Old Church Traditions

[Roblox84]

I would like to know what is the protestants position on the church traditions that took place before the reformation and why all the teachings of that time were accepted by early reformists but aren’t good enough to be used in the church today.

Most of the Catholic teachings which are still in use today were practiced by all people before the reform, so what is the justification that was made to exclude all those practices from protestant teachings today? Luther himself believed in these Catholic teachings, yet under his own authority he edited the bible to his own liking. So why was God’s word not good enough for people years later? Wouldn’t this sound like a person that has lost his faith in the word of God?

And lastly, I understand that most people aren’t informed about the “extra” 7 books of the bible, or were probably told their whole life that Catholics added those books in. But what makes people follow a religion knowing that the man who started it took away from the bible and even regretted for what he has done.

 

[JonNC]

=Roblox84;6289711]I would like to know what is the protestants position on the church traditions that took place before the reformation and why all the teachings of that time were accepted by early reformists but aren’t good enough to be used in the church today.

Can’t speak for Protestants, but Lutherans accept the early ecumenical councils and the Three Creeds. Not sure which teachings you are talking about, so perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean.

Most of the Catholic teachings which are still in use today were practiced by all people before the reform, so what is the justification that was made to exclude all those practices from protestant teachings today?

Again, you need to elaborate on which teachings.

Luther himself believed in these Catholic teachings, yet under his own authority he edited the bible to his own liking.

Other than to rearrange the Deutero-canonical books into a section between the OT and NT, and actually adding the Prayer of Manassas not included in the typical western Bible of the time, Luther did not edit the Bible, he translated it into German. Again, you need to elaborate.

So why was God’s word not good enough for people years later? Wouldn’t this sound like a person that has lost his faith in the word of God?

God’s word is just fine to us. The fact that Luther held similar views of the canon as many others, from Jerome to Cajetan, simply means he held views like many others through history.

And lastly, I understand that most people aren’t informed about the “extra” 7 books of the bible, or were probably told their whole life that Catholics added those books in. But what makes people follow a religion knowing that the man who started it took away from the bible and even regretted for what he has done.

Now I am confused. First, all Protestant communions follow the Christian religion, like Catholics do. Second, who are you talking about here? If Luther, could you please link to where Luther regretted his view of the canon, or his translation?

Jon

 

[wmscott]

Can’t speak for Protestants, but Lutherans accept the early ecumenical councils and the Three Creeds. Not sure which teachings you are talking about, so perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean.

Again, you need to elaborate on which teachings.

Other than to rearrange the Deutero-canonical books into a section between the OT and NT, and actually adding the Prayer of Manassas not included in the typical western Bible of the time, Luther did not edit the Bible, he translated it into German. Again, you need to elaborate.

God’s word is just fine to us. The fact that Luther held similar views of the canon as many others, from Jerome to Cajetan, simply means he held views like many others through history.

Now I am confused. First, all Protestant communions follow the Christian religion, like Catholics do. Second, who are you talking about here? If Luther, could you please link to where Luther regretted his view of the canon, or his translation?

Jon

Hi Jon, I know you have clarified things on this subject before. I have forgotten what you have put into perspective regarding a few claims about Martin Luther. I am not trying to be inflammatory or make any accusations, just that I know that you had addressed these things in proper perspective and wanted to hear them again. Did he or did the reformers remove the dutero’s from the canon of the Bible. Did ML want to remove Hebrews, James, and Revelation from the bible. lastly about the “Faith Alone” thing, did he want to add the word “Faith” to the particular passage, I think it is in James, so that he could get past the works issue.

Thanks in advance for clarifying these questions. Peace.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I would like to know what is the protestants position on the church traditions that took place before the reformation and why all the teachings of that time were accepted by early reformists but aren’t good enough to be used in the church today.

Most of the Catholic teachings which are still in use today were practiced by all people before the reform, so what is the justification that was made to exclude all those practices from protestant teachings today? Luther himself believed in these Catholic teachings, yet under his own authority he edited the bible to his own liking. So why was God’s word not good enough for people years later? Wouldn’t this sound like a person that has lost his faith in the word of God?

And lastly, I understand that most people aren’t informed about the “extra” 7 books of the bible, or were probably told their whole life that Catholics added those books in. But what makes people follow a religion knowing that the man who started it took away from the bible and even regretted for what he has done.

The early reformers did not reject the concept of Apostolic Tradition. What they rejected was the justification of several Catholic beliefs under the convenient title of “Tradition.” Indeed frequently both Luther and Calvin appealed to the early Church Fathers, Augustine in particular, to validate their claims. Whether you agree they did so appropriately is another matter, but they didn’t wholly reject Holy Tradition.

As for Martin Luther and editing the Bible - his chief focus was against the deuterocanonicals, which were not officially in the Catholic Bible at the time, so he was free to disagree with them. He did rail against the epistle of James, which, it should be noted, was still disputed at the time, as was the Book of Revelation. Because the epistles of Paul were considered definitively authoritative, Luther thought that James’ seeming contradiction of it validated claims of its errors.

