[wmfights]

I'm curious why his canon is accepted by you?

Didn't Luther recognize his error and put Hebrews and Revelation in the Bible they taught from? Also, I remember on this thread one of the EO posters telling me that the EO were not supportive of Revelations being in the Bible until the 1500's.

It seems that the only question about the Canon revolves around the OT Apocrypha. You might not be aware, but the first authoritative list of what comprised the Canon by an individual using his position of authority was St. Athansius. He did this as Bishop of Alexandria, without direction from Rome. He did include the OT Apocrypha with the citation that "to be read only as devotional literature not as canonical authorities".

Knowing the history helps to explain why Luther would not include the OT Apocrypha.

[redgolum]

The controversy over the OT canon is an interesting one, more so since the side today tend to forget a little history.

Prior to the Reformation in the West, and (I believe) until the 1700's in the East, the OT canon was not definitively settled. During the Reformation, in the famous written spats between Erasmus and Luther, the canon wasn't one of the bigger issues. Because at that time, many theologians were questioning whether what is now called the Apocrypha by non Catholics was on the same level as the rest of the Old Testament. The Council of Trent settled that for the Roman Catholics, but for the Lutherans, it wasn't so clear. Even today, if you pick up a Lutheran Bible from Europe or at times Africa, it will have all those disputed books in a separate section.

The Orthodox also don't have quite the same OT canon, as (if I remember right) there is an extra Psalm and some include 3&4 Maccabees.

[D-fendr]

Knowing the history helps to explain why Luther would not include the OT Apocrypha.

But why do you accept his canon? Or accept Rome's caveat contra the Bishop of Alexandria...

If one is truly Sola Scriptura, how does one start?