I may be able to help here; if nothing else, I hope & pray to add a useful & respectful angle to this discussion.
Throughout the entire Bible, people go to the religious authorities to understand the final meaning of Scripture. Since Acts has been brought up more than any other book in this discussion so far, we will work with Acts.
Consider Chapter 15. There is a lot to discuss about this chapter, but the most relevant point to this discussion plays out in verses 1-2:
"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question." (NIV)
Scripture was surely being argued in this debate. Indeed, verse 5 tells us that converted Pharisees were arguing in favor of mandatory circumcision. While the Pharisees are often demonized for lack of love, they knew the Scriptures better than any of us, and Jesus even told His disciples about their position as a teaching authority, even if they didn't live what they taught:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Matthew 23:2-3, NIV
In Acts, we see a transition of authority, from the Pharisees before the Christian Church was founded, to the Church authorities, who were in Jerusalem at this point in history. Both sides were using Scripture to figure out what should be done, yet they came to disagreements. How should this be resolved? By going to the ones who held authority to give the final word on Scriptures.
Two points on this:
- The Council of Jerusalem happened before Acts was written. This is easy enough to prove; how can you write about a meeting before the meeting had taken place? The strong implication here is, Church authority was already established before this piece of Scripture was written. Nowhere in the Bible definitively declared circumcision to no longer be necessary, yet this Council could give a definitive declaration, which was only later recorded in the Bible.
- The more fundamental point--where does the Bible tell us what books belong in the Bible? Nowhere. We trust Church authority every time we pick up a Bible. 1 Timothy, Revelation, Acts, everything that has been brought up in this discussion is based on a decision made in the 4th Century, later edited in the 16th century. The groundwork for how to determine what books are truly "inspired" by the Spirit, to function as something that can be trusted as the Word of God, is nowhere in Scripture.
I hope this helps us reach an agreement, or at least get a little more thoughtful about our responses to this legitimate question of authority. Let me know if you want any more clarification!
And if you want to see Point 2 in more detail, I already have a very relevant thread for that:
Why I Choose Catholic Christianity
May God bless us with peace and good discussions!
What bible verse can you give to defend this point? Furthermore, why would only apply to Paul's writings, as opposed to other books that were not considered canonical?