Well is it not the same as “Sola Fide”?
Adamski,
No, it is not the same as sola fide. Sola fide is a recognition that by no other means, by no merit or actions can we come to faith, which is a gift by grace. It is not an excuse to ignore the responsibilities we have as the regenerate - to obey His commands.
Not uncharitable, just not understanding what *sola scriptura *means. *Sola scriptura * is the practice of holding all teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma accountable to scripture as the final norm. It doesn’t eliminate the Church, nor does it exclude doctrine. And in fact, properly done, it is a practice of the Church, not the individual. As a Lutheran I am bound to the teachings of the Church, and have no place, regarding doctrine, to interpret scripture myself.
All right, here is the proof text.
I agree there are many more texts that disprove OSAS but this one presents three concepts that are difficult to disprove:
You do realize that the Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of separate works. The Old Testament has been around for centuries and would certainly have been available to the first Christian communities. The oldest extant versions of the canonical gospels have been dated from as early as the 60s AD to 100 AD. While the Bible in its present form was not available, the individual books certainly were available long before 300 years after the death of Christ.
The question is…how widespread is the availability without the printing press? Books, individual books were copied by hand…and take into account…it was expensive to have a copy made…and the fact that very few could read.
Maybe you see something I don’t, but the SBC did not pass any such resolution stating that pastors were the “rulers of the church” in 1988. Maybe Dr. Rick McClatchy and Dr. Bruce Prescott have references to back up their claim but I could not find them with a 15 min google search. Even if such a resolution was passed, it’s important to understand the structure of the SBC and the power of resolutions. The SBC is essentially a union of local churches for the advancement of missions. It expresses doctrine by consensus from its members. It does not dictate doctrine. Any resolution passed by the SBC has no authority if the local church rejects it.
The 1988 resolution was a resolution on the Priesthood of the Believer. It contains a number of recitals, but only the last two lines are pertinent to the authority of pastors. Here they are:
I know this was a highly controversial resolution, even to the point of people walking out of the convention, but I have never understood why.
Interesting. You ask how anyone gets “once saved always saved” out of the bible, then later assert that since people interpret scripture in different ways, “quoting scripture is useless.” Finally, you say you are looking for historical evidence from Anabaptists, whose teachings, as I understand it, endure today in the Amish and Mennonite communities.
The vast majority of OSAS adherants do not use it at all as an excuse for sin. On the contrary, they believe that one must manifest the works that befit repentance, and that a person who is truly saved will manifest the fruits of the Spirit in their lives.
I think most of what is in Scripture is not subject to “proof” in the modern scientific method. That brings it down to a matter of perspective or interpretation.
I think you hit this nail on the head. Not sure exactly what the OP wants, but if he really wants to know the answer to the original question, he will be willing to put in some study, and perhaps have a little more open attitude when people of good faith attempt to answer the question!
I’m not of a OSAS communion, but I have undetstood that it is directly tied to irresistable grace, meaning that once one is regenerate, one cannot lose that status. ISTM that one can, by their actions, condemn themselves, by rejecting grace.
