This is a response written to a Catholic that responded to my article on Sola Scriptura. Here follows his article (in block-quotes) and my follow-up responses (normal text).

Roman Catholic Introduction

Definition according to James White

“Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church.

Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are formally sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church.  All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.”

As James White says… “I must demonstrate that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church, that is, I must demonstrate its [formal] sufficiency.”

Therefore, the person who rejects Sola Scriptura does not have to show that there is some other source of divine-revelation, though that can be shown, but rather all the person has to do is demonstrate that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura and therefore must be false.

Simply put…

• Sola Scriptura is a divinely revealed doctrine, in other words is revealed by God.
• Divine revelation is limited to scripture and nothing else.
• Therefore, Sola Scriptura is revealed within Scripture and must be found there alone.

Premise 1 is plainly true, if Sola Scriptura is not a divinely revealed doctrine then it is a tradition of men and must be rejected.

Premise 2 is simply a statement of Sola Scriptura and thus cannot be denied.

The Conclusion obviously cannot be disagreed with in a valid deductive argument.

Therefore, we need to find some verses whereby Sola Scriptura is shown.

The first premise is correct, but the second is false. Extra-biblical revelation is indeed compatible with sola Scriptura. The Reformed tradition has long acknowledged that God reveals Himself outside of Scripture, as seen in the Westminster Confession’s first chapter, which contrasts Scripture with natural revelation: “The light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable.”

Additionally, Scripture itself records numerous instances of divine oracles and revelations that were not Scripture at the time they were given. Examples include God’s creational decree to Adam in Genesis 1 and 2, His appearances to Abraham and Jacob, the burning bush in Exodus 3, and the theophany in Joshua 5. There are far too many examples to list, but they culminate in the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus Christ. As John states in his Gospel (John 21:25): “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Sola Scriptura does not restrict the existence of divine revelation outside of Scripture. Rather, it entails two key points. First, historically, God’s normative method for speaking to His people is through Scripture. Second, in the era between the completion of the New Testament and Christ’s final return, the Bible is the sole source of special revelation.

Roman Catholic Lexical Argument

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (Revised Standard Version).

The appeal to the first clause, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching is fruitless since it merely says that Scripture is profitable or useful (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers (as anyone can testify who is lucky enough to have a nail gun or unfortunate enough to have had to drive a nail with a random blunt object which was at hand).

A more careful appeal to this passage would look to other parts of it instead, for example, the last clause, which focuses on the idea that “the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Now James White built his case on the second clause that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work built his case on the Greek words used in this passage for “complete” (artios) and “equipped” (exartizo), which he interpreted to mean “sufficient.” He was able to cite one lexicon that listed “sufficient” as a possible translation of artios in his debate with Patrick Madrid and one lexicon which listed “sufficient” as a possible translation of exartizo, but there are major problems with his argument.

According to Jimmy Akin

• “The two lexicons that used the term “sufficient” listed it as a third or forth translation of the terms, not as the primary translation, and one cannot appeal to possible meanings of a term as proof that it does mean something in a given text, especially when they are third or fourth string possibilities for its meaning.”
• All the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that “sufficient” is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance. None of them render the passage “that the man of God may be sufficient, sufficient for every good work.” In fact, none of them use “sufficient” as a translation of even one of the two terms.

Let’s begin by acknowledging that the defense of sola Scriptura from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 hinges on the connection between Paul’s statement about the divine inspiration of Scripture and its function, specifically linking “theopneustos” (God-breathed) to “artios” (complete) and “exartizo” (fully equipped). Because Scripture is uniquely inspired, it is sufficient to equip the man of God for Christian life. However, our opponent raises two objections to this argument.

