Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition in the Early Church (Pre-150 AD)

Introduction

The debate between sola scriptura (Scripture alone as the sole infallible authority) and sacred tradition (the oral and ecclesial teachings passed down from the apostles) is critical for understanding early Christian theology and Church authority. This paper examines the pre-150 AD Church – roughly the first and second Christian generations after the apostles – to determine whether early Christians embraced a sola scriptura framework or relied on a combination of Scripture, apostolic tradition, and authoritative Church leadership. We will analyze primary sources from this period (the Apostolic Fathers, early Christian documents, and reports on early heretical sects) in their historical context, sometimes even in their original Greek or Latin wording. Next, we will conduct a theological and ecclesiastical analysis of how these early writers viewed Scripture and tradition, including the role of bishops, apostolic succession, and authoritative teaching. We will engage modern scholarship (e.g., Larry Hurtado, N.T. Wright, J.N.D. Kelly) to shed light on the historical context and the impact of early heresies on the development of doctrinal authority. Finally, we will address Protestant counterarguments, scrutinizing claims that the early church held to sola scriptura, and we will argue – with extensive documentation – that historical evidence overwhelmingly supports the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective: early Christianity depended on sacred tradition and apostolic succession for doctrinal unity, rather than a scripture-alone principle.

The central thesis is that the Christian communities of the first and early second centuries did not operate with a Bible-only rule of faith. Instead, they revered the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), increasingly honored apostolic writings, and clung to the oral teachings and practices handed down from the apostles through Church leadership. In an age when the New Testament canon was still forming and literacy was limited, the Church’s continuity and doctrinal cohesion were maintained by a “living tradition” – the teachings of Christ and the apostles preserved in the communal life of the Church (through preaching, liturgy, and apostolic succession of bishops) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Martyrdom of Polycarp). By examining the evidence up to around 150 AD, we will see that no clear notion of sola scriptura existed; rather, Scripture was read and interpreted within the Church guided by authoritative tradition. Furthermore, early heresies (such as Ebionism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism) prompted church leaders to emphasize apostolic tradition and the episcopal teaching office as safeguards of true doctrine (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Martyrdom of Polycarp).

This paper is organized into several sections. First, we survey primary sources of the pre-150 Church, including writings of the Apostolic Fathers (e.g. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna), the Didache, fragments like Papias of Hierapolis, and relevant information on Jewish-Christian gospels and early sects. We will extract passages that illuminate how these sources view Scripture and tradition (with original language terms where helpful). Next, we analyze the theology and church structure of this period – how Scripture was used, how oral tradition functioned, and the role of bishops and succession in preserving the “faith once delivered to the saints.” Then, we incorporate historical and scholarly insights: what do contemporary historians and theologians say about authority in the early church, and how did early challenges (heresies) shape the Church’s approach to doctrine? Finally, we address Protestant perspectives, summarizing key arguments for an early sola scriptura and providing a refutation based on the evidence. We will also discuss the problem of doctrinal fragmentation when Scripture is isolated from Tradition, arguing that the unity of the early Church was ensured by adherence to apostolic tradition alongside Scripture, a model continued today by Catholic and Orthodox churches. Throughout, citations of primary sources and scholarly works will substantiate each point in detail.

By thoroughly covering primary texts and expert commentary, this study will demonstrate that the earliest Christians upheld a model of authority rooted in both Scripture and Tradition, with apostolic succession as the mechanism for transmitting and guarding the true faith.

Primary Sources: Early Christian Writings and Traditions (Pre-150 AD)

To understand the mindset of the early church regarding Scripture and Tradition, we turn first to the primary sources from the period roughly 90–150 AD. These include the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (leaders of the generation after the apostles), other early Christian documents, and accounts of various early Christian groups. By examining what these sources say (and how they say it), we can discern whether the early Christians promoted a “Bible alone” approach or a blend of scripture with received apostolic teaching. The key sources we will analyze are:

• Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement) – ca. 96 AD, one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament.
• The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch – ca. 107 AD, written by a bishop on his way to martyrdom, addressing church unity and authority.
• Polycarp of Smyrna’s Letter to the Philippians – ca. 110–140 AD, by a bishop who was a disciple of John the Apostle.
• The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) – a church manual likely composed in the late 1st or early 2nd century.
• Papias of Hierapolis (fragmentary writings) – ca. 120–130 AD, who explicitly comments on the value of oral tradition.
• Jewish-Christian texts like the Gospel of the Hebrews and groups like the Ebionites – to see how those who clung to Torah or alternate gospels viewed authority.
• Early heretical movements such as Marcionites, Gnostics, and Montanists (New Prophecy movement) – emerging in the mid-2nd century, which challenged the Church and, in turn, shed light on how mainstream Christians thought about Scripture and authoritative teaching.

By reading these sources closely, we will gather passages that illustrate whether early Christian communities relied solely on Scripture or also on other forms of authoritative teaching. We will also consider the original languages (Greek or Latin) for terms like “tradition,” “scripture,” “teaching,” and “bishop,” to see what they meant to those authors.

Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD): Apostolic Succession and Obedience to Leaders

1 Clement, a letter from Clement of Rome to the church at Corinth (~96 AD), offers an early glimpse into how an apostolic-era church handled doctrinal and disciplinary issues. Written in Greek, the letter addresses a leadership dispute in Corinth. Rather than promoting individual judgment of Scripture, Clement emphasizes apostolic authority and succession as the remedy for schism. In chapters 42–44 of 1 Clement, we find a clear articulation of apostolic succession and the authority of duly appointed bishops/presbyters:

• Clement recounts that Jesus sent the Apostles, and the Apostles, “having received complete foreknowledge” of future disputes, appointed leaders and “afterwards provided a continuance, that if [the original leaders] should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome). This passage (1 Clement 44) explicitly describes the apostles instituting an ongoing office – a chain of ordained ministers to lead the Church. The text insists it would be a “no small sin” to eject from office those whom the Apostles had appointed or who were later approved by reputable men with the whole Church’s consent (First Clement: Clement of Rome). This is a strong early witness that the Church’s governance and teaching office were considered established by apostolic mandate, not subject to arbitrary change by the congregation.

• Clement thus appeals to tradition handed down from the Apostles as the basis for resolving the Corinthian dispute. The legitimacy of ministers comes from being in the line of succession from the Apostles. This indicates that doctrinal authority rested on continuity with apostolic teaching and appointment, rather than on Scripture interpreted in isolation. The Corinthian dissenters are essentially chastised for not adhering to the inherited ecclesiastical order.

• Interestingly, Clement also shows a high regard for Scripture – he frequently quotes the Old Testament (and possibly alludes to New Testament writings). In one notable line, he commends the Corinthians: “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, given by the Holy Spirit” (First Clement: Clement of Rome). This shows that familiarity with Scripture was expected and praised. However, Clement’s own method in the letter intertwines scriptural citations with appeals to apostolic tradition and authority. He does not say Scripture is the only authority; rather, he uses Scripture to reinforce the moral lessons (e.g. citing examples of jealousy from the Old Testament) while invoking apostolic order to settle matters of Church governance.

• In the original Greek, Clement uses terms like “δόκιμοι ἄνδρες” (dokimoi andres, “approved men”) who shall “διαδεχθῶσι τὴν λειτουργίαν” (diadexthōsi tēn leitourgian, “succeed to their ministry/service”) (First Clement: Clement of Rome). The vocabulary of succession (“διαδέχομαι” meaning to succeed or take over) and λειτουργία (ministry or liturgical service) underscores that a continuing office was entrusted with sacred duties. This concept – that teaching authority is passed on – later becomes central to the Catholic/Orthodox notion of apostolic succession.

In summary, Clement of Rome gives no hint that the Christian community should operate under “Scripture alone.” On the contrary, he assumes that his audience respects Scripture (the Old Testament, and possibly some apostolic writings) as inspired and true, but he authoritatively intervenes in Corinth on the basis of his succession from the apostles and insists on loyalty to the ecclesiastical traditions established by the apostles (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome). The Rule of Faith for Clement is the combination of sacred Scripture and the apostolic tradition of church order and teaching. This letter, likely written within living memory of some apostles, strongly suggests that the earliest post-apostolic church viewed apostolic tradition (as preserved by bishops) as binding, side by side with the written scriptures.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): The Authority of Bishops and Unity of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop taken to Rome for martyrdom around 107 AD, wrote seven letters to various churches. In these letters, Ignatius stresses the importance of Church unity under the bishop, and he provides crucial insight into early Christian attitudes toward authority, doctrine, and scripture. Ignatius does not explicitly mention “scripture alone” – in fact, he hardly quotes Scripture directly – but he repeatedly emphasizes obedience to the bishop and the transmitted teaching of the apostles. His writings reveal a church order centered on a living teaching authority.

Key points from Ignatius’s letters (especially To the Smyrnaeans and To the Philadelphians):

• “Do nothing without the bishop”: Ignatius famously instructs the Smyrnaean Christians to avoid schism and follow their bishop as they would follow Christ. In Smyrnaeans 8, he writes: “Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ does the Father, and follow the presbyters as the Apostles; and have respect unto the deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one do anything pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop” (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). He even asserts that the Eucharist is only valid when celebrated under the bishop or his delegate (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)), and that it is not lawful to baptize or hold an “agape” (love feast) without the bishop’s consent (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). These statements underline that for Ignatius, the guarantee of orthodoxy and unity is the presence of a legitimate bishop, who stands in the place of Christ in the community (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN) (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN). There is no suggestion that each believer can simply interpret the faith on their own from Scripture; rather, sticking to the bishop’s teaching is equated with sticking to Christ’s teaching.

• “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”: In the same passage (Smyrnaeans 8:2), Ignatius uses the word “Catholic” (καθολική) to describe the Church: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). This is the earliest extant use of the term “Catholic Church,” meaning the universal, orthodox community. The context associates the visible, universal Church with the presence of the bishop and unity of believers. Implicitly, doctrine is safeguarded in that Catholic Church through its bishops in succession. This again affirms that the early Church saw itself as a tangible community with authoritative leaders, not an invisible collection of Bible readers.

• Tradition vs. “Archives” (Old Scriptures): In Ignatius’s letter to the Philadelphians, we see him addressing a potential conflict between written texts and the message of Christ. Chapter 8 of Philadelphians records Ignatius confronting some members who insisted, “If I do not find it in the archives (or ancient Scriptures), I will not believe it in the Gospel.” Ignatius responds: “To such persons I say, my archives are Jesus Christ ... my authentic archives are His cross and death and resurrection” (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)). He warns that “the archives ought not to be preferred to the Spirit” (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)). What does this mean? Most scholars interpret “archives” (probably meaning the Old Testament or Jewish scriptures) as a reference to those who would accept only the Hebrew Bible unless Christ’s gospel could be shown explicitly there. Ignatius, rather than endorsing a sola scriptura mindset, effectively says the ultimate truth is in the person of Jesus and the preaching of the apostles about Him (the Gospel), even if every detail is not proven from the older scriptures (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)). This is not a rejection of Scripture – Ignatius elsewhere acknowledges the value of the “prophets” (i.e., Old Testament) and the Gospel – but it rejects the notion that written texts alone are the final test of truth. The Holy Spirit’s revelation in Christ, transmitted by the apostolic preaching, carries authority. He even says “he who disbelieves the Gospel disbelieves everything along with it” (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)), indicating that the Gospel (the message of Christ) is paramount. Ignatius stands squarely against any idea that one should accept only what is written in prior scriptures while ignoring the living apostolic message.

• Emphasis on Unity and Truth vs. Heresy: Ignatius was deeply concerned with false teachings (he hints at Judaizers and Docetists in his letters). His solution to false doctrine is never “consult Scripture alone” – instead, it is stick to the bishop and the united Church. For example, he praises the Ephesians for being “so united with your bishop as the Church is with Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is with the Father” (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN) (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN). He calls those who separate from the bishop’s assembly “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN). This underscores that correct belief in early Christianity was seen as a communal endeavor, preserved by hierarchical authority, not by private Bible reading.

