Third, if you could realistically use only the Bible alone to judge every question, then you could just strictly quote Bible verses to another open minded Christian with an opposite point of view whenever you want to both decide the Bible's position on any topic.
Again, you largely CAN do that, but you keep forgetting that we are not neutral hearers, but sinners.
So if someone asked whether to baptize infants, you could just quote to them from the Bible and they know what to do. But in practice that doesn't work. A Lutheran can't in practice just go to a sincere Protestant who denies infant baptism and without any explanations only quote the verse where Jesus says, "Let the children come to me,"
Here your argument is fallacious.
You seem to be arguing that infant baptism is Biblical, when it's not.
Jesus said, "let the children come to me."
And children SHOULD be allowed to come to Him.
But what on EARTH does that have to do with "infant baptism"?
1) Children are not infants.
2) Infants cannot "come" to anyone.
3) Priests are not Jesus.
4) There is NO mention of "baptism" anywhere in that verse.
But this is the fallacious argument of suggestion. A person simply reading this passage ("Sola Scriptura") can easily see this has nothing to do with "infant baptism". But if a teacher says, "Let me show you a passage that TEACHES infant baptism", and then plants that suggestion in you, then the idea is now in the reader's mind as they read the verse. But the connection to "infant baptism" doesn't come from Scripture, it comes from a false teacher.
Fourth, in practice Luther, Calvin, and their Churches did not follow Sola Scriptura in practice either.
Well, I'm not sure that's true, since you don't understand what Sola Scriptura is.
But if even if they didn't follow it, that doesn't make it any less true. Whether they followed it or not is irrelevant.
In order to learn, understand, and explain the Bible they and their Churches relied on the writings of the Church fathers, especially Augustine. So De Facto they were treating Augustine and other writers as authorities to understand the Bible's position on questions, as opposed to using only the Bible alone on them. Further, when it came to the practice of Church administration, they along with the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches found that they needed to use church leaders, documents, and institutions as authorities.
And none of this goes against "Sola Scriptura".
SS doesn't deny the existence or proper use of other authorities and teachers.
It simply teaches that Scripture is the ULTIMATE authority, and the only INFALLIBLE authority.
Finally, Sola Scriptura is one answer and reaction against the Catholic idea of the infallible Magisterium, but is not actually the only or best answer to it.
Well, if it was good enough for "Catholics" such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basis, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, then it's good enough for me....
A more natural answer to the topic is the Orthodox Christian or Anglican or Methodist principle where Scripture is the highest authority, but not the only authority. In Anglicanism and the Methodist Church descended from Anglicanism, this principle is called Prima Scrptura, the idea that Scripture is the First in authority. The Methodists have Scripture as part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that includes Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.
You can use whatever "authority" you like.
It's a free country, after all...
To better understand the Sola Scriptura principle, it is best to see how it stands in an opposite tension or "dialectic" with the Catholic Magisterium concept. The Catholic Church developed the idea that if all bishops everywhere agree on a teaching, then it becomes part of an "infallible" Magisterium.
... except for Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basis, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine....
Further, Luther's premise that Christian institutions or writings outside the Bible have no authority is not actually correct or practical, as Luther's own practice as a church leader showed.
I'm not understanding your point.
The Bible TEACHES "church leaders".
And he actually obeyed Scripture, by being married, unlike Catholic popes.
Luther's theory may have missed the fact that just because something like a Christian council, declaration, commentary, or assembly might be mistaken or "fallible" does not actually mean that it has no authority or should have no role in rule-making.
Well, if a "council" or "declaration" contradicts God's word, it's pretty worthless.
His theory may have also overlooked that even if one considers the Bible as the highest possible written source to decide on any issue, it doesn't follow that it is the only source. Nor does it follow that it is best or realistic to use the Bible as the only source. This is because while the Bible has general positions, like Jesus using wine at the Last Supper, Paul recommending alcohol as being healthy, and to avoid drunkenness, it doesn't have clear on-point directly relevant positions on every issue, like whether one can unconditionally only ever use fermented red wine for Communion.
Yeah... The Bible is silent on Jesus' eye-colour as well, so I guess we have to throw it away as a valid authority.
Who ever told you that the Bible is an imaginary EXHAUSTIVE source of human knowledge?!
Your criticism seems incredibly fallacious.
"Let's see... The Bible doesn't tell us whether we're allowed to sing Psalms on the third Thursday after a full moon, after 9:00 pm. Eastern Daylight Time.
Whatever shall we do?!?!"