And nowhere it says it is not desirable. This is one of these things we are not intructed in through the scripture.
Are we reading the same words? [ 2 Timothy 3:16-17]
Yes, we are. The passage is addressed to a Catholic bishop and described what is profitable for his perfection. It does not exclude other things, such as the Holy Tradition or magisterial teaching, which might be likewise profitable, and to which a reference is made in v. 14. It does, however, characterize the scripture he is talking about as "all that Timothy had known from his infancy", whioch to an alexandrine Jew means the entire Septuagint.
You should stick to Van Halen or whatever his name is, as the Scripture proves you wrong on every turn.
So are you saying this scripture is meant only for Timothy?
"That God's word damns your ceremonies it is evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, 'Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee; that do thou; add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.' Now unless you are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and them." -- John Knox (Knox, Works, 1:199. Cf. Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, in Tracts, 1:128-29.)
It does not exclude other things, such as the Holy Tradition or magisterial teaching
It doesn't exclude pink elephants or pez dispensers either. But that's no reason to assume God speaks through pachyderms or candy.
stick to Van Halen or whatever his name is
A great guitarist, but I'm unaware of his theology.
OTOH Van Til is a great theologian.
Personally I would think that would be a bit obvious. Why would you get baptized if you didn't have faith?