In summary, Ignatius’s letters strongly affirm the importance of sacred Tradition and Church authority. While he does not explicitly parse the relationship between Scripture and Tradition (and he assumes his readers know the Gospel story and moral teachings of Christ), his constant refrain is the necessity of adhering to the received teaching through the bishop. He upholds what later theology would call the “apostolic teaching office” (Magisterium) – in nascent form – as the bulwark of truth. Ignatius’s insistence on unity under the bishop and his dismissal of those who demand scriptural prooftexts for every belief (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)) are fundamentally at odds with a sola scriptura approach. They illustrate that doctrine in the early 2nd century was grounded in the Church’s living voice and authority structure.

Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 110–140 AD): A Living Link to the Apostles

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, is a particularly important figure bridging the apostolic era and later Church. According to Irenaeus (who knew him in youth), Polycarp “was instructed by apostles, and... always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down” (Martyrdom of Polycarp). Polycarp’s life (circa 69–155 AD) and his Letter to the Philippians (written around 110–140 AD) provide evidence of how Scripture and Tradition coexisted in this period:

• Polycarp’s use of Scripture: In his extant Epistle to the Philippians, Polycarp frequently quotes or paraphrases New Testament writings (especially the letters of Paul) alongside Old Testament references. Notably, he tells his readers: “I trust that you are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures (ταῖς γραφαῖς ταῖς ἁγίαις), and that nothing is hidden from you” (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). He then immediately quotes from Ephesians 4:26 (“Be angry and sin not… let not the sun go down upon your wrath”) referring to these verses as “what is declared in these Scriptures” (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). This is significant for a few reasons. First, it shows that by the early 2nd century, early Christian communities like Philippi had a collection of “Sacred Scriptures” that included not only the Jewish Bible but also apostolic writings (here a Pauline Epistle is quoted as “Scripture”). Polycarp assumes the Philippians know these writings well. Second, Polycarp himself treats Scripture as authoritative for moral teaching – he doesn’t hesitate to buttress his exhortations with biblical quotes.

• Scripture within a framework of received teaching: While Polycarp values Scripture, his letter does not present a theology of “Scripture alone.” Polycarp’s authority to admonish the Philippians partly comes from his status as an apostolic disciple and elder in the broader Church. He writes as “Polycarp and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi”, indicating a collective ecclesial context (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). Furthermore, Polycarp’s teachings in the letter are a mixture of scriptural reminders and apostolic exhortation. He urges the church to hold firm to what they’ve been taught – for example, he warns against apostasy and false doctrine, encouraging them to “stand fast… in the faith” and to remember that “whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord… is the first-born of Satan” (a reference to recognizing false teachers) (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Polycarp - New Advent). This echoes the language he himself reportedly used to rebuke the heretic Marcion (calling him “the first-born of Satan”) (Martyrdom of Polycarp), indicating a consistency in opposing deviations from the apostolic truth.

• Polycarp as a Tradition-bearer: Outside of the letter itself, later testimony about Polycarp underscores the primacy of apostolic tradition in his faith. Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180 AD), who had heard Polycarp in his youth, wrote that Polycarp “always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true” (Martyrdom of Polycarp). Irenaeus emphasizes that Polycarp, having been appointed by apostles and in contact with many who had seen Christ, proclaimed the one true faith he received, converting many from heresy back to the Church (Martyrdom of Polycarp). Crucially, Irenaeus says Polycarp declared that this one truth is “that which is handed down by the Church” (Latin: quae est ab Ecclesia tradita) (Martyrdom of Polycarp). He even calls the Church of Ephesus (founded by Paul and having had John) “a true witness of the tradition of the apostles” (Martyrdom of Polycarp). So in the generation just after 150, Polycarp was remembered not primarily as a great scriptural exegete, but as a faithful transmitter of apostolic tradition. His confrontation with Marcion in Rome (c. 155) is a case in point: when Marcion – who had compiled his own “scriptures” – asked Polycarp if he recognized him, Polycarp replied, “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp). This dramatic rejection was because Marcion’s doctrines contradicted the received apostolic truth (Marcion had rejected the Creator God and the Old Testament). Polycarp’s stance was that any “new” teaching at odds with what came from the apostles was from the devil, no matter if Marcion claimed to base it on his reading of some scriptures. Thus, fidelity to the historic faith was Polycarp’s measuring rod.

In essence, Polycarp illustrates that the early 2nd-century Church deeply revered the writings that would become the New Testament (citing them as “Scripture” even before the canon was formally defined) (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)), yet it did not divorce those writings from the living context of church tradition and authority. The Philippians are praised for knowing Scripture, but also addressed as a church under presbyters and in communion with Polycarp (the successor of the apostles in Smyrna). Polycarp himself is a symbol of apostolic tradition – he is a link to John, and he emphasizes continuity with what the apostles taught. Nowhere does Polycarp endorse individual interpretation apart from that tradition; indeed, his own interpretation aligns with and emerges from what he “learned from the apostles” and what “the Church has handed down” (Martyrdom of Polycarp).

The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles): Liturgy and Community Tradition

The Didache is an anonymous early Christian manual that dates from the late 1st or early 2nd century (scholars suggest c. 50-110 AD). Though not part of the canonical New Testament, it was respected by early Christians and gives us insight into church practice and teaching at that time. The Didache is essentially a compendium of moral teachings, rituals (baptism, Eucharist), and church order. Its content demonstrates how oral tradition functioned in tandem with Scripture:

• Moral Teaching (“Two Ways”): The first part of the Didache presents the “Two Ways” (Way of Life and Way of Death), a catechetical summary of Christian moral instruction. Much of this material echoes Jesus’s teachings (some sayings parallel the Sermon on the Mount). The interesting point is that this teaching is presented as authoritative instruction delivered by the Lord through the Twelve Apostles – essentially, apostolic tradition in written form. The Didache does not constantly cite “chapter and verse” of a Gospel; instead it phrases teachings as the Lord’s commands handed down. For instance, Didache 1 quotes the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, and other moral precepts, without attributing them to a written Gospel (though they match New Testament verses). This suggests the community that used the Didache was operating with a mix of written and oral sources – the teachings of Jesus were known in the community, whether by memory or by available Gospels, and were being synthesized in this manual.

• Liturgical instructions not found explicitly in Scripture: The Didache provides directions for baptism and Eucharist that go beyond what the New Testament texts explicitly mandate. For example, Didache 7 gives a procedure for baptism: preferably in “living (running) water,” cold if possible, but if not, pour water three times on the head “in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit” (The Didache | EWTN). It also prescribes fasting by the baptizer and the candidate beforehand (The Didache | EWTN). These are practical rules not spelled out in the New Testament – they come from church tradition. Likewise, Didache 9–10 includes specific prayers to be used at the Eucharist (a blessing over the cup and bread) and instructions to confess sins before gathering (Didache 14) (The Didache | EWTN). None of these liturgical details (the exact prayers, the practice of confessing first, the particular fasting days) are found by turning pages of Scripture; rather, they represent the “living memory” of the Apostles’ instructions to the early communities. The Didache, by committing them to writing, shows how oral tradition preceded and complemented written sources.

• Church organization and the role of leaders: Didache 15 advises the communities: “Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord... for they carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers” (The Didache | EWTN). This reflects an early structure where local communities chose worthy men to be their bishops (overseers) and deacons, who, along with traveling prophets/teachers, provided spiritual leadership. Importantly, it says these bishops and deacons “take the place of” (or perform the role of) the prophets and teachers in the community (The Didache | EWTN). The Didache instructs the faithful not to despise these leaders but to honor them, for they, along with prophets, have the high status in the Church (The Didache | EWTN). What we see here is an emerging local hierarchy that, while perhaps less developed than the Ignatian model of one bishop per city, nonetheless establishes that church authority resides in designated officials who continue the ministry of the apostles’ prophetic teaching. We also see a blend of charismatic authority (prophets) and appointed authority (bishops/deacons). This combination suggests that the early community recognized multiple sources of authoritative teaching – the Spirit speaking through prophets/teachers, and the continuity ensured by bishops. In all cases, the authority is tied to community recognition and continuity, not to private interpretation of Scripture.

• Reference to “the Gospel”: At the end, the Didache says: “In your prayers, your almsgivings, and all your actions, follow the precepts of the Gospel of our Lord” (The Didache | EWTN). This indicates that by the time of the Didache’s final form, at least one written “Gospel” (likely the Gospel of Matthew, given the Didache’s Jewish-Christian flavor and overlapping content) was known and regarded as a guiding text. The community is urged to live according to what is “in the Gospel”. Thus, Scripture is acknowledged as an important norm for Christian life. However, the very existence of the Didache’s additional instructions shows that the early church supplemented the written gospels with practical tradition. The Didache effectively serves as a summary of the apostles’ teaching – part of which eventually got canonized (the New Testament) and part of which remained as tradition (e.g., specific liturgical practices).

In conclusion, the Didache reflects a Church that highly respects Jesus’s teachings (as recorded in “the Gospel”) while also preserving apostolic traditions of practice and maintaining structured ministry. It does not present a theology of “only follow scripture”; rather, it demonstrates how Scripture was integrated into a larger matrix of church life and tradition. Baptismal formulas, Eucharistic prayers, days of fasting, selection of church officers – all these were handed down outside of Scripture. The early community saw these traditions as binding (“do not add or subtract” from the teaching it says in Didache 4:13, echoing an Old Testament warning) (The Didache | EWTN). This indicates they viewed the Apostolic Teaching – in oral or written form – as a unified whole to be guarded. The Didache’s world is one where “Bible” and “Tradition” are not at odds; what would become the Bible is part of the tradition, and the tradition guides how the Bible is applied. In essence, the Didache is an artifact of sacred tradition itself, reinforcing the notion that the early Church saw authority as a combination of the written word and the living transmission of apostolic instructions.

Papias of Hierapolis (c. 120 AD): “The Living and Abiding Voice” vs. Books

One of the most striking early testimonies on the relationship between written texts and oral tradition comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (in Asia Minor) around the early 2nd century (c. 120 AD). Papias wrote a now-lost work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord, and fragments of it are preserved in later writers (like Irenaeus and Eusebius). In the preface of his work, Papias explicitly discusses his method of gathering Christian teachings:

• Papias states that he preferred oral tradition from reliable sources over written documents when it came to learning the truth of the faith. The most famous fragment, quoted by Eusebius, says: “I did not think that what was to be gotten from books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.” (The Writings of Papias. ). Papias explains that whenever someone who had been a follower of the “elders” (disciples of the apostles) visited him, he would inquire about what the apostles had said – “what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples” (The Writings of Papias. ). In other words, Papias actively sought out the oral reminiscences of apostolic teaching. He contrasts these first-hand or second-hand oral reports with information from written sources, suggesting the oral reports were more valuable to him.

• The Greek phrasing Papias uses is instructive: “οὐ γὰρ τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων ... ὠφεληθήσoμαι ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης” (The Writings of Papias. ), meaning “for I did not suppose that things from books would benefit me as much as things from a living and continuing voice.” This “living voice” (zōsēs phōnēs) refers to the living testimony of those who had been taught by the apostles. Papias’s attitude underscores the high value placed on apostolic tradition in the immediate post-apostolic generation. He doesn’t disparage written Gospels or epistles (indeed, Papias knows of at least Matthew and Mark’s Gospels according to other fragments), but he clearly sees oral tradition as complementary and even superior in certain ways – because it is more direct and presumably guarded by the personal reliability of the transmitters.

• Papias’s testimony also hints at how the early gospel tradition circulated both orally and in writing. He mentions the names of apostles and also of figures like Aristion and “the elder John” who were disciples of the Lord and still teaching in Papias’s time (The Writings of Papias. ). Papias collected their accounts. This scenario shows the early church still in a living chain of transmission – not everything had been reduced to writing yet, and even if written Gospels existed, it was considered useful to get the reminiscences from those who learned directly from the eyewitnesses. This dynamic flies in the face of a strict sola scriptura principle; instead, it shows scripture and tradition in synergy. The written Gospels captured the core apostolic witness, but oral teaching could provide context, interpretation, and additional sayings or clarifications (some of which Papias apparently recorded, such as interpretive comments on Jesus’s sayings or additional information like his famous remark on Mark being Peter’s interpreter).

