Debate Invitation to RCC - "Canon"

[Tree of Life]

Any of my Roman brothers want to debate the nature of the canon?

Catholics say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it is authorized by the Church.

Reformed types say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it evidences itself to be the word of God.

I'll defend the Reformed side.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Any of my Roman brothers want to debate the nature of the canon?

Catholics say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it is authorized by the Church.

Reformed types say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it evidences itself to be the word of God.

I'll defend the Reformed side.

Sorry, I would in real life but I won't in here. In this place I'll be hung to dry and fall victim to attacks and viciousness only to get disciplined whenever I strike back out of frustration.

It is what it is...

 

[Tree of Life]

Sorry, I would in real life but I won't in here. In this place I'll be hung to dry and fall victim to attacks and viciousness only to get disciplined whenever I strike back out of frustration.

It is what it is...

We could make it formal.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I would prefer to add to the thread a little to possibly be a witness to those who keep the RCC faith. Not as an attack, but more of a point. I have found in my studies of God's Word, that the sole issue between Catholics and non-Catholics is the issue of praying to people other than God. Which is unbiblical. There is on mediator between man and God, that is Jesus Christ.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I would prefer to add to the thread a little to possibly be a witness to those who keep the RCC faith. Not as an attack, but more of a point. I have found in my studies of God's Word, that the sole issue between Catholics and non-Catholics is the issue of praying to people other than God. Which is unbiblical. There is on mediator between man and God, that is Jesus Christ.

Note: it's unbiblical in protestant bibles. The book of Maccabees encourages a much wider definition of prayers to and for those who've gone before us.

Also we're not Sola Scripture christians
Don't get me wrong I used to be and some of my best friends are

 

[tz620q]

Any of my Roman brothers want to debate the nature of the canon?

Catholics say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it is authorized by the Church.

Reformed types say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it evidences itself to be the word of God.

I'll defend the Reformed side.

Instead of starting yet another Catholic versus Protestant divisive thread, maybe we could talk a little about how a canon is established. Since the definition of canon is "a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged", this principle should be firm enough that we can show a cohesive set of principles that have not changed over time that lead to the canon of the Bible as you acknowledge it and no other. This is not to say that there will not be differences in canon; but that these differences are caused by differing principles to begin with.

 

[Basil the Great]

I would prefer to add to the thread a little to possibly be a witness to those who keep the RCC faith. Not as an attack, but more of a point. I have found in my studies of God's Word, that the sole issue between Catholics and non-Catholics is the issue of praying to people other than God. Which is unbiblical. There is on mediator between man and God, that is Jesus Christ.

It is interesting that not only Christianity, but Judaism and Islam appear to be split on this issue. The bulk of Islam is of the Sunni persuasion and they say pray only to God. However, I have read where the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ites or some of them anyway, believe it is acceptable to pray to a mediator. Meanwhile, it seems that most Jews take the position that one should pray only to God. However, I have read where some feel otherwise.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

It is interesting that not only Christianity, but Judaism and Islam appear to be split on this issue. The bulk of Islam is of the Sunni persuasion and they say pray only to God. However, I have read where the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ites or some of them anyway, believe it is acceptable to pray to a mediator. Meanwhile, it seems that most Jews take the position that one should pray only to God. However, I have read where some feel otherwise.

Jesus is the Word made flesh. His name literally is "God with us". God and his word are of the same in that regards.

 

[FireDragon76]

Any of my Roman brothers want to debate the nature of the canon?

Catholics say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it is authorized by the Church.

Reformed types say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it evidences itself to be the word of God.

I'll defend the Reformed side.

Both are problematic from this Lutheran POV.

 

[tz620q]

Any of my Roman brothers want to debate the nature of the canon?

Catholics say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it is authorized by the Church.

In regards to how Catholics view the canon, in a nutshell, the Catechism briefly states it this way:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture

"IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New."

So if you see apostolic Tradition as being that which is authorized by the Church, then you would equate them. We do not make that distinction. For us apostolic Tradition stems from what Jesus Christ taught the apostles plus what they passed on to their successors. So to use a common example, we know that the Gospel of Mark is apostolic because tradition says it is so. If the Gospel of Mark is not written by Mark, then that calls into doubt whether it should be considered inspired. This is the criteria that caused the exclusion of most of the NT apocrypha. Tradition would not support the claims of authorship that the book made about itself. You could say that that decision to exclude a book was done without proper authority; but then you would have to create your own criteria for exclusion that was not based on Tradition.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Any of my Roman brothers want to debate the nature of the canon?

Catholics say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it is authorized by the Church.

Reformed types say that we know that the Bible is the word of God because it evidences itself to be the word of God.

I'll defend the Reformed side.

What's the purpose of canonization?