protestants, please help

[ltwin]

1. If the Reformers believe that the Bible is their only authority, then why do they rely on (St.) Augustine’s writing so much? In fact, why do they rely on any of the early church fathers or councils?

Because the magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Anglicans, etc.) did not believe or teach that the Bible was “their only authority.” They taught that all other ideas, authors, and practices should be under the authority of Scripture and held accountable to Scripture. They could affirm such things outside of Scripture that agreed with Scripture, but they were not willing to affirm what was not in agreement with Scripture.

Once you get to the radical Reformers, the answer might be different. But if you’re talking about Luther and Calvin, then you are misrepresenting what they believed.

1. How do they justify their position that the Bible is their only authority? In Matthew’s gospel, the great commission, Jesus dispatches the apostles to preach to the whole world. Jesus didn’t tell them to write a book (NT books). The Reformers’ position is, that if “it” isn’t in the Bible, then it’s not important. So, why did all those guys write the NT and why should anybody believe it?

The problem is that you have misunderstood the position of the Reformers. Sola Scriptura as articulated by Luther has nothing to do with rejecting what isn’t in the Bible. His position was that all things (including Tradition) must be judged as to whether they conform to Scripture. Traditions and writings that conform to Scripture are useful; those they are contrary to Scripture are not.

1. With the preceding confusion in my mind, I now add a question about Jesus’s command not to call anyone “father.” In Romans 4:16-17, Paul calls Abraham the father of us all, and God calls Abraham the father of many nations. What kind of authority is this, with such conflicting direction? How do Protestants resolve this.

Protestants probably are/were reacting to the over hierarchical obsession they perceived in the Catholic Church. They are also probably affirming and stressing their concept of the priesthood of all believers and that, in Christ, we are all equal before God, who alone is Father of us all.

(As an aside, there are Protestants who refer to important spiritual influences over their life as “spiritual fathers”. It’s not used as a title but simply a term of love and appreciation.)

 

[JonNC]

=sirach2v4;10950976]Protestants, please help.

If am a cradle Catholic, and I’m trying to understand the Protestant faith. Nothing said here is an attack on those faiths.

First understand that there is not a “Protestant faith”. That would imply a singular communion with a singular origin. Neither is the case.

I’ve been reading Yaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume series of books on the history of the development of Christian doctrine. I’m up to volume 4 on the Reformation. He depicts the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) in ways that I cannot comprehend.

1. If the Reformers believe that the Bible is their only authority, then why do they rely on (St.) Augustine’s writing so much? In fact, why do they rely on any of the early church fathers or councils?

Only speaking as a Lutheran, we see scripture as the sole final norm used by the Church to hold teachers, doctrines, etc accountable. We further rely on the ECFs and early councils as witnesses to the truth of the faith. It is typical in the confessions to support our teaching using scripture, the Fathers, and the early Church. That is the practice of sola scriptura.

1. How do they justify their position that the Bible is their only authority? In Matthew’s gospel, the great commission, Jesus dispatches the apostles to preach to the whole world. Jesus didn’t tell them to write a book (NT books). The Reformers’ position is, that if “it” isn’t in the Bible, then it’s not important. So, why did all those guys write the NT and why should anybody believe it?

With all respect, this is simply a false understanding of sola scriptura in that it attempts to set up the practice against the role of the Church, when in fact SS is a tool of the Church. We do not see the practice of SS as an authority in opposition to the authority of theChurch.
It was not the position of the Lutheran reformers that if it isn’t in the Bible it isn’t important. A quick read through the confessions disproves the notion that nothing but the Bible matters.
What we do believe is that those councils and Fathers and their teachings are held accountable to scripture. We accept the 7 councils and the 3 creeds, and our confessions reference numerous Fathers on a variety of teachings.

1. With the preceding confusion in my mind, I now add a question about Jesus’s command not to call anyone “father.” In Romans 4:16-17, Paul calls Abraham the father of us all, and God calls Abraham the father of many nations. What kind of authority is this, with such conflicting direction? How do Protestants resolve this.

This is not an issue for Lutherans. While not commonplace in America, it is not unheard of for Lutherans to call a pastor “Father”. In fact, you will frequently see knowledgeable Lutherans refer to Luther as Father Martin. And, I often called my dad Father.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=KEP1983;10952508]In my 10 or so years as a Protestant I never ever heard the Church Fathers referred to during a sermon. I would hear vague references about Early Christians (never the term “Church Father”), and to my memory, it almost always dealt with the early persecution-- first from the Romans and then from the Roman Catholics. haha.

