I suppose there is that long running debate about where he was right and where he made mistakes. But that is another topic altogether.
My main topic is the canon of Scripture. Since I notice so many "Christian" churches embracing homosexuality, just as many embraced abortion and artificial contraception regardless of nineteen and a half centuries of Christianity, I know that the Scripture is up for grabs sometime soon. It has been attacked in terms of its historicity and now translations are made, not with the standard of fidelity, but with the standard of "relevance". I believe that the next round of attacks will be on the canon itself;i.e. whichbooks constitute Scripture. This is already a "wedge issue" amongst Christians:Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons come to mind as having different canons. The Roman Catholic position is that the Church had the authority to decide on the canon as it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Since Luther no longer recognized it as authoritive in this matter, he abridged the canon to suit his theology, thereby introducing a novelty into the decision of canon. Protestant culture places a lot of emphasis on individual conscience so why can't some Christian in good conscience decide that Scripture should also include some gnostic texts or the book of Mormon or Essene texts or the writings of Mary Baker Eddy.
I think it is a good question and Ought to be a big deal to Christians of all denoms. If it is not now, I predict it will be soon.
When I wrote "no big deal," I was referring to Martin Luthor's opinion of his own authority to define canon. The question of what is and what is not Scripture is, of course, "a big deal."
If it is not now, I predict it will be soon.
According to Religious Tolerance, "Some liberal theologians have recommended that the canon be opened for additional writings." But this in itself is not a big deal. Being described as "liberal theologians", they are already in the category of actually not accepting anything as inspired Scripture. Their opinion is irrelevant, except as further evidence of modern apostasy.
Protestant culture places a lot of emphasis on individual conscience so why can't some Christian in good conscience decide that Scripture should also include some gnostic texts or the book of Mormon or Essene texts or the writings of Mary Baker Eddy.
??? For the simple reason that, while some latitude (but not complete latitude) is given in the interpretation of Scripture, no latitude is given in the determination of what is Scripture. I am referring to those Protestant churches which still stand on the Bible, not the liberal branches which have already effectively abandoned the Bible, or to cults (not in the Protestant category, anyway) which have added to it.
From a fundamentalist, as opposed to protestant, point of view, the Scriptures were well identified by the church long before the beginning of the Established church in thr fourth century. There is no reliance on Ecumenical Councils, and the Council of Trent (which was not ecumenical) is an irrelevancy.