I understand your approach now.
Genesis 3:
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
And to which the above line of reasoning, and your own, Jesus answered:
Matthew 4:
“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
“It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”
“Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”
And yet, if these Scriptures required men 'to sort them out'; then after sorting such where did the Roman See gain its authority? If you cast the very 'compiling' of Scriptures in a shady man-made corner, then even the Scriptures Rome claims as its authority are in question.
Oh..I see now that is why we have to listen to the Pope and the self proclaimed magesterium. Because without an infallible source to make the supposed infallible source infallible makes it quite fallible.
Maybe you now see why this former Roman Catholic sees such self proclaimed 'authority' quite an exercise in circular reasoning.
Now, consider this logically (without any emotional sentiment--however understandable--getting in the way), according to your logic if souls were able to search/consult the Scriptures - which they abundantly did in the NT - in then a definitive "table of contents" must have been decided.
none of the Biblical books name any specific books as "Scripture"
Regardless, we know where the quotations affirmed as being Scripture came from, yet your argument here suffers from another problem, for as is typical of RCs regarding SS, it relies upon a straw man of SS, one that presumes explicit statements or teaching is required under SS.
However, as Westminster itself affirms,
“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.
And that
“there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
And also,
“It belongeth to synods and councils [not as assuredly infallible but as a help in grace], ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word. (WESTMINSTER, cp. 1, VI. VII; Cp. XXXI, ` )
And as said, as we clearly men (without an infallible magisterium) correctly discerning both men and writings as being of God - essentially due to their distinctive Heavenly qualities and attestation - and thus a canon being established, if not yet complete (and not universally then or now), then Scripture clearly provides for more books being added, and finally for a settled complete canon.
I merely point out (among other things) that the Scriptures are not meant to be used ALONE, and that they never make that claim for themselves.
Indeed, as even reason and discernment is needed, and teachers, etc., but as a source of Truth, Scripture alone is the supreme sufficient (in its formal and material aspects) standard for Truth and Faith as the wholly inspired word of God. Which the oral preaching of the NT was subject to testing by. And as said in a more extensive reply on this subject,
• 1. What other transcendent objective, comprehensive body of revelation is wholly inspired of God? Infallible decrees? No, not even according to Rome, which only hold these utterances - and not even the reasoning or arguments behind them - are protected from error. But which does not the anointed power of the word of God, which is alive "and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
Are the words of the church which express Tradition wholly inspired of God? No, Catholic teaching says these are not either. She does claim oral (as oral) tradition is, however that exists in a nebulous amorphous form, the authenticity of which rests upon the premise of the perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome, which is the alternative Staples must establish but only assumes is true.
• 2. What body of Truth is said to instrumentally be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works? That the man of God can be complete because he has available to him this body of Truth? (2Tim. 3:15,17)
• 3. What body of Truth did the Lord establish His Truth claims by, and specifically open the minds of the disciples to? (Lk. 24:44,45) It was not Cath. tradition.
Thus we see that Scripture has a unique status and is uniquely qualified to be the supreme standard for Truth and obedience, and being the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters, and indeed, as written, it manifestly became that standard, which oral preaching depended on.
Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets as Scripture and quoted from some of them as such.
Peter called Paul's writings *Scripture* and since he didn't specify which ones, then there's no reason to not accept what we have of his as Scripture.
That settles most of what we accept as Scripture.
As for the NT, the RCC accepts the same books as non-Catholics as Scripture so they have no cause for criticism there.
Here's a link to answering that question.
Addressing the object that The Bible isn't the Word of God. It contains the Word of God.