>>745654
>All he's saying is that the modern Protestant terminology of the "solas" was a post-Reformation development that was foreign to the reformers themselves.
That's like saying when Irenaeus wrote this he supported the concept of sola scriptura, which is obviously false. Irenaeus belongs to the true church.
<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.
>f I said that the apostles did not speak of a "Trinity", would I be stating a fact, or claiming they were Antitrinitarians?
False equivalence. They held and taught the traditions of the Trinity to their sole congregation, whom affirms it to this day. Where the reformers never even said "sola" anything.