• Eusebius, who preserved Papias’s comment, is somewhat critical of Papias, calling him “of small intellect,” partly because Papias reported some curious end-times beliefs from unwritten tradition. But for our purposes, Papias stands as evidence that at least some early Christian leaders did not subscribe to ‘Scripture alone’ but actively sought out extra-scriptural apostolic traditions to enrich their faith. It also suggests that the boundaries of authoritative material were not absolutely fixed by 120 AD – the church was still discerning and collecting.

In summary, Papias explicitly elevates apostolic tradition (“the living voice”) on par with – or above – written records (The Writings of Papias. ). His approach underscores that the early Church’s concept of “the word of God” was not limited to the written texts; it included the preached and remembered word as transmitted by authorized bearers (apostles and elders). This is a direct refutation of the idea that early Christians had a Bible-only mindset. They certainly treasured the emerging New Testament writings, but they also treasured the unwritten teachings. The “living voice” Papias sought can be seen as an early description of Sacred Tradition. It’s notable that Papias uses the term “voice” in singular – implying a unified apostolic testimony, not divergent personal opinions. In effect, Papias trusted the Church’s living memory guided by the Holy Spirit to communicate truth reliably, complementing the books.

Jewish-Christian Sects and Texts: The Gospel of the Hebrews and the Ebionites

In the first and early second century, there were various Jewish-Christian groups that held somewhat different views from what became mainstream “catholic” Christianity. Examining them helps illustrate the range of attitudes toward Scripture and tradition, and how deviation from apostolic tradition led to what the great Church Fathers deemed heresy or schism. Two related examples are the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews and the Ebionites:

• Gospel of the Hebrews: This is an apocryphal gospel, likely composed in the 1st or early 2nd century, that was used by certain Jewish-Christian communities in Palestine or Syria. It survives only in fragments quoted by Church Fathers (like Jerome and Origen). While not much is directly known of its contents, the existence of such an alternate gospel highlights that the canon of Scripture was not yet firmly closed by 150 AD. Different communities might favor different texts – which made apostolic tradition and broader church consensus crucial in discerning authentic teachings. For instance, the Gospel of the Hebrews reportedly contained appearances of the risen Christ to James and some sayings with a Gnostic flavor. The mainstream church, guided by what had been handed down in the major sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, etc.), ultimately excluded this text from the canon, favoring the four Gospels we know. That decision itself was an exercise of tradition – the “rule of faith” and apostolic provenance were criteria for what counted as Scripture. Thus, ironically, the very formation of the New Testament required something other than Scripture (since the Church had to decide which writings were truly apostolic). As N.T. Wright and other scholars have noted, the early Christians did not initially possess a neatly bound New Testament; they relied on the apostolic preaching and gradually recognized certain writings as accurately preserving that preaching (The Canon, the Reformation, Rationalism, and Breasts) (Why Don't the Gospels Match? - N.T. Wright Online). The Gospel of the Hebrews, though using the name “Gospel,” was not recognized broadly, likely because it lacked direct apostolic origin or conflicted with the tradition known in the main churches. This exemplifies how tradition served to norm the acceptance of scripture.

• The Ebionites: The Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian sect in the early centuries (mentioned by Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Origen, and Epiphanius). They are usually described as Christians who insisted on keeping the Mosaic Law and who denied the divinity of Jesus, seeing Him as a righteous man or prophet. Critically, Ebionites had a distinctive take on authoritative texts: they accepted only a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of the Gospel of Matthew (often referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews or a variant thereof) and rejected the letters of Paul, considering Paul an apostate from the Law (Ebionites - Wikipedia) (Ebionites - Wikipedia). In effect, the Ebionites created a sharply reduced biblical canon to support their theology. This is an instructive case: a group essentially practiced a kind of sola scriptura, but their “scriptura” was limited to select texts aligned with their doctrine. They discarded the wider apostolic tradition (embodied especially in Paul and in the wider acceptance of the fourfold Gospel). The result was a Christology and theology at odds with what all the major churches taught. The “orthodox” early Fathers regarded the Ebionites as heretical precisely because Ebionites deviated from the apostolic teaching about Christ’s person (His divinity, the universal application of the New Covenant, etc.) (Ebionites - Wikipedia) (Ebionites - Wikipedia). What’s notable is that the Ebionites likely justified their beliefs from their chosen scriptures – they could point to the Gospel of Matthew’s emphasis on the Law, etc. But from the perspective of the Great Church, the Ebionites illustrate the danger of ignoring part of the apostolic witness and cleaving only to a self-selected scripture. Without acknowledging the full scope of apostolic tradition (which included Paul’s Gentile mission and the doctrine of Christ’s divinity), the Ebionites splintered off.

  The Ebionite phenomenon underscores that the early Church’s unity and doctrinal soundness required more than just possession of scripture – it required the Church’s collective tradition to interpret and supplement Scripture. Irenaeus around 180 AD points out that the Ebionites use only Matthew’s Gospel and reject Paul (Ebionites | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia) (Ebionites - Wikipedia). Their interpretation of Jesus ends up being closer to an early Christian “heresy” or at best a severely incomplete faith. This was “sola scriptura” gone wrong in the eyes of the orthodox: by isolating themselves to one text and rejecting the oral and written testimony of the broader church (the other Gospels and epistles), they lost the truth about Jesus’s divine identity and the new covenant. The Great Church’s response was not to argue with them solely on scriptural prooftexts, but to label their beliefs as inconsistent with the universal apostolic faith – basically, they failed the test of tradition or “rule of faith.”

In sum, the Jewish-Christian sects show early on that when groups diverged from the consensus of apostolic tradition, they ended up with divergent scriptures or interpretations. The main Church did not endorse a model where each faction could define Christianity by the scriptures it picked; instead, it emphasized a catholic (universal) tradition that had been handed down. Groups like the Ebionites, by refusing parts of that tradition (like Paul’s teachings), were considered outside the true faith. This reinforces that the early normative Church saw Scripture within Tradition – the full apostolic deposit included things the Ebionites omitted. The conflict with such sects was a catalyst for the Church to more clearly define the canon and creed in later decades, but even before formal definition, the intuitive appeal to “what the apostles taught everywhere” was how heresy was identified.

Early Heretical Movements (2nd Century): Marcionites, Gnostics, and Montanists

As the Church grew through the 2nd century, several heterodox movements emerged that challenged or departed from the mainstream apostolic faith. The way the early Church responded to these movements further illuminates whether the Church operated on sola scriptura or on a Scripture+Tradition basis. We will consider three important examples from circa 140–170 AD: Marcion, the Gnostic sects (like Valentinus’s followers), and Montanism (the New Prophecy movement). Each posed a different kind of threat, and in each case the Church’s reaction underscores the necessity of an authoritative Tradition and Church leadership over a simple scripture-prooftext approach.

• Marcion (fl. 140s AD) – Marcion of Sinope was a shipmaster-turned-teacher who arrived in Rome around 140 AD and began propagating a strikingly unorthodox doctrine. He taught that the God of the Old Testament (whom he saw as a lesser demiurge of justice) was different from the God of the New Testament (the supreme God of love revealed by Jesus). Consequently, Marcion rejected the Old Testament entirely and edited the New: he produced his own canon of scripture consisting of one Gospel (a trimmed version of Luke) and ten edited epistles of Paul – purged of what he considered “Judaizing” elements. Marcion’s stance could be described as a radical form of sola scriptura combined with an arbitrary canon: he wanted to base Christianity solely on (his version of) Scripture, throwing out both the inherited Jewish scriptures and any Christian writings he deemed incompatible with his theory.

  The Church’s response to Marcion was unequivocal rejection – but importantly, the refutation of Marcion was based on fidelity to the received apostolic tradition, which included the continuity of Old and New Testament revelation and the integrity of the fourfold Gospel and whole Pauline corpus. Polycarp’s famous encounter with Marcion (mentioned earlier, c. 155 AD) has Polycarp call Marcion “the first-born of Satan” (Martyrdom of Polycarp) – a stark denunciation indicating how alien Marcion’s ideas were to the church’s tradition. Why did the Church find Marcion so dangerous? Because he severed Christianity from its Old Testament roots and from much of apostolic teaching. He essentially created a new “scripture” and discarded Tradition. This forced the Church to clarify both its canon of Scripture and its reliance on Tradition.

  Notably, Marcion’s challenge prompted the Church to emphasize the “Rule of Faith” – an oral summary of essential apostolic doctrine – as a standard to judge teachings. We see this a bit later in writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian (c. 180-200) who wrote against Marcion. They appeal to the continuous public tradition of the churches from the apostles: the same God is Creator and Father of Jesus; the same Jesus was truly incarnate, died, and rose – these truths are affirmed in the “canon of truth” received in baptismal creeds, etc., and the Scriptures (when read holistically) align with that tradition (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). Tertullian explicitly argues that one cannot use Scripture against the Church when one’s very selection of what counts as Scripture is wrong; he asserts that the Church, through its apostolic succession, is the rightful owner and interpreter of Scripture (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This line of argument, though fully articulated a bit after 150, surely reflects the stance the Church took earlier in combating Marcion. In essence, Marcion’s sola scriptura (with a truncated canon) was met by the Church’s insistence on the fullness of the apostolic tradition – both the accepted scriptures and the unwritten teachings and context that came with them.

  It’s important to note that Marcion’s existence shows Scripture can be twisted or reduced without Tradition. He is perhaps an extreme example of what happens when someone tries to reinvent Christianity by scripture alone: he had to throw out large portions of writings and history to make it work. The great churches – those in union with the successors of apostles – unanimously rejected Marcion’s approach. This consensus across places like Rome, Smyrna, Lyons, etc., is evidence of a shared tradition that they felt Marcion violated. Thus, Marcion indirectly helped the Church to define the canon (embracing the Old Testament and a broad New Testament) and to solidify the principle that apostolic tradition (expressed in the Rule of Faith and in the unified witness of the episcopal collegium) is essential to rightly understanding Scripture.

• Gnostic movements (mid-2nd century) – “Gnosticism” refers to various groups (e.g., followers of Valentinus, Basilides, etc.) that believed in secret revelatory knowledge (gnosis) and syncretized Christian ideas with pagan and philosophical ones. Many Gnostics produced their own writings – including “gospels” and apocalypses – often attributing them to apostles (e.g., Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc., though some of these texts may be later in the 2nd century). The Gnostics typically claimed to possess secret traditions from Jesus or the apostles that the mainstream Church supposedly didn’t have. This is a somewhat different challenge: whereas Marcion cut down Scripture, Gnostics added extra-scriptural revelation or reinterpreted Scripture in highly allegorical ways divorced from the literal apostolic preaching. For instance, Valentinus (a prominent Gnostic teacher in Rome, c. 140–160) taught a complex cosmology of emanations from the Godhead – none of which is found in the New Testament straightforwardly, but he would use biblical terms with esoteric meanings.

  The proto-orthodox Church’s response to Gnosticism was again to appeal to apostolic tradition and public teaching. Irenaeus (writing c. 180, but reflecting earlier sentiment) famously argued that the Gnostics’ claim of secret apostolic lore was false: the real apostolic tradition is public, passed on through the succession of bishops in the churches founded by apostles (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). He points out that churches like Rome can trace their bishops back to Peter and Paul and that this continuous chain has preserved the same core doctrine (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). He contrasts this with the Gnostics who pop up later and have no such pedigree. Moreover, Irenaeus says even illiterate barbarians who have received the Gospel by tradition (without written Scripture) have the true faith, proving that the essence of Christian truth is preserved in Tradition, not dependent on one’s own clever reading of books (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This is a powerful argument that the unity of faith does not come from everyone reading Scripture individually (which can lead to wildly different Gnostic interpretations), but from everyone receiving the same apostolic tradition.

