That's the whole problem with SS, in a nutshell. It completely glazes over the transition of the Natural Man to the Supernatural (or Regenerate) Man. It presupposes Christian Identity.coco wrote:Perhaps you should re-read Basil without Holy Tradition glasses on. But that is rather difficult, isn't it? We all have worldviews, given to us by our communities. Without them, we could see nothing. But even with them, we do not see perfectly.
So sure, if one presupposes one's own Christian Identity, then one may end up reaching for the epistemic skepticism card. For just as SS separates the Church into the Invisible Church (the true Church) and the Visible Church (the rough, imperfect analogue), it also separates Doctrine/Dogma into evanescent Invisible Doctrine and its rough and imperfect analogue: Visible Doctrine.
However, those that don't skip over and presuppose Regeneration, those who had to approach their respective communities in order to gain their Christian Identity, could never conceive of interpreting the Scriptures without the glasses of that community which initiated them into Christ/made them Regenerate.
So the real question is not whether the Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura, the real question is whether or not the Fathers believed in Incarno-Sacramentalism (operatively efficacious Sacraments).