Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition (150–325 AD): An Academic Study

Introduction

In the second and third centuries of Christianity (c. 150–325 AD), the Church grappled with defining the sources of authoritative doctrine amid burgeoning writings and persistent heresies. Central to this struggle was the relationship between Scripture – the written texts held sacred – and Sacred Tradition – the oral teachings and practices handed down from the Apostles. The Reformation concept of sola scriptura (Latin for “Scripture alone”), which holds the Bible as the sole infallible rule of faith, was unknown as a formal doctrine in this early period. Nevertheless, we can ask whether the principle behind sola scriptura had any precedent in these centuries. How did early Christian writers view the authority of Scripture relative to apostolic Tradition? What was the commonly held view in the Church regarding this balance? This study will examine those questions by surveying the writings of the Church Fathers from 150 AD up to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, along with the context of early heresies, the preservation of doctrinal unity, and the formation of the biblical canon. Modern scholarly insights – from historians like J. N. D. Kelly, Larry Hurtado, N. T. Wright, and others – will inform our analysis, highlighting where the evidence supports the later Catholic/Orthodox position (which upholds a co-operative role of Tradition and Scripture) and where some have attempted to find support for a proto-Protestant stance.

The period under review begins just after the time of the Apostolic Fathers (the generation directly after the Apostles, c. 70–150 AD, covered in the previous paper) and extends to the cusp of the Nicene Council. This was a formative era: the New Testament writings were circulating but not yet universally codified as a closed canon; apostolic teaching was transmitted through both writings and the “rule of faith” (regula fidei) preserved in churches; and the Church faced doctrinal challenges that forced it to clarify the sources and guarantors of Christian truth. By examining key figures – Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, and others – alongside the responses to heresies like Marcionism and Montanism, we will see a clear pattern. The vast majority of early Christian testimony upholds that Scripture and Tradition (anchored by apostolic succession in the episcopate) together formed the deposit of faith. While Scripture was held in extremely high esteem as divinely inspired, it was generally not regarded as a self-sufficient authority apart from the Church’s authoritative teaching. In fact, as we shall detail, the early Church taught that apostolic Tradition was the context and interpretive key for Scripture, and that the two were inseparable in preserving truth. Any appearances of an early “Scripture alone” approach are exceptions that will be carefully examined in context.

Before delving into individual theologians, it is necessary to clarify what we mean by “sola scriptura” in the context of the early Church. The formal doctrine of sola scriptura would only crystallize in the 16th century Reformation, asserting that all necessary doctrines of faith are clear in Scripture and that no binding doctrinal authority resides outside Scripture. The early Christians did not articulate such a principle; the New Testament itself was still in the process of being recognized as a defined collection, and the Church’s teaching authority was actively guiding that process. However, early Christians did frequently appeal to Scripture as an authoritative source and often argued that novel teachings must be tested against the “written record” of the Apostles. Does this amount to sola scriptura? Modern patristic scholars caution against anachronism. Anglican historian J. N. D. Kelly notes that for writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian, the “original message” of Christianity could be called tradition, meaning the teaching delivered by the Apostles, and this included Scripture as part of that single deposit (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). In other words, early Fathers did not set Scripture against Tradition; Scripture was understood as part of the Apostolic Tradition – the written part – and always to be read in harmony with the unwritten teachings the Apostles had passed down. As we shall see, the normative “rule of faith” in this period was that authentic doctrine must align with what the Apostles publicly preached and entrusted to the Church, whether that be found in the canonical writings or in the living memory of their teaching preserved by the succession of bishops (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)).

This paper will proceed in several parts. First, we will set the historical context of 150–325 AD, noting the status of scripture and tradition at that time and introducing the major challenges (persecutions and heresies) that pressured the Church’s understanding of authority. Next, we will examine early heresies and their influence on the Church’s reliance on Scripture and Tradition – focusing on movements like Marcionism, Montanism, and Gnosticism, which, in various ways, forced orthodox Christians to clarify the role of the written Word and the received apostolic Tradition. We will then survey the teachings of key Church Fathers on this issue, drawing extensively from their writings. Through these primary sources we will identify what view was most commonly held within the Great Church. In a subsequent section, we will discuss how doctrinal unity was preserved in this era via Tradition: the role of bishops and apostolic succession in guarding the “deposit of faith,” the use of synods/councils and the emerging biblical canon. We will also specifically analyze Protestant claims that some early writers espoused sola scriptura, evaluating those claims critically against the textual evidence. Throughout, we will integrate insights from modern scholarship – for example, Larry Hurtado’s observations on the early Christian “textual culture” and N. T. Wright’s analyses of scriptural authority in the patristic period – to provide a balanced academic perspective. Ultimately, the preponderance of evidence, as we shall demonstrate, tilts strongly toward the Catholic/Orthodox understanding that Tradition (the ongoing life and teaching of the Church) was considered a necessary and authoritative companion to Scripture. Yet we will also give due consideration to the elements of truth in the Protestant perspective, namely the profound reverence the early Church had for the Scriptures and the fathers’ frequent insistence that genuine apostolic teaching must not contradict the holy writings.

(Note: All citations of primary sources are given in English with references to original-language terms where relevant. Citations follow the format of the previous paper, with source indicators like ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) referring to specific lines in the research sources provided. All dates are AD unless otherwise noted. Where earlier or later figures (pre-150 or post-325) are quoted for context, it will be indicated, though the focus remains on 150–325.)

Historical Context: 150–325 AD – Scripture and Tradition in a Growing Church

By 150 AD, the Christian Church had spread throughout the Mediterranean world, and a second generation of leaders was guiding the faithful. This era saw prolific literary activity by Christian writers and also the first attempts to systematize Christian doctrine. Importantly, the corpus of sacred writings that would later form the New Testament was in circulation but not yet formally canonized. Different local churches had collections of apostolic writings (the Gospels, Paul’s letters, etc.), and there was broad agreement on many of these texts, but a single universally accepted list of New Testament Scriptures did not exist until the late 4th century. In the mid-2nd century, we begin to see explicit references to Christian writings as Scripture on par with the Hebrew Bible: for example, St. Justin Martyr (c. 155) speaks of the “memoirs of the Apostles” being read in church alongside the writings of the prophets (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods). By the end of the 2nd century, a core New Testament (the four Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, and some others) was recognized in most places (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods), though the fringes of the canon (e.g. Hebrews, Revelation, certain Catholic Epistles) were still debated.

During this period, public reading of Scripture in worship and catechesis became a defining feature of Christian practice. Scholar Larry Hurtado notes that early Christianity was uniquely “bookish” compared to other religions of the Greco-Roman world – Christians were “textual maniacs,” devouring and disseminating written texts as part of their worship and teaching (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods). This stood in contrast to the pagan cults, which transmitted myths and rites mostly through ritual and oral lore, not through authoritative books. The early Christians’ commitment to writing and reading enabled them to preserve a great deal of their teaching for posterity; indeed, we have a richer documentary record of Christian belief and practice in the first two centuries than we have for any contemporary religion (Our Knowledge of Early Christianity | Larry Hurtado's Blog). Scriptures (initially the Old Testament, soon joined by apostolic writings) were treasured as inspired testimony to God’s revelation. St. Irenaeus in the 180s refers to the Gospel handed down “in the Scriptures” as “the ground and pillar of our faith” ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ), indicating the foundational status of the written Gospels and apostolic letters in the Church. The Greek phrase he uses – ἔδαφος καὶ στῦλος τῆς πίστεως (edaphos kai stylos tēs pisteōs) – echoes 1 Timothy 3:15, where the Church is called “pillar and foundation of truth.” Irenaeus deliberately applies that biblical image to the Scriptures, showing the high regard he had for the written apostolic testimony ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ).

