One theologian wrote the following:
. . . in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language, like her father the devil . . . the author of heresies, because of the ill savor which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple . . . they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding . . . they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it.
Who would write such a thing? A Catholic apologist? A Latter-day Saint scholar? Some other critic of Sola Scriptura in a debate with a Protestant? Nope. It was none other than Athanasius of Alexandria, one of the most abused patristic authors by Protestant apologists to support the historicity of Sola Scriptura (from NPNF series 2 volume 4: Discourse 1 pp. 306, 310, 337). A Protestant apologist who appeals to Athanasius for their doctrine are guilty of ignoring the entirety of Athanasius' writings.
Joseph Gallegos, under the heading of "Heretics and Private Interpretation," wrote:
In contrast to the traditional sense, the rule of faith of the early heretics such as the Arians, was marked by a private understanding of the Bible. Athanasius consistently contrasts the traditional faith of the Church with the isolated opinions of the Arians:
But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. (Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, I:37, NPNP 2, IV:327-28)
For being forced from the conceptions or rather misconceptions of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation, they wrest the whole of divine oracles into accordance with it. (Ibid., I:52, NPNF 2, IV:337)
These passages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking their sense, under the idea that they proved that the Word of God was a creature and work and one of things originate; and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language of Scripture their pretence, but instead of the true sense sowing upon it the poison of their own heresy. (Ibid., I:53, NPNF 2, IV:337)
"However here too they (the Arians) introduce their private fictions . . . " (Ibid., III:10, NPNF 2, IV:399)
Likewise Basil [c.A.D. 330-379], writing to the woman of Canonica, affirms the ecclesiastical faith of the Fathers at Nicea, and denigrates the use of private judgement. "To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as beng brimful of self-sufficiency." (Basil, Epistle to the Canonicae, 52:1 [A.D. 370] NPNF 2, VIII:155)
In Gregory of Nyssa's [c.A.D. 335-394] defense of the Holy Trinity he contrasts Eunomius' private and wayward opinions with the universal and orthodox faith of the Catholic Church:
if then the expression of Eunomius are meant in accordance with the mind of the Psalmist, they are a testimony to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost: but if they are opposed to the word of prophecy, then by this very fact a charge of blasphemy lies against Eunomius, because he sets up his own opinions in opposition to the holy prophets. (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2:15 [inter A.D. 380-384] NPNF 2, V:133)
Who know not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, 'product of creation,' applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours? (Ibid., 4:6, NPNF 2, V:162) (Joseph Gallegos, "What did the Church Fathers Teach Concerning Scripture, Tradition and Church Authority?" in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 355-451, here, pp. 399-400)
For more information refuting Sola Scriptura, be sure to check out my book on the topic:
