Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[CentralFLJames]

The apostles wrote the NT books, and the church has always had those books.

The writings of the apostles were divinely inspired and authoritative, prior to being canonized.

How do you have a clue that the apostles even wrote the NT?

How do you know some inspired works are not missing when the NT scripture tells us some of the apostle Paul’s referenced works never made it into “the bible”.

Not all NT writings were written by the apostles. In fact we have to go outside of NT sources to get a partial list of authors of the NT books. The writers did not always identify themselves - some were anonymous. How do you have a clue that some clever enterprising Jew didn’t just take advantage of all the Christian hysteria to write bogus epistles for fun and profit?

2 Peter 1:20 "First of all, you must understand this, that no prophecy or scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation (cf 2 peter 3:15-16)

Nehemiah 8:8 “And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they (ed: priests) gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (cf Mark 4:33-34)

Acts 8:27-31 "…and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “**Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. **

Luther: “A plowboy with a Bible knows more than the pope.”

Then keeping true to his own scrupulous mind sometime after the carnage of the Protestant Revolution & the Peasants War and general chaos Luther starts admitting he screwed up.

oops…

Here are a few post-revolutionary complaints from Luther:

Luther: "“Peasants and nobles know the Gospel better than St. Paul or D. M. Luther; they are wise and they think themselves better than all their clergy.” [Walch. XIV. 1360]

Luther: “As soon as our Gospel began . . . decency . . . and modesty were done away with, and everybody wished to be perfectly free to do whatever he liked.” [Walch. V. 114]

Luther: “We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices.” [Walch. III. 2727]

Luther. “After one Devil (Popery) has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have come down upon us, as is the case with Princes, Lords, Nobles, Citizens and Peasants.” [Walch. III. 2727]

Luther: “I think it must needs be the case, that those who follow the Gospel . . . should be worse after (receiving) the Gospel than they had been before, not on account of the Gospel, but on account of the people who so abuse the Gospel.” [Walch. XIII. 2193]

Luther: “The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow.” [Walch. XII. 2120]

Luther: “People are now possessed with seven Devils, whereas formerly they were possessed with one Devil; the Devil now enters into the people in crowds, so that men are now more avaricious, unmerciful, impure, insolent . . . than formerly under the Pope.” [Walch. XIII. 19]

Luther: “After the dominion and power of the Pope has ceased . . . the people, while despising the true doctrine, are now changed into mere irrational animals and beasts;
[p. 55]
the number of holy and pious teachers becomes constantly less.” [Walch. I. 615]

. . .]

. . . about seven months before his death, Luther wrote to his wife, “Away from this Sodom (Wittenberg) . . . I will wander about, and sooner beg my bread than allow my poor old last days to be martyred and upset with the disorder of Wittenberg.” [July 1545. de Wette. V. 753]

Luther: . . . “See how foolishly the people everywhere behave towards the Gospel, so that I scarcely know whether I ought to continue preaching or not.” [Walch. XI, 3052]

Luther . . . “If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.” [Walch. VI. 920]

In 1538, . . . Luther dwells on the same thought: “Who would have begun to preach, if we had known beforehand that so much unhappiness, tumult, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have been the result?” [Walch. VIII. 564]

Luther:. . . . “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

Note: The Walch edition is referred to in the “Moral Results” of Luther’s teaching. This edition was published by Gebauer, Halle, in 24 volumes, between 1740 and 1753. The work was carried on under the supervision of Professor D. Johann Georg Walch, of Jena.

John Calvin even admitted that tradition was important:
“I do not deny that there are certain traditions of the Apostles that were not committed to writing, but I do not admit that they were parts of doctrine or related to things necessary for salvation.”

Gosh John, why should we believe you brother? Where does it say that in scripture or should we just take your opinion as a new sacred inspired tradition?

1 Cor 11:2: “I command you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”.

1 Thess 2:13 “and we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is a work in you believers.”

James

 

[sandusky]

Do you have a clue that the apostles even wrote the NT?

How do you know some inspired works are not missing when the NT scripture tells us some of the apostle Paul’s referenced works never made it into “the bible”.

Some of them may be missing, James, but that doesn’t diminish the truth contained in those that we have, and I’m always confident in God that those we have are those He intended us to have, and I’m still chuckling over “unwritten tradition,” which you have, but can’t list.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Some of them may be missing, James, but that doesn’t diminish the truth contained in those that we have, and I’m always confident in God that those we have are those He intended us to have, and I’m still chuckling over “unwritten tradition,” which you have, but can’t list.

