Not according to the Word, it doesn't. The Oracles of YHWH are committed to the Hebrews, not the Romans. There was no 'canon' prior to some 'necessity' as defined by Rome. The 'canon' is and always has been the Torah. That which is accepted scripture beyond that is defined by the Torah.
And the Word certainly DOES define itself. Every single book of it has both Word and prophecy intertwined. The 'Word' must not transgress the Torah, and the 'Prophecy' cannot transgress the prophets.
Protestants don’t get around this problem, they simply use a different tradition (that of Luther’s), rather than that of Pope Damasus from the 4th century.
Nonsense. The Protestant tradition has not been without examination since the time of Luther. What they accept has been tirelessly addressed over and again. And they are right in that which they accept. Everything they do accept IS Word. What y'all accept is questionable... And neither one necessarily have it all.
Obviously not, given that those who have already mutilated the Canon now assert that their Canon is correct.
I didn't say that either canon was correct. I have asserted that the Protestant Bible is the most accepted - You admit that the books within are Word, and so do I... You would add others to it, but that does not detract from the fact that you do accept every one of those books.
That doesn’t make your interpretation correct. There is a threefolk heirarchy right in scripture. If you are arguing that Acts is part of the Word, then you cannot argue that the Church ought not have a heirarchy.
I most certainly can. And I most certainly DO.
Nonsense. All of them are part of the true Church. Every single one and their disciples are as well
Oh, I have no doubt that all of them are a part of the true Church... But that Church is not the Roman church. Else I would be a Roman even now (*shudder*).
“Not according to the Word, it doesn’t.”
Where does the Word give a list of the books that count as the canon?
“The Oracles of YHWH are committed to the Hebrews, not the Romans.”
Where is that in Scripture?
“And the Word certainly DOES define itself.”
Where? Show me.
“Nonsense. The Protestant tradition has not been without examination since the time of Luther.”
Yes, it is Luther’s tradition. The tradition was created by Luther, and you still use Luther’s tradition. Prior to Luther, it did not exist.
“Everything they do accept IS Word.”
Yes, but they do not accept everything that is the Word of God. That is the problem. It is no different than if another church were to arise and proclaim that Romans was no longer the Gospel and ought to be excised. And publish bibles without Romans.
“What y’all accept is questionable”
According to whom? Scripture?
“I didn’t say that either canon was correct.”
Then you’ve already conceded the point. Without a universal standard, there is really, no ‘Word’. There is just opinion and personal desire. That is all.
“You admit that the books within are Word”
I have asserted that the Canon established by Pope Damasus in the 4th century is the Word. The entirety of the Word. Luther mutilated the Canon by removing books that he did not like. It is no different then if someone were to remove Romans from the Canon today.
“You would add others to it”
No. We add nothing. The Canon of Pope Damasus has been in existence since the 4th Century, 11 centuries prior to Luther and his canon. It is you who remove books, not we who add them. The obligation is to accept the entirety of the Word, not just that which you personally believe.
“I most certainly can. And I most certainly DO.”
Then you do not follow the Word. You follow yourself, not God, and how God has written that his Church must govern itself.
Scripture to you is meaningless should it contradict what you yourself believe.