge that he had not read the book, nor desires to read the book. Maybe Steve Ray is not worth reading until he actually reads what the author has written.

Perhaps this is why as a Catholic I am embarrased by our apologists, and perhaps this is why they constantly get trounced in debates on these issues when squaring off against protestants.

Let me say it again, and I hope the Catholic apologists read this: It is NOT a badge of honor not to read the arguments the protestants are making. It is NOT a bage of honor to be lazy and refuse to do your homework. You sound like idiots when you write things like “Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scripture is the sole source of Revelation.” “Sola Scriptura is the belief that we are not allowed to have Tradition.” “Sola Scriptura is the belief that any Bible Christian can read the Bible for himself and not have to listen to the Church.” You apologists need to get over yourselves and stop being so arrogant.

Perhaps if you took the time to read and interact with the protestants and their scholary works, rather then creating straw men, and pretending all protestants are like Jack Chick you might actually make some headway with the protestants like James White and the like. White might be arrogant, but let me tell you- at least he does his homework- which is far more then I can say of any Catholic apologist on this site. Not only are they arrogant, but they don’t do their homework and BRAG ABOUT IT! White at least has a right to be arrogant. Catholic apologists until they start doing their homework and actually interacting with what protestants say instead of making it up as they go along have NO RIGHT.

GET OVER YOURSELVES and START DOING YOUR HOMEWORK.

Ray claims that the author never deals with the OT references to the keys and authority claims. White deals with this however. If Ray would bother to have read what White writes, he would know this claim has already been answered.

As for Clement- Scholars are unsure of whether he was even a REAL PERSON! If he was a real person, scholars think he might have been a secretary. Again, if Ray would bother to read protestant literature, he would know this. Even some Catholic historians admit this. And no, they are not all liberal hereitics either.

Awesome post, man. Your level headedness is refreshing to say the least

 

[Apologist78]

Awesome post, man. Your level headedness is refreshing to say the least

When I initially read this post, I was unsure if you were being sarcastic. However I believe you meant what you said here.

Thank you for the compliment.

Though I am Catholic, I try to be as objective as possible when listening to debates, or reading apologetic works on both sides. In order to ensure I do not let my own belief get in the way of evaluating the arguments, I even give the protestant side the benefit of the doubt, and when listening to debates I presume the protestant is arguing the correct position, and it is the Catholics who must prove their position.

Believe me, I am Catholic and I love my Faith. Don’t take my post as a rejection of the Faith- only a call for our self appointed, self claimed, Catholic apologists to get with the program and deal with the protestants in a scholarly and meaningful way, rather then dismissing them and ignoring them, all the while pretending to be the most brilliant men that ever lived.

They might appear to be brilliant when all they deal with are the Jack Chick type protestants, but when they deal with real protestant scholars who have actually done some research they get trounced. I have seen this time and again. The sad thing is they either don’t care they got trounced, don’t believe it, or don’t see it. They pretend they are brilliant. Staples doesn’t even have a theology degree, yet he writes books like he is some scholar who has studied these issues in depth. His debate with White on the Papacy was a total embarassment. White wiped the floor with him. I wanted to crawl into a hole when I heard that debate.

Then I see Ray write in his article which is supposed to be a rebuttal to a book on Sola Scriptura that he hasn’t really read it, and doesn’t intend to read it-- well, then how good can his rebuttal be? These people frustrate me to no end. They make Catholcis look stupid and foolish.

 

[djrakowski]

Awesome post, man. Your level headedness is refreshing to say the least

Agreed… Apologist’s post is right on the money.

When folks like the ones mentioned in Apologist’s posts are presenting a straightforward compare-and-contrast with non-Catholic theology, they usually do a competent job. But I can’t stand the notion that a supposed Catholic apologist would refuse to do his homework and then publicly brag about taking such an unfair and unscholarly approach.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I began reading Steve Ray’s allegid rebuttal to the article, then became angry as he wore as a badge that he had not read the book, nor desires to read the book. Maybe Steve Ray is not worth reading until he actually reads what the author has written.

Perhaps this is why as a Catholic I am embarrased by our apologists, and perhaps this is why they constantly get trounced in debates on these issues when squaring off against protestants.

Let me say it again, and I hope the Catholic apologists read this: It is NOT a badge of honor not to read the arguments the protestants are making. It is NOT a bage of honor to be lazy and refuse to do your homework. You sound like idiots when you write things like “Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scripture is the sole source of Revelation.” “Sola Scriptura is the belief that we are not allowed to have Tradition.” “Sola Scriptura is the belief that any Bible Christian can read the Bible for himself and not have to listen to the Church.” You apologists need to get over yourselves and stop being so arrogant.

Perhaps if you took the time to read and interact with the protestants and their scholary works, rather then creating straw men, and pretending all protestants are like Jack Chick you might actually make some headway with the protestants like James White and the like. White might be arrogant, but let me tell you- at least he does his homework- which is far more then I can say of any Catholic apologist on this site. Not only are they arrogant, but they don’t do their homework and BRAG ABOUT IT! White at least has a right to be arrogant. Catholic apologists until they start doing their homework and actually interacting with what protestants say instead of making it up as they go along have NO RIGHT.

GET OVER YOURSELVES and START DOING YOUR HOMEWORK.

Ray claims that the author never deals with the OT references to the keys and authority claims. White deals with this however. If Ray would bother to have read what White writes, he would know this claim has already been answered.