Yet, crucially, those same Christian leaders also emphasize continuity of teaching through oral transmission and ecclesial authority. The “Tradition” (Latin traditio, Greek παράδοσις/paradosis) in their minds was not a separate or rival source of truth but rather the living transmission of the one apostolic faith, of which Scripture was a part. The Apostles had preached orally before anything was written, and not everything they taught was immediately committed to writing. The “rule of faith” (regula fidei) emerged as a summary of essential apostolic teaching – a sort of proto-creed recited in baptismal contexts – that encapsulated the narrative and core doctrines (one God, creation, Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, the Holy Spirit, the Church, etc.). This rule of faith was a traditional standard against which interpretations of Scripture were measured. It functioned as a hermeneutical lens, ensuring that the Bible was read in line with the Church’s faith. Even as the New Testament books gained authority, the proper understanding of them was believed to be safeguarded by the Church’s tradition. In practice, this meant appealing to the teaching of earlier bishops and churches: for instance, if a doctrinal question arose, Christians might ask, “What have the churches founded by the Apostles taught on this matter?” or “What have the bishops in unbroken succession handed down?” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). This impulse is evident in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and others, as we will detail.

It is also important to note the sociopolitical pressures on the Church in this era. Christians were a minority often facing misunderstandings or persecution from Roman authorities. In such an environment, unity of doctrine was not only a theological ideal but a practical necessity – internal division could be fatal. Thus, there was strong motive to preserve a “catholic” (universal) faith that was consistent from city to city. The sense of a shared apostolic Tradition helped knit together far-flung Christian communities. By around 180 AD, a writer like Irenaeus (living in Gaul) could confidently assert that the Churches all over the world, though diverse in language and culture, held one and the same faith, because those churches traced their teaching lineage back to the Apostles (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). This claim to a universal apostolic Tradition was a conscious point of identity: “the Catholic Church” (meaning the whole, orthodox Church) defined itself in contrast to dissident sects by its fidelity to the Apostles’ doctrine handed down openly through known church leaders (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)).

Between 150 and 325, no ecumenical council had yet occurred until Nicaea at the end of our period, but there were numerous local synods and a great deal of informal correspondence by which churches maintained doctrinal consensus. For example, around 190 AD, disputes over the date of Easter (the Quartodeciman controversy) were resolved not by scriptural proof-texts alone but by consulting the traditions handed down in different regions and seeking a consensus (with St. Polycarp and later St. Irenaeus urging tolerance of different traditions on the matter rather than breaking unity). Likewise, controversies over re-baptism of heretics in the 3rd century saw opposing sides appeal to precedent and custom (“what has been handed down?”) as much as to any interpretation of biblical texts. Scripture was always authoritative; indeed, virtually every early Christian writer saturates his arguments with biblical citations. But Scripture was typically interpreted within the community, not by private judgment apart from the community’s received faith. We do not find in this era the notion that an individual Christian or an isolated group could definitively understand Scripture against the broad consensus of apostolic churches – rather, such novel interpretations were usually labeled “heresy” (from hairesis, “choice,” implying a choice of one’s own doctrine at odds with the Church). Thus, structurally, authority resided in Scripture-in-Tradition: the Bible as taught and understood in the Church.

By the early 4th century, on the eve of Nicaea, this approach had solidified. When the Council of Nicaea (325) met to address the Arian heresy (which denied the full divinity of Christ), the bishops famously formulated a creed including the term homoousios (“of one essence” with the Father) – a term not found verbatim in Scripture. Their justification was that this word captured the truth of Christ’s sonship as the Church had always understood it, even if an extra-biblical expression was needed to exclude Arian misinterpretations. This was a classic example of Tradition guiding the interpretation of Scripture: the council Fathers believed they were being faithful to apostolic Tradition (the original intent of Scripture) by introducing a non-scriptural term to safeguard orthodoxy. It shows that, for the early Church, fidelity to the apostolic faith sometimes required going beyond a bare literalism of the text, invoking the Church’s teaching authority to pronounce what is (and isn’t) the true meaning of Scripture. This conciliar act would be hard to reconcile with a strict sola scriptura principle. As N. T. Wright observes in his overview of Christian history, the interplay of Scripture and authoritative Tradition continued to evolve – with tradition and ecclesial authority carrying significant weight in biblical interpretation up through the Reformation (Review: N.T. Wright, “Scripture and the Authority of God” – By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog). It was only when the unity of the Church broke in the Reformation that “Scripture alone” emerged as a formalized principle in opposition to what Reformers perceived as errant traditions. In the ante-Nicene context, however, such a dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition was generally absent.

In summary, the context of 150–325 AD reveals a Church fervently devoted to Scripture – reading it in worship, copying it, defending its integrity – yet simultaneously relying on apostolic Tradition and authority structures to identify Scripture (deciding which books were truly apostolic) and to interpret it correctly. The next sections will illustrate this contextual summary with specifics: how early heresies prompted appeals to Scripture and Tradition, and what exactly the major Fathers taught about the rule of faith.

Early Heresies and the Balance of Scripture and Tradition

The theological battles of the 2nd and 3rd centuries did much to clarify the Church’s stance on Scripture and Tradition. Heresies – divergent teachings deemed incompatible with the apostolic faith – often forced church leaders to articulate why certain ideas were wrong and by what authority they were refuted. In doing so, the apologists and polemicists of the Church shed light on how they understood authority. We will focus on a few key movements: Marcionism, Gnosticism (especially Valentinianism), and Montanism. Each posed a distinct challenge with respect to Scripture and Tradition, and the Church’s responses in each case underscore the necessity it saw for an authoritative Tradition alongside the written word.

Marcionism: A Canon Within the Canon

In the 140s AD, Marcion of Sinope caused a massive stir in Rome by proposing a radical reinterpretation of Christianity. Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was a different, inferior deity from the loving God revealed by Jesus – effectively rejecting the Hebrew Scriptures and any Christian writings that seemed too friendly to Judaism. To advance his theology, Marcion created his own canon of Scripture, comprising one edited Gospel (a truncated Luke with Jewish elements removed) and ten edited epistles of Paul. He expunged references that connected Jesus with the Creator-God of the Old Testament. In essence, Marcion was arguably the first Christian to explicitly embrace something like sola scriptura – but only after fundamentally redefining what counted as Scripture. He jettisoned Tradition wholesale (especially anything coming from the Twelve Apostles or from Judeo-Christian backgrounds) and tried to build a theology on one apostle (Paul) read in isolation.

The orthodox Church’s rebuttal of Marcion demonstrates an important principle: the Church appealed to Tradition to defend the integrity of Scripture itself. Figures like St. Irenaeus and Tertullian (who both wrote against Marcion) argued that Marcion’s attempt to sever the Gospel from the Old Testament and from the mainstream apostolic writings was a novelty with no basis in what the Apostles had handed down. Irenaeus, writing c. 180, mentions those who “reject the Gospel of John and the Prophetic Spirit” and who lop off portions of Scripture they dislike (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) – an allusion to Marcionites. He counters that all four Gospels and the full tapestry of Scripture are necessary, famously asserting that there should be four Gospels just as there are four winds and four corners of the earth ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). This almost mystical justification underscores how deeply the fourfold Gospel had become part of the Church’s received Tradition. Indeed, Irenaeus didn’t derive the number of Gospels from Scripture (Scripture itself never says “there are four Gospels”); he received it as a fact from the churches – a tradition – and then retroactively found symbolic confirmation for it. This indicates that the canon of Scripture was itself a product of Tradition. The Church’s ability to say Marcion’s edited Luke is invalid; the true Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was grounded not in an existing biblical list, but in the continuity of teaching in communities that remembered which books the Apostles or their close associates had handed down.

