I thought the point was very clear and precise....and an excellant read.
Here's what's wrong with the article. Suppose I ask you to pick a passage of Scripture and tell me what it means. Now suppose it's one of those passages about which there has been centuries of debate and argument.
The obvious point is that, despite the claim, Scripture often does not interpret itself. The meaning of Scripture is very often not self-evident, particularly where prophecy is concerned.
Which interpretation is correct?
If you look at the process, you'll find that the various interpretations are basically in accord with differing hermeneutics, or theories of interpretation.
Even among groups that hold to "Sola Scriptura," there are different hermeneutics, which roughly correspond to the various differences in doctrine that have led to the proliferation of denominations.
And to be quite blunt, each of those hermeneutic approaches represents a tradition of Biblical interpretation -- the very thing our author denies.
It's all very well to talk about Sola Scriptura, but in reality it's an impossible doctrine.