[quote=Madaglan]Recently in looking at books online I have come across a very interesting book that gives a new (or possibly, traditional) understanding of sola scriptura.
The book is The Shape of Sola Scriptura, and its author, Keith A. Mathison, makes the argument (I have yet to read the book, but this is what I’ve read from numerous reviews) that the understanding most evangelicals have of sola scriptura is flawed, and that evangelicals should return to the sola scriptura of Reformation times. According to him, modern evangelicals have mostly disregarded the importance of the church and its traditions, and instead have created a system by which an individual decides how to read Scripture and how it should be interpretted.
Anyhow, although I have yet to buy the book, it sounds very interesting, especially in how it declares that, besides the Scripture itself, one needs a Rule of Faith determined from Church tradition, which instructs one in how to read the Scriptures.
I would imagine that this books presents a more formidible representation of sola scriptura, and I wonder if people on these forums have read this book, and if they have, what they thought about the work.
Yes, it is a very good book that represent the historic and scholarly Evangelical concensus about sola Scriptura. The only thing that I fault Keith on is broadbrushing those who hold to the false view (solo scriptura–notice the “o”) as those of the general Evangelical tradition today. It is primarily the lay folk and fundementalistic outlook that he is attacking, which he does a GREAT job. Most all evangelicals would agree with his assesment.
That is why you have heard me say numerous times on this forum that most are attacking a confession of sola Scriptura that does not represent that of the Reformers nor the evangelical consensus (straw man).
That is primarily the reason why I started this thread back in Dec.:
Sola scriptura has NEVER meant that Scripture is the only authority, only that it is the only INFALLIBLE authority. Traditions has always been an authority in the Evangelical tradition.
Luther’s trilateral view of authority (Scripture, Tradition, Reason)
and Wesley’s quadrilateral view of authority (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience) both evidence that Reformed and Arminian views held great respect for the authority of other souces in our lives. It was only the Anabaptist tradition and the restorationist movements in the 19th and 20th centuries (Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, etc) that outright rejected tradition as an authority in any sense.
Thanks for sharing this. Maybe it will have a greater impact coming from you,