Transcription
The second primary reason why the early church was not the Roman Catholic Church flows naturally from the first reason, and that is this. The early church recognized the scriptures, by virtue of the fact that they possessed the apostles' teaching, as the sole rule of faith in the life of a Christian.
As such, the church fathers recognized that the scriptures possessed a unique authority superior to all other authorities, including tradition, councils, and other church teachings. The reason the scriptures alone possess this authority is because they, by virtue of being the very words of God, serve as the origin of and the yardstick for all other subservient authorities. In its bare essence, this view of the scriptures can be simplified as sola scriptura, centuries before the term sola scriptura would eventually become popularized.
Of course, now, this does not mean that the early church didn't recognize other authorities within the church, such as presbyters and councils, for example. And the same is true for Protestants today. We recognize there are other authorities as well. The point simply suggests that no other authority could establish doctrine outside of prophetical and apostolic teaching, of which is confined, after the life of the apostles, in the scriptures alone.
Augustine serves as perhaps the clearest example of this, stating many times throughout his writings that scripture holds a unique authority higher than all other authorities and that no point of doctrine can be established apart from what is revealed in them. And even other principles related to sola scriptura, such as the perspicuity of scripture, are found in great abundance amongst the church fathers' writings. The early church believed scripture was clear enough to express all of the articles of faith necessary to believe for salvation and that the average layperson was capable of reaching these conclusions apart from an infallible magisterium.
As an example of this, Augustine again literally wrote an entire work entitled *On Christian Doctrine*. The main purpose of which is to provide Christians with sound principles of interpreting scripture, demonstrating a belief that scripture is indeed clear enough to reveal essential elements of the faith on its own merits, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Of course, the concept of the perspicuity of scripture can even be traced back as far as the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, as I've shown in previous videos, not to mention the very words of scripture itself, as Acts chapter 17, for example, would suggest.
Now, it is true that the church fathers spoke quite frequently about tradition and the role of tradition in the church. Irenaeus, for example, speaks very highly of tradition in his classic work *Against Heresies*. But it is fallacious to attribute any and every reference to tradition by the church fathers to the specific, infallibly defined traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
As a first point, all magisterial Protestants, that being Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican, affirm the role of tradition in the church. So, a church father referencing a tradition does nothing to prove Roman Catholicism over and against magisterial Protestantism. Magisterial Protestants simply reject the idea that tradition exists as an infallible authority, apart from finding its clear origin in the scriptures, which is precisely the same manner in which the church fathers viewed tradition.
Leading me to the second point. When the church fathers do refer to tradition in its appropriate sense, it is clear that they view tradition as possessing legitimate authority in so far as that tradition finds its origin in and is consistent with the apostolic teaching laid out in scripture. In other words, this appropriate recognition of tradition is done so in a sola scriptura framework. And again, simply assuming that any and every reference to tradition is a reference to the Roman Catholic understanding of infallible tradition is fallacious and devoid of context.
To refer once again back to Irenaeus as an example, when he speaks of traditions, he is clear to attribute their origin to that which has, since the apostles' time, been committed to the scriptures. This is precisely the same view of tradition as that which is held by magisterial Protestants today. And in times where the church fathers do refer to traditions without attributing their origin to the words of scripture, it is evident that a host of theological errors occur as a result.
An example of this can be seen in Clement of Alexandria. In the very first chapter of his well-known work, *The Stromata*, Clement insists that that which he articulates are traditions of the apostles that he received from men who supposedly learned from the apostles themselves. However, based on the doctrines that Clement passes along, it's clear that this transmission of supposedly apostolic tradition was not a credible source of doctrine in the slightest. He believed that the apostles preached the gospel of repentance to souls in hell and that Greeks living before the incarnation of Christ could be saved by adhering to the principles of Greek philosophy.
The great Lutheran scholar and theologian Martin Chemnitz has provided a fantastic outline of the various types of traditions referenced by the church fathers in the second topic of his great work, *An Examination of the Council of Trent*. And I would refer you to consult this masterpiece for more information if you are interested.
Again, to conclude the point, if you are considering Roman Catholicism or are already currently Roman Catholic, you must ask yourself whether or not the early church viewed scripture alone as the singular rule of faith for determining faith and morals. If they did, which is the case, and you wish to be consistent with the early church, then you should not submit yourself to the Roman Catholic Church because the Roman Catholic Church does not share the same view of scripture and tradition as that of the fathers.