I don't understand your reply. Maybe I didn't make my point clear.
My point was this:
It is impossible for any passage in the Bible to refer to the Bible as a whole.
Why?
Because the Bible, from the Greek Biblia, meaning books, was not compiled or canonized until centuries after the individual books of the Bible were written.
For example, in the book of Revelation, John warns, "...if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book." He was speaking of the book or scroll that he was writing. He could not have been referring to the Bible as a whole, since the Bible as a whole did not as yet exist.
Similarly, Paul is referring to the Old Testament, not the Old and New Testaments, when he says, "from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." He couldn't be referring to the New Testament, since many NT books were yet to be written.
Therefore, you can't use any passage in the Bible to prove Luther's doctrine of the Bible as the sole, or ultimate, rule of faith, since no passage in the Bible refers to the Bible as a whole.
Is it within the realm of possibility that Paul had a little more insight on this topic when he wrote those words? Possibly knowing that what he was writing was Scripture and that the other books of the NT would be as well.
Except...