PDA

View Full Version : Mathison’s book "THE SHAPE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA



Saint Nicholas
11-29-06, 10:47 PM
Quote from Charles:

St. Nicholas:

When did you read Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura and what was it in particular that you disagreed with? Even if you disagree with it what historical evidence can you provide for the Trinity Foundations claim that his book is a denial of the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Why does Mathison spend so much time arguing against a Roman Catholic view of Scripture if he thinks the same way as them? Why do the FV folks such as Doug Wilson spend time arguing against Roman Catholicism?

Charles I read the Book around a year ago, and have pulled it off the bookshelf to refresh my memory. I am putting together a brief summary on the book. You are correct in stating that Mathison spent alot of time against Rome and the Orthadox views, II & III. That is not what I disagree with. However He get's real adament about the distinctions between traditions 0 & I.
And feels that tradition 0 is just as bad as II & III. Mathison is against the Extremes of II and III but still contends for a sub-authority (tradition I ) in conjuction with the Authority of the Scripture. This sub-authority in my opinion was the errent seed that resulted in the extremes of tradtions II & III. The reformers did not have a monopoly on the definition of the term Sola Scriptura. I do not believe that the Bible teaches an Ecclesiastical Body of humanly ordained clergymen to be the arbitors of Biblical inteperatation, and to view them as a sub-authority, as he contends for (tradition I ) I do not know why Doug Wilson spends time arguing against Roman Catholicism on one hand, while his Church has ecumenical unity with Rome on the other hand. But I do know that the Bible says " A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways". Hypocritical to say the least. I am going to post an initial sampling of Mathison's views. I am not done yet Charles. But to get the ball rolling on maybe a future dialogue.

Nicholas.

Saint Nicholas
11-29-06, 10:57 PM
Charles, because you want to know what I disagree with in Mathisonís book "THE SHAPE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA", I will post some quotes from the book. You can start another thread if you want to discuss this topic. My time is limited, however I am confident that the other brothers on this forum would also like to engage in dialogue with you. My main concern with Mathison, is that he correctly argues against the extremes concerning scripture and the authority of tradition that Rome and the Orthodox churches embrace, which he calls "tradition II, & III ", while at the same time argues against "tradition 0" which he thinks is individualistic anarchy. He then attempts to qualify his understanding of " tradition I " as the true biblical notion of scripture and tradition. For the sake of discussion Charles, you and I already would pretty much agree to rule out II & III. Our differences are in determining what view of tradition is closest to the Word of God. When I have in the past stated Sola Scriptura, you accused me of being Solo or tradition 0. I can now understand why you would think this way, if you embrace Mathisonís definition of " tradition I ". Let us now proceed to see what Mathison teaches pertaining " I ", and why he is against "0".
For the record, I am not against the authority of tradition in the sense that we limit it to: (1.) The writings and traditions of the new testament authors alone. (2) The new testament writerís doctrine of the Gospel Alone. And finally maintaining the principal that the new testament interprets the Old testament. In my opinion, Mathison goes beyond the authority of Biblical tradition of the Apostles alone, and seeks to find a sub-authority from post-Apostolic days, mainly the church fathers and the reformers, which he calls the church. Mathison does not deny that scripture is the sole source of revelation, however he labors the point that scripture must be interpreted in and by an officially ordained bunch of clergymen. Mathison feels that if the laity interprets scripture for themselves and individually, this would result in anarchy and undermine this sub- authority of the CHURCH .

All quotes are taken from his book "THE SHAPE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA"
Pages 238 & 239 "The modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is nothing more than a new version of tradition 0. Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the sole basis of authority. Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrines of authority. But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer."
Page 239 " The Anabaptist concept, here referred to as Tradition 0, attempted to deny the authority of tradition in any real sense. The Scriptures were considered not only the sole final and infallible authority, but the only authority whatsoever."
You see Charles, that Mathison is attempting to create a red herring argument here.
Page 242 "An important point that must be kept in mind is observed by the great nineteenth - century Princeton theologian Samuel Miller. He noted that the most zealous opponents of creeds have been those who held corrupt opinions. This is still the case today. The one common feature found in many published defenses of heretical doctrines aimed at Evangelical readers is the staunch advocacy of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura with its concomitant rejection of the subordinate authority of the ecumenical creeds."

Charles, I am going to continue with many more qoutes so we all could see what Mathison holds to as Tradition.

Nicholas :)

Greg
11-30-06, 01:19 AM
These two posts are from another thread, a new one should be started here.

wildboar
11-30-06, 11:00 AM
The reformers did not have a monopoly on the definition of the term Sola Scriptura. I do not believe that the Bible teaches an Ecclesiastical Body of humanly ordained clergymen to be the arbitors of Biblical inteperatation, and to view them as a sub-authority, as he contends for (tradition I )

That is not what Tradition I teaches. Tradition 1 teaches that Scripture must be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. The regula fidei is not the product of an ecclesiastical body but is the apostolic teaching which was passed down through the church and which is found in documents such as the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Definition of Chalcedon. It is not a subauthority but a method of interpretation and in complete harmony with the Scriptures themselves.


do not know why Doug Wilson spends time arguing against Roman Catholicism on one hand, while his Church has ecumenical unity with Rome on the other hand.

When did his church become in ecumenical unity with Rome? Doesn't the Council of Trent damn Wilson's church?