So you say - but this is an extra-biblical profession of faith.

Is it safe to say that you hold that the written form of God’s word is superior to the spoken form of God’s word and that God can only protect the written form and not the spoken word? Why do you only trust God in part and not full? Do you think God’s word can be divided against itself? No apostle ever saw a bible.

Why did God send the apostles forth to PREACH and TEACH rather than not just command them to write stuff down on parchment and send it by courier all over the place? Why didn’t God just send down a printing press rather than Jesus as teacher?

Can you explain why you need to go to a self appointed Protestant “man of God” to listen to him preach his version of God’s word on Sunday?

One of the key traditions of the Catholic Church that we have not mentioned to you yet is the tradition of The Bible as a revealed form of the word of God and its inclusion into our liturgy. Now that you know that that book you carry around (even if its the Protestant-lite version that is tithe short of truth) is part of the Catholic liturgy tradition are going to reconsider if you want to hold to that tradition? After all it has been a Catholic tradition for about 1600 years (1200 years before Protestants came along). Don’t you think its blatantly contradictory to reject Catholic traditions and teachings except the ones that tell you the bible is inspired? After-all, the Bible does not tell you that it is inspired anywhere.

James

 

[sandusky]

So you say - but this is an extra-biblical profession of faith.

Is it safe to say that you hold that the written form of God’s word is superior to the spoken form of God’s word and that God can only protect the written form and not the spoken word? Why do you only trust God in part and not full?

You’re wrong, James, I do trust God in full.

CentralFLJames:

Do you think God’s word can be divided against itself? No apostle ever saw a bible.

Why did God send the apostles forth to PREACH and TEACH rather than not just command them to write stuff down on parchment and send it by courier all over the place? Why didn’t God just send down a printing press rather than Jesus as teacher?

C’mon, don’t be silly.

CentralFLJames:

Can you explain why you need to go to a self appointed Protestant “man of God” to listen to him preach his version of God’s word on Sunday?

LOL. This is all projection, James.

CentralFLJames:

One of the key traditions of the Catholic Church that we have not mentioned to you yet is the tradition of The Bible as a revealed form of the word of God and its inclusion into our liturgy. Now that you know that that book you carry around (even if its the Protestant-lite version that is tithe short of truth) is part of the Catholic liturgy tradition are going to reconsider if you want to hold to that tradition? After all it has been a Catholic tradition for about 1600 years (1200 years before Protestants came along). Don’t you think its blatantly contradictory to reject Catholic traditions and teachings except the ones that tell you the bible is inspired? After-all, the Bible does not tell you that it is inspired anywhere.

SS presupposes a canon, James, and God has promised the preservation of His testimony, and He used those He used to preserve it.

 

[Peter_J]

and I’m still chuckling over “unwritten tradition,” which you have, but can’t list.

I notice that you also “still” haven’t responded to what I said about that.

 

[BRB]

Christianity is not a religion of the book. If that were the case Christ would have written the scriptures Himself and we would have had a canon of the scriptures long before the council of Laudicea in the 360’s. .

This is key to the matter … which this paper overlooks.

Christ could easily of written us a codex. Didn’t happen. All early teaching was by oral traditions.

Any early writtings by Christ would of been confiscated and burned by the Pharisees/Sadduces/Romans after his Ascension.

The Church lived by its traditions for first 300 years. Paul didn’t write his letters, nor were the Gospels first written to compose the New Testament. Yes, the Christians prized these early books … but, many other pseudoscriptures were written in those first 300 years.

Even the ECF’s couldn’t uniformly agree on which were divinely inspired. Each had their own favorites, same for the various early churches. But, when the time was right … those early first Councils met to establish the official canon.

Led by H.S. … the Catholic Church sorted thru the inspired writings, and gave us the canon of scriptures the Christ desired for the ages.

For Protestants to claim the final version of Bible existed from time of John’s death is nonsense. The current Protestant Bible is a recent reduction of the original Council’s codex.

For Protestants to claim they have reconstructed the official Sola Scriptura blessed by the Apostles, is to revise history to suit their current prejudices.

Recalling the words of John …’ If all the things said/taught by Christ were written, there would not be enough books to contain.’
Those teachings found a home within the Catholic Traditions … and guided the early Church, and continue to influence the current Catholic doctrines.

 

[BRB]

This thread is not about “ineptitude,” but “truth.” If your Church were the one true Church she should be able to substantiate her claims concerning “unwritten tradition,” .

And, its not your thread … although you seem to have adopted it as your own.

