Where are the distinctive "Protestant" theological constructs, such as Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide?
Irenaeus:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.---"Against Heresies", 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.
Irenaeus says the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar of our faith." Protestants, so named by Roman Catholicism as a pejorative term during the Reformation agrees.
Athanasius:
The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.---"Against the Heathen", I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)
Christians, whom Rome branded as "Protestants" agree that the Scriptures are wholly sufficient for the proclamation of the Truth---Sola Scriptura.
Gregory of Nyssa:
...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.---"On the Soul and the Resurrection", quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
Christians whom Rome pejoratively branded as "Protestants" agree that "For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.----Sola Scriptura.
Rome disagrees.
Gregory of Nyssa:
Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.---"On the Holy Trinity", in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)
We Christians agree with Gregory on Sola Scriptura, Rome doesn't.
John Chrysostom:
Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things---"Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians", in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.
Imagine that John Chrysostom espousing Sola Scriptura, AND espousing that the Christian NOT regard what another man thinks but to "inquire from the Scriptures";
Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things
Clearly Chrysostom was familiar with Paul's praising of the Bereans for inquiring of the Scriptures to see if what Paul was preaching was true. We Christians agree, Rome does not.
Where are the "Protestant" communities?
We were not called "protestant" then, we were called, "Christians".
We are the One, True, catholic Church and Rome an imposter.
Which orthodox Christian wrote about that before the first millenium expired? To explore history is to find out that Protestantism is a late invention of men.
The facts have just proven that party line assertion to be a fallacy and illusion of a great proportion.
The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.-—”Against the Heathen”, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)””
Perhaps you should read the whole thing!
“4. IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE, AND REJECT PART.
For whence do Marcion and Manichaeus receive the Gospel while they reject the Law? For the New Testament arose out of the Old, and bears witness to the Old; if then they reject this, how can they receive what proceeds from it? Thus Paul was an Apostle of the Gospel, ‘which God promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures[3]:’ and our Lord Himself said, ‘ye search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me[4].’ How then shall they confess the Lord unless they first search the Scriptures which are written concerning Him? And the disciples say that they have found Him, ‘of whom Moses and the Prophets did write[5].’ And what is the Law to the Sadducees if they receive not the Prophets[6]? For God who gave the Law, Himself promised in the Law that He would raise up Prophets also, so that the same is Lord both of the Law and of the Prophets, and he that denies the one must of necessity deny the other also. And again, what is the Old Testament to the Jews, unless they acknowledge the Lord whose coming was expected according to it? For had they believed the writings of Moses, they would have believed the words of the Lord; for He said, ‘He wrote of Me[7].’ Moreover, what are the Scriptures to him of Samosata, who denies the Word of God and His Incarnate Presence[9], which is signified and declared both in the Old and New Testament? And of what use are the Scriptures to the Arians also, and why do they bring them forward, men who say that the Word of God is a creature, and like the Gentiles ‘serve the creature more than’ God ‘the Creator[1]?’ Thus each of these heresies, in respect of the peculiar impiety of its invention, has nothing in common with the Scriptures. And their advocates are aware of this, that the Scriptures are very much, or rather altogether, opposed to the doctrines of every one of them; but for the sake of deceiving the more simple sort (such as are those of whom it is written in the Proverbs, ‘The simple believeth every word[2]),’ they pretend like their ‘father the devil[3]’ to study and to quote the language of Scripture, in order that they may appear by their words to have a right belief, and so may persuade their wretched followers to believe what is contrary to the Scriptures. Assuredly in every one of these heresies the devil has thus disguised himself, and has suggested to them words full of craftiness. The Lord spake concerning them, that ‘there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, so that they shall deceive many[4].’ Accordingly the devil has come, speaking by each and saying, ‘I am Christ, and the truth is with me;’ and he has made them, one and all, to be liars like himself. And strange it is, that while all heresies are at variance with one another concerning the mischievous inventions which each has framed, they are united together only by the common purpose of lying[5]. For they have one and the same father that has sown in them all the seeds, of falsehood. Wherefore the faithful Christian and true disciple of the Gospel, having grace to discern spiritual things, and having built the house of his faith upon a rock, stands continually firm and secure from their deceits. But the simple person, as I said before, that is not thoroughly grounded in knowledge, such an one, considering only the words that are spoken and not perceiving their meaning, is immediately drawn away by their wiles. Wherefore it is good and needful for us to pray that we may receive the gift of discerning spirits, so that every one may know, according to the precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom to receive as friends and of the same faith. Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient[6] for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.”
What does the first sentence say, which is the theme of the whole part? IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE AND REJECT PART.
Where does it say ‘Holy Scripture ONLY is of all things sufficient for us? It addresses Authority of Scripture, not Sola Scriptura.
Lets see what else Anthansisus says...
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D.
If I were you,I would be careful quoting the Blessed Saint Anthanasius!
Sorry to but in your conversation Jo kus,Dear friend
Here is what else Blessed Saint John Chrysostom had to say...
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further.” Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2, 398-404 A.D..
And you also mentioned Blessed Saint Irenaeus.
Here is what he also had to say....
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
And you also mentioned Blessed Gregory of Nyssa
Here is what he also had to say...
“[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).
And just for good measure,here is a few more from Blessed Saint Anthanasius
“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).
“This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense.” Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).
Would you like to see what ALL the Early Church Fathers had to say about Eucharist(Transubstantiation) and Scripture Interpretation outside of the Church?
Irenaeus says the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar of our faith." Protestants, so named by Roman Catholicism as a pejorative term during the Reformation agrees.
It is quite obvious you haven't read "Against Heresies"...
The overriding theme is that the Gnostics, who read the exact same Scriptures as the Catholics, were wrong in their interpretation. You take Irenaeus out of context by trying to make him say something he never said - that one can know the truths of revelation from Scripture ALONE. It is obvious to ANYONE who has read a cursory amount of the book that he says the EXACT OPPOSITE! THROUGHOUT, Irenaeus tells us we can KNOW how to interpret the Scriptures when we follow the Rule of Faith, given by the Apostolic Succession.
Two chapters after your quote, Irenaeus says the following, which I quote in entirety:
CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
As to the rest of the slandous and false distorting of the other Fathers, I notice that you merely re-gurgitate the same baloney that William Webster and David King titled in their book "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith". I will merely give you the link for the destruction metted out by Phil Porvaznik in his devasting rebuttal of that book that is an outright deception, just as your post on Irenaeus.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num49.htm
I am familiar with Irenaeus. This link addresses the rest quite well and I will waste no more time. Sola Scriptura didn't exist then, and it is nonsense still. Not only is it not biblical, it is not found in the Church Fathers' writings. I don't blame you for your cut and paste of Webster's nonsense. Very few Protestants are truly aware of what the Fathers write, except when they read Webster's garbage. But I would suggest you read the writings yourself, rather than read a clip taken out of context. Read Book III, at least thumb through it, and you tell me if Irenaeus thinks that we can know God's revelation by the Bible alone without the Rule of Faith from the Church. See for yourself.
I leave you to discover the truth of the matter.
Regards