  Another early writer, Justin Martyr (writing around 155), engaged in debates with Gnostics and others. Justin’s approach in works like Dialogue with Trypho and his First Apology suggests that while he used Scripture to argue (especially prophecy to prove Christ’s messiahship), he also believed that the true doctrine was found in the open teachings of the Church as opposed to heretical sects. He mentions that in Christian liturgy, the “memoirs of the apostles” (i.e., Gospels) are read and then the presiding officer instructs the people (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)) – implying that right interpretation is given within the Church gathering. Gnostics, by contrast, often formed closed circles with their own texts. The Church thus emphasized the “Rule of Faith” or “Canon of Truth” – essentially a summary of essential tradition – as the lens to read Scripture correctly, something the Gnostics lacked. (J.N.D. Kelly notes that for early Fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian, Scripture and Tradition were not in conflict; the “tradition” was the key to interpreting Scripture properly and was confirmed by Scripture (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong)).

  In short, the battle with Gnosticism further convinced the early leaders that a reliance on the clear apostolic Tradition preserved in the churches was the only way to maintain a coherent, orthodox doctrine. Heretics might quote or misquote Scripture, but the Church had the “reference point” of apostolic teaching (for example, the baptismal creed, which by 2nd century contained beliefs in one God, the creator; Jesus Christ, true God and man, etc. – all beliefs Gnostics altered). Far from advocating a private scripture reading approach, the Church’s defense was “we have the apostolic succession and the rule of faith, you (the heretics) do not” (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Martyrdom of Polycarp).

• Montanism (New Prophecy, c. 160s AD) – Different from Marcion and Gnostics, Montanus and his followers (including prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla) did not so much corrupt doctrine about God or Christ as introduce a new mode of authority: they claimed to be prophets of a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, delivering oracles that in some cases imposed more rigorous practices (e.g., stricter fasting, a belief in an imminent New Jerusalem, etc.). Montanism arose in Phrygia (Asia Minor) around the 160s. While Montanists accepted the mainstream beliefs about Christ, their assertion of continuing revelation presented a question: how does the Church discern true vs. false prophecy? Does the Church rely on a “closed” apostolic deposit or can new public revelation occur beyond what the apostles taught?

  The mainline Church’s reaction eventually was to condemn Montanism as heterodox (by the late 2nd or early 3rd century, councils in Asia Minor and Pope Eleutherius in Rome had denounced it). This indicates that the Church by then leaned toward the idea that public revelation was complete with the apostolic age – the role of the Church is to interpret and apply that deposit, not to add to it. In other words, the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) was considered sufficient. Montanists, claiming their prophecies as authoritative, threatened that principle.

  Even though this scenario is about prophetic tradition vs. scripture/tradition rather than scripture vs. tradition, it still highlights the early Church’s reliance on established tradition. The Montanist prophets did not contradict Scripture directly in a lot of ways; rather, they came up with new directions (like expecting a descent of the heavenly Jerusalem to a Phrygian town, or forbidding remarriage, etc.). The Church’s assessment of Montanism (as recorded by Eusebius and others) was that Montanus’s prophecies, delivered in a state of ecstatic frenzy, were dubious and the movement’s divisive nature was problematic ([PDF] The New Prophecy and “New Visions” - dokumen.pub). The test applied seems to have been: are these prophecies in line with the Christian teaching handed down and the sober, rational character of apostolic prophecy? The answer was no – thus they were rejected. A presbyter named Apollinarius of Hierapolis (c. 172 AD) wrote against Montanism, and an anonymous source cited by Eusebius said that the Montanist prophets were leading people astray and that some faithful Christians resisted and refuted them by silencing Montanus, “not permitting him to speak” (implying Church discipline) (4. The Founding of the First Church of Rome and Its Corruption by ...). This shows that Church authority stepped in to stop novel prophecy.

  Tertullian, notably, joined the Montanists around 207 AD, but before that he wrote in defense of the Church’s authority against heresies (in his work Prescription of Heretics, c. 200). He argued that the Church, through apostolic succession, alone has the right to interpret Scripture, and heretics have no such right (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). Ironically, Tertullian later left the Catholic Church for Montanism likely because he felt the established Church was too lax; but the Church he left insisted that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is given to the whole Church through its bishops to correctly teach Christian morals – not to self-proclaimed prophets who break away. The Catholic/Orthodox principle of tradition can be seen here: even prophetic gifts must be tested and harmonized with the Apostolic Tradition guarded by the Church.

In sum, the emergence of Montanism reinforced the early Church’s reliance on structured authority and tradition over against spontaneous, unverified revelations. It solidified the concept that public revelation had effectively ended with the apostles, and what remained was to hand down, interpret, and live out that apostolic deposit. That deposit consisted of Scriptures and the correct understanding of those Scriptures as taught by the apostles’ successors. The Montanist controversy is thus another case where the Church prioritized tradition (the existing rule of faith and practice) over new claims, paralleling how it prioritized true tradition over Gnostic “secrets” or Marcion’s innovations.

Summary of Primary Sources’ Evidence

From this survey of early sources and sects (90–150 AD and slightly beyond), we can draw some clear patterns regarding Scripture and Tradition in the early Church:

• Scripture (especially the Old Testament and emerging New Testament writings) was revered as inspired and authoritative, read in worship (as Justin Martyr attests (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr))) and used for teaching and exhortation (as in Clement, Polycarp, etc.). However, these writings were not viewed in a vacuum: they were always understood within the community of faith and in light of Christ’s revelation. There was no single, complete “Bible” in the hands of most Christians by 150 AD; the canon was still being recognized. Thus the Church could not rely on a fixed Bible alone – it relied on the “preaching of the truth” preserved by those whom the apostles appointed (Martyrdom of Polycarp).

• Oral Tradition and Church Authority were paramount. The Apostolic Fathers repeatedly appeal to what was handed down (Clement’s succession, Ignatius’s obedience to bishops, Papias’s search for oral sayings). The “living voice” of apostolic tradition was considered a guiding light (The Writings of Papias. ). Doctrinal and practical unity was maintained by following the tradition in the churches (e.g., uniformity in the Eucharist and baptism rites as taught by Didache/tradition, uniformity in basic christology and morality as seen in the rule of faith). Deviations were corrected by appealing to tradition – e.g., Clement corrects Corinth by referencing the apostles’ arrangements; Ignatius corrects independent tendencies by emphasizing the bishop; Polycarp and others refute heretics by clinging to original teaching.

• There is no evidence that anyone in this period taught a formal principle of “sola scriptura.” No writer says Scripture is the sole infallible authority or that “if it’s not in Scripture, it need not be believed.” In fact, every major source rather affirms the opposite: important elements of Christian life (like who should lead, how to administer sacraments, what books to revere, etc.) were received from the apostles’ practice, not from a written Bible verse.

• The earliest controversies show that whenever individuals tried to rely on “scripture alone” in a novel way (Ebionites clinging only to Matthew and Torah; Marcion cutting out scriptures; Gnostics misreading scriptures allegorically, Montanists claiming new inspiration), the Church’s reaction was to cite its stable tradition and authorized teachers as the standard of truth. As J.N.D. Kelly succinctly observed, the early Church did not see a “contrast between Scripture and tradition” – rather, what was handed down was eventually in part recorded in Scripture, but also preserved in the Church’s continuous teaching (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). When heretics challenged orthodoxy, the defense was “This is not what the churches received from the apostles.”

• The role of the bishop and apostolic succession is a recurring theme. We cannot overstate how critical this was to early Christians. They saw unbroken succession as a guarantee that the teaching one received was faithful. Irenaeus (just after 150 AD) makes this explicit: “the successions of bishops… provide a guarantee that [the faith] is identical with the apostles’ teaching” (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). Ignatius (before 117 AD) already treats the bishop as the locus of authority. This concept is fundamentally opposed to the idea of each person or local group simply reading scripture and deciding doctrine; instead, authority is relational and transmitted.

Having gathered this evidence, we will now turn to a more thematic analysis of how theology and ecclesial structure in the pre-150 Church reflect a Scripture-and-Tradition paradigm, and then examine how modern scholarship interprets these findings in context.

Theological and Ecclesiastical Analysis: Scripture, Tradition, and Authority in the Early Church

Drawing on the primary sources above, we can now analyze the theological understanding and church structures of the pre-150 AD Christian community concerning Scripture and Tradition. Key questions to address include: How did early Christians view the relative roles of Scripture (the written word) and Tradition (oral teachings, practices)? Did they operate with anything like a sola scriptura mindset, or did they see Tradition and ecclesiastical authority as central? What was the role of bishops and apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine? And how did early church authority structures contribute to doctrinal unity?

Scripture in the Early Church: Revered Word of God within a Community Context

The early Christians inherited the Jewish reverence for sacred writings. The Old Testament (Septuagint) was their first Bible, and soon the sayings of Jesus and letters of apostles were treated as authoritative as well. The apostolic fathers demonstrate an immense respect for scripture. For example:

• Clement of Rome peppered his letter with dozens of quotations from the Old Testament (Isaiah, Psalms, etc.) to illustrate points about humility, repentance, and order. He refers to scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit (First Clement: Clement of Rome). Clearly, Scripture was a norm for teaching.
• Polycarp explicitly calls the Ephesians verse he quotes “Scripture” and assumes the Philippians’ familiarity with both Old and New Testament texts (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)).
• Didache instructs Christians to “follow the Gospel of our Lord” in all things (The Didache | EWTN), showing that written Gospels were considered a rule for Christian living.
• Justin Martyr describes Christian worship as including readings from the “memoirs of the apostles” and “writings of the prophets,” which he equates with scriptural worship similar to Jewish synagogue practice (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)).

This demonstrates that early on, the concept of “Scripture” as an authoritative source was present. However, the context in which Scripture functioned is crucial: it was within the liturgical and communal life of the Church. The scriptures were read in the assembly and interpreted by a leader (“the president” as Justin calls him) who exhorted the people from the readings (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)). There was not a practice of individual believers doing private scriptural exegesis divorced from the community; rather, scripture was embedded in tradition – read and taught in harmony with the Church’s received faith.

Moreover, at this stage the list of what counted as Scripture was fluid at the edges. Different communities might have a different set of Pauline letters or one or more Gospels. The idea of a New Testament canon was in development. Thus, scripture could not function as a final arbiter on its own, because one needed to know which writings were truly apostolic and authoritative. That discernment came from tradition: the teachings of recognized church leaders and the criteria of apostolic origin and orthodoxy (fidelity to the Church’s known teaching). We see glimpses of this: Eusebius tells us, for example, that in the mid-2nd century, the four Gospels were becoming established by consensus (Irenaeus around 180 lists the four by name as the only ones (Martyrdom of Polycarp), possibly reflecting earlier consensus). But texts like the Gospel of Peter or Acts of Paul were read in some churches but later rejected as non-canonical. The standard used by the early church to recognize scripture was apostolic tradition itself – i.e., does this text accord with what we know the apostles taught and does it come from them or their close companions? This inherently means Tradition held a magisterial role in forming the Scripture.

Theologically, early Christians did not pit Scripture against Tradition. There wasn’t even a need to, since the controversies that force that dichotomy (like later Protestant Reformation) hadn’t arisen. Instead, they saw Scripture as part of the inheritance from the Apostles – and as such, it had to be read in line with the other part of that inheritance, the oral teaching and practice. As J.N.D. Kelly notes, in the sub-apostolic age “the apostolic preaching (tradition) was authoritative whether it was delivered in writing or orally”, and there was no sense of a dichotomy between Bible and Tradition (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). The early church believed the true interpretation of the written word was guaranteed by the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, not just by lexicographical analysis. That’s why we see communal reading and authoritative exhortation in Justin’s description (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)) and the insistence by Ignatius that one be in communion with the bishop to avoid error (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). The underlying theology is that Christ entrusted the faith to a community (the Church), not merely to a book. The book (Scripture) grew out of that community’s witness and returns to it to be interpreted.

In summary, Scripture in the early church was absolutely revered as God's Word (inspired by the Spirit, infallible in what it intended to teach), but it was not the stand-alone rule of faith. It was part of a larger deposit of faith, which included how to understand those writings. The early Christians read the Old Testament in a radically new way (Christologically) – something they learned from apostolic tradition (e.g., Jesus’s own teachings on how the Law and Prophets point to Him, as Luke 24 narrates). They also began to read new writings in light of that same Christ-centered tradition. Scripture was one strand of a cord of three: Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority, all interwoven. The next two strands – Tradition and the teaching authority – we analyze below.

