"Chapter 1: In the first chapter Webster discusses how the early church fathers viewed Scripture, Tradition, and how they related to each other. He goes into depth on the views of such church fathers as: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and especially Augustine. Webster also discusses and refutes the Roman Catholic ... apologetic use of passages by these church fathers. Roman Catholic apologists abuse these passages in a number of ways: they frequently cite such passages as these in isolation from the surrounding context, equivocate on terms such as 'tradition', or a combination thereof. Next, he cites the view during the early to mid Middle Ages by noting the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, and historical scholars. The amount of research that went into this work was quite likely extensive. He cites many a historian (even Roman Catholic) on the issue. Something that should be noted ... is that while most Roman Catholic apologists argue very strongly for the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church, many (if not most) Roman Catholic historical scholars concede that the early church did, in fact, believe that Scripture was the only infallible authority for the church in their day (and for us today). Webster cites several of these scholars throughout his work. Chapter 2: Webster writes more about the view of 'tradition' in the early church. He also notes that differences over what was the 'true' apostolic tradition arose very early on in the history of the Church. He cites several examples (i.e. the Easter Controversy, Cyprian and Stephen, Irenaeus and the Age of Jesus, etc.). Chapter 3: Here, he discusses the tradition of interpretation (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Antiochene, Middle Ages, etc.). He notes that, despite the claims of Rome, there is no such thing as 'the unanimous consent of the church fathers' on any issue except for maybe monotheism ... He then discusses the misuse of church father passages by Roman Catholic apologists. Next, he gives a summary of the major points of what the church fathers taught about Scripture (i.e. the continuity of the Testaments, the rule of faith, the perspicuity of Scripture, the principle of context in interpreting the Scriptures, the belief that Scripture interprets Scripture, Scripture declares its own meaning, and the need for all Christians to study Scripture). Lastly, he discusses the early church's view of councils"--Amazon.com.

In what shape do we find the doctrine of sola Scriptura today? Many modern Evangelicals see it as a license to ignore history and the creeds in favor of a more splintered approach to the Christian living. In the past two decades, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have strongly tried to undermine sola Scriptura as unbiblical, unhistorical, and impractical. But these groups rest their cases on a recent, false take on sola Scriptura. The ancient, medieval, and classical Protestant view of sola Scriptura actually has a quite different shape than most opponents and defenders maintain. Therein lies the goal of this book-an intriguing defense of the ancient (and classical Protestant) doctrine of sola Scriptura against the claims of Rome, the East, and modern Evangelicalism. "The issue of sola Scriptura is not an abstract problem relevant only to the sixteenth-century Reformation, but one that poses increasingly more serious consequences for contemporary Christianity. This work by Keith Mathison is the finest and most comprehensive treatment of the matter I've seen. I highly recommend it to all who embrace the authority of sacred Scripture." -R.C. Sproul, Ligonier Ministries

Sola Scriptura, the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, is essential to genuine Christianity. This treasure trove of essays from several noted pastors and theologians explains the doctrine of sola Scriptura, helping us understand what it means that Scripture is infallible and supremely authoritative for Christian faith and practice.

When lobbyist Faith Lockhart stumbles upon a corruption scheme at the highest levels of government, she becomes a dangerous witness who the most powerful men in the world will go to any lengths to silence in this #1 New York Times bestselling thriller. In a secluded house not far from Washington, D.C., the FBI is interviewing one of the most important witnesses it has ever had: a young woman named Faith Lockhart. For Faith has done too much, knows too much, and will tell too much. Feared by some of the most powerful men in the world, Faith has been targeted to die. But when a private investigator walks into the middle of the assassination attempt, the shooting suddenly goes wrong, and an FBI agent is killed. Now Faith Lockhart must flee for her life--with her story, her deadly secret, and an unknown man she's forced to trust...

Here are the classic reasons why the Protestant dogma of Sola Scriptura - "Scripture Alone" - is absolutely wrong, is unscriptural, man-made and prevents Protestants from ever having a firm doctrinal foundation. The book shows that: Christ gave us Tradition and the teaching authority of His Church; the first Christians did not have a complete Bible and Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself calling the Church and not the Bible "the pillar and ground of the truth."

"Chapter 1: In the first chapter Webster discusses how the early church fathers viewed Scripture, Tradition, and how they related to each other. He goes into depth on the views of such church fathers as: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and especially Augustine. Webster also discusses and refutes the Roman Catholic ... apologetic use of passages by these church fathers. Roman Catholic apologists abuse these passages in a number of ways: they frequently cite such passages as these in isolation from the surrounding context, equivocate on terms such as 'tradition', or a combination thereof. Next, he cites the view during the early to mid Middle Ages by noting the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, and historical scholars. The amount of research that went into this work was quite likely extensive. He cites many a historian (even Roman Catholic) on the issue. Something that should be noted ... is that while most Roman Catholic apologists argue very strongly for the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church, many (if not most) Roman Catholic historical scholars concede that the early church did, in fact, believe that Scripture was the only infallible authority for the church in their day (and for us today). Webster cites several of these scholars throughout his work. Chapter 2: Webster writes more about the view of 'tradition' in the early church. He also notes that differences over what was the 'true' apostolic tradition arose very early on in the history of the Church. He cites several examples (i.e. the Easter Controversy, Cyprian and Stephen, Irenaeus and the Age of Jesus, etc.). Chapter 3: Here, he discusses the tradition of interpretation (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Antiochene, Middle Ages, etc.). He notes that, despite the claims of Rome, there is no such thing as 'the unanimous consent of the church fathers' on any issue except for maybe monotheism ... He then discusses the misuse of church father passages by Roman Catholic apologists. Next, he gives a summary of the major points of what the church fathers taught about Scripture (i.e. the continuity of the Testaments, the rule of faith, the perspicuity of Scripture, the principle of context in interpreting the Scriptures, the belief that Scripture interprets Scripture, Scripture declares its own meaning, and the need for all Christians to study Scripture). Lastly, he discusses the early church's view of councils"--Amazon.com.

Sola Scriptura offers a multi-disciplinary reflection on the theme of the priority and importance of Scripture in theology, from historical, biblical-theological and systematic-theological perspectives, aiming at the interaction between exegesis and dogmatics. Brian Brock and Kevin J. Vanhoozer offer concluding reflections on the theme, bringing the various contributions together.