Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

[concretecamper]

Word of God

is not only the written Word. We've been through this already

 

[thecolorsblend]

Here you go already provided some time ago click me. If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith *Epehsians 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 how can you have faith when there is no Word? If there is no word there is no faith and if there is no faith there is no salvation (see John 3:16; 1 John 5:4).

Romans 10:17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Iow, "Hearing God's word is important". That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are you saved through faith (faith comes by the Word of God); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

That's even less relevant since it relates to justification rather than authority. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority. Try again.

Romans 14:23 ...whatsoever is not of faith is sin

Even less relevant because sin isn't the issue here. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

"Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

Matthew 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

"God's word is very important". Again, nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

Again, plenty of scripture quotes saying "Scripture is good/important/builds faith" or whatever else.

But still missing is the scripture saying something like "Sacred Scripture is the Christian's only permissible authority". Still waiting.

 

[concretecamper]

Yes. That is the context. Yet the passage states all scripture. Would you agree that scripture is scripture regardless of when it was God breathed? Is the NT also scripture? Did Paul have an eye to future scripture? The text doesn’t say. It simply says “All Scripture”. I submit that it is a form of the prophetic present. Meaning the passage has application now but it’s fulfillment in the future. Like Isaiah’s suffering servant. It’s Israel in the context yet we also know that this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.


Isaiah 53:3–5 (ESV): He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed

One more thing, Timothy was a priest. The implication is that the Church is the teacher. The letter was specifically to Timothy, unlike Paul's other letter to congregations.

 

[Athanasius377]

What we've seen are posts saying variations on "Gosh darn golly gee, Sacred Scripture is the super awesomerest evar" but not much else.

Show me the scripture that says something akin to "Sacred Scripture should be your sole authority". This thread has gone on for 20 pages and so far all we've established is that scripture is "profitable". That's lovely but we knew that already.

Show me the scripture saying scripture is the only authority.

Again, the OP does not ask to prove the “only” authority. The OP also linked to an extensive discussion of what SS is not. Furthermore I have been in several threads with you where this has been clarified for your edification. So I know you realize what I am writing is being understood. The point was to prove that SS is sufficient to function as a rule of faith. Not that scripture is the only authority. As a Lutheran I have a very high view of the church catholic of which I consider you and other RCC’s to be part of. I also do not deny the ministry of God the Holy Spirit. The Only I will try to prove is that Scripture alone is the only God Breathed source that the church catholic possesses. Meaning where tradition and scripture collide scripture is the highest authority. Where tradition does not conflict with scripture. We can affirm both. We also believe it to be unwise to simply dismiss the witness of 2000 plus of Christian witness rather we test the same with Scripture.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Again, the OP does not ask to prove the “only” authority.

True tho that may be, other members (particularly Catholics) have in this thread requested a scripture stating that scripture is the sole rule of faith of those who subscribe to such a belief.

In response, the Catholic participants have either received non-sequitur, context-free scriptures or else vehement protestations that a given member does not believe Sacred Scripture to be the sole rule of faith.

In both cases then, the Catholics' request has gone unfulfilled.

Furthermore I have been in several threads with you where this has been clarified for your edification.

No, you haven't. You may have participated in threads where the discussion ground to a similar standstill, where some Protestants who believe that Sacred Scripture is the sole rule of faith are unable to provide a scripture substantiating their beliefs and/or where other Protestants bemoan being asked to substantiate that belief even tho they don't share it (raising the question of why they're even participating in the first place).

If it's a really animated discussion, people who believe in "prima scriptura" without realizing it will drop in on the discussion, muddy the waters, confuse those who don't really understand the point of the thread and move right along.

But at no time ever does a Protestant who believes that Sacred Scripture is the sole rule of faith been so kind as to provide a bulletproof scripture directly and explicitly stating that Sacred Scripture is the sole rule of faith.

It's a simple request. If you don't believe in it, that's fine. My challenge applies to people who believe that Sacred Scripture is the sole rule of faith. If that's not you then I guess we're done.

 

[Athanasius377]

One more thing, Timothy was a priest. The implication is that the Church is the teacher. The letter was specifically to Timothy, unlike Paul's other letter to congregations.

