Please read the above passage ... again. The Bible, as you know it, did not exist in 325 AD. There were many, many gospels, documents and letters. Which ones were authoritative? None of them had yet been compiled into a book.
So are you saying that Isaiah wasn’t part of what was referred to as “it is written”? You actually believe that none of the writings of the apostles were considered authoritative? Seriously?
“Please read the above passage ... again. The Bible, as you know it, did not exist in 325 AD. There were many, many gospels, documents and letters. Which ones were authoritative? None of them had yet been compiled into a book.”
What trash! Do you even have any idea what you’re talking about? So, when Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus were quoting the scripture within the 1st and 2nd century, they were quoting books that DID NOT EXIST!?
“There were many, many gospels, documents and letters. Which ones were authoritative? None of them had yet been compiled into a book.”
The same ones that have always been authoritative: those authored by the one true God.
Really the question is not which are authoritative, it is “how do we know which are authoritative?” For Catholics, the answer boils down to “somebody said so”, and for Protestants the answer boils down to “God’s handiwork is self-evident”. It’s all a bit of a moot point, since we mostly agree on which are authoritative. So the whole question only comes up either to defend the need for a magisterium (though it’s not a convincing argument to most Protestants, because they still won’t see the need), or to defend certain doctrines that are denounced by the majority of Scripture, but which Catholics adhere to anyway (which again, won’t be convincing to most Protestants).
So, I don’t know why Catholics keep bringing it up, except that they haven’t thought of a better way to defend themselves against those arguments yet.