When Protestants try to enlist the Church Fathers to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, they face a dilemma.

If they use the earliest Church Fathers, they realize there's no evidence for their view.

But if they use the later Church Fathers, they end up proving Catholicism is quite biblical.

So let's drill down into the horns of this dilemma.

But before we do that, I will say what's not a dilemma?

Liking this video and subscribing to our channel,, I will say what's not a dilemma, liking this video and

subscribing to our channel so you don't miss all of our content and you help us reach more people

by subscribing. So let's start with the first option, the pre-Nicine church fathers, the church

fathers before the Council of Nicaea in 325. When you read historical defenses of Soliscriptura, they almost always

use sources from after the Council of Nicaa. In my debate with James White, I asked him to provide

sources for fathers who defended Soliscriptura from the first 300 years of the church's history,

and he didn't seem very eager to do that. You're agreeing to the time of the apostles, divine revelation is written and unwritten,

and then in the future it becomes written only.

Yes.

Okay.

Was there any Christian in the early church who said that that happened and was confined to the

written word only?

They weren't even discussing it.

I'll take anybody.

The vast majority, well, I can give you all all sorts of depending on how you want to deal with.

Let's go up to the council and I see it. Why I'm only up to the council and I see it?

Give you 300 years. It's a long time.

...