The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture
Debate Rounds (4)
Time to argue: 72 hours
Argument max: 10,000 Characters
1: Bible: "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments."(1)
2: Canon: "an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture."(2)
Pro will argue in favor of the resolution.
Con will argue that the Bible supports a closed canon
Format as follows:
Round 1: Acceptance and a brief statement of position. (no more than 100 words.)
Round 2/3: Arguments and Rebuttals.
Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements. (No new arguments.)
This debate is intended to be serious, please no trolling. Good luck to whomever accepts.
Brief Opening Statement
There are many Christens today who say "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."(3) It has become the dominant belief in Christianity that the Bible constitutes a closed canon of God's word. I will show that the Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture.
It has become common place for "Christians" to believe in a closed canon of scripture limited to the Bible. Ironically this idea is not to be found in the Bible. Therefore, as this idea of a closed canon is not presented in the Bible, and when applied limits God, it should be discarded as a baseless doctrine in the Christian world.
The idea of a closed canon comes from a misapplication of Scripture:
Revelation 22:18 (KJV)
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
Often advocates for a closed canon will say that this verse says as plain as can be, do not "add" to the Bible. There are two simple reasons why this verse cannot be applied this way.
First: "there is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament "books" that were almost certainly written after John"s revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself. Perhaps there are even more than these."(1)
Second: " But there is a simpler answer as to why that passage in the final book of the current New Testament cannot apply to the whole Bible. That is because the whole Bible as we know it"one collection of texts bound in a single volume"did not exist when that verse was written. For centuries after John produced his writing, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combinations with a few other texts but almost never as a complete collection. Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000." (1)
The above quotes illustrate that Revelation 22:18 cannot feasibly be applied to mean that the Bible as we have it today is all there can be.
To really drive this point home, I will cross reference this verse to Deuteronomy Chapter 4:2(KJV)
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy is the fifth book in the Old Testament. If we were to apply this scripture like many so called "Christians" apply Revelation 22:18 we would have to reject the entire New Testament and a large portion of the Old Testament.
The Nature of God:
The Christian view of God includes the belief that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. This idea of a God Unlimited in knowledge, power, and influence does not mesh with the idea of limiting God to the text of the Bible. These two ideas oppose each other. Who are we to say God could not speak to us today? I echo the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Christians should "Teach that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake."(2)
The Bible contains zero references to God saying that his words and revelations and interaction with men would stop.
Mathew 4:4 (KJV)
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Every word that "proceedeth out of the mouth of God" is scripture and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." As was already mentioned due to the belief that God is omniscient, it would not make sense to limit the things he could say to what we call the Bible.
Contrary to teaching a closed canon, the Bible presents how to recognize true Prophets and Revelation:
"15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep"s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Christ does warn of false prophets. I ask the question, why would he warn of false prophets if there were to be no more "true" prophets? Simply put he says "by their fruits ye shall know them."
The belief of a closed canon of scripture is not found in the Bible. The Bible contains zero references to God saying that his words and revelations and interaction with men would stop. In fact the Bible does contain instructions on how to distinguish true prophets/revelation from false. This implies the idea of continued revelation. The Christian world has no reason to accept the idea of a closed canon of scripture. This doctrine should be dismissed by Christians.
When discussing the book of Revelations. I do agree. The Book of revelations is likely only making reference to itself.
I have never been in the belief it was a reference to the entire Cannon, and in fact have argued with is with devote Christians.
However. The Bible is not a term used to describe Holy scriptures. It is a term which is defined and described as the current cannon of scriptures.
Many bishops and Popes, and disciples have added to the philosophy and message of Christianity. These things were accepted. But they are not biblical. Because the Bible is a closed Cannon.
Anything added to the Bible would be, the "Bible and this", or "this, with quoted biblical contents"
I resubmit the definition presented in round one for Bible. "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments."(1)
Con says "Many bishops and Popes, and disciples have added to the philosophy and message of Christianity."
I agree with this statement.
Con says "Because the Bible is a closed Cannon."
Again I resubmit a quote used early in the debate. "Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000."(2)
Cons comments do not seem to be directed at the resolution which reads "The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture."
Therefore the resolution stands.
GoOrDin forfeited this round.
"The belief of a closed canon of scripture is not found in the Bible. The Bible contains zero references to God saying that his words and revelations and interaction with men would stop. In fact the Bible does contain instructions on how to distinguish true prophets/revelation from false. This implies the idea of continued revelation. The Christian world has no reason to accept the idea of a closed canon of scripture. This doctrine should be dismissed by Christians."
My opponents comments did not address the resolution. Also as per rules, Round 4 cannot contain any new arguments. So as my opponents arguments did not address the resolution, and he can no longer make new arguments, The resolution stands.
Thanks for reading,
The Bible IS the current accumulation of Bibical scriptures cannoned by the Catholic and then Christian church.
Bible is not a term designated to holy scriptures, but instead to this very Book, and nothing else.
There is no indication hat the Bible is sacred or holy or blessed in omnipotency as God's word. And thus the debate has been founded on a disputable principal, "that the Bible was intended to be The Bible and not more or less. meaning, the Bible, which is intended to be as such, in itself supports the claim that it can not be an Open cannon. It would thus be the "Bible + some", or "some + the scriptures."
However I agree that holy texts should be in continual accumulation and inspection. The Bible is not indicated within itself saying, "The Bible is holy, sacred or true." . However much I believe in the Bible, which I do;
The Bible is as I indicated in round 2, The current cannon of Scriptures. The Bible was not the Bible prior to the new testament*** nor would it be the Bible if it were expanded, for if this were to happen, then the Past generation were not reading the Bible and you would have high-jacked the term from them unto a blasphemers end.
Please forgive me for missing my last round, and explaining my 2nd Round point more thoroughly here and now.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, and conceded many of pros points. I think pro was right to question if con understood the resolution.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate