Well, I googled "boar in the vineyard" and I found the original reference. Gave me a chuckle, thanks for that.
My pleasure!
Perhaps I would be more accurate in defining the alternate as "ecclesial authority of the church as expressed in holy tradition". I was using apostolic succession to refer to the alternative, as a place-marker, if you will, and did not intend to mean that it is itself the entire solution.
Again brother, sola scriptura asserts the absolute necessity of ecclesial authority. An episcopal form of government, presbyterian, or a congregational one are all clear examples of the fact that sola scriptura requires the church and it's authority. Apostolic succession is simply something attached to an episcopal form of government and as I've mentioned, it's not unique to RCC or EO (nor is an episcopal model which exists even in churches who do not have apostolic succession such as Methodists). The point is that all of this again points to the fact that we in no way reject the authority of the church. The real question is "what authority does the church have?"
It is, however, one one essential part of the formula that is the requirements for the church, that is, it must be apostolic in origin (there are perhaps 3 or maybe 4 bodies which claim this). If the church does not have a historical tie, by means of apostolic succession, they cannot claim to be apostolic.
Well that's one way of looking at it. Another quite simple way of looking at it (and the
one supported by Scripture) is simply that a church is apostolic if it follows the teachings of the apostles. Where do we find the teachings of the apostles? Scripture.
Of course in this view, apostolic succession is not a requirement, but rather that we are holding to the apostles teachings. The only place we can all go to in order to affirm their teachings in Scripture. No one can confirm the validity of an oral tradition. But one can can affirm a written one, and thus, any church which follows the teachings of the apostles as revealed in Scripture bears this "mark" of the church.
I disagree with you that apostolic succession is not found in scripture however, but I won't make this a large point of contention here (for the moment, at least).
I understand. But if you do, I'd remind you to avoid eisegesis. Why? Because an episcopal government does not require "apostolic succession." So in order to establish this claim that it is scriptural, you'll need to show it's definition from Scripture along with proof of this definition.
I agree there are real differences between the two, but I believe it boils down to interpretative authority, and whether that is in the individual or the church. I believe both place the ultimate authority in the individual, which I will discuss later.
Amen. As I've mentioned over and over again, sola scriptura assumes that the individual is under the church.
Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
"Whereas solo scriptura rejects the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, sola scriptura affirms the interpretive authority of the Church and the derivative authority of the creeds, except when they teach something contrary to ones conscience, as informed by ones own interpretation of Scripture."
No. This is the definition of solo or nuda scriptura (notice the bold part). If everyone gets a veto button and is allowed to hit it on any doctrine they don't like then they are not under the authority of the church. This is what allows Rob Bell, like St. Issac the Syrian before him, to spew the same old heresy in a new way. The only difference is that Rob Bell is not bound by anything (solo scriptura) whereas St. Issac, being a holy man, is treated as a part of tradition and thus, his teachings are quietly allowed (prima scriptura or regula fide).
I refer to it as the middleman here, because it's authority is subjected to the authority of scripture. Here's a picture from the SS POV of authority:
Scripture---->Church---->Believer
Scripture has authority over Church, and Church has authority over believer. But does it? The Believer cannot be bound to the church, unless the church is bound to scripture. But how does the Believer actually determine whether the church is bound to scripture? Individual interpretation. Therefore, the believer is ultimately subservient to the scripture, not the church, where the church acts as a middle-man, in this sense. I'll say more on this later, after I get more feedback from you regarding the above passage.
Do you see what you're doing here brother? You're assuming a definition of "the church" prior to this thought and erroneously calling this definition sola scriptura. As I said earlier, the real question is "what authority does the church have?"
So in reality, how one defines the church will give you a clear answer to this question. From a classical Protestant (Magisterial Reformers) POV, a church is a body of believers where the Gospel is taught and the sacraments distributed. Implicit in this definition is the belief that the Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ as the substitutionary atonement for our sins and expressed in the doctrine of sola gratia/sola fide. The sacraments are the two revealed in Scripture, baptism and the eucharist.
Notice, there is no claim of any part of the body to be the "One and Only True Church." Notice also that if one is a member in this part of the body, and this body, the church, is holding faithfully to these requirements, then one should respect their authority on matters where the church has authority. But of course, in this POV, the church also does not claim that it has the ability to infallibly bind or lose the interpretation of any given doctrine. Outside of these bare essentials, the church is not understood to have the authority to interpret Scripture infallibly, but simply to the best of it's ability.
So you see, your entire question assumes that the church is basically RCC or EO to begin with (and not as you claim, SS). None of your concerns really apply to the Protestant or evangelical understanding of "the church." Why? Because the individual is not assumed to be "subservient" to the church in all matters of doctrine and practice.
So what you really need to ask before you can ask these questions is "what authority does the church have" and "what authority does Scripture have?" Only then can you really see why this argument is only valid for RCC or EO Christians who already reject sola scriptura.
BTW, welcome to the "via media!" Not sure how long you've been a member, but I think traditional anglicans share much more in common with the EO than most denominations do.
Thanks, but remember, Anglicans are
Protestants who shed their blood for the beliefs expressed in the five solas. We also don't claim to be The One True Church, but rather Christians first, and a specific type of Christian second....