Changes

'''It is proper and licit to refer to the sacred writings of non-Christian religions as being the "scriptures" of those religions.''' However, it is not proper or licit for Christians to refer to them as "inspired" scriptures, or to quote them as if they were equal to the Bible. The text of 2 Timothy 3:17 ("''All scripture is inspired by God''") is quoted by some [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#"illegitimate historical-critical findings".|liberalist scholars]] and [[New age movement|New Age theologians]] as if the word "scripture" also refers to and embraces within its meaning the sacred scriptures of non-Christian religions. This is a complete violation of the integral meaning of the text as written by [[Saint Paul]]. Such an application takes it totally out of context (see [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|Proof text]] and [[Eisegesis]]). This is an example of using the Bible itself to mock the unique claims of Christianity by using [[sophistry]], and is a prime example also of the danger of any [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|literalist]] reading of the words of the Bible apart from two millennia of established Christian tradition of understanding and [[Hermeneutics|interpreting the Bible]]. The liberal theologian is willing to say,  

'''It is proper and licit to refer to the sacred writings of non-Christian religions as being the "scriptures" of those religions.''' However, it is not proper or licit for Christians to refer to them as "inspired" scriptures, or to quote them as if they were equal to the Bible. The text of 2 Timothy 3:17 ("''All scripture is inspired by God''") is quoted by some [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#"illegitimate historical-critical findings".|liberalist scholars]] and [[New age movement|New Age theologians]] as if the word "scripture" also refers to and embraces within its meaning the sacred scriptures of non-Christian religions. This is a complete violation of the integral meaning of the text as written by [[Saint Paul]]. Such an application takes it totally out of context (see [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|Proof text]] and [[Eisegesis]]). This is an example of using the Bible itself to mock the unique claims of Christianity by using [[sophistry]], and is a prime example also of the danger of any [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|literalist]] reading of the words of the Bible apart from two millennia of established Christian tradition of understanding and [[Hermeneutics|interpreting the Bible]]. The liberal theologian is willing to say,  

:"All of these writings are sacred scriptures. That means they were inspired. Even St. Paul himself says they are inspired by God, for he says, ' All scripture is inspired by God', and all of these are scriptures."  

:"All of these writings are sacred scriptures. That means they were inspired. Even St. Paul himself says they are inspired by God, for he says, ' All scripture is inspired by God', and all of these are scriptures."  

This is a liberal abuse of the literal meaning of scripture, especially in the context of [[Christianity]].  

This is a liberal abuse of the literal meaning of scripture, especially in the context of [[Christianity]]. It is an illustrative example of the logical fallacy of the [[Loaded question]].

The Christian uses the unmodified word "scripture", and the words "scriptures" and "sacred scriptures", to refer to the books of the Bible alone, and does not generally or customarily refer to any of those other non-biblical texts which are revered as sacred by the devotees of other religions as being "scriptures", but might refer to them as "sacred texts".

The Christian uses the unmodified word "scripture", and the words "scriptures" and "sacred scriptures", to refer to the books of the Bible alone, and does not generally or customarily refer to any of those other non-biblical texts which are revered as sacred by the devotees of other religions as being "scriptures", but might refer to them as "sacred texts".