“This is not at all close to meaning sola.
A lime is profitable or useful for a perfect cuba libre. Sugar is profitable, useful for a perfect cake...”
In which case, you would propose then that something other than the word of God must be added to the scripture to make it perfect, since of itself it is only an ingredient. But this is just a repetition of what you said before, and you ignore the phrase “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” which completes his assertion on the value of God given scripture. If something is profitable unto completion, then it is far better than just some sugar added to a cake.
No, that's not what the verse says; it's not self-referential to scripture. It is profitable, not for scripture but:
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.If something is profitable unto completion, then it is far better than just some sugar added to a cake.
Profitable or useful is the meaning here. NOT "entirely sufficient."
Again the structure is:
A is profitable/useful for X. You could insert a great number of things, but never would you end up the formula for sola scriptura as "entirely sufficient" or "alone." It never would change it to "A is entirely sufficient" for X."
No matter what X is (e.g., "That the man of God may be perfect.." ) it doesn't change this fatal error with your proof text.