Thank you for explaining your assertion.
You use the phrase “the Scripture of the Gospels.” That is an unusual phrase. If you mean by it one or more of the NT gospel accounts, i.e., that of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, then I understand what you are saying. I will proceed on this assumption because of what you said thereafter: “... that were not yet written.” If you did not mean this, please rephrase your answer and correct me. However, if you did, I answer as follows:
So, when Paul spoke about genuine faith abiding in Timothy, his mother, and his grandmother, he didn’t mean saving faith? Is that what you are saying? Is there some other kind of faith that Paul would term “genuine”? The Holy Scriptures to which Paul refers in 2 Timothy 3:15 are without a doubt the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, since they would have been available to Timothy when he was a child and were also, presumably, the source of his mother’s and grandmother’s understanding and faith. Are you asserting that the Old Testament Holy Scriptures do not contain and did not teach the gospel, the good news, that is, faith in the promised Savior of Israel, whose saving office is designated by the term Messiah in Hebrew, Christ in Greek?
I just want to be clear about this. Is this what you are asserting?
No, I’m asserting that your proof text for the NT Scriptures and the canon determined by the Catholic Church - and sola scriptura for that matter - fails.
"Wait, stop! Behold! What wonderment! The Holy Scriptures were inspired before the Catholic Church deigned to canonize them. "
Which was following on to your reply concerning inspiration and authority in reply to my post of Augustine's "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.”