John Chrysostom (349-407) wrote the following which shows the doctrine of sola scriptura is absent in the earliest centuries of the Christian faith:
‘So then, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours’ [2 Thess 2:15]. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (On the 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, Homily 4:2, Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers series I, vol. 13, p. 390)
This is a sound refutation of any apologist who would point to Chrysostom as evidence of the formal sufficiency of the Bible.
There has been, especially in recent years, an attempt by Keith Mathison, William Webster, and others, to proof-text the patristic literature to support sola scriptura, but all these attempts are based on eisegesis of writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons. See, for instance:
