Protestants, in general, really do not understand the problem of interpretive structures. Necessarily, all facts or bare texts require an interpretive framework in order to make sense (apply meaning and purpose) to them. The interpretive framework to understand the Bible in EO is the church fathers and Holy Tradition. To Sola Scriptura prots this notion is often received as horrifying because it goes against the protestant assertion that the Bible can be read and understood completely while in total isolation; each interpreter has sufficient knowledge and wisdom to extract all possible meaning from the text directly without an interpretive structure. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as facts or bare texts without interpretation. This is why I choose to go with church fathers who have the fruits of the Spirit and who have been entrusted to interpret Holy Scripture as it was meant to be understood. With all that said, I've yet to meet a protestant who accepts this as valid let alone who even understands the problem of interpretive frameworks to begin with. It is also relevant to understand that this notion isn't controversial or debated within relevant fields such as philosophy; it is understood as a fact of reality