Transcript

Protestant apologists rarely cite the fathers prior to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.

The lack of witnesses to the central pillar of Protestantism in the first 300 years of church history is very telling.

The other horn of the dilemma, if you will, admits there are testimonies from fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries that exalt scripture, use it to settle disputes, and teach what Catholics call the material sufficiency of scripture.

This is the idea that the material theology, such as the dogmas God has revealed, can all be found in scripture, at least in an implicit form, but the Church is still needed to put that theological material into its final proper form for people to believe.

But let's suppose Christians in the late 300s and the 400s did believe in sola scriptura.

That's even worse for Protestantism because these same Christians also believed in uniquely Catholic doctrines like the sacerdotal priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, confession of sins to a priest, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, purgatory, seeking the intercession of the saints, the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary, and the need for bishops and the Pope to oversee the Church.

If those Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries are role models because they allegedly believed in sola scriptura, then why not follow their example and conclude that Catholic doctrines have a solid biblical foundation?