For example, your very first citation (2 Tim 3:16) is no where near as comprehensive nor concise as the summation you attribute to it...not for the least of which reason is it doesn't define exactly what is and is not Scripture.
It is indeed comprehensive “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” thus whatever was established as Scripture at that time (most of what we refer to as Scripture already was when 2Tim. 3:16 was written) was the only distinct class of Divine revelation (versus the amorphous class of oral transmission) that was assuredly wholly inspired of God,” and thus by extension whatever else would be.
If Scripture did not exist as that class of revelation then Paul could not have referred to it thusly, and even then it manifestly was the transcendent supreme material standard for obedience and for the testing and establishment of Truth claims, all of which is established by Scripture.
Thus a concise list or table of contents is not necessary for Scripture to be that supreme authority, as whatever was written was the standard by which further truth claims would conflate with, and it reveals how truth was established as being of God. Thus Scripture does not truly contradict itself.
As Scripture provided for the writing of Divine revelation and the means of establishing truth, thus it provided for additional revelation being written and recognized as such, and which writings would be established in time like as prior Scripture was (which did not necessitate not by an assuredly infallible magisterium of men, as per Rome), due to their enduring Divine qualities and attestation. And thus it also could become evident in time that there was no more like it.
As for not defining exactly what is and is not Scripture, Rome herself did not have an indisputable canon until the year Luther died, about 1400 years after the last book was written, and she also without such a canon for the writings of their supreme authority, that being an infallible list of all the infallible teachings of her supreme magisterium, and to which she commands full assent of faith. Thus Roman Catholics must also discern such based upon fallible human reasoning, but which means they submit to Rome in the first place.
The larger issue here is that of knowing Truth, and it is in Scripture that assurance of truth being realized without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men as per Rome, but upon
You must infer your doctrine and that inference is extra-biblical, no matter how you slice it.
No, it is Scriptural, unless you hold to the view that only what is expressly set down in Scripture or formally defined is admissible, excluding what may “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” by precept and principle.
Further still, codifies absolutely no hermeneutics by which that exhortation is to be carried out, the weakness of which is proven beyond dispute by the multiplicity of Protestant denominations.
Rather, it establishes that whatever is Scripture is the supreme standard, and which itself testifies to how Truth is established, and reveals hermeneutics involved in interpretation, such as in doctrinally treating historical narratives as literal events, unlike approved major liberal Roman scholarship that relegates such things as the story of Jonah and the fish and Balaam and the donkey to being fables.
A blitz of Scripture verses in not so impressive when one compares what the text actually says, and what Protestants attribute to it .
While that is so often manifest in Catholic attempts to support tradition of men by Scripture, an examination of the provided references at issue does indeed substantiate that Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and in so doing, it also reveals how that was done, and thus writings were established as Divinely inspired (Scripture).
How do you morph comprehensive "source" to comprehensive "application?" No credible mean that I know of.
Further, "most" is not "all" as in your parenthetical remark, and even that is not a credible claim.
Had the exact content of Scripture not been so murky, the Church would not have made such efforts to stamp out the heretical variants.
In summation, your "interpretation" makes the unjustifiable leap of conflating "profitable," and "thouroughly furnished," with "exclusionary."
Had Paul intended this verse to mean "exclusive," he would have said so, for surely there can be no more important message than what you claim if it were indeed the truth.
No, it is Scriptural, unless you hold to the view that only what is expressly set down in Scripture or formally defined is admissible, excluding what may “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” by precept and principle.
That is exactly what I am saying: for Protestants! Moreover, the multiplicity of Protestant factions makes the "necessity" of deductions as credible as "religious tolorance" behind the Iron Curtain. I.e. an utter farce.
The truth of what I've written here makes answering the rest of your paean a moot point.