Bear with me... Filioque: A Lutheran Perspective

[AMM]

actually, both were used as a part of the NT canon for some areas very early on. so they most certainly are Apostolic. they were also debated as being included in the canonical Scriptures, and were rightly not included, but not being Apostolic was not a part of the reason.

so I ask again, how do you trust the New?

Also I just thought of this -- why do you trust councils specifically? I know the EO believe that the true Church can never err and is a pillar and ground of truth, etc. But what is it about the ecumenical councils that makes them infallible?
And what is required for something to be considered ecumenical? For instance I was researching Constantinople I the other day, and it was not attended by many bishops (compared to the 300+ at Nicea) because of Ambrose's synod of Aquileia that was also supposed to be ecumenical (but politics and miscommunications led to some bishops going to Rome, some (about 30) to Aquileia, and some (150) to Constantinople) and as a whole everything was very messy and chaotic

 

[ArmyMatt]

Which Council? I was under the impression that the EO also technically had an "open canon" since it had never been ruled on in a council (I believe Trent was the first council to officially decree which books are included, although there had been local synods that ruled on it first, and obviously you don't accept Trent as authoritative). But for all practical purposes, the "official" position is the full septuagint and the 27 books of the NT.
FWIW, a lot of Lutherans have no qualms with the "extended" canon of Rome and the East. I'm one of them. The deuterocanonical books (of both new and old testament) were included in Lutheran bibles for ages and the OT Deuterocanon only stopped appearing when the anglicans (I think) began printing bibles in the US without them
The distinction between disputed/universally accepted books appears in Eusebius of Ceasarea's The Church History as well as Jerome's writings. I'm not sure if it shows up earlier.

one was Carthage and the other was either in Toledo or Trullo, in the years 397 and 407. yes, we have an open canon in a sense as well, but these two ratified what we know today as the New Testament as opposed to the Gnostic texts

 

[ArmyMatt]

Also I just thought of this -- why do you trust councils specifically? I know the EO believe that the true Church can never err and is a pillar and ground of truth, etc. But what is it about the ecumenical councils that makes them infallible?
And what is required for something to be considered ecumenical? For instance I was researching Constantinople I the other day, and it was not attended by many bishops (compared to the 300+ at Nicea) because of Ambrose's synod of Aquileia that was also supposed to be ecumenical (but politics and miscommunications led to some bishops going to Rome, some (about 30) to Aquileia, and some (150) to Constantinople) and as a whole everything was very messy and chaotic

they are accepted by the whole Church and fall in line with the consistent teaching of the Church. we hold them in high esteem because they are how the Church rubber stamps what she believes and how, speaking Biblically, the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Church