Keith Mathison & his book “Shape of Sola Scriptura”

[jim1130]

Peace.

Has anyone read Keith Mathison’s book, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”?

As explained to me by a non-Catholic, in Mathison’s book the doctrine of SS states that the Scriptures are the only infallible authority in life; however, there are other authorities, such as the church, and interpretation and application of the Scriptural text is to take place within the community.

As also explained to me, the common misrepresentation of Catholics is over the point of secondary authorities. While Catholics rightly criticize fundamentalists who adhere only to the Scriptures as an authority (a self-refuting position in a variety of ways), the Catholics incorrectly conflate this understanding of Sola Scriptura with the Reformer’s exposition of the doctrine. This produces a field of apologetics that largely fails to engage whole segments of Protestantism–those that actually follow Sola Scriptura. Catholic apologetics would do well to recognize the two, common understandings of Sola Scriptura and note that one of them actively and regularly holds to a form of authoritative tradition, albeit a fallible one.

Peace.

 

[Fidelis]

jim1130:

Peace.

Has anyone read Keith Mathison’s book, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”?

As explained to me by a non-Catholic, in Mathison’s book the doctrine of SS states that the Scriptures are the only infallible authority in life; however, there are other authorities, such as the church, and interpretation and application of the Scriptural text is to take place within the community.

As also explained to me, the common misrepresentation of Catholics is over the point of secondary authorities. While Catholics rightly criticize fundamentalists who adhere only to the Scriptures as an authority (a self-refuting position in a variety of ways), the Catholics incorrectly conflate this understanding of Sola Scriptura with the Reformer’s exposition of the doctrine. This produces a field of apologetics that largely fails to engage whole segments of Protestantism–those that actually follow Sola Scriptura. Catholic apologetics would do well to recognize the two, common understandings of Sola Scriptura and note that one of them actively and regularly holds to a form of authoritative tradition, albeit a fallible one.

Peace.

I haven’t read the book, but I’m not surprised that it has been written. In recent years, with the rise of Catholic apologetics, the Sola Scriptura doctrine that Protestants have long taken for a given has been shown to be unworkable to the point of being ridiculous. Therefore, you have seen the trend in recent years for Protestant apologists to distinguish between *Solo * Scriptura (which they ascribe to less educated fundamentalists) and *Sola * Scriptura, which supposed takes into account some outside authority and which is, they claim, what the original Reformers taught.

Either way, it is more smoke to try to hang on to the shreds of an increasingly untenable position that allows no authority but the self to be the final arbiter of biblical interpretation. This too shall pass.

 

[jim1130]

Fidelis:

I haven’t read the book, but I’m not surprised that it has been written. In recent years, with the rise of Catholic apologetics, the Sola Scriptura doctrine that Protestants have long taken for a given has been shown to be unworkable to the point of being ridiculous. Therefore, you have seen the trend in recent years for Protestant apologists to distinguish between *Solo * Scriptura (which they ascribe to less educated fundamentalists) and *Sola * Scriptura, which supposed takes into account some outside authority and which is, they claim, what the original Reformers taught.

Either way, it is more smoke to try to hang on to the shreds of an increasingly untenable position that allows no authority but the self to be the final arbiter of biblical interpretation. This too shall pass.

Peace.

So, basically, a thick book that redefines what was redefined of the original definition?

I thought what was interesting was the reference to allowing the individual communities to interpret Scripture. If that is accurate, think of all the Bible Churches (I can think of about 5 in Norman,OK alone) that have their own popes and magesteriums.

Thanks.

Jim

 

[Donald45]

Yes, I have read Mathison’s book. As a former Calvinist (now Catholic), I found it an important work representative of the historic Protestant position. Of course, this does not make Mathison’s view correct (it isn’t), but it does make his book worth reading for one who wants to understand the Protestant doctrine of Scripture.

There’s a fairly good critique on Robert Sungenis’ website:

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

While I consider some of Sungenis’ opinions to be seriously flawed (his scientific views leap to mind), his dialog on Mathison’s book is helpful.

God bless,
Don

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Fidelis:

Either way, it is more smoke to try to hang on to the shreds of an increasingly untenable position that allows no authority but the self to be the final arbiter of biblical interpretation. This too shall pass.

I totally agree, thats why at the end of the day they still dont dare cite any “secondary authrorities” to back up their claims.

Its all a smoke screen to make SS look credible.