protestants, please help

[KEP1983]

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.

I think what you’re saying about “tradition” and what the fellow Catholics “hear” when you say “tradition” are two very different things.

So I’ll ask you straightforward about how you’re using the term “tradition”:

1. Do you believe the Apostles taught any infallible teachings that were not written down? That is, do you believe the Apostles taught any infallible teachings that we may not even see a hint of written in Scripture?
2. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit protected these oral teachings that were not written in Scripture?
3. Do you believe that the Church Councils were infallible?

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.

As a non-denominational Protestant slowly making his way into the Church, I had thought of Church Councils as a nice affirmation of what was already in Scripture. The Council of Nicaea was ultimately no different than the Southern Baptist convention, where a bunch of Pastors get together and discern what the Scripture already says. The Council or Convention isn’t infallible, and is only meant to discern what the Scripture already says.

The same is true of writings of the Fathers, Bishops, Pastors, etc. No writing is ever infallible, the only infallible writing in the the Bible. That includes Luther, Calvin, the Fathers, Councils, etc.

So Councils, Conventions, and writings of theologians are never infallible, but are only the persons interpretation of what’s already infallibly in Scripture.

Likewise “traditions” are often a scary word to Protestants, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with them. A tradition could be a funny hat, a bell, splashing water, or singing certain hymns before a sermon. There’s nothing inherently wrong with such traditions. But when traditions start to contradict the Bible, such as purgatory or the treasury of merit, then there’s a BIG problem!

Said another way, there are no dogmatic traditions that are not already found in Scripture. If it’s not in Scripture, then it’s not a dogmatic teaching.

Would you agree with that?

If so, Catholics have an entirely different understanding of Councils and Tradition. And when Protestants here try to use the words “Council” or “Tradition,” they are using an entirely different meaning than what Catholics mean.

 

[KEP1983]

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.

Correct, he’s not an outlier of LCMS. But the LCMS are not representative of mainstream Protestantism in America.

Most Protestants won’t hold to the idea that there are dogmatic oral teachings that the Apostles didn’t write down. Most Protestants don’t accept the authority of Church Councils any more than they accept the authority of their denominations yearly convention. A council or convention simply isn’t infallible, it just affirms what’s already in Scripture.

So the LCMS, some Anglicans, etc can say they aren’t against tradition or councils, but they mean something completely different by “council” and “tradition.”

And the rest of Protestantism simply doesn’t pay mind to tradition or councils. Again, they’re nice in that they affirm Scripture, but they have no intrinsic authority of infallibility within them.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I think what you’re saying about “tradition” and what the fellow Catholics “hear” when you say “tradition” are two very different things.

So I’ll ask you straightforward about how you’re using the term “tradition”:

1. Do you believe the Apostles taught any infallible teachings that were not written down? That is, do you believe the Apostles taught any infallible teachings that we may not even see a hint of written in Scripture?
2. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit protected these oral teachings that were not written in Scripture?
3. Do you believe that the Church Councils were infallible?

As a non-denominational Protestant slowly making his way into the Church, I had thought of Church Councils as a nice affirmation of what was already in Scripture. The Council of Nicaea was ultimately no different than the Southern Baptist convention, where a bunch of Pastors get together and discern what the Scripture already says. The Council or Convention isn’t infallible, and is only meant to discern what the Scripture already says.

The same is true of writings of the Fathers, Bishops, Pastors, etc. No writing is ever infallible, the only infallible writing in the the Bible. That includes Luther, Calvin, the Fathers, Councils, etc.

So Councils, Conventions, and writings of theologians are never infallible, but are only the persons interpretation of what’s already infallibly in Scripture.

Likewise “traditions” are often a scary word to Protestants, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with them. A tradition could be a funny hat, a bell, splashing water, or singing certain hymns before a sermon. There’s nothing inherently wrong with such traditions. But when traditions start to contradict the Bible, such as purgatory or the treasury of merit, then there’s a BIG problem!

Said another way, there are no dogmatic traditions that are not already found in Scripture. If it’s not in Scripture, then it’s not a dogmatic teaching.

Would you agree with that?

If so, Catholics have an entirely different understanding of Councils and Tradition. And when Protestants here try to use the words “Council” or “Tradition,” they are using an entirely different meaning than what Catholics mean.