Objection 1: Hammer Analogy

The first objection comes by way of analogy: the usefulness of a hammer does not entail its sufficiency. Our Roman Catholic opponent seems to argue that, similarly, while Scripture may be useful, it is insufficient. They may argue that apart from essential background conditions—such as an audience, shared language, cognitive ability—Scripture accomplishes nothing on its own. Here, we agree. The Bible requires a reader and proper conditions to function as intended. But this misses the point.

The confusion lies in what a hammer (or Scripture) is sufficient for. When we say a hammer is useful, we mean that it is sufficient for hammering nails. Its purpose, for which it is sufficient, presupposes the relevant conditions, like the presence of a person using it and nails to hammer. Likewise, to say that Scripture equips or completes means that it is sufficient for its intended purpose: communicating Gospel knowledge and instructing the believer. This presupposes the necessary background conditions, such as a reader and comprehension.

In short, usefulness implies sufficiency for a specific purpose. The claim that Scripture is “useful but not sufficient” splits hairs unnecessarily because usefulness entails sufficiency in this context. The argument from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not that the Bible is a magical artifact that imparts knowledge independently of human language or comprehension. Rather, it is because the Bible is uniquely authored by God (theopneustos) that it is sufficient to communicate the Gospel.

A useful comparison here is between human and divine authorship. When a human writes unaided by divine inspiration, their words do not guarantee clarity, veracity, or successful communication. Human authorship alone is not a sufficient condition for effective communication. Even with shared language and comprehension, human error, dishonesty, or misunderstanding may still occur. In contrast, God’s communication, whether verbal or written, is free from these limitations. His speech is perfectly clear, true, and authoritative, reflecting His divine attributes. When the right background conditions are in place, God’s words are sufficient to convey knowledge, including the Gospel.

Furthermore, the hammer analogy fails for two other reasons. First, if Scripture is not sufficient, as the analogy implies, the same argument applies to Rome’s “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. If Scripture alone is insufficient to communicate the Gospel, then no inherent property of the Pope or Tradition would make them sufficient where Scripture falls short. Conversely, if our Roman Catholic opponent maintains the sufficiency of the three-legged stool based on divine inspiration, then that same divine inspiration ensures the sufficiency of Scripture.

Second, on Rome’s view, only the Pope can infallibly interpret Scripture, and he has only done so with a limited number of passages. Thus, even if we set aside the previous objections, this view reduces the hammer analogy to the absurd: Scripture would only be “sufficient” for understanding those few random, unrelated verses. This leads to skepticism about the Bible’s meaning in any wider context.

Objection 2: Quibbles About Lexicons

The second objection involves a quibble over lexicon definitions. Our opponent correctly points out that there is a difference between what a word can mean and what it actually means in a given context. Yet, I believe the lexicons offer something more definitive. For example, BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich) gives the following definition for “theopneustos”… [here you can elaborate on the specific lexicon definition you wish to highlight.]

Ultimately, while our opponent is right to distinguish between possible and actual meanings, the lexicon provides strong support for the understanding of “theopneustos” as indicating Scripture’s divine origin and sufficiency for equipping the believer.

to being well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient=able to meet all demands 2 Ti 3:17.—DELG s.v. ἄρτι. M-M. TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 136). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Even though the specific term “sufficient” does not explicitly appear in this passage, that in no way suggests the concept of sufficiency is absent (as the author himself concedes later about a different point). From the semantic range presented here, it’s clear that the idea of sufficiency is present. In fact, the other prominent lexicon often referenced in this discussion, the Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon, explicitly states that the word implies sufficiency, and both Louw-Nida and BDAG attribute this meaning to 2 Timothy 3:17. This demonstrates that the concept of Scripture’s sufficiency is not only implied but directly supported by the lexical data.

75.4 ἄρτιος, α, ον: pertaining to being qualified to perform some function—‘qualified, proficient.’ ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος ‘in order that the man of God may be qualified’ 2 Tm 3:17.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, pp. 678–679). New York: United Bible Societies.

