Astralis
I will let Pilgrim give a more thorough answer, but I thought maybe you were misunderstanding something.

I will deal with Solo Scriptura first.
If Solo Scriptura was the true biblical model, it would mean that Scripture was open to private interpretation (see 2 Peter 1:20).
In Roman Catholic tradition, they recognize their tradition and interpretation of Scripture as being on par with Scripture.
Sola Scripture on the other hand recognizes the value of people gifted in interpreting the Bible, but realizes that unlike the infallible Word of God, man being fallible can error. Hence their interpretation is only as good as it is biblical. For correct interpretation, the infallible (Scripture) must be compared with the infallible (Scripture).
Confessions such as the WCF and the LBCF were created to combat heresy. But they hold firmly to Sola Scriptura.
The Reformers (who believed in Sola Scriptura) fought on two fronts, against the Roman Catholic side of the issue and those who went too far (those who believed in Solo Scriptura). Though I believe the term "Solo Scriptura" wasn't coined until years later.

I don’t see anywhere in Matheson’s article that conflicts with this.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:57 PM.