I guess I don’t know what a “hardcore Sola Scriptura believer” is. However the problem you are having in getting responses is that you have phrased this Sola in straw man form. No one believes the doctrine you have defined here, at least none that I would think of Christian. It is true many of the so-called “Enthusiast/Charismatic” sects would probably define the Sola this way, at least in practice as I doubt seriously if they could articulate the doctrine at all, but in those groups there is such a radical departure from orthodox Christianity that I would hard pressed to think of them as being Christian at all.
Sola Scriptura does not, and never has, taught that people are allowed to interpret the Bible for themselves. Neither does it teach that tradition is of no value and to be jettisoned. Remember Luther was an Augustinian Monk who built his theology upon Augustine I would think it very strange for him to have said that tradition was of no value.
What Luther said was that in the Church’s tradition, in which he included encyclicals, councils, and writings, there are apparent contradictions and times when the Church plainly contradicted herself. For example she condemned Pelagius, and Cassianus as heretics in favor of Augustine, and then constructed a soteriology which set aside Augustine in favor of a more Cassianus mode. What Luther said is that if in the fifth century the Church had declared Augustine’s clear teaching that it was God who justified and made men righteous before Himself, then it was absurd to now teach that men had to cooperate with grace and do works of satisfaction by which they could effect their own salvation.
Luther therefore said that since this controversy existed the thing to do was to return the Scripture and see the clear teaching of Paul, Peter and Christ that all who are saved are chosen by God and then, and only then, do works flow forth which result from this salvation and do not contribute to it. Thus when he was ordered to recant he said that Scripture, and Scripture alone, was the only thing which could bind the conscience of men in what they believed and while tradition and Church teaching was of great value, in those places where it deviated from Scripture, Scripture itself must be held above any and all tradition.
This may not have ever been clearly stated by the Fathers, but you need only see how greatly they held the Scripture to see that the teaching was implied.
But no one would teach that they have the right to open the Scripture apart from any and all tradition to interpret it for themselves. Rather that tradition helps us because it shows a clear thread of consistent teaching throughout the ages, and where the Church has deviated from this thread, she has erred, and therefore the Church must submit herself to the Word of God in spite of its councils. Because to do otherwise is to appeal to human authority above the Bible’s, and that is a serous breach of Christian teaching in any age.
God Bless