What ‘unwritten traditions’ of the Church have offended your sensibilities ?

 

[sodak]

This is key to the matter … which this paper overlooks.

…]

Christ could easily of written us a codex. Didn’t happen. All early teaching was by oral traditions.
For Protestants to claim the final version of Bible existed from time of John’s death is nonsense. The current Protestant Bible is a recent reduction of the original Council’s codex.

…]

For Protestants to claim they have reconstructed the official Sola Scriptura blessed by the Apostles, is to revise history to suit their current prejudices.

Recalling the words of John …’ If all the things said/taught by Christ were written, there would not be enough books to contain.’
Those teachings found a home within the Catholic Traditions … and guided the early Church, and continue to influence the current Catholic doctrines.

Thank you BRB.

Jesus left us a Church. I am trying to picture (but just can’t) Christ ascending to heaven, flipping a KJV to the Apostles, yelling, “Here it is boys, good luck!”

Somehow, I think that there is more to it than that. I also notice that Sandusky is very selective about what and who he answers.

 

[BRB]

Excellent. What I have been consistently saying is that a Protestant can not even describe herself except for in terms of “in opposition to” or “in protest of” or “in contrast to” an established tradition and standard. In others words Protestants having no history to speak of can only define themselves in terms of what they are not. That is, Protestants are “not Catholic”; whatever they think we are or know us to not be. What is most oxymoronic is for these people to demand we give them a sterile legalese list of Catholic “traditions” so they can say “yeah - that’s what we are not”. It’s like asking someone to write down the nuances, emotions and sounds of a beautiful symphony on paper without the orchestra pieces and players and lives and emotions between musician and audience. It’s like "tell us in a book what Frankincense and Myrrh smell like and how the reverberations of the choirs echo throughout the cathedral. They just don’t “get it” that somethings can not be expressed in written words and somethings must be lived and experienced.

Ask a Protestants to describe Red and she will say “its the opposite of Green”. Ask a Protestant to write down the truth on blank sheet of white paper and she will perspire to soil it with black ink to show us by contrast what it is not.

The Prophet Isaiah warned us about these sort of people:

*Isaiah 5:20-21
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!
*

Protestants without even knowing Catholicism don’t even know what it is they are protesting except they know infallabily that someone told them its the traditional thing to do…

James

Fabulous critique ! Dead on

Never desiring to discover the truth of Catholicism, just happy to run with others mistaken ideas, and revel in their innate rebellious natures.

 

[BRB]

Sandusky doesn’t need articles like those; he goes to the ECF.

Right … like you think the Catholics haven’t discovered them too ?

Tell us your favorites, AND … those ECF’s you ignore.

 

[BRB]

LOL.

Ask Irenaeus.

Like the RCC hasn’t ?

Surely you realize Irenaeus is the Godfather of ECF’s for the RCC !

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I beat you to this, so it’s just “sour grapes” on your part.

:yawn:

The only “new information” I’m interested in is a list of unwritten tradition, and how it is you can substantiate that it would be anything other than “hearsay?”

I understand what you’re saying—I’m a former RC.

IMHO, you left Catholicism because you didn’t understand what Catholicism taught. You’re, of course, free to disagree with that, but you don’t seem to understand what Tradition really is still.

The scripture was given to us by means of inspiration of the Spirit, and by extension of that inspiration, the providence of God determined that the those in the early church would preserve the manuscripts and assemble them into the canon.

I’m glad we can agree on the role of the Church in assembling the canon of Scriptures. I would further your statement by reminding us that God spoke to us in Jesus his Son (Hebrews 1), the Scriptures helps transmit that revelation to us.

But divine providence worked very slowly. The canon of NT was “fixed” only about the time of St Athansius in the 4th (?) century. St Irenaeus, himself, was credited as popularising the four-fold gospel canon, but the early Fathers also invariably accepted Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Laodiceans, etc. What did God expect the early Church survive on if they believed the idea of sola scriptura?

Worship on Sunday is found in scripture: Acts 20, 1 Cor 16.

For Acts 20, the first day of the week began on Saturday evening (St Paul was a Jew), thus the passage only indicated that St Paul started breaking bread on Saturday evening. Hence some re-reformed churches in my area only hold services on Saturday evening.

As for 1 Cor 16, you have assumed that a collection was taken during the worship. You have, reasonably, interpreted this with your Catholic/reformed tradition of taking a collection during the worship service itself. But actually, St Paul never mentioned gathering together, and he could be as easily interpreted as saying: “Put some money in the piggy bank every Sunday. When I come, give me your full piggy.”

