Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[hapaxparadidoma]

We need the early councils and creeds, the teachings of the ECF’s, and the Church itself.

This is the thing I have a hard time understanding about the lutheran view of sola scriptura.
Are these councils binding on all christians?

 

[wmscott]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
   BIBLE ALONE OR BIBLE PLUS TRADITION?
   1Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you.
   2Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter.
   2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition.
   Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture.
   Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t.
   Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels.
   2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
   2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men.
   2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation.
   2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret.
   1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you.
   Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard.
   1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached.
   Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
   Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you Tradition Condemned?.
   1Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition.
   2Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep traditions.
   2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
   
   SOLA SCRIPTURA
   Jn 21:25 - not everything is in the Bible.
   2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 - Paul speaks of oral tradition.
   Acts 2:42 - early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
   2 Pet 3:16 - Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
   2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 - more oral tradition.
   2 Pet 1:20-21 - against personal interpretation.
   Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12 - guidance needed to interpret scriptures.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

This is taken from John chapter 5 and it really spoke to me. I felt like Jesus is addressing the issues He is still facing with Christians.

The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form,and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent. You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life.—John 5:36-40

The mission Christ gave His apostles to accomplish and the mission the Catholic Church has continued since that time, testify on the Catholic Churches behalf that the Son had founded her and given her this mission to preach and teach all nations. By her works the Holy Spirit has testifed on her behalf but those that are outside the Church have not acknowleged this. They do not beleive the Catholic Church has the Authority from God and so they attack her doctrines and search the scriptures because they think their authority lies in them. Yet even the Scriptures themesleves testify on the Catholic Churches belalf. But sadly you do not want to come to the Catholic Church (which is the Mystical Body of Christ and which has Jesus Christ in the Eucharist) to have life. No instead you trust in your own authority. You do not receive the Eucharist and so you do not have the Word remaining in you.

Brings to mind another part of Saint Johns Gospel

“He came unto his own: and his own received him not. But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made FLESH and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.”–John 1:11-14

 

[simspt]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   The simple (maybe naive on my part) difficulty I have is seeing how Christians would have practiced SS during the first two hundred years of Christianity. I think many times Protestants wish to get back to unadulterated Christian practice and proclaim SS is the best method for this. The church and its teachers seem to have been the primary authority and instrument used in spreading the Gospel and chronologically prior to the NT Scriptures. Authority seems to have been a function of the church teaching including the writings it used in its liturgy. Divorcing the two in relation to authority cannot be found in history until the reformation.
   
   In Christ,
   JMS

 

[wmscott]

I guess the other issue I have is… that until the invention of the printing press (1440AD), pretty much it was the Catholic Church and maybe a few rich folks that had a Bible to begin with. The masses were all but illiterate and poor. So where does that leave us. The masses depended on the Catholic Church to interpret Sacred Scripture for them and to preach it to them.
So how did the Christians for the first 1500 years practice SS when they basically did not own a Bible much less be able to read it.

 

[bjmad]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   I think you have more studying to do. This is an old arguement…

 

[Bookcat]

Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?

no.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

 

[bjmad]

I guess the other issue I have is… that until the invention of the printing press (1440AD), pretty much it was the Catholic Church and maybe a few rich folks that had a Bible to begin with. The masses were all but illiterate and poor. So where does that leave us. The masses depended on the Catholic Church to interpret Sacred Scripture for them and to preach it to them.
So how did the Christians for the first 1500 years practice SS when they basically did not own a Bible much less be able to read it.

We are probably going to hear how the Catholic Church burned bibles because we didn’t want people to read them. We should have a myth section before people are able to post here.

 

[Nevermore22]

When ever we were (or are) in school, teachers always gave us a list of vocabulary words to define. When defining words, one cannot use the word to define it.
Now take sola scriptura.
By your deffination:

haparker321:

Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice.

being a part of the faith, and (in a way) necessary for salvation, needs to be found in the Holy Scriptures.

