This argument doesn’t work logically, because every statement even in a conversation has context and requires interpretation. For example, if one man asks another “How are you doing?” they might mean it very seriously, it might be a mere pleasantry, or even a cruel joke, depending on context. This context is only accessible through interpretation and exegesis.
In Scripture, this becomes even more important, because many statements have a spiritual meaning and others a literal meaning, and still others have both, and there are also prophetic remarks concerning future events, some of which have happened and some of which are yet to happen.
The verse in 2 Peter precludes “private interpretation” if translated that way (which is dubious, by the way), which simply relates to Paul in Galatians 1:8 talking about people who preach another Gospel outside the body of the Church he discusses in Corinthians 10. So there is a consensus patrum, a mind of the church, and this is most evident in the Patristic era before certain schisms. This is why I base my interpretation, which is something I cannot logically avoid, because all texts must be interpreted, based on what the early Christians thought it meant, versus what I think it means, because I could be wrong, whereas the people who endowed us with the Nicene Creed and the Canon of the New Testament and endured martyrdoms of unspeakable proportions at the hands of Nero, Commodus, Diocletian, Constantius, Julian the Apostate and other murderous Roman Emperors merit our trust as the people we receive the deposit of faith from, and this idea is well understood in Protestant theology (except among Landmarkists and some related movements).