Years ago when car makers had brand names for their automatic transmissions, I thought “Dogmatic” was like"Dynaflow", “Powerglide”, Ford-a-Matic, Hydramatic, etc:shrug:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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)

No. What Jon is doing is explaining that LCMS should not be merged with a blanket and general very wide broad brush of Protestantism. Because you are trying to paint all of Protestantism with the same brush.

The LCMS is a Confessional Church, even though they hold Scriptures as the final norm to which they measure the Councils, the Creeds and their Confessions.

And just an FYI, Jon holds to some of our Catholic beliefs better than some Catholics on this board.

 

[KEP1983]

No. What Jon is doing is explaining that LCMS should not be merged with a blanket and general very wide broad brush of Protestantism. Because you are trying to paint all of Protestantism with the same brush.

The LCMS is a Confessional Church, even though they hold Scriptures as the final norm to which they measure the Councils, the Creeds and their Confessions.

And just an FYI, Jon holds to some of our Catholic beliefs better than some Catholics on this board.

::sigh::

No, I’m not broadbrushing Protestantism. I’ve stated numerous times that you can’t generalize Protestantism.

As I said earlier “Very true. There is no unity in Protestantism,*** so you can’t generalize*** something that’s so un-unified.”

I’m not generalizing Protestantism. What I’m saying is that the LCMS are not representative of mainstream Protestantism in America.

Look at Time Magazines 25 most influential Protestants in America. None of them are LCMS.

Look at the graph earlier which listed the Protestant denominations by size. LCMS was extremely small. Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals far outweigh them.

So although the LCMS have a strange way of claiming to accept councils and tradition (even though they actually don’t), this simply isn’t reflective of mainstream Protestantism.

To most Protestants councils and traditions only affirm what’s already in Scripture. There are no oral traditions outside of the Bible that are infallible and need to be believed. Protestants do not believe that Councils are infallible-- including Luther.

 

[KEP1983]

The LCMS is a Confessional Church, even though they hold Scriptures as the final norm to which they measure the Councils, the Creeds and their Confessions.

I suppose this is a charitable attempt at ecumenism. “Hey, the LCMS hold to the councils and creeds too!”

But they don’t. Their claim to hold to the first 7 councils and creeds isn’t true. I’ll show you how you can know, clearly, here:

To JonNC (or any other Protestant):
Do you believe that the first 7 Councils are infallible?
Do you believe that there are oral teachings taught by the Apostles that were not written in Scripture?
Do you believe that these oral teachings are infallible and equal to Scripture?
Do you believe that these oral teachings were preserved by the Holy Spirit?

When a Protestant says he accepts Tradition and Councils, but simply uses Scripture as their final authority, it’s simply not true. The Councils and Traditions are no more infallible than the Southern Baptist Convention held in Houston, Texas.

 

[batman1973]

I suppose this is a charitable attempt at ecumenism. “Hey, the LCMS hold to the councils and creeds too!”

But they don’t. Their claim to hold to the first 7 councils and creeds isn’t true. I’ll show you how you can know, clearly, here:

To JonNC (or any other Protestant):
Do you believe that the first 7 Councils are infallible?
Do you believe that there are oral teachings taught by the Apostles that were not written in Scripture?
Do you believe that these oral teachings are infallible and equal to Scripture?
Do you believe that these oral teachings were preserved by the Holy Spirit?

When a Protestant says he accepts Tradition and Councils, but simply uses Scripture as their final authority, it’s simply not true. The Councils and Traditions are no more infallible than the Southern Baptist Convention held in Houston, Texas.

Ah, the fervrent zeal of the new convert. So willing to lob heads off with little regard to defend their new faith. I sadly remember those days…

 

[ltwin]

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.

Is it just me or has this thread taken a wrong turn and got lost in the twilight zone??? If you guys haven’t noticed, Jon is a Confessional Lutheran, and he has explained the Lutheran stance on Sola Scriptura!

Everyone, I will direct you to the helpful quotation that Jon, once again a Confessional Lutheran, gave us from the Formula of Concord:

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.

 

[ltwin]

1. Do you believe the Apostles taught any infallible teachings that were not written down? That is, do you believe the Apostles taught any infallible teachings that we may not even see a hint of written in Scripture?

It’s possible. I’m sure they taught a lot under the inspiration of the Spirit without writing it all down.

1. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit protected these oral teachings that were not written in Scripture?

We have no way of knowing that except on faith and whether such oral teaching is agreeable to the Scriptures.

1. Do you believe that the Church Councils were infallible?

I believe they were made up of men eager to pronounce truth against the heresies of their day. As far as their pronouncements reflect Scriptural truth, they are true and a witness to what the universal church believes.

