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.
Not meaning to neglect the specifics of your comment (#507), but: when you quote Westminster and previous posts, I see a great deal of good and noble sentiment (cf. “Wow, how awesome and useful is Scripture! How exalted! How sublime!” And no faithful Catholic would disagree with you. I don’t.), but no raw data to prove that it is (or claims to be able) to be used ALONE, much less that it’s sufficient for SALVATION when used alone.
This is what really baffles me about the approach of some non-Catholics (especilly anti-Catholic-Church non-Catholics): they string together literally dozens (if not hundreds) of Scripture citations which show how often Scripture was used by Jesus, by the evangelists, by St. Paul, and so on. They then string together dozens or hundreds of instances where Scripture says to have faith, and that we are saved through faith, and so on.
The faithful, well-informed Catholic is left (if he isn’t exasperated, yet) scratching his head and wondering, “Are we having the same conversation?” What’s the point of emphasizing the IMPORTANCE of Scripture and Faith (and they certainly are), over and over, when the topic is whether these two things are to be used (as per Luther’s view) ALONE?
It goes a bit like this:
Catholic: “Why do you believe in sola Scriptura?”
Non-Catholic: “Because Scripture is the Word of God!”
C: “I agree. But why do you believe in SOLA Scriptura?”
NC: “Because Scripture says that Scripture is vitally important, useful, God-breathed, inerrant, etc.”
C: “You still haven’t said why you need to use it ALONE, to the extent that you condemn anyone else’s practice of using other things such as Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.) and the teaching of the Church (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.), even though Scripture attests to them and endorses them (and even requires them)!”
NC: “Because all such tradition is the same as the content found in the Bible! And because the Church is the entire body of believers, not some hierarchy in Rome!”
C: “Care to prove those two assertions? I see those assertions nowhere in Scripture, and they’re awfully convenient ones for your argument.”
How I wish I could rent a billboard, and put in blazing letters upon it for all anti-Catholic-Church people to see:
WE UNDERSTAND THAT SCRIPTURE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH. COULD YOU PLEASE STOP POSTING SCRIPTURES WHICH SAY THOSE? WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THE IDEA THAT EITHER OF THEM ARE SUFFICIENT TO BE USED *ALONE*, AND WHY YOU THINK THOSE WHO DO *NOT* USE THEM ALONE ARE *WRONG*!!!
No amount of Scriptures telling of the importance of Scripture (or long lists of Scriptures telling how important people used Scriptures a lot, for important things) will address that question AT ALL. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand, about that! EVERY time I’ve ever had a forum discussion about “sola” ANYTHING (in the Luther-esque sense), SOMEONE trots out long lists or dissertations about how IMPORTANT Scripture and Faith are (honestly, I know!), and how we are saved by faith (honestly, I *know*!)... but no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that Scripture ALONE (much less the truncated 66-book fragment of the Scriptures) is the sole guide to faith (or whatever variant on that definition you’d like to use on sola Scriptura)... and no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that we are saved by faith ALONE.
Note the word “ALONE”? THAT is the issue for Catholics. Not “Scripture” (yes, it’s vital). Not faith (yes, we know that we’re saved by/through faith in Jesus Christ). Address the concept embodied by the little five-letter word “ALONE”, please.