That being said, Luther’s followers did not approve of his ideas concerning James. Some of his colleagues rejected modifying the canon.

 

[wmscott]

The early reformers did not reject the concept of Apostolic Tradition. What they rejected was the justification of several Catholic beliefs under the convenient title of “Tradition.” Indeed frequently both Luther and Calvin appealed to the early Church Fathers, Augustine in particular, to validate their claims. Whether you agree they did so appropriately is another matter, but they didn’t wholly reject Holy Tradition.

As for Martin Luther and editing the Bible - his chief focus was against the deuterocanonicals, which were not officially in the Catholic Bible at the time, so he was free to disagree with them. He did rail against the epistle of James, which, it should be noted, was still disputed at the time, as was the Book of Revelation. Because the epistles of Paul were considered definitively authoritative, Luther thought that James’ seeming contradiction of it validated claims of its errors.

That being said, Luther’s followers did not approve of his ideas concerning James. Some of his colleagues rejected modifying the canon.

Not sure if you were also addressing some of the issues I asked Jon about, however can you clarify or expand on your statement " deuterocanonicals, which were not officially in the Catholic Bible at the time". Thanks, Peace

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Not sure if you were also addressing some of the issues I asked Jon about, however can you clarify or expand on your statement " deuterocanonicals, which were not officially in the Catholic Bible at the time". Thanks, Peace

The deuterocanonicals were not officially incorporated into the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. Up to that time they were up for debate. The Orthodox Church, however if I recall correctly, had long included them in its canon, with the addition of some other “apocryphal” books.

 

[wmscott]

The deuterocanonicals were not officially incorporated into the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. Up to that time they were up for debate. The Orthodox Church, however if I recall correctly, had long included them in its canon, with the addition of some other “apocryphal” books.

Thanks for your response, actually the deuterocanonicals have been a part of the Catholic canon since the Council of Carthage in 397. The reason the Catholic Church infallibly defines issues is when there are controversies that need to be once and for all put to rest. The inclusions of the deuterocanonicals were never an issue until the Reformation. This is the reason that at the Council of Trent in 1556 that the Catholic Church infallibly defined the canon of the Bible with the deuterocanonicals. They were always there, The OT canon from the Council of Carthage in 397 is identical to Catholic canon of today. Peace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The deuterocanonicals were not officially incorporated into the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. Up to that time they were up for debate. The Orthodox Church, however if I recall correctly, had long included them in its canon, with the addition of some other “apocryphal” books.

The infallible decision of the canon of the Bible was made in face of the dangers of scriptures changing through the men of the reformation.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

**Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon. **

**The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. **

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.

The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)

The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).

 

[wmscott]

The infallible decision of the canon of the Bible was made in face of the dangers of scriptures changing through the men of the reformation.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.

The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)

The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).

Thanks, I went for the abbreviated version. Peace.

 

[SyCarl]

The infallible decision of the canon of the Bible was made in face of the dangers of scriptures changing through the men of the reformation.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

**Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon. **

**The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. **

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.

The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)

The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).

You would think that a Pope would have known if the canon had been fixed at the earlier local councils. But Pope Gregory the Great seems to say that 1 Maccabees is not canonical.

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.-Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 3, Book 19, Paragraph 34)

lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html

And Eleazar, the son of Saura, saw one of the beasts harnessed with the king’s harness: and it was higher than the other beasts; and it seemed to him that the king was on it: And he exposed himself to deliver his people, and to get himself an everlasting name. And he ran up to it boldly in the midst of the legion, killing on the right hand, and on the left, and they fell by him on this side and that side. And he went between the feet of the elephant, and put himself under it: and slew it, and it fell to the ground upon him, and he died there.
(1Ma 6:43-46 DRB)

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The infallible decision of the canon of the Bible was made in face of the dangers of scriptures changing through the men of the reformation.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

**Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon. **

**The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. **

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.

The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)

The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).

Which essentially validates what I was saying. It wasn’t officially incorporated until the Council of Trent. If it wasn’t infallibly declared beforehand, then there could be debate on the matter. The deutercanonicals in particular were always subject to debate, as were various books of the New Testament.

Whether the deuterocanonicals are scripture or not is, in my opinion, a separate issue, but given that, like you stated yourself, the deuterocanonicals were not yet “infallibly” accepted before Trent, Luther was essentially able to question it (had they been “infallibly” defined beforehand, then probably not). Thus what Luther did was not radical nor preposterous.

The same goes for his wariness (not rejection) of some New Testament books. I am going to rephrase my earlier comments - Luther did not modify the canon by any means. All of the disputed books (including the apocrypha/deutero) were included in his German-language Bible. However, he did put a preface on some of them affirming his personal questioning of their canonicity, yet leaving others to form their own conclusions, which was in fact a common practice.

The infamous attack on James being an “epistle of straw” is also blown over proportion and out of context.

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”

Luther’s detractors generally avoid the inconvenient context of the verse and put meaning that Luther did not attach to his own words.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which essentially validates what I was saying. It wasn’t officially incorporated until the Council of Trent. If it wasn’t infallibly declared beforehand, then there could be debate on the matter. The deutercanonicals in particular were always subject to debate, as were various books of the New Testament.

