Replies

You position logically leads to multiple truths since by your lights there is no ONE visible Church.

So you just ignore the FACT that your position logically leads to invalidating the NT church itself, since we are to submit to the historical magisterium, disobedience to which was even a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) and the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and the recipient of the promises?

Tell me, under the RC model how could you justify following an itinerant Preacher whom those who sat in the seat of Moses rejected, asking like a RC By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:28) Who in response invoked the authority of another itinerant preacher?

And rather than the veracity of His truth claims resting upon the premise of magisterial veracity as it must for Rome, established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis?

While your argument is that there must be one visible church, Rome cannot be it as its very basis for authority is unScriptural, as are many of her primary teachings.

Which includes Rome having presumed 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.

Nor was there even one visible church in Scripture, let alone all, that looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme in Rome over all the churches. Even outside Scripture, RC scholarship provides evidence to the contrary.

• Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”...

If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no."...

“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.”

• Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,

With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...

[Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

• Johnson also writes,

Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...

• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 222ff

• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission), finds,

“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

Of-course, you have been refuted by such before , but you just keep on posting spurious propaganda.

In addition, the visible church cannot be the one true church as it is an admixture of tares and wheat, while church as the body of Christ is what is referred to as the bride of Christ, as it alone 100% consists of true believers.

And which body is visible wherever believers, by the one Spirit they received, live out their one essential faith in the one Lord, which the one baptism identifies and confesses. And gather together under pastors - presbuteros/episkopos (Titus 1:5) not a sacerdotal class of believers distinctively titled "hierus"="priests" which, among other things is nowhere is seen in the NT church.

Meanwhile, while the NT church was quite diverse, never was submission to Peter as supreme head enjoined in even one of the letters to the churches, including that of the Lord in Rc. 2,3 to the 7 representative churches.

Nor is recorded or taught in Scripture any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

However, the NT church saw its limited degree of unity under a central magisterium, but which was led by manifest apostles of God who could say,

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,... (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

But Rome's pseudo-successors (in particular) fail of both the qualifications (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) and credentials for being. And so if it was only with difficultly that the NT church had its limited unity then lacking such apostles today, it is no surprise that today we see more disunity

Yet a central magisterium is the ideal, led by presbuteros, not priests, but which the arrogant presumption of Rome's pseudo-apostles has poisoned the well against, and it was her own impenitent Roman recalcitrance which necessitated division.

And which Scripture requires and affirms as sometimes necessary. (1 Corinthians 11:19)<

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

Rome treats even proabortion/sodmite/Muslim pols as members in life and death, which you must own. But which, along with her false doctrines, forbids faithful conservative evangelicals from being joined to her.

You cannot possibly deny that for ELEVEN centuries the Catholic Church assembled, interpreted and taught the canonical texts through the prism of scared scriptural, the received oral tradition and liturgy.

Which simply continues your logical fallacy, that historicity equates to ensures veracity, which as show, invalidates the NT church. Orthodox Jews claim the same thing as Rome in essence with oral tradition, by which the interpret the Scriptures, as does Rome. And both dismiss Scriptural evidence to the contrary of themselves, under the premise of historicity equating to veracity. And in reality, like the Jews, what Rome did was not simply pass down Scriptural Truths, but due to her exaltation of herself and her amorphous oral tradition, out of which she channels doctrines (even if they even lack early testimony), she has perpetuated the errors of traditions of men.

But like as God did in Scripture, rather than ensured magisterial infallibility, the Lord raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it and to preserve faith. And which is how the church itself began, and faith has since been preserved. Thanks be to God. But with Rome's immorality and falsities necessitating separation from her,. as it does now.

And here is where your preservation even led to, leading up to9 the Reformation.

Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

• Cardinal Bellarmine:

"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation.

And which Kelly, whose work “Early Christian Doctrines,” I have on my lap, also was based upon the false and novel premise that the “Church's bishops [an artificial distinction being made between presbuteros and episkopos: cf. Titus 1:5-7] are on his [Irenaeus] Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed 'an infallible charism,'” a fantasy which was never promised or necessary for God to preserve Truth. Yet Kelly also states that Irenaeus said that “what the apostles at first proclaimed by word of mouth, they afterward by God's will conveyed to us in Scriptures.” (pp. 37,38) But what this two-equal-source position manifestly progressively resulted in was reliance upon the premise of magisterial veracity when faced with Scripture-quoting challenges, rather than meeting them on that ground as the Lord did with the devil and those who sat in the seat of Moses, and the Sadducees. It was not tradition but Scripture that the Lord invoked as authoritative.

