Sola Scriptura from and Orthodox perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
And the Protestant/Evangelical goes to the scriptures and precedes to determine things for themselves which has resulted in many different conclusions amongst their own brethren, thus making themselves their own authority above the authority that they claim only resides in Gods Holy Word.
If a Christian considers himself "their own authority", then they're just as wrong as the Catholic who says the pope and the Magisterium is their authorty.
 
If a Christian considers himself "their own authority", then they're just as wrong as the Catholic who says the pope and the Magisterium is their authorty.
The non-orthodox believer is doing just that though. They are reading the scriptures and say a particular passage means this or that, so are you really trying to maintain that is not actually what is happening? Otherwise at this point in Christianity we would all be seeing the scriptures in the same manner.
 
The non-orthodox believer is doing just that though. They are reading the scriptures and say a particular passage means this or that, so are you really trying to maintain that is not actually what is happening? Otherwise at this point in Christianity we would all be seeing the scriptures in the same manner.
So, your objection is that we understand what we read.

That literacy triggers you doesn't really speak very highly for your cult.
 
Are you a child?
Not in age, but a child of God nonetheless.

Do you often need a priest to explain simple concepts to you?
Jesus said to love God with all your heart, treat your neighbor as yourself, and obey the Commandments and that about encapsulates His entire message to humanity. In the vain of your question above, why would I need a St. Paul or anyone else to expound upon that simple message?

Why shouldn't we be able to read something and understand it?
That is all fine and good, but sometimes we come to a part that is hard to understand, that needs further explanation and clarification. Hence the Church and the leaders of the church to guide us. Don't you have a Pastor? His job is the same as the priest's job, to guide his flock in spiritual matters.
 
Not in age, but a child of God nonetheless.
Oh, OK. I thought you were Catholic or Orthodox. Good to know that's not the case.
why would I need a St. Paul or anyone else to expound upon that simple message?
Because, according to you, you cannot read it and know what it means.
This all fine and good, but sometimes we come to a part that is hard to understand, that needs further explanation and clarification.
And you can't do that?

Don't you have a Pastor?
Of course. But in Chistianity, the pastor isn't some egomaniacal idiot who tells us we're too dumb to understand what we read. He actually challenges us to read, study, and understand.

Sorry your priests treat you like infants.

His job is the same as the priest's job, to guide his flock in spiritual matters.

According to scripture, which you say you can't understand, the role of the priest is to make sacrifices on our behalf and represent us before God. That's not what a Christian pastor does.
 
Oh, OK. I thought you were Catholic or Orthodox. Good to know that's not the case.
I am Orthodox, a child of God as all Christians are.

Because, according to you, you cannot read it and know what it means.
In all seriousness, can we have a respectful conversation as all believers in Christ should be able to have with each other?
And you can't do that?

No I can't. Is there something wrong with that? Are you saying you do not consult with your Pastor or a fellow believer about the things in the scriptures?

You then make the following statement which I would like to answer:

"Sorry, your priests treat you like infants".

No they don't, they treat us who make up their flock with respect. They exist to conduct our worship services and minister to the members of their congregations when counsel is sought.

You then make your final statement which I would also like to answer:

"According to scripture, which you say you can't understand, the role of the priest is to make sacrifices on our behalf and represent us before God. That's not what a Christian pastor does".

So tell me what a (your) "Christian" Pastor is supposed to do? I am eager to get all viewpoints on issues such as this.
 
Last edited:
I am Orthodox, a child of God as all Christians are.
Can't be both.
In all seriousness, can we have a respectful conversation as all believers in Christ should be able to have with each other?
After the way you started? I doubt it.
No I can't.
Yes. It's indicative of a serious cognitive disability.
No they don't, they treat us who make up their flock with respect.
You haven't describe very respectful treatment.
Pray brother, tell me what a (your) "Christian" Pastor is supposed to do?
Devote himself to prayer and study of the Word, provide pastoral care, preach the Word of God.
 
After the way you started? I doubt it.
Please tell me what was disrespectful about the following statement?

"And the Protestant/Evangelical goes to the scriptures and precedes to determine things for themselves which has resulted in many different conclusions amongst their own brethren, thus making themselves their own authority above the authority that they claim only resides in Gods Holy Word". (Post 120)

There was no personal attack on you or anyone else in particular. It was simply a statement as to what I believe the the Protestant/Evangelical does and how they look at the Christian faith.