There are two problems with this:

1. The Scriptures never state that it is.
2. We cannot use a word to define it, meaning we cannot use the Scriptures to define
   itself.

The definition had to have come from an outside source. That outside source means that there is someone/thing that has the same (or more) authority as the Scriptures. That authority would have just as much importance as the Scriptures to the faith and teachings. Perhaps even more since it defined what Scripture was.

I hope that made sense.

In Christ through Mary,
Nevermore

 

[po18guy]

The truth of a doctrine is revealed by its fruits.

Denominations before man-made “sola scriptura” = (sadly) 2

Denominations after man-made “sola scriptura” = Ten, twenty, thirty thousand+ and counting…

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[B79]

Dear Parker,

Sola Scriptura can’t be true since the Bible clearly endorses the oral Tradition, much more explicitly than anything you can find allegedly supporting Sola Scriptura. Just look in that SAME PASSAGE from Timothy which Sola Scriptura advocates love to toss around! From this very website: “Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to 'stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).’" This is just one of MANY Bible passages in support of the essential role of unwritten Tradition. Sola Scriptura is simply … unscriptural.

You can’t deny the fact that Sola Scriptura has led to the formation of today’s TENS OF THOUSANDS of different churches, many of them with fundamentally different interpretations of the same Bible. History thus proves that the Bible can’t be the sole rule of faith.

 

[Ana_v]

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

An important thing to keep in mind, is that the passages affirming the authority of the Word of God are not problematic for Catholics, because we do not argue that the Word of God lacks infallible authority.

What is a problem, is that Protestants assume that, when it comes to matters of the Christian faith, the Word of God exclusively refers to the written Word. The Word of God is not limited to text. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are equally Sacred and equally authoritative because both are sourced in the Divine. The deposit of faith handed down to us by the apostles, came out of the mouth of Christ himself (Word of God), and also truths they were led into under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

I want to say something about 2 Tim 3:16 – it’s something that I wrote in response to a Protestant Christian, whom I was debating the issue of Sola Scriptura with, on my blog.

Here’s what I wrote:

You mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

Three things to keep in mind:

1. We must be careful to not confuse how us moderns use the term “Scripture” with how the term is used in this letter. When we use the word Scripture, we use it as meaning the same thing as “the Bible”.

However, when this letter was being written, there was no Bible. And even the books in what we now call the New Testament, were not completed yet. There were however, the Hebrew Scriptures (which we call the Old Testament), that of course, did already exist at the time.

1. This letter doesn’t tell us that it itself is part of the “Scripture”.

1. It does not portray that Scripture *alone * is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

**His **reply to my first point:

The fact that at the time this letter was written only the OT and some NT books existed doesn’t affect anything. Paul isn’t talking about canon in this passage (that is your false assumption). Paul is talking about the nature of scripture. What IS scripture? Scripture is that which is theopneustos. So, anything sharing the quality of being theopneustos is Scripture.

Me:

"The fact that at the time this letter was written only the OT and some NT books existed doesn’t affect anything.

Sure it does. Let’s look at the verse that comes *right before *2 Tim 3:16-17

"15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "

This isn’t a mutually exclusive thing Tory, Paul is talking to Timothy about the Hebrew Scriptures (obviously, the New Testament wasn’t an available source yet) and is qualifying them as God-breathed (the nature of the Scriptures) and useful.

If you think Paul in that passage is teaching that Scripture is “sufficient to teach everything and anything one would need to do any good work”, then given the context, you’d have to conclude that the Hebrew Scriptures are “sufficient”, Tory. But I presume, you wouldn’t want to go that route.

Furthermore, look at the verse *right before * verse 15,

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Paul is telling him (Timothy) to persevere in what he has learned, because of the people he learned it from, **and ** because of what he has gathered from Scripture. Timothy is not being to told persevere in what he has learned because he’s learned if from Scripture and that’s all he needs for assurance because Scripture is all-sufficient.

