You're totally glossing over the rough parts of the text. I'm not denying what "fully complete" means. I am arguing that the text is in any way saying that Scripture is the only thing needed for the man of God to be fully equipped.
The Scripture itself says Scripture is "useful." Not that it is sufficient. Scripture is necessary for the man of God to be complete. I don't disagree about that.
But it doesn't say "only Scripture" is useful. I know you wish it did, but it doesn't. Doesn't the man of God need faith and grace, among other things?
SD
I agree that it doesn't say that only Scripture is useful. But that is not what Sola Scriptura represents. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. It doesn't say that there are not other, fallible rules of faith or teaching, or even traditions that we can refer to and learn from. But these are all by definition inferior to and subject to correction by the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are God-breathed. Being God-breathed, the Scriptures are the very speaking of God and are therefore the highest authority.
I also agree that the man of God needs faith and grace. But suppose the man of God wants to know what God says about these things? I refer you again to the counsel of Cyril of Jerusalem, who as all the Church Fathers did, said:
Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures ... For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments.
Cordially,