sola scriptura

[Gaelic_Bard]

You had me till the Resurrection. Actually, you had me more till the idea that the Apostles all agreed on the Resurrection (it will take a bit more steps to show the Resurrection is true but it is not the topic we are discussing here).

But, the bolded part above is not clear. Jesus never asks anything to be written down let alone talk about anything like a text that will be considered as the WORD of GOD in the future. Also, St. Luke was not an original Apostles. So do you agree on Succession of Apostolic Authority? If you do, what makes you think this authority stops with St. Luke?

No, I don’t agree with a succession of apostolic authority. I will address your question about the authors when I reply to Steve (as much as I try I can’t respond to 4 or 5 questions from different people at the same time ).

As to being written down, no, there is no such command. That is irrelevant though as they DID write it down. And what they wrote down is also what they taught orally, ergo, the two are the same. They have the same divine authority because they are the same divine thing; the revelation of Christ.

 

[Traverse]

You also made an interesting comment: "I agree, for example, that the word, being complete, doesn’t need sacred tradition to flesh it out (so to speak)". How do you even know that it is complete? Who said so? Are the translations that exclude the deutercanonical books “complete”? If so, how do you know?

That is a very good question. I don’t know if I can answer it sufficiently to satisfy you, but suffice to say we know the word is complete because the era of public revelation has ended. The apostles are gone and there is no one around to actually write anything more. So by default we know the word is complete. As for knowing which books make up a complete translation, that is of course another matter. I do currently reject the deuterocanonicals on the basis that even the jews did at that time. They were considered to be valid historical documents worthy of reading, but not considered to be scripture. Granted, I get this knowledge from Josephus who did indeed live after Christ (though not long after) so take that as you will. Admittedly I am still researching this so my answer itself is not going to be complete.

 

[Traverse]

Hello,

If I may join in on this discussion.

As I asked Jon, there is the issue in stating that “Bible is the word of God” without another equal authority.

To explain, even if tradition had preserved until 392 AD, the Bible as the collection of books and letters as you know today, it still does not explain why it is the “word of God”. When we say something is the “Word of God”, it goes beyond the idea of it simply being written by the first Apostles. The best example would be Gospel of St. Luke. St. Luke was not an original Apostle.

So the idea that the councils merely upheld the belief that St. Luke for an example is the WORD of God doesn’t add up, yes?

This means, that another authority had to declare that it is the word of God. Now in history, the only person that has clearly proven the AUTHORITY regarding the transcendent/supernatural is Christ. The claim that the Bible is the WORD of God is also a claim that is transcendent/supernatural. We cannot verify it by some test.

Now this authority that presented the Bible as the word of God, must therefore be linked to Christ in someway as well as been an authority that was accepted by the faithful as late as Council of Hippo.

This is authority is that of Apostles and Apostolic Successors. Note here that Apostles did not have authority in and of themselves. They had the authority by virtue of the fact that they were Christ’s Apostles. The natural reasoning that leads you to the Apostles from Christ is that they were the students of the Rabbi Jesus. Then you assent completely to what they teach regarding Christ.

In the same way, you assent to the Apostolic Successors because they too have that same authority since they were the students of the Apostles (in the natural reason sense) and because they were instituted as successors (in the faith sense).

So when Council of Hippo pronounced that a certain set of books were inspired, the faithful didn’t have to debate. The Apostolic Successors had told them so.

In this way, Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Authority of the Church are all on the same plane. This is when you have two contradictory interpretations of a passage, you always side with the Church. The Church is what people always turned to for learning about Christ. It wasn’t the Bible. The Bible didn’t exist till 392 AD and it certainly wasn’t clear to the faithful that the Bible was inspired (i.e. Word of God) prior to that.

I agree with you partially! Forgive me if I overlook anything as it is a meaty post.

