i think that the idea of sola scriptura is good, but with severe qualification:

1) put the phrase in context. this was a way for the reformers to separate themselves from the papacy by subscribing to an alternative authority structure. of course even then it became colored by the various traditions that popped up out of the reformation. i don't for a second subscribe to it as an absolute to govern the church due to its origins or its inherent fallibility. nonetheless i think it's a good idea to check against our authority structures.

2) it is never scripture alone, but scripture as legitimated through a given traditional authoritative interpretation of it. sola scriptura is always through the medium of a tradition which is why we will always have disputes and have had them since the reformation. by critiquing the social boundaries of tradition i am, by default, critiquing the way that sola scriptura actually has reinforced traditional boundaries. either one of them is right and the rest are damned, or all of them are flawed. evidence points to the latter and if so, god is revealed in far more places than "the church."

general revelation can be salvific, but does not do much if one has no clue what it is. then again, i am not sure many christians understand what it really means. baptism should be followed by teaching for this reason.

I am not following either your supposition or conclusion.

Could you explain to me how you begin with this "The model of Christendom is that God is specially revealed in specific religious structures and social systems – the denominations. " Where is "sola Scriptura" in this? Or are you somehow conflating and subsuming the Catholic view of special revelation in Scripture and in church tradition as the two pillars? You also seem to combine both General and Special revelation or do you not see any distinction between the two?

Is General Revelation therefore salvific in your view?

i think that the idea of sola scriptura is good, but with severe qualification:

1) put the phrase in context. this was a way for the reformers to separate themselves from the papacy by subscribing to an alternative authority structure. of course even then it became colored by the various traditions that popped up out of the reformation. i don't for a second subscribe to it as an absolute to govern the church due to its origins or its inherent fallibility. nonetheless i think it's a good idea to check against our authority structures.

2) it is never scripture alone, but scripture as legitimated through a given traditional authoritative interpretation of it. sola scriptura is always through the medium of a tradition which is why we will always have disputes and have had them since the reformation. by critiquing the social boundaries of tradition i am, by default, critiquing the way that sola scriptura actually has reinforced traditional boundaries. either one of them is right and the rest are damned, or all of them are flawed. evidence points to the latter and if so, god is revealed in far more places than "the church."

general revelation can be salvific, but does not do much if one has no clue what it is. then again, i am not sure many christians understand what it really means. baptism should be followed by teaching for this reason.

I am not following either your supposition or conclusion.

Could you explain to me how you begin with this "The model of Christendom is that God is specially revealed in specific religious structures and social systems – the denominations. " Where is "sola Scriptura" in this? Or are you somehow conflating and subsuming the Catholic view of special revelation in Scripture and in church tradition as the two pillars? You also seem to combine both General and Special revelation or do you not see any distinction between the two?

Is General Revelation therefore salvific in your view?

If that is the case then there are places/communities that we (I) don't belong (based on our own self-selection), which was the point of my post…I think?