No, Sola Scriptura is not the Bible itself, it is a teaching about the Bible that is supported by scripture. Oral teaching is consistent with Sola Scriptura to the extent that the oral teaching mirrors what the Bible says. Once extra-scriptural teaching is added, then Sola Scriptura is violated. ... What is necessary for evangelizing is knowledgeable teachers who teach only what is scriptural.
As we've discussed amply, it is not supported by scripture.
Oral teaching is consistent with Sola Scriptura to the extent that the oral teaching mirrors what the Bible says. Once extra-scriptural teaching is added, then Sola Scriptura is violated.
This is possible to contemplate today, when there is a fixed Christian canon (which you guys mutilated). It was a meaningless proposition before roughly the 5th century, because the canon was in flux and in the first century some inspired books were not even written. Even today, there is no such thing as teaching form Bible only. You, for example, insist that where the Bible says "water" "womb" is meant, and the outcome of this understanding is not trivial, -- it leads you away from the sacramental understanding of baptism and becomes a point of separation between the Baptists and the Church. We've hashed enough scripture on this thread back and forth to illustrate that there is no such thing as perspicuous reading outside of any doctrinal influence. In fact, Acts 8:30 says so, like it or not. When your missionaries go to non-Christian lands and teach, they don't simply read the words, they teach what they mean. A Baptist missionary would teach differently than a Methodist missionary, even though they have the same truncated canon.