If it ain’t in there it ain’t needed.
Somewhere there has to be a Protestant talking point memo or script because this verse is trotted out by Protestants in these threads ad naseum to try to justify Sola Scriptura but they must ironically distort its meaning to get it to mean what they say is does.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not say that the Scripture thoroughly equips or furnishes. It says that Scripture contributes (is profitable) to us becoming perfectly equipped (furnished). The Greek word for Profitable (ophelimos) does not mean sufficient or exclusive, it means contributory and beneficial. It in no way even suggests exclusivity, thoroughness or the ironically unscriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Where does it say only that which is in scripture is permissible?
Luther never said that.
I’d say isn’t that just your private interpretation. Besides what authority decided that say Revelation belonged in the Bible considering a lot of early Christians refused to recognize it as inspired?
The Byzantine Church doesn’t use readings from Revelation because of its late addition.
And Luther advocated declaring that Revelation was apocryphal.
What makes Luther wrong objectively speaking
?