However, you should understand that a number of the Fathers you quoted wrote before the canon was finally determined and not one of the Fathers you quoted accepted what Western Protestants call the canon of scripture.
From the link you apparently didn't read:
OBJECTION: The proposition Sola Scriptura contradicts church history, in that it was not possible for the earliest Christians to consult the New Testament, since it had not yet been written.
REPLY: The earliest Christians had the Apostles with them. The Apostles wrote down the revelation, so that it might be available when they were gone.
You have the choice of ignoring all the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Fine with me.
Arguing that the Fathers supported and held to the sola scriptura notion is as laughable, and frankly sort of sad, as the Latins proof texting the Fathers to support Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.
And Perpetual Virginity? And the Bodily Assumption of Mary? And the Trinity?
Are you of the opinion the testimony of the Fathers is useless?
"In a nutshell, Old R, Sola Scriptura is not at all patristic,..."
Yet you make no effort whatsoever to respond to even one of the quoted Fathers????? I understand....the testimony of the Fathers is useless unless, of course, you agree with them.
The link one more time (the third) in the event you have a serious purpose, not simply bombast.
“And Perpetual Virginity? And the Bodily Assumption of Mary? And the Trinity?”
Old R, much as the Protestants want to believe that everything they have a problem with has Roman roots (and I will grant you the Latins have a habit of claiming credit for just about everything) the fact of the matter that each of the dogmas you cite are Eastern in origin.
In haste as to the scriptures which were around prior to about 375; there were a multitude of inspired and spurious/evil “scriptures” floating around until even after 375-400 AD. Heck, people still get all excited about such evil garbage as the “Gospel of Thomas”. That said, many, many non-canonical writings were considered efficacious for spiritual advancement. They simply weren’t used in the Liturgies. The Shepherd is a good example. And the Fathers cite to them throughout the Patristic period. Its not as simple as you would have it or as proof texting would make it seem.
Christianity is an Eastern religion, its theology is the product of God inspired Eastern minds. It is not at all Western. When we speak of the consensus patrum, we refer to something which very few non Roman Catholic Western Christians understand or recognize. Frankly, under the influence of Protestant exegesis, I think even the Romans have a hard time recognizing the consensus; at least they are ready to discard it in an effort to justify Papal excesses in a number of ecclesiological and theological areas. In my entire life I don’t think I’ve met 20 Protestant theologians who understand it. At base I think this is explained by the Western (both Latin and Protestant) rejection of the definition of the “catholic” Church laid out by +Ignatius of Antioch, which in operation is a living example of “consensus”.
The ramifications of this Western failure to understand the Eastern Christian mindset are extensive, so extensive, Old R, that its not hyperbole to say that we “worship a different God” from you guys.
Old R: And Perpetual Virginity? And the Bodily Assumption of Mary? And the Trinity?
And "sola scriptura?" Where is the "sola scriptura" in the scriptura?
Unitarian? Theophilus Lindley founded this "church" in London in 1774. (see my post #7). Another man-made "church" based on "sola."