From the very beginning of Mathison's book, we are taken aback by the haunting admission he reveals in the opening pages. He writes: "As I reflect upon the completion of this book, I cannot help but smile in wonder at the amazing providence of God. When I began to study this topic almost five years ago, I did not think that I wanted to write a book on the subject. After several years of study my thoughts on
the matter changed somewhat. I became absolutely certain that I did not want to write a book on the subject...This book only exists because Doug Jones at Canon Press asked me to write it..."
I must admit, after reviewing Mathison's book from cover to cover, I can see why he hesitated to write it. Without any personal animosity toward Keith (for I have never met or talked with Keith), I must, nevertheless say, without equivocation, that The Shape of Sola Scriptura is one of the most shortsighted, ill thought-out, and error-laden works I have read on this subject. In trying to defend an indefensible teaching, Mathison shows us once again the quicksand into which our Protestant brethren have sunk themselves and continue to sink. The more they struggle to escape, the more they expose their false premises and conclusions, and the more the Catholic position is vindicated. There is one thing to which I will agree in Mathison's opening paragraph -- yes, the "providence of God" was at work when Mathison wrote his book, for it gave the Catholic side one more opportunity to show that the concept of Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition that appears to have a mysterious, unrelenting grip on otherwise intelligent men.
From the get-go, Mathison attempts to create a middle ground between conservative Evangelicals at the one extreme who believe in what he calls "solo scriptura" (NB: the "o" in "solo" which distinguishes it from the "a" in "sola"), and the Catholic Church at the other extreme, who believe in the equal authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.