Except in Romans 3, 1 Peter, Isaiah, you name it.. the word of God trumps all else.. even when men pretend that what their assembly says is the word of God.
"The word of God trumps all else" does not equal
"sola scriptura"
You can't show it (SS) from Scripture; And you can't show it from Christian history, until the Protestant Reformation.
It is a novel doctrine; a tradition of men,..... and one that was not agreed at an eucumenical council.
But anyway, take your first example (Romans 3)
"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe".
The "Law (Torah) & the Prophets" = "Scripture" (as known to Paul at the time)
So the writer states........that God acts
outside of "scripture's limits"
.
("Scripture" was insufficient!)
i.e. Scripture only bears witness to god's action;
it does not limit it. (As Catholicism teaches)
Yet you treat Paul's comments, on the
limitations (insufficiency) of what he understood as "scripture", ...... as not only additional "scripture"...... but as saying "scripture alone!"
And ultimately, you only treat this letter as part of scripture because Councils of Catholic bishops "canonized" it in the 4th Century.
And although this letter refers to the limits of "scripture" you try to make it part of a "limiting scripture!"
I am at a loss!
---------------------------------------------
Furthermore, in the NT, "believing in Christ" & accepting his Church (with its apostolic authority) are always one and the same.
And yet you try to oppose these facets of faith. You try to embrace the one, whilst rejecting the other (which you wrongly see as "worshipping an assembly")
In the NT it is not possible to accept christ & reject the Apostolic Church.