But I never heard a Pastor refer to the writings of the Church Fathers.

I’m sure that’s quite possible in some traditions. My experiences as a lifelong Lutheran and my occasional contacts with Anglicans are quite contrary to yours.

My conception of the Early Church was that it was a Protestant non-denominational Church, where people gathered together in houses and sang praise music and read from the Bible. Every house would have had its own Pastor. I had no idea that there was a hierarchy of Bishops.

That’s a rather narrow perception of the early Church.

But even if you bring up the Early Church to a Protestant, they may not listen to it very much. The mindset of “sola scriptura” is very much against “tradition.” In fact, if it’s not in the Bible then it’s a “tradition” which can be very dangeous. Protestants can be very fearful of “traditions.”

A very broad-brush generality. Generally speaking, generalities about Protestants are generally of little value, at least in a general sense.
This is a horrendous misunderstanding of SS.

When I started looking more into Catholic vs Protestant discussions I eventually did hear more about the Early Church, and I also realized that Protestants would appeal to St Augustine a lot. St Augustine has some ideas that can seem Calvinist when taken out of context. But as a Protestant I thought it was strange, because if you’re going to say the Early Church was Protestant and then the Catholic Church corrupted it, why were we appealing so much to Augustine and not to other Early Church Fathers? But that’s not the Protestant mindset I’m expressing here, that was the Catholic truth creeping in.

Again, a perception of the early Church far outside anything I ever experienced.

But all in all, the Early Church Fathers were never discussed or thought much of.

See the Lutheran Confessions. But I suspect there are some who avoid them.

I remember when I first decided to convert to Catholicism, I sent my brother some Early Church writings. He wouldn’t even read them. They were dangerous “traditions.”

I also remember when I first decided to convert to Catholicism, I ran into a Pastor with a local radio station on the street. He handed me a flier for his Protestant Church that was held in a gym. I told him thanks, but I’m converting Catholic. He was surprised and asked me why. But before I could even answer his first assumption was that I read the Church Fathers. He seemed to have a distaste for them. He didn’t like it because it was appealing to “tradition,” and Protestant often learn that “traditions” are wrong.

Curious. What communion/denomination was this?

Yes, I thought the Jesus dispatched the Apostles. But their commission was to write the Gospels and Epistles, and then everyone after them simply spread the written word after that. Any concept of Apostleship simply ended with the death of the last Apostle. After that you had Bibles and preachers.

In fact, when I heard about Apostolic succession, I thought it was nearly blasphemous. How can some guy in funny robes claim to be equal to the Apostles???!!

Yeah, silly, huh?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PaulinePresbytr;10951258]I am a former Protestant, so I will try to answer them as best I can

1. They did so probably because they genuinely believed that Augustine agreed with their beliefs regarding salvation theology. Augustine believed in an election, however he did not believe in the arbitrary election and double predestination theology of John Calvin. The Reformers believed that they had an anchor to the past, however they did not.

Ok. I understand your opinion here.

1. They essentially justified it by an appeal to emotion “The Pope can’t tell me what to do” Sola Scriptura has absolutely no foundation in scripture and the reformers had no scriptural basis for it (I am a former Protestant Calvinist. As a Protestant I never heard any argument for Sola Scriptura that wasn’t an appeal to emotion)

I’ve never heard this emotional approach as a Lutheran. The confessions are rather lacking in emotions, apparently, compared to Calvinism. Here’s what the confessions say about SS.

.1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[KEP1983]

I’m sure that’s quite possible in some traditions. My experiences as a lifelong Lutheran and my occasional contacts with Anglicans are quite contrary to yours.

The Lutheran Missouri Synod is very small. It’s certainly not representative of most Protestants. I was a non-denominational Evangelical Protestant. I first went to an Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) Church, and then later went to various non-denominational Churches. I was very much in line with the mainstream Evangelical Protestantism in America.

