You’re still using the strawman definition of sola scriptura.
I already told you the correct definition upthread; why not use it?
I'm not using the "revised and extended version" which claims "if a historical event is not mentioned in Scripture, it is necessarily demonic".
Or "any teaching which is later than the Scriptures, is by definition merely the teaching of men, and must be rejected."
I do not accept that. There are Scripture verses in which Jesus says He had many more things to say, but the disciples could not bear them right then; that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth.
And there are New Testament epistles which come out and say to continue in the teachings of the Apostles and elders.
I suspect the confusion comes about because of Jesus admonition of the Jewish leaders, in Mark 7:11, and the Apostles in Acts saying "We must obey God rather than men."
But on the other hand, Paul writes explicitly to subject oneself to every human authority as instituted by God; in Phillippians it is written that Jesus who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, and took up a servant's nature, humbling Himself, even to death on a Cross (in other words, he *submitted*); and when the some believers from Antioch wrote with questions, the Apostles wrote back, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" ... indicating the continuing role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church, through the leadership.