Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?
If Luther did not act infallibly:
- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
If Luther acted infallibly:
- How do you know?
With the exception of the Catholic church, who claims the Pope is infallible, I know of no other human or church who has claimed infallible.
No, no, no.
Those are also fruits of the reformation. Though they have taken elements of Catholic rites and rituals, they are not at all in communion with the Church.
That is why they would be more easily aligned with protestantism.
That statement cannot possibly stand on its own.
Who decides which truth the Holy Spirit has guided all the various different sects and denominations is in fact The Truth?
No one worships the Catholic Church, though it would seem some worship the hate of it.
You must have missed this in my previous post:
Luther included them in his German translation of the Bible. Editions of the King James Bible also included them.
You must have also missed this:
Not all Catholics accepted them as part of the Bible until the church hierarchy declared them to be so and attached a curse on everyone who did not accept their ruling. God Bless
I’ve not affirmed any such thing, since the original premise of the thread was to question whether Martin Luther “infallibly” defined what books belong in the Bible, a ludicrous and nonsensical question that could only make the slightest sense to someone who regarded him as some sort of Protestant pope. He was not.
There was no “infallible” canon outside those books not in dispute as to their inspired nature, right up to and beyond the Protestant Reformation. Luther chose to handle those books in dispute by identifying them as such and moving them to the back of his Bible translation. This is not at odds with the belief of many of the best scholars of the Roman Catholic Church of the era.
This has been repeatedly explained and yet you and other keep returning to it. I can only conclude that certain key doctrines of the modern Roman Catholic Church have been construed from these historically disputed books since the Council Of Trent, otherwise there would not be such an uproar about it.
So, which doctrines of the modern Roman Catholic Church have been drawn from the Deuterocanonical books, which were described even by early Church fathers as not divinely inspired, good for edification but not a source for doctrine? Praying for the dead? It’s so heated it’s got to have something to do with Mariology, imho.
I don’t see where Luther’s canon differed any from that of the canon of Augustine’s time. What he seemed to be rebelling against was the Council of Trent.
So you say. And yet, they're going to mass and receiving communion. Then praying and invoking and making offerings to statues of Saints syncretised with old African gods.
Nothing Protestant about that at all.
“The question is, by what authority did Luther determine his canon of Scripture? Did he act infallibly? “
Again, in Luther’s day, it was perfectly acceptable to debate the canon - which is why Trent finally came up with a list. Prior to Trent, there was no official, binding Catholic list.
So, for 1500 years, what did Christians do?
Of course, Rome tried to keep scripture out of the hand of common men, arguing that commoners weren’t capable of understanding it.
As I have told you multiple times, Protestants believe it is the Holy Spirit who guides us to truth, not the Pope.
“To deny the historical fact of the Catholic involvement in the formation of scripture is to deny reality.”
Please discuss Rome’s role in defining the canon prior to the Council of Trent.
“You can deny the Holy Spirit involvement but the Catholic compilation is a historical given.”
The Orthodox would have a better claim...
Where does the Bible refer to an “invisible” church?
“Pardon my smart-aleck remark, but Jesus didn’t issue bound copies of the Bible at Pentecost.”
Please discuss the means by which Jesus and the Apostles were able to quote scripture. What infallible council gave us the Old Testament?
There were ‘English’ translations of part of the scripture long prior to Wycliffe. Since part COULD be translated, and WAS, what prevented the Catholic Church from translating ALL of it?
How did the Apostles know scripture, when many clergy of the 1300s did not?
“If one accepts Scripture and divinely inspired and inerrant in its truths, by whom or what authority does one accept it?”
Ever hear of the Holy Spirit?
“Where does the Bible refer to an “invisible” church?”
How often does scripture refer to a church at all, and not congregations?
>> I notice in the recounting of Mathew, you fail to mention that the remedy for one whose brother has offended him is to bring it to the church.<<
“Bring it to the church” the gathering of believers. The church is not an organization, it is a body of believers. Yes, there were designated leaders in the church but not a hierarchical structure, only differing levels and responsibilities of service.
Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Nothing in the above verses states that the, “church leadership” or “a church leader” is the final authority or “in charge”. The church as a whole makes that decision.
Scratch that, Trent occurred after Luther. Date confusion. Nonetheless, the Protestant canon aligns with the Hebrew bible.
Though they may be baptized in the Church, though they may attend Mass, when they believe and practice what is not official Church teaching and doctrine, they have separated themselves from it.
The Masses on Sunday are full of people who believe themselves to be Catholic but they are in true belief and practice heretics.
>> “Actually, it never says that in scripture” <<
.
Are you sure?
.
Eph 2:
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.
- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
If Luther acted infallibly: - How do you know?
Likewise the questions can be asked of Catholics.....
"How can Catholics be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?"
How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
Catholics need to answer that question as well. Does that not then make *Holy Tradition* less certain as well? If the Catholic church erred in it's canonizing of Scripture at Trent, doesn't that bring into question ALL of the decisions arrived at at Trent?
If Trent acted infallibly: - How do you know?
The decisions at Trent were apparently not unanimous.
Despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, the decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17) possibly after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%).
Not much of a majority, if true. Just more than either of the others, but not more than both.
No doubt about it, Trent was what defined Catholicism as we know it today. But 1400 years after the fact, Catholics can hardly claim that Trent defined all of Christianity up to that point.
Ah, now we have gotten to crux of your dissent.
It is a good thing there are many, many Protestant denominations and/or others that are not mainstream Protestant that are free of sinners. Please enlighten me as to which have purged themselves and therefore are now made up entirely of non sinners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.