sola scriptura states that there is a role for tradition, it’s simply lower than Scripture just like any other source of knowledge
Yes. In that regard, it is useful to separate the Protestants in two groups, one that doesn't aknowldege ANY authority in the matter of the faith other than the scripture (as truncated in their tradition), and the other that acknowledges that the Early Church (never identified as Catholic and Orthodox) put together the scripture, but denies authority of the Catohlic (or Orthodox) church from some historical point onward. The article chiefly addresses the error of the first group.
What can we say to the second group? If they acknowledge the authority of the Early Church, but reject the Catholic authority today, then they should be able to (1) point out where the Catholic Church of today separated herself from the Early Church, and (2) study the expression of authority in the Early Church and submit to it as superior to what modern thinkers might think about the Holy Scripture.
On (1) the historical Protestants are vague and concentrate on abuses of the penance system such as sale of indilgencies and Roman splendor of 15c. This still leaves out the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the corrections instituted at Trent.
On (2), I don't see any effort to study, say, pre-Nicean fathers of the Church such as Irenaeus, Ignatius or Cyprian. Instead, the least early of the pre-medieval Fathers and the most Westernized, Augustine is the only Early Church father read in the Protestant circles. His mentor Ambrose even is not read. If the "historical Protestants" kept their intellectual committment to the Early Church which gave them the scripture, they would end up in a hierarchical on the episcopal level, sacramental, heavily liturgical and liturgically conservative Orthodox Church, which denies the uniquely Protestant doctrines with no less vigor than Rome.
Excellent post, I look forward to any replies.
Thanks for the heads up Salvation! I don’t take any offense for not being pinged (to post 14), for the record, however I am glad I was pinged eventually because this post of annalex’s is very interesting to me.
I'd say right there in the 1st Century...
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth." And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write" (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.
There's no reason to believe that your church fathers that you cite are not the same people Paul is referring to in his epistles...
As the article states, there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures but these 'fathers' of yours promote their own apostolic succession...