The verse says it itself: "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." I don't see how it could be more clear. "The holy scriptures, WHICH ARE ABLE..."
In his infancy, Timothy certainly never had more scriptures than the Septuagint. I never denied that the scriptures, even just the Septuagint by itself could "make you wise for salvation." I merely pointed out they logical problems you get into if you try to use this verse to prove sola scriptura. You have effectively "proven" that we do not need the New Testament.
Then I have proven my point, for if any part of the Bible is sufficient then the whole is sufficient.
Yes, that is what I said you have "proven," but I don't think many Christians would agree with you.
Does one need to know how many books there are in the Bible in order to be saved?
I hope not, because if so, those early Christians could never have made it.
The verse in Timothy and the Prologue to Luke ("...you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught...") clearly show (in infallable terms) that the Bible is enough to bring a person to salvation.
You have just illustrated another of the logical difficulties you get into when you try to use the Bible to prove sola scriptura. Actually, Luke never claimed infallibility but if he had, would that prove infallibility? Only if you presuppose that Luke is scripture. In other words, to prove infallibility, you have to assume what you are trying to prove.
You demonstrate another logical difficulty with sola scriptura when you try use one book, call it "Book B," to prove that an earlier book, call it "Book A," is scripture. If canonicity of Book A relies on the later testimony of Book B, then you must find a still later book, call it "Book C," testifying to the infallibility of Book B. You are caught in a series of infinite regression.
These are your problems with the untenable doctrine of sola scriptura. If you have an extra-biblical source to tell you which books are inspired, you avoid these logical difficulties. But you already agreed to that, did you not? Did you not post a little while that you rely on those who have preceeded you in the faith to tell you which books belong in the Bible? Well then, you have abandoned sola scriptura in favor of the doctrines of these men. Care to enlighten us on exactly who these men are?
These are your problems with the untenable doctrine of sola scriptura. If you have an extra-biblical source to tell you which books are inspired, you avoid these logical difficulties.
Which there is ... the Holy Spirit.John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.Do you deny that this is the case ?
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.