No, Timothy was not a ἱερεύς or herios meaning priest. He was a πρεσβύτερος, or Presbyter meaning elder. But you are correct. Timothy 1 and 2 are part of the pastoral epistles. We call them pastors but I prefer Presbyter. Yet the statement about scripture remains. In other words Paul’s words about scripture we not personal opinion especially if he was offering advice to a Presbyter. Who would then go out and teach the faithful.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Here you go already provided some time ago click me. If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith *Epehsians 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 how can you have faith when there is no Word? If there is no word there is no faith and if there is no faith there is no salvation (see John 3:16; 1 John 5:4).

Your response here..

Iow, "Hearing God's word is important". That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.That's even less relevant since it relates to justification rather than authority. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority. Try again.

No need to try again as the scripture says what it says. What does the rest of the verse you are posting about say. Yep "Hearing comes from the Word of God" *Romans 10:17. The scriptures are the written and recorded Word of God and as it is written elsewhere. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God (God breathed is the meaning here meaning living alive) *2 Timothy 3:16. The only true authority is God's Word as revealed through the scriptures. This is shown in the very words of Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9; Peter in Acts of the Apostles 5:29 and Paul in Romans 3:4.

"Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

Sure it does. Gods' Word is the sole authority. The only true authority is God's Word as revealed through the scriptures. This is shown in the very words of Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9; Peter in Acts of the Apostles 5:29 and Paul in Romans 3:4.

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Your response...

"Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

Your just repeating yourself again (see previous sections). 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". The meaning here is that it is the scriptures that are the standard of doctrine and instruction in righteousness. This proves the OP wrong. The OP was to show that the scriptures are all sufficient right?

Again, plenty of scripture quotes saying "Scripture is good/important/builds faith" or whatever else. But still missing is the scripture saying something like "Sacred Scripture is the Christian's only permissible authority". Still waiting.

Nothing is missing to those who see and hear Gods' Word as it is written by Paul "Let God be true and everyman a liar *Romans 3:4 and Peter "We ough to obey God rather then man" *Acts 5:29 with the warnings given to us from JESUS when he says those who follow the traditions and teachings of men that break the commandments of God are not following God *Matthew 15:3-9. Yep seems like "ALL SCRIPTURE" seems pretty sufficient to me don't you think? Ignoring God's Word does not make it disappear. It simply becomes our judge come judgement day according to the scriptures *John 12:47-48

..............

I asked you a question earlier. If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith *Epehsians 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 how can you have faith when there is no Word? If there is no word there is no faith and if there is no faith there is no salvation (see John 3:16; 1 John 5:4).


Hope this helps.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

is not only the written Word. We've been through this already

Indeed and I did not say what you were saying I said as shown earlier.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No need to try again as the scripture says what it says.

It says what it says, alright. The problem tho is it doesn't say what you think it says.

Sure it does. Gods' Word is the sole authority.

It says no such thing. "Scripture is good" is not the same as "Scripture is the sole rule of faith". When you have a scripture that says that or something similar, let me know.

Your just repeating yourself again

I'm keeping up with the Joneses on that.

I asked you a question earlier. If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith

And I sidestepped it because that's off-topic in this discussion.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It says what it says, alright. The problem tho is it doesn't say what you think it says.

It says no such thing. "Scripture is good" is not the same as "Scripture is the sole rule of faith". When you have a scripture that says that or something similar, let me know.

I'm keeping up with the Joneses on that.

And I sidestepped it because that's off-topic in this discussion.

Well you did not address anything or the scirptures provided in the post you are quoting from except to provide an opinion. Anyhow I believe the scriptures shown prove your opinion wrong but I will leave that between you and God as we are all free to believe and do as we wish. How was the question I asked you off topic? It is directly relevant to the topic as the topic is to show and prove how Sola scriptura is all sufficient. If it is only through faith in the scriptures (Word of God) that we have Gods' salvation. Therefore how is that question not relevant?

The question was... If we are only saved by God's Grace through faith *Epehsians 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 how can you have faith when there is no Word?

According to the scriptures alone, if there is no word there is no faith and if there is no faith there is no salvation (see John 3:16; 1 John 5:4).

Can you see here that it is in the Word of God that we find Gods' salvation and if we deny Gods' Word we are denying our very salvation God's Word points us to? Therefore we conclude that the biblical teaching of Sola sciptura is all sufficient for ones salvation and the final authority of truth which exposes error.

