Your statement must be music to the ears of Satan. He was the first one to deny the sufficiency of God's word. He is the one who attempts to twist God's word by saying it doesn't really mean what it says.
If the Word which was inspired by the Holy Spirit is insufficient when we have so many examples in the Bible of people appealing to the Word, we have Jesus appealing to the Word in His dealings with Satan, then you're going to appeal to man-made "rules" and expect people to believe they are superior to the Holy Inspired Word???
No sir, brother....I'm not buying that false argument of yours.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I would also point out Psalm 119. In all but three of the 176 verses there is a reference to the Word. The Psalmist uses 10 different terms for the Law or Word of God in this chapter. It is well worth a read to see the importance and reliance upon the Word.
It is also worth noting that in Mary's praise to the Lord in Luke 1:46-55, she quotes the OT at least 15 times. Perhaps the love of God's Word was the reason she was chosen to be the mother of Christ.
“If the Word which was inspired by the Holy Spirit is insufficient when we have so many examples in the Bible of people appealing to the Word, we have Jesus appealing to the Word in His dealings with Satan, then you’re going to appeal to man-made “rules” and expect people to believe they are superior to the Holy Inspired Word???”
Does anything you just said prove - or even suggest - that the Bible teaches even once that sola scriptura is true? No. For some reason, Protestant anti-Catholics repeatedly create false arguments:
1) Denying sola scriptura - a false doctrine from the 16th century - is not a denial of scripture, nor its inspiration, nor inerrancy, nor its importance, nor its value.
2) The fact that people are portrayed - and even Jesus is portrayed - as referring to scripture, proving points with scripture, and testing doctrine with scripture does not mean that they relied on sola scriptura, knew about the false doctrine of sola scripture coming 1500 years later, or ever taught sola scriptura.
3) To falsely claim that something that does not fit in with your latter-day heretical Protestant understanding of Christianity must then be an “appeal to man-made “rules”” is simply nonsense. The same goes for “they are superior to the Holy Inspired Word” rubbish.
That is the Catholic teaching: one is to refer to the Holy Scripture often, study it and obey it, for it is the inspired word of God. There are very many references in the Bible to that effect. What is not in the bible is a statement that the Bible is a complete rule of faith and the Church of Christ is not necessary to interpret the Scripture and teach beyond it as necessary.
The sufficiency of Scripture pertains to formal and material aspects. The formal aspect does not mean Scripture clearly contains all that is needed for sanctification and maturation in faith, so that one does not need any outside agent or facilities for that end, which would even eliminate "the illumination of the Spirit of God" itself and the "due use of ordinary means" which Westminster affirms,
but in the words of such authors as Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), it means
that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church... - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 477.
And yet even this pertains to complete canon and a normative state, as while a Ethiopian eunuch-type soul today can read a text such as Acts 10:36-43 and become regenerated as a child of God, by His grace, yet those who cannot comprehend much may need outside help, and which SS is not opposed to.
And which material sufficiency provides for, by supplying for the church, etc., and for "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." as Westminster also says. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
The difference is that in Scripture the magisterium never possesses assured perpetual infallibility, nor was it promised or necessary, and is not superior to its doctrinal source, the Scriptures.
In contrast, it is argued under the Roman model that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
Which invalidates the NT church itself.
Yes. And to try to give it extra clout, they label it *Sacred Tradition* and then anathema anyone who disagrees with them.