Thus by making oral tradition equal to Scripture and the magisterium as supreme, the accretions of erroneous traditions were perpetuated alone with Truth. Which the Lord allows to grow together as a test for the people, as He did in allowing competition to His own claims, but overcoming evil with Good.

You say for 1400 years the Church failed to provide an indisputable cannon? From where on earth did you fetch this piece of historical nonsense?

Which ignorance on your part is due to your uncritical acceptance of RC propaganda that has been passed down.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),

► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;

► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)

►The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. (George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)

► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

So much for "historical nonsense."

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up,

Ignorance continued The Synod of Rome claim depends upon the “The Decree of Gelasius (Decretum Gelasianum), which contains a list of canonical books, was so called because it was formerly ascribed to Pope Gelasius (in office from 492 to 496). Various recensions of the same decree were also ascribed to the earlier Pope Demasus (366-384) and the later Hormisdas (514-523), or to councils over which they presided. But for the past century most scholars have agreed with Ernst von Dobschütz's conclusion that all the various forms of the decree derive from the independent work of an anonymous Italian churchman in the sixth century.” - http://www.bible-researcher.com/gelasius.html In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

But since you brought up the Synod of Rome, for which no formal account remains of its proceedings exist, this was under under the authority of Pope Damasus I (pope from 366-384), who provides another example of the progressive deformation of Rome, which is to be avoided.

Also from J. N. D Kelly:

Upon Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians....

..the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. — Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;

• Eamon Duffy (Pontifical Historical Commission, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College) states: “Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state”. — Eamon Duffy notes (“Saints and Sinners”, ©2001 edition)

Nor was Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) ecumenical and thus were not definitive in settling the issue of the canon, as will be evidenced.

From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible and its universal interpretation given by the Church. The only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Ignorantly parroting polemics, continued. In your words, "From where on earth did you fetch this piece of historical nonsense?"

Lets start with just a couple among others before 382:

● Jerome (340-420), the preeminent 3rd century scholar rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,

Jerome wrote in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings,

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)

● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)

His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (in the face of ancient opposition) states,

Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

● Summing up this period, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

▀ Now coming to post 4^th century, and the Middle Ages, The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

● In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

● John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.

▀ Dissent before and in Trent

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:

►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."⁶³

►The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

►Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.⁶⁴http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836

▀ Is the canon of Trent the same as that of Hippo and Carthage?

Not only was the canon not settled before Trent, with Trent arguably following a weaker scholarly tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired, but it is a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils:

“The claim that Hippo & Carthage approved the same canonical list as Trent is wrong. Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) received the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras [Ezra in the Hebrew spelling] as canonical Scripture, which Innocent I approved. However, the Vulgate version of the canon that Trent approved was the first Esdras that Jerome designated for the OT Book of Ezra, not the 1 Esdras of the Septuagint that Hippo and Carthage ( along with Innocent I) received as canonical. Thus Trent rejected as canonical the version of 1 Esdras that Hippo & Carthage accepted as canonical. Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as canonical and called it 3 Esdras.” More.

In addition,

►“Luther's translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther also translated and included the Apocrypha, saying, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He expressed his thoughts on the canon in prefaces placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. In these prefaces, he either questioned or doubted the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (his Catholic contemporaries, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, likewise questioned the canonicity of certain New Testament books). Of his opinion, he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. Of the four books, it is possible Luther's opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Luther was of the opinion that the writers of James and Jude were not apostles, therefore these books were not canonical. Still, he used them and preached from them.” (Five More Luther Myths; http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2089)

Thus, rather than the canon being settled and indisputable, scholarly doubts and disagreement continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which after the death of Luther - who had no infallible canon to dissent from - settled the canon for RCs (though perhaps not excluding late additions) apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

Of course, all this and more was provided to you in the past via a link , which could have been read by you and delivered you from being shamed as an ignorant parroting polemicists, and saved me from having to post all these excerpts, but like other RCs who will not follow links to material that discomforts them so you did not either, thus necessitating making this post even longer.

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: (1 Peter 2:15)

But you play “internet theologian” as do Bible Christians... This is the stuff of neophytes untutored on scripture, context, and history.