Hope this helps.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well you did not address anything or the scirptures provided in the post you are quoting from

Quite so, because the scriptures you provided are so irrelevant as to be almost off-topic.

Again, "Scripture is good" is not the same as "Scripture is the sole rule of faith". When you have a scripture that says that or something similar, let me know.

Hope this helps.

It doesn't.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Quite so, because the scriptures you provided are so irrelevant as to be almost off-topic. Again, "Scripture is good" is not the same as "Scripture is the sole rule of faith". When you have a scripture that says that or something similar, let me know. It doesn't.

As posted earlier. All you have provided is an opinion in direct contradiction to the scriptures. You have ignored the questions asked of you that are on OP topic and denied the very Word of God that directly answered the OP. Let's run with your claims. Your claim is that "scripture is not the sole rule of faith" Where does faith come from in your view and what is the sole rule of faith (scripture please)?

 

[Athanasius377]

Iow, "Hearing God's word is important". That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

That's even less relevant since it relates to justification rather than authority. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority. Try again.

Even less relevant because sin isn't the issue here. That doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

"Reading God's word is good". Nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

"God's word is very important". Again, nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't say, mean or suggest that Sacred Scripture is our sole authority.

Again, plenty of scripture quotes saying "Scripture is good/important/builds faith" or whatever else.

But still missing is the scripture saying something like "Sacred Scripture is the Christian's only permissible authority". Still waiting.

This is copied from the original post:
Claim: "The Scriptures are sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith."

You turned the claim from being what the above statement and built a straw man that we should be forced to defend while you burn it down. Furthermore the OP also linked to a definition. Here
Transcript: Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? – James White vs. Jerry Matatics – Alpha and Omega Ministries

This is a fine definition. This is what I was being challenged to defend. What you are asking me and others to defend is your definition of SS. That’s moving the goalposts. @Tradidi to his credit has kept the argument on point to which I am thankful and is something I respect. Because he is engaging the argument. I also suspect that @Tradidi formulated the challenge the way he did was to keep the thread from descending into an argument that was never the original challenge. Because regardless of which side you fall in it doesn’t help refuting an argument that is not being made. Would you not be edified if the next time this subject came up you were able to refute the actual argument rather doing what so many do and twist the argument into something you can defeat yet not what the other side believes? In other words let’s get to the underlying theological statement and not a strawman.

 

[concretecamper]

No, Timothy was not a ἱερεύς or herios meaning priest.

my mistake, he was a Bishop.

Yet the statement about scripture remains

I chose that it remains the way Paul meant it, what Timothy knew from his youth (or infancy with regards to the faith).

In other words Paul’s words about scripture we not personal opinion especially if he was offering advice to a Presbyter.

of course they were not personal opinion. Unlike SS which we are discussing.

So your best card to play is Paul was uttering a prophecy? You choice to believe that but it doesnt fit with Paul's reference

3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[Athanasius377]

So your best card to play is Paul was uttering a prophecy? You choice to believe that but it doesnt fit with Paul's reference

Hardly. Read me post carefully. It could be that I wasn’t clear. I don’t deny there was a time that Paul’s teaching existed in Oral form and only later written down.

 

[Athanasius377]

my mistake, he was a Bishop.

The terms episcopoi and Presbyteroi were used interchangeably in the NT.

 

[Tradidi]

Yes. That is the context. Yet the passage states all scripture. Would you agree that scripture is scripture regardless of when it was God breathed? Is the NT also scripture? Did Paul have an eye to future scripture? The text doesn’t say. It simply says “All Scripture”. I submit that it is a form of the prophetic present. Meaning the passage has application now but it’s fulfillment in the future. Like Isaiah’s suffering servant. It’s Israel in the context yet we also know that this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.

That's quite a novel argument, saying that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is "a form of the prophetic present". I never heard that one before. But the problem is, Scripture doesn't say or even imply that. There's a much simpler explanation, which is what I have been trying to steer you towards.

In the previous verse (2 Timothy 3:15) Paul is telling Timothy that "from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This verse is specific, the Scriptures that Timothy had since his infancy is what we call the Old Testament (Torah, Tanakh, whatever..). And it is of these Scriptures that Paul is saying that they can "instruct to salvation".

