Goodness, so much nonsense in one sentence! First, it is not the Bible (how misleading!) but one book in the Bible written by one man (Paul) who has no witnesses who says that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."
So your best criticism is that it is not the Bible which says anything, but rather a book of the Bible? And, that what Paul says is no good unless there are some number of witnesses sufficient for you? I have no idea what to say to that. :)
To make things even worse, the author quotes (who is the author, by the way?) verse 15 which says "from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." What scriptures pray tell? All they had (from their childhood no less) when Paul was still around was the Old Testament, and the Old Testament does not teach salvation through faith (let alone in Christ Jesus!), but through works (of keeping all of God's commandments, the mitzvot). And to the best of my understanding, Paul does not call his Epistles scriptures.
It is certainly fair to ask about the author. It doesn't say and these questions apparently are answered by various staff. Here is the explanation:
".... Our writing staff includes pastors, youth pastors, missionaries, Biblical counselors, Bible/Christian College students, Seminary students, and lay students of God's Word. All of our answers are reviewed for Biblical and theological accuracy by our President and Founder, S. Michael Houdmann. He possesses a Master's degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary and a Bachelor's degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary Bible College."
Of course if I post it in my answer you may assume I agree with it, unless otherwise indicated. Anyway, I disagree with you about whether the OT teaches salvation by faith. The first Jew is a primary example, and David is another. Many Jews did misinterpret the OT and believed in a works-based salvation model. Jesus criticized those types of Jews for their false beliefs. Paul of course correctly understood the OT teachings and explained them in his writings. For example:
Rom 4:1-10 : 1 What then shall we say that Abraham , our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about — but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven,whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!
Paul goes on, but you get the idea. This is what the OT REALLY teaches. And finally, I don't know if Paul calls his own writings scriptures, but Peter did:
2 Peter 3:15-16 : 15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
And, if you want to throw out Peter's epistles because you think he didn't write them, as you have before, that is up to you. Scriptures are my highest written authority, so I'm going to quote them for anyone who wants to see what the Bible says. :)
But, let's forge on with this "masterpiece." The author states:
Of course, this is a matter on "internal" interpretation, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Naturally, the author understands that those who are actively hostile to what the vast majority of Christians believe about scriptures will not buy any of his arguments. Of course it wasn't the scope of the article to predict the hundreds or thousands of contradictions that you see in the scriptures and then refute them all. That would take years, as it has taken me so far. :)
This "unity," which is in dispute except by those who blindly accept it as such, magically becomes "evidence" of the divine origin of God's very words! There is absolutely no valid cause and effect in this conclusion. The conclusion is based on a presumptive and subjectively claimed "unity," facts to the contrary notwithstanding.
Hundreds of millions of Christians around the world know exactly what the author is talking about here. They have lived it. They know it to be true. It speaks to them. No other book like the Bible has ever been written.
[Continued on next post]
What a valiant effort.
. . . as long as ne is a good steward of one’s pearls.
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:12-14
And conversely, when I repeat the words of God and get a "tell me more" or "and it also says" or "but what about" or some other Spiritual connection, then I know it is fertile ground and we all stand to benefit from sharing the words of God.
The power of God is Jesus Christ, the living Word of God. The fruit is always His, never ours. Without Him, we can do nothing.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23
I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. – John 15:5
If you are looking for like-minded people to pat each other on the back and agree on everything that's fine, but if you are trying to convince someone who doesn't agree with you, one will need a little more than "just take my word" for it.
If this is sufficient "proof" for you, then you only prove what I have been saying all along: one must believe in order to find the Bible believable. In other words, a predisposition to accept everything in the Bible as true must pre-exist. That's the a priori (what you call "baseless") or blind faith (which you profess, but vehemently deny!).
Let's face it, one day you woke up and were "touched" by the Holy Spirit, as you conveyed in a previous post, and He immediately "directed" you to the scriptures.
Is that not proof that this was not learned or thought through, but something that happened (apparently by none of your doing) in a "flash," like being touched with a magic wand, and from there on you were "hooked," or under spell, or mesmerized, whatever, but don't know why or how. Sure sounds like blind faith to me, FK! :)
It was what Abraham didn't do (kill his son) that was credited to his righteousness, or it was rather what he did do (trust and obey God) that was credited to him as righteousness, but it all involved doing something that expressed harmony with God's will.
The Jews call such deeds mitzvot, God's commandments, by which observant Jews live, and of which there are many (613 listed in the Torah alone!), and half of them roughly are acts of omission (abstinence, such as fasting) while the rest are acts of commission (mercy and philanthropy, etc.). But they fit perfectly in the example of Abraham.
The Jews believe (and I think Orthodox and Catholic believers can understand this) that by obeying God's commandments listed in the OT (and another seven rabbinical ones), they are credited righteousness in God's eyes (i.e. made acceptable to God), just as it was credited to Abraham, hence the Abrahamic faith.
You can twist and turn the words as you please, giving someone "credit" for doing something right or not doing something wrong is still earned. Of course, God is not obliged to give us credit for anything, so technically speaking there is no contract and there is no wage, but it is obvious that in the Bible God creates conditional covenants with conditional rewards and punishments, and God even obliged Himself to reward us for obeying His commands.
In the Binle, God makes "if then" promises and pledges. If you eat this, you will live, if you believe in Me, you will live...I will not let you go if you believe in Me...etc.
So, it's not just credit; it's not just faith. It's the works in harmony with God's will regardless if one believes or not and not just any works that God rewards. Thus, if I water my flowers every day does not warrant rewards, but if I do acts of mercy, even if I don't believe, it is still doing God's will even if I don't realize it, because being merciful is in doing God's will.
And, if you want to throw out Peter's epistles because you think he didn't write them, as you have before, that is up to you. Scriptures are my highest written authority, so I'm going to quote them for anyone who wants to see what the Bible says
Suit yourself. One can always dig a hole in the sand and stick his head in it and pretend the sun doesn't shine. :)
I do dismiss it as a late addition, as most do, for obvious reasons. We know from external sources that early Christian writers (2nd century) did not speak of the entire New Testament as holy scriptures and that St. Justin Martyr, as late as 150 AD refers to NT writings as Apostolic memoirs, and not scriptures.
We also know from early Apostolic Fathers and early Church Fathers (turn of the century) that the four Gospels were unquestionably considered "sacred writings" (i.e. Scriptures), but not Pauline Epistles.
I would say it was first Marcion (died 160 AD), a heretic bishop of Gnostic leanings to whom some trace their Baptist roots (!), who accepted only Paul and his writings and rejected most of the NT as well as the OT. He considered Pauline works to be law and gospel (you should be able to relate to that Reformed concept). :)
But the most compelling reason to dismiss Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is precisely in the paragraph you quote. Peter and Paul died around the same time (64 and 67 AD respectively) and clearly Peter was not in the position to see Paul's collected works, let alone call them "scriptures."
The Gospels, which were written after Paul's Epistles, and certainly after Peter's passing, never even mention Paul, or his writings, nor does anyone call them "scriptures."
2 Peter also betrays Christian impatience with the Second Coming (2 Pet 3:8), something that was not an issue during Peter's lifetime, but a late first-century and early second-century phenomenon that began to weaken the Christian appeal.
Let us not forget also that the Church debated and had difficulty accepting 2 Peter until late 4th century, indicating that many had serious doubts with this book, and was probably included like some other disputed books, by such proven "inspired" methods like "horse trading."
FK, 1.2 billion Muslims in the world believe the Koran, and know exactly what authors defending Islam are talking about . They have lived it. They also claim to know it to be "true." Get real. That is neither a poof nor an argument worthy of consideration