Jimmy Akins appears to grossly downplay the meaning of the terms, neglecting the clear lexical evidence. His point about translations not rendering the term as “sufficient” seems irrelevant, as terms like “complete” or “adequate” can easily be synonymous with sufficiency. Moreover, it’s important to note that translations are not infallible. It is not uncommon for translations to be disputed, especially when interpretive decisions are involved, as is the case with this passage. There are several areas in this text where translators had to make interpretive choices, and not all of them were necessary or uncontroversial. Thus, Akins’ argument doesn’t account for the full weight of the lexical data or the nuances involved in translation.

Returning to the article:

• There is such a thing as hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point), and it is a common Hebrew idiom and a common feature of Paul’s letters. For example, in Colossians 1:20 Paul states that God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself through Christ. But obviously he does not mean absolutely all things or he would have to say that God reconciles Satan and the damned to himself through Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19, Eph. 1:10). Thus Paul’s statement that Scripture makes a minister one complete may be no more than a typical Hebraic hyperbole.

Absurdities arise if we apply the principle Jimmy Akin uses to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to other texts. His principle is essentially: “If (X) makes you complete, then you don’t need anything other than (X),” leading to the conclusion, “If Scripture makes you complete, then you need only Scripture.” If we apply this logic to James 1:4, which says, “And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing,” we would have to conclude that steadfastness alone is sufficient and that we do not need anything else, including Scripture!

The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that it ignores the broader biblical context and the interplay of various means of grace. The principle of completeness, whether applied to steadfastness or Scripture, refers to sufficiency within a specific function or role, not exclusivity. Steadfastness has its role in making a believer “complete” in one sense, just as Scripture has its role in making a believer complete in terms of instruction, reproof, and training in righteousness.

Now, the objection raised in response to this is as follows…

However, these passages are not parallel; a completely different Greek word is used. In 2 Timothy 3:17, the word exartizo is employed, which refers to being fully equipped or fitted for a task. On the other hand, in the other passages, the Greek word teleios is used, which refers to maturity or reaching a desired end. Repeatedly asserting the same point without addressing these differences is not a valid argument; it’s merely a propaganda technique. Our opponents must respond in a more responsible and thorough manner.

This is indeed true; the words in James 1:4 are teleios and holokleros, which are actually stronger Greek terms. The objection also commits a basic translation fallacy by assuming that a difference in terms always indicates a difference in concept—it doesn’t. Moreover, since artios only occurs once in the New Testament and exartizo only twice (the other occurrence being in Acts 21:5), building a robust case for their meaning solely from New Testament usage is challenging. Meaningful comparative studies on their usage within the New Testament are nearly impossible.

Thus, we can clearly see that not only is it irrelevant that a different word is used, but it’s actually more significant that a different word is used because teleios and holokleros are stronger terms. I’ll elaborate on this further, but even if we interpret these terms as saying “perfectly completed and equipped” or something similarly strong, it still doesn’t lead to the conclusion that sola Scriptura is being taught. It’s like finishing the last chocolate in an advent calendar on December 24th and saying it “completes” the calendar—there were 23 other chocolates, all essentially the same, except that the 24th was the last. Or consider a jar of money: when I put the last coin in, the jar is “complete,” but it doesn’t follow that the last coin was all I needed to complete the jar.

My Response:

I disagree with the notion that Colossians 1:20 (which I’ll focus on for relevancy) is mere hyperbole. In Colossians 1:20, we see a parallel between the new creation and the first creation. It’s unlikely that Paul is suggesting Jesus only created some things. Rather, Paul is affirming that Christ created everything, just as He will set everything right in the new creation to come—this includes judgment on the unjust. In fact, just a few verses later, the text presupposes that the reconciliation granted to believers is not the same for unbelievers (verses 23-24). While hyperbole can be used in Scripture, we must examine whether Paul uses it in this instance. I would argue he does not.