As a non-denominational Protestant slowly making his way into the Church, I had thought of Church Councils as a nice affirmation of what was already in Scripture. The Council of Nicaea was ultimately no different than the Southern Baptist convention, where a bunch of Pastors get together and discern what the Scripture already says. The Council or Convention isn’t infallible, and is only meant to discern what the Scripture already says.

The same is true of writings of the Fathers, Bishops, Pastors, etc. No writing is ever infallible, the only infallible writing in the the Bible. That includes Luther, Calvin, the Fathers, Councils, etc.

So Councils, Conventions, and writings of theologians are never infallible, but are only the persons interpretation of what’s already infallibly in Scripture.

The difference between the Southern Baptist Convention and the Council of Nicaea is that the SBC is a convention that represents Southern Baptists alone. The Council of Nicaea was a council held in the Eastern Roman Empire under the auspices of the Emperor of Rome and has become a universal witness to what all orthodox Christians believe.

You can disagree with portions of the Baptist Faith and Message and still be an orthodox Christian. But if you disagree with the Nicene Creed you’ve jettisoned biblical orthodoxy.

The Nicene Creed is held authoritative by all orthodox Protestants because it is a right reflection of Scripture. It is because we can say, “look, the Trinity is in the Bible” that we have bound ourselves to its articulation of the mystery of the Godhead.

Likewise “traditions” are often a scary word to Protestants, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with them. A tradition could be a funny hat, a bell, splashing water, or singing certain hymns before a sermon. There’s nothing inherently wrong with such traditions. But when traditions start to contradict the Bible, such as purgatory or the treasury of merit, then there’s a BIG problem!

Yes, because Scripture is the norm. It is dangerous to speculate about what is not in Scripture, and it is especially dangerous to establish such speculation on a dogmatic level.

Said another way, there are no dogmatic traditions that are not already found in Scripture. If it’s not in Scripture, then it’s not a dogmatic teaching.

Would you agree with that?

I would, with this caveat. There seems to be an assumption on this thread, seen in the OP’s post and others, that it is somehow illogical or disingenuous for Protestants to believe in Sola Scriptura yet appeal to outside sources, like the Church Fathers. There was also an accusation made that such high church Protestants like Luther rejected Councils (Why they believe this I don’t know. It’s hard to reject Councils when you enshrine their creeds in your confessional statements . . . ).

There are degrees of authority. At the top is Scripture. An Ecumenical Creed is close to it since it is a universal declaration of what all Christians believe. And then there are the confessions of various traditions that delve into more specific and controverted theological views on which Christians are divided. However, their authority to demand conformity and obedience comes from the recognition that they are faithful expositions of the Scriptures.

If so, Catholics have an entirely different understanding of Councils and Tradition. And when Protestants here try to use the words “Council” or “Tradition,” they are using an entirely different meaning than what Catholics mean.

Perhaps so, but the claims made on this thread by some Catholics have no basis in reality.

 

[ltwin]

Correct, he’s not an outlier of LCMS. But the LCMS are not representative of mainstream Protestantism in America.

Most Protestants won’t hold to the idea that there are dogmatic oral teachings that the Apostles didn’t write down. Most Protestants don’t accept the authority of Church Councils any more than they accept the authority of their denominations yearly convention. A council or convention simply isn’t infallible, it just affirms what’s already in Scripture.

So the LCMS, some Anglicans, etc can say they aren’t against tradition or councils, but they mean something completely different by “council” and “tradition.”

And the rest of Protestantism simply doesn’t pay mind to tradition or councils. Again, they’re nice in that they affirm Scripture, but they have no intrinsic authority of infallibility within them.

You say that the rest of Protestantism rejects the authority of church councils as no more than the authority of a denominational convention. However, you seem to not realize that the Protestants you discuss all conform to the ecumenical creeds.

The Southern Baptist Convention may, for example, one day eliminate from their Baptist Faith and Message article XII. Education but they would never delete the Trinitarian language that they took from the Nicene Creed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

::sigh::

No, I’m not broadbrushing Protestantism. I’ve stated numerous times that you can’t generalize Protestantism.

As I said earlier “Very true. There is no unity in Protestantism,*** so you can’t generalize*** something that’s so un-unified.”

I’m not generalizing Protestantism. What I’m saying is that the LCMS are not representative of mainstream Protestantism in America.

The problem is that when you post something like this:

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.”

