Rather, as argued, there was no settled, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who had substantial and even current scholarly and historical support for his own opinion in that regard, contrary to the standard Cath. propaganda, as seen earlier here.
How does your statement radically differ from mine? So there is no settled canon until Luther and Trent. Thus while Luther could not be charged with removing books, Catholics could likewise not be charged with adding them; the question would be unsettled until then.
This indeed is the real argument, yet one that was tried upstream already, but the fact remains that since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (which shows how they understood the OT and gospels), then she has no infallible authority (though as said, even secular powers can make rules for those under it).
Since Catholics do not accept the premise of sola scriptura this argument does not hold. But it can also be shown the Protestants reject what is actually in the Bible in favor or their own non-Biblical sola fide: e.g. the Real Presence, apostolic succession, the forgiveness of sins, the exclusion from the Kingdom because of sin, and a Church which speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit.
And of course, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is itself novel and unScriptural, nowhere seen or promised or essential for authority and preserving faith.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts shows the Church settling a dispute among the faithful through the decision of its pastors speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit. When did this authority cease?
That is a contradiction in terms, re. "Christian faithful," and the numbers are claim, and since the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive definitive source and description of what constitutes a christian is the New Testament, which excludes most Catholics as well as liberals Prots.
And who is to judge who is in conformity with the New Testament?
But if you want to invoke consensus of the faithful …
I suggested this as the only appeal that Protestants could make, but one that would also fail. Regarding the question of the canon of the Bible, Protestants can in truth only say that it is still in dispute among Christians. They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible.
We agree then, but unsettled until then for Catholics, but which is not the same as having one universally accepted canon from the 4th century.
But it can also be shown the Protestants reject what is actually in the Bible in favor or their own non-Biblical sola fide: e.g. the Real Presence, To the contrary. Not on the basis of the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed
apostolic succession
Rome does not.
the forgiveness of sins, the exclusion from the Kingdom because of sin, and a Church which speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts shows the Church settling a dispute among the faithful through the decision of its pastors speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit. When did this authority cease?
You are moving the goal posts. This simply examples valid magisterial authority (which SS affirms) which flowed from the OT, dissent from which was a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) and a right Scripturally substantiated judgment by it, as led by real apostles (and not Catholics).
However, the premise behind such required obedience was not that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, which is never seen, nor essential, but Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
And you did not answer my questions re. authority.
And who is to judge who is in conformity with the New Testament?
Starting the local magisterial office all the way up to its organizational head (and there should be a Acts 15-type council overall), but if you mean supreme infallibility and authority required assent, then who was to judge who was in conformity with the Old Testament at the time of John the Baptist?
I suggested this as the only appeal that Protestants could make, but one that would also fail.
Wrong again, for your problem, as explained, is with the word "faithful." Rome is the one who manifestly considers Teddy K Catholics to be faithful, while Clintons avoid conservative evangelical churches. And such as most strongly esteem Scripture also attest to the greatest unity in most basic beliefs . vs. Catholics.
Regarding the question of the canon of the Bible, Protestants can in truth only say that it is still in dispute among Christians.
If "Christians" in the broad sense of the word.
They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible.
They certainly do have a very strong historical and textual case, and affirms believers can discern which writings are of God, as they did in manifestly establishing an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings. And the government of a church(es) can require assent to its judgments, but not as assured infallible.
But Rome has no Scriptural basis on which to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible.
Regarding the question of the authority of the pope, Catholics can in truth only say that it is in dispute among Catholics.
They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the pope is some kind of heretic, non-RCC, demon posessed, Communist, humanist wannabe.