I agree that the church had sufficient authority to claim “hey, this is scripture you guys” to those who were not aware of it. But I understand this in a different manner. In the first century the church was far more active with the Holy Spirit. Even if you believe that spiritual gifts (like tongues, prophecy, etc) continued beyond the first century, I don’t think you can deny that they are not continuing in the same vain. The bible makes it plain that a visitor could have come to a church building (or home), seen people speaking in tongues all over the place, and been thrown off by the disorderliness of it. Likewise, it also claims that speaking in tongues is a sign for non believers. Speaking in tongues just isn’t something a person can go to church and see today. If you believe it happens today that is your prerogative, but it’s certainly not so rampant and plainly seen. Likewise, Christians aren’t going around being bitten by snakes and surviving to prove that what they say is true. Things are different now. My point is that the first century church (or at least the early second century church) with its more miraculous presence would have been the one to present the completed scriptures. Just because there were disagreements about the canon afterward doesn’t mean the bible wasn’t already completed. We know that Revelation was the last book written and we know it was completed in the late first century. There is no reason for the church to have sat around on these scriptures without passing them along and verifying their legitimacy with the blessings of their spiritual gifts (even if the apostles were gone).

It is common sense (I believe) to understand that the bible would have been used, and not been sitting around with confusion until two centuries went by and the church decided to confirm the canon. What does this mean? It means that the bible existed regardless of the early council. It also means that regardless of whether anyone accepts that council, the complete word was available. No printing press of course, no mass distribution would be feasible, but certainly sufficient was the ability for letters to be copied by hand (as we know they were) and compiled to be present at a given church meeting place for the reading of scripture, which we also know happened before the council of nicea.

The problem with my argument, of course, is that secular history doesn’t back it up (although it doesn’t deny it either). This is why I’m still researching the matter for myself. However, my current belief (based on what I view to be common sense) is that Christians already knew what the bible was and what made up the both old and new testaments due to their blessings with the Holy Spirit and it was only after spiritual gifts began to fade that some argued for the use of other apocrypha and a council was seen as necessary to canonize scripture.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic, what do you do about the Gospel of Mark, or Hebrews, or Jude, as far as having Apostolic origin?

The Gospel of Mark is based on the teaching and preaching of Peter. Luke and Acts would have been based on the apostolic witness, especially the close association of St. Luke with the apostle Paul. The information contained therein would’ve been first hand, thus making its teaching as divine as the other 3 gospels. Some have associated Jude with the apostle Thaddeus (called Judas in Luke’s gospel), but this isn’t likely because Jude 17 seems to indicate the author is not an apostle. However, he has been identified as Judas, brother of James and Jesus. He would’ve, therefore, been a direct disciple of the risen Christ and of the apostles. As to Hebrews, it’s been identified with Paul, which would make it apostolic. It’s also been identified as having been written by Luke, in which case the same would apply for Luke’s gospel. It’s also been identified with Apollos, who would’ve learned the apostolic faith from Paul. Either way, it’s teachings can be traced to the apostles.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, I don’t agree with a succession of apostolic authority. I will address your question about the authors when I reply to Steve (as much as I try I can’t respond to 4 or 5 questions from different people at the same time ).

As to being written down, no, there is no such command. That is irrelevant though as they DID write it down. And what they wrote down is also what they taught orally, ergo, the two are the same. They have the same divine authority because they are the same divine thing; the revelation of Christ.

Well ok, but this assumes somethings. The idea that " what they taught orally, ergo, the two are the same." is not still indicative that it is the WORD OF GOD. Yes?

And St. Luke was not an original Apostles. So how did this authority given to the first Apostles extend to St. Luke?

 

[Eufrosnia]

The Gospel of Mark is based on the teaching and preaching of Peter. Luke and Acts would have been based on the apostolic witness, especially the close association of St. Luke with the apostle Paul.

Here you make an interesting point that brings out something important. In both these cases, you have two writers who are not Apostles who you give authority to because they had access to Apostolic witness.

Now I am sure many others could have written down books too after converting to Christianity from an Apostolic Witness. BUT, you do accept just these two.

Now you might say, that is because the two persons were OK’d by the original Apostles. So is it too far of a stretch to think that others too could be authorized in this way with an equal authority?

In other words, are you not describing Apostolic Succession in different words? i.e. based on Apostolic witness?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Well ok, but this assumes somethings. The idea that " what they taught orally, ergo, the two are the same." is not still indicative that it is the WORD OF GOD. Yes?

Yes, it would be because if I as a professor teach you mathematics, and then write down the same explanation, what I’ve written on paper is vested with the same authority as what I communicated to you orally.

