Its not based on any specific verse that says such and such but on the nature and power of the writings themselves. For example in John 12: Jesus says these words that allude to what the source of His teachings were when He cries out:
"44And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.
45"He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.
46"I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
47"If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
48"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49"For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
50"I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."
“Its not based on any specific verse that says such and such but on the nature and power of the writings themselves.” It is, then, implied, according to your use of Jn 12; we should note that Jn 12 makes no mention of anything written. So, when you state “The books of the Bible themselves attest that they are Scripture” you really mean that in some writings, the Scriptural nature of said writings is implied. If Jn 12 is the best you have to offer to support the “self-attesting” nature of the books declared to be Scripture, then your questions of “what is the criteria [you] use for something to be ‘implicit’” are more relevant for you.
Secondly, were any of these books associated with an apostle? This was crucial since the work had to be either written by an apostle or one associated with one since this inspired work was to come through them.
OK, please provide your Scriptural support for this test of canonicity. As far as I know, SCripture makes no mention of what criteria must be met for a writing to be declared SCripture.
There is no such definition in Scripture in the modern sense. Rather we can support a modern defintion with various passages from the Scripture that tells us the definition is correct.
You start with an extra-Biblical formula - the definition of the Trinity - and then go back to see if anything in Scripture supports the definition; do I understand you correctly?
Or, you can agree that the Tradition of the definition of the Trinity grew out of a growing understanding of what was both explicit and implicit in SCripture and handed down by the Apostles.
Otherwise, there is nothing explicit in Scripture to support St Augustine’s definition.
Are you then saying you don’t have a specific criteria at this point?
The Church’s criteria - not mine - is the consistency of both Scriptural and Apostolic teaching.
What is your criteria for something to be “implicit”?
Depends what you mean by Tradition and can the Tradition be supported by Scripture. Even if the Tradition can be supported by it that does mean the Tradition itself is inspired-inerrant and has the same authority as Scripture.
I think you missed a “not” in there somewhere.
Let’s use our discussion of determining what books are Scripture.
Is that determination inspired and therefore authoritative?
There passages that support it. That’s how we know its Scriptural.
Here is the definition you provided:
“God’s whole and undivided essence belongs equally, simultaneously, and fully to each of the three persons of the Godhead.”
You and I agree there are Scripture passages we can use to support this definition, correct?
But just because we can use them doesn’t make our use of them correct. One need only look at those who deny the Trinity and use Scripture passages to support their position.
Do you accept St Augustine’s definition of the Trinity based on your use of Scripture?
), can you show me anywhere in the NT the apostles, the founders of the Church, state their belief in the NT canon?