Also - as an addendum to both of my earlier posts. The canon was fixed, de facto and by local councils and canonical lists, in the fifth century in the West and the sixth century in the East. More or less the discussion ended, by excluding some writings that were on the fence as uninspired and including others as canonical.

Luther's reopening of this discussion a thousand years later by raising doubts about certain books wasn't an attack simply on the Roman Church but on the practice of all of Christendom.

Quote:

---

The RCC did not give anyone the canon of the Bible.

Yes they did. The canon was formally established in the West at Trent. There is a de facto canon in use by the Orthodox church, but your bible does not match it.

---

Trent's as relevant to Lutheran's as Florence is relevant to Orthodox.

It's probably even worth saying that Catholics don't care too much for Trent either.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Also - as an addendum to both of my earlier posts. The canon was fixed, de facto and by local councils and canonical lists, in the fifth century in the West and the sixth century in the East. More or less the discussion ended, by excluding some writings that were on the fence as uninspired and including others as canonical.

Luther's reopening of this discussion a thousand years later by raising doubts about certain books wasn't an attack simply on the Roman Church but on the practice of all of Christendom.

---

Which of course makes complete sense.

What is historical fact is that the Roman Church was extremely corrupt morally and theologically.

If your goal is to reform (as was Luther's), you should question everything. Shoot, we as Christians should question everything even today.

Quote:

---

If your goal is to reform (as was Luther's), you should question everything. Shoot, we as Christians should question everything even today.

---

If you believe this, then Protestantism is certainly for you. But you can't complain about people going further than you like - confessional Lutherans who say the above have absolutely no standing whatsoever to gripe about low church Lutherans or nondenoms. They're just continuing the questioning process.

There's nothing inherently wrong with questioning, but it requires us to ask further - what are we questioning, and why? Are we going to start with a blank slate? Do we start with the existence of God? Or question the received texts of the OT? If those are suspect, then the NT falls apart. But how do we judge their authenticity? Do we question if St Paul was a true Apostle? After all, St Luke was his associate. Perhaps St Paul was rejected, and St Luke's works are a kind of apologetic cover from a loyal follower. How do you know? How do you say Marcion was wrong? Or Arius? Or the Gnostics. They all quoted some of our scripture, and some used books we now reject. If those are back on the table, what do we use to judge?

And even if we limit our scope to some particular questions, we should also know -- what is our norm or standard by which we judge? You can't quickly say "the scripture" because as Luther shows "what is scripture" is obviously part of the questioning process you approve of. So then what? How are we going to judge?

Even just starting with the canon...We can't independently verify the authenticity or aposotolicity of scripture, we don't have any autographs of the NT. All we can do is rely either our own scholarly efforts to test apostolicity (i.e., by philology) or look to history for some kind of ecclesiastical rule or norm to guide our views.

If we do the former, we run the risk of becoming worldly in scholarship, relying on our own intellectual abilities or our own piety. I don't think any person can independently derive an authentic canon absent of ecclesial rule, because even if we establish antiquity that doesn't mean the content is trustworthy (for example, the gospel of Thomas). We need some way to test the content. But how do we test the content without turning to ecclesial use?

And eve if we do the latter, we're left with either submitting to the ecclesiastical rule (i.e., tradition) or rejecting it. However, if we reject it we're basically left back to our own means and ends, and so it goes.

(The third way is to not judge by historical inquiry or ecclesial rule, but by theological content. However, this theological content is a presupposition, and must be rooted in something. That something ultimately becomes the individual, if we are using it to test both scripture and ecclesial rule. For Luther, that something was his theology. But if we permit this for Luther, then we permit it to all. I do not think this is a wise course of action, although that is precisely what Luther does.)

We are not all called to derive the canon independently, and nowhere in scripture are we told to do this. Instead, we are told to hold fast to what is taught, to verify what we learn from trustworthy sources, and from public teaching.*

And all things follow this pattern. No person is able to do what you're asking without falling into one error or another.

And if you do believe this, you are expressly denying any and all hierarchy of authority. You can't bristle at the critique "from one pope to many" because that is exactly what you're advocating. Ultimately, if all can rightly question, this means all can rightly decide. And if all can rightly decide, then all have authority over themselves interdependently of any other, or the Church. Each becomes a church to himself.

If all people should question all things, how can you answer St Paul's rhetorical questions? "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?" No, not everyone is capable to question. We should not take upon ourselves to do this.

