Sola scriptura has nothing to do with WHAT books are in there ... it has everything to do with WHAT we do with the books that are.
Everything essential to doctrine and practice is in there, there is nothing essential that has been left out. If its not in there, its not essential.
You wrote:
“Why would I appeal to the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ to prove WHAT books are in the Bible?”
You don’t have to do anything, unless you’re trying to answer the question I asked.
“Its a 100% strawman question.”
No, it is not.
“Sola scriptura has nothing to do with WHAT books are in there ... it has everything to do with WHAT we do with the books that are.”
Your reasoning is flawed. If sola scriptura is to be used, then how can it when you can’t even know what books belong in the Bible in the first place.
“Everything essential to doctrine and practice is in there, there is nothing essential that has been left out. If its not in there, its not essential.”
Canon must be essential to a sola scripturist. How can you use sola scriptura without a definition of what belongs in the Bible from the Bible itself? Sola scriptura is self-refuting.