That wasn't my point. Your definition begs the question of what is and isn't Scripture. Scripture doesn't provide its own canon. It's not self-defining.
Logically and necessarily, an extra-Biblical authority must determine the canon of Scripture. That authority is Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
Logically and necessarily, an extra-Biblical authority must determine the canon of Scripture. That authority is Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
You appearantly had many points. One of which was to incorectly call the well know and establish principal of using the Bible to define it's own terms (define it's own definitions in the knowledge that scripture will not contradict itself and it's terms) and called it a doctrine.....and an unbiblical one at that. Perhaps in your speed to reply and not absorb my intent in writing you mistakenly thought I advocated the idea that the Bible itself determines which books are included in it. That would be silly as a created thing can not create itself.
But now you twist the conversation to go from an attempt to correctly interpret scriptural verses to the subject of the canon....you are confusing the topics in your reply. And now you want to expand the conversation to present the false idea that Christ's church refers to a single political establishment of man only, but ignore the idea that Christ's church could possibly refer to a body of believers.
You seemed to be in such a hurry to cut and paste online bible search results for the term 'baptism' that you failed to take anything I said seriously. In my main response to you I complied a decent presentation, peppered within it many scriptural references, yet you blew right past and made what appears to be arguments without thinking to much about what you were saying.
Again, making a claim, and splattering scriptural verses on the page that contain the word 'baptism' does not go far in convincing me of anything. In fact, I have no intention of replying to such presentations in the future.