And then your next statement was: "If a Christian considers himself their own authority", then they're just as wrong as the Catholic who says the pope and the Magisterium is their authority". (Post 122)

My response to that was: "The non-orthodox believer is doing just that though. They are reading the scriptures and say a particular passage means this or that, so are you really trying to maintain that is not actually what is happening? Otherwise at this point in Christianity we would all be seeing the scriptures in the same manner". (Post 123)

But then somehow some of the words of the relevant post that sent you off to the races concerning disrespect that you posted are missing, (I went back and looked) but fortunately I quoted them. They are as follows:
Not in age, but a child of God nonetheless.

Mike McK said:
Do you often need a priest to explain simple concepts to you?
Jesus said to love God with all your heart, treat your neighbor as yourself, and obey the Commandments and that about encapsulates His entire message to humanity. In the vain of your question above, why would I need a St. Paul or anyone else to expound upon that simple message?

Mike McK said:
Why shouldn't we be able to read something and understand it?
That is all fine and good, but sometimes we come to a part that is hard to understand, that needs further explanation and clarification. Hence the Church and the leaders of the church to guide us. Don't you have a Pastor? His job is the same as the priest's job, to guide his flock in spiritual matters.

So we can see that actually you were the initiator of the disrespectful conversation with your first words: "Are you a child" and then claim the following after my question which said:
Interested said:
In all seriousness, can we have a respectful conversation as all believers in Christ should be able to have with each other?
"After the way you started? I doubt it". And then this: "Yes. It's indicative of a serious cognitive disability".

Personal attacks right from the get go and three times no less. It's not that I cannot take negative comments, it's that I do not wish to get into conversations where invectives are thrown about instead of debating the issue at hand. So it is clear, a respectful, polite, and positive conversation is not in the cards between us. I bid you farewell and I also wish you the best.
 
Please tell me what was disrespectful about the following statement?

"And the Protestant/Evangelical goes to the scriptures and precedes to determine things for themselves which has resulted in many different conclusions amongst their own brethren, thus making themselves their own authority above the authority that they claim only resides in Gods Holy Word". (Post 120)
Well, there was the part where you implied that the Biblical teaching of priesthood of the believer leads to a lack of unity, the part where you lied about us putting ourselves above the authority of scripture, etc.

I could make a much better case that you fools put your Church authorities over the Word of God.
There was no personal attack on you or anyone else in particular.
Just pointed it out to you.
It was simply a statement as to what I believe the the Protestant/Evangelical does and how they look at the Christian faith.
So, it was gross ignorance, not dishonesty?
So we can see that actually you were the initiator of the disrespectful conversation with your first words: "Are you a child" and then claim the following after my question which said
Actually, my post you quoted as the "initiator" was in response to your post.

Personal attacks right from the get go and three times no less.

Then I guess you shouldn't have introduced yourself by insulting others.
 
Last edited:
It seems that the classic verse is 2 Timothy 3:15-16, "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Would you agree?
Dear Zia,
Good job advocating for an EO perspective on the forum, especially in the Sola Scriptura threads.

Despite Protearantism seeming to be a theology based on arguments of modern academic style Reasoning, the Sola Scriptura arguments are not actually correct as a matter of simple logic.

For example, the verse above in Timothy has been used as if it teaches Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the sole authority, even though the verse does not actually state this. The verse says that all scripture is by inspiration from God, but this verse does not say that scripture is the only inspired communication, nor that it is the only authority. So you could have both an inspired authority (eg. Paul's epistles like To Timothy) and another authority, inspired or not (Paul's words and deeds outside the Bible).
 
I don't know enough about Luther to comment on his position. For example, which councils erred in his opinion? Did he believe any were ecumenical? Ect.
You can ask about this on the Lutheran board too.
The EO Church accepts the first 7 "Ecumenical Councils."

After the split with Rome in 1054, the Roman Church held several more "Ecumenical Councils" that the Roman Church calls "Ecumenical", but which in reality do not apply to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some of the famous Roman Catholic "Ecumenical Councils" that do not apply to the EOs are Trent and Vatican I and Vatican II.

AFAIK Luther accepted the doctrines of the first four Ecumenical Councils, running from Nicea to Chalcedon. I am not sure if he agreed with the decisions of Ecumenical Councils #5-7. At the Diet of Worms, Luther said: "I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other". He was including Roman Catholic "Ecumenical Councils" in that declaration, so I don't know if Luther included COuncils #5-7 in what he considered contradictory councils.