All quotes are taken from his book "THE SHAPE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA"
Pages 238 & 239 "The modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is nothing more than a new version of tradition 0. Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the sole basis of authority. Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrines of authority. But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer."
Page 239 " The Anabaptist concept, here referred to as Tradition 0, attempted to deny the authority of tradition in any real sense. The Scriptures were considered not only the sole final and infallible authority, but the only authority whatsoever."
You see Charles, that Mathison is attempting to create a red herring argument here.


A red herring is something which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. How is this a red herring?

lionovjudah
12-01-06, 01:18 PM
Mathisons book is an excellent critique of SOLO Scriptura. I have given many examples of this on this site. We must not divorce ourselves from the whole of history. I see a direct correlation between individuals giving themselves the ability to interpret Gods word outside the body, with the thousands of denominations and cults in the world.

Rlhuckle
12-01-06, 05:36 PM
Mathisons book is an excellent critique of SOLO Scriptura. I have given many examples of this on this site. We must not divorce ourselves from the whole of history. I see a direct correlation between individuals giving themselves the ability to interpret Gods word outside the body, with the thousands of denominations and cults in the world.

I guess the only 'safe' thing to do is not to join one. ;)

Saint Nicholas
12-01-06, 10:38 PM
That is not what Tradition I teaches. Tradition 1 teaches that Scripture must be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. The regula fidei is not the product of an ecclesiastical body but is the apostolic teaching which was passed down through the church and which is found in documents such as the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Definition of Chalcedon. It is not a subauthority but a method of interpretation and in complete harmony with the Scriptures themselves.

Charles your above answer is not completely truthful to Mathison at all. This is what Tradition I teaches according to Mathison " ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY--To assert that the Bible is the sole infallible authority, and that the Bible is the final and supreme norm, in no way rules out the necessity or reality of other secondary and penultimate authorities. The Church is one such subordinate authority recognized by the early Church and by the Reformers. The Church was established by Jesus Christ Himself and given authority by Him. Jesus gives the Church an authority of binding and loosing that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals in (Matt.18-18)." Page 267



When did his church become in ecumenical unity with Rome? Doesn't the Council of Trent damn Wilson's church?

Charles, how naive and foolish do you think we are? The Council of Trent condemns ALL Churches who are in disagreement. However the RC Church embraces ALL that she condemns with an ecumenical unity. That's how illogical and Confused Rome is, along with all those she embraces. Rome is so drunk and disorientated, that every other statement that comes out of her mouth is a contradiction. Check out these apostated churches. You are aware I hope, That Doug Wilson was instrumental in forming (The Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Reformed_Evangelical_Churches
And some of these groups are also alligned with the below groups below including Rome.

http://www.ncccusa.org/members/index.html

http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/links/church.html



A red herring is something which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. How is this a red herring?

Well Charles, if you can't see it, then nothing more I say will open your eyes. Only Christ can open blind eyes. Also, the below link is Wilson's (Christ Church's) doctrinal stance. I guess according to Wilson I'm in a false church because I deny the Sacraments. I hope the other brothers on this forum read this below link and also critique all the heresies found within it. Oh and by the way Charles when you go to have your children sprinkled by Mr. Clergyman you don't automatically ASSUME your children are "Born Again = Regenerated". Also, Only Mr. Clergyman can loose your children from their sins. That power is only for the caste Clergy and not the mere Laity. Whatever happened to the Priesthood of all believers?

http://www.christkirk.com/


Nicholas

wildboar
12-02-06, 10:18 AM
Charles your above answer is not completely truthful to Mathison at all. This is what Tradition I teaches according to Mathison " ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY--To assert that the Bible is the sole infallible authority, and that the Bible is the final and supreme norm, in no way rules out the necessity or reality of other secondary and penultimate authorities. The Church is one such subordinate authority recognized by the early Church and by the Reformers. The Church was established by Jesus Christ Himself and given authority by Him. Jesus gives the Church an authority of binding and loosing that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals in (Matt.18-18)." Page 267


Right, but it is an interpretive authority taken collectively and not just established by some council. It is also not infallible as Scripture is.


Charles, how naive and foolish do you think we are? The Council of Trent condemns ALL Churches who are in disagreement. However the RC Church embraces ALL that she condemns with an ecumenical unity. That's how illogical and Confused Rome is, along with all those she embraces. Rome is so drunk and disorientated, that every other statement that comes out of her mouth is a contradiction. Check out these apostated churches. You are aware I hope, That Doug Wilson was instrumental in forming (The Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confede...lical_Churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Reformed_Evangelical_Churches)
And some of these groups are also alligned with the below groups below including Rome.


I don't see the CREC listed in the NCC or the other groups either.


Well Charles, if you can't see it, then nothing more I say will open your eyes. Only Christ can open blind eyes. Also, the below link is Wilson's (Christ Church's) doctrinal stance. I guess according to Wilson I'm in a false church because I deny the Sacraments. I hope the other brothers on this forum read this below link and also critique all the heresies found within it. Oh and by the way Charles when you go to have your children sprinkled by Mr. Clergyman you don't automatically ASSUME your children are "Born Again = Regenerated". Also, Only Mr. Clergyman can loose your children from their sins. That power is only for the caste Clergy and not the mere Laity. Whatever happened to the Priesthood of all believers?

Would you mind quoting a particular statement? The link just takes me to the website and I'm not sure what you are referring to or what on the website you believe proves that Wilson is in communion with Rome.