That’s what some of my Seventh-Day Adventists brethren say. And they, like sandusky, take sola scriptura seriously.

Scripture is able to equip the man of God for every good work (2 Tim 2:17).

Let’s look at the scripture in its entirety:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. rsv

Oh yes, Scripture is certainly useful. Even other writings can be too, for the Letter of Jude quoted a writing from the Assumption of Moses, a contemporary apocryphal work. But nowhere does it say that Scripture is sufficient, or that only Scripture is useful. Although Catholics aren’t the best when it comes to familiarity with Scriptures, our Bishops are trying to get us to be read and pray more with the Scriptures.

Concerning the sacraments of the church, I’ve provided a link to this book: Israel and the Church; the Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology. In thinking that she’d replaced Israel, the early church raised up, for herself, her own OT way of worship—a system of law and sacrifice under the guise of sacraments.

Actually the only sacrifice we have is the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Jews had a lot more. Other than the sacrament of Ordination, the rest drew directly from the life and actions of Jesus. For us Catholics, we believe that the Sacraments are part of the Tradition inherited from the Apostles. You wanted a list, someone told you about the Sacraments, and then you seemed to reject that as part of the Tradition.

Since this thread is not about Replacement Theology, I shall not comment on the strengths and weakness of such a theology.

It is the scripture to which the early church appealed for guidance:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1
​

Read in the full context given by another poster, it seems to me that the ground and pillar of our faith does not refer to the Scriptures, but the Gospel, the plan of our salvation. St Irenaeus mentioned that this Gospel was first orally proclaimed to us, and was also, later, written down in the scriptures. He doesn’t tell us that with the writing down of the scriptures, the oral proclaimation ceased.

But St Irenaeus was also a great fan of Mariology, and bears witness to the Tradition of the Church who always have a great love and esteem for Mary. He wrote:

Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin… By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Against heresies 3.22

Not many protestants would affirm St Iranaeus’ comment that Mary “became the cause of salvation for herself”.​

 

[BRB]

Luther: “We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices.” [Walch. III. 2727]

Luther: “The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow.” [Walch. XII. 2120]

Luther: “People are now possessed with seven Devils, whereas formerly they were possessed with one Devil; the Devil now enters into the people in crowds, so that men are now more avaricious, unmerciful, impure, insolent . . . than formerly under the Pope.” [Walch. XIII. 19]

Luther: “After the dominion and power of the Pope has ceased . . . the people, while despising the true doctrine, are now changed into mere irrational animals and beasts;
[p. 55]
the number of holy and pious teachers becomes constantly less.” [Walch. I. 615]

. . .]

. . . about seven months before his death, Luther wrote to his wife, “Away from this Sodom (Wittenberg) . . . I will wander about, and sooner beg my bread than allow my poor old last days to be martyred and upset with the disorder of Wittenberg.” [July 1545. de Wette. V. 753]

Luther: . . . “See how foolishly the people everywhere behave towards the Gospel, so that I scarcely know whether I ought to continue preaching or not.” [Walch. XI, 3052]

Luther . . . “If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.” [Walch. VI. 920]

In 1538, . . . Luther dwells on the same thought: “Who would have begun to preach, if we had known beforehand that so much unhappiness, tumult, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have been the result?” [Walch. VIII. 564]

Luther:. . . . “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

Note: The Walch edition is referred to in the “Moral Results” of Luther’s teaching. This edition was published by Gebauer, Halle, in 24 volumes, between 1740 and 1753. The work was carried on under the supervision of Professor D. Johann Georg Walch, of Jena.

John Calvin even admitted that tradition was important:
“I do not deny that there are certain traditions of the Apostles that were not committed to writing, but I do not admit that they were parts of doctrine or related to things necessary for salvation.”

ttt …

for Sandy and MD to re-read a second time and ponder the implications thereof.

 

[BRB]

You’re wrong, James, I do trust God in full.

:

So say them all !

Even Mormons. Clearly some sects have trusted wrongly.

But, you having once been a RC … have no excuse in mistrusting his Church.

Remember we have two categories of sins. Those against God, and those against his Church. Its not good enough to be 1/2 right.

 

[SyCarl]

Recalling the words of John …’ If all the things said/taught by Christ were written, there would not be enough books to contain.’
Those teachings found a home within the Catholic Traditions … and guided the early Church, and continue to influence the current Catholic doctrines.

These are not quite the words used by John.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.
(John 21:25 NASB)

It does not say that there are many other things that Jesus taught but He did did many other things. Can you give one example from Tradition of something that Jesus did that is not recorded in Scripture?