The Role of Sacred Tradition: “The Faith Once Delivered” Kept by Oral and Ecclesial Transmission

The evidence we reviewed strongly indicates that oral tradition and example set by the apostles (and their successors) was considered a binding authority in the early Church. Tradition (from Latin traditio, Greek paradosis, meaning “that which is handed down”) in this context means the content of Christian teaching that was passed on by the apostles, whether in written form or not, as well as the ongoing life of the Church that embodied that teaching (worship, sacraments, etc.).

Key aspects of Sacred Tradition in the early church:

• Creedal Tradition: Already by the early 2nd century, there were forms of summary of belief (protocreeds) given in baptism or catechesis. For instance, Ignatius uses very archaic formulations about Christ’s reality – hinting at a common confession. By mid-2nd century, Irenaeus gives a clear summary of the “rule of faith” (one God, creator; Jesus Christ, Son of God, truly incarnate, who accomplished our salvation, etc.). He says this faith was received at baptism and is consistent across the Church (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This rule of faith was oral, memorized, and not literally quoted from a single scripture – rather it was a synthesis of the apostolic preaching. This tradition of faith guided how scripture was to be read; one would not interpret scripture in a way that contradicted the rule of faith. So tradition functioned as a hermeneutical key and doctrinal norm.

• Liturgical Tradition: The practices of worship – how to baptize, how to celebrate Eucharist, prayer forms like the Lord’s Prayer, fasting days, etc. – were all part of tradition. The Didache is essentially a snapshot of liturgical/sacramental tradition c. 100 AD. Paul in the New Testament (1 Cor 11:23) shows an earlier instance: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed took bread…”, thus transmitting the Eucharistic words and practice. That act of “delivering” (Greek paredoka from paradidomi, to hand over) is exactly tradition in action. The early Fathers continued that chain: they taught new converts how to live and worship as Christians by imitation and instruction, not by handing them a New Testament (which didn’t fully exist yet). Justin Martyr’s description of baptism and Eucharist in his Apology shows uniform practices that were not chapter-and-verse from Scripture but from church custom that claimed apostolic origin (e.g., only baptized believers receive Eucharist, prayers of thanksgiving said by the president, Amen response, etc., in First Apology 66-67 (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr))).

• Moral Tradition and Holy Living: The Didache and Polycarp’s and Clement’s letters emphasize following “the commandments of the Lord” and the model of apostolic example. Early Christianity was distinct in its ethics (as outsiders like Pliny observed). How were these ethics taught? By tradition – the two ways teaching, catechisms, apostolic example like Paul’s letters giving moral injunctions. Ignatius talks about living according to Christ’s love and truth, Polycarp commends the Philippians for their continued faith and virtue learned from the Gospel. All that implies a continuous teaching tradition, where being a Christian meant adhering to a set of teachings and lifestyle handed down, not reinvented by each reader of Scripture.

• The term “tradition” in early usage: It’s worth noting that the New Testament itself uses paradosis (tradition) positively in several places: Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 praises the church for maintaining the traditions as he delivered to them; in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, he explicitly says, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”. That is exactly the dual mode of transmission (oral or written) we see continuing into the next generation. The Apostolic Fathers, though they do not often use the word “tradition” explicitly, clearly embody it. Only in later controversies (like St. Basil in 4th century) do we find explicit defenses of unwritten traditions (e.g., the sign of the cross, triple immersion at baptism, etc.); but even in 2nd century, the concept is there: Irenaeus uses the word “tradition” repeatedly to mean the teachings passed down openly in the Church (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong), and he even refers to how some barbarian nations have the “tradition” of the apostles in written form “without letters” (i.e., oral only) yet are in full agreement with those with scriptures (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong).

Thus, theologically, tradition was seen as the continuum of Jesus’s presence through the Holy Spirit in the Church. Jesus taught orally and by example; the apostles did the same (some of which they wrote, much they simply preached and organized the churches by). This was all “committed” to the Church. The Church Fathers believed that the Holy Spirit safeguarded this deposit within the Church’s collective life. For instance, Irenaeus argued that because the Church is the home of the Holy Spirit, the apostles’ tradition entrusted to it remains incorrupt – and he even speaks of bishops having “charisma veritatis certum” (a sure charism of truth) through the Spirit (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This doesn’t imply individual bishops were infallible per se, but that the office carrying apostolic succession had the Holy Spirit’s help in preserving truth when acting in concert.

Tradition and Scripture were not in conflict because Scripture was simply the written part of tradition. As Church historian J.N.D. Kelly sums up, the early fathers viewed Scripture as materially sufficient (containing the truths of salvation) but not always formally sufficient (needing the correct interpretation via the Church’s tradition) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). They did not imagine some future where Christians would ignore the lived tradition and just pick up the Bible.

On the contrary, if you asked an early Christian, “Where do you get your doctrine from?” they might answer: from the apostles. If pressed “through what means?”, they’d say: the Scriptures that apostles wrote and the Church’s preaching that they left behind. It was a holistic view. For example, when Polycarp or Clement admonish, they don’t quote only Scripture; they often say “remember the teachings of our Lord” or refer to what “we have learned” – implying a body of teaching. The Apostolic Fathers never imply that new issues can only be solved by referencing a text; they solve them by referring to what the apostles did or would advise (e.g., Clement solving schism by recalling apostolic order, or Ignatius solving doctrinal division by urging fidelity to the bishop, who guarantees the true teaching).

In summary, Sacred Tradition was central to early Christian identity. It encompassed doctrine (creeds), worship (sacraments, prayer), and governance (succession, church order). It was considered trustworthy and complementary to Scripture. There was no notion that tradition was “human teachings” opposed to “God’s word” – that dichotomy is read back later by Protestants citing Jesus’s condemnation of Pharisaic traditions. But early Christians saw their tradition as from God via the apostles, not traditions of men. They distinguished apostolic tradition from any false traditions (e.g., Gnostic “secret tradition” which Irenaeus refuted by appealing to the authenticity of the Church’s public tradition (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong)).

Apostolic Succession and the Teaching Authority of Bishops

Closely tied to Tradition is the concept of apostolic succession and the authority of the episcopate (the bishops). The early Church was not an amorphous mass of believers; it had structure. By the early 2nd century, the monarchical episcopate (one bishop leading each local church, with presbyters and deacons assisting) was emerging strongly, at least in major centers (Ignatius testifies to it in Asia Minor). Before 150 AD, Rome’s leadership and the Asian churches’ leadership already traced lineage from Peter/Paul and John respectively.

Why is this significant for the question of Scripture vs. Tradition? Because the bishops were seen as the guardians of apostolic tradition. As Irenaeus so clearly argued a few decades after 150, one must listen to “that succession of presbyters in the churches which has the succession from the apostles,” since along with that succession they received “the sure charism of truth” (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). He even lists the succession of Roman bishops from Peter down to his day to show the continuity of teaching (Martyrdom of Polycarp) (Martyrdom of Polycarp). The idea is that because the apostles appointed or ordained the next generation of leaders and entrusted them with teaching, those leaders (when united in faith) carry authoritative teaching office.

Ignatius of Antioch already presupposes this idea: he doesn’t give a theory of succession, but he insists the bishop stands in the place of God/Christ in the community (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN) (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN). That only makes sense if the bishop’s office is viewed as an extension of the apostolic office – indeed Ignatius was third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Evodius, so he likely saw himself as continuing what the apostles started in Antioch. Clement of Rome gives the mechanism: apostles appointed bishops and said that on their death others should replace them (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome). This is a direct textual witness to apostolic succession in action from the 1st century. So the framework existed from the start.

Now, with bishops as successors of the apostles, the teaching authority (later called Magisterium in Latin) resided in them collectively. How did they preserve doctrine? Largely by ensuring the faithful transmission of the apostolic heritage – both by safeguarding the Scriptures (collecting and disseminating authentic copies) and by teaching the correct apostolic doctrine in sermons, catechesis, and decisions. An example of early authoritative decision: the Council of Jerusalem (49 AD) recorded in Acts 15, where apostles and elders made a binding decision on Gentile converts – this set a model that councils of bishops could settle matters (that pattern would become ecumenical councils later). In the pre-150 period, we don’t yet have ecumenical councils, but we see smaller-scale authority: e.g., Clement (a bishop of Rome) intervening in Corinth to restore order – an example of one local church admonishing another with assumed authority, arguably because Rome’s bishop was seen as having a special place (Catholics see this as early papal primacy in action). Whether or not one views it as “papal,” it certainly is a bishop exercising authority beyond his local bounds, in line with apostolic concern for unity (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome).

Bishops also curated the tradition. Polycarp as a bishop went to Rome to discuss the date of Easter with Pope Anicetus around 155 – they had different traditions (Asia Minor celebrated on 14 Nisan regardless of the weekday, Rome on Sunday following). They didn’t resolve the difference, but they kept communion, showing that tradition could have some local variations, but more importantly, it shows bishops saw themselves as authorities who could negotiate tradition for uniformity’s sake. Eventually, that very issue (Quartodeciman controversy) was settled by council and common practice (in favor of Sunday), showing the role of bishops in defining tradition.

Critically, the bishops determined the canon of Scripture. Although this happened more clearly in the 4th century, the process began in the 2nd. Lists by bishops like Melito of Sardis (c. 170, listing OT books) and the Muratorian Fragment (a list of NT books from c. 180, possibly from Rome’s church) are examples of church authority discerning scripture. Bishops and synods in the following centuries made the final calls. The relevance is: without an accepted canon, sola scriptura is moot; and the canon was established by tradition and authority. This is often pointed out by scholars: the Bible as we have it is a product of the Church’s tradition (the early church produced the NT, it wasn’t handed as a codex from heaven).

Thus, from an ecclesiological perspective, the bishops in apostolic succession were the arbiters of correct doctrine, using both scripture and tradition as their tools. When heresies arose, bishops like Polycarp, Ireneaus (later 2nd c.), Dionysius of Corinth, etc., wrote letters or held gatherings to oppose them. A fragmented, every-man-for-himself scripturalism would have led to chaos (indeed, one sees that in Gnostic sects all claiming their own revelations). The unified episcopate prevented that: it kept the mainstream Church largely one in faith. St. Ignatius celebrated that unity: “that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you” (he praises the Ephesians) (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN) (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN). That unity came from adherence to the bishop and the received teaching.

The theology behind apostolic succession is essentially that Christ sent the apostles as He was sent by the Father (John 20:21), and the apostles sent bishops to continue that mission (2 Tim 2:2, “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others as well”). So continuity of teaching authority is built into the Christian DNA. Early Christians like Clement and Ignatius assume it, and later ones articulate it fully. There is a straight line from this to the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the Magisterium – the early evidence definitely tilts toward that model and away from any notion of an every-believer-is-his-own-teacher model.

In conclusion on this point, the bishops and apostolic succession were the mechanism by which sacred tradition was preserved and taught. They were considered the authentic teachers of the faith (with presbyters). This does not mean laypeople were uninvolved with Scripture – many memorized or pondered it – but the interpretive guide and authority lay with those appointed in the Church. As St. Irenaeus would say: even if the apostles had left no writings, the truth would still be in the Church via succession (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). And since they did leave writings, those writings belong to the Church, and the Church’s leaders are their proper custodians (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). That is the polar opposite of sola scriptura; it’s a scripture-in-church context.

Historical and Scholarly Perspectives on Early Church Authority

Modern scholarship has extensively studied how the early Church formed its doctrine and authority structures. Here we will engage with insights from historians and theologians – including Larry Hurtado, N.T. Wright, J.N.D. Kelly, and others – to contextualize the historical record we’ve examined. We will also consider how early heresies influenced the Church’s consolidation of authority. The goal is to see if scholarly consensus aligns with the idea that the early Church was decisively on the side of a Scripture + Tradition model upheld by an apostolic teaching office.

Scholarly Views on Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church

J. N. D. Kelly, a renowned Anglican patristics scholar, in his classic Early Christian Doctrines, addresses this topic directly. Kelly notes that for the early fathers, “tradition” and “Scripture” were in practice two aspects of the same truth. The apostolic tradition was the fundamental norm, and this tradition was partly written down in Scripture and partly preserved in the Church’s continuous teaching (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). Kelly writes: “on occasion [the fathers] described this original message as ‘tradition,’ using the word to denote the teaching delivered by the apostles, without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture” (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (emphasis added). In other words, the earliest fathers did not see themselves as choosing either the Bible or oral tradition – they simply received the one Gospel through both channels.

Kelly also documents how, by the end of the second century (just after our timeframe), the “rule of faith” functioned as a summary of apostolic tradition that was used to interpret Scripture correctly (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). He points out, for example, that Irenaeus considered the apostolic preaching deposited in the Church as “in principle independent of written documents” (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) – meaning the truth was not confined to Scripture alone; yet Irenaeus also firmly believed this same apostolic preaching was crystallized in the Scriptures by God’s will. So there is no conflict: Scripture is the written part of tradition, and tradition the living interpretation of Scripture. Kelly concludes that when the fathers appeal to tradition, they mean the Church’s public and universal teaching, not a secret addition – and they do so especially to refute heretical innovations (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This aligns perfectly with our earlier analysis. Thus, a respected scholar like Kelly affirms that the early Church did not espouse sola scriptura; it held Scripture and Church tradition together as coordinate authorities.

Larry Hurtado, an expert on early Christianity, has studied how early believers used texts. In his work on early Christian worship and in his blog, Hurtado emphasizes that early Christianity had a strong bookish element – unusual for a largely illiterate society – in that they read Scriptures in gatherings and produced new texts (like Gospels, letters) quite early (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog) (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog). However, Hurtado also argues that the spread and use of texts was facilitated by communal reading events (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog). Because most people were not literate, what mattered was that in each congregation someone could read aloud the sacred texts and then it was discussed or preached on (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog) (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog). This dynamic meant that the community’s leaders naturally guided the understanding of the text. Hurtado notes that even if literacy was low, it didn’t reduce the influence of texts because one literate reader could reach many (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog) – but implicitly, that reader (often a clergy member) shaped the reception. Additionally, Hurtado engages with the oral tradition debate, noting some scholars may have “romanticized” pure orality, but clearly there was an interplay – the early Christian message was first oral (the gospel preached), then also written (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog) (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog). He references how exaggerating an “oral vs written” divide is unhelpful – both were present (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog). This supports our conclusion that both modes carried authority.

N. T. Wright, while not specifically writing about “sola scriptura” in the early church, often emphasizes context. He reminds us that the early Christians did not yet have a compiled New Testament, and that they relied on the apostolic tradition about Jesus as transmitted by the apostolic circle and their co-workers. For example, Wright points out that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul is reciting an earlier creedal tradition about Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection which he “received” and “passed on” (Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity - NTWrightPage -) (Rethinking the Tradition - NTWrightPage -). This indicates that core doctrines were preserved in creedal form (oral tradition) from the beginning – which Paul expected the Corinthians to hold to as of first importance. Wright also uses the analogy of a five-act play to describe Scripture: we are in the ongoing act where we must improvise faithfully based on the script of earlier acts (Scripture) and the guidance of the Spirit in the Church (The authority of scripture and NT Wright's five-act play analogy). This analogy actually underscores that Scripture alone is not sufficient – actors also rely on direction and precedent (like tradition) to continue the story rightly. While Wright is Protestant, he acknowledges that the early Church’s life and worship (e.g., weekly Eucharist) carried the authority of Jesus’ command and apostolic practice as much as written texts did. In Scripture and the Authority of God, Wright argues against a “wooden” sola scriptura that ignores how the early church functioned. He notes that scripture was always intended to function within the community, led by the Spirit – not as a flat law book that individuals could just apply by themselves (he cites how the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 made a decision not by quoting chapter and verse, but by discerning God’s will in community) (N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God - BioLogos) (NT Wright on misconceptions about Heaven, the early Christians, a). This is essentially an endorsement of the idea that scripture and Church authority worked together from the start. Wright’s scholarly work on the resurrection also relies on understanding early tradition: he uses the fact that the story in 1 Cor 15:3-7 is an early tradition to demonstrate the belief’s antiquity. So inadvertently, he underscores how crucial tradition was to preserving doctrine.

Other scholars: Henry Chadwick, Jaroslav Pelikan, Yves Congar, etc., have similarly noted that the early Church was fundamentally conciliar and traditional. Pelikan famously said “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” The early Church’s tradition was a living faith – not an ossified set of man-made rules, but the vibrant transmission of apostolic religion. Pelikan’s multi-volume The Christian Tradition shows the continuity of how core doctrines were transmitted and developed under the Church’s authority.

Scholars of canon formation (like Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce) confirm that it was a long process, guided by church usage and authority. Metzger in The Canon of the New Testament explains that criteria like apostolicity, orthodoxy, and catholicity (widespread usage) determined the canon – each of those criteria is about tradition (who wrote it – an apostle? does it conform to the orthodox teaching handed down? has it been traditionally read in the churches?). Thus historically, the Bible as an authoritative collection is a product of the Church’s tradition. It wasn’t settled by scripture itself (scripture never gives a list of its books); it was settled by the church’s leadership under the Spirit. This historical fact is uncontested and is something even Protestant scholars admit as a pragmatic reality, though they claim the Spirit guided it (which Catholics and Orthodox also claim).

In sum, mainstream scholarship recognizes that the early Church did not have sola scriptura, but rather an interplay of scripture, oral tradition, and authoritative leadership. Far from undermining scripture, this context is what gave us scripture and preserved its true meaning. The consensus is that Catholic and Orthodox interpretations of early church practice are historically grounded: the early church was essentially “catholic” in structure (as Ignatius even uses the term), valuing bishops, tradition, liturgy, and Scripture together.

The Influence of Early Heresies on the Development of Doctrinal Authority

We touched on this in the primary survey, but let’s summarize with scholarly perspective:

Heresiologists like Irenaeus and Tertullian give us first-hand accounts of how heresies prompted the church to clarify its stance. Irenaeus (c. 180) basically outlines the Catholic position: he defends the apostolic succession and tradition explicitly because of the Gnostic threat (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). Modern scholars see Irenaeus as a pivotal figure in formalizing the role of tradition. Pelikan notes that with Irenaeus, “the catholic appeal to apostolic tradition came of age” – it was the answer to Gnostic “new revelation.” Tertullian (c. 200) in De Praescriptione sharpened the legal argument: he argued that heretics have no right to even use Scripture, because Scripture belongs to the Church. He lays down a “principle of prescription”: if a doctrine cannot trace its lineage to the apostles, it is by definition false, even if someone finds some scripture verse to support it in isolation (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This was a legal metaphor, but it essentially says prior tradition judges later interpretations. That principle strongly bolsters the Catholic/Orthodox view and negates sola scriptura logic.

Montanism’s effect: It forced the church to start thinking about a closed canon of New Testament and the completion of public revelation. Some scholars (like those cited by Eusebius) consider that Montanism pushed the church to be more organized in rejecting unauthorized prophets. It likely hastened the crystallization of a “New Testament” – a fixed set of apostolic writings – to say “these contain the full message” such that new prophets cannot add to it. In doing so, ironically, Montanism’s challenge elevated Scripture’s role (as a fixed source) but it also highlighted the need for authoritative interpretation (since Montanists could claim the Spirit tells them how to interpret prophecy, etc., the Church insisted on the interpretation received in tradition).

Marcion’s effect: as mentioned, practically, Marcion’s heresy forced the Church to define what writings were orthodox and to emphasize the unity of old and new revelation. Scholars like Harnack famously wrote about Marcion as the “first Protestant” for rejecting tradition and choosing his own canon. The church’s rebuttal, however, was to insist that you cannot sever Christianity from its Old Testament and apostolic root. Modern scholars credit Marcion with giving a jolt that led to the formal idea of a New Testament canon (the Church basically said, “No, Marcion, we have more scriptures than your list – here they are…”). This shows again how tradition set the boundaries – e.g., Polycarp and others who physically encountered apostles knew Marcion’s ideas were alien (Martyrdom of Polycarp) (Martyrdom of Polycarp), so they fought him not by prooftexting (though they did argue from Scripture too) but by stating this is not the faith we received.

Gnosticism’s effect: It led to the creation of creeds (to clearly state the public beliefs against secret esoteric ones). Most scholars agree the Old Roman Creed (precursor to the Apostles’ Creed) was formulated in the 2nd century as a baptismal confession precisely to summarize the apostolic faith against distortions. By reciting “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His only Son our Lord…” etc., one drew a line that excluded Gnostic cosmologies and Christologies. This creed is a product of tradition (it’s not verbatim from scripture, though every line has scriptural basis). The Church’s reliance on creeds is a testament to the primacy of tradition (the creed functions as a normative tradition, the rule of faith). N.T. Wright and others have commented that already by the time of Irenaeus, the core doctrinal narrative was fixed in these creeds which provided the lens for scripture.

Ebionites/Judaizers’ effect: It underscored that Christianity had an identity distinct from Judaism, and that salvation was through Christ’s new covenant, not the old law. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (circa 49 AD) is key – that council’s decree (no need for circumcision, etc., but some minimal rules) was an exercise of authoritative tradition (the letter even says “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” – implying the leaders’ decision is guided by Spirit). That established a paradigm: councils of Church leaders define how scripture is to be applied (like how to understand the Gentiles in relation to the law, since scripture (OT) had commands on circumcision – they, by Christ’s authority, set a new norm). Modern historians view that as the Church understanding its authority to “bind and loose,” an authority later bishops and councils inherited.

Academic consensus: The events of the 2nd century made the Church more self-aware of its authoritative structures. By 150 AD’s aftermath, you already have the germs of what would become the three pillars: Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium – though they wouldn’t have used those terms. Scholars often credit St. Irenaeus as articulating all three: he talks about the Scriptures the apostles wrote, the tradition they handed down orally and practically (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong), and the apostolic succession that safeguards both (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). The harmony of these is the hallmark of Catholic and Orthodox claims.

Therefore, historically, the confrontation with heresy did not push the Church toward sola scriptura; it pushed it toward a clearer Catholic position – clarifying the canon of Scripture (so we know what is authoritative text), formalizing the rule of faith (so we know the correct interpretive framework), and strengthening episcopal oversight (so the teaching is consistent and heresy is expelled). All of these developments by end of 2nd century pave the way for the great Councils of the 4th/5th centuries that would define doctrine (Trinity, Christology) using Scripture and Tradition in concert.

A modern scholar like Robert Wilken also notes in The Spirit of Early Christian Thought that the early Christians were not “people of the book” in the Islamic sense; rather, they were people of a living Word (Christ) whose message was in a book and in the Church’s life. Wilken emphasizes how the early church’s interpretation of Scripture was always done in community and with what he calls a “culture of memory” – i.e., tradition.

In conclusion, historical scholarship corroborates the view that the early church was far closer to Catholic/Orthodox practice than to Protestant sola scriptura. The overwhelming pattern is that while Scripture was deeply treasured, it was never isolated from the Church that birthed and used it, nor from the other elements of the apostolic deposit.

Protestant Counterarguments and Refutation

Despite the historical evidence showing the interdependence of Scripture and Tradition in the early Church, some Protestant apologists maintain that the early Christians essentially adhered to a form of sola scriptura or at least prima scriptura (Scripture as the primary authority). Here we will present key Protestant claims about this period and then analyze them against the evidence, demonstrating where those claims fall short. We will also tackle the issue of doctrinal fragmentation under sola scriptura, arguing that the early Church’s unity required Tradition as a cohesive force.

Common Protestant Claims about Sola Scriptura in the Early Church

1. “The Early Christians always appealed to Scripture as the final authority.” Protestant writers often point out that the Fathers quote Scripture extensively and use it to argue doctrinal points. For example, they cite how Jesus and the apostles themselves used Scripture (the Old Testament) as authoritative, or how the Bereans (Acts 17:11) were commended for checking Paul’s words against Scripture. They might say the Fathers believed Scripture to be materially sufficient for doctrine, implying no need for extrabiblical traditions.

