He argues that relativism and individualism permeate present-day teaching on the subject, and that widespread misunderstanding of the doctrine of sola scriptura has been eroding the church from within.

[1] A Reformed Presbyterian reviewer wrote that the book "points to the importance of covenant communities — the organized church — and away from an individualized interpretation of Scripture.

"[2] A Latin Rite Roman Catholic reviewer objected to Matthison's book in detail.

In summary, he wrote "Sola scriptura enthrones one’s own personal interpretation of the bible and dethrones the proper authority, the Church.

"[4] Mathison uses historical data and factual analyses to better explain the actual meaning of sola scriptura.

In his book, Mathison builds upon historian Heiko Oberman's illustrations talking about four types of traditions that were formed 1.

"Tradition I" - espoused sole, one-source revelation (Scripture alone); Mathison argues that this was the position taken by the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to take the position of the early Church; they believed that the Canon was compiled by the early Church to prevent its tradition from meandering from orthodoxy; Canon is to be final infallible authority; "although Scripture is the sole infalliable authority, it must be interpreted by the Church within the boundaries of the ancient rule of faith or regula fidei" (Mathison 147); tradition is in subordination to Scripture and it must coincide with Scripture (e.g. the Ecumenical Creeds).

"Tradition 0" Nuda Scriptura - position taken by Radical Reformers and many modern-day evangelicals, stripping all ecumenical creeds and church heritage and history to follow Bible only; termed in Mathison's book as "solo scriptura"; Mathison notes that this position can be sometimes mistaken by being linked with Tradition I.