And then say what you just said above, accompanied by a ::sigh:: you just attempted to commit intellectual suicide.

What you are describing above is mostly Evangelical and Non-Denominational Protestants.

I suppose this is a charitable attempt at ecumenism. “Hey, the LCMS hold to the councils and creeds too!”

No, it’s not an attempt at ecumenism. I am pretty stern when it comes to Catholic principles. I’m just being mature and well informed.

I suppose this is a charitable attempt at ecumenism. “Hey, the LCMS hold to the councils and creeds too!”

But they don’t. Their claim to hold to the first 7 councils and creeds isn’t true. I’ll show you how you can know, clearly, here:

KEP… your attempt to show me how what the LCMS holds is not true is just… I’m struggling for words here… uncharitable and a bit arrogant. You are, in other words, claiming to have discovered what a congregation truly holds to… A daunting expedition considering you have not provided any sources.

And then you go on with this:

When a Protestant says he accepts Tradition and Councils, but simply uses Scripture as their final authority, it’s simply not true. The Councils and Traditions are no more infallible than the Southern Baptist Convention held in Houston, Texas.

It seems you just can’t put that incredibly broad brush down… you go and immediately generalize…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ah, the fervrent zeal of the new convert. So willing to lob heads off with little regard to defend their new faith. I sadly remember those days…

 

[KEP1983]

It’s possible. I’m sure they taught a lot under the inspiration of the Spirit without writing it all down.

So would such an oral teaching be infallible and still dogma today?

We have no way of knowing that except on faith and whether such oral teaching is agreeable to the Scriptures.

The point of the oral teaching is that they’re not in Scripture. They neither agree or disagree with them, because the oral teaching isn’t mentioned in the Scripture. Would such an oral teaching be dogmatic and infallible still?

I believe they were made up of men eager to pronounce truth against the heresies of their day. As far as their pronouncements reflect Scriptural truth, they are true and a witness to what the universal church believes.

So the Councils are true in that they reflect Scripture, but are not infallible. Thank you.

The difference between the Southern Baptist Convention and the Council of Nicaea is that the SBC is a convention that represents Southern Baptists alone. The Council of Nicaea was a council held in the Eastern Roman Empire under the auspices of the Emperor of Rome and has become a universal witness to what all orthodox Christians believe.

Very true, because there was only One Church in 313 AD, so One Church can express a unified Orthodoxy much clearer than 20,000 denominations.

You can disagree with portions of the Baptist Faith and Message and still be an orthodox Christian. But if you disagree with the Nicene Creed you’ve jettisoned biblical orthodoxy.

True, but is that because the Nicene Creed is infallible? Or just because it reflects Biblical Truth, which is the only measure of infallibility?

The Nicene Creed is held authoritative by all orthodox Protestants because it is a right reflection of Scripture. It is because we can say, “look, the Trinity is in the Bible” that we have bound ourselves to its articulation of the mystery of the Godhead.

" because it is a right reflection of Scripture. " Not because the Council of Nicaea was infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit. Exactly the point I’ve been making.

I see no reason from a Protestant perspective why the Southern Baptist convention couldn’t also hold a Council that is more true to Scripture than Nicaea and thus be less fallible than Nicaea.

Yes, because Scripture is the norm. It is dangerous to speculate about what is not in Scripture, and it is especially dangerous to establish such speculation on a dogmatic level.

Meaning belief in the oral teachings of the Apostles is dangerous speculation, and shouldn’t be held to such a dogmatic level. Hence Luther’s rejection of Tradition.

 

[KEP1983]

Ah, the fervrent zeal of the new convert. So willing to lob heads off with little regard to defend their new faith. I sadly remember those days…

Nope. I was zealous when I was raised as a wishy washy agnostic. I was zealous my 10 years as a Protestant. And hopefully I’ll be zealous my remaining years as a Catholic.

I’ve read earlier Catholics. They were quite zealous before 1960, too!

 

[KEP1983]

What you are describing above is mostly Evangelical and Non-Denominational Protestants.

Yes, exactly. Most American Protestants are Evangelical. The OP was asking about Protestantism in general. It wasn’t about the LCMS, who are a small minority.

I’m glad that JonNC claims to hold to the councils and creeds. That’s wonderful-- even if I think the LCMS don’t really hold to them. But the LCMS doesn’t reflect Protestantism as a whole. That’s the overarching point I was trying to make.

 

[ltwin]

So would such an oral teaching be infallible and still dogma today?

Unless it is in Scripture, it cannot be required to be believed.

