Which Protestant Church do you think is closer to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[rakovsky]

When I think about churches outside of Orthodoxy that are closest to it, I have a hard time deciding.

The Episcopalians have historically been like a go-to in the US for EO relations with Western churches, maybe in part because they were more open to fellowship relations with Orthodox, compared eg. with the Catholic Church's 19th-early 20th century attitude to Orthodox. For example, some Orthodox parishes met in Episcopalian church buildings in the US before either buying a pre-existing (eg. Episcopalian) church building to use, or else building a new church building.

On the other hand, the Anglicans' 39 Articles' view on the Eucharist may contain both the RC/Lutheran/EO Objective Presence view and Calvin's view that Jesus' direct body stays up in heaven and does not actually enter or become the Eucharistic elements. But it certainly has the latter view. Some Episcopalians like the "Anglo-Catholics" or "Continuing Anglicans" take the view that the Eucharist has the objective presence. But if they are in the Anglican communion, then the 39 Articles are still a historical document for the Anglo-Catholics' "communion." It seems like from 1/2 to 1/3 of Episcopalian church goers take an objective view of the real presence today, and the rest are either undefined on the issue or reject it. There are other features that most of Anglicanism in the Elizabethan period seems to share with Calvinism like aversion to pilgrimages and monasteries.

I have a warm spot for Lutheranism, and the spiritual world was particularly real for Luther. He and Lutheranism teach the objective presence in the Eucharist.

On the other hand, Luther made pronouncements on doctrine like Sola Scriptura that the Eastern Orthodox view does not agree with. For example, in Orthodoxy, Tradition is a key written authority, and Scripture is a part of Tradition. On one hand, Luther and Lutheranism in real life practice haven't followed the Bible as their only source of authority, even though Luther and Lutheranism define Sola Scriptura that way. In real life, Lutherans look to Luther, Lutheran Bishops, Lutheran Dioceses, and Lutheran "Formulas", etc. as de facto authorities. But this doesn't mean that as a matter of doctrine, Lutheranism openly is in agreement with Orthodoxy that Tradition outside the Bible is also an authority. Further, Lutheran bishops in the German Tradition don't make any claim to a direct line of apostolic succession like Eastern Orthodoxy claims for their bishops. It's just Scandinavian Lutheran bishops as I recall who claim apostolic succession.

 

[Lutheranian]

Lutherans have never appealed to the Bible as the sole source of authority as in "the Bible plus nothing else." Rather it is the only God breathed authority.

 

[rakovsky]

Lutherans have never appealed to the Bible as the sole source of authority as in "the Bible plus nothing else." Rather it is the only God breathed authority.

Lutheranian,
Thanks for writing back. I sympathize with your own reasonable thinking that the Bible is not the only source of authority. It sounds like you would be in agreement with the EO, RC, and Anglican Traditions in saying that the Bible is not the "only" authority.

I would prefer to think that Luther was on the same page with the EO tradition on this point, but in terms of his doctrinal ideological formulations defining Lutheranism, he and the founding Lutherans defined Sola Scriptura as meaning that the Bible is the only authority, not just that it is the "only God Breathed" authority:

• “The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).
• “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3).
• "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." (Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles II, 15.)
• "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…" Book of Concord
• I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.2" Luther, An Assertion of All the Articles
• <<You say, “scripture alone must be read without commentaries.” You say this correctly about the commentaries of Origen, Jerome, and Thomas (Aquinas). They wrote commentaries in which they handed down their own ideas rather than Pauline or Christian ones.>> Luther to another founding Lutheran

It's true that on practice, Luther did not actually follow what he defined as Sola Scriptura, because he repeatedly cited extrabiblical sources like Augustine in an authoritative way. But nonetheless, Luther defined Sola Scriptura / Only Bible as quoted above.

In case you still want to advocate that Luther reasonably defined Sola Scriptura such that the Bible might not be the only authority for deciding teachings, we can discuss it on a thread that I made about this:

Is Sola Scriptura (being limited to only the Bible alone for everything) Biblical, logical, and practical?

I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence. This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura." Luther and the Lutheran Church who...

forums.carm.org

 

[Lutheranian]

Lutheranian,
Thanks for writing back. I sympathize with your own reasonable thinking that the Bible is not the only source of authority. It sounds like you would be in agreement with the EO, RC, and Anglican Traditions in saying that the Bible is not the "only" authority.