Marcion’s challenge pressed the Church to define the relationship of the New Testament to the Old. The Church uniformly insisted that the Old Testament was scripture (the Word of God) and part of the Christian canon – a position buttressed more by apostolic Tradition (the Apostles and Jesus himself revered the Jewish Scriptures) than by any written New Testament text at that time. Against Marcion’s pared-down canon, orthodoxy maintained the broader canon inherited from the synagogue, supplemented by the growing corpus of apostolic writings. In refuting Marcion, Tertullian (c. 207) made an important point about authority: Marcion, as an outsider who had departed from the rule of faith, had no right to “go shopping” in the Scriptures to make them support his doctrine. In Against Marcion and more systematically in The Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian argues that the Scriptures belong to the Church – the “heirs” of the Apostles – and cannot be rightly used by those outside. He puts it vividly: “Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures… With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong? From whom, through whom, and to whom has been handed down the rule by which we are Christians? For wherever the true Christian faith and rule shall be manifest, there will be the true Scriptures and their expositions” (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). This was Tertullian’s “prescription”: a legal metaphor meaning an argument that cuts off debate. He is effectively saying that someone like Marcion, who does not hold the original apostolic faith (the rule of faith), is disqualified from debating Scripture, since any discussion would be futile when one party (the heretic) has already tampered with the text and context. The true text of Scripture and its true interpretation, Tertullian insists, reside with those who have the apostolic Tradition, passed down in the churches. This response illustrates how firmly the Church tied Scriptural authority to Tradition in the face of heretical challenges. In modern terms, Marcion tried to use a form of sola scriptura (scripture against tradition), but the Church met him with sola traditio (tradition determining what counts as scripture). Neither concept was fully articulated in those terms, but underlying the clash is the principle that Scripture cannot stand on its own without the Church’s Tradition to uphold and interpret it.

Another aspect of the anti-Marcionite response was positive canon formation. The Muratorian Fragment, an anonymous list of New Testament books from Rome around 170–200 AD, is often cited as evidence of the emerging canon in this period. It lists the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, and some other books as accepted, while rejecting others (like texts produced by gnostic sects). The rationale given for rejecting one document (The Shepherd of Hermas) is instructive: it says Hermas should not be read in church to the people because it is recent and “it cannot be placed among the prophetic or apostolic writings”. This shows an appeal to Tradition and origin – a book’s authority depends on it coming from the apostolic age and community. In short, in the process of forming the New Testament canon, the early Church used apostolic Tradition (what had been handed down from apostolic times) as the yardstick. Marcion’s canon was too narrow (excluding texts attested in the churches), whereas the later gnostic collections were too broad or spurious (including recent pseudonymous works). Orthodoxy navigated between these extremes by adhering to the “handed down” set of writings that the churches had long been using in teaching and liturgy.

To summarize Marcionism’s impact: It led the Church to emphasize that no one had the right to invent a new canon or gospel apart from what was received. The Old Testament remained indispensable, and the authentic apostolic writings recognized in the churches were to be preserved in full (without Marcion’s edits). In refuting Marcion, the fathers did appeal to particular scriptures (e.g. Tertullian points to passages where Jesus affirms the Law and Prophets), but more profoundly they appealed to the continuous public Tradition – what all the apostolic churches taught about God and Christ – as proof that Marcion was an outlier. Irenaeus directly addresses a hypothetical scenario: “Suppose there had been no New Testament writings – would not the faith have been delivered by oral tradition? Indeed it would have” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). He then points to actual “barbarians” (illiterate tribes) who had received the faith orally and “without paper or ink” still believed in one God, Christ’s sonship, and so on, “carefully preserving the ancient tradition” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). This was a pointed argument against Marcion: even those who lacked full access to written Scriptures had the true faith by Tradition, whereas Marcion with his Bible-but-no-tradition went astray. Irenaeus praises these simple communities who, if anyone came preaching strange doctrines not in accord with the tradition, “would stop their ears and flee, not enduring even to listen to such blasphemous talk” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). The contrast is stark – Tradition keeps the uneducated faithful orthodox, whereas a corrupted scriptural text alone (Marcion’s) leads the educated heretic into blasphemy. Thus, in the Marcionite crisis, the commonly held view in the Church was that fidelity to the Apostles meant retaining the full spectrum of Scripture united with Tradition, and that one could not legitimately pit one against the other.

Gnosticism: Secret Traditions vs. Public Apostolic Tradition

Parallel to Marcion’s challenge (and continuing beyond it) was the amorphous threat of Gnosticism – a term covering various movements (Valentinians, Basilideans, Sethians, etc.) that claimed to have special gnosis (knowledge) of divine mysteries. Many Gnostics did not reject Christian Scripture outright; in fact, they often eagerly interpreted the Gospels or Paul’s letters, but they reinterpreted them in radically unorthodox ways or supplemented them with secret sayings and speculative cosmologies. For instance, the influential Gnostic teacher Valentinus (mid-2nd century) accepted much of the New Testament but taught that beneath the surface of biblical texts lay a hidden mythological narrative about emanations (aeons) from the high God, the fall of a divine figure (Sophia), and the creation of the world by an ignorant demiurge. Valentinus and his followers purported that Jesus had imparted secret teachings to select disciples, which had been passed down clandestinely and which unlocked the Scriptures’ true (gnostic) meaning. In doing so, they invoked “tradition” but in a very different sense – an esoteric tradition for the spiritual elite, supposedly from Christ, parallel to the public teaching. The Orthodox response, championed by Irenaeus and Tertullian among others, was to deny the legitimacy of any secret apostolic tradition that was not openly shared with and preserved by the known churches. The true apostolic Tradition, they argued, was public, not secret, and was embodied in the continuous teaching of the episcopal college going back to the Apostles (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)).

Irenaeus devoted much of Against Heresies (c. 180) to unmasking Gnostic doctrines and contrasting them with the faith of the Church. In doing so, he provides one of the clearest early statements on the interdependence of Scripture and Tradition. In Book III, chapter 3, Irenaeus emphasizes apostolic succession: he lists the succession of bishops of Rome from Peter down to his own time, arguing that because that church’s lineage is intact and it has the teaching from the Apostles, “every church, that is the faithful everywhere, must agree with this Church [of Rome] on account of its more powerful principality” (a statement often cited for early papal primacy) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). But his broader point is about consistency of teaching: the bishops in apostolic succession “neither taught nor knew of anything like” the bizarre doctrines the Gnostics were peddling (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). If the Apostles had some secret doctrines (he reasons), surely they would have entrusted them to those very bishops to whom they entrusted the churches (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). Instead, since no such teachings are found in the authoritative churches, the Gnostic claims are false. Irenaeus says it is “a matter of necessity” that every church agree with the Apostolic Church and “contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). This tradition is not an unwritten lore apart from Scripture; it is basically the orthodox doctrine that the Apostles publicly preached and later enshrined in their writings, preserved in its fullness by the continuous life of the Church. Irenaeus then states succinctly: “In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us”, resulting in full assurance of faith (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). Note his coupling of tradition and the preaching of truth – for him they are practically synonymous. The Church’s tradition is the truth the Apostles preached; Scripture is one way that truth comes to us (indeed the normative way in writing), but Scripture itself had to be received and interpreted in line with this same tradition.