To further demonstrate as well, while there is no command to write down the NT, we already have within the NT itself apostolic authors stating that other apostolic writings are Scripture. There is, then, at least a proto-understanding that apostolic teachings were being put into writing, and have the same authority as the OT writings, which are considered the word of God (by the Word of God Himself).

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Here you make an interesting point that brings out something important. In both these cases, you have two writers who are not Apostles who you give authority to because they had access to Apostolic witness.

Now I am sure many others could have written down books too after converting to Christianity from an Apostolic Witness. BUT, you do accept just these two.

Now you might say, that is because the two persons were OK’d by the original Apostles. So is it too far of a stretch to think that others too could be authorized in this way with an equal authority?

It wouldn’t be a stretch, no. I don’t disagree with a Roman Catholic understanding of apostolic succession based on the fact that it is a stretch, but based on the fact that I see little to no evidence for it.

In other words, are you not describing Apostolic Succession in different words? i.e. based on Apostolic witness?

There is a succession of teaching, yes. In the case of the witness of Mark and Luke, however, it was immediately apostolic. That is to say, those who wrote down their teachings learned it directly from them.

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree with you partially! Forgive me if I overlook anything as it is a meaty post.

I agree that the church had sufficient authority to claim “hey, this is scripture you guys” to those who were not aware of it. But I understand this in a different manner. In the first century the church was far more active with the Holy Spirit. Even if you believe that spiritual gifts (like tongues, prophecy, etc) continued beyond the first century, I don’t think you can deny that they are not continuing in the same vain. The bible makes it plain that a visitor could have come to a church building (or home), seen people speaking in tongues all over the place, and been thrown off by the disorderliness of it. Likewise, it also claims that speaking in tongues is a sign for non believers. Speaking in tongues just isn’t something a person can go to church and see today. If you believe it happens today that is your prerogative, but it’s certainly not so rampant and plainly seen. Likewise, Christians aren’t going around being bitten by snakes and surviving to prove that what they say is true. Things are different now. **My point is that the first century church (or at least the early second century church) with its more miraculous presence would have been the one to present the completed scriptures. **Just because there were disagreements about the canon afterward doesn’t mean the bible wasn’t already completed. We know that Revelation was the last book written and we know it was completed in the late first century. There is no reason for the church to have sat around on these scriptures without passing them along and verifying their legitimacy with the blessings of their spiritual gifts (even if the apostles were gone).

It is common sense (I believe) to understand that the bible would have been used, and not been sitting around with confusion until two centuries went by and the church decided to confirm the canon. What does this mean? It means that the bible existed regardless of the early council. It also means that regardless of whether anyone accepts that council, the complete word was available. No printing press of course, no mass distribution would be feasible, but certainly sufficient was the ability for letters to be copied by hand (as we know they were) and compiled to be present at a given church meeting place for the **reading of scripture, **which we also know happened before the council of nicea.

The problem with my argument, of course, is that secular history doesn’t back it up (although it doesn’t deny it either). This is why I’m still researching the matter for myself. However, my current belief (based on what I view to be common sense) is that Christians already knew what the bible was and what made up the both old and new testaments due to their blessings with the Holy Spirit and it was only after spiritual gifts began to fade that some argued for the use of other apocrypha and a council was seen as necessary to canonize scripture.

Traverse,

What did that first century Church look like? Where do you look to find out?

Completion of the Books have little to do with compilation.

Have you looked at the literacy rate in the early Church not to mention the literacy rate in England in the 15th century…not to mention today.

There are Protestant studies showing that the Translation of the Bible Protestants today is not being read…I believe that the Barna Group reported on this…the reality is that the Bible was meant to be read aloud and heard…

Imagine growing up…did your parents give you a book and say…read about being part of the family?

 

[Traverse]

That was my point. It would have been read publically in church. My point wasn’t that the bible was available and therefore everyone read it, but that everyone had access to it through public reading.

We find out what the first century church looked like from Acts and the letters to the churches.

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10267994]So what and who is the Church?

Note that the answer to the above question would have had to be known before you accepted the Bible as the word of God (otherwise you wouldn’t know it is an authority you should trust regarding the claim that the Bible is the word of God). So without a definition from the Bible, who or what do you (or can you) identify as the Church?

The Congregation of saints, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.
The leaders of the early Church were/are the bishops/ sees.