I would prefer to think that Luther was on the same page with the EO tradition on this point, but in terms of his doctrinal ideological formulations defining Lutheranism, he and the founding Lutherans defined Sola Scriptura as meaning that the Bible is the only authority, not just that it is the "only God Breathed" authority:

• “The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).
• “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3).
• "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." (Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles II, 15.)
• "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…" Book of Concord
• I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.2" Luther, An Assertion of All the Articles
• <<You say, “scripture alone must be read without commentaries.” You say this correctly about the commentaries of Origen, Jerome, and Thomas (Aquinas). They wrote commentaries in which they handed down their own ideas rather than Pauline or Christian ones.>> Luther to another founding Lutheran

It's true that on practice, Luther did not actually follow what he defined as Sola Scriptura, because he repeatedly cited extrabiblical sources like Augustine in an authoritative way. But nonetheless, Luther defined Sola Scriptura / Only Bible as quoted above.

In case you still want to advocate that Luther reasonably defined Sola Scriptura such that the Bible might not be the only authority for deciding teachings, we can discuss it on a thread that I made about this:

Is Sola Scriptura (being limited to only the Bible alone for everything) Biblical, logical, and practical?

I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence. This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura." Luther and the Lutheran Church who...

forums.carm.org

You're quoting the Book of Concord. Do you expect me to not accept the quotes because the Bible should be my only authority on faith?

 

[rakovsky]

You're quoting the Book of Concord. Do you expect me to not accept the quotes because the Bible should be my only authority on faith?

It sounds like you are alluding to an example of why Luther's Sola Scriptura doctrine does not work in practice - if the Bible was in fact your "only" authority on all doctrines, then you might not be able to use Luther's writings as an authority on defining Luther's teaching of Sola Scriptura. Let's discuss this in the other thread.

Peace.

 

[Lutheranian]

It sounds like you are alluding to a possible example of why Luther's Sola Scriptura doctrine does not work in practice - if the Bible was in fact your "only" authority on all doctrines, then you might not be able to use Luther's writings as an authority on defining Luther's teaching of Sola Scriptura. Let's discuss this in the other thread.

Peace.

Or maybe scripture being the "Norming norm non normata" doesn't mean there are not other lesser authorities. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to have the Book of Concord at all.

 

[rakovsky]

Or maybe scripture being the "Norming norm non normata" doesn't mean there are not other lesser authorities.

Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to have the Book of Concord at all.

You are alluding to one of the EO criticisms of Sola Scriptura per Luther's definition. Based on that definition, having the Lutheran Formulas and Concords would not fit with that doctrine in practice.

 

[Lutheranian]

You are alluding to one of the EO criticisms of Sola Scriptura per Luther's definition. Based on that definition, the Lutheran Formulas and Concords would not fit with that doctrine.

EOs consider there to be other God breathed sources of truth i.e. Sacred Tradition. That's where we differ.

 

[rakovsky]

EOs consider there to be other God breathed sources of truth i.e. Sacred Tradition. That's where we differ.

I am guessing that EOs, Anglicans, and Lutherans would agree that God's Spirit (in Greek, pneuma, breath) is in the Church in a general way, and that God's Spirit directs or inspires individuals at times to do good deeds.

Out of them, only EOs and Anglicanism would count Church writings outside of the Bible as "authority", whereas Lutheran ideology defines the Scripturs as the "sole" "authority."

I think that Orthodoxy teaches that God inspires the Church to make its teaching (Tradition) in a general sense, as opposed to the RC dogmatic teaching that each consensus of Tradition (Magisterium) is infallible. I have not found a simple answer as to whether Anglicanism also sees Tradition as collectively inspired in some general sense. I guess that Lutheranism doesn't see any Tradition outside the Bible as inspired at all, since they emphasize the Bible as the only authority, and based on your answer to me above, Lutheranian.

Orthodoxy also commonly sees specificially the Bible and the Ecumenical Councils as inspired, but there is not an EO consensus on their infallibility: There is a common idea among EOs rather that they are both infallible. I take it that Anglicanism doesn't have a clear idea on whether any Councils are inspired. Anglicanism treat at least some of them as authorities, and Article 21 of the Anglican 39 Articles says, "... forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God..." The implication seems to be that in a general sense, some Councils may be inspired and others might not be, without Article 21 specifying a council as inspired.

Further, as I mentioned earlier, EO and Anglican bishops claim a line of apostolic succession. In Lutheran ecclesiology, isn't apostolic succession officially considered unimportant?

