Prima Sciptura-a middle way that embraces Christian antiquity

[JohnnyReb]

True. But what I’m trying to say is that either:
(a) the doctrine of the canon of Scripture need not come from Scripture, in which case you affirm some form of extra-Scriptural Tradition as a source of core doctrines [since we already established the canon is a core, even the most core, doctrine]; or
(b) the doctrine of the canon of Scripture does need to come from Scripture, which it doesn’t.

It certainly doesn’t come from scripture. As I discussed with a fellow parishoner yesterdat at church, the Bible doesn’t come with an inspired table of contents. That would be too easy. Catholics accept the canon on grounds of the accepting the CC as the final authority. Non Catholics/Protestants turn elsewhere to a degree. We use the language of antiquity and tradition.

To be clear, the criticism wasn’t that the argument was circular, but that it was self-refuting. It’s circular when you say that 2 Peter is written by Peter (since you’re basing its authenticity off of its apostolic origin, and its apostolic origin off of its authenticity). It’d be self-refuting to say that *Revelation *was written by Peter (since it actually affirms the opposite of what you’re saying, by saying, “I, John…” in Revelation 1:9). A circular argument isn’t well-supported logically, but it can still be right. A self-refuting argument can’t be right.

Ok, got the distinction. Of course we do not see it as self refuting. The arguement made is that we go to the scriptures first, but use other sources on important doctrines when the answers are not clearly found in scripture. Such is the case with the canon.