During the 19th century there was still a lot of differences and arguing between various Protestant denominations. People who really believed their specific denomination were Fundamentalists. The Evangelicals later came along and tried to ignore the differences and unite all the Protestant denominations. Hank Hanegraaff always discusses this with his quote “in essentials unity…”

It sounds like the Lutheran Missouri Synod is stuck in the 19th century Fundamentalism; while the vast majority of American Protestants have moved on to a sort of non-denominational Evangelical Christianity, more along the lines of C.S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity.”

Look at Time Magazines top 25 influential Protestants in America. None of them are Lutheran Missouri Synod.

time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1993235,00.html

That’s a rather narrow perception of the early Church.

But it’s the one most thought of by the average Evangelical in the pews. Again, the Lutheran Missouri Synod only has 2.3 million members worldwide, relative to the 90 million Evangelical Christians in America.

A very broad-brush generality. Generally speaking, generalities about Protestants are generally of little value, at least in a general sense.

Very true. There is no unity in Protestantism, so you can’t generalize something that’s so un-unified.

This is a horrendous misunderstanding of SS.

I went back and forth on a separate thread with you about Sola Scriptura. You’re using a very narrow definition of Sola Scriptura that other Protestants disagree with.

Again, a perception of the early Church far outside anything I ever experienced.

Within the small Lutheran Missouri Synod ecclesial community, yes. But your ecclesial community doesn’t reflect the majority of Evangelical Protestants in America.

See the Lutheran Confessions. But I suspect there are some who avoid them.

As stated, most Protestants in America wouldn’t describe themselves as followers of Lutheran confessions.

Curious. What communion/denomination was this?

Mainstream non-denominational Evangelical Protestantism. I listened to the mainstream guys like Hank Hanegraaff, Jon MacArthur, Chuck Colson, RC Sproul, Dr Michael Brown, etc etc.

To see a good example of how mainstream Protestants treat “tradition,” take a look at some writings by Jon MacArthur, one of the most famous Protestant pastors in America today:

gty.org/resources/articles/a244/scripture-tradition-and-rome-part-1

Yeah, silly, huh?

Apostolic succession isn’t silly. But rather my understanding of Apostolic Succession was silly. The problem was my presupposition-- I assumed that Apostolic Succession meant that Bishops are equal to the Apostles, that like the Apostles they bring new teaching and revelation. That’s what my Protestant mind “heard” when I heard of Apostolic succession. But that’s not what it actually is. Luckily I was open minded enough to listen and understand.

When I first heard of Apostolic Succession, I thought it was the Catholic equivalent of the Protestant “New Apostolic Reformation,” where some Protestants are claiming that there are “new” Apostles bringing new revelation to the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

 

[ltwin]

The Lutheran Missouri Synod is very small. It’s certainly not representative of most Protestants.

You do realize that Lutheranism is larger than the LCMS? Also, the OP’s question was about “the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin)” so to disregard Lutheran views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura as unimportant because non-denominational churches in America have a different view is a little mind-boggling.

During the 19th century there was still a lot of differences and arguing between various Protestant denominations. People who really believed their specific denomination were Fundamentalists. The Evangelicals later came along and tried to ignore the differences and unite all the Protestant denominations. Hank Hanegraaff always discusses this with his quote “in essentials unity…”

It sounds like the Lutheran Missouri Synod is stuck in the 19th century Fundamentalism; while the vast majority of American Protestants have moved on to a sort of non-denominational Evangelical Christianity, more along the lines of C.S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity.”

Actually, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists agree on many things (such as their being fundamentals of the faith). The difference is not that Evangelicals want to ignore differences (that is the Mainline’s job), but they want to engage the culture rather than separate from it. Evangelicals were specifically united against the Ecumencial Movement and the National Council of Churches.

And it was my understanding the LCMS Lutherans avoided labeling themselves as either Fundamentalists or Evangelicals (in the American sense of that word) because they really don’t see themselves as part of those traditions. They are right. Fundamentalism is really something that took root among conservative Presbyterians and Baptists.

 

[ltwin]

I’d recommend anyone interested to read this Christianity Today article. The most interesting part for this discussion is below:

. . . . And here’s the shocker (maybe): the very Reformation teachers who created the principle of the supreme authority of Scripture—sola scriptura—not only recognized this need for a strong, churchly tradition of Biblical interpretation, they embraced it. They were just as convinced as we are that the Bible ought to speak to every aspect of life (heavens, they stood on the shoulders of a millennium-long Christendom tradition of church-state alliance!) But they knew that in addressing both churchly and worldly questions, if you wanted to find the “Christian Way” you had to hold a conversation with pious interpreters from past ages.