In contrast, a similarity between EOs and Lutheranism seems to be the idea of the Supernatural and miraculous, such as in the objective presence in the Eucharist elements. Luther expressed that demons had a real presence and asserted he had direct experience with them. Luther became a monk originally based on a prayer he had when in a storm and his escape from it. Calvinism and Anglicanism in contrast seem more dismissive of the role of the supernatural and polemical against classic Christian practices that they labeled "superstitions".

 

[Lutheranian]

I am guessing that EOs, Anglicans, and Lutherans would agree that God's Spirit (in Greek, pneuma, breath) is in the Church in a general way, and that God's Spirit directs or inspires individuals at times to do good deeds.

Out of them, only EOs and Anglicanism would count Church writings outside of the Bible as "authority", whereas Lutheran ideology defines the Scripturs as the "sole" "authority."

I think that Orthodoxy teaches that God inspires the Church to make its teaching (Tradition) in a general sense, as opposed to the RC dogmatic teaching that each consensus of Tradition (Magisterium) is infallible. I have not found a simple answer as to whether Anglicanism also sees Tradition as collectively inspired in some general sense. I guess that Lutheranism doesn't see any Tradition outside the Bible as inspired at all, since they emphasize the Bible as the only authority, and based on your answer to me above, Lutheranian.

Orthodoxy also commonly sees specificially the Bible and the Ecumenical Councils as inspired, but there is not an EO consensus on their infallibility: There is a common idea among EOs rather that they are both infallible. I take it that Anglicanism doesn't have a clear idea on whether any Councils are inspired. Anglicanism treat at least some of them as authorities, and Article 21 of the Anglican 39 Articles says, "... forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God..." The implication seems to be that in a general sense, some Councils may be inspired and others might not be, without Article 21 specifying a council as inspired.

Further, as I mentioned earlier, EO and Anglican bishops claim a line of apostolic succession. In Lutheran ecclesiology, isn't apostolic succession officially considered unimportant?

In contrast, a similarity between EOs and Lutheranism seems to be the idea of the Supernatural and miraculous, such as in the objective presence in the Eucharist elements. Luther expressed that demons had a real presence and asserted he had direct experience with them. Luther became a monk originally based on a prayer he had when in a storm and his escape from it. Calvinism and Anglicanism in contrast seem more dismissive of the role of the supernatural and polemical against classic Christian practices that they labeled "superstitions".

> I guess that Lutheranism doesn't see any Tradition outside the Bible as inspired at all, since they emphasize the Bible as the only authority, and based on your answer to me above, Lutheranian.

Correct. We have Tradition and believe it's good but that scripture is the highest authority and therfore Tradition is subject to it.

 

[rakovsky]

We have Tradition and believe it's good but that scripture is the highest authority and therfore Tradition is subject to it.

In Luther's formula, the Bible and Tradition are not both authorities, with the Bible being higher, but rather the Bible is the "only" authority.

Watson's Theological Dictionary says,

The Augsburgh Confession (see Confessions ) forms the established creed of the Lutheran church. The following are a few of the principal points of doctrine maintained by this great reformer, and a few of the Scriptures by which he supported them.

1. That the Holy Scriptures are the only source whence we are to draw our religious sentiments, whether they relate to faith or practice, John 5:39, 1 Cor 4:16, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 . Reason also confirms the sufficiency of the Scriptures; for, if the written word be allowed to be a rule in one case, how can it be denied to be a rule in another?
...
Luther also rejected tradition, purgatory, penance, auricular confession, masses, invocation of saints, monastic vows, and other doctrines of the church of Rome.

To clarify, the RC Church claims that the Bible is materially sufficient, ie that the building blocks of faith are in scripture, but not that the Bible is formally sufficient, ie. Self explanatory. I think that EOs would agree with the RC Church about material vs formal sufficiency.

John Hayward in "The Book of Religions" summarized Lutheran principles this eay:

The capital articles which Luther maintained are as follow: --

1. That the holy Scriptures are the only source whence we are to draw our religious sentiments, whether they relate to faith or practice. (See 2 Tim.3:15-17. Prov.1:9. Isa.8:20. Luke 1:4. John 5:39; 20:31.1 Cor 4:6, &c.)
...
In consequence of these leading articles, Luther rejected tradition, purgatory, penance, auricular confession, masses, invocation of saints, monastic vows, and other doctrines of the church of Rome.

SermonIndex.net Audio Sermons - Sermon Index

Founded in 2002. The mission of SermonIndex is the preservation and propagation of classical Biblical preaching and the promotion of Christ-centered revival to this generation.

www.sermonindex.net

By the way, the verses cited above do not actually specify that the Bible is the "only source" for religious sentiments.

