Replies

Wait a minute. I think you're getting too big for your britches.

Think whatever you want but the fact is that Pope St. Innocent I (401-417) in 405 A.D. approved the 73 book canon and closed the canon of the Bible. This after the following occured:

Pope Damasus in 382 A.D., prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present Old Testament and New Testament canon of 73 books.

The Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. approved the present Old Testament and New Testament canon of 73 books.

The Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. approved the same Old Testament and New Testament canon of 73 books.

Prior to the actions of Pope St. Innocent I there were some of the opinion that Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter were not inspired while others believed that certain noncanonical books were inspired, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the letters of Barnabas and Clement were inspired. The Catholic Church used her authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised and did indeed determine what was and what was not canon. Catholic authors wrote the inspired text of the New Testament. Rejecting any of this shows you are ignorant of history.

Here Luther is in error.

Luther was wrong about a lot of things but this wasn't one of them. It's a common crutch for Protestants to rely on when they disagree with him to say he was wrong but when they agree with him he was right. Thus by their own admissions he isn't a good foundation to base a "Reformation" upon.

To venerate the Catholic Church or Luther or Mary as flawless and without error is just plain wrong.

Christ assured us in Scripture that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Christ assured us that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church in His absence. Christ left a Church to teach, govern and sanctify in His name until the end of time. Are you implying that Christ lied?

Christ never lied. Don't be rude.

And let me get this straight. Are you really saying that without the Catholic church, there would be no Bible? And without Mary, there would be no Jesus?

So you're quoting Matthew 16 for the perfection of the Catholic church and the institution of the first Pope?
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And then Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

But let's consider Acts 3:12
12When Peter saw this, he said to them: "Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?

So Peter doesn't try and take the glory, he gives it to God. But you would have men stare and glorify the Catholic church for performing the Lord's work?

And was Luther wrong about buying your way into Heaven? Was the Catholic church correct about indulgences?

Acts 8:20
Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!

Neither Peter, Luther, or the Catholic Church, or any church is without error.

So the RCC decided canon as early as 382?

In 365, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the complete twenty-seven books of the New Testament which he regarded as the "only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel" (Hannah, Notes, 2.6).

What's this? Someone deciding canon as early as 365? And when he stated canon he aslo stated this canon as the "only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel".

So the first person to quote today's NT cacon did not believe that the RCC or the pope were needed for salvation. That sounds a lot like Sola Scriptura to me. And if reseach serves me right, he was part of the RCC.

And then consider the Synod of Carthage in 397.

"The slowness of determining the final limits of the canon is testimony to the care and vigilance of early Christians in receiving books purporting to be apostolic. But, while the collection of the New Testament into one volume was slow, the belief in a written rule of faith was primitive and apostolic ... In the most basic sense neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to perceive and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church." (Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content [New York: Abingdon Press, 1965], p. 276)

So they didn't decide canon, but canon was revealed to them. So what's so special about the RCC other than the fact that they are servants of the Lord?

And let us consider 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (ESV)
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

You take this out of context. We are to stand firm in the traditions of the apostles. And the people of the past could have heard the apostles speak in person or they could have read their letters. Today we can only read their letters. And none of the Popes (other than Peter) is an apostle. The "us" in the above scripture does not include the RCC, it is the Apostles. I am part of the Apostolic church. QED.