I know enough about Lutherans to know that in the U.S. thre are at least two branches, Lutheran church Missouri Synod and Evangelical Lutherans.
By "Evangelical Lutherans" I take it you mean the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which is the largest "Lutheran" body in the US. It is the most liberal. I previously belonged to LCMS which is the second largest.
There are at least dozens in total and probably hundreds, and each exists for the very reason I'm highlighting: there is no doctrinal oversight of any of the Lutheran bodies.
When a disagreement occurs, there is no teaching on the matter other than perhaps what can be done in a standard 2-minute presentation at a voters' assembly. Then it's put to a show of hands, and the majority wins. The minority can suck eggs or take a hike. So they either suck eggs, join one of the other synods, form a new one if they're feeling industrious, or, once in a while, they wise up and realize that this is a systemic problem within protestantism in general, which is not isolated to Lutheranism.
For your edification, the third largest is the Wysconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) which is known as being the most "conservative", and by "conservative" it is meant that they don't allow women to vote in their assemblies. In other words, the false holy tradition they follow (each church has one whether you want to recognize it or not) manifests itself in ways that are ugly to the casual observer who isn't carrying any of the group's baggage.
From what you described there was indeed hierarchy, as you took it to a higher branch, but you didn't get the result you wanted. Guess what? That happens in churches that don't subscribe to sola scriptura. I didn't bring this example up since you Orthodox and not Catholic, but since you are making this about sola scriptura, and EO and RCC believe the same on this regard, the example fits. With the pedophile priest scandal the problem was taken up the hierarchy all the way to the Vatican and nothing was done. Priests were transferred to other parishes where the molested other children. So simply "appealing to hierarchy" is not enough.
I understand what argument you're making, but I need to state outright that I do not carry Rome's baggage, that I am a casual observer, and that I therefore can see this for what it is.
I will simply say that no, the two are not the same, because there is no Orthodox Vatican.
By contrast, at least in the Seventh Day Adventist church, there is a check and balance going up the hierarchy.
Ok I get where you're going (I would point out that your SDA issue seems to be poor money skills, which AFAIK is not really a sin, let alone a bad one) and I will refine my position. I am not arguing in favor of hierarchy per se. What I'll point out is that
1) There is always some hierarchy, even if it's just the church council or whoever it is who organizes keeping the lights on
2) The question then becomes how good a job that hierarchy does at nurturing and defending the true faith.
This was the real point of my earlier post. Lutheranism does a horrible job at nurturing and defending faith (ELCA was where the
abortion doctor welcomed with open arms: he may not have been the congregation president, it's been six years since I was reading on him). I don't see Anglicanism doing a good job (
clown and
dog communion), nor Presbyterianism, nor Methodism, nor any other group claiming itself to be a church. I see all of them flushing the faith down the toilet. The point of my "list" of abuses was to show that this flushing of the faith is not isolated to LCMS. It is pervasive within groups that claim Sola Scriptura - and also as I've already said, this is also why there are 30,000 denominations and counting. Any one of these offenses will lead to other offenses, or will lead to a new fracture, or very likely both.
As for point #3, Lutheranism got started because Luther was excommunicated. And Huss and Jerome were Catholics that the Catholic church burned at the stake for speaking their mind. So....I'm not at all sure why you are linking that to sola scriptura.
Again, not carrying Rome's baggage. But none of them was excommunicated as the first response, none of them was not given a reason for their excommunication, and (again not carrying Rome's baggage, just calling it like it was) each of them would have been welcomed back to the RC if they recanted. Excommunication is not and never was intended to be a permanent action (at least not until protestants got a hold of it). It is simply withholding the Sacraments from those who refuse to recant a heresy.
Again, not carrying Rome's baggage here. I know there is plenty to pick apart in the preceding paragraph. I already said we shall know them by their fruits.
It's that those of us that don't agree with you don't believe that scripture can be turned on its head simply because of some argument made, not from scripture, but from "church history."
You should at some point recognize that you can't turn Holy Tradition on its head in order to make it into something that contradicts Scripture.
Cool. I'm glad the hierarchy that you are in so far hasn't pissed you off. (Seriously). But that has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
As I've already explained, yes, it has everything to do with Sola Scriptura.
The problem isn't the Scriptura - it's the Sola!
The common thread with all those protestant groups who ask nothing of their adherents is this. They don't need to do any of it, as long as they have the Scriptures.
I'm not saying you believe this. I'm not saying Sola Fide or FF believes this. I'm just calling it like it is.
Its manifestation has already come up from Sola's keyboard in the last few days. Lent? LENT? Works-righteousness devil worship, that is!
Can't possibly be useful. Can't possibly teach anything about abstinence or help us focus our minds on what really matters.
It's a work, so to hell with it.
That is simply not true. Not unless you believe the Bible doesn't teach you to repent or to forgive or to love. It was a non sola scriptura tradition that allowed Catholics to kill Orthodox Christians during one of the crusades and believe they were doing God a favor.
So, let me ask you a question: can you play the piano?
If not, I challenge you: go read a book on how to play the piano but
don't actually touch a piano. Let me know how well your piano playing goes at your first recital.
You have a binary option there: either playing the piano is not something that the contents of that book alone can convey, or, the unthinkable - that playing the piano is something intangible and outside that book. Playing the piano is not the contents of that book. You actually have to do something to make it happen.
I've known an awful lot of people in the Sola Scriptura tradition (again, IT
IS A TRADITION) who thought a lot about playing piano, owned more than a few books on playing piano... and stood up in front of a group of voters and took their two minutes to tell them that it was time to put things to a vote so we could all get past this proximate issue and get started on the next fracture. The pianos were all banned some time between 1530 and 1600 or so, and it shows.
so you would have left a non sola scriptura church for the same reason you left a sola scriptura church. As I said from jump, you're mistaking your own personal experience for a bigger picture that may or may not exist.
And I repeat - none of this was my personal experience. I would like to type more but I need to go back to work now.
