Sure it's biblical...I posted relevant scripture...The Holy Spirit has led us into all truth in the scriptures...All truth that is necessary for our salvation...
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
What else is there to know??? What doctrine has your religion added that negates that scripture???
The development of doctrine cannot be something that negates or contradicts Scripture, since the Holy Spirit is both the Author of Scripture and the Author of the development of doctrine in the Church:
But your 'development of doctrine' does negate scripture...A lot of it...
Right off the top: the veil of the temple has been ripped in half, eliminated...When once it was required that a priest only could pass thru that veil, now the holy of holies is open to everyone...The mercy seat is available to all without the aid of a priest...
And the list just goes on and on...
A quick question: who do you think wrote the first five books of the OT? Would you say, "Moses"? I imagine you would. And yet none of those five books is signed. You are believing this not because of the ipsissima verba of the Scriptures, but because of the Sacred Tradition --- OralTradition---of the Jews.
Likewise: who do you think wrote the four Gospels? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Good: but actually, those Gospels are anonymous: unsigned and internally unattributed. Why do we say "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"? Because of Oral Tradition.
You think The Gospel of John is a part of Scripture? Very good.How about the Gospel of Thomas? Or the Didache? Once again, the canon of the New Testament was settled by Sacred Tradition. The very making of the New Testament Canon was a development of doctrine.
None of the books of the OT was included on a First Century AD index --- or 2nd or 3rd century, for that matter --- indicating which books are Sacred Scripture and which are not. The first "New Testaments" were scattered manuscripts. There was no Table of Contents. Over a period of time--- and gradually -- in a process that spanned centuries --- the Churches settled on a Church-wide agreed list of New Testament Scriptures, determined liturgically ("What were they using for public prayers?") and confirmed hierarchically ("What list was approved in synods and councils?)
So without Tradition there would be no Canon of Scripture.
Nor even does the existence of the full Canon of Scripture necessary for salvation. Was not the Thief on the Cross next to Jesus saved? And not one jot or one tittle of NT Scripture had been written at that ppoint. Didn't St. Stephen the deacon, the first holy martyr, go to Heaven? Of course he did. But at that time there was not one written Gospel, no NT whatsoever. What he knew about Christ, he got from the Apostolic preaching. Oral Tradition.
It was Tradition that came first, and gave rise to Scripture. Tradition is not just some unnatural "growth" or tumor that got attached to the Church in the ages after the Gospels were written.
Tradition --- not the "empty traditions of men, but Sacred Tradition and its authority--- preceded Gospel.
And if the Holy Spirit were not teaching reliably through Oral Tradition and through such structures as Church synods and councils, the 27-book New Testament would never have existed, or would have passed out of circulation just as innumerable ancient books passed out of circulation and were forgotten forever. Thanks be to God.