Instead we should look to the scriptures, and echo Job - "I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." Or the Prophet David "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it" and "O LORD, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; Nor do I involve myself in great matters, Or in things too difficult for me."

////

*The scriptures say "test all things" as an answer to - "Do not treat prophecies with contempt" (same as 1 John 4:1). This is not a license to independently ratify and verify every piece of the Faith by our own understanding. The scriptures do not permit this (2 Peter 1:20, Heb 13:17, 1 Thess 5:12, 1 Cor 16:16, 1 Peter 5:5....).

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

*The scriptures say "test all things" as an answer to - "Do not treat prophecies with contempt" (same as 1 John 4:1). This is not a license to independently ratify and verify every piece of the Faith by our own understanding. The scriptures do not permit this (2 Peter 1:20, Heb 13:17, 1 Thess 5:12, 1 Cor 16:16, 1 Peter 5:5....).

---

---

k2, I think you can add St. Peter's concern about people interpreting complicated writings from St. Paul to a caution against the hyper-individualistic approach to understanding Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16)

This is simply false. There is absolutely no scriptural support for this, and the argument against it is quite strong. The scriptures exhort us to common worship, to submission to our elders, to submission to our leaders, to submission to Christians who bear fruit. Scripture exhorts us to come together as an assembly. Christianity is not a novel, new Faith, so we can turn to the OT as well. The OT is not a faith of individualism but a corporate faith, a body, a group of people called out from the world. So are Christians.

The first view we have of the Christian Church temporally says "Now they were steadfastly continuing in the teaching of the apostles, and in the fellowship, the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers." (Acts 2:42). Three things, all definite articles. Specific. The teaching, AND the fellowship, the breaking of the bread (literally communion - the fellowship is kononia and the breaking of the bread is explanative) AND the prayers.

This is not a go as you please. This is a specific, defined faith. This is a liturgical faith, which is perfectly to be expected since Judaism was a liturgical faith. Synagogue worship was liturgical. It simply is not a "well, I think" faith.

Which is obvious by inspection. It can't be hyper individualistic when from the very start the activity we see in the Church is a teaching, instruction, by defined leadership, to a defined community, with a defined hierarchy. This obviously predates the scriptures. There is no indication of hyper-individualism anywhere in the NT. It simply isn't historically possible, because there was no scripture for the individual to discern from other than the OT!

Provide evidence to any of your claims. You haven't addressed anything I specifically said. Which arguments?

My Church teaches what the apostles taught. We can prove it by centuries of records demonstrating an unbroken continuous teaching, by an unbroken continuous succession. If you have questions about specific teachings, I can demonstrate this.

The Bible is not self validating. There is no canon in the scriptures. The entire definition of what is scripture is extra-scriptural - there isn't even a scriptural criterion for what is scripture. Demonstrate it, if you disagree.

1 Cor 16:16.

You tell me about what Protestants believe. You said hyper individualism was biblical. Submission to elders and communal worship isn't individual. What verses support your view?

Yes, Greek has a definite article. I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't there. And the reason I can say Protestants are not is because for starters half of em don't even say they are or make any attempt, and the rest are at variance with what is easily demonstrated to be the historic faith. These are not opinions, these are questions of historical fact.

I wasn't arguing anything about Christianity as Orthodoxy, I was showing that it wasn't an individualistic Faith. It was a hierarchical faith defined by specific Apostolic teaching, specific communion, and specific prayers.

Protestants differ about scripture sure but they can't even come up with a coherent rationale for their own canon! You can't independently derive the canon. If you can, show me. So until they can show how their canon is independently derived apart from ecclesial tradition, their bedrock is ecclesial tradition, not the scriptures.

As for bishops and interpretation the church makes no claim whatsoever to individual infallibility. I don't think you clearly understand this.

///

You're the one that said hyper individualism. Prove it.

I never said the faith wasn't applicable to individuals.

The Father never appeared to anyone.

You want to argue an individual faith, go for it. Show me the scriptures.

I already linked to you tons of resources about the formation of the canon. It wasn't ever defined formally by council in the east. It was locally in the west and then broadly at Trent. But the conciliar ratification of the canon is not the sole means. It's not even the primary means. The canon was ratified through ecclesial use, through tradition. How do you think the church collectively decided what was trustworthy and what wasn't? What standard did they use across the roughly four century process?

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

My Church teaches what the apostles taught. We can prove it by centuries of records demonstrating an unbroken continuous teaching, by an unbroken continuous succession. If you have questions about specific teachings, I can demonstrate this.

