Luther may have said something similar but the quote is from [WCF XXXI.3](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_31) - a Protestant "council," if you will:
> 3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
To understand what we Protestants (or at least we Reformed/Presbyterians) actually think about the question of conciliar authority, I'd suggest reading the whole chapter. It's not long.
The _Scriptures_ are inspired, inerrant and infallible; councils are not. Case in point: what did the 'Ecumenical councils' rule on the question of monophysitism? Which of the contradictory conciliar decisions is the 'right one' and on what basis do you make that determination? These councils have a derived authority "if consonant to the Word of God" - which means Scripture itself has primary authority. And that's what _sola scriptura_ is all about.
Similarly, to understand what we actually think about _sola scriptura_, read [WCF I](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_01) - in particular:
> 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Authority is not _bestowed_ or _granted_ by men; it is _self-contained_ and _inherent_ and therefore only _recognized_. We would still have a Bible without the ecumenical councils, because Scripture is self-attesting and "his sheep hear his voice." And the vast majority of the Scriptures (the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings) were already long-established by the Old Testament Church (as organism) before the time of Christ anyway--the church (as organism) simply received them before any official 'stamp of approval' was declared by "The Church" (as organization).
So, where did we get our Bible? That's easy: [2 Peter 1:16-21](https://blb.sc/002Qik) (especially verse 21). And how do we decide doctrinal questions? By being like the Bereans, who received the word with all openness of heart--but then searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were true. In other words: "don't trust, verify."
I don’t accept schismatic councils
Quoting scripture to justify how you know what should be scripture is a circular argument
Scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter.
How do you know that the presbyterian interpretation of scripture is the correct one?
Why are there so many different reformed denominations?
If the scriptures interpret themselves why would there be thousands of different denominations that claim sola scriptura?
I didn't see this one before my last response, sorry.
On what authority do you determine which of the councils were "schismatic"? And you didn't answer my question: since they're in contradiction, which of the two early "Ecumenical Councils" would you say is "infallible": the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 or the Council of Chalcedon in 451? And, more importantly, _on what basis_ would you make that determination? To what _higher authority_ would you appeal to arbitrate this doctrinal question?
There is no higher authority than God, so appealing to his authority is not "circular" - the "buck stops there" otherwise we fall prey to a reductio ad absurdum or to an appeal to some human authority (e.g., this council or that one). It's simply _his Word_ so it has _his authority_. That's why it is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes; Scripture is its own interpreter. There are some parts more difficult than others, but what is necessary for salvation can be understood by the smallest child (again, see WCF I on this).
Scripture is infallible in and of itself. There are so many denominations precisely because men can err, and have erred. So how do we figure out what the Scriptures actually teach on the more difficult matters? NOT by looking to one group of fallible men or another, but by going _ad fontes_, like the Bereans, and arguing it out alongside our brothers, weighing what the various schools have suggested through the ages, thinking it through, reasoning together--as the church has done for 2000 years, and will continue to do until his return.
You’re not appealing to God, you’re appealing to man’s interpretation of scripture. I recognize The Church as God’s divine institution, therefore it is infallible. Again, scripture doesn’t interpret itself. If it did everyone would agree on the message of it. Once you deny the infallibility of The Church you get the endless schism we have today.
Frankly, this debate takes hours upon hours. In text format it’ll take months and I don’t really have time for it. The information is out there. You can watch Orthodox Christians debate Presbyterians and see that your arguments don’t hold weight if you’re willing to humble yourself. In the end its up to you whether you want to accept Christ’s church or continue to appeal to man made faith that’s only a couple centuries old.
The point of _sola scriptura_ is still being missed; so is the point that no one uninspired man nor group of uninspired men is infallible. And the only place we find the inspired writings of men is in the Scriptures.
S'OK though--I agree this isn't a great forum and this is a lengthy discussion not well suited to this medium.
Happy to be on the same big-tent team (at least the earliest creeds and councils), though, and especially happy to be on the same #nostr and #bitcoin team. I'm good with that if you are too, brother. And we do consider the Orthodox believers to be brothers in Christ, for whatever that's worth.
🤙
https://www.youtube.com/live/VBv0fEAm8zc
Here’s a good intro