 

[Lutheranian]

In Luther's formula, the Bible and Tradition are not both authorities, with the Bible being higher, but rather the Bible is the "only" authority.

Watson's Theological Dictionary says,

To clarify, the RC Church claims that the Bible is materially sufficient, ie that the building blocks of faith are in scripture, but not that the Bible is formally sufficient, ie. Self explanatory. I think that EOs would agree with the RC Church about material vs formal sufficiency.

John Hayward in "The Book of Religions" summarized Lutheran principles this eay:

SermonIndex.net Audio Sermons - Sermon Index

Founded in 2002. The mission of SermonIndex is the preservation and propagation of classical Biblical preaching and the promotion of Christ-centered revival to this generation.

www.sermonindex.net

By the way, the verses cited above do not actually specify that the Bible is the "only source" for religious sentiments.

>In Luther's formula, the Bible and Tradition are not both authorities, with the Bible being higher, but rather the Bible is the "only" authority.

No it doesn't. Otherwise he wouldn't have endorsed the Augsburg Confession at all. It appears you have been corrected on this again and again in the other thread too.

 

[rakovsky]

>In Luther's formula, the Bible and Tradition are not both authorities, with the Bible being higher, but rather the Bible is the "only" authority.

No it doesn't. Otherwise he wouldn't have endorsed the Augsburg Confession at all. It appears you have been corrected on this again and again in the other thread too.

• "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…" Book of Concord

If he were to be consistent with "Solely-Scripture", Lutherans wouldn't have endorsed the Augsburg Confession, with its articles, as guiding principles for Lutheran teachings and teachers.

Within the following decade the Augsburg Confession became recognized as a secondary authority, a “Binding Summary, Basis, Rule, and Guiding Principle,” and an explanation of “how all teaching is to be judged in accord with God’s Word and how the errors that have arisen are to be explained and decided in Christian fashion” (to use the description of the authors of the Formula of Concord for the function of that document in 1577).2

Introduction
The Book of Concord, a Confessing of the Faith, in
The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of The Book of Concord
By Fortress Press

https://ms.augsburgfortress.org/downloads/9780800627416Intro.pdf

I agree with you that if you are using Augsburg as a guiding principle for judging teachings, then the Bible is not your "only" "guiding principle" for evaluating all teachings. Thus, the logical conclusion is that Lutherans are not consistent with Sola Scriptura, not that Sola Scriptura means something that drastically contradicts the repeated foundational Lutheran succinct definitions of "Scripture Only" "Sola Scriptura."

From Wittenberg to Antioch​

September 16, 2007
A fascinating interview with Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian priest in Western Michigan. Fr. Gregory was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and professor for 22 years before coming to Orthodoxy.

Fr. Gregory: It seems to me that there is a two-fold problem in the Lutheran confession. The first is the presence of sola scriptura, and the second is the absence of bishops. The presence of sola scriptura is a problem because there really can’t be such a thing as sola scriptura. We never had the Scriptures apart from a context, apart from a tradition. It’s like Khomiakov talks about in his essay, “On the Western Confessions of Faith,” that some of the Protestants have the unfortunate situation of having a tradition, but denying that they have a tradition, and that is the problem with Lutheranism.

The sola scriptura thing simply doesn’t work. In fact, early on—not even early on—I tried to make sense of the Confessional writing, where they say that the Scriptures are the sole norm of doctrine and the clear fount or source of doctrine.

From Wittenberg to Antioch - The Illumined Heart | Ancient Faith Ministries

A fascinating interview with Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian priest in Western Michigan. Fr. Gregory was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and professor for 22 years before coming to Orthodoxy. He also recently spoke at the Faith of our Fathers colloquium for Lutherans on Eastern Orthodoxy and...

www.ancientfaith.com

​

 

[Lutheranian]

• "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…" Book of Concord

If he were to be consistent with "Solely-Scripture", Lutherans wouldn't have endorsed the Augsburg Confession, with its articles, as guiding principles for Lutheran teachings and teachers.

I agree with you that if you are using Augsburg as a guiding principle for judging teachings, then the Bible is not your "only" "guiding principle" for evaluating all teachings. Thus, the logical conclusion is that Lutherans are not consistent with Sola Scriptura, not that Sola Scriptura means something that drastically contradicts the repeated foundational Lutheran succinct definitions of "Scripture Only" "Sola Scriptura."

