Every Catholic argument boils down to the same tired essence: you don’t have a pope, so what did you replace him with?
You must only read certain Catholic arguments, because I have seen plenty that do not boil down to that, right here on this forum.
But that’s such a Romo-centric view of the church, that it doesn’t take into account that it is possible to hold to an ecclesiology that does not require a fallible, sinful, human being to determine doctrine.
Of course it’s possible to hold such an ecclesiology, and Protestantism shows this. And nowhere has the author of that article ever stated that it was impossible, (you will have to take my word for it, since you say you stopped reading after the third paragraph). Protestantism, and Orthodoxy for that matter show that it is possible to hold that view. I think everyone should hold the view that we don’t need fallible people making doctrines, if the Holy Spirit is not guiding them. But since the parameters you set did not include the Holy Spirit, your statement in no way address, or disproves the Catholic view on Papal infallibility, or the infallibility of ecumenical councils. Without this charism of infallibility, we are truly left with blindly determining what we ourselves think at the moment is correct. We can pick and choose what doctrines we want to follow (truly the sheep in charge). I might add, that the authors of the NT were all fallible, sinful, human beings. As such, why should I believe the Holy Spirit guided them to write the scriptures without error, but will not guide the Church to teach in the same manner?
Your question asks the same thing. I’m no pope. Lutheranism has no pope. Lutheranism needs no pope.
Actually my question did not ask if you were the pope. Nor was it meant to be a subtle way of saying that you need a pope, or that you were acting like a pope. From reading your many posts, I have been able to discern that much (only took me two days to reach that conclusion
). And I know Lutherans don’t have a pope. Nor did I ever ask if Lutheranism needs a pope. In my opinion every Christian needs the pope. But you did make a blanket statement for all of Protestantism about that article, one which I called into question. And that statement prompted my question if you spoke for all of Protestantism when you made that statement.
Here is your statement,
where you spoke for all Protestants.
Ugh. There are so many mischaracterizations and downright inaccuracies about the “Protestant” view of the canon, that I stopped reading after the third paragraph.
Now all one has to do, is find
one Protestant that does not find his view inaccurate, and your statement becomes false. You would have been better suited to state, “the author does not represent the view of Lutherans, on the determination of the canon.”
Tell me, do you think it is possible to present a view that accurately describes all Protestant’s views of the canon?
