• "Bible"?
• "Gospel" (as a name of a book)?
•"According to Matthew"?
•"According to Mark"?
• "According to Luke"?
•"According to John"?
Yes or no?
Do you still beat Mr. Don-O? Yes or No.
Just kidding. Your questions don't really add to our discussion. Do you use terms like "popemobile", Cardinal, White Smoke, Pope? Those are not really anywhere in Scripture, either. Actually, there are absolutely no English words in Scripture. What have we proved? Nothing.
But, to answer your first question, I do not use the term "Gospel" as the name of a "book". I use Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Those are in the titles. Gospel is not. The "Gospel" comes from "ευαγγελιον", which we remanufactured into gospel. The Greek word means "good news announcement" or something close. Just like there is no such word as "church". We manufactured that, too. That term is "assembly" or "gathering", as in the "church" rioted in Ephesus when Paul came to town (see how it doesn't fit?). But, this has grown into some kind of common usage. However, it is not technically correct.
And, to your second question, no, I do not use "personal Savior" or "Scripture alone" (unless I happen to be saying something like, "Does that event appear in the Scripture, alone?") nor "faith alone" (often mistaken for, "you have been saved by Grace, through faith, and that not of yourselves...it is a gift of God...). But, if Abraham was granted faith, and that faith was counted as "righteousness", please tell me what more is necessary?
I am not saying that a person who is saved does not begin to behave differently. This is what James is saying. If you say you have faith and nothing happens, that "faith" is dead. I completely agree. When God rescues a man/woman, many things begin to change. They find themselves hating the flesh and its doggone ugly habits. They find themselves "exulting in sufferings" because it proves to themselves that they God's Spirit has latched onto them and they cannot get away! Again, lots of things work out of the rescued person. But, James says, "...that kind of "faith" does not save..."; the real kind of faith does save. Notice, we cannot substitute works for the gift of faith. But, how does this affect the discussion?
And, in Joshua, there are several references to the "book written by Moses. Even I & II Kings reference this, along with Paul in several places (Rom 10:19, et al). The Jews knew who wrote the Torah/Pentateuch. Are you saying that because your group (which teaches things not comporting with the text such as purgatory, priests in the new covenant, absolution of sin by a man, sacraments conferring grace, etc.) makes a claim, it must be true? For goodness sake, Roman superiority is nowhere in the Scriptures, either. Paul refers to multiple "gatherings" in homes, in marketplaces, in caverns. What are we getting at here?
It's not something that can be applied reciprocally to Catholics, because we have never claimed nor aspired to be "Sola Scriptura." Thus the employment of words and concepts not found in the sacred text, is not a contradiction or a problem for us. We freely and gratefully rely, also, on Sacred Tradition and the authority which Christ gave His Church.