The issue with respect to the Papacy is interesting. If you have read the Roman Catholic case for the Papacy from Scripture, it is a consistent case. No Lutheran ever claims that is inconsistent. Rather, the tendency seems to be to state that it is not the consistent interpretation I would like to embrace regarding those passages. In other words, I as a Lutheran interpret passage x that you quoted differently, Yes?

It is inconsistent (in its current understanding) with the early Church’s understanding. The Treatise on the Power and Primacy speaks specifically about the Council of Nicea, canon 6. ISTM the primacy of the papacy, properly understood, would be that currently held by the EO.

Then the problem here is that given that there are two possible contradicting interpretations, which one must the faithful choose?

That’s true, hence the Great Schism.

The other issue with respect to the Papacy is the following. The claim is that the early Church did not have such a rigorously defined role of the Bishop of Rome. But history does tell us (writings of Church fathers) that Bishop of Rome did indeed enjoy a certain unique primacy. Still, Lutherans will say that its not clear if its the same concept/office it ended up being defined as later on.

I would accept an understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome from the early Church, certainly. The Bishop of Rome is the patriarch of the west, there is no questioning that. He is also, in many respects, the central bishop of the Church on earth.

Now the error here is that Lutherans seem to think that whichever existed in the early church must be the only thing they must accept. The simplest obstacle here is what do you accept as the early church? Is it the time of the first Apostles? If that were the case, there was no such text known as the Bible. When St. Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians, it didn’t say “this letter too is the word of God”.

We accept the 7 ecumenical councils of the early Church. And we accept as the leaders of the early Church those that held the councils.

But as I am sure you are aware, you accept the Bible from the Canon defined in Council of Hippo. That happened at least 300 years after the death of the last Apostles. Is that still the early Church? Where do you draw the line that THIS is the early Church and NOW is the new/false Church?

The Council of Hipp was not an ecumenical council, but a local synod. Same with Carthage, etc. But I do accept, for the purposes of those involved in that synod, that it stated a canon of scripture, no doubt. But that canon, like that synod, was not universally accepted in the Church, but by part of it. I’m not one who says that the deuterocanon is to be rejected, but only that it should be received as disputed, as by St. Jerome and many others.

Also, what happened to the authority of the Church after pronouncing the Canon of Scripture? How did it suddenly disappear? Here you have an authority equal* to Scripture but if the Lutheran claim is true, it didn’t survive. How can that be?

Not that it didn’t survive, but that it is broken by schism.

(Note:* I used the word equal because a lesser authority cannot make a claim that something is of greater authority than itself (specifically in the case where the object/person the greater authority is claimed for, in this case the Bible, cannot provide evidence from itself for the claim.).

You keep using authority in a way that I didn’t. Of course the Church has authority to set the canon of scripture, but also other canons (rules) too.

Also, if this authority was capable of pronouncing a text (the Bible) as equal in authority to itself, why is it problematic that it can pronounce papal infallibility in a more rigorous manner?

If there is a truly ecumenical council that pronounces papal infallibility, I will accept it. No such council has happened, not since the 7th.

It is well worth noting that the objection of Lutherans that Papacy does not exist in the early Church is not one of contradiction but rather an argument from absence. Just as the Bible as an entire collection we know today was absent in the Early Church, yet we have come to accept it based on the authority of the Church, why is it problematic to accept the Papacy as it has now been rigorously defined by that same authority, the Church?

Please read the Treatise on the Power andPrimacy of the Pope. Note that it does have polemics in it, that are more in tune with the Reformation era. Focus, instead on what it says without the polemics.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php
Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

That was my point. It would have been read publically in church. My point wasn’t that the bible was available and therefore everyone read it, but that everyone had access to it through public reading.

We find out what the first century church looked like from Acts and the letters to the churches.