When Gnostic teachers argued from Scripture – and they did, often offering elaborate, allegorical interpretations of biblical verses – Irenaeus and others met them with both counter-readings of Scripture and the assertion of the rule of faith as the correct framework. Irenaeus likens Scripture to a beautiful mosaic of a king, which the Gnostics have broken apart and reassembled to form the image of a fox – they have all the scriptural words, but by rearranging them according to a foreign key (their myth), they produce a false picture (Irenaeus’ View of Scripture and Apostolic Succession: Part I – Orthodox Christian Theology) (Irenaeus’ View of Scripture and Apostolic Succession: Part I – Orthodox Christian Theology). The only way to get the king’s face (Christ’s true Gospel) back is to use the proper design – which is the rule of faith the Church holds. Irenaeus actually spells out the rule of faith in several places: one God Almighty, who made heaven and earth; one Christ Jesus, Son of God incarnate for our salvation; the Holy Spirit; and so on (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). This was the creed of the Church in substance, and Irenaeus says even illiterate Christians can recite this faith and guard it. In Against Heresies 3.4.1, as mentioned earlier, he makes the striking hypothetical argument: what if the Apostles hadn’t left writings? Would not the Apostolic Tradition still be our guide? — “Would it not be necessary to follow the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches?” he asks (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). He immediately answers that this is indeed the case – and in fact it is the case for many “nations of barbarians” (peoples outside the Greco-Roman sphere) who have received the faith orally and “have salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, carefully preserving the ancient tradition” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). Despite lacking written Scripture, these people believe in the core truths (one God, Jesus Christ’s work, etc.) that the Church everywhere holds (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). And if a heretic came to them with novel ideas, they would reject it immediately, not recognizing that as part of the tradition they were taught (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). In other words, the content of apostolic Tradition was well known – it was not some nebulous secret – and any teaching wildly deviant from it (like the Gnostic cosmologies) was self-evidently false to those grounded in the rule of faith. Scripture, to be understood rightly, had to be read in consonance with this inherited apostolic faith. Irenaeus famously says the truth is found “nowhere else but in the Catholic Church” which has kept that apostolic doctrine; heresies, being of later origin, cannot trace their ideas back to the Apostles (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)).

Tertullian, writing a couple of decades after Irenaeus, made similar arguments. In The Prescription Against Heretics (Chapter 21), he lays down the regula fidei (rule of faith) explicitly, listing the key doctrines (Trinity, Christ’s incarnation, suffering, resurrection, future judgment, etc.), and he states: “This rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the Gospel” (i.e., from the Apostles) and all heresies are deviations that came later. He notes that on certain points, the heretics teach something contrary to Scripture, and on others they even agree with Scripture’s words but twist the meaning (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). For Tertullian, as J. N. D. Kelly summarizes, the “original teaching” delivered by the Apostles was authoritative, “without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture”, since the apostolic traditio included both forms (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). In fact, “even if Scripture were not on hand,” the apostolic doctrine would still be reliably known in the Church’s public preaching (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). He points again to the continuous linkage: the churches founded by apostles, and the succession of leaders, have preserved one faith; their remarkable unanimity (agreement across different regions) is only explainable by a common source (the Apostles) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). This unwritten but orthodox Tradition, Tertullian says, is “virtually identical with the rule of faith” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). Furthermore – and this is critical – Tertullian admits he “prefers” the authority of that original apostolic Tradition to Scripture when arguing with those who distort Scripture (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). This is exactly what he does in Prescription: he refuses to even engage in scriptural debate with Gnostics on their terms, preferring to point to the Church’s foundational authority as the arbiter of what the Bible means (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). He does not disparage Scripture (far from it – he elsewhere says the Apostles “abundantly” prove things from Scripture (Sola Scriptura and the Apostolic Fathers: 200 AD: Tertullian - Bible.ca)), but he recognizes that any heretic can quote Scripture after a fashion. To break the deadlock of dueling interpretations, one must appeal to the context and ownership of Scripture: the Church. “Who has the right to interpret Scripture?” – Tertullian’s answer is, “Whoever belongs to the lineage of apostolic truth.” As Kelly puts it, Tertullian was convinced that “the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness.” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) Gnostics who claimed a separate secret tradition were simply not part of that public witness, and so their use of biblical texts was illegitimate.

In fighting Gnosticism, the Church also had to address apocryphal writings that some Gnostics produced, often labeled as “gospels” or “acts” of various apostles (e.g., Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc.). These texts purported to contain the esoteric teachings of Jesus to his inner circle – exactly what the Gnostics wanted people to believe in. The criterion the Church used to reject these was twofold: (1) Apostolic provenance – were these writings known to have come from apostolic times or persons? Invariably the answer was no; they appeared late and outside the known communities. (2) Congruence with the rule of faith – did they teach what the churches taught? They did not; often they contradicted core tenets (for instance, some Gnostic texts denied the true humanity or suffering of Christ, clashing with the Church’s creed). These criteria are essentially Traditional criteria. Origen, around 245 AD, describes how the Church recognized four Gospels and rejected others, noting that the Church’s teachings had been handed down in unbroken succession and “that alone is truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). Thus, if a writing or a doctrine was out of line with what had been consistently taught in the churches from the beginning, it was not accepted as authoritative. Scripture and Tradition were like two rails of a track: if a proposed “scripture” didn’t fit the Tradition rail, it was discarded; if an interpretation of accepted Scripture deviated from the rule of faith, it was condemned.

Summarizing the Gnostic challenge: it solidified the Church’s stance that authentic Christian doctrine is public and apostolic, not secret or novel. The Church countered Gnostic misuse of Scripture by insisting on the right context – the rule of faith and apostolic succession – for understanding Scripture. The most commonly held view in the Church, therefore, was that Scripture could not be separated from the living Tradition: the two were complementary authorities. The Apostles transmitted truth via both writings and example/teaching, and the Church inherited both. The Gnostics’ “traditions” were rejected because they were disconnected from the apostolic communities. In effect, the early Church simultaneously rejected (a) the Marcionite tendency to throw out Tradition and parts of Scripture, and (b) the Gnostic tendency to introduce “traditions” incompatible with the established faith or to re-read Scripture outside the Church’s tradition. This balanced rejection reveals orthodoxy’s self-understanding: The Church saw itself as the faithful custodian of both Scripture and Tradition, charged with guarding the “deposit of faith” (cf. 1 Tim 6:20) in its entirety. As Irenaeus said, the Apostles “deposited in the Church, like a rich man depositing money in a bank, all things pertaining to the truth”, so that anyone who wants the truth can draw from the Church’s treasury (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). He explicitly calls the Church the sole depository of apostolic doctrine (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). This vividly captures the prevalent view: the Church, not individual teachers with secret insight, held the full treasure of Christian truth – and that treasure included the Scriptures properly understood and the unwritten wisdom to interpret them.

Montanism: New Prophecy and the “Closed” Canon of Teaching

A different kind of challenge arose in the late 2nd century with Montanism, also known as the “New Prophecy.” Around 170 AD in Phrygia (Asia Minor), a Christian named Montanus with two female colleagues, Priscilla and Maximilla, began delivering oracles which they claimed were inspired by the Holy Spirit in a direct, dramatic way. They preached ascetic rigor (long fasts, celibacy, seeking martyrdom) and a heightened expectation of the end times, asserting that the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) was giving new revelations through them. Montanus reportedly even claimed, “I am the Father, the Son, and the Paraclete” speaking – a statement that alarmed many (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). The Montanists did not clearly contradict any written Scripture in doctrine about God or Christ; rather, the crux of the controversy was authority and discipline: could there be new revelations beyond what had been traditionally taught? Montanus’ movement seemed to suggest an ongoing prophetic source of authority that could potentially supersede the earlier teaching of the Church. For example, they advocated stricter moral standards than those generally accepted (refusing forgiveness to those who fled persecution or remarried, etc.) and claimed the Spirit’s authority for these practices.

The mainstream Church’s reaction was mixed at first – some were cautious, waiting to see the fruits of this prophecy, while others quickly condemned Montanism as a heretical excess or even demonic inspiration. Ultimately, by the 3rd century, Montanism was widely deemed heretical, especially in the West. The significance of Montanism for our topic lies in how it tested the idea of a “closed” vs. “open” deposit of faith. The question raised was: Had God given the Church all essential truth in the apostolic age, or could new doctrinal content still be added via prophecy? The Catholic (universal) Church’s eventual stance was that public revelation was complete with the Apostles; any genuine prophecy or spiritual gift now could only enlighten or call back to that apostolic faith, not add fundamentally new teachings. This stance implicitly affirms the sufficiency of the apostolic deposit (Scripture + Tradition up to that point), which is harmonious with the Catholic/Orthodox view that public revelation closed with the apostolic era. It does not, however, mean they embraced sola scriptura in the Protestant sense – rather, they upheld apostolic Tradition (which includes Scripture) as the final measure over against new claimants of revelation.

