In light of the arguments of the previous posts, it seems to me that if we are to deny the authority of the ecumenical councils we must arrive at a doctrine of scripture and of a closed canon that does not rely on their authority. Also, such a doctrine must take seriously the fact that Jesus is the Word and must also take seriously the continual presence and speaking of the Spirit.
Finally, it must not overstate the role of scripture over and against the role of the Spirit and of Jesus as Word. The earliest believers were not a `people of the book’ even though they held the OT in high regard. It seems problematic to suggest that there should be a fundamental difference between the church prior to the closing of the canon and the church after this event. It also seems clear that the continuing existence of the church in no way depends on the continuing existence of the Bible. The Bible provides a norm when it comes to teaching and provides at least some consistency of teaching over time but if the Bible were lost the church would continue to exist so long as people continued to preach the message of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and of his life death and resurrection and continued to repeat the narratives of God’s acting in and through Israel and in and through the early church. The NT is the record of the first generation’s preaching of this gospel and telling of this narrative but in its absence surely the Spirit could ensure that the truth would not be lost in the retelling and that, when error crept in, men like Paul would rise up to correct it. So, the scripture is a wonderful gift from God and serves a useful purpose but it is not constitutive of the church. Any doctrine of scripture we propose should keep this in mind.