Also, I reiterate 2 Tim 2:2, (which is in the immediately preceeding chapter!)

" 1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. "

Paul is instructing Timothy to pass on the oral tradtion he (Timothy) received. No reason to do this if Paul was subsequently going to tell Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for people (hence rendering oral tradition is unnecessary, hence rendering his instruction to Timothy as unnecessary).

 

[Ana_v]

(Cont.)

The Protestant I was having the dialogue with, argued that Sola Scriptura didn’t apply during the time of inscripturation, but that “Sola Scriptura speaks to the normative state of the Church”.

My response to that:

By what authority does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura speak to the normative state of the Church? By what infallible rule of faith do people espouse the doctrine of Sola Scriptura … what infallible rule of faith supplied Martin Luther with Sola Scriptura? If it’s fallibly sourced, then its not binding on Christians.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible doesn’t claim to be the word of God, actually, I technically don’t even need to use the words “the Bible” (the connotation of which is 66 books) if I were to choose not to. Using just the New Testament (since it is in the Bible) would be enough to make my point : the texts of the New Testament do not self or cross referentially catalog the 27 texts as belonging to the canon of Scripture.

( I said “66 books” books because I was debating with a Protestant. Catholics of course, accept a total of 73 books as Scriptural. The Deuterocanonicals were accepted as inspired by the early church. See the list of canonical books decided at the Council of Carthage in 397. Catholics didn’t add to the Bible, Protestants took books out of the Bible.)

 

[Annie39]

As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:

• Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
• Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
• Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
• Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

1. • Proverbs 30:5
   • Hebrews 4:12
   • Matthew 4:4
   • 2 Timothy 3:16
   • Deuteronomy 8:3
   • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
   • Acts 13:44
   Tell me what you think.
   
   Parker

1. 
   Hi Parker,
   I have not read most of the replies to your post so forgive me if this has already been asked, but where in the bible may I find your definiton of Sola Scriptura?
   
   Thanks,
   Annie

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice.

If that is indeed true, how are we to judge what is true? We would need an infallibile teaching authority to separate Truth from untruth, and to shed light to half-truths, like “Christ is Man, but not God”. We would need to know that our interpretation is correct. We would need infallibility outside of Scripture for us fallible beings.

Let us just say that there are 100 Christian denominations. (The figure is much higher but a lower number will prove the inefficacy of the principle of SS.)

Each denom can reasonably use Scripture only to prove their side (even the Catholic Church can!). It would be ludicrous to believe that they all right. There are Pentecostals, Christadelphians, Methodists, Lutherans, Seveth-Day Adventists, etc… All these claim to be true on the premise of Sola Scriptura. If Scripture were the only infallibe authority, how are we to judge they are all right? Some deny the Trinity., some Christ’s Divinity, some the Real Presence (Eucharist), some Purgatory, some free will, some Predestination, some Evolution, and so on. At the same time, some affirm these things, some Faith and Works, some Faith Alone, some millenialism, some premillenialism, some amillenialism, and so on…

My argument is not an argument from the multitudes of denominations (perhaps it is a distant cousin… twice removed). My argument asks this: on the basis of Sola Scriptura, on whose authority can we say that they are wrong? Each can make their reasonable arguments to justify their belief on the authority of Scripture. (Reasonable does not make it right, but they can be reasonable. For example, affirming the Rapture is reasonable but still wrong, very wrong.)

To pick an example from the myriads, Lutherans and Baptists affirm Sola Scriptura. However, Lutherans affirm that Jesus is literally present with the bread and wine. Baptists deny any physical presence and see it as a communal symbol. I am not looking for why the other is wrong. I am looking for a legitimate reason to argue the other beliefs since they can both be reasonable setup from Scripture.

In other words, how can we infallibly say, “This is true” to another Sola Scriptura advocate with opposing beliefs?

Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures

Are there non-essential Christian beliefs?