---

So claims every single denomination and sect.

---

That's not true. Most Protestants don't maintain succession at all! And whatever they claim, they can't. And when they find themselves at variance with the historical record they just jettison it. See: the entire beginning of this thread regarding Patristic authority.

Quote:

---

If you believe this, then Protestantism is certainly for you. But you can't complain about people going further than you like - confessional Lutherans who say the above have absolutely no standing whatsoever to gripe about low church Lutherans or nondenoms. They're just continuing the questioning process.

---

I'm sorry, but this is not a good argument. You generally know it's a weak argument when you have to go to extremes to avoid the middle.

I guess I could go to the other extreme and say that if you want to follow corrupt leaders, Catholicism and presumably Orthodox is certainly for you? It's also a bad argument, but if we want to make extreme arguments... I mean, we should revert Rome back to when you could buy your way into heaven and lets not forget using forged documents to justify their claims. Surely we shouldn't ever doubt that Bishop right? Don't look at the kids he had out of wedlock either...

You see, just a bad argument to make.

Quote:

---

And even if we limit our scope to some particular questions, we should also know -- what is our norm or standard by which we judge? You can't quickly say "the scripture" because as Luther shows "what is scripture" is obviously part of the questioning process you approve of. So then what? How are we going to judge?

---

They had an actual term for this. "Ad Fontes" or Back to the sources."

So you would start at the sources. What did the Father's say, what did the Councils say, why are the scriptures what they are, why do the east and west and Jews all differ on the OT. Why were scriptures questioned in the NT, etc, etc, etc.

Probably not to materially different then what you did when you started reading the Fathers.

Look, if everyone should question it means everyone has the authority to decide. Otherwise questioning is a waste of time. If everyone has the authority to decide, we end up with completely relevativism with regard to all matters of ecclesiology. You will end up with schism after schism, because no one has the authority to settle anything. And of course this is exactly what Protestantism lead to.

I don't have to say "no one should question anything" to argue against "everyone should question everything". If you say, "everyone is named Steve" I don't have to say "no one has ever been named Steve" to disagree.

To disprove "everyone is named Steve" you just have to demonstrate that one person is not. To disprove "everyone should question everything" we only have to show that either one person in particular or in general should not question everything or everyone should not question one or more things.

You're the one that put forward the bad premise, ie, everyone should question everything. Making an equally bad straw man doesn't show you're right.

/////

For the second part. It's fatally flawed. For one, it is impossible to do so. For better or worse most heretical writings were burned. We know almost nothing about most heresies from primary sources, only from polemics countering them. The writings which are preserved, the councils which are taken as authoritative, are all done so under the premise that they are true. So all of our sources suffer from extreme selection bias.

For two, what did the fathers say, councils, etc is an appeal to Tradition. You can't say "Tradition is not binding" then say "our primary source is Tradition". It doesn't make any sense.

JJMt said:

---

"hyper-individualistic approach" = Biblical approach

---

If you believe that you and I read VERY different Bibles, to say nothing of the relativism that you apparently agree with.

Quote:

---

You're trying to parse words here. Luther didn't reject James as useless. We all can read what he said. It's got some good sayings, but its not gospel, not apostolic. He rejected it as authoritative. Since scripture is authoritative by definition (sola scriptura, right?) then he rejected it as scripture.

It's difficult to say that Luther didn't reject James as scripture when he 100% was convinced it was spurious, not written by James the Apostle and maybe not even written by a Christian. He said this himself. He said he wanted to make rubble of it, to burn it. His point there -- and there's some nuance -- is that the book was good and pious and useful, but if it's usefulness was outweighed by theological trouble, it should be rejected. That's fine, but that means he set his theology up as the arbiter of value of what writings are scriptural. And, clearly, James doesn't measure up to his standard.

---

If your definition of rejection is keeping it in the Bible and then quoting it in what he viewed as his most important documents, then sure Luther rejected it. It's an odd way to define rejection, but I can accept it in this case.

Quote:

---

The point is not that Luther didn't like the OT. I never said that. The point is that Luther's theology trumped the Church's use of Scripture in his interpretation of canon. In this, he is the same as Marcion.

---

No. Luther was quite clear that Sola Fide was taught by the early Church and (again point of the podcast) and that this trumped the Catholics works view of salvation.