Evidence of the early response: Around 177 AD, Apollinarius, bishop of Hierapolis (in Asia Minor, near the Montanist hotbed) wrote against the New Prophecy, and church councils in Asia Minor were held to examine Montanism. One cited argument was that the Montanist prophets often spoke in a frenzied state and delivered prophecies that caused discord – unlike the original prophets and Apostles, whose messages were sober and aligned with Christ’s teachings. Eusebius of Caesarea later preserved some critiques: one opponent noted that Montanus’ prophecies did not accord with the continuous tradition of the Church and that his moral rules (like absolute prohibition of second marriage) went beyond what Jesus and the Apostles had laid down (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract) (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). In effect, Montanism was accused of “despising the apostolic tradition” and introducing teachings “springing from himself” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract) – language that echoes how Cyprian would later condemn Novatian (a different schismatic) for rejecting Church tradition. The Montanist claim of ongoing revelation forced the Church to clarify that no new foundational doctrines were to be expected; the role of the Church was to hand on what it had received (as St. Paul had said, “hold to the traditions you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth or by letter” – 2 Thess 2:15). Any alleged prophecy that contradicted or bypassed this inherited rule of faith was to be rejected.

An illustrative incident involves Pope Zephyrinus (or his predecessor Eleuterus) in Rome, who initially might have been sympathetic to the Phrygian prophets until Praxeas (a confessor from Asia) convinced him to condemn Montanism (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). Tertullian later bitterly remarks (after he himself became a Montanist) that Praxeas “did two jobs for the devil at Rome: he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy [Modalism].” This shows that by Tertullian’s time (early 3rd century), Rome had formally rejected Montanism – effectively siding with the principle of a closed apostolic deposit over claims of new prophecy.

Tertullian is a fascinating case: while earlier he was a staunch champion of the Church’s tradition (as we saw in Prescription), in his later life he embraced Montanism (around 207 AD) because he admired its moral rigor and charismatic fervor. Even as a Montanist, Tertullian still quoted Scripture extensively, but he believed the “new prophecy” shed light on how to apply Scripture in the current age (for instance, advocating more strict fasting). He did not claim Montanus revealed a different God or Christ – Montanism’s “revelations” were more about discipline, eschatology, and urging Christians to greater holiness. Nonetheless, the mainstream Church saw this as an aberration, effectively saying: We must stick to the Gospel and apostolic guidance we already have; the Montanist prophecies are not authoritative for the whole Church. In making that judgment, the Church placed Tradition (including what had been committed to Scripture) above any new purported revelations. This is a stance that aligns with Catholic/Orthodox thinking (public revelation closed, Tradition carries authority) rather than with a free-form charismatic or solo-scriptura approach. In fact, one could say the Church here leaned on the concept of “Scripture sufficiency” in a material sense – that all necessary moral and doctrinal guidance is already present in the Gospel inherited from the Apostles (written and unwritten) – hence Montanus’ additions were unnecessary or false.

It’s worth noting that Montanism indirectly highlights the importance of Church authority. Without a Magisterium or structure to discern spirits, anyone could claim the Spirit’s leading. The Catholic response was to use its inherited norms (tradition, earlier scriptures, council deliberation by bishops) to test Montanism and ultimately to reject it. This indicates that the “commonly held view” by the end of the 2nd century was that the Church collectively, especially its ordained leaders, had the authority to declare what is or isn’t true prophecy and thus to close the door to Montanus. In doing so, they affirmed the primacy of the existing deposit of faith.

Thus, early heresies in different ways underscored the Church’s reliance on both Scripture and Tradition: Marcionites tried to have Scripture without the full tradition (and were rejected), Gnostics tried to have “traditions” without grounding in Scripture or apostolic public teaching (rejected), Montanists tried to have new “Spirit” revelations beyond the received foundation (also rejected). The orthodox consensus that emerges is essentially that the genuine apostolic Tradition, preserved by apostolic succession and expressed in the rule of faith, is the standard by which Scriptures are recognized and interpreted and by which new teachings are judged. This is far closer to the Catholic/Orthodox paradigm (Scripture within Tradition, interpreted by the Church) than to the later Protestant paradigm of each individual using Scripture alone to derive doctrine. The early Church’s approach might be called “Scripture-in-Tradition”, or as some modern Orthodox describe it, “Scripture and Tradition as one unified deposit” (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge) (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge). As Orthodox writer Vladimir Lossky succinctly put it (in the 20th century, summarizing patristic thought): “Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church”, which includes Scripture at its core. The Fathers of the 2nd–3rd centuries would have agreed that the Holy Spirit guides the Church through this continuum of apostolic Tradition, rather than through isolated new revelations or private interpretations of Scripture.

Having examined how heresies prompted a clarification of sources of authority, we now turn to a closer look at individual Church Fathers and what they wrote about Scripture and Tradition in this period. This will reinforce and add nuance to the picture already drawn.

Church Fathers on Scripture and Tradition (150–325)

The theological writings from 150 to 325 AD provide a treasure of explicit reflections on the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. We will consider a representative selection of Fathers: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian, among others. Each had a unique context and emphasis, yet a remarkably consistent thread runs through their thought: an affirmation of the authority of Scripture coupled with an insistence on the indispensability of the Church’s traditional teaching as the framework for that authority.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202)

St. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons in Gaul (modern France) and a disciple of Polycarp (who himself had been a disciple of the Apostle John). Writing around 180 AD, Irenaeus had firsthand connection to apostolic tradition and also had to confront the sophisticated Gnostic teachings of his day. In his magnum opus Against Heresies (c. 180–185), Irenaeus emerges as one of the clearest exponents of the “Scripture-in-Tradition” principle.

Irenaeus held Scripture in very high esteem. He viewed the four Gospels as foundational – calling them the “four pillars” of the Church’s faith – and recognized many other New Testament writings. In Against Heresies 3.1.1, he writes: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they first proclaimed orally, and later by the will of God handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). This sentence is remarkable for a few reasons. First, Irenaeus acknowledges a chronological progression: the Apostles first preached orally and afterwards wrote the message in the Scriptures. Both the oral preaching and the written record derive from the Apostles. He then says these Scriptures were given “to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” This is a strong endorsement of Scripture’s foundational role – indeed, he applies to Scripture the terms ground and pillar (fundamentum et columnam in the Latin version) which the New Testament (1 Tim 3:15) actually applies to the Church ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). It shows that Irenaeus saw the written Gospel as fundamentally authoritative for Christian belief. A Protestant apologist might seize on this phrase to claim Irenaeus taught something like sola scriptura. However, Irenaeus’s very next chapters and overall method show he did not isolate Scripture from the Church or Tradition. In context, he is emphasizing that the same Gospel once spoken is now reliably enscripturated, so one need not look to any supposed secret teachings beyond that. But he immediately balances this by discussing how to deal with those who misinterpret Scripture.

When Irenaeus encountered heretics who rejected parts of Scripture or claimed secret keys to it, he famously said (3.4.1): “When we refute them out of the Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct or authoritative... or they allege that the truth cannot be found from those who do not know the Tradition. Then, again, when we appeal to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles and which is preserved in the churches through the succession of presbyters, they are unwilling to listen to it.” (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge) (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge). Here Irenaeus describes a two-pronged apologetic approach: he first uses Scripture to try to convince the heretics; if they reject Scripture or its plain sense, he then appeals to Apostolic Tradition preserved via succession (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge). Notice he calls Scripture the written Apostolic Tradition (“what was written by the Apostles”) and the Church’s teaching the oral Apostolic Tradition – and he treats them as complementary. It’s important that Irenaeus does not say, “Scripture alone is enough, forget tradition.” Instead, he says effectively, since the heretics distort or deny Scripture, we fall back on the secure line of apostolic Tradition manifested in Church succession. This is explicitly “an approach different from Protestantism’s sola scriptura,” as an Orthodox scholar notes (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge). Irenaeus “treats written and oral Apostolic Tradition as equal and complementary to each other.” (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge) (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge).

