[papertyger]

What? Are you another of those devotees of a chauvinistic (a favorite word of ours) church who imagine that writings of God could not be ascertained as such without her, and thus a body of such had not been established as authoritative by the time of Christ, which the NT church invoked as such? Or that Scripture can only refer to a closed canon (if indeed Trent closed it), contrary to the NT church?

So where's your evidence?

As for conflating Luther's 95 theses with the Solas: Mea Culpa, for all the good it does you.

[daniel1212]

What? Are you another of those devotees of a chauvinistic (a favorite word of ours) church who imagine that writings of God could not be ascertained as such without her, and thus a body of such had not been established as authoritative by the time of Christ, which the NT church invoked as such? Or that Scripture can only refer to a closed canon (if indeed Trent closed it), contrary to the NT church?

So where's your evidence?

Are you serious? Do you really want to contend, or think you are able to, that writings of God could not be ascertained as such without Rome or an infallible magisterium, and thus thus a body of such had been established as authoritative by the time of Christ, which the NT church invoked as such? And that Scripture does not refer to a closed canon therein.

This is can be abundantly and easily evidenced by the grace of God, but I want to clearly hear from you that you actually think any of these points are even debatable, for i am incredulous that you would.

As for conflating Luther's 95 theses with the Solas: Mea Culpa, for all the good it does you.

You mean you actually are finally admitting error on a clear historical statement as part of your psychohistory after twice being called on it, but imagine it does your argument and credulity no harm? What's one more torpedo?