In the spirit of scholarly discussion.
I will confess to being a bit confused as to the structure of the article, the beginning does not link to the end...any from a reformed perspective....assuming "Sola Scriptura" why should the average reformed individual really care what the early fathers had to say as it is not contained in the Cannon of scripture?
It would have been better (and less liable to rile folks) had it focused exclusively on "Sola Gratia" and the statistics on the reformed movement that it supplies.
Just an observation.....
"...why should the average reformed individual really care what the early fathers had to say as it is not contained in the Cannon of scripture? "
Well, maybe one arguement would be that it was the Fathers of the Church that "were lead by the Holy Spirit" to both write and define what the Cannon of Scripture was.
It is a pretty weak argument to assume that you are lead by the Holy Spirit when in the same breath you'd expect that because the Law was written by Moses and replaced by Christ, Moses should not have been standing on the same hill with Christ during the Transfiguration.
I would argue that the Church Fathers will be standing in Christ's glory far before any of us. And it might be a good idea before throwing out the baby with the bathwater that you really understand the theological significance of what you're throwing out. It was the Orthodox Church Fathers that gave you the scripture you hold in your hands today. It was the Orthodox Church Fathers that gave their lives for what you take for granted.
The way the Protestant Reformers knew it...and arguably (since they were great admirers, readers, and students of the early Church Fathers) that of the first millennia Church, was that the scriptures, in Old and New Testament, were the SUPREME authority, but NOT the ONLY authorities. The creeds, writings of the fathers, Church tradition, advice from bishops and popes, etc. ALL had weight....but the greatest weight and FINAL authority rested in the trustworthy testimony of the first Apostles, the scriptures--that which all Christians are bound to submit to.
For a variety of reasons most American Evangelicals think sola scriptura means one believes in the authority of scripture alone. This of course is easily and logically refuted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike. The Reformers Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, et als though, ALL honored the ecumenical creeds, they all drew up confessions for their Church bodies (which in those early days agreed on about 95% of doctrine) and greatly encouraged scholarship of ancient other-than-biblical literature, rightly acknowledging the relative weight and authority of various sources. The early Protestant Bibles (except Luther's) included the Apocrypha too--not that they saw it with the same supreme authority as Scripture, but that it was useful to help understand the culture and mindset of the ancient Hebrews, who wrote the OT scriptures.
For some reason in the last 200 years, the meaning of sola scriptura changed from "only the Bible is fully authoritative" into "only the Bible is authoritative AT ALL... (so throw the rest out the window)." The 2nd mindset devolved into hyper-individualistic interpretation and thinking, denominationalism, factionalism...and many times into an antinomian (NO authority...) way of thinking.
If more understood the original definition of sola scriptura, more would accept it as the best way of understanding godly authority. The Bible is the written-down gift of the Holy Spirit, all Christians of every authority, are bound to obey God. Saying that doesn't deny there are many lesser authorities to which individual Christians should submit.