For Irenaeus, then, the common view is that true doctrine is determined by a convergence of Scripture with the Church’s inherited apostolic teaching. In Against Heresies 3.3.1, he states: “It is possible for everyone in every church who may wish to know the truth to contemplate the Tradition of the Apostles which has been made manifest throughout the whole world; and we can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the Apostles and their successors down to our own time, none of whom taught or thought anything like these heretics raving of.” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). He goes on to give the list of Roman bishops and highlights how the Church of Rome – being founded by Peter and Paul – holds a preeminent authority and has faithfully preserved apostolic Tradition (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). In the same passage, after naming bishops down to Eleutherius (c. 174 AD), Irenaeus concludes: “In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the fullest proof that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). This statement encapsulates the early Church view: the continuity of episcopal succession guarantees the fidelity of Church Tradition, which in turn guarantees correct understanding of the apostolic preaching (now recorded in Scripture) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). Irenaeus’s stress on “one and the same faith” being handed down contrasts sharply with the plethora of divergent Gnostic ideas. The phrase “handed down in truth” uses the verb tradere (to hand over) – thus tradition is literally what is handed over across generations.

Irenaeus also explicitly addresses those who only accept Scripture and not Tradition, albeit hypothetically. He says if the Apostles had left no writings, you’d have to rely on Tradition; and indeed many did so successfully (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). Conversely, he says of the heretics, they neither consent to Scripture nor Tradition: “they agree neither with Scripture nor with Tradition” (Against Heresies 3.2.1). This double accusation implies orthodoxy demands agreement with both. Thus, for Irenaeus, the most authoritative source of truth is the combined witness of Scripture and the Church’s Tradition, which in practice are never opposed. He never suggests that an individual Christian, armed with the Bible alone, could or should formulate doctrine apart from the received ecclesial teaching. On the contrary, he advises any important question be referred to “the most ancient churches” and the consensus they carry from the Apostles (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). This is a direct advocacy of what we might call “Tradition as interpretive norm.”

Original-language note: Irenaeus wrote in Greek (though we have his work mostly in Latin translation). When he speaks of Tradition, he uses the Greek word παράδοσις (paradosis), the same term Paul uses when urging Christians to hold fast to the traditions (e.g., 2 Thess 2:15). And when he speaks of the content of faith handed down, he often says κήρυγμα (kerygma) meaning the proclamation or διδασκαλία (didaskalia) meaning teaching. For example, the “preaching (kerygma) of the truth” is equated with “the tradition from the Apostles” in the passage above (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). This shows that to him Tradition was not about rituals or minor customs alone, but about doctrinal preaching – essentially the creed. In fact, Irenaeus provides one of the earliest enumerations of a creed-like summary (Against Heresies 1.10.1), matching what we know as the Apostles’ Creed in substance. This summary was obviously not a verbatim quote from any Scripture, but Irenaeus considered it authoritative because it was the teaching the Apostles had “traditioned” (handed on) to the Church. So, interestingly, the rule of faith (regula fidei) that Irenaeus and others cite can be seen as an extrabiblical tradition that held intrinsic authority – it was a yardstick to measure interpretations of Scripture. This fact is hard to square with a notion of sola scriptura that rejects any binding authority outside the Bible.

In conclusion on Irenaeus: He clearly teaches that the Apostolic Tradition, preserved through the succession of the Church’s ministry, is the context in which the Scripture is truly understood and upheld (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). While he extols Scripture as “pillar of faith” and uses it extensively, he nowhere teaches Scripture as an isolated, self-sufficient rule of faith divorced from the Church. Modern patristic scholars concur on this reading. For instance, Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly states that for Irenaeus (and contemporaries), “scripture and the Church’s living tradition were identical in content, both being vehicles of the one apostolic teaching”. Irenaeus does not set up a “Scripture vs. Tradition” dichotomy; that conceptual battle simply did not exist in his time in the way it would in the 16th century. In fact, Irenaeus is oft-cited by Catholic and Orthodox theologians precisely because of his robust defense of apostolic Tradition. We may fairly say the preponderance of Irenaeus’s testimony strongly supports the Catholic/Orthodox position. The Protestant view can glean from him an acknowledgment of Scripture’s primacy in apologetics (he first tries Scripture in argument) and a belief in the material sufficiency of written apostolic teaching (Scripture contains the truth, since it is apostolic teaching in writing). But the formal principle of sola scriptura – that Scripture is the only infallible authority and that the Church can err – is foreign to Irenaeus. He trusts the Spirit-guided Church (whom he calls the “entrance to life” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus))) not to err in transmitting truth.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155–240)

Tertullian, a presbyter from Carthage in North Africa, provides an interesting and somewhat complex case. He is the first Christian writer to produce an extensive corpus in Latin, and he had a sharp legal mind. Tertullian’s writings span the very end of the 2nd century and early 3rd (c. 197–220). He tackled heresies (like Marcionism, Gnosticism, and later Modalism) and also wrote practical and moral treatises. Notably, Tertullian’s stance on authority evolved: in his early Catholic phase he defends the Church’s Tradition vigorously; in his later phase, after he embraced Montanism (the New Prophecy), he still uses Scripture but also gives weight to what he believed were new movements of the Spirit. Despite this personal evolution, Tertullian never explicitly teaches sola scriptura as later defined. In fact, in his orthodox phase he is one of the most articulate proponents of the necessity of Tradition and Church authority – often quoted by Catholic apologists on this topic.

In “De Praescriptione Haereticorum” (The Prescription Against Heretics, c. 200 AD), Tertullian lays out a method of refuting heresies by a legal analogy. A praescriptio in Roman law was an objection raised to dismiss a case outright – like saying “you have no standing to sue.” Tertullian applies this to heretics: before even debating scriptural interpretations, he says, one should challenge whether the heretics have any right to use Scripture at all (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). His reasoning: the Scriptures belong to the Church, handed down from the Apostles to their successors. Heretics, having severed themselves from that succession, are like strangers trying to claim another’s property. This is a bold and sweeping claim. He writes: “Our appeal must not be made to the Scriptures, for these are common to both parties... For whoever would decide a debate by the Scriptures, the victory will be uncertain or at best doubtful. ... For [the heretics] will either distort the Scriptures with their interpretation or claim some things are interpolations and not authentic. Therefore, we must first inquire, to whom do the Scriptures belong? From whom and through whom and when and to whom has been handed down that rule by which men are made Christians? For wherever the true Christian faith and rule shall be found to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true interpretations, and all the true Christian traditions.” (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). This passage (Praescr. Haer. 19) is striking. Tertullian explicitly deprioritizes direct debate from Scripture alone (“must not be made to the Scriptures,” “controversy ... must not be admitted” (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian))) because he sees that as a stalemate; instead, he shifts focus to the “rule of faith” and its custodians (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). He asks basically: Which side has the authentic Christian pedigree? Whichever group can show continuity with the Apostles – that group inherited the Scriptures and the right understanding of them. And indeed, Tertullian answers that, of course, it is the Catholic Church, not the heretics, who have that lineage. He challenges the heretics to “Run through the Apostolic Churches” and see if their doctrine matches what those churches received from the Apostles (Praescr. 21). In a famous line, he says: “If the Lord Jesus Christ sent the Apostles to preach, no others should be received except those whom Christ appointed... What they preached (i.e. the faith), in that is to be the truth. Therefore, to know what the Apostles taught, one should look to the churches they founded; for the truth is just as surely what is preserved as what was delivered (certum est id esse verum quodcunque primum, id esse adulterum quodcunque posterius)”. This last phrase – “it is certain that what is first is true, and what is later is adulterated” – is a principle of looking to antiquity of tradition to judge truth (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). Tertullian clearly presumes the Apostolic Tradition is reliably preserved in the orthodox churches through succession, and that novelty is a sign of error.