The point of the oral teaching is that they’re not in Scripture. They neither agree or disagree with them, because the oral teaching isn’t mentioned in the Scripture. Would such an oral teaching be dogmatic and infallible still?

If there is no indication of it in the Scriptures and it is something completely foreign, we have no basis on which to judge the authenticity of such oral teaching.

True, but is that because the Nicene Creed is infallible? Or just because it reflects Biblical Truth, which is the only measure of infallibility?

The Nicene Creed was written by fallible men who drew upon infallible Scriptures. The result is an orthodox presentation of the Christian faith.

" because it is a right reflection of Scripture. " Not because the Council of Nicaea was infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit. I see no reason from a Protestant perspective why the Southern Baptist convention couldn’t also hold a Council that is more true to Scripture than Nicaea and thus be less fallible than Nicaea.

Why should they? The Nicene Creed was written in response to something-the Arian controversy. Since the SBC is not facing any challenges to the doctrine of the Trinity, they have no need to call a council for the sole purpose of re-adjudicating a doctrine that is not in dispute among Southern Baptists.

Meaning belief in the oral teachings of the Apostles is dangerous speculation, and shouldn’t be held to such a dogmatic level. Hence Luther’s rejection of Tradition.

Luther did not reject Tradition. He only wanted it to be put in its proper place, with Scripture as the final authority.

 

[ltwin]

Yes, exactly. Most American Protestants are Evangelical. The OP was asking about Protestantism in general. It wasn’t about the LCMS, who are a small minority.

I’m glad that JonNC claims to hold to the councils and creeds. That’s wonderful-- even if I think the LCMS don’t really hold to them. But the LCMS doesn’t reflect Protestantism as a whole. That’s the overarching point I was trying to make.

Actually, the OP asked nothing about American Protestants or “most Protestants.” He asked about “the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin)” in the context of the Reformation (an historical event) and struggled with the way they were presented in volume 4 of Yaroslav Pelikan’s history of Christian doctrine. He said that he could not “comprehend” them.

Considering that the question was about “the Reformers” and not “Most American Protestants”, JonNC is perhaps the most qualified person on this thread to give enlightenment.

 

[aidanbradypop]

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.

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?
2. 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?
3. 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.
   These are serious questions, not intended as baiting. Serious answers would be appreciated

As a former Southern Baptist, I do not ever remember hearing about any Church Fathers or councils. If it was not in Scripture, they did not talk about it. You lived and died by Scripture.

The Bible being the sole authority differs in beliefs among different Protestants. Lutherans and Anglicans are for tradition but as a Southern Baptist growing up, there was no tradition, but only Scripture. That was simply how you were taught. The Bible is the “end all debates” and if it was not clearly stated in Scripture, it meant nothing.

For number 3, this has a wide range of answers as well depending on which faith you belong to. Anglicans call their pastor Fr. In my Southern Baptist congregation we called the pastor Br. ________. They often cited that verse about calling no one father but not much was explained beyond that.

 

[LegoGE1947]

As a former Southern Baptist, I do not ever remember hearing about any Church Fathers or councils. If it was not in Scripture, they did not talk about it. You lived and died by Scripture.

The Bible being the sole authority differs in beliefs among different Protestants. Lutherans and Anglicans are for tradition but as a Southern Baptist growing up, there was no tradition, but only Scripture. That was simply how you were taught. The Bible is the “end all debates” and if it was not clearly stated in Scripture, it meant nothing.

For number 3, this has a wide range of answers as well depending on which faith you belong to. Anglicans call their pastor Fr. In my Southern Baptist congregation we called the pastor Br. ________. They often cited that verse about calling no one father but not much was explained beyond that.

In the non-denominal assembly I used to be part of we called the pastor Pastor or Brother(so-and-so). One time a guest speaker tongue in cheek called him “most holy reverend” which brought forth uproarious laughter.

 

[pablope]

Is it just me or has this thread taken a wrong turn and got lost in the twilight zone??? If you guys haven’t noticed, Jon is a Confessional Lutheran, and he has explained the Lutheran stance on Sola Scriptura!

Everyone, I will direct you to the helpful quotation that Jon, once again a Confessional Lutheran, gave us from the Formula of Concord:

Hi, Itwin…I know JonNC…and his confessionalism…

And I am familiar with Jon’s posting on SS.

What I am really looking for is not what the confessions say…but what Luther actually said or wrote about SS.

Is there? (is the question I am asking).