Rating: 
Summary: Analysis Paralysis
Review: This compendium of critiques of sola scriptura is not for the faint of heart. At close to 600 pages, including appendices, it delves into minutiae in a way that only a debate society member could love.At issue: If Scripture is the only infallible authority for resolving matters of faith and morals, and is formally sufficient for teaching, where does Scripture teach this doctrine? We are treated to arguments by no less than seven different (obviously intelligent and well-informed) authors, expounding the Catholic position that Scripture does not teach this. The Church affirms that Scripture is materially, but not formally sufficient, and therefore requires an infallible interpreter (the Magisterium) to avoid the chaos of denominationalism that results from individual interpretation (as evidenced by the splintering of Christianity since the Reformation). Robert Sungenis spends close to 60 pages on 4 verses (2Tim 3:16, Acts 17:11, 1Cor 4:6, and Mk 7:5-13) in the chapter entitled "Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?" That's a lot of exegesis! Then there's Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers, where 75 objections (mostly by James White, and Geisler and MacKenzie)are addressed in excruciating detail in close to 90 pages (with detailed explanatory footnotes). Patrick Madrid addresses the issue from a logical perspective, Philip Blosser from the philosopical and practical, and Joseph Gallegos from the Tradition and Church Fathers viewpoint. A particularly interesting contribution by Robert Fastiggi discusses the history and view of sola scriptura held by the leaders of the Reformation. This encompasses the Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, and the so-called "Radical" or Anabaptist perspectives. This book (or collection of books)makes essentially the same argument from many perspectives using essentially the same evidence; and that is what makes it somewhat tedious. There is no doubt that it is well researched -- the information is certainly complete and it is an indispensible reference if you are inclined to head-butting. The results, I fear, would be the same as those documented in Appendix 3 -- a formal debate between Catholic Patrick Madrid and Protestant Douglas Jones. Madrid asks where Scripture teaches sola scriptura, and Jones asks why an infallible Church. Each claims to have answered the other, and the debate continues.
Rating: 
Summary: Solo and Sola Scriptura Demolished
Review: Update to an old review -- read this book along with the recent Webster/King three volume set, and Keith Mathison's Shape of Sola Scriptura to get a complete picture. This book edited by Robert Sungenis does refute both Solo and Sola Scriptura, and any other definitions a Protestant can invent, which as the book proves is a "moving target" not found in Scripture itself. The book Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Queenship, 1997) is surely to remain the most comprehensive response to and refutation of the primary Protestant principle well into the new millennium. And it might take me a millennium to finish reading and digesting the arguments in the book (over 600 pages). I especially appreciate the detailed responses in the book to major Evangelical Protestant critics of Catholicism such as White, MacArthur, Geisler/Mackenzie and others. These are found throughout the book but especially in the two chapters by Sungenis on the supposed Biblical support for Sola Scriptura (which is shown to be non-existent) and answers to the few arguments for Sola Scriptura that are made (e.g. 2 Tim 3:15-17, 1 Cor 4:6, and some of the Fathers, etc), and responses to anti-Catholic objections culled from the writings of recent Evangelical works against Catholicism. The tone is polite in response. The most interesting and well-written chapters in my opinion are the ones by Phil Blosser and Joe Gallegos. Blosser explains the philosophical and practical problems with Sola Scriptura in great logical detail and Gallegos puts into print his massive work on the Church Fathers (in his chapter and an appendix) on Scripture, Tradition, and Church Authority (including the Papacy). Quite comprehensive and clear patristic references included in footnotes for anyone willing to check his work. Yes, Webster/King do address some of this book's material on Scripture and Tradition in the Fathers. See their three volume Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith to get more from the Fathers on their high view of Scripture (which the Catholic/Orthodox would not disagree with). An excellent companion to the Sungenis work on Justification (Not By Faith Alone). ...