I will say that everything in the Catholic Church can be sufficiently derived from Scripture. We believe that also. That is not a believe exclusive to Sola Scriptura. We have Tradition also to shed light on Scripture.

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

Proverbs 30:5

You assume that Word of God means “Scripture” or “Scripture Only”. You have to prove that “Word of God” cannot be “Sacred Tradition” (written and oral).

Hebrews 4:12

Same

Matthew 4:4

So, only the written Word of God came out of the mouth of God?

2 Timothy 3:16

1. This only proves that Scripture is infallible.
2. The teachings, corrections trainings, and refutations done assume the right interpretation.
3. Supplement this verse with Acts 8:26-36. This assumes an infallible teaching authority. They had no New Testament. How would Philip have the knowledge in the principle of Sola Scriptura? He used Scripture prophecies with His own eyes to shed light for the man.
4. Supplement also with Titus 2:15. Your Scripture passage points in our favor of infallible authority.

Deuteronomy 8:3

Same objection from Matthew 4:4

Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)

Yes, these order were not written at the time it actually happened.

Acts 13:44

This does not prove Sola Scriptura.

When you take a prooftext out of context, that’s considered a pretext.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Parker,

Oh, so pharisees had a legit basis to carry the traditions which Christ condemned, right

I like Scott’s objection and I will offer my own from a different angle.

Notice how you say “the traditions which Christ condemned”. This leaves room for those traditions which Christ did NOT condemn.

Also, notice the use of “traditions” by Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2. This points to something outside of Scripture that carries the same weight as Scripture.

By the way, you should not say “Tell me what you think” and then mock our beliefs and arguments.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Parker

You just don’t like the idea because you can’t prove the idea is unbiblical.

1. I rather like the idea of Sola Scriptura. My interpretation would always be correct and I can make my own beliefs as I understand Scripture.
2. Not being able to disprove only proves one cannot disprove and nothing more… As wmscott has shown, we can prove that it is unbiblical.
3. If Scripture were the final authority, who makes the judgment that a conclusion is final? Whose interpretation is correct?
4. If Jesus (the real one) came right now and taught against SS, would you believe Him? If yes, then so much for no infallible authority outside Scriptures. If not, then perhaps you have an argument. You can claim “false dilemma” since Christ is indeed the Word of God, but Jesus is not written words. Either you will believe Him or you will not.

 

[Church_Militant]

This covers Catholic teaching pretty well. MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (This Rock: October 1993)

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.

 

[Phyllo]

Hi,

I am just going to jump in here. We didn’t have anything written down until several decades after Jesus died. So how did people learn about Christ? By word of mouth and Tradition. We didn’t have the complete Bible until several centuries after Jesus died. Again we learned by Tradition and word of mouth.

John 21:25 There were many other things that Jesus did: if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose would not hold all the books that would have to be written.

Again we rely on oral Tradition.

Whose bible would you get Sola Scriptura from the Catholic or Protestant?

Just a few of my thoughts.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture

I can’t help but notice that the word “everything” is all inclusive. According to Parker, absolutely everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture.

Therefore, to prove this wrong, it is necessary to show only one essential Christian belief that is not derived from scripture.

Parker, you have already shown us that you believe the 27 books in the New Testament are scripture by quoting them. In fact, you can’t point to what those books say and declare it is the word of God until you have already accepted them as scripture. It is therefore essential to know those books are scripture before you can derive anything in them as infallibly coming from God.

So where in scripture does it tell us those 27 books are scripture? Where can I derive from scripture, for example, that the gospel of Matthew is scripture?

Please quote book, chapter, and verse that tells us we should accept each and every one of those 27 books as scripture.

If you cannot, then you have failed to show that “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture” for you will not have shown us where you yourself derive the belief that those 27 books are indeed scripture. In other words, where from scripture do you derive this essential belief?

Please do not ignore or refuse to answer my question. Please consider what it says to everyone here that you either cannot or purposely will not answer it.