Traverse,

and then…

 

[SteveVH]

The Gospel of Mark is based on the teaching and preaching of Peter. Luke and Acts would have been based on the apostolic witness, especially the close association of St. Luke with the apostle Paul. The information contained therein would’ve been first hand, thus making its teaching as divine as the other 3 gospels. Some have associated Jude with the apostle Thaddeus (called Judas in Luke’s gospel), but this isn’t likely because Jude 17 seems to indicate the author is not an apostle. However, he has been identified as Judas, brother of James and Jesus. He would’ve, therefore, been a direct disciple of the risen Christ and of the apostles. As to Hebrews, it’s been identified with Paul, which would make it apostolic. It’s also been identified as having been written by Luke, in which case the same would apply for Luke’s gospel. It’s also been identified with Apollos, who would’ve learned the apostolic faith from Paul. Either way, it’s teachings can be traced to the apostles.

As you know, there were certainly others who were students of, or in close association with the Apostles:

Clement (ordained by Peter)
Ignatius (student of John the Apostle),
Polycarp (student of John the Apostle)
Barnabas (contemporary of Paul and called an “Apostle” himself)

Why are their writings not included? Why is the Didache not included? Why is the Shepherd of Hermas not included? These were books used by the early Church and contained quotations from Jesus himself.

 

[Traverse]

And then what? What are you asking?

 

[Eufrosnia]

The bible makes it plain that a visitor could have come to a church building (or home), seen people speaking in tongues all over the place, and been thrown off by the disorderliness of it. Likewise, it also claims that speaking in tongues is a sign for non believers. Speaking in tongues just isn’t something a person can go to church and see today.

Well, why does this need to be the case today? Perhaps the sign was only effective in that time?

Today if a Priest/Bishop/Pope were to speak in multiple tongues, it would just be attributed to education, no?

Things are different now. My point is that the first century church (or at least the early second century church) with its more miraculous presence would have been the one to present the completed scriptures.

…

The problem with my argument, of course, is that secular history doesn’t back it up (although it doesn’t deny it either). This is why I’m still researching the matter for myself. However, my current belief (based on what I view to be common sense) is that Christians already knew what the bible was and what made up the both old and new testaments due to their blessings with the Holy Spirit and it was only after spiritual gifts began to fade that some argued for the use of other apocrypha and a council was seen as necessary to canonize scripture.

Well if I understand you correctly, this is somewhat similar to the defense of John Calvin. The idea is that the Church had a limited guidance by the Holy Spirit till around 400 AD and afterward once the Bible was pronounced, this authority was taken away, would that be correct?

The underlying principle of the argument is that since now we have the Bible, the Church is no longer necessary.

The issue here is the following. Let us assume this is true. Now think of the following scenario.

I am a pagan considering Christianity. I ask you what it is and you refer me to the Bible. I ask you why and you tell me its the Word of God. This being a big claim to make regarding a text, I ask you how you are sure. You tell me that it is what the church pronounced in 400 AD. I will then ask you how do you know that such a thing can be done by the Church? At this point, you face a problem that you might miss. You will have to appeal back to the church and tell me about how the Holy Spirit guided the Church to pronounce that.

The problem here is that at this point in time, I have not accepted the idea of a Holy Spirit. So in order to first accept the Bible, I as a pagan will have to first believe in the existence of such an entity and also accept the Bible relying on the possibility that the Holy Spirit is indeed a true entity.

This is an issue because the only thing that I can actually know for sure is the death and resurrection of Christ. That is the only non-faith element I have that leads me to Christ. But then it appears that I cannot actually go further without making some jumps to accept certain truths that don’t seem to be from natural reason.

Also, though you might not notice this, at this point I would have to accept the existence of the Holy Spirit and his guiding role based on your authority. But it would also not be clear to me as a pagan on how I would go from Christ (who seems to have authority) to you.

In this sense, the idea that the church and its authority ceased to exist seems to mean the end of Christianity because it cannot propagate forward without we obtaining such an authority for ourselves.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

As you know, there were certainly others who were students of, or in close association with the Apostles:

Clement (ordained by Peter)
Ignatius (student of John the Apostle),
Polycarp (student of John the Apostle)

That’s very true. In the case of the former, though, say Luke…we have one apostle calling his writings “Scripture” (Paul). We don’t have the same in the case of Clement or Ignatius. While Clement might have been ordained by Peter (I am not privy to direct information on that one), his writings come shortly after the apostolic period, do not claim to be Scripture, and do not even address doctrinal matters or provide any new information on the teaching of the Christ.