Quote:

---

And just because you say it isn't doesn't refute it. If you disagree, that's fine, but it would be much more beneficial for everyone if you could rationalize your disagreement rather than just saying "nuh uh."

---

I thought about copy/pasting my original response, but didn't feel it was worth it because you are simply going to choose to believe what you want.

So I'll say it this way.

For the LCMS we have a quia subscription to our Confessions. Or said in english, we believe in the Confessions because they agree with scripture.

So straight away your attempted example falls apart.

What your trying to claim applies to Lutheran's follow quantenus subscription or that we believe the Confessions in so far as they align with scriptures. That allows the Confessions to drive scripture which is what the ELCA tried and why no true Lutheran communes with them.

So any example you try to make that starts with something other than Scriptures at the top is simply just you projecting.

--------------------------------

However, lets examine your own interpretation of Orthodoxy to see if you were accurate with that one?

Quote:

---

Dogmatic fact of life in the church (ie, tradition and orthopraxis as received from the Apostles)
Which inform
Scripture
Which inform
Fathers
Which inform
Orthodox confessional documents

---

You start with "Dogmatic fact of life" or more clearly "Tradition"

However, from there you are incomplete.

You need a parallel path of "not in scripture"

However, it is good for you to acknowledge that the Father's do get downplayed in favor of "Tradition." It's good to acknowledge that the Fathers are downplayed in favor of what the East has decided. That's important to realize.

Quote:

---

Look, if everyone should question it means everyone has the authority to decide. Otherwise questioning is a waste of time. If everyone has the authority to decide, we end up with completely relevativism with regard to all matters of ecclesiology. You will end up with schism after schism, because no one has the authority to settle anything. And of course this is exactly what Protestantism lead to.

---

So your alternative is to never question anything. It's equally as bad and as you pointed out, not scriptural.

But I guess we could go back to Trent as you suggested and everyone (including Orthodox) being in anathema for doubting Rome.

Quote:

---

You're the one that put forward the bad premise, ie, everyone should question everything. Making an equally bad straw man doesn't show you're right.

---

Straw man? I pointed out what Catholics had to believe when Luther lived.

Quote:

---

I don't have to say "no one should question anything" to argue against "everyone should question everything". If you say, "everyone is named Steve" I don't have to say "no one has ever been named Steve" to disagree.

To disprove "everyone is named Steve" you just have to demonstrate that one person is not. To disprove "everyone should question everything" we only have to show that either one person in particular or in general should not question everything or everyone should not question one or more things.

---

When all you're doing is looking to draw extreme examples, I'll do likewise. It serves no purpose or does anything to further the discussion, but we can continue.

We could of course discuss details relevant to Lutheran's, but I don't think you're after that.

Quote:

---

For the second part. It's fatally flawed. For one, it is impossible to do so. For better or worse most heretical writings were burned. We know almost nothing about most heresies from primary sources, only from polemics countering them. The writings which are preserved, the councils which are taken as authoritative, are all done so under the premise that they are true. So all of our sources suffer from extreme selection bias.

For two, what did the fathers say, councils, etc is an appeal to Tradition. You can't say "Tradition is not binding" then say "our primary source is Tradition". It doesn't make any sense.

---

You've gone down this pathway several times and I still can't understand why.

We shouldn't need to understand the heresy. We need to understand whether the arguments against it (which were not destroyed) were scripturally sound. If they are, then everyone should accept them, which Lutheran's do. So not fatally flawed at all.

To no surprise, you don't find any real disagreement from Luther until the 7th Council, and even then, the disagreement was not over icons, but over taking veneration to the extent that the East does. Jordan does a whole episode on what's in his office and he has several icons.

I'm not sure what "Tradition is binding" really means.

If you want to say that we hold to the Confessions because we believe they are Scriptural, then sure they are binding only because of that. If you're saying that anything we believe overrides Scripture, than no there's nothing binding.

Quote:

---

If your definition of rejection is keeping it in the Bible and then quoting it in what he viewed as his most important documents, then sure Luther rejected it. It's an odd way to define rejection, but I can accept it in this case.

---

There's no need for sarcasm, and it evades the point. Luther didn't reject it as useful, he rejected it as authoritative. He put it in the back of the bible, said it was questionable, not of apostolic origin, against scripture, and of limited use. It was antilegomena. I already made this point, I don't know why you're ignoring it.