Then in the next two verses Paul is moving from the specific situation of Timothy to the general rule, explaining if you wish why he said what he said in verse 15: not just this or that book, but all Scripture is inspired, profitable etc.. It does not make sense to argue that Paul was speaking about the "total number of 66 books, and nothing more or nothing less", since some of these books were not written yet, and Paul even doubted whether his own writings were inspired. They were, but he didn't know that.

Paul was simply explaining that the nature of Scripture is such that it is inspired, and as you pointed out, the purpose and the effects of something that is inspired is that it is profitable to use and able to produce the effects mentioned (being perfect, every good faith.. I mean work).

Another way of looking at it then is this. What is true of the nature of a thing is true of every thing of that nature. When we say apples grow on trees, then we know that each and every apple grew on a tree. Apple 1 grew on a tree, apple 2 grew on a tree,.. apple 37,763,774 grew on a tree, etc..

Apply this to what Paul is saying here:

• The book of Genesis is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
• The book of Exodus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• The book of Leviticus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• ...
• The Gospel of St. John is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• ...
• The Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
• ...
• The book of Revelation is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

When a Protestant tries to insert the word sufficient into 2 Timothy 3:16-17, he is forced to insert the same word into each of the above statements:

• The book of Genesis is sufficient..
• The book of Exodus is sufficient..
• The book of Leviticus is sufficient..
• ...
• The book of Revelation is sufficient..

Does that makes sense? No. That is NOT the meaning that Paul could have been trying to convey here.

Protestants then will try to argue, "well, Paul switched in the middle of his statement from speaking about the nature of Scripture to speaking specifically about the 66 books that some Christians one day will proclaim as inspired."

And this I believe is what Patrick Madrid called an error against the hermeneutic of anachronism, or in simple terms, reading something into Scripture that simply is not there and could not have been there.

So, there is no way you can argue that Paul is implying sufficiency in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That's quite a novel argument, saying that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is "a form of the prophetic present". I never heard that one before. But the problem is, Scripture doesn't say or even imply that. There's a much simpler explanation, which is what I have been trying to steer you towards.

In the previous verse (2 Timothy 3:15) Paul is telling Timothy that "from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This verse is specific, the Scriptures that Timothy had since his infancy is what we call the Old Testament (Talmud, Tanakh, whatever..). And it is of these Scriptures that Paul is saying that they can "instruct to salvation".

Then in the next two verses Paul is moving from the specific situation of Timothy to the general rule, explaining if you wish why he said what he said in verse 15: not just this or that book, but all Scripture is inspired, profitable etc.. It does not make sense to argue that Paul was speaking about the "total number of 66 books, and nothing more or nothing less", since some of these books were not written yet, and Paul even doubted whether his own writings were inspired. They were, but he didn't know that.

Paul was simply explaining that the nature of Scripture is such that it is inspired, and as you pointed out, the purpose and the effects of something that is inspired is that it is profitable to use and able to produce the effects mentioned (being perfect, every good faith.. I mean work).

Another way of looking at it then is this. What is true of the nature of a thing is true of every thing of that nature. When we say apples grow on trees, then we know that each and every apple grew on a tree. Apple 1 grew on a tree, apple 2 grew on a tree,.. apple 37,763,774 grew on a tree, etc..

Apply this to what Paul is saying here:

• The book of Genesis is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
• The book of Exodus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• The book of Leviticus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• ...
• The Gospel of St. John is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• ...
• The Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
• ...
• The book of Revelation is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

When a Protestant tries to insert the word sufficient into 2 Timothy 3:16-17, he is forced to insert the same word into each of the above statements:

• The book of Genesis is sufficient..
• The book of Exodus is sufficient..
• The book of Leviticus is sufficient..
• ...
• The book of Revelation is sufficient..

Does that makes sense? No. That is NOT the meaning that Paul could have been trying to convey here.

Protestants then will try to argue, "well, Paul switched in the middle of his statement from speaking about the nature of Scripture to speaking specifically about the 66 books that some Christians one day will proclaim as inspired."

And this I believe that is what Patrick Madrid called an error against the hermeneutic of anachronism, or in simple terms, reading something into Scripture that simply is not there and could not have been there.