Especially, at least for Luther and Calvin, this meant attending to the early church fathers.

While preparing our Issue 80: The First Bible Teachers, we got a chance to talk with noted Reformation scholar David Steinmetz of Duke Divinity School about this. He reminded us that the Reformers worked hard to ensure their own interpretations of Scripture matched those of the Fathers:

"The Reformation is an argument not just about the Bible but about the early Christian fathers, whom the Protestants wanted to claim. This is one of those things that is so obvious nobody has paid much attention to it—then you look and you see it everywhere.

"The Reformers use the Fathers all over the place. We know Calvin read Augustine, and we discovered recently that Luther read Jerome—he had copies annotated in his own hand. The index of Calvin’s Institutes is filled with an enormous number of quotations from the Fathers. And in the first preface to that work, addressed to Francis I, Calvin did his best to show his teachings were in complete harmony with the Fathers.

"The Protestants did this because they were keen to have ancestors. They knew that innovation was another word for heresy. ‘Ours is the ancient tradition,’ they said. ‘The innovations were introduced in the Middle Ages!’ They issued anthologies of the Fathers to show the Fathers had taught what the Reformers were teaching.

"But they also turned to the Fathers because they found them important sources of insight into the text of Scripture. Calvin and Melanchthon both believed it was a very strong argument against a given theological position if you couldn’t find authorization for it in the Fathers.

"All the Reformers loved Augustine (Luther, remember, was an Augustinian friar). Calvin, though he loved Augustine for doctrine, preferred Chrysostom’s approach to biblical interpretation.

"Chrysostom is a verse-by-verse commentator in his sermons. Calvin doesn’t mimic Chrysostom, but he appreciates his model. Augustine flies a little too high above the text for Calvin—he is too quick to go to figures of speech, allegory, and so forth. Chrysostom flies at a lower level.

“Finally, the Reformation was not an argument about everything, but about just some things. It was not, for example, about the Trinity or the two natures of Christ. The Protestants had their own slant on these doctrines, but they agreed basically with Roman Catholics. Both confessed the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. And if we ask where these accepted doctrines came from—they came from the Fathers’ reflections on the Bible!”

 

[KEP1983]

You do realize that Lutheranism is larger than the LCMS? Also, the OP’s question was about “the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin)” so to disregard Lutheran views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura as unimportant because non-denominational churches in America have a different view is a little mind-boggling.

LCMS is different not just from mainstream Evangelical Protestantism, but even from other Lutheran bodies. Look at the LCMS poster here. His religion describes himself as “Evangelical Catholic.” The average Protestant in America would never refer to themselves as an “Evangelical Catholic.”

LCMS is a very unique sect of Protestantismismism. They accept Church councils and traditions (even though Luther said that councils contradicted themselves). LCMS is also pretty conservative, while mainstream Lutheranism tends to be pretty liberal.

churchandthesinglegirl.com/2012/07/17/lcms-vs-ecla-whats-the-difference/

You also can’t really say “to disregard Lutheran views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura . . .” because there are differing interpretations of Sola Scriptura among Lutherans, let alone among Evangelical Protestants.

Actually, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists agree on many things (such as their being fundamentals of the faith). The difference is not that Evangelicals want to ignore differences (that is the Mainline’s job), but they want to engage the culture rather than separate from it. Evangelicals were specifically united against the Ecumencial Movement and the National Council of Churches.

That’s true. I would also add that after 400 years of debating and fighting between Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, Baptists, etc, they eventually realized no one was going to win. They united under a common enemy in the culture war. Of course they’re losing the culture war because Christ Himself said in Matt 12:25 that “a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.”

And it was my understanding the LCMS Lutherans avoided labeling themselves as either Fundamentalists or Evangelicals (in the American sense of that word) because they really don’t see themselves as part of those traditions. They are right. Fundamentalism is really something that took root among conservative Presbyterians and Baptists.

Correct, LCMS don’t view themselves as part of mainstream Evangelical Protestantism or Calvinism. If LCMS is true, then Luther was correct and Calvin and Zwingli were wrong. Not only that, but only the LCMS is correct, not the ELCA or other Lutheran Churches

Most mainstream Protestant denominations hold to the idea that the Bible is true, but no “one” church has the correct interpretation. Hence the idea of the “invisible Church,” made up of “true Christians” who exist in all different denominations. We have unity in the essentials but can squabble about all the other non-essentials.