Interestingly, Clement already refers to Paul’s 1 and 2 epistle to the Corinthians as Scripture…indicating just how early the Pauline corpus was considered the word of God (which refutes the idea that the church was clueless as to the content of the NT until Rome, Hippo and Carthage).

Likewise, if we accept the writings of Luke or Mark based solely on “apostolic succession,” then every writing by a successor to the apostles would be Scripture. It’s a bit of a self-defeating argument.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes, it would be because if I as a professor teach you mathematics, and then write down the same explanation, what I’ve written on paper is vested with the same authority as what I communicated to you orally.

To further demonstrate as well, while there is no command to write down the NT, we already have within the NT itself apostolic authors stating that other apostolic writings are Scripture. There is, then, at least a proto-understanding that apostolic teachings were being put into writing, and have the same authority as the OT writings, which are considered the word of God (by the Word of God Himself).

So ok, first I am not clear as to where in the NT that another author would claim a different piece of NT writing is the inspired word of God. Perhaps the OT yes, but the NT? If I may ask, which passages are they and how are you sure they are

1. Referring to NT texts
2. They actually claim that these texts are the Word of God

Also, you mentioned a good analogy. So going back to St. Luke, what if I state that St. Luke was the Phd student of the above Professor who became a Professor himself after being approved for the Phd by his Supervisor, that Math Professor? Does that seem unreasonable?

Then I would say that the reason why we accept St. Luke’s gospel is because he was instituted to be an Apostolic Successor (Professor) by the Apostles before him and he shared the same authority. Would that sound unreasonable?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

So ok, first I am not clear as to where in the NT that another author would claim a different piece of NT writing is the inspired word of God. Perhaps the OT yes, but the NT? If I may ask, which passages are they and how are you sure they are

1. Referring to NT texts
2. They actually claim that these texts are the Word of God

Sure, Eufrosnia. I am sure you are familiar with Peter’s statement that indicates Paul’s letters are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15, 16). The term Scripture (graphe or grammaton) in the NT is always a reference to what Paul calls theopneustos (God-breathed) in 2 Tim. 3:16. This word is never used of non-inspired writings.

Secondly, in 1 Tim. 5:18, Paul states: “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads the grain,’ and, ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages’.”

That second quotation of Scripture, the laborer is worthy of his wages, is a citation from Luke 10:7. That phrase never appears anywhere else except Luke 10:7.

Also, you mentioned a good analogy. So going back to St. Luke, what if I state that St. Luke was the Phd student of the above Professor who became a Professor himself after being approved for the Phd by his Supervisor, that Math Professor? Does that seem unreasonable?

Then I would say that the reason why we accept St. Luke’s gospel is because he was instituted to be an Apostolic Successor (Professor) by the Apostles before him and he shared the same authority. Would that sound unreasonable?

Here is the problem with your second statement. It would make everything ever written by a bishop inspired Scripture. That I would consider very unreasonable!

 

[Eufrosnia]

Likewise, if we accept the writings of Luke or Mark based solely on “apostolic succession,” then every writing by a successor to the apostles would be Scripture. It’s a bit of a self-defeating argument.

Well this might indeed be the issue here. From what you say, every word coming out from the Apostles, written or oral was binding to the level that it was the WORD of GOD.

Now this can’t be true because we hear of a circumcision debate in acts. That means all the Apostles or some had different views. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a debate. If all of them always spoke the WORD OF GOD, what happened there?

So it seems like there was never a situation (or there could never have been a situation) where people accepted every faith related saying from a first Apostles to be the WORD OF GOD.

Now if that were the case, it also makes it possible that St. Luke and even more successors (even up to today) exist. The Church has just stated that the Canon of Scripture is now closed and none of them are speaking the WORD OF GOD.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Sure, Eufrosnia. I am sure you are familiar with Peter’s statement that indicates Paul’s letters are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15, 16). The term Scripture (graphe or grammaton) in the NT is always a reference to what Paul calls theopneustos (God-breathed) in 2 Tim. 3:16. This word is never used of non-inspired writings.

Ok, this is problematic. We do not yet know which books are inspired. So for you to say that book x says book y is God breathed does not help, right? Is book x itself God breathed?

Here is the problem with your second statement. It would make everything ever written by a bishop inspired Scripture. That I would consider very unreasonable!

I addressed this in my second reply to you that I made before this.