So, there is no way you can argue that Paul is implying sufficiency in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

If you agree here that the scriptures are all sufficient to instruct us to salvation and this reference is to the old testament scriptures to which I would agree, why would you disagree that the new testament scriptures are not sufficient to instruct us to salvation when it is the old testament scriptures that point to the new testament fulfillment in Jesus? Your argument is contradicting itself or are you trying to now argue that only the old testament scriptures are sufficient for salvation and the new testament scriptures are not sufficient for salvation and the very Words of JESUS are not the words of God? All scripture means all scripture as scripture is the Word of God. Jesus according to the scriptures was the living Word of God and it was the scriptures in both the old and new that testify of him.

 

[concretecamper]

I don’t deny there was a time that Paul’s teaching existed in Oral form and only later written down.

Paul said scripture, scripture Timothy knew from infancy, it means the Tanakh, it ain't hard to understand

 

[Athanasius377]

That's quite a novel argument, saying that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is "a form of the prophetic present". I never heard that one before. But the problem is, Scripture doesn't say or even imply that. There's a much simpler explanation, which is what I have been trying to steer you towards.

In the previous verse (2 Timothy 3:15) Paul is telling Timothy that "from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This verse is specific, the Scriptures that Timothy had since his infancy is what we call the Old Testament (Talmud, Tanakh, whatever..). And it is of these Scriptures that Paul is saying that they can "instruct to salvation".

Then in the next two verses Paul is moving from the specific situation of Timothy to the general rule, explaining if you wish why he said what he said in verse 15: not just this or that book, but all Scripture is inspired, profitable etc.. It does not make sense to argue that Paul was speaking about the "total number of 66 books, and nothing more or nothing less", since some of these books were not written yet, and Paul even doubted whether his own writings were inspired. They were, but he didn't know that.

Paul was simply explaining that the nature of Scripture is such that it is inspired, and as you pointed out, the purpose and the effects of something that is inspired is that it is profitable to use and able to produce the effects mentioned (being perfect, every good faith.. I mean work).

Another way of looking at it then is this. What is true of the nature of a thing is true of every thing of that nature. When we say apples grow on trees, then we know that each and every apple grew on a tree. Apple 1 grew on a tree, apple 2 grew on a tree,.. apple 37,763,774 grew on a tree, etc..

Actually I said that Scripture was God Breathed. I was very specific because Paul was specific. And he said All scripture. Unless you believe some scripture was not God breathed. Does it matter when it was written down? If so does that mean the NT is less God Breathed? Does not All mean All?

Apply this to what Paul is saying here:

• The book of Genesis is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
• The book of Exodus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• The book of Leviticus is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• ...
• The Gospel of St. John is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
  
• ...
• The Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
• ...
• The book of Revelation is inspired, profitable to teach.. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Hence the word “All”. And is supernatural in origin. Again. God Breathed.

It does not make sense to argue that Paul was speaking about the "total number of 66 books, and nothing more or nothing less", since some of these books were not written yet, and Paul even doubted whether his own writings were inspired. They were, but he didn't know that.

So there are books that are not God Breathed? Which ones? Again the operative word is “All”. Does God exist outside or inside of time. Did God not know what the canon of scripture would be when He Breathed our the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation? Again you are trying to argue “All” doesn’t mean “All”.

Does that makes sense? No. That is NOT the meaning that Paul could have been trying to convey here.

Protestants then will try to argue, "well, Paul switched in the middle of his statement from speaking about the nature of Scripture to speaking specifically about the 66 books that some Christians one day will proclaim as inspired."

And this I believe is what Patrick Madrid called an error against the hermeneutic of anachronism, or in simple terms, reading something into Scripture that simply is not there and could not have been there.

So, there is no way you can argue that Paul is implying sufficiency in 2 Timothy 3:16-

Sure it does. Again “All” means “All”. Paul could have said “Those scriptures” but he did not. He said “All”. Why? Because God was not finished in time and space Breathing out scripture for his church. Did Paul understand this? What difference would it make. Does Paul’s opinion make scripture or God? Unless you want to try and argue NT scripture isn’t scripture or somehow lesser than the OT.

Sorry brother. That’s a swing and a miss.