James 1:2-4 says:

“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

James is encouraging believers who are facing both internal temptations and external persecutions, along with the various trials of this present evil age. The Christians he addresses were being exploited by the rich, who were even withholding their wages, driving them deeper into poverty. In response, James offers encouragement, urging them to count these trials as “all joy” because enduring such hardships produces steadfastness. This steadfastness, in turn, purifies their faith. As we endure suffering in this world, our character is gradually shaped into greater godliness—if we persevere with the right attitude. By allowing God to work through these trials, we move closer to achieving eschatological perfection, being molded into His image.

But the two OT occurrences both denote the process of refining silver or gold, and this is the way James uses the word. The difficulties of life are intended by God to refine our faith: heating it in the crucible of suffering so that impurities might be refined away and so that it might become pure and valuable before the Lord. The “testing of faith” here, then, is not intended to determine whether a person has faith or not; it is intended to purify faith that already exists. …

The last words in the verse underscore this point: when endurance is allowed to run its course and attain its goal, believers will be mature and complete, not lacking anything. “Mature” translates teleios, and we would argue again for a stronger rendering. The word “complete” suggests the idea of wholeness and soundness, in contrast, for instance, to ill health (see Acts 3:16). Testing, James suggests, is intended to produce, when believers respond with confidence in God and determination to endure, a wholeness of Christian character that lacks nothing in the panoply of virtues that define Godly character. This concern for spiritual integrity and wholeness lies at the heart of James’s concern, and he will come back to the matter again and again (see esp. 1:7–8 and 4:4–5).

Moo, D. J. (2000). The letter of James (p. 54-56). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos.

So, James isn’t conveying the same concept either. While his focus is still on an intended state that is reached through the struggles between this present age and the age to come, his emphasis isn’t on whether suffering can actually accomplish this state—it is assumed that it can. James underscores that steadfastness through trials leads to the fruition of this perfected state, and he reinforces this by stating that believers will “lack nothing” once they have endured and allowed this process to take its full effect. The passage emphasizes that perseverance in trials is the key to spiritual completeness, without implying doubt about whether this process can succeed.

Returning to the article:

• The two terms modify the man of God, not Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:17 says Scripture helps makes the man of God complete and equipped, not that Scripture itself is complete and equipped. In order to prove that Scripture is sufficient, the advocate of sola scriptura would have to argue backwards from the sufficiency of a man to the sufficiency of a collection of documents. This puts an extra layer in the argument and thus an extra layer of exegetical uncertainty.
• This layer of uncertainty is even more problematic for the advocate since to say something helps make a man complete and equipped can presuppose that he already has certain other pieces of equipment. For example, if a man is going on a hiking trip and he has all the equipment he needs except a canteen. He then goes into a sporting goods store and buys one. When he does, he says, “There. Now I am complete, equipped for all of my hiking adventures.” This does not at all imply that the canteen alone was all the equipment he needed to be completely furnished. It was only the last piece of equipment. The statement that it made him complete presupposed that he had all the other equipment he needed. In the same way, the statement that Scripture works to complete the man of God can presuppose that the man of God already has certain other articles in his possession that pertain to doctrine (such as the oral teachings of the apostles).

• Even if a single source does give a person all the equipment he needs, this does not teach him how to use the equipment. He may need training in how to use his equipment. Just because a person has all the tools he will need to survive in the woods on a hiking trip does not mean he knows how to use the tools. In the same way, even if Scripture gives one all the basic equipment one needs to do theology, it may be unclear to the point that one needs to use Apostolic Tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of it. In fact, this is a permissible position for Catholics to hold. The claim that Scripture contains or implies all the basis data for theology is known as the material sufficiency of Scripture, and it is a perfectly acceptable position for Catholic theologians to hold (cf. Yves Congar’s work Tradition and Traditions), so long as one does not move to the position of claiming that Scripture is so clear that one does not need Apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium to interpret it — a position known as the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which is identical with the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Thus a Catholic can say that Scripture gives one all the equipment one needs for theology, just not the background one needs to use the equipment.