Do you think it is questionable, not of apostolic origin, against scripture, and of limited use?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The point is not that Luther didn't like the OT. I never said that. The point is that Luther's theology trumped the Church's use of Scripture in his interpretation of canon. In this, he is the same as Marcion.

---

No. Luther was quite clear that Sola Fide was taught by the early Church and (again point of the podcast) and that this trumped the Catholics works view of salvation.

---

You're mixing and matching. I'm not talking about sola fide. I laid it out quite clearly.
Luther : James :: Marcion : OT

The reason Luther had issues with James was because of his theology. It was the theology, or lack of gospel (in Luther's opinion) that showed James to be non-apostolic in origin. You can't say tradition has sola fide, therefore Luther excluded James on the grounds of sola fide tradition. Obviously the Fathers didn't reject it on this ground, because they used James. If they had the same understanding of sola fide as Luther, why didn't they reject it? This is the same kind of circular logic you keep employing. On the one hand, you want to support with tradition; on the other, when tradition doesn't support you, you reject it.

The Church used James for literally 1000 years unified before Luther. They didn't use it solely because it was an argument against sola fide, because sola fide didn't come up as an issue until Luther. But Luther rejected it on the grounds of sola fide. Don't you see the problem with that?

Quote:

---

For the LCMS we have a quia subscription to our Confessions. Or said in english, we believe in the Confessions because they agree with scripture.
...
So any example you try to make that starts with something other than Scriptures at the top is simply just you projecting.

---

You can't possibly not see the problem here. You have to begin somewhere, there has to be an axiom in your proof. I don't care what it is, but it has to be something. If it is scripture, there has to be an assumed canon, i.e., a defined body of scripture. In other words, the question absolute first question is, what is scripture, so that we can agree with it.

But Luther had a problem with James. It almost doesn't matter why, because immediately now the question is - ok... what is Luther using to determine what is scripture, so he can in turn use that scripture to agree with his confessions?

Therefore the canon of scripture as used by literally all of Christendom for 1000 years was not Luther's axiom, because he had no issue with questioning it. So "scripture" is not the starting point here.

Maybe Luther's starting point was the four gospels and Romans. I don't know. But then you can't just say "scripture" because "scripture" includes Hebrews, James, Revelation for Christians today, and had for 1000 years.

Everyone uses some rule to determine "what is scripture". It doesn't matter if that rule is, "whatever is in the book that says 'The Bible' at the store" there is still some implicit rule that tells us - this is trustworthy, this is the arbiter, this is the starting point.

I really don't know any other way to explain this. Do you see my point? I don't care necessarily that you agree, I just want to make sure you actually follow what I'm saying, because I feel it's pretty cut and dry.

Quote:

---

You start with "Dogmatic fact of life" or more clearly "Tradition"

---

Obviously. When the Church began, when the Apostles taught the nations, there was no NT scripture.

Quote:

---

You need a parallel path of "not in scripture"

---

Please, tell me what my Church does that is not in scripture? I'd love to know. I've yet to find anything.

Quote:

---

However, it is good for you to acknowledge that the Father's do get downplayed in favor of "Tradition." It's good to acknowledge that the Fathers are downplayed in favor of what the East has decided. That's important to realize.

---

This is just dense. Nothing happens in a vacuum. The Fathers didn't pop out of their mother's wombs fully formed. They were taught, they learned, they experienced. Some of them were pagans before they became Christians as adults (St John Chrysostom or St Augustine for example). Some were raised by saints (St Gregory the Theologian's mother was St Nonna). Some were monks, and trained in monasticism (St John Cassian for example). They received the scriptures, the confessions, the life in the Church. This in turn framed and influenced their writing, and they illumined it in return. They dogmatized from their experience.

Dogmatic fact is the starting point, because this literally began the moment St Peter opened his mouth at Pentecost. Every action, every word, every writing, every prayer that was taught and sanctioned by the Apostles is a part of dogmatic fact, because it happened. Every public teaching that was entrusted in the presence of many witnesses (2 Timothy 2:2) is a part of the continous chain of dogmatic fact. When you say the Lord's Prayer, you're in dogmatic fact, because this is passed on to us by Tradition. When you say the words "this is my Body" etc. you are living in dogmatic fact, because this is passed on to us by Tradition (this is explicit in 1 Corinthians 11:23).

Arguing against dogmatic fact as the bedrock of our faith is an argument against scripture, because scripture appeals to this and is in fact produced by it. It's more or less arguing against history as well, because we know with absolute, complete and utter certainty that the Church existed before any NT scripture, and flourished for literally centuries before there was a uniform canon.