 

[KEP1983]

First understand that there is not a “Protestant faith”. That would imply a singular communion with a singular origin. Neither is the case.

Only speaking as a Lutheran, we see scripture as the sole final norm used by the Church to hold teachers, doctrines, etc accountable. We further rely on the ECFs and early councils as witnesses to the truth of the faith. It is typical in the confessions to support our teaching using scripture, the Fathers, and the early Church. That is the practice of sola scriptura.

With all respect, this is simply a false understanding of sola scriptura in that it attempts to set up the practice against the role of the Church, when in fact SS is a tool of the Church. We do not see the practice of SS as an authority in opposition to the authority of theChurch.

Perhaps according to the LCMS. Other Protestants (including Lutherans) don’t interpret Sola Scriptura the same way.

What we do believe is that those councils and Fathers and their teachings are held accountable to scripture. We accept the 7 councils and the 3 creeds, and our confessions reference numerous Fathers on a variety of teachings.

Really, Lutheran’s hold to the Councils?

"*Luther returns to the subject of the councils, where some reformers wanted to argue from the councils and try to consolidate them all into one. Luther found this to be useless:
*
"Enough of that! We would show cause why this undertaking is impossible.

In the first place, it is plain that the councils are not only unequal, but even contradictory, and the same is true of the fathers. If we were to try to harmonize them, there would be greater disagreement and disputing than there now is, and we should never get out of it anymore. For since they are unlike and often contradictory, our first undertaking would be to see how we could** cull out the best and let the rest go. Then the trouble would start!**

One would say, ‘If we are going to keep them, we must keep all or nothing.’ Another would say, ‘You are culling out what you like, and leaving what you do not like.’ Who will be the umpire?""

Again, we see that what Luther taught is much different than what LCMS or ELCA teach. Like most Protestant denominations, you can’t get one interpretation of even a simple teaching such as Sola Scriptura and the role of Councils (or the lack thereof).

 

[ltwin]

LCMS is different not just from mainstream Evangelical Protestantism, but even from other Lutheran bodies. Look at the LCMS poster here. His religion describes himself as “Evangelical Catholic.” The average Protestant in America would never refer to themselves as an “Evangelical Catholic.”

To the “average” (I assume you mean non-denoms) American Protestant “evangelical” refers Evangelicalism or “born again Christianity.” However, to Lutherans, “evangelical” refers to something different.

LCMS is a very unique sect of Protestantismismism. They accept Church councils and traditions (even though Luther said that councils contradicted themselves).

Luther accepted church councils. Calvin accepted church councils. Come to think of it, no Protestant rejects church councils when it comes to things like the Nicene Creed. So, most Protestants accept church councils to a degree.

LCMS is also pretty conservative, while mainstream Lutheranism tends to be pretty liberal.

What do you mean by “mainstream Lutheranism”? The ELCA? If Lutheranism is anything like Anglicanism, then the only way you can equate the “mainstream” with American liberal denominations is to disregard the 19 million Lutherans in Africa and the 8 million in Asia and the 1 million in Latin America.

You also can’t really say “to disregard Lutheran views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura . . .” because there are differing interpretations of Sola Scriptura among Lutherans, let alone among Evangelical Protestants.

That may be. The fact is that there is a Lutheran view, and it is found in the Lutheran Confessions.

 

[JonNC]

=KEP1983;10953786]The Lutheran Missouri Synod is very small. It’s certainly not representative of most Protestants. I was a non-denominational Evangelical Protestant. I first went to an Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) Church, and then later went to various non-denominational Churches. I was very much in line with the mainstream Evangelical Protestantism in America.

Lutheranism isn’t representative of many Protestants, hence the need for us to be specific about denominations/communions and avoid the blanket Protestants.
While i am LCMS now,I was raised LCA/ELCA and reasonably confident that, in terms of the understanding of SS and how it works, most Lutherans have the same concept.

It sounds like the Lutheran Missouri Synod is stuck in the 19th century Fundamentalism; while the vast majority of American Protestants have moved on to a sort of non-denominational Evangelical Christianity, more along the lines of C.S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity.”