The disanalogy between a canteen and the Bible is that the Bible is uniquely divinely chosen for its role, while a canteen is not. The Bible is the very speech of God, and therefore carries relevant qualities—most notably, divine authority—that a canteen does not. What enables divine revelation to equip and complete the “man of God” is its divine origin.

Consider that a canteen may be sufficient (but not necessary) for retaining water in general, but insufficient for sustaining someone on a month-long stay in the woods. As mentioned earlier, usefulness presupposes sufficiency, but we must ask, sufficient for what, and sufficient how? A canteen might be sufficient to serve some purposes due to natural laws, but the Bible is sufficient to guarantee the communication of the Gospel due to its divine Author. The source of its sufficiency—its divine origin—sets it apart, making its usefulness vastly greater.

The Roman Catholic argument tries to make the Bible necessary but not sufficient. This is akin to saying that all the items you bring on a camping trip are necessary, but you still need to use them properly for the trip to be successful. This leaves room for the need to interpret Scripture correctly but also affirms the sufficiency of Scripture. The key issue is whether the correct use of the Bible (interpretation) brings us to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. However, this question doesn’t directly lead to the necessity of an infallible interpreter, which is really at the heart of the debate.

Let’s assume we have an infinite, all-knowing, infallible, morally perfect God as a witness. His testimony would serve as the ultimate standard for discerning any matter He addresses. The Bible is that testimony in written form. Certainly, if we misunderstand it, we’ll form distorted beliefs, but that doesn’t mean we need an infallible interpreter to understand its message. This point seems irrelevant to the debate, as it doesn’t logically follow that misinterpretation requires an infallible interpreter.

Our opponent defends the concept of material sufficiency (as opposed to partim-partim), which argues that all Catholic traditions are found in the Bible—either explicitly or implicitly—and in oral tradition. The problem with this position is that it’s implausible to claim that all traditions of the Catholic Church can be found in both the Bible and tradition. Furthermore, how can one even come to this conclusion without already knowing something about God’s revelation in the Bible? How would one know the Church’s interpretations aren’t simply a con game? One would need to understand revelation before determining that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of material sufficiency is correct.

This leads to a dilemma: if the Bible is clear enough to help adjudicate between different positions, then it must be understandable enough without requiring an infallible interpreter. And if you can decide which view is correct on your own, then the interpreter wasn’t necessary in the first place. This creates a catch-22 for the Catholic position.

Returning to the article:

In fact, the text says that Scripture will make the man of God complete — it completes a clergyman, not an ordinary layman. A clergyman is someone who has special training — for example, his knowledge of the Apostolic Tradition which enables him to correctly interpret Scripture. The text thus presupposes a knowledge that the man of God already has before he even approaches Scripture.

Given my earlier argument, even a clergyman is insufficient for Scripture—on its own—to be able to make him “complete,” as described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. In fact, in the Catholic view, only the Pope possesses the ability to make Scripture “sufficient” by providing an infallible interpretation. The issue here is that, according to this reasoning, for the Bible to accomplish what 2 Timothy claims—equipping someone for good works—you must understand it correctly and know what it teaches. However, the Catholic position asserts that without infallible interpretation, no one can ever be sure they have the correct understanding. This leaves the Catholic in a position of uncertainty, never knowing if their interpretation is valid without reliance on an infallible authority.

Furthermore, what leads them to believe that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 applies only to clergymen? What’s the argument for limiting its scope to clergy? Paul consistently calls all Christians to sound doctrine and good works (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:10; 3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:21; Titus 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14). While the direct context may refer to Timothy as a leader in the church, this doesn’t mean the passage has no wider application. The principles Paul outlines—regarding the sufficiency of Scripture for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness—can certainly apply to all believers, not just those in church leadership.