Quote:

---

So your alternative is to never question anything. It's equally as bad and as you pointed out, not scriptural.

---

Not only did I never say this or advocate for it, you were the one who suggested it, to show how stupid it was. This is the literal definition of a straw man.

Quote:

---

We could of course discuss details relevant to Lutheran's, but I don't think you're after that.

---

I'm fine with that. I think the statement "everyone should question everything" is relevant to each and every person who wants to be a Christian and have God-pleasing beliefs. I think it is a wrong thing to believe. I think it is unscriptural. I gave scripture to this point. You have responded with a straw man.

Quote:

---

We shouldn't need to understand the heresy. We need to understand whether the arguments against it (which were not destroyed) were scripturally sound. If they are, then everyone should accept them, which Lutheran's do. So not fatally flawed at all.

---

This is illogical on several points. We must look at this as skeptics; after all, we are starting from our own point of questioning everything. Everything means everything, sir! Here are the issues:

1. We have no reason to believe that the polemics were faithful in producing the arguments of the so-called heretics faithfully. They may have distorted them, even intentionally, to make them look bad. In fact, this was an often used tactic in antiquity.

2. Often the arguments against the heretics were against their use of the canon. St Irenaeus makes this point clearly, arguing against additional books and gospels. So we can't presume that the canon St Irenaeus uses to argue against the gnostics is valid. If their books were actually valid, St Irenaeus rejection of them out of hand would be wrong. Heretics argued both for an expanded and a smaller canon, depending on their theology. Scripture is not, cannot be presumed.

3. Scripturally sound by who's interpretation? What if they are possibly sound, but possibly not? What if their interpretation was pious, but not up to the task (the way Luther describes the book of James)? In other words, what if we, having both sides of the argument in front of us, would have come to a different conclusion based on our interpretation?

This is an exercise in futility. You can't evaluate between the prosecution and the defense by listening only to one side of the case.

Quote:

---

If you want to say that we hold to the Confessions because we believe they are Scriptural, then sure they are binding only because of that. If you're saying that anything we believe overrides Scripture, than no there's nothing binding.

---

Cool. First, define scripture.

Succintly put: You can't appeal to scripture broadly as authority, and reject it as authority in specificity. (i.e., You can't appeal to "scripture" in general while objecting to the authority of James specifically)

Parallel to the subject in this thread..

AgLiving06 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Also - as an addendum to both of my earlier posts. The canon was fixed, de facto and by local councils and canonical lists, in the fifth century in the West and the sixth century in the East. More or less the discussion ended, by excluding some writings that were on the fence as uninspired and including others as canonical.

Luther's reopening of this discussion a thousand years later by raising doubts about certain books wasn't an attack simply on the Roman Church but on the practice of all of Christendom.

---

Which of course makes complete sense.

What is historical fact is that the Roman Church was extremely corrupt morally and theologically.

If your goal is to reform (as was Luther's), you should question everything. Shoot, we as Christians should question everything even today.

---

"What is historical fact is that the Roman Church was extremely corrupt morally and theologically. "

Whaa???? I do think there have been some really bad people who were also Catholics - however, your claim almost seems to suggest that the Holy See was abandoned by the Holy Spirit - am I reading this right?

+Pablo

PabloSerna said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Also - as an addendum to both of my earlier posts. The canon was fixed, de facto and by local councils and canonical lists, in the fifth century in the West and the sixth century in the East. More or less the discussion ended, by excluding some writings that were on the fence as uninspired and including others as canonical.

Luther's reopening of this discussion a thousand years later by raising doubts about certain books wasn't an attack simply on the Roman Church but on the practice of all of Christendom.

---

Which of course makes complete sense.

What is historical fact is that the Roman Church was extremely corrupt morally and theologically.

If your goal is to reform (as was Luther's), you should question everything. Shoot, we as Christians should question everything even today.

---

"What is historical fact is that the Roman Church was extremely corrupt morally and theologically. "

Whaa???? I do think there have been some really bad people who were also Catholics - however, your claim almost seems to suggest that the Holy See was abandoned by the Holy Spirit - am I reading this right?

+Pablo

---

There have also been some really bad corrupt Popes.

But honestly, I'm not Catholic, and history does not support the current view of the Pope by Catholics. He was just a Bishop.

But you are quoting a conversation between an Orthodox an Lutheran.

Both would view Rome as being in schism.