Think outside the box for a second, Jon. You’re stuck in a rut of knee jerk responses.
Let’s try getting you out of the Lutheran church for a minute.
Say that Luther was working for a certain Grapefruit, Inc. or some other fictional company. One day, he decided that he didn’t like the rules and spoke out against them. Another fellow, Cage, wrote a pamphlet and left out some of the rules with which he disagreed. Luther, however, continued to publically challenge the Leaders of the Grapefruit Corp. Eventually, Luther was fired, but at the same time, he resigned.
Cage, however, has not spoken out against the Company. And in fact has secured a nice promotion.
Luther doesn’t worry about it. He starts a new company. Steals a few of the Corp’s employees and rewrites the Corp’s rule book, setting apart the rules with which he doesn’t agree.
At this point, Luther has started a new life, independent of his former employer. What does it matter to Luther, then, what the Corporation does from this point on? Even though the Corporation doesn’t punish Cage for his new rule book, she doesn’t change hers and in fact, soon after, goes on to pronounce it to be against the law for any employee to challenge it or change it.
Why does this matter to Luther or anyone else? Why is that a “double standard”?
I could see if Luther had remained a Catholic and he had been punished and treated poorly while Cajetan had not. That’s a double standard. But not the way that things actually worked out.
That’s not the way Lutherans, historically, have handled them. So, here’s a source to the Lutheran view of the canon, and one of the things you’ll notice is that Luther’s name is not mentioned.
I didn’t even click on the link. You say they didn’t mention Luther’s name. But the link says:
Am I missing something? Or are you?
Two more thoughts: when I was Lutheran, I did not agree with Luther on the DCs. I was allowed to have that view.
You consider your freedom to decide what you want to believe, a very valuable thing. But when I said that Lutheran’s and other Protestants claim the right of private interpretation, you were highly offended.
At what point does your freedom to pick and choose which Scriptures you prefer and which you reject, become the private interpretation to which you object so vehemently?
This morning I am reading at mass. The first lesson is from Ecclesiasticus. Last week it was from Wisdom.
Good for you. At an Anglican Mass or a Lutheran? Or have you somehow melded the two together?