I was always taught that the worst thing that can happen to a Lutheran is to become a fundamentalist, except to become a modernist.
From the LCMS website
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=f&word=FUNDAMENTALISM

But it’s the one most thought of by the average Evangelical in the pews. Again, the Lutheran Missouri Synod only has 2.3 million members worldwide, relative to the 90 million Evangelical Christians in America.

Indeed, not particularly large, and neither is the ILC, which is made of confessional Lutheran bodies worldwide. Lutheranism, generally, however, is one of the larger communions.

Very true. There is no unity in Protestantism, so you can’t generalize something that’s so un-unified.

Exactly.

I went back and forth on a separate thread with you about Sola Scriptura. You’re using a very narrow definition of Sola Scriptura that other Protestants disagree with.

Yes we did, and I will present the premise again: if Luther is to get the blame/credit for the practice, then it seems we ought to have the default setting.

Within the small Lutheran Missouri Synod ecclesial community, yes. But your ecclesial community doesn’t reflect the majority of Evangelical Protestants in America.

Nor do we claim to, but if you are going to use the blanket term Protestant, and most here consider Lutherans Protestant, then I am going to correct the misconception.

As stated, most Protestants in America wouldn’t describe themselves as followers of Lutheran confessions.

I hope you’re wrong about that.

Mainstream non-denominational Evangelical Protestantism. I listened to the mainstream guys like Hank Hanegraaff, Jon MacArthur, Chuck Colson, RC Sproul, Dr Michael Brown, etc etc.

To see a good example of how mainstream Protestants treat “tradition,” take a look at some writings by Jon MacArthur, one of the most famous Protestant pastors in America today:

Tanks for clarifying your perspective.

Apostolic succession isn’t silly. But rather my understanding of Apostolic Succession was silly. The problem was my presupposition-- I assumed that Apostolic Succession meant that Bishops are equal to the Apostles, that like the Apostles they bring new teaching and revelation. That’s what my Protestant mind “heard” when I heard of Apostolic succession. But that’s not what it actually is. Luckily I was open minded enough to listen and understand.

You’re right, and that’s why I made the comment. This is an important issue between us that I believe can and will be resolved.

Jon

 

[KEP1983]

Here we see JonNC try to straddle the line of Sola Scriptura while also accepting Church Councils and creeds.

Most Protestants don’t give much authority to Church Councils. Church Councils are not thought of as being guided by the Holy Spirit to make infallible declarations. (I’d be interested to know if JonNC thinks the first 7 Councils were infallible-- most Protestants would deny a Council being infallible)

Here are a few mainstream Evangelical Protestant theologians discussing Church infallibility and Councils, check out these links:

aomin.org/aoblog/?itemid=3822
ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/scripture-alone/

“Martin Luther’s defense of sola fide was based on the premise that the Bible is the sole infallible source of divine revelation, and it was his refusal to grant such authority to popes and church councils that really got him into trouble” --R.C. Sproul

“How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical? Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. . . A “source” definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that “source” was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn’t needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority. . . If Roman Catholics have God’s voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it.” --Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

[KEP1983]

Lutheranism isn’t representative of many Protestants, hence the need for us to be specific about denominations/communions and avoid the blanket Protestants.

True

I’m not sure

I was always taught that the worst thing that can happen to a Lutheran is to become a fundamentalist, except to become a modernist.
From the LCMS website
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=f&word=FUNDAMENTALISM

Do you believe that Luther has the correct interpretation of the Bible, and that Catholicism, Calvinism, the Baptists, and other branches of Protestantism are not correct? Do you believe that the LCMS is the most theologically correct denomination out of Christianity?

If so, you could easily be classified as a 19th century Fundamentalist.

Indeed, not particularly large, and neither is the ILC, which is made of confessional Lutheran bodies worldwide. Lutheranism, generally, however, is one of the larger communions.

Mainline Protestant denominations are becoming liberal and dying. Most Protestants seem to be becoming non-denominational Evangelical Protestants. Most Protestants I know don’t define themselves with one particular denomination or reformer.

Yes we did, and I will present the premise again: if Luther is to get the blame/credit for the practice, then it seems we ought to have the default setting.