I understand what you are saying, but Steve Ray’s reasoning was completely fair. Ray said that Mathison (mis)quoted Ray’s book Upon This Rock. It is not Ray’s job to go reading Mathison’s whole book if the point of contention is in the parts that Mathison quoted. Next Ray goes onto demonstrate how Mathison badly misquoted and misrepresented Ray’s work, which in turn undermined Mathison’s credibility for the rest of the book. There was nothing unfair about what Ray did and nothing anti-itellectual or dishonest about it either.

The one “not doing his homework” (according to Steve Ray) was Mathison who badly misquoted and misrepresented Upon This Rock.

As for Clement- Scholars are unsure of whether he was even a REAL PERSON! If he was a real person, scholars think he might have been a secretary. Again, if Ray would bother to read protestant literature, he would know this. Even some Catholic historians admit this. And no, they are not all liberal hereitics either.

If you are talking about Clement of Rome then I would have a hard time believing this claim. He is a successor of St Peter, so any Catholic scholar making such a claim would likely be a liberal whack job.

 

[Chris258]

Didn’t expect my little question to spark such liveliness.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Didn’t expect my little question to spark such liveliness.

Haha.

How are you liking the book so far?

 

[Chris258]

Haha.

How are you liking the book so far?

I must say it’s refreshing to see someone on the Reformed side of things sharply criticizing the aberration of sola Scriptura that’s circulated in many churches in the USA.

I would really like to see how some Evangelicals react to Mathison’s “zingy” statements, such as his continual insistence that only the visible Church, adhering faithfully to the apostolic tradition passed to us, can authoritatively interpret Scripture.

I’m not too far into it, but his reasoned jabs at the Catholic view so far certainly can’t be ignored. As Apologist78 has affirmed, Mathison has done his homework. Thankfully, there are a few Catholics out there who are doing the same in answering Mathison’s arguments and aren’t simply tearing down the strawmen out there.

Both Catholic apologists and Protestants are responsible for this slow-going in working out the genuine issues, I think – Catholics for wasting their efforts on the obnoxious version of sola Scriptura that’s out there and being complacent to whack that strawman, Protestants for allowing such an aberration to occur, either being ignorant of it or complacent to let it spread.

I’m going to read another book as well that I am hopeful is of the same spirit as Mathison’s, only ultimately siding with the Catholic Church: The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer. I plan on ordering multiple copies and reading it together with my friends who are curious inquisitors (heh) about my going to the Catholic Church. What I’ve seen of this book seems to suggest it would be a marvelous primer for any Catholic/Protestant back-and-forth.

 

[Apologist78]

I understand what you are saying, but Steve Ray’s reasoning was completely fair. Ray said that Mathison (mis)quoted Ray’s book Upon This Rock. It is not Ray’s job to go reading Mathison’s whole book if the point of contention is in the parts that Mathison quoted. Next Ray goes onto demonstrate how Mathison badly misquoted and misrepresented Ray’s work, which in turn undermined Mathison’s credibility for the rest of the book. There was nothing unfair about what Ray did and nothing anti-itellectual or dishonest about it either.

The one “not doing his homework” (according to Steve Ray) was Mathison who badly misquoted and misrepresented Upon This Rock.

I guess thats fair enough. However it is clear that Ray does not know what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptrua. I think the book would be a good read for him so he can learn what to actually refute when he writes about the topic.

If you are talking about Clement of Rome then I would have a hard time believing this claim. He is a successor of St Peter, so any Catholic scholar making such a claim would likely be a liberal whack job.

My point was that if Ray is going to write a book on this stuff, he should be familiar with this, and deal with it in a meaningful and intelligent way.

 

[Apologist78]

I must say it’s refreshing to see someone on the Reformed side of things sharply criticizing the aberration of sola Scriptura that’s circulated in many churches in the USA.

I would really like to see how some Evangelicals react to Mathison’s “zingy” statements, such as his continual insistence that only the visible Church, adhering faithfully to the apostolic tradition passed to us, can authoritatively interpret Scripture.

I think many protestants would reject that notion for obvious reasons- one of them being “And what visible Church has this authority?” Most likely Mathison has in mind here the “Reformed Church” but that then is akin to saying the Reformed Church is the one true Church. He is almost Catholic in his attitude.

I’m not too far into it, but his reasoned jabs at the Catholic view so far certainly can’t be ignored. As Apologist78 has affirmed, Mathison has done his homework. Thankfully, there are a few Catholics out there who are doing the same in answering Mathison’s arguments and aren’t simply tearing down the strawmen out there.

Can you please point me to these people?

I’m going to read another book as well that I am hopeful is of the same spirit as Mathison’s, only ultimately siding with the Catholic Church: The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer. I plan on ordering multiple copies and reading it together with my friends who are curious inquisitors (heh) about my going to the Catholic Church. What I’ve seen of this book seems to suggest it would be a marvelous primer for any Catholic/Protestant back-and-forth.

I myself have just ordered that book. From what I see so far it is quite scholarly. Some parts are a difficult read, so take your time with it!

 

[Chris258]

Can you please point me to these people?

I think one fellow Catholic who is honestly trying to understand and offer rebuttal to Mathison’s position would be this Greg Krehbiel guy. I could only gather as much from reading the dialogue between him and Mathison.

crowhill.net/Mathison.html

Of course, I suppose an entire work would be necessary to thoroughly respond to Mathison (I haven’t even read all of his book, yet, though). This makes me wonder, given we want Catholic responses to the real sola Scriptura, if there are several works from the Reformation era that would likely address it genuinely, if not with a bit more fire.

Another book I’m slowly getting through is a translation of St. Alphonsus Liguori’s The History of Heresies and Their Refutation. He does write with a very “fiery” style. I hope, whatever brimstone he may like to fling at Luther and Calvin, that ol’ Liguori actually attempts to address their arguments better than our “professional” apologists today.