C. Michael Patton, an Evangelical Protestant apologist, has recently written an article attempting to support the man-made tradition of sola scriptura by arguing that early Christians actually believed in this doctrine. One can read the article (which really amounts to Patristic “proof-texting”) at:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2015/04/did-the-early-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura
Practically, the article is nothing short of cutting and pasting, not from the Patristic texts themselves, but a book by Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001), which is a very popular volume attempting to defend, both biblically and historically, the formal doctrine of Protestantism—one has to wonder if Patton has actually read the works of Hippolytus et al; in light of the lack of critical usage of Mathison’s work, one has to doubt such.
I won’t interact with all the early Christian writers Patton (and Mathison) appeal to, but I will focus on two: Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem.
Hippolytus
Patton (actually, Mathison) quotes the following from Hippolytus (emphasis added by me):
“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
For Patton, the statement, "There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source" means that Hippolytus would relegate any other authority as being subordinate to Scripture. However, this is false. Hippolytus does not mention things such as the authority of the Church or non-inscripturated apostolic teaching ("oral tradition") in this passage, let alone setting them in opposition to the Bible. Notice, however, what Hippolytus does set in opposition to Scripture--he refers to "the dogmas of philosophers" as being in opposition to the "oracles of God," but not the Church, tradition, etc. He refers to those who should not make conclusions "according to our own will, nor according to our own mind" but not a word about an authoritative Church, apostolic traditions outside the Bible, and so forth.
In Catholic apologetics, there is a common fallacy called "The Peter Syndrome," where any positive reference to Peter and/or the Bishop of Rome is taken as ipso facto of the dogmatic teachings the Roman Church has on (1) Peter and (2) the papacy; Protestants like Patton, Mathison, William Webster, et al are guilty of a similar fallacy--"The Sola Scriptura Syndrome" wherein any positive reference to Scripture, whether by biblical authors or early Christian writers, is taken as ipso facto proof of the formal sufficiency of the Bible.
When one actually reads the works of Hippolytus and not the cut-and-paste methodology of Patton, we get the following which shows Hippolytus privileged both the authoritative teachings of the Church and oral tradition:
And certain other (heretics) contentious by nature, (and) wholly uniformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more (than usually) quarrelsome, combine (in maintaining) that Easter should be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur. (But in this) they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not keep (the commandment) as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this (fact), that the legal enactment as made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover. And this (paschal sacrifice in its efficacy,) has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter (merely). They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: "For I testify to ever man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles. (Refutation of All Heresies, ch XI, The Quartodecimens).
Having come to our most important topic, we turn to the subject of the Tradition which is proper for the Churches, in order that those who have been rightly instructed may hold fast to that tradition which has continued until now, and fully understanding it from our exposition may stand the more firmly therein. (The Apostolic Tradition 1)
Cyril of Jerusalem
Again pilfering from Mathison, Patton reproduces the following from Cyril of Jerusalem:
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
Mathison, on pp.31-32 of his book, provides the following commentary on this text:
Here we find stated, about as clearly as possible, the necessity of firm scriptural proof for every article of faith. Cyril tells his catechumens not to rest their faith upon plausibility or ingenious arguments or even upon his own authority as a Bishop, but to rest it upon clear proof from the Holy Scripture.
Mathison et al. are actually faced with a dilemma when he uses the above quote from Cyril, as well as other patristic authors. If, as Mathison (and Patton via this copying-and-pasting) Cyril was teaching the Protestant understanding of sola scriptura, they have a huge problem--Cyril's Catechetical Lectures (which one can read in their totality here) are filled with forceful with teachings Patton et al. would condemn as heretical such as the Eucharist as a sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, the intercession of the saints, holy orders, the sacraments, and other teachings, doctrines which Patton would argue are alien to the Bible. If Cyril really held to the notion of sola scriptura, then it must be true that he believed he found such doctrines in the pages of the Bible itself. The counter would be, "well, Cyril was wrong in his exegetical method," but such would only further trap the proponent of sola scriptura, for it would of necessity impugn Cyril's credibility, not to mention the claim to find sola scriptura in Scripture! The second option is that Cyril was not teaching sola scriptura and that Mathison et al. are playing fast and loose with the patristic texts, similar to how Evangelicals play fast and loose with the biblical texts. As they are in many areas, Protestant apologists are trapped in a no-win situation and their lack of intellectual integrity and exegetical abilities come to light.
That Cyril did not hold to sola scriptura is not difficult to ascertain; for instance, notice the following quote:
Take heed, then, brethren and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, 7:32)
Conclusion
As we have seen on this blog, the main “proof-texts” cited by Protestant apologists in favour of sola scriptura (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Cor 4:6; Acts 17:11; Matt 4:1-11) fail when one approaches these texts using sound historical-grammatical exegetical methods; as with the biblical evidence, the purported Patristic evidence flounders when one actually reads an early Christian author in their context and their totality. Of all the historical defenses of this man-made doctrine I have ever seen, this is perhaps one of the lousiest attempts attempting to portray the early Church as holding to such an anachronistic doctrine.