[Uncle Chip]

You just built a straw man argument and then tore it down. There is an extremely important distinction between deferring to scripture and blindly ignoring every other source of revelation. If you wish to argue against a traditional understanding of revelation, you should first make the effort to fully understand the position that you wish to argue against.

This comment of yours should be directed to those who argue against Sola Scriptura.

BTW can you name something other than the holy scriptures that Paul said were "able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"??? [II Timothy 3]

What other source of revelation could you be referring to that is "inspired by God" and accomplishes these things. Inquiring minds would like to know --

[Huber]

I don’t think that it would help to give you a short answer in protestant terms other than some of the same points about how the canon was selected by the church, as well as the lack of sola scriptura withi scriptura. Most likely you have already heard and chosen to disregard these points . If you really want to understand a traditional view of revalation, you’ll want to read the Philokalia of the Eastern Church and the Catechism of the Western. If you tell me that you have already read these, I’ll be impressed.