Bryan Cross at Called to Communion posted a response to Keith Mathison’s book, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” Dr. Mathison’s detailed response to Bryan Cross may be found at the following link (link). Dr. Mathison nails many of the central issues, without trying to be exhaustive. In particular, I think that the readers may enjoy the first portion of the response in which Dr. Mathison dismantles Rome’s claims for herself.
Dr. Mathison sums up the matter well in these words:
Although the paper by Cross and Judisch begins with a critique of my sola/solo distinction and then moves on to the issue of apostolic succession and the nature of the church, it is necessary to deal with the issue of the church first because presuppositions about the church color all of the rest. If one assumes the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, then the differences I allege between sola scriptura and solo scriptura become invisible, but if one does not assume the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, the differences can be discerned. It is necessary, therefore, to begin with a discussion of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church.