Rating:
Summary: Martin Luther would hate this book
Review: Well, well, well. My suspicions have been confirmed. After reading some of the very uncharitable reviews and ad hominum attacks against Mr. Sungenis, I was compelled to read this book and find out why our Protestant brothers were so worked up about it. Now I know. "Not By Scripture Alone" has thoroughly refuted one major principle of the Unfortunate Insurrection aka the Protestant Reformation. Sola Scriptura? Maybe the contributors to this book were attacking a straw man as far as some reviewers were concerned. That's only because Protestants can't agree among themselves what they mean by the term. Sungenis, et al. couldn't possibly address all conflicting definitions of Sola Scriptura. Some denominations recognize some tradition but which tradition? Some recognize the "teaching Magisterium" of the Church. But as Patrick Madrid would constantly ask in his debate with Douglas Jones: "Which Church"? Questions for which no Protestant that I know of has a cogent answer. Newsflash! The Protestant Reformation did not occur immediately after the death of John the Apostle. "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". So says John Henry Cardinal Newman. Let's face it. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church who were responsible for the New Testament table of contents - those same bishops that Protestants love to quote to defend Sola Scriptura. Why don't Protestants ever quote fourth century Bible-Only non-Catholic Christians to support their positions? BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY! So they must ignore the historical reality and rely on out-of-context quotes from the unquestionably orthodox Roman Catholic hierarchy to try to prove Sola Scriptura and its existence in the early Church. One reviewer sarcastically remarks, "Because Rome Says So." You've got that right! Since it is the Church that is the "ground and pillar of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). (Oh, how the Protestants wished it read, "the Bible is the ground and pillar of truth".) We look to the Church and the successors of the Apostles for the correct interpretation of Scripture. There's no circular reasoning here. The circularity lies in quoting 2 Tim 3:16 before proving the inspiration of 2 Timothy. (A separated brother certainly can't appeal to the say-so of the 4th century Catholic Church). So what's his authority? Scripture can't authenticate itself. Since Martin Luther didn't acknowledge any authority outside of the Bible, he was well within his right to reject books he didn't agree with (e.g. James). A Protestant would be hard-pressed to explain why a book like Philemon should have been included in the Canon without an appeal to Sacred Tradition. Or does he accept all NT books simply "Because the Bible Says So"? The book makes a very intriguing case against Sola Scriptura and the bankruptcy of its defense. Even RC Sproul - the respected Protestant scholar - admits, almost despairingly, that all Protestants can say is that all they have is a fallible collection of infallible books in their Bible. I think Mr. Sproul is being honest but he didn't go far enough. I would say that since Protestants don't recognize any infallible authority outside the Bible, all they have is a fallible collection of *hopefully* infallible books. Not very comforting. "Not By Scripture Alone" is an in-depth treatment of all the arguments for and against this most important tenet of the Protestant faith. All in all, though, as with any debate dealing with theological truth: "There is enough light to give hope to the seeker, enough darkness to blind the arrogant unbeliever and keep the believer humble." Blaise Pascal, as quoted on p. 64 of this book.
Rating:
Summary: The foundation of Protestantism thoroughly refuted!
Review: When a Protestant discusses the faith with a Catholic the words, "show me where it says that in the Bible" will always come up. By saying this, the Protestant assumes that everything concerning faith and morals is WRITTEN explicity in the pages of Scripture. But is this assumption itself a biblical teaching?. To the surprise of most people the answer is no! The Bible nowhere states or implies that the Bible alone is the only rule of faith for the believer. Do you think differently? Then you must read this book. "Not by Scripture Alone" is a thorough review of how Scripture should be used in the life of a believer. Those who hold to the idea of Sola Scriptura, have rejected the biblical teaching of an authoritative Church (Matt 18:17) and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thes 2:15). This book handles all the issues one by one and demonstrates that a true Bible-believing Christian can not believe in the Bible Alone theory. I congratulate the authors of this fine book. I know that this book will help people come home to the fullness of the Christian faith that can only be found in the Catholic Church. Reviewed by Gospel Truth Ministries.
Rating: 
Summary: The RCC embraces false tradition that contradicts scripture
Review: While I am not a Roman Catholic (I am an Orthodox) I highly recommend this work to anyone interested in the subject of sola scriptura. While there are a few things in this book regarding specifically Catholic teachings that I would contest, the majority of the material is utterly excellent. The arguments against sola scriptura are thoroughly reasonable, biblical and historical. The book really shows just how little biblical evidence advocates of sola scriptura have in their favor (i.e. none). This book basically answers just about every question regarding the sola scriptura debate. Good stuff.
| 
