Replies

Yes, that is where you and I might get the notion that the New Testament is important (not, however, supreme. A Church Council tells us that Old Testament plus New Testament plus the Holy Traditions of the Church are all the Catholic faith, and not that the New Testament stands alone as the supreme authority or its own interpreter).

But econ grad does not accept the authority of any Church Council or anything else from our idolatrous Church (according to him).

Instead, he has blankly asserted the authority of the New Testament as the interpreter for everything else.

Sure, a Catholic like you, or me, would say that the New Testament has the books it has, and has the authority it has, because the Church canonized it and faithfully separated out the wheat from the chaff, so that we only got the Inspired Word of God there. But the authority for the New Testament then still reposes upon the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Econ grad says there is no such thing.
And he says that he knows that because of the New Testament.
I want to know where in the New Testament it refers to the New Testament, or to any particular canon of Scripture, and where it says that the New Testament is to be used as the sole and final authority.

Of course I know that the answer is IT DOESN'T.
But I didn't assert it did.
He did.
So, I want the quote, chapter and verse, in the New Testament that says he should use it like that.

When he cannot produce said quote, I will point to his silence as evidence of the failure of his logic. IF the New Testament could be used like that, on its own terms, then there would be a foundational edifice. But it can't be. The New Testament's authority reposes on tradition. It's part of the Tradition, not apart from it.

He denies that.
I want to see the proof texts for the authority he claims.
Since there aren't any, he's making up authority, which comes down to "I believe what I want to believe".

To which the only possible response is "Gee, that's nice. Why should I follow you down that path?"