I’m glad that Luther gets the credit for coming up with Sola Scriptura, and not anyone who existed for 1,600 years before him…

But your assumption presupposes that the LCMS has the correct interpretation of Luther. Who says that they do? Does the Holy Spirit protect the LCMS from having an incorrect interpretation of Luther’s views on Sola Scriptura? Why could a Southern Baptist denomination be following Luther’s views of Sola Scriptura more closely?

Nor do we claim to, but if you are going to use the blanket term Protestant, and most here consider Lutherans Protestant, then I am going to correct the misconception.

All Lutherans are Protestants, but certainly not all Protestants are Lutheran.

I hope you’re wrong about that.

Just look at the statistics. Most Protestants aren’t Lutheran, especially LCMS.

patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/10/where-the-protestants-roam-map-of-protestant-denominations-in-the-us/

LCMS is the light blue color. There’s barely any of them.

You’re right, and that’s why I made the comment. This is an important issue between us that I believe can and will be resolved.

Hopefully. As Christ said, a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. No wonder Protestants and Catholics keep losing the culture war, and the west is becoming more and more secular.

[/QUOTE]

 

[KEP1983]

Lutheranism isn’t representative of many Protestants, hence the need for us to be specific about denominations/communions and avoid the blanket Protestants.

True

While i am LCMS now,I was raised LCA/ELCA and reasonably confident that, in terms of the understanding of SS and how it works, most Lutherans have the same concept.

I’m not sure one can say that Lutherans have a united concept of Sola Scriptura at all. I think your average ELCA female lesbian priest has a much different view of Sola Scriptura than a LCMS conservative. A lot of Lutherans are liberal and don’t even believe the Bible is infallible anymore.

I was always taught that the worst thing that can happen to a Lutheran is to become a fundamentalist, except to become a modernist.
From the LCMS website
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=f&word=FUNDAMENTALISM

Do you believe that Luther has the correct interpretation of the Bible, and that Catholicism, Calvinism, the Baptists, and other branches of Protestantism are not correct? Do you believe that the LCMS is the most theologically correct denomination out of Christianity?

If so, you could easily be classified as a 19th century Fundamentalist.

Indeed, not particularly large, and neither is the ILC, which is made of confessional Lutheran bodies worldwide. Lutheranism, generally, however, is one of the larger communions.

Mainline Protestant denominations are becoming liberal and dying. Most Protestants seem to be becoming non-denominational Evangelical Protestants. Most Protestants I know don’t define themselves with one particular denomination or reformer.

Yes we did, and I will present the premise again: if Luther is to get the blame/credit for the practice, then it seems we ought to have the default setting.

I’m glad that Luther gets the credit for coming up with Sola Scriptura, and not anyone who existed for 1,600 years before him…

But your assumption presupposes that the LCMS has the correct interpretation of Luther. Who says that they do? Does the Holy Spirit protect the LCMS from having an incorrect interpretation of Luther’s views on Sola Scriptura? Why could a Southern Baptist denomination be following Luther’s views of Sola Scriptura more closely?

Nor do we claim to, but if you are going to use the blanket term Protestant, and most here consider Lutherans Protestant, then I am going to correct the misconception.

All Lutherans are Protestants, but certainly not all Protestants are Lutheran.

I hope you’re wrong about that.

Just look at the statistics. Most Protestants aren’t Lutheran, especially LCMS.

patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/10/where-the-protestants-roam-map-of-protestant-denominations-in-the-us/

LCMS is the light blue color. There’s barely any of them.

You’re right, and that’s why I made the comment. This is an important issue between us that I believe can and will be resolved.

Hopefully. As Christ said, a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. No wonder Protestants and Catholics keep losing the culture war, and the west is becoming more and more secular.

 

[ltwin]

Do you believe that Luther has the correct interpretation of the Bible, and that Catholicism, Calvinism, the Baptists, and other branches of Protestantism are not correct? Do you believe that the LCMS is the most theologically correct denomination out of Christianity?

If so, you could easily be classified as a 19th century Fundamentalist.

With all due respect, that is not what Christian Fundamentalism of the 19th century is. Fundamentalism as a distinct movement is the merging of Princeton theology (conservative Calvinist theology) with Dispensationalism.

While Fundamentalists undoubtedly believe their version of Chrisitianity is the right one, there is a difference between a “fundamentalist” (little “f”) and Protestant Fundamentalism (big “F”). Simply being a exclusivisitc Lutheran would not make one an adherent of Protestant Fundamentalism.

 

[LegoGE1947]

LCMS is different not just from mainstream Evangelical Protestantism, but even from other Lutheran bodies. Look at the LCMS poster here. His religion describes himself as “Evangelical Catholic.” The average Protestant in America would never refer to themselves as an “Evangelical Catholic.”

LCMS is a very unique sect of Protestantismismism. They accept Church councils and traditions (even though Luther said that councils contradicted themselves). LCMS is also pretty conservative, while mainstream Lutheranism tends to be pretty liberal.

churchandthesinglegirl.com/2012/07/17/lcms-vs-ecla-whats-the-difference/

You also can’t really say “to disregard Lutheran views on the meaning of Sola Scriptura . . .” because there are differing interpretations of Sola Scriptura among Lutherans, let alone among Evangelical Protestants.

That’s true. I would also add that after 400 years of debating and fighting between Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, Baptists, etc, they eventually realized no one was going to win. They united under a common enemy in the culture war. Of course they’re losing the culture war because Christ Himself said in Matt 12:25 that “a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.”

Correct, LCMS don’t view themselves as part of mainstream Evangelical Protestantism or Calvinism. If LCMS is true, then Luther was correct and Calvin and Zwingli were wrong. Not only that, but only the LCMS is correct, not the ELCA or other Lutheran Churches

Most mainstream Protestant denominations hold to the idea that the Bible is true, but no “one” church has the correct interpretation. Hence the idea of the “invisible Church,” made up of “true Christians” who exist in all different denominations. We have unity in the essentials but can squabble about all the other non-essentials.

Yet many protestants can’t even agree on the essentials or even what they are!

 

[LegoGE1947]

With all due respect, that is not what Christian Fundamentalism of the 19th century is. Fundamentalism as a distinct movement is the merging of Princeton theology (conservative Calvinist theology) with Dispensationalism.

While Fundamentalists undoubtedly believe their version of Chrisitianity is the right one, there is a difference between a “fundamentalist” (little “f”) and Protestant Fundamentalism (big “F”). Simply being a exclusivisitc Lutheran would not make one an adherent of Protestant Fundamentalism.

Who put the “Fun” in fundamentalism?

 

[benjohnson]

Here we see JonNC try to straddle the line of Sola Scriptura while also accepting Church Councils and creeds.

Good Jon isn’t doing anything unique - he’s a confessional Lutheran following Lutheran theology. As with any child of God, he is exceptional - but it’s not is if he’s some sort of outlier in the authentic Lutheran church.

 

[ltwin]

Who put the “Fun” in fundamentalism?

Maybe the Taliban??

On a serious note, I think there is some confusion over how Protestants as a whole relate to tradition. It is certainly true that some are horrified at anything that smacks of tradition. But generally, even among evangelicals, there is not a wholesale rejection of any and all traditions. The Church Fathers and great writers of the faith, important councils and the creeds they composed, etc, have always been drawn on to inform and illuminate.

The difference is that Protestants do not feel themselves bound to every particular letter of the Church Fathers or they do not feel bound by every interpretation of the Church Fathers that Catholics give to them, especially if those conclusions do not jibe with a certain reading of Scripture.

The way many Protestants understand the Church Fathers is in the context of a dynamic ecclesial conversation. Many Protestants see themselves as beneficiaries of the “cloud of witnesses” throughout the history of the church. From my own tradition, such witnesses would include the Church Fathers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, James Arminius, John Wesley, Pheobe Palmer, A. B. Simpson, and many others.

Now, most people in the pews might not know who Augustine, Luther, Arminius, or Wesley were, but that’s not important. The fact is that their faiths have been shaped by the teaching and witness of these men.

 

[pablope]

Be

The problem is that you have misunderstood the position of the Reformers. Sola Scriptura as articulated by Luther has nothing to do with rejecting what isn’t in the Bible. His position was that all things (including Tradition) must be judged as to whether they conform to Scripture. Traditions and writings that conform to Scripture are useful; those they are contrary to Scripture are not.

Hi, ITwin…can you provide the articulation of SS by Luther himself?

What was Luther’s definition of SS, in his own words? I have asked this before and nobody has been able to provide, it, as I recall. With your repository of knowledge tiphat::tiphat…you may be the person to provide it.

Thanks in advance.