I was lurking on the Baptistboard today, and an advocate of sola Scriptura asked an interesting question: "What's the point of even having a closed canon of Scripture if the writings of fathers, creeds, councils are equally authoritative? Or conversely: "Since the teachings/writings of the Church since the completion of the NT are appealed to for correct doctrines, how can one say the canon is closed?"
How would the Orthodox respond to this? For historically, the canon was (more or less) closed at the end of the 4th century and/or beginning of the 5th. This particular Baptist seemed to argue, for instance, that since: (a)the Scripture doesn't specifically spell out a supernatural "change" in the elements of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood, and since (b)that belief is only found in writings of the fathers after the NT was written, that these post-NT writings really should have no bearing on interpreting the NT because: (1)the canon is confined only to the NT, and therefore: (2) any belief in"change" (as opposed to metaphor) is an addition to the faith and is thus a deviation from it. I've tried arguing with this guy that the REAL PRESENCE is the Biblical teaching, especially given the straight forward language involved (eg John 6, I Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30), but he would have none of it, alleging a gradual deviation of the true NT interpretation based on the fact that the word "change" doesn't appear in the NT and only appears in the 2nd century. Any thoughts about this particular allegation?