The Bible lists neither its own canon, nor green plants

One way in which Catholics try to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to point out that the Bible does not give a list of inspired canonical books. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self refuting. The problem with this argument is that scripture does not actually need a list of books in order for Sola Scriptura to be true. This is because Sola Scriptura does not teach that scripture alone is true or useful. Rather, it teaches that scripture alone is authoritative in the Christian faith.

Every proponent of Sola Scriptura believes in extra-biblical things. Scripture does not teach us to read, or to talk, or to walk, or a number of other basic life skills. To give an example, the Bible talks a lot about food. In the New Testament, all foods are permissible as long as they are received with thanksgiving and without offense to weaker brethren. Even though the Bible does not contain a list of "all the green plants", it does talk about green plants and how we're allowed to eat them. Can I eat a watermelon? The Bible does not mention watermelons, but they are green plants, so yes. Can I eat a potato? I see nothing about potatoes in the Bible, are they banned? Lemons, limes, coffee, none of these are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, yet when the Bible says all things are permissible, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4), these things are covered even without being named.

In the same way, when Paul says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, that leaves no room for interpretation. He doesn't need to give us a full list of books, because scripture is scripture. When Paul says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work", that is literally all we will ever need to establish the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.