Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

Magdalen:

Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?
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.

Re: Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura? The question is: Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura? Shouldn't we start with what Sola Scriptura means. No amount of redefining the term will remove the fact that Sola means "only" and Scriptura means "Scripture". Therefore, Sola Scriptura can not mean that the Bible and Church tradition both contain the rule of faith. Otherwise, Sola Scriptura would be a misnomer. It would have to be admitted that Sola Scriptura does not really exist and can't exist. And of course, it is true. When Luther broke from the Catholic Church and established his own church, he expected everyone to submit to his authority and become members of his church. To his dismay, he didn't form a second church in contrast to the first, but gave license to anyone with a Bible to form their own church. Before he knew what had happened, Swingli and Calvin had formed their own congregations and the dividing has continued ever since. So, are we attacking the wrong Sola Scriptura? In my opinion, Sola Scriptura does that all by itself. It is a self contradicting doctrine. First, it doesn't exist in Scripture. Scripture teaches that we must believe the Church (Matt 18:17) and that the Church is the pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Second, even those who believe in and expound Sola Scriptura don't practice it. I have rarely met a Bible Alone Christian who will simply hand you a Bible and say, "go to it." They will usually give you their interpretation of the Bible as well. Even they don't believe that the Bible alone is enough. They add themselves into the equation just as Luther did. Bible alone Christians are beginning to realize the shortcomings of believing in Sola Scriptura. In my opinion, that is why the book being discussed in this thread has been written. CARM, an anti-Catholic apologetical group has also re defined of the term:Sola Scriptura The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm#Sola%20Scriptura Note that the word "Sola" or "Only " has been left out of the defnition. The definition here is not of Sola Scriptura but of the Sufficiency of Scripture. Sufficiency of Scripture is a doctrine with which the Catholic Church has no quarrel. 107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." From James Akin "this rock" magazine, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp "It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger." It seems that in the end Protestants will abandon Sola Scriptura and recognize that they need a form of tradition to reign in the outrageous interpretations that many nonCatholic Theologians lapse into. At that point, I hope they recognize that the only truly Sacred Tradition exists within the Catholic Church. There is no need to invent another. Sincerely, De Maria