​

Lutherans didn't endorse Augsburg after Luther died. He himself did, as well as Melanchthons Loci Communes. You can say Luther was inconsistent, thats fine. But if you have a "warm spot" for us as you say you should at least know what Lutherans say about Sola scriptura.

 

[rakovsky]

Lutherans didn't endorse Augsburg after Luther died. He himself did, as well as Melanchthons Loci Communes. You can say Luther was inconsistent, thats fine.

Yes, he was inconsistent between his definition of Sola Scriptura, by which supposedly scripture alone is the only authority and guiding principle, and his occasional de facto use of Church Fathers like Augustine as authorities and the use of Concords, Formulas, Confessions, etc. as having guiding principles.

But if you have a "warm spot" for us as you say you should at least know what Lutherans say about Sola scriptura.

In 152, Luther wrote:

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12. Hereafter, LW.

Was Sola Scriptura A Reformation Slogan And Doctrine?

Introduction: What Sola Scriptura Is And Is Not Recently, in a couple of places (online and in print) I have run across the claims, which, in different ways question the Reformation bona fides of t…

heidelblog.net

When he says that the Scripture alone is the "master" of all writings and doctrines, Luther is referring to his idea that all teachers verify their statements through the Scriptures, by which he concludes that Scripture must be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than all other writings.

However, Luther's theory has several fallacies. Just because you use one text (the Bible) to verify other writings (eg. church fathers writings and Calvin's writings on the Eucharist), does not mean that you are only using that one text alone to verify the others. For example, in verifying his own (Luther's) and Calvin's position on the Eucharist, Luther used both the Bible and the Church fathers.

Another fallacy is that just because the Bible is the highest authority (eg. the Lutheran and Orthodox Churches) used to check other writings does not mean that it is necessarily clearer than them. For example, Protestants might agree that the Bible is right on plenty of issues, from Infant Baptism to the Objective Presence in the Eucharist, but it doesn't mean that the Bible alone is clearer on that topic than any other writing. For example, the Anabaptists, Calvinists, and Lutherans are apparently much clearer in their writings on their positions, or else they would agree with each other and the Biblical writers on the topic. If the Bible explained with Luther's clarity on Christ's body being objectively in the elements of the Eucharist, then they would have to agree with Luther on the topic instead of imagining that the Bible says the opposite.

Luther's quote above is in an anthology edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, a Lutheran convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. Pelikan wrote in History of the Christian Tradition (5 volumes), “The supporters of the sole authority of Scripture, arguing from radical hermeneutical principles to conservative dogmatic conclusions, overlooked the foundational role of tradition”.

 

[Reformedguy]

> I guess that Lutheranism doesn't see any Tradition outside the Bible as inspired at all, since they emphasize the Bible as the only authority, and based on your answer to me above, Lutheranian.

Correct. We have Tradition and believe it's good but that scripture is the highest authority and therfore Tradition is subject to it.

Amen. Well put. We judge our traditions based on scripture.

 

[ziapueblo]

Amen. Well put. We judge our traditions based on scripture.

One could say that we judge our Scripture based on Tradition. How did the faithful know the faith when it was not until the end of the first century that the last book of the NT was penned? When the last Apostles passed, how did the faithful know what books were inspired or not? The answer is easy, what was handed down to them. They learned from the Apostles and where able to know what books were of the true faith and what books were heretical.

 

[rakovsky]

One could say that we judge our Scripture based on Tradition. How did the faithful know the faith when it was not until the end of the first century that the last book of the NT was penned?

There is a theory today that some parts of the gospels were written in draft form before the final version, eg. the "Passion Gospel". An older idea since the 19th century has been the concept of a "Q" gospel.

My guess is that the faith would be taught through the same broad kinds of modes that we have now - bishops (including the apostles), some writings (eg. The Didache), councils (Council of Jerusalem), plus the OT. Paul's writings were made in the 40's to early 60's AD and had importance too.

 

[Reformedguy]

One could say that we judge our Scripture based on Tradition. How did the faithful know the faith when it was not until the end of the first century that the last book of the NT was penned? When the last Apostles passed, how did the faithful know what books were inspired or not? The answer is easy, what was handed down to them. They learned from the Apostles and where able to know what books were of the true faith and what books were heretical.

You could say that and you would not be wrong. So you should be able to trace any of your traditions back to the apostles correct??

 

[Lutheranian]

You could say that and you would not be wrong. So you should be able to trace any of your traditions back to the apostles correct??

Rome tells me the same thing. "We are the really real tradition. "