WIkipedia notes:
The Lutheran World Federation, in ecumenical dialogues with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, has affirmed all of the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative. It teaches:

"Both Orthodox and Lutherans affirm that apostolic authority was exercised in the ecumenical councils of the Church in which the bishops, through illumination and glorification brought about by the Holy Spirit, exercised responsibility. Ecumenical councils are a special gift of God to the Church and are an authoritative inheritance through the ages. Through ecumenical councils the Holy Spirit has led the Church to preserve and transmit the faith once delivered to the saints. They handed on the prophetic and apostolic truth, formulated it against heresies of their time and safeguarded the unity of the churches."
I am hesitant to say that Luther himself would have agreed with this Lutheran declaration, one reason being his attempts to avoid calling authority "authority", or in other words, calling a spade a spade when it came to churchly "authority" in terms of governing and guiding texts and bodies. For example, he cited Church Fathers like Augustine in what most people would normally call an "authoritative" way, while he nonetheless insisted that the Bible was the only "authority."
 
Why do we believe in God, the most Holy Trinity, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because of a verse written in Scripture? Orthodox Christians believe these things because of the witness of the early Church. What was the witness of the early Church? Of course, first and foremost, their martyrdom. Christians who died for Jesus, the anointed one, in the most horrific ways possible. Second, the apostolic Tradition of the Church. What is apostolic Tradition? St. Irenaeus, an early Bishop born in Smyrna cira 130 A.D., wrote in his famous work Against Heresies, "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same." It is what is handed down, paradosis in Greek, meaning a handing down or over, a tradition. Tradition comes in two forms as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

I have been curious about forum members views on Sola Scriptura. From my understanding, Sola Scriptura is that the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc. No other sources than Scripture. This idea comes from Martin Luther. He wrote, ". . . A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.…Neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils . . ." Of course I understand Martin Luther is writing in protest of the Catholic Church, for he mentions the Pope of Rome, yet, the words, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council." Luther also writes, "I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council." It seems to me that he is saying "I am so sure that I have discovered true Christianity in my reading of Scripture that nothing will shake my opinion."

Am I wrong to think this? If sos, what is Sola Scriptura and what is it that I do not understand about it? What does it mean? I open and honestly as an Orthodox Christian ask this question.

We Orthodox, of course, do not believe that the Bible and the Bible alone is sufficient. Orthodox believe that we must have a lens in which to interpret the Sacred Text and that lens is our Liturgical worship, the councils of the Church and writings of the early Fathers of the Church.

It is not my intent to convince others or even to say that the Orthodox Church absolutely right (this is of course what I believe) and everyone else is wrong. This is just the Orthodox perspective.

Thanks,

Sola Scriptura is about ultimate authority. It doesn't say "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc." Why would God appoint elders/bishops in his church in order to teach if "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc."? Why would the apostle tell the reader of Hebrews "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." if "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc." The issue comes down to if one see's a contradiction between what Scripture teaches and what some human authority in the Church says, then Scripture is right and that authority, no matter who it is, is wrong. I believe it is fair to say that Roman Catholics teaches that Scripture and the Church's magisterium are equal in authority. Protestants simply said, while not rejecting the importance of other authorities, that the only final authority is Scripture.

Yes, Scripture does say
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Therefore, if all someone has is the Bible, they can still be fully equipped for every good work, but a Bible alone is never ideal. God created us to live in communion with other believers.

There are other points above with which I disagree, but such isn't directly relevant to answering your main question.


God Bless
 
Sola Scriptura is about ultimate authority. It doesn't say "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc." Why would God appoint elders/bishops in his church in order to teach if "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc."? Why would the apostle tell the reader of Hebrews "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." if "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc."

The issue comes down to if one see's a contradiction between what Scripture teaches and what some human authority in the Church says, then Scripture is right and that authority, no matter who it is, is wrong.
Dear Doctrines of Grace,

The way that Luther and the foundational Lutheran documents defined Sola Scriptura, unfortunately it doesn't just mean that the Bible is the highest authority (ie. "Prima Scriptura"), nor just that human authority can't contradict Scripture. As they defined this concept, the Bible is the only judge of all teachings.

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).
I listed all of Luther's and the Foundational Lutheran Confessions' statements that I found on this topic:

I don't find Luther specifically claiming that in practice you never need to check other writings for teachings. He does seem to support using the Fathers when he says,
One should not use the fathers’ teachings for anything more than to get into Scripture as they did, and then one should remain with Scripture alone.

