Replies

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.

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.
------------------------------------------------

PROVE IT.......

Hint: rhetorical questions are logically worthless; questions need answers, not dramatic flourish.

Very pleased to see you have returned to post again on this thread.

If I comprehend correctly your hint above, two things stand out:
1. You are used to controlling the conversation by giving personal edicts regarding the rules that apply.
2. You've never had a meaningful conversation with a true Navajo.

As for the word "alone", yes there is more to it that the Holy Bible "alone". The leading (non-revocable indwelling) of God Himself is necessary to unlock and reveal the Truth to each individual believer, namely in Who Jesus of Nazareth actually is and in everything else that flows from that Fountain of Truth.

As I read what you post, it seems that you rely foremost on your learning about Lord Jesus Christ whereas some other non-RCC Christians here on FR rely most on their one-to-one relationship with Him.

This really is a big difference in how we approach this subject of rightly discerning Scripture and will affect how and where a believer will want to worship God and be in fellowship with other Christians of like minds. It transcends logic and has to be experienced to be known. Little children, who He never turns away, and those without Paul's great learning can know Him by sincerely coming to Him in faith.