No I don't. Furthermore, looking at the answer given above, I would suggest that a dependency of Scripture alone is flawed. The argument against Sola Scriptura, of course, is who decided what was Scripture and what wasn't?
The second is that if the individual becomes the sole arbiter, then man has determined he is himself the arbiter of truth. As we know that not all man understand all things equally, then God is hostage to he who shouts the loudest.
The utter dependence on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the 'shutting down' of the reasoning and critical faculty – "I don't need to think, God will tell me what to do" – is to me contra the meaning of Scripture – "Seek and ye shall find", for example, and the story of the talents, the foolish virgins ... all point to the error of this.
To me, it is free-wheeling, or coasting ... one is obliged to make no effort to understand anything, Scriupture is obvious, no effort to do anything ... I am a firm believer that 'The Lord will provide', but that does not mean that man can sit down and put his feet up, and wait for the Lord to get on with it.
Not quite, but rather that Tradition provides the most accurate context within which to understand what the Bible is saying ... one is not obliged to accept my reasoning on Gospel inconsistency, but it is reasonable, and credible, and in fact more reasonable and more credible than some of the nonsense that bible critics are apt to spout.
Without Tradition, anybody is entitled to interpret the Bible to mean anything they like.
Thomas