Returning to the article:

And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16, we find that there is, indeed, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered “All Scripture” is pasa graphe, which means “Every Scripture” — they key word being “every,” not “all.” This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term “scripture” means (for “every individual book of Scripture” and “every individual passage of Scripture” certainly make grammatical sense).

Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase — something like hai pasai graphai (“the whole of the scriptures”), not pasa graphe, which means simply “every scripture” (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17, such as anti-Catholic James White, have admitted).

The issue here is more nuanced than it might initially appear. The phrase in 2 Timothy 3:16 can be translated as either “every Scripture” or “all Scripture.” I prefer “All Scripture” because no specific passage is singled out in the context. However, if it were translated as “Every Scripture,” it still essentially conveys the same idea, but with a slightly different emphasis. The focus remains on the fact that the collection of writings—Scripture as a whole—is “God-breathed.” It’s important to note that James White hasn’t admitted otherwise, and it’s an oversimplification to suggest he has. The reality is that things can be expressed in different ways.

Another reason to favor “All Scripture” is that the singular usage of “Scripture” encourages us to view it as a collective whole rather than as isolated parts. I think Plummer summarizes the debate well: “It matters little whether we say ‘the whole of Scripture’ or ‘every passage of Scripture.’” The point being made is about the entirety of Scripture being inspired by God, not necessarily every individual passage independently teaching every doctrine.

Some mistakenly argue that this means every passage is sufficient to teach every doctrine, which backfires on those advocating for material sufficiency. If this argument were valid, it would imply that every passage is materially sufficient on its own. However, most Catholics recognize that this passage refers to the category of Scripture as a whole, not the idea that every single chapter or verse teaches all we need to know about the faith in isolation.

Each passage is sufficient to teach what it actually contains, but that doesn’t mean Protestant interpretations imply that every passage teaches everything necessary for theology. What even constitutes a “passage” is not always clear, and it certainly isn’t determined by our modern chapter and verse divisions. The core idea is that Scripture can be used to acquire divine truth. Every passage communicates something, and that content is from God to the reader. When interpreted correctly, the Bible is sufficient to enable the reader to understand what God meant.

Returning to the article:

Thus, right here in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture. So when Protestants come and quote verses 16 and 17, they are only quoting the back half of a double appeal to Tradition and Scripture, clearly something that does not prove sola scriptura.

I disagree with the notion of apostolic tradition as it’s typically understood. But let’s suppose for a moment that what is meant here is simply the oral teachings of the Apostles. Why should we assume that these oral traditions have been preserved? Aside from assuming the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, there seems to be no solid basis for thinking that these oral teachings have been faithfully transmitted through the centuries and are now embodied in the traditions of the Catholic Church. Without this assumption, it becomes a baseless assertion to claim that these traditions refer specifically to the teachings upheld by the Roman Catholic Church today.

Returning to the article:

In addition, if Paul is stating that Timothy is “complete, equipped for every good work” merely by the scriptures that Timothy’s mother and other teachers had access to, well that obviously at best limits it to all the books of the Old Testament. So why not Sola Old Testament? I saw a reply to this but couldn’t quite understand the objection so forgive me if you feel this has been responded to.

I quoted an article from Steve Hays that makes two key points:

1. Paul has already referred to the works of Luke as inspired Scripture, which prevents us from reducing his reference in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to just the Old Testament texts. By recognizing Luke’s writings as Scripture, Paul acknowledges the authority of texts beyond the Old Testament.
2. Paul clearly recognized his own writings as having divine authority. It’s reasonable to conclude that Paul would include his own epistles in the body of Scripture he instructed Timothy to follow. His command to adhere to Scripture would, therefore, encompass his own works.

I would add another important point: Paul’s statement seems to be a categorical one about the nature of Scripture. This means the principle would naturally extend to the other books that are part of the New Testament canon. The inclusion of these books aligns with the broader understanding of Scripture as inspired by God and authoritative for doctrine and life.