Tertullian’s reliance on a “rule of faith” is explicit. He actually gives a concise rule in Praescr. 13: “Now, the rule of faith is – [here he enumerates] – that there is only one God Almighty, who made the universe; that this Creator has a Son, Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered and rose again, and sent the Holy Spirit, etc.” (It’s basically an early creed.) He then says all other doctrinal discussion must be subordinate to this rule. “With this rule in place,” he writes, “we can seek and argue about other points of belief only as long as it doesn’t contradict this main rule”. So Tertullian sees the regula fidei as a fixed given, not subject to debate – it is a summary of the apostolic deposit itself. Note: This rule was extrabiblical in form (it’s not a direct quote of any Bible passage), yet Tertullian treats it as normative and authoritative. For him, Scripture and the rule of faith are harmonious and both come from the Apostles – but the rule of faith is simpler and provides the interpretive key. In modern terms, one might say he embraced “material sufficiency” of Scripture (all truths are in there) but required an authoritative Tradition and Church to ascertain the correct interpretation (the formal principle). He indeed states that the Apostles “did not omit anything in their preaching that people ought to know”, so one should not expect some secret addition beyond Scripture (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). This affirms that Scripture (apostolic writing) contains all the essential truths (a point Protestants like to highlight). But crucially, he immediately frames that preaching in terms of how it is known to us – through the churches the Apostles founded and the line of transmission.

Tertullian even goes so far as to claim that even if there were no Scriptures, Christians could still discern truth by the same apostolic tradition: “But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, we can say... Let them show the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops... If so, then even those heresies themselves will be found to be not different from the apostolic faith. But if they have no continuity with those entrusted by the Apostles, then they must be held lacking in truth. For the true tradition is that which comes from the Apostles and is a matter of public record (manifestata) in the churches established by them” (paraphrasing Praescr. 32). This challenges any group without apostolic succession. He gives the example of some churches that might not have a direct apostle founder (like newer churches); he says as long as they agree in faith with those that do, they are apostolic in faith. This underscores consensus and unity as a test of truth.

To illustrate Tertullian’s perspective, consider how he deals with Marcion. In Against Marcion Book 4, Tertullian diligently goes through Scripture to rebut Marcion’s positions, showing that he was extremely fluent in scriptural argumentation. He actually says at one point to Marcion: “I do not hesitate to say that the Scriptures are sufficient for proof, if used by someone who comes to the faith with a correct understanding” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). The second part (“with correct understanding”) is crucial – who ensures correct understanding? For Tertullian, that is the Church’s rule of faith and the Spirit guiding the Church. In his fight with Hermogenes (a heretic who posited pre-existent matter), Tertullian famously says: “Let Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not written in Scripture, let him fear the woe that comes on those who add to or take away from Scripture” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). Protestants sometimes quote this line to say Tertullian believed doctrines must have scriptural proof. But context reveals Tertullian’s multifaceted approach: in this case, he found explicit scriptural evidence (Genesis creatio ex nihilo) for his position, so he demanded the opponent likewise produce scriptural evidence – otherwise the opponent is innovating beyond the apostolic teaching, which Scripture warns against. This is not a blanket statement that all doctrines must have a proof-text, but rather it’s a rhetorical move in a specific debate. As Dave Armstrong’s analysis points out, Tertullian was invoking Revelation 22:18 (don’t add to the prophecy) to chastise Hermogenes for adding a doctrine not taught by Apostles (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). It fits perfectly with Tertullian’s main concern: fidelity to what was delivered. If something isn’t in Scripture or in the established apostolic teaching, it should be viewed with suspicion. The Catholic argument, of course, is that many of their distinct doctrines are in that apostolic teaching even if not explicitly in Scripture (e.g. infant baptism, which Tertullian accepted as customary, or the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc., though Tertullian personally had some divergent views as he aged).

In summary, early Tertullian aligns strongly with the Catholic/Orthodox position: Scripture is absolutely authoritative, yes, but it is “the Church’s book”, to be interpreted within the Church. “The Scriptures belong to us, not to the heretics,” he boldly claims (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). He even says the heretics’ resort to Scripture is their last refuge, but “it is no wonder, since they deal with Scriptures without the true key” (Praescr. 19). That “key” is the regula fidei known in the Church. J. N. D. Kelly sums it up: “Tertullian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament; even if Scripture were set aside, it would still be found in the Church’s doctrine... The one divine revelation is contained in its fullness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness.” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). Kelly also notes that for Tertullian, the unwritten tradition (the rule of faith) was virtually identical with Scripture in content, and he “preferred it to Scripture as a standard when disputing with heretics”, because it was a clearer, fixed summary (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong).

What about later Tertullian? After about 206 AD, Tertullian became an adherent of Montanism. He grew disillusioned with what he saw as laxity in the main Church (especially about penance). As a Montanist, he still quoted Scriptures voluminously, but he also held that the new prophecies of the Spirit were shedding additional light on discipline. For example, he wrote On Fasting and On Modesty advocating stricter rules, citing revelations given to the Prophets of Montanism. In those works, he criticizes the majority Church for not accepting these stricter “traditions” (like forbidding remarriage or certain absolutions). He accuses the bishops of Rome and Carthage of deviating from true rigor and describes himself as spiritual (having the Spirit’s new revelations) and them as “psychic” (merely natural). This obviously represents a conflict of traditions: Montanist vs Catholic tradition. It’s noteworthy, however, that even as a Montanist, Tertullian does not claim the Spirit’s revelations overturn Scripture – rather, he argues they deepen or properly apply it. The mainstream Church rejected Montanism’s claim to binding prophecy after the apostolic age, essentially upholding the earlier stance Tertullian himself once championed: stick with the tradition received, reject new innovations. Ironically, Tertullian found himself on the side of innovation (claiming continuing revelation) against the Church’s tradition – a fact not lost on readers. Thus Tertullian’s own trajectory underscores that the enduring position of the Great Church was the one he articulated in Prescription, not his later Montanist leanings. His later disagreements (which the Catholic/Orthodox would label as schismatic or heretical) don’t support a Protestant sola scriptura view either; Montanism was more about continuing revelation than about Scripture alone. If anything, his Montanism might superficially resemble Protestant charismatic movements claiming new prophecies, but not the Reformers’ emphasis on a closed canon sufficient unto itself.

In conclusion, Tertullian’s earlier writings heavily favor the Catholic/Orthodox paradigm: the Church’s apostolic Tradition (embodied in the succession and the rule of faith) is the authoritative guide to understanding Scripture and the arbiter of orthodoxy (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). He explicitly denies heretics the right to trump the Church by private scriptural interpretation. His famous quip "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" (Prescr. 7) – meaning pagan philosophy (speculative reason) has no place overruling the faith – could analogously be extended to “what has unauthorized interpretation to do with the Church?” The preponderance of evidence from Tertullian supports the view that Scripture was materially sufficient but not formally self-sufficient apart from the Church’s traditio. Protestants can appreciate Tertullian’s zeal for sticking to what is written versus unwritten novel claims, but must acknowledge that Tertullian’s notion of “what is written” is inseparable from “what has been handed down and publicly taught.” He does not envision the Bible being rightly interpreted outside the ecclesial context – a key divergence from the sola scriptura approach as practiced in post-Reformation Christianity.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) and Origen (c. 185–253)

In Alexandria, Egypt, a vibrant Christian intellectual tradition developed, represented by figures like Clement and his pupil Origen. They confronted different challenges – especially the integration of Greek philosophical ideas with Christian doctrine, and an allegorical approach to Scripture interpretation. While their focus was not as overtly on “Scripture vs Tradition” controversies (since they dealt less with Gnostics by the time of Origen and more with philosophical theology), their works still reflect the authoritative status they gave to apostolic Tradition alongside Scripture.