 

[SyCarl]

After-all, the Bible does not tell you that it is inspired anywhere.

James

I am sure you meant that the Bible does not tell us its contents since it most certainly does tell us that Scripture is inspired.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB)

It also indicates that the identification of new Scripture did not start after the Apostles’ deaths. Peter tells us as much.

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB)

Now granted he says that some things are difficult to understand but it does show a recognition of what was scriptural.

 

[sandusky]

peregrinus_sg:

IMHO, you left Catholicism because you didn’t understand what Catholicism taught. You’re, of course, free to disagree with that, but you don’t seem to understand what Tradition really is still.

That’s what all Catholics think, even about former priests who, after all those years of immersion in the faith in seminary, are claimed not to have known the faith.

peregrinus_sg:

For Acts 20, the first day of the week began on Saturday evening (St Paul was a Jew), thus the passage only indicated that St Paul started breaking bread on Saturday evening. Hence some re-reformed churches in my area only hold services on Saturday evening.

You’re unbelievable, but precious:**Luke 24:1

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.**The Lord was resurrected on the third day—Sunday, the first day of the week.

Hellooooo!!!

peregrinus_sg:

As for 1 Cor 16, you have assumed that a collection was taken during the worship. You have, reasonably, interpreted this with your Catholic/reformed tradition of taking a collection during the worship service itself. But actually, St Paul never mentioned gathering together, and he could be as easily interpreted as saying: “Put some money in the piggy bank every Sunday. When I come, give me your full piggy.”

You’d better be careful, p_sg, if, as you say, people leave the CC because they don’t anything about it, ISTM, you might be next. :bigyikes:

(That said, replying to rest of your thread is probably a waste of my time).

It’s been real. :tiphat:

 

[elvisman]

These are not quite the words used by John.

It does not say that there are many other things that Jesus taught but He did did many other things. Can you give one example from Tradition of something that Jesus did that is not recorded in Scripture?

This is one of the many problems with the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura - that if it’s not written in Scripture - it didn’t happen. Or it’s not important or binding.

Jesus taught in the temple with authority, but what he taught is not recorded. He opens the scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, but the teaching is not recounted accurately. It’s vague. Do you know what he said verbatum?

---

Luke 19:47
“And He was teaching daily in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him”

---

**Tell me – what was he teaching in the temple “daily”? **
It’s not recorded.

---

Luke 21:37-38
***“During the day, Jesus was teaching in the temple area, but at night he would leave and stay at the place called the Mount of Olives. ***
And all the people would get up early each morning to listen to him in the temple area.”
Again – what was he teaching each day? By the way - this is a great text to refute the weak Protestant argument against Mary’s sinlessness that ALL have sinned according to Romans 3:23. Are we to believe that ALL the people in Jerusalem were there in the temple listening to Jesus? The literalist Protestant would say, “Yes” while the literal Catholic would take everything into context.

---

 

[Peter_J]

These are not quite the words used by John.

It does not say that there are many other things that Jesus taught but He did did many other things. Can you give one example from Tradition of something that Jesus did that is not recorded in Scripture?

Falling 3 times on the way to Calvary.

 

[SyCarl]

The statement from Irenaeus is not important because it expresses Scripture alone, but because it shows the understanding that the oral teachings had been recorded in Scripture. This would indicate that you could learn the entire message from either the oral tradition or the writing.

Irenaeus is not the only church father to say this. John Chrysostom said essentially the same thing.

“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Chrysostom indicates that Timothy could learn anything Paul could have told him from the Scriptures. The Scripture took Paul’s place in transmitting the Gospel.

Does any church father express something akin to Scripture alone?

First look at the Westminster Confession of Faith to get a classic expression of the principle.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men…All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

pcanet.org/general/cof_chapi-v.htm#chapi

Essentially it says that everything we need to know for faith and salvation can be plainly found in Scripture.

Continuing with Chrysostom, what does he say on this matter?

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

He says all the necessary things are clear in the Scripture. This doesn’t seem too different from the Westminster Confession. He goes so far as to say that oral teaching is only necessary because people are too lazy to go to the Scriptures.

Augustine is even clearer.

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

All things that concern faith and life are plainly laid down in Scripture. This again sounds much like the Westminster Confession. Augustine even says that we should interpret Scripture by using Scripture.

Did the fathers honour tradition? Certainly. But these two great doctors of the church indicate that all the necessary things are clearly set out in Scripture.