The fundamental misperception here is that the Protestant Reformers rejected the entirety of the church and sought to begin with some sort of clean slate to invent a new form of Christianity. They didn't. They sought to return to first principles, believing with some justification that the excesses of the Papacy and the priesthood in general that had built up over the centuries were straying from Christianity.
There is in fact support for these contentions. There had been reform movements in the past that didn't result in schism and breaking with Rome. What was different about this one? The priesthood and the Papacy itself was brought under scrutiny, that's what was different.
I have a question for you: you've asked several times if the Protestant canon is infallibly determined. I want to see you admit that those books within that canon are infallibly determined.
Can you do that? Just write "The books of the Protestant canon are infallibly determined." Easy enough to do. Surely you don't contest the canonicity of these books, do you? After all, they're the same books you accept yourself.
If you want to continue with the bluff and bluster about the Deutercanonical books, there is an answer for that, with which I'm certain you're familiar. These books were contained in the earliest Protestant Bibles and in many instances continue to be. However, their acceptance as canon was not clear at all and still is not; protest all you want but this is the truth.
What did Jerome think of the Apocrypha?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
Is the Apocrypha good for teaching doctrine?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html
“The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57”
I have heard this argument many times and believe it is sincere. As a fallen away Catholic Christian (rejecting all religion and living as a very skeptical agnostic)when I began to yearn again for Christ in my life, I seriously considered and weighed my options.
This argument made sense and made my decision to return to the Church a difficult one.
But, I began to realize that when one honestly considered this argument, there was an extreme flaw in it.
Simply put, if I can accept the “first principles” and the doctrines of the early councils as having been declared by the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at what time do I also accept that the same Holy Spirit abandoned the Church?
It then made no sense to me. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, he promised that His Church would survive the gates of Hell. Why then and when did He withdraw the Holy Spirit?
That question drove me nuts and hampered my Christianity as I wanted Truth, not just religion.
I found my answer in the Truth that I believe the original post of this thread represents.
Luther did not foresee what he wrought. His canon is the one accepted by Protestants, unless I am unaware of different ones accepted by other denominations.
That would mean that all Protestants accepting as canon Luther’s choices of what to keep and what to discard is a de facto of his infallibility.
Thus that stumbling block was overcome for me and returning to the Church was the only thing that made sense.
The books of the Protestant canon are infallibly determined.
How's that?
But what does that prove?
The question at hand is, Did Luther have the authority to determine the Protestant canon of Scripture? (Specifically, the authority to remove books from the accepted canon of Scripture in his day.)
Did he act infallibly when he removed books from the Bible?
Can you say, "Luther is not infallible, and we cannot be certain that he acted infallibly when determining his canon of Scripture?"