Replies

Not only do none of the Biblical books name any specific books as "Scripture" (St. Peter refers to some of the writings of St. Paul as Scripture, but he never specifies *which ones* are Scripture... and if we weren't yet confident that 2 Peter is Scripture, ITSELF (you may be aware, from your biblical studies, that 2 Peter was rather hotly contested--see "Muratorian Fragment", and other topics, on that), then its "endorsement" would be worthless!

Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets as Scripture and quoted from some of them as such.

Peter called Paul's writings *Scripture* and since he didn't specify which ones, then there's no reason to not accept what we have of his as Scripture.

That settles most of what we accept as Scripture.

As for the NT, the RCC accepts the same books as non-Catholics as Scripture so they have no cause for criticism there.

Here's a link to answering that question.

Addressing the object that The Bible isn't the Word of God. It contains the Word of God.

https://carm.org/bible-isnt-word-god-it-contains-word-god

Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets as Scripture and quoted from some of them as such.

He did. We're in complete agreement on that general point. Given the context, it would then be reasonable to conclude that the Torah (1st 5 books) is certainly Scripture, and it would be reasonable to conclude that the Nevi'im (the books of the Prophets) are Scripture.

Question for you, though: does this mean that you accept the Book of Baruch as Scripture? He was one of the prophets, after all. And do you accept the parts of the Book of Daniel which Protestant Bibles leave out, as Scripture? Daniel was certainly a prophet.

Beyond that, this leaves out the Wisdom literature (including the psalms) and the historical books of the OT (at least 23 books, by my count). More on that, below.

Peter called Paul's writings *Scripture* and since he didn't specify which ones, then there's no reason to not accept what we have of his as Scripture.

Sorry, but that won't do... for at least two reasons:

1) You haven't yet proven that 2 Peter is Scripture... so you haven't yet proven that St. Peter's declaration is true (or even said by him at all, rather than by someone writing a letter while pretending to be St. Peter). This leaves all of the writings attributed to St. Paul "unproven".

2) "What we have" is what we simply inherited from the decisions of others... and we're now trying to find out if those "decisions of others" can be proven correct by sola Scriptura. Plenty of writings were attributed to St. Paul, but not all of them made it into what we have as the NT. For example: do you regard "The Acts of Paul" as Scripture? What about "The Apocalypse of Paul"? or "The Letter of Paul to Seneca"? Given your premise, we'd have to accept them as Scripture, on the recommendation of St. Peter... right?

I think you can see, now, that it's not simply a matter of saying, "St. Paul Wrote this, so it must be Scripture!" The problem is that we're trying to determine whether St. Paul actually DID write what was attributed to him! The answer is, "yes, and no"... and sola Scriptura is useless in trying to sort out one from the other.

That settles most of what we accept as Scripture.

Not so; see above.

As for the NT, the RCC accepts the same books as non-Catholics as Scripture so they have no cause for criticism there.

Sorry, but I'll have to flag that play! The whole point of this discussion is to see whether "sola Scriptura" can determine the contents of Scripture; it doesn't help your case to say that the Catholic NT is the same as yours... because the Catholic Church did NOT use "sola Scriptura" to determine it (and She *couldn't*, anyway--it's impossible), and because non-Catholics inherited the NT canon from us, anyway.

Here's a link to answering that question. Addressing the object that The Bible isn't the Word of God. It contains the Word of God. I've been there, before... on that very link, in fact. There are two fatal flaws with that reply:

1) I don't claim that the Bible isn't the Word of God, or that the Bible merely "contains" the Word of God (which is absurd). It is the WRITTEN Word of God, 100% and entirely, without error, and every last scrap of it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and entrusted to us for the sake of our salvation and sanctification. The "full" Word of God is Jesus, Himself (the Logos--see John 1:1, etc.), and the full "Deposit of Faith" consists in Sacred Scripture (the Written Word of God) and Sacred Tradition (the orally-transmitted Word of God), interpreted and held in trust by the Church Whom Christ established for that very purpose.

2) The article doesn't even prove what it sets out to do; it falls into the same trap that many anti-Catholic-Church people encounter: lots and lots of references about the Bible being the Word of God (I agree), important (I agree), necessary (I agree), and nothing but rhetorical questions in response to the presumed objections. Hint: rhetorical questions are logically worthless; questions need answers, not dramatic flourish.

Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets as Scripture and quoted from some of them as such.
Peter called Paul's writings *Scripture* and since he didn't specify which ones, then there's no reason to not accept what we have of his as Scripture.

That settles most of what we accept as Scripture.

Another example of the prots wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

You all make the (ignorant) claim that "Ekklesia" only means "Assembly" and "Presbyter" only means "Elder." Now you all say "Scripture" refers to only "Holy writings" instead of what it actually means, which is simply " writings.