Rather, it is you who are "playing," that of uncritically parroting prevaricating papal polemics.

You keep again and again avoiding the tough questions on why scores of eminent Protestant theologians have joined a constellation of Catholic scholars and theologian in proclaiming both historically and scripturally that it is the Catholic Church

Avoiding "scores of eminent Protestants?" Exaggeration much? You mean you avoided answering "Why should we then leave conservative evangelical churches and join Rome like your relative few who swim the wrong way over the Tiber, to become members with even liberal proabortion/sodomy/Muslim pols?"

Instead of admitting such fruit, which Mt. 7:20 says to judge by, testifies to what Rome really believes, you tried to blithely dismiss it as irrelevant! But which it is, as unlike me, you preach a particular elitist church as the one true one, and as what one really believes is manifest by what they do and effect, then you must own and deal with your church fostering and coddling impenitent liberals whom we must separate from, in addition to her false doctrine.

In addition, just where in the Bible do you get the idea - which you have often ignorantly reiterated - that it is the lettered, formally schooled elite that are typically the weighty examples of faith which are to followed, versus common people? Once again this, like Rome herself, is contrary to the NT church. Which began with prophets and apostles, not the learned scholar who sat in the seat of Moses.

Just what university did the greatest man born of a women get his education and authority to preach from?

And how about the apostles? Paul was the only one who we know had letters, while those who did marvelled "that they were unlearned and ignorant men," "and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." (Acts 4:13)

And the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:37)

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: (1 Corinthians 1:26)

This unworthy servant, and HS graduate and former truck driver would like to debate here one of those theologians now, by the grace of God. '

You cannot assail the unassailable i.e. the faith and interpretation of the early Church Fathers as to the teachings of the Church.

The literal "unanimous consent” of the fathers is more bombast.

The fact is that according to Rome, she judges the "fathers" more than they do her, and in fact history, tradition and Scripture, truth and error, only officially consist of and mean what she says. Which includes claiming Scriptural support but which is contrived and contradictory, and “unanimous consent” of the fathers" when it is not a reality, and in contradiction to some.

You blithely ignore the writings of many of them, some whom were contemporaries of the Evangelist John.

"Some?" Exaggeration much? How many, and what documentation do you have for this, outside of possibly Polycarp, of whom we have very little on? And why o why should any of their words be the standard for Truth, and Rome's interpretation of them, versus what Scripture manifestly teaches? Which does not teach the NT believed many things Rome holds.

You gloss over the unwritten Word of God (Jn: 21:25) which ONLY the Church carried forward.

Which means you uphold a virtually bottomless pit of amorphous tradition, which even due to its form is supremely susceptible to undetectably corruption, unlike Scripture, and which in reality rests upon the spurious basis of the novel unScriptural premise of ensured magisterial infallibility of Rome. Which even finds disagreement with the tradition-based EOs.

But you gloss over the written Word which does not say that the oral word contains anything that was not subsequently written and necessary for all Christians, while in contrast what John says is,

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

And that is was not oral tradition that the Lord invoked in defeating the devil, as well as the the scribes and Pharisees, and opened the minds of the disciples to, and that Peter, Paul and Apollos reasoned from, but Scripture. (Mt. 4:4; 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 2:19-40; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23) Which also validated the miraculous value of signs and wonders as attestation.

And that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

There was no other Church at the time.

Which Scriptures easily manifest that this was not the church of Rome, while the body of Christ always continued, even though it was expressed thru visible churches which also expressed the faith of tares, as Rome increasingly did .

At the end of the day, as it has been for over 2000 years, there is ONE Church and the rest is all drivel

More fantasy, while your "drivel" (worthless message) contradicts your own modern church which affirms,

Lumen Gentium: "..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"

• "They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

Thus far you have contradicted Scripture, history and your own church.

No wonder Protestantism has been reduced to a Saturday Night caricature from the likes of TD Jakes to Joel Osteen.

More sophistry, as in reality the convenient one-size-fits-all RC definition of Protestant is so broad that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it.

In contrast, and as shown, those who hold most strongly to the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation are far more unified in basic Scriptural values and beliefs than the fruit of Catholicism, which itself exists in schisms and sects. And rather than being disunified drivel, both Rome and liberal treat evangelicals as their greatest threat in the West.

Thus their constant propaganda here, which continually has been exposed as being so. Thanks for another opportunity to do so, by God's grace.