My emphasis
Who told you that??? Why did they stop at only 200? 
The canon is closed. It cannot be opened. So even if a new book DID come to light, it cannot be included. Neither Catholic Orthodox or Protestant are authorised to open the canon.
I am pleased for you that you have peace in Protestantism.
When you have a doctrine defined, the appropriate scripture interpretations for lots of uninterpreted verses become obvious.
All of us transmit all beliefs and experiences through our own brains. You and me both. So there is always a subjective element to our perceptions, and because of that, we have to rest on faith. Evidence and reason can provide support for that faith, but ultimately, of course we both have to have faith.
Oh, that’s IMO silly. The same accusation is leveled at the Scripture itself all the time, and those charges just about always turns out to be false, on close inspection. Same is true with the Deuterocanonicals. On occasions where the Protocanonicals, Deuterocanonicals or infallible statements of the Church have been challenged, usually the accusations can be easily invalidated. On a few times, it can be difficult to figure out where the error in the accusation lies, but we all rest in faith that it is in fact in error, and further historical research will prove it (as it disproved the common 20th century accusation of German scholarship that the Midianites didn’t exist, and thus the Bible was in error). There’s a mixture of faith and strong evidence for us both on these matters. Our positions are not far apart at all, here.
Absolutely not, but neither do we claim absolute infallibility for the pope either. If he suspects that WW3 might come in 2026, maybe he’s wrong. When he professes something officially, in his capacity as pope, on faith and morals, though, he speaks infallibly.
A general belief in the inerrancy of Rome on matters of faith and morals has existed in the Church since the very beginning of Christianity. The precise definition of an infallible papal statement that exists in modern standards didn’t always exist in the Church. I only know of 2 infallible dogmatic definitions that all Catholics agree today are infallible. There are a number of earlier “maybes” which came before the current definition was established in Church practice, but which were probably broadly seen as infallible by Catholics in their own time. We have to be careful in taking positions on those, though, because there are questions over whether or not they fit the Church’s definition of an infallible statement.
Ouch. That’s . . . unbelievably awful. I expect you’re aware of the LARGE number of apocryphal documents from the Early Church time period that have been attributed incorrectly to the apostles or prophets. Many people still have varying views on these. If most Protestants held your view about this, their generally accepted canon would split wide open very, very quickly. Humans just DO come to different conclusions when analyzing evidence. I’m thankful that most Protestants don’t, I think, share your view on this. Most do truly believe the canon is closed.
This comment above is yours.
You might want to check this theory out by comparing with what Scripture says about the immaculate conception of Mary, her assumption and praying to her. It is anything but clear.
This may be due to being poorly taught and certainly not knowing the Scriptrues.
Huh? I have already mentioned the Marian doctrines as major problem. Compare what the Scriptures say are the qualifications of a bishop in I Timothy 3 with the qualifications of a bishop in the Roman Catholic church. Also you may want to look for what the Scriptures teach about the Treasury of Merit.
Are you saying that Protestants are unclear Who Jesus is and what he came to do? Or the means and the way a man is saved?
i agree.
The church is not infallible. It has erred and continues to do so since it is composed of fallen humans. There are lots of examples of this in history.
Not so. I’m ultimately trusting in the Author of the Scriptures.
What infallible interpretations are you thinking of? With less than 20 verses interpreted you don’t have much. Secondly, your understanding of the interpretations of your church is not infallible either.
This also applies to you. There is no such thing as an infallible interpreter. I know its claimed by Catholics but it cannot be demonstrated exactly what verses have been infallibly interpreted. Do you know what verses have been infallibly interpreted by your church?
You are mistaken in thinking that your church is infallible in its interpretations. i wish it were true but its not. In fact you can read the first 3 chapters of Revelation and see our Lord rebuking churches for holding to false beliefs. Also the Scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many. If the church were infallible or promised divine protection against false teachers these warnings would be absurd.
So then how can the authors of the Scriptures be trusted? How can anyone be trusted to have passed on Jesus’ message?
Sorry BibleOnly but you are dead wrong. Sola Scriptura is an unBiblical and dangerous doctrine. It is nothing short of pure heresy.
First thing that comes to my mind is that the Gospels feature Jesus himself speaking. Many of the things that came to pass were written of in all four Gospels, not all but many. Next, these writings were completely God inspired, so now we are not talking about man alone here. The canons weren’t developed overnight. The process was long and painstaking. The Holy Spirit discerned much to the Early Church fathers.
On this we agree!
If you are going to use 2 Thes 2:15 as a justification for tradition we need to know what traditions Paul was referring to. Do you know what these traditions were specifically?
There were tests that were applied to various books that were to become known as Scripture. These tests helped to separate these works from non scriptural works.
It doesn’t
All that we need to grow in respect to salvation can be found in them. I Peter 2:2
There has always been the OT. Secondly there were some writings of the apostles in the 1st century that the church had.
Well, you must remember that they had the texts. They just weren’t put together yet.
Yes, it is the entirety of the oral teaching of the Apostles, the apostolic kerygma, preserved and passed on through the ages in the Catholic Church, and that we call Sacred Tradition.
The ones practiced by the Church which gave us the Bible!
I’m actually writing a book on the topic.
Well, they’re mature and knowledgeable Christians. They’re also non-denominational, though, which allows for even more variance from Tradition than you normally find among Protestants, because people are more truly relying on Sola Scriptura.
They aren’t actually a problem at all. I’ve examined the scriptures used by Protestants to object to these dogmas and have examined the scriptures used to support them, and the logic behind both points of view, and usually it comes down to a Protestant misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. I haven’t seen any objections that stick, personally.
Perhaps you would like to draw up quotations from the documents that you find incompatible?
Well, yes. There is a lot of disagreement in Protestantism over exactly how those things work. I don’t have time to go into it now, though, or yet to respond to your other post . . .
Oh no, not at all. They were being written as Paul travelled to the different countries and cities and such and preached to the peoples of those different churches. I am speaking of the preachings and teachings of Christ. Remember, they were very recent and very recollectable in the Early Church times.
I know, but the New Testament is more than the four Gospels.
You are talking to the wrong guy then. I don’t believe in sola scriptura.