(Deleted issues that cloud the topic, as I’m understanding it.)

Let’s clarify the statement even further. Those books were in use, as part of the canon, long before the council of Trent. This means that no infallible decision was necessary until the Protestant reformers starting viewing possible changes, including the decision to go with a different canon that was not used by the Christian Church for over a 1000 years prior to them doing so.

 

[aspirant]

The deuterocanonicals were not officially incorporated into the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.

Their divine inspiration had already been affirmed by an Ecumenical Council before Luther was born.

 

[Roblox84]

So if Luther agreed with the doctrine of the Virgin Mary as well as confession to a priest, was it the later denominations that came hundreds of years after the reform that decided to leave those out of their church teachings to conform to what their people wanted to believe?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You would think that a Pope would have known if the canon had been fixed at the earlier local councils. But Pope Gregory the Great seems to say that 1 Maccabees is not canonical.

lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html

Did Pope Gregory infallibly say it was not a part of the canon?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So if Luther agreed with the doctrine of the Virgin Mary as well as confession to a priest, was it the later denominations that came hundreds of years after the reform that decided to leave those out of their church teachings?

I’m not sure how much later, but yes. Luther’s separation from the Catholic Church came from his objection to the Church selling indulgences. I believe he changed his view on other doctrines as time passed, but initially he was in agreement with other doctrines.

In present day, the Lutheran Church still holds to some sacraments that the majority of Protestants reject. But, I’ll leave this for our Lutheran brothers and sisters to clarify for us and hopefull provide resources to support differences.

 

[SyCarl]

Did Pope Gregory infallibly say it was not a part of the canon?

Probably not since papal infallibility wasn’t defined until Vatican 1. Or can you give me a list of infallible papal statements prior to Ineffabilis Deus in 1854?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Probably not since papal infallibility wasn’t defined until Vatican 1. Or can you give me a list of infallible papal statements prior to Ineffabilis Deus in 1854?

Very good, you answered that for yourself.

Care to share when the doctrine first began to develop? Or maybe name some of the theologians that discussed papal infallibility when the Pope spoke on faith and morals? Men like Thomas Aquinas, who died around 1274.

I have almost 10 more hours of this 48 hour shift to go. I need to get some sleep, just incase there are more calls to answer too tonight. Feel free to look up some of this information. I’ll be back on tomorrow sometime, good Lord willing.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, I know you have clarified things on this subject before. I have forgotten what you have put into perspective regarding a few claims about Martin Luther. I am not trying to be inflammatory or make any accusations, just that I know that you had addressed these things in proper perspective and wanted to hear them again. Did he or did the reformers remove the dutero’s from the canon of the Bible. Did ML want to remove Hebrews, James, and Revelation from the bible. lastly about the “Faith Alone” thing, did he want to add the word “Faith” to the particular passage, I think it is in James, so that he could get past the works issue.

Thanks in advance for clarifying these questions. Peace.

Hi wmscott,
Never known you to be inflammatory.
I’m going to link to James Swan’s blog, as it has a very good article about the issue of Luther and the canon.
For Luther and the Lutheran reformers, they took the few, held by many others befoer them, that the dueteros were not at the same level as the rest of scripture, that they were good and valuable to read and study, but probably should not be used to set doctrine. And I think that was their distinction, not that they be thrown out, but be wary of using them as doctrine. The D-C’s are referenced in the Lutheran Confessions, and the Lutheran reformers often read and taught from them in sermons.
Since you’ve read what I think about this before, you know that I, for one, am not convinced that the Lutheran Church is completely right about the D-C’s, and I certainly believe Bibles used by Lutherans ought to have them, as is the practice in Europe.

As for Romans 3:28, after his usual hyperbole, he explains the need for allein in the German, to express the intent of Paul. And it is interesting to note that no English translation that I’m aware of has “alone” in the verse.

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
Jon

 

[JonNC]

So if Luther agreed with the doctrine of the Virgin Mary as well as confession to a priest, was it the later denominations that came hundreds of years after the reform that decided to leave those out of their church teachings to conform to what their people wanted to believe?

Don’t know. Maybe some will respond who is a member of one of those communions.
Lutherans, on the other hand, continue to practice confession / Holy Absolution, though private confession is not practiced as commonly as in the Catholic Church.

As for marian teachings, Lutherans do not have a particular doctrine about them. They are considered adiaphora, meaning the believer is free to believe as they wish about them, because scripture does not identify these beliefs as necessary for salvation. For example, I personally believe in the Blessed Virgin’s perpetual virginity, my pastor does not. The only marian belief specifically discussed in the Confessions is invocation, which is rejected in large measure because of the abuses of it at Luther’s time.

One other note: simply because Luther believed or taught something does not make it anything more than Luther’s beliefs or teachings. Lutherans are held to scripture and the Confessions, not to Luther himself. In addition, no other Protestant communion, that I know of, is a plinter off of Lutheranism. Most either developed in the same time frame, or have splintered off those groups, even though they may agree with some of Luther’s teachings.

Hope that clarifies some things for you.
Jon