Clement of Alexandria led the catechetical school in Alexandria around 190–202 AD. He was well-read in Scripture (citing and commenting on it frequently) and also in philosophy. Clement viewed the true Christian as one who has gnosis (knowledge) in a holy way – but importantly, for him this gnosis was grounded in the ecclesiastical rule of faith, not in some private revelation. He writes in Stromata (Miscellanies) 7.16: “Well, they, preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy Apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the fathers, (though few were like the fathers), have by God’s will come down to us, to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And indeed they will exult, not because they receive a testimony from us, but on account of the preservation of the truth, according to what they delivered.” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). This rather dense passage shows Clement describing a chain of transmission: the “blessed doctrine” from the Apostles was passed down by certain presbyters to others, and ultimately to his time (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). He talks about “ancestral and apostolic seeds” deposited – an image of Tradition as a seed growing in the Church’s soil. Clement clearly values fidelity to what was delivered: he commends those who “preserve the tradition” exactly “as it was delivered” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). This indicates that Clement did not consider himself free to invent doctrine; he saw himself as explicating what was handed down.

Clement also speaks of a “Ecclesiastical Tradition” vs those who spurn it. In Stromata 7.7, he contrasts those in the Church versus heretics: “He who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition and darted off to the opinions of heretical men has ceased to be a man of God and remains merely a man.” (Clement of Alexandria: The Stromata: Doctrine on Scripture). This is a strong indictment: rejecting the Church’s tradition is tantamount to leaving God’s path. In context, Clement is defending orthodox Christian life and worship as something not to be despised in favor of wild speculation (he uses the image of those “drugged by Circe” turning into beasts – a metaphor for heretics losing true humanity by rejecting Church order). So Clement too elevates the tradition of the Church as a touchstone.

When it comes to Scripture, Clement is an enthusiastic exegete. He believed all true philosophy and knowledge ultimately harmonized with Scripture. Clement did not explicitly discuss the canon of Scripture in detail (Origen would do more of that), but he clearly accepted the four Gospels and most of the New Testament, citing them. Clement’s approach to authority was somewhat inclusive – he could quote Plato or pagan literature to illustrate a point – but he firmly held that whatever truth the philosophers glimpsed, it was subordinate to the full truth in Christ as taught by the Apostles. He somewhere calls the Church’s teaching the “true gnostic” tradition, meaning the authentic deep knowledge, as opposed to the false gnosis of heretics.

A nuance: Clement does mention “secret teachings” in a positive sense. For example, he believed that Jesus imparted more advanced doctrine privately to the Apostles (citing Mark 4:34 “in private he explained everything to his disciples”). He surmised that the Apostles similarly taught deeper truths to those ready within the Church (a sort of esoteric wisdom for mature believers – not contrary to the public teaching, but more advanced insight). This has sometimes been misunderstood as Clement endorsing some kind of hidden tradition separate from Church teaching. However, Clement’s extant works don’t divulge any heterodox secret; rather he attempts to articulate what he thinks is the deeper spiritual meaning behind common doctrines. For instance, he explores allegorical meanings in Scripture extensively. Importantly, Clement does not set up a secret tradition that contradicts the public faith – his “secret” apostolic teaching seems to be just a fuller understanding of the mystery of Christ, reserved for the spiritually mature but in line with the rule of faith. So Clement doesn’t break the mold; he still upholds the rule of faith as baseline. In Stromata 1.1, he explicitly states that he won’t divulge certain sacred things to those not yet instructed, referencing Jesus’ command not to throw pearls before swine. But he is writing for Christians, so presumably he feels free to expound deeper stuff to them. The key point: Clement never says, “We have a tradition that nullifies Scripture.” Instead, he affirms that apostolic tradition confirms Scripture and vice versa. In fact, Clement calls the Bible itself “those Scriptures which have been believed to be sure and handed down to us, and those which are properly called the Old and New Testament” (Stromata 6.11) – acknowledging they are handed down. So even the existence of the Bible as a recognized collection is due to traditio.

Origen, arguably the greatest early exegete, likewise held Scripture in the highest esteem – he produced massive commentaries and homilies on nearly every book. Origen’s perspective on Tradition is nuanced. In the preface to On First Principles (De Principiis), Origen delineates which teachings are clearly handed down by the Apostles and thus not to be disputed, versus which are open questions. He says: “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches to the present day. That alone is to be believed as truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). This statement from Origen (De Princ. Preface, 2) could not be clearer: the criterion of truth is conformity with Apostolic Tradition as preserved in the Church (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). Origen then lists the things “delivered by the Apostles” as indisputable – e.g. one God the Creator, Jesus born of a virgin, truly died and rose bodily, the Holy Spirit, the inspiration of Scripture, the coming judgment, etc. These form the fixed core of Tradition (the rule of faith). On other matters not clearly defined by that tradition (e.g. the nature of souls, the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity in philosophical terms, etc.), Origen speculates freely, trying to be consistent with Scripture and reason, but he acknowledges these are not settled by Tradition.

From this, we see Origen making an explicit original-language analysis of terms: he calls the Church’s authoritative teaching παράδοσις ἐκκλησιαστική καὶ ἀποστολική (“ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”) and says only what agrees with that is true (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). He uses διάδοχος for succession. So despite Origen’s reputation for sometimes speculative ideas, he himself asserts the necessity of traditional teaching as a check. Indeed, when certain groups (e.g. some who denied the Holy Spirit’s divinity) claimed scriptural warrant, Origen appeals to the Church’s tradition that the Spirit is to be honored with the Father and Son – which later would be dogmatized.

Origen also contributed to clarifying the canon by noting which books the Church universally accepted and which were disputed. In his Homilies on Joshua (7.1), he remarks that the Church has four Gospels (not dozens), and in his commentary on Matthew he lists the known Gospel writers. Eusebius cites Origen’s list of Old Testament books and his mention of the disputed but generally read texts (like the Epistle of James, 2 Peter, etc.). Origen’s criterion was clearly what the churches have handed down as canonical – again showing that Scripture’s own scope was determined by Tradition. He even uses the phrase “the Church’s tradition which is an unwritten point handed down from the Apostles” to justify why Hebrews might not have been originally seen as Paul’s epistle by the Roman church but is still revered (in Homily on Hebrews, fragment). The details are less important than the principle: Origen defers to what the “ancients” and the “Church of God” have handed down regarding such matters.

To Origen, Scripture was supremely authoritative and inspired – he calls it theopneustos (God-breathed) – but it was not isolated. He believed the Holy Spirit guided the Church’s understanding. In practice, Origen’s method was to interpret Scripture in an often allegorical way to uncover spiritual meanings, but he insisted that no interpretation should contradict the rule of faith. For example, if a naive reading of a passage seemed to suggest a heretical idea, Origen would say the text must have a deeper meaning because it cannot truly conflict with the apostolic faith.

In summary for Clement and Origen: both accepted the harmony of Scripture and Tradition. Clement emphasizes the continuity of doctrine via succession (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract), Origen explicitly states that only interpretations in line with apostolic tradition are true (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). Neither advocated something like sola scriptura. Origen’s allowance for discussing unsettled questions shows an early exercise of what we’d call theologoumena (theological opinions), but always within boundaries. Their engagement with Greek thought did not replace the apostolic core; rather, they tried to defend that core using philosophy. Modern scholars like Larry Hurtado note how deeply early Christians (like Origen) revered scriptural texts – copying and commenting on them tirelessly – but also that these same Christians saw themselves as part of a living community with ritual and teaching continuity (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods). Hurtado highlights that early Christian “textuality” was communal: scriptures were read in church, expounded by bishops or teachers, and guarded as precious artifacts (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