2. “The Apostolic Fathers didn’t explicitly teach extra-biblical doctrines, so they were ‘Bible-only’ men.” Some Protestants argue that since in the extant writings of figures like Clement or Ignatius we don’t see clear references to uniquely Catholic doctrines (like Marian dogmas or prayers to saints, etc.), these Fathers must not have held any doctrines outside of what is in the New Testament. Therefore, they conclude, the early Church’s faith content was basically what is in Scripture, hence “sola scriptura” in practice (material sufficiency and no contrary traditions).

3. “Any reference to ‘tradition’ by early writers is just referring to Scripture or to the apostles’ teaching recorded in Scripture.” This claim asserts that when the Fathers talk about the tradition of the apostles, they mean essentially the written Gospels and Epistles – not a separate body of unwritten teachings. For example, some Protestants interpret Irenaeus’s talk of tradition as just a way of describing the Bible’s message properly understood, not an independent source. They might quote Irenaeus where he says the apostles later conveyed their message in Scriptures by God’s will and say “see, Scripture contains the apostolic tradition, nothing outside it.”

4. “Early corrections of heresy were done by Scripture; the Fathers fought heretics with Scripture, implying its supremacy.” Tertullian and Irenaeus indeed use many scriptural arguments against heretics. Protestants highlight episodes like Jesus using “It is written” against Satan, or early apologists like Justin Martyr using fulfilled prophecy from Scripture to convince Jews and pagans. They argue that Scripture had the final say and tradition was not an independent criterion.

5. “The simplicity of early Christianity was lost to later ‘traditions of men’.” Some Protestants portray the first century or two as a pure time where Christianity was just a simple gospel (faith in Christ, brotherly love) and that later on, human traditions and hierarchies corrupted this simplicity (often this is the narrative of an “early church vs. Constantinian church” or the like). By this view, any emphasis on bishops or sacraments is a later accretion – so the earliest church, being simpler, presumably just followed the “Bible” (or the apostles’ direct teaching, now in the NT) without layers of tradition.

6. “If a teaching can’t be shown in the Bible, the early Christians wouldn’t accept it.” This is a more general stance: Protestants often assert that all necessary doctrines are in Scripture (the formal principle of Reformation: Scripture is the norma normans). They’ll say early Christians tested doctrines by Scripture and would reject what wasn’t scriptural. For instance, they might claim the early church rejected Gnostic teachings because those were not in Scripture (though more precisely they were contrary to the broad rule of faith and Scripture).

Refutation of Protestant Claims with Evidence

To refute these claims, we rely on the documentation and analysis above:

1. Appealing to Scripture ≠ Sola Scriptura: Yes, the Fathers and apostles appealed to Scripture – but crucially, they never said Scripture is the only authority. In fact, as demonstrated, their arguments combined scriptural proofs with appeals to apostolic tradition. Clement uses Scripture but settles the dispute by apostolic order (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome). Ignatius hardly quotes Scripture at all in his pleas for unity, instead he authoritatively commands based on his position and tradition (e.g., “do nothing without the bishop” is not a quote from the Bible; it’s a tradition-based injunction) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). The Bereans (Acts 17:11) is a favorite Protestant example: they checked Paul’s message against the Old Testament. But note, when some Bereans believed, it wasn’t solely because of their private interpretation – it was because Paul’s apostolic preaching matched the Scriptures. Those Bereans who became Christians then would submit to the apostolic teaching (including things beyond just OT proof-texts, like the sacraments, church structure, etc.). So Acts 17:11 shows respect for Scripture’s confirmation of doctrine, which Catholics also affirm; it doesn’t show the Bereans rejecting Paul’s authority in favor of a “Scripture only” stance. If they had, they would have remained with just the OT and not heeded Paul at all.

   Also, Protestant arguments often overlook that the New Testament itself affirms oral tradition (e.g., 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2 as discussed). The early church followed those verses too. So if we stick to the principle “the early church followed apostolic commands,” they would know Paul told them to hold fast to traditions delivered orally or by letter (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). Thus, sola scriptura would violate Paul’s own instruction.

2. Content of faith vs. principle of authority: That early Fathers didn’t mention, say, the Assumption of Mary or invoke saints doesn’t mean they held to sola scriptura. The principle of authority is seen in how they make arguments, not in what later doctrines they do or don’t mention. And in their arguments, as we’ve seen, they invoke non-scriptural factors (church order, who taught whom, etc.). For example, Clement doesn’t cite a Bible verse saying “thou shalt have bishops in succession” – he just asserts it as the tradition from the apostles (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome). That is an extra-biblical rule being enforced. Similarly, Ignatius doesn’t justify “follow the bishop as Christ” by quoting any scripture – he states it as authoritative tradition (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). These are clear uses of tradition as binding. So even if the specific doctrines at stake then were fewer (the canon of Scripture itself, Christology basics, etc.), the method the Fathers used was not sola scriptura.

   Furthermore, the argument that early Christians didn’t have later doctrines is partially false: many Catholic distinctives were there in seed. For instance, the Eucharist was taken as the real body and blood of Christ – Ignatius explicitly says heretics abstain because “they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior” (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). That belief is not spelled out in Scripture as clearly as Transubstantiation, but it was held as a truth from the apostles. That’s an example of a tradition amplifying a concept present in Scripture (John 6, Last Supper accounts) but clarified in the Church. Also, baptism was seen as actually regenerative (Didache’s detailed ritual, and Barnabas’s writings or Shepherd of Hermas on baptism show a sacramental view). The hierarchical Church itself is a very “Catholic” thing present early. These show early Christians accepted practices and teachings with scant explicit New Testament “proof,” meaning they respected the authority of the Church to teach these as part of the faith.

3. Tradition for the Fathers included unwritten elements: When Irenaeus speaks of the tradition, he explicitly says it’s been handed down openly in the churches and can be heard by those who wish, and even those without written documents have it intact (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This cannot be reinterpreted to mean “only in the Bible.” He is clearly acknowledging oral transmission among illiterate peoples who had embraced the Gospel. Eusebius also recounts how many barbarian tribes believed in Christ without any written Scriptures, simply through the preached tradition (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). If apostolic tradition = written Scripture only, those people would have no access to truth until a Bible is translated – yet Irenaeus says they have the faith! That’s a death blow to the idea that tradition meant just Scripture. It meant the faith itself, whether by word or letter.

   Moreover, Tertullian in Prescription acknowledges that the apostles did not necessarily put everything in writing: “Suppose that they did not leave us any scriptures, would not the order of tradition... be followed? ... Because it was by this method that many things were believed before any Scripture was written.” (Paraphrasing from De Praescr. 25). Tertullian’s point is that the Church’s tradition is prior to and the context for Scripture. He even references some unwritten customs (like trine immersion) in De Corona. Protestant apologists often skip those parts. Thus, it’s incorrect to say tradition was equated to Scripture – the Fathers plainly speak of traditions that are not verbatim in Scripture but are nevertheless authoritative.

4. The Fathers versus heretics – Scripture and tradition together: True, the fathers heavily utilized Scripture to refute heresies – because heretics misused Scripture, so the fathers had to show the correct reading. But critically, they also often invoked tradition as the lens. Irenaeus, for example, doesn’t just quote verses at Gnostics; he says, even if the Gnostics can twist verses, their doctrine is still wrong because it’s not what the apostles handed down (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). He uses an analogy: just as a skillful artisan can take a king’s portrait and rearrange the tiles into a fox, the Gnostics take Scripture and rearrange it to their false image. How to know the difference? The rule of faith (the original picture) known from tradition (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). So scripture by itself can be manipulated; the rule (tradition) prevents that. That is a very anti-sola scriptura argument. Tertullian flatly tells heretics that their use of scripture is unlawful; instead, “our appeals ought not be made to scriptures... for these results from those debates will depend on the standard of whose interpretation prevails, since the victory will necessarily fall to that side which has the assis­tance of our understanding as well as our expositions... Therefore the question is, who has the right faith? whose are the scriptures? By what and through whom and when and to whom has been handed down that rule whereby men become Christians?” (De Praescr., ch. 19). He then answers that it’s the Church through the succession from the apostles (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). In sum, Tertullian opts not for dueling interpretations (which is what sola scriptura often leads to), but for an external fact – which church has pedigree to even interpret. This is precisely the Catholic approach: Scripture is authoritative, but to resolve disputes you must look at Apostolic Tradition and communion (Magisterium) as the decisive factor.

5. Early simplicity vs. later development: It’s a myth to portray the early church as some free-form Bible study group. From the start, there was organization (Acts 14:23 mentions presbyters, etc.), sacraments (Acts 2:42, breaking of bread; 1 Cor 10-11), rules (Acts 15, “no idol food, blood, etc.”; Didache’s whole manual). True, it took centuries to develop the full theology of some doctrines, but the structure of relying on tradition and authority was there immediately. The so-called “traditions of men” that Jesus condemned were specifically Pharisaic distortions that nullified God’s commandments (Mark 7:8-13). The Christian appeal to apostolic tradition is entirely different – it’s fulfilling God’s command to listen to those He sent. Luke 10:16: “He who hears you, hears Me.” The early Christians applied that by hearing their bishops as they would the Lord (Ignatius’s teaching) (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN). So, what Protestants might call later “corruptions” (like strong bishops, ritual, etc.) are seen in germ form even pre-150 and were not considered corruptions at all by those living it – they saw them as apostolic. The continuity from the early to later church is affirmed by historians (there is development, but not a total rupture in the second century where the Church suddenly became fundamentally different).

6. Non-Scriptural doctrines were accepted if backed by apostolic origin: The early church did reject teachings that lacked apostolic pedigree (Ebionite, Gnostic, etc.), but how did they determine pedigree? Not solely by checking written scripture (because the heretics often claimed scriptural basis or used their own gospels). They determined it by asking: Is this what the churches founded by apostles teach? and Is this in line with the rule of faith we received at baptism?. If not, it’s out. For example, the Trinity doctrine was not laid out explicitly with terminology in Scripture, yet the Church developed the Nicene Creed from the baptismal formula and rule of faith because it was consistent with apostolic teaching, whereas Arius’s view (though he tried to argue from verses) was seen as inconsistent with the church’s traditional understanding of Jesus’s divinity. This is a bit beyond 150 AD, but it illustrates the principle: the Church was willing to dogmatize something (homoousios) not verbatim in Scripture because it captured the truth of what had always been believed. Protestants ultimately accept Nicaea’s extra-biblical language because it’s recognized as the authentic interpretation. That is the Tradition at work. Similarly, earlier, the Church accepted the concept of Sunday worship and moving the Sabbath to Sunday – a practice with inference from Scripture (Jesus rose on Sunday, etc.) but no direct command. It was tradition from the apostles (as Ignatius and Justin show Sunday was standard (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr))). So early Christians did accept norms not explicitly from Scripture if they believed the apostles ordained them (Sunday worship, baptismal practice, etc.). This directly refutes the idea that they required explicit scriptural warrant for everything.

Doctrinal Fragmentation and the Necessity of Tradition for Unity

One of the strong historical arguments against sola scriptura is the observation that it tends to lead to fragmentation: if every individual or group interprets Scripture on their own as the highest authority, disagreements proliferate with no final arbiter but schism. The early Church provides a controlled study of this: whenever someone broke from tradition claiming a new scriptural insight or revelation, they became a sect, not the Church. Unity was maintained by adherence to the apostolic tradition guarded by the bishops. As St. Paul urged, there should be “one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph 4:5) and that Christians should “all speak the same thing” and not have divisions (1 Cor 1:10). The early Church leaders took that seriously and saw the teaching authority and tradition as the glue of unity (Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch | EWTN).

Consider the diversity of heresies in the 2nd century:

• Marcionites made their own reduced Bible.
• Gnostics produced a myriad of secret gospels and interpretations.
• Montanists had ongoing prophecies.
• Each of these, in effect, was following some form of “scripture or revelation alone” apart from the wider church. The result was doctrinal chaos: Marcion’s God was not the same as the Gnostics’ or the Catholics’; Gnostics among themselves had dozens of schools (Valentinian, Basilidian, Ophite, etc.). There was no unity among those who strayed from the Church – they fragmented into many sects. This is analogous to what happened after the Protestant Reformation: starting from sola scriptura, many denominations emerged with conflicting doctrines on baptism, Eucharist, predestination, etc.

