If the NT was "written" by imperfect men for specific purposes, then was it subject to error, given that men, armed with free will to reject God's guidance, make mistakes?The authors of the New Testament wrote with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and did not reject God's guidance. As such, it is inerrant. But neither did they write systematically, including all traditions and authoritative interpretations of the Word.
How can you know what everyone expected it to be for 1,500 years? The Church does not accept dissent. Some writings by some Fathers have gotten through on some issues. But, I hardly believe that dissent in general was well recorded within the Church. Taken to a comical extreme, this would be like Fidel Castro claiming that all of his people are happy because no one complains. From what I have learned of the RCC, it is not a place of the free exchange of ideas. The hierarchy believes that God reveals the truth to its majority, and that's it. I think it is too broad a brush stroke to say that no one within the Church believed in Protestant ideas until they all cropped up at once in the 1500s.I know what people expected the New Testament to be for 1500 years because of the testimony of the Church Fathers, the Councils of the Church and historical records. Dissent in some areas has historically been tolerated in the Church, but when somebody threatens the integrity of the Word and teaches another gospel, the Church has stepped in to preserve the souls of Christendom.
If you are going to base your argument on the Church stifling dissent, please post examples of sola scriptura theology being suppressed by the early Church.
Well, we know that many of the sons of Apostolic succession have failed to follow God's guidance, so how can you know for sure that all of the writers of scripture followed it in full? Did the writers of scripture have a special grace not given to future Bishops?