- And until you can show us "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, you should speak no further.
Would you accept that early patristic fathers employed the idea or principle? Here's a brief essay touching upon much of the research which has been done concerning the issue, including some clear quotes from the early patristric ones themselves supporting scripture as the measure to which doctrine must be examined and compared against. Otherwise, how could these early ones ever defeated various heresies, like the Gnostics in particular, whom claimed that some of which they had (and others did not) they received directly from Apostles themselves. The Gnostics were put down using scripture which all the other churches had more or less uniformly. From the [below] link;
- The early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura in that it believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced the doctrine was to be rejected.
Sola Scriptura and the Early Church
There is more such as that available. The argument against sola scripture, is one promoting sola ecclesia to the extent that such ecclesia can see or find doctrines not found at all among the earliest church writers, or found in disagreement among them if found at all, nor found solid basis for in the scriptures, and in fact found quite contrary to scripture (when it applies to controversial matters, or else there would be no controversy) unless one focuses merely upon what the ecclesia pusher wishes the discussion to be constrained to --- leaving out all the rest of the Old Covenant and New Testament which may refute the claim.
It is no wonder that Catholics have been programmed to hate sola scriptura, for it is the Word itself which condemns some (but not all!) portions of the ecclesia.
Here's a bit different take, one not so one sided, as it speaks in a hopeful manner;
First portion;
- The study of the centuries-old struggle between Rome and the Reformation raises an important and inescapable problem: the question of authority. In our own time of confusion and chaos the problem of authority attracts much attention. Since the downfall of national socialism and fascism efforts are being made to find an authority capable of checking chaos and of protecting life from the desperation of nihilism Papal encyclicals issued during the last hundred years often warn against the threat of anarchy. The one and only stronghold of civilization and culture is proclaimed to be the church of Jesus Christ, in its absolute supra-temporal origin. The church is “the only haven of refuge,” ignored by those “who scorn the light of Christian Wisdom and who—sad to say—want to go back to the doctrines, customs, and institutions of pagan antiquity”1 The chief cause of human woe is to be sought in the contempt and the rejection of the exalted authority of the church For it is the church which governs mankind in the name of God, and which maintains and protects every legitimate authority.2 There is a close connection between the legitimate authority of the church, as the only haven of refuge, and Rome s criticism of the Reformation. A standard is lifted up for the modern world, with all its chaotic aspects of unbelief, revolution and dictatorship, a standard that has been raised for centuries in opposition to the Reformation: the authority of the church as a rock in the surging Waves.
Last portion;
- The question is concerned with the a priori character of this stability. In Rome’s view this stability is lifted out of the full coherence of the church. When the Reformation cut this authority at the root and began to understand the original sounds of the gospel anew, a tremendous conflict had broken out in the history of the church. Insofar as one is inclined to speak at all of a venture, it is only the venture of leaving the Bible open in the church, where it can be read, listened to, and preached. The church again became an ecclesia audiens in the full sense of the word.
At least such was the mighty plea of Luther and Calvin. The listening church—thus might the aim of the Reformation be summarized. Such may seem to be an oversimplification, but in reality it comprises everything fundamental that can be said. For this listening is not opposed to the teaching (ecclesia docens) of the church but is indissolubly bound up with it. In such listening everything is set in motion. The time of the Reformation reminds us of the dark times of Israel when the young Samuel stood intently listening to the Eternal: Speak, oh Lord, for thy servant heareth.” Thus he became an immeasurable blessing for his people, and presently the doors of the sacred place were opened and the divine light shone in the dark night of Israel. In Reformation times it was again discovered, right across a tradition of many centuries, what it meant to be under the Word of grace and to bring one’s thoughts into captivity to Christ. We should guard against immediately placing this tremendous event in the twilight of the dissensions. In spite of all differences and even in them we can speak, and we ought to continue to speak, of the fundamental structure of the Reformation. A comparison of Luther’s exegesis of the Epistle to the Romans, which he published before 1517, and Calvin’s Institutes will immediately reveal the profound communion of the new ‘discovery.’ This discovery owed its immense importance, not merely to the common insight into the authority of the Scriptures, but to the hold their contents had on the heart: Jesus Christ and his grace. Between the Reformed attitude towards the Scriptures and the sola fide there is no tension or separation but the profoundest harmony. A new religious reflection, a new authority asserted itself and conquered thousands of hearts when the good tidings were proclaimed as the liberating signal in the listening church. That is why the Reformation has never admitted that it did not ascribe any authority to the church.