The early Church, by contrast, remained remarkably one in faith across vast geography (we see the same core beliefs in writings from Rome, Gaul, Africa, Syria, etc.). This was because they all deferred to the same apostolic tradition and sought consensus through councils and letters. When Polycarp visits Rome about the Easter date, even though they didn’t agree on practice, they remained in unity – because that difference was considered a legitimate diversity within the one communion. However, when Marcion came teaching a different God, unity could only be preserved by rejecting Marcion (and ironically, Marcion then formed his own sect – disunity – rather than bend to the common faith).

Protestant apologists sometimes claim sola scriptura doesn’t necessarily lead to division if everyone interprets correctly. But that’s a theoretical that never holds in reality. The early heretics all thought they interpreted correctly (Marcion truly thought Paul and Jesus’ message opposed the OT; Gnostics thought they had the spiritual interpretation beyond the letter). It was only by having a living authority (the college of bishops globally) and an inherent tradition that the Church was able to nip these divisions and present one front. Even in the New Testament, we see need for authority: in Acts 15, a potential church split over Mosaic law was avoided by a council’s authoritative decree (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)), not by each side quoting Torah at each other indefinitely.

St. Paul himself argues for avoiding divisions by holding fast to the traditions. In 1 Corinthians 11:16, when discussing contentious practices, he says “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” Here he appeals to the common practice of all churches as decisive – that is an appeal to unified tradition to silence contention. He does similar in other places: “hold to the traditions” (2 Thess 2:15) so that they may be of one mind. Thus, scripturally too, tradition was seen as a remedy for division.

By 150 AD, unity under bishop and tradition is a visible hallmark of the Christian Church – so much so that St. Ignatius defines schismatics as those who do anything without the bishop or against the received norms (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). He calls such a person a servant of the devil (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)). That’s strong language, indicating the early church absolutely abhorred the idea of “going solo” on faith, even if one used scriptures to justify it. The worst thing was to break the unity of the Church. And to avoid that, you submit to the teaching authority and tradition.

Protestants might respond that unity should be based on Scripture truth, not institutional authority. But practically, whose interpretation of Scripture truth? In the early Church, the answer was clear: the college of bishops in line of succession from apostles, in agreement with the ancient churches (apostolic sees) were the reliable interpretive voice. That was how truth was discerned. Without that, any claim to truth was self-claim.

History shows that as soon as one rejects that principle (like the Gnostics did claiming secret apostolic knowledge apart from the public church, or like Marcion did claiming most of the church was wrong about the OT), one leaves the unified Church and forms a sect. The sects invariably further splintered or died out, whereas the Catholic Church continued in unity (with challenges, but overcame them by councils/tradition). Thus, tradition was necessary for doctrinal unity. The eventual strong consensus on fundamental doctrines (Trinity, Christ’s two natures, etc.) was achieved through the Church’s authoritative tradition-bearing councils, not by everyone individually reading Scripture.

Even the canon of Scripture itself was a unifying tradition: once agreed which books are in NT, that helped unity because all churches then read the same set. But arriving at that agreement took the authority of tradition and synods (Hippo 393, Carthage 397, etc., and Rome’s bishop approval).

Therefore, by refuting these Protestant contentions point by point, we see that the early Church’s reality does not support sola scriptura claims. The evidence points in the opposite direction: it supports the Catholic/Orthodox model where Scripture is one part of a larger Tradition, and the Church (with its apostolic leadership) is the custodian and interpreter of both.

To highlight the difference in outcomes: by the time of the Reformation, once sola scriptura was adopted, within decades multiple groups (Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Anglicans, etc.) emerged, and further splits continued (today thousands of Protestant denominations). By contrast, in the early centuries, those who stayed with the principle of apostolic tradition and authority remained largely one (“one holy catholic and apostolic Church”), while those who tried something like going by their own lights ended up as footnotes in history (Montanists, Marcionites, etc., did not last in significant form). Unity in the truth was preserved by Tradition; fragmentation was the lot of those who departed from it.

Conclusion

In light of this comprehensive analysis, it is abundantly clear that the early Church (up to ~150 AD) did not operate on a sola scriptura principle, but rather on a foundation of Scripture joined with Sacred Tradition and safeguarded by apostolic authority. The historical evidence – from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, early liturgical texts, and the accounts of handling heresies – consistently supports the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of Christian authority.

Primary source testimony shows that the first generations of Christians:

• Valued Scripture highly as inspired truth, reading the Old Testament and emerging New Testament writings in their worship and instruction (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)), yet they simultaneously upheld oral and practical traditions received from the apostles (such as the structure of ministry, the forms of sacraments, the core rule of faith) as equally authoritative (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)).

• Invested authority in the living leaders of the Church – the bishops and presbyters in succession from the apostles – to teach, exhort, and maintain unity (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)) (Martyrdom of Polycarp). There was no notion that an individual or isolated congregation could legitimize a doctrine solely by their reading of Scripture against the consensus of the Church. Instead, the Church’s universal Tradition was the measure of correct interpretation (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong).

• Appealed to Tradition to resolve disputes and combat heresies. Clement of Rome appeals to apostolic ordinance to quell schism (First Clement: Clement of Rome); Ignatius appeals to Church unity under bishops to fend off false teachings (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)); Irenaeus later appeals to the apostolic tradition “manifested throughout the world” as the criterion to unmask Gnostic deviations (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). This is precisely the Catholic approach: using Tradition as the lens to understand and apply Scripture and to judge new claims.

Modern scholarly research supports this portrayal. Historians like J.N.D. Kelly affirm that the early Church saw no conflict between Scripture and Tradition – they were two streams of the same apostolic deposit (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). The canon of Scripture itself was recognized through the Church’s Tradition, confirming that the Bible cannot be isolated from the Church’s authority. As the Church developed (second through fourth centuries), it continued on the trajectory set in the apostolic age: forming creeds, holding councils, and defining the orthodox faith always with the mindset that it was explicating the inherited apostolic Tradition, not inventing new doctrine from whole cloth.

Protestant claims that the early Church was “sola scriptura” in practice do not withstand scrutiny. Yes, the early Christians loved and used Scripture, but sola scriptura is not merely using Scripture; it is elevating Scripture as the sole infallible authority and denying any co-binding authority to Tradition or Church. The evidence shows the early Christians absolutely believed in binding authoritative Tradition (paradosis) and in the Church’s authority to teach and even discipline (as in excommunicating heretics or sending directives like in Acts 15 or 1 Clement). They did not believe each Christian or local group was free to derive doctrine on their own from Scripture apart from the Church. When such attempts were made (by breakaway sects), the result was doctrinal disunity which the mainstream Church condemned and corrected by reasserting the agreed Tradition.

In practical terms, if an early Christian in 120 AD had a doctrinal question, he could not pull out a complete New Testament (which was still being gathered) to answer it; he would consult his bishop or the rule of faith taught at baptism, or letters from respected churches – all of which is reliance on living Tradition. If one asked, “What must I believe about Christ?”, the answer would be “the teachings handed down from the apostles,” which were encapsulated in what we now partially have as the New Testament and partially as the Creed and oral teachings. The idea that one would say “show me that only in the written scripture or I won’t believe it” is precisely the attitude Ignatius reproved (“If I don’t find it in the archives (OT), I won’t believe in the gospel” – to whom he replied that Christ is the truth above old archives) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)). In other words, the early Church saw Christ’s authority as present in the Church’s full life, not only in a text.

Thus, our study validates that the early Church model aligns with the Catholic and Orthodox position: a triad of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (teaching authority) working in harmony. Scripture itself was a product of the Tradition (the Church existed and taught before the New Testament was completed), and its correct interpretation was guaranteed by fidelity to apostolic Tradition. This continuity is what allowed Christianity to survive the storms of heresy with a unified doctrine intact.

By refuting Protestant arguments, we have also shown that attempts to project sola scriptura back onto the early Church distort the historical reality. The fragmentation among Protestants today over biblical interpretation ironically underscores the early Church’s wisdom in adhering to a unifying tradition. As St. Vincent of Lérins famously put it in the 5th century (summarizing prior experience), the true faith is “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” – a description of Tradition. The early Christians, implicitly and explicitly, followed that principle, which is antithetical to the idea of each person or group starting from scratch with Scripture alone.

In conclusion, the period of the early Church (pre-150 AD) provides a foundational witness to a Christianity that is catholic in structure and authority: it knew nothing of sola scriptura, but everything of Scripture within Tradition. The historical evidence overwhelmingly supports that model. The Church of the apostles and fathers is the direct ancestor of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches of today, which continue to hold Scripture as God’s written word, and Sacred Tradition as the living transmission of that word, together interpreted authentically by the Church’s teaching authority. This model was necessary then for preserving unity and truth, and – one might argue – remains necessary now, as only by adhering to the full apostolic Tradition can the Church of each age resolve controversies and remain “of one mind.”

The verdict of history is clear: the early Church was the cradle of Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority that, guided by the Holy Spirit, compiled the Scriptures and kept the faith free from error (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong). Those who seek to follow the faith of the early Christians must recognize in their reliance on apostolic Tradition not a corruption of biblical religion, but the very means by which biblical religion was preserved and propagated. Far from being a deviation, the Catholic/Orthodox approach is the extension of early Christian methodology, whereas sola scriptura represents a novel theory foreign to the earliest generations of the Church.

Ultimately, as the early Church shows us, the “pillar and foundation of truth” is the Church of the living God (1 Tim 3:15), and that Church in its first centuries clearly taught and acted with the understanding that Christ left a Church endowed with authoritative Tradition and the Holy Spirit’s guidance – a Church that produced and upheld Holy Scripture, but was never limited to Scripture alone.

---

Sources:

• Holy Bible, RSV: Acts 15; 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Thess 2:15; etc. (for context).
• The Letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 96 AD) – see especially chapters 42-44 on apostolic succession (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome).
• The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) – see Letter to Smyrnaeans 8 on obeying the bishop and the term “Catholic Church” (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)); Letter to Philadelphians 7-8 on “archives” versus the Gospel (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)) (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)).
• The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, c. 1st century) – see chapters 7, 9-15 for baptism, Eucharist, and church order practices handed down (The Didache | EWTN) (The Didache | EWTN).
• St. Polycarp of Smyrna, Letter to the Philippians (c.110-140 AD) – see chapter 5 quoting Ephesians as Scripture (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)) and reliance on what was “learned from the Apostles” (cited in Irenaeus) (Martyrdom of Polycarp).
• Fragments of Papias (via Eusebius’s Church History III.39) – Papias on preferring the “living voice” of apostolic witnesses over books (The Writings of Papias. ).
• St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (c. 180 AD) – Book III.3-4 on the public apostolic tradition preserved through succession (Martyrdom of Polycarp) (Martyrdom of Polycarp); Book III.4.1 on the harmony of the oral and written transmission (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong); Book I.10 on the Rule of Faith.
• Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (c. 200 AD) – chapters 19-21 on the priority of apostolic tradition and the incompetence of heretics in using Scripture (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong).
• Justin Martyr, First Apology (c. 155 AD) – chapters 66-67 on Christian liturgy (reading “memoirs of apostles” and the Eucharist) (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)).
• J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, on Scripture and Tradition in the early church (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong) (Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura | Dave Armstrong).
• Larry Hurtado, Blog and Lord Jesus Christ, on early Christian textual practices and communal reading (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog) (“Communal Reading” in Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog).
• N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God & Scripture and the Authority of God, on the role of tradition and the five-act play analogy (The authority of scripture and NT Wright's five-act play analogy) (N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God - BioLogos).
• Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol.1, on the development of doctrine and tradition’s role.
• Henry Bettenson (ed.), Documents of the Christian Church – for primary source excerpts like Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc., demonstrating these points (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Hoole translation)) (Martyrdom of Polycarp).