The problem here with Luther's logic is that when you do use bishops, fathers, and other writings to "get into" Scripture, then in reality these authorities are evaluating the meaning of the Bible, and thus in turn, these nonBiblical authorities are indirectly establishing and judging teachings.

If you can't understand what the Bible alone says on a topic, and you go and ask your elder, and he judges what the Bible says for you, then it's not really the Bible alone that is judging the teaching. In reality, it's the Bible and your elder that's making the judgment, because otherwise you wouldn't know what the Bible taught here.

I believe it is fair to say that Roman Catholics teaches that Scripture and the Church's magisterium are equal in authority. Protestants simply said, while not rejecting the importance of other authorities, that the only final authority is Scripture.
To be clear, Luther was not just saying that the Bible is the "final authority". He defined it to mean that it's the "only" judge of all teachings. Sola Scriptura.
In his explanation, you can use other writings like Fathers, but only to decide what the Bible teaches.

Based on his explanation, you could use the Fathers to understand the Bible's teaching that Mary was a virgin, and then you could say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so". But you could not say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it." EOs could make the latter statement, because we see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings.

So one problem is the logical fallacy inherent in Sola Scriptura that when you use Commentaries to decide the Bible, it's only the Bible Alone deciding the teachings. Another issue that Sola Scriptura creates is what do you do when the Bible does not address a teaching? As Luther discussed Sola Scriptura, it would mean that you cannot accept any patristic teaching if it is not in the Bible. Strictly speaking, according to Sola Scriptura, this situation of "nonBiblical topics" should not even arise, because the Formula of Concord, claims that the Bible Alone is the judge of "all" teachings. However, even according to Luther, there were topics that the Bible did not speak about, like the lives and sainthood of extraBiblical saints.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Based on his explanation, you could use the Fathers to understand the Bible's teaching that Mary was a virgin, and then you could say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so". But you could not say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it." EOs could make the latter statement, because we see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings.
This is as an illogical line of reasoning. A person can't logically say, "separately...and also because the fathers say so," because they too receiveded Scripture as the written witness of the preaching or teaching of the Apostles and eye-witnesses, see Irenäus.
 
Dear Doctrines of Grace,

The way that Luther and the foundational Lutheran documents defined Sola Scriptura, unfortunately it doesn't just mean that the Bible is the highest authority (ie. "Prima Scriptura"), nor just that human authority can't contradict Scripture. As they defined this concept, the Bible is the only judge of all teachings.

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).
I listed all of Luther's and the Foundational Lutheran Confessions' statements that I found on this topic:

I don't find Luther specifically claiming that in practice you never need to check other writings for teachings. He does seem to support using the Fathers when he says,

The problem here with Luther's logic is that when you do use bishops, fathers, and other writings to "get into" Scripture, then in reality these authorities are evaluating the meaning of the Bible, and thus in turn, these nonBiblical authorities are indirectly establishing and judging teachings.

If you can't understand what the Bible alone says on a topic, and you go and ask your elder, and he judges what the Bible says for you, then it's not really the Bible alone that is judging the teaching. In reality, it's the Bible and your elder that's making the judgment, because otherwise you wouldn't know what the Bible taught here.

I think what you are running into here is Luther's embrace of paradox. I'm not Lutheran, and I don't embrace paradox as he does. He was known for for expressing opinions one day only to change his mind the next. The more you read Luther, the more you will see him getting carried away in his own rhetoric. In a way, that's what happens when your faith in the authority structures of the Church are shaken while your faith in God and his word remains firm. I'm simply expressing the general way Sola Scriptura functions within many Protestant circles in general.

To be clear, Luther was not just saying that the Bible is the "final authority". He defined it to mean that it's the "only" judge of all teachings. Sola Scriptura.
In his explanation, you can use other writings like Fathers, but only to decide what the Bible teaches.

And the problem with that is? I see a very similar sentiment in your statements like "Orthodox believe that we must have a lens in which to interpret the Sacred Text and that lens is our Liturgical worship, the councils of the Church and writings of the early Fathers of the Church." Lens give clarity to what fuzzy in our perspective. We reformed Protestants quote the creeds; we look to the councils for insight; we have our own councils and confessions to decide manners of doctrine; etc. We don't think or believe new convert should just be handed a bible and left on his own. All that Sola Scriptura adds is that Scripture holds a unique position in the Church that trumps everything else as the rule and norm of all doctrine. When there is a disagreement, Scripture is the only judge to decide the manner ultimately. We realize that men are men and regularly make all sorts of mistakes. Mistakes that can only be rectified ultimately by looking too Scripture. The Niciean Fathers didn't argue with the Arians from Tradition. Their primary tool to answer all falsehood was Scripture. I'm not arguing that you hold a form of Sola Scriptura; Im simply stating that that Orthodox Christianity is far closer to Protestant side of this debate than Rome is today. Even in the middle ages, Rome wouldn't dare define as dogma something without regular and significant reference to Scripture; today, Rome regularly functions as if Scripture is an after thought. You never stopped reading Scripture. Rome burned people at the stake for translating the Scripture so that the people can hear Christ's words for themselves. Such led to an amount of ignorance unknown in the East.

Based on his explanation, you could use the Fathers to understand the Bible's teaching that Mary was a virgin, and then you could say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so". But you could not say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it." EOs could make the latter statement, because we see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings.

I find this statement odd. Why couldn't I say "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it."? I see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings. I simply don't hold extrabiblical Tradition as authorities as perfect in all they say. I look to Scripture as the final arbiter of what is true.

So one problem is the logical fallacy inherent in Sola Scriptura that when you use Commentaries to decide the Bible, it's only the Bible Alone deciding the teachings. Another issue that Sola Scriptura creates is what do you do when the Bible does not address a teaching? As Luther discussed Sola Scriptura, it would mean that you cannot accept any patristic teaching if it is not in the Bible. Strictly speaking, according to Sola Scriptura, this situation of "nonBiblical topics" should not even arise, because the Formula of Concord, claims that the Bible Alone is the judge of "all" teachings. However, even according to Luther, there were topics that the Bible did not speak about, like the lives and sainthood of extraBiblical saints.

Peace.

To answer your concerns, I think your first logical fallacy could be applied to some of Luther's rhetoric, but I don't think it is a fair critique of my understanding of Sola Scriptura. In general, in my tradition, when the Bible does not address a teaching, we leave it up the conscience of the individual Christian. For example on the perpetual virginity of Mary, if one thinks based upon the Fathers that Mary was perpetually a virgin, then that's your position: a position held by both Luther and Calvin. We simply don't believe that the Church has the right command obedience to that belief because it isn't clearly stated within Scripture. Personally, I hold that Mary had other children with Joseph like James the bishop of Jerusalem and Jude. I see such issues as nonessential, and as Agustine said "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things Charity."

I pray that this conversation at least gives you some insight into how one protestant understands these things.

Peace be on you as well.
God Bless
 
  • Based on his explanation, you could use the Fathers to understand the Bible's teaching that Mary was a virgin, and then you could say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so". But you could not say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it." EOs could make the latter statement, because we see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings.

This is as an illogical line of reasoning. A person can't logically say, "separately...and also because the fathers say so," because they too receiveded Scripture as the written witness of the preaching or teaching of the Apostles and eye-witnesses, see Irenäus.
Irenaeus received Scripture as the main witness of the Apostles, but not as the only witness, since Irenaeus got information separately from the Bible Alone from Polycarp, from Papias, and thus indirectly from John the apostle.

Thus, we know Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and also because the Fathers passed this down in their writings.

The problem here is that Luther presented a false EITHER/OR dichotomy.
 
Irenaeus received Scripture as the main witness of the Apostles, but not as the only witness, since Irenaeus got information separately from the Bible Alone from Polycarp, from Papias, and thus indirectly from John the apostle.
Scripture was the authoritative witness of the Apostles to Irenaeus. It was only after the heretics were refuted by the context of the Scriptures which they abused that they cooked up an unknown or secret Tradition. Then the response of Irenäus was that the Christians had no such tradition.

The centrality of an oral tradition was necessary among the barbarians until either some of them learned the biblical languages or until the Scriptures were translated into their languages. It was only later generations of Christians who were unaware of the actual tradition who imagined a new and improved role for non scriptural or oral tradition.
Thus, we know Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and also because the Fathers passed this down in their writings.
Thus is an inappropriate word since the so-called fathers knowledge of Mary being the Virgin was necesaarily downstream from the written Apostolic witness.
The problem here is that Luther presented a false EITHER/OR dichotomy.
The problem was and remains that some people ignorant of the actual tradition tried to give tradition a role that it never had. The person you mention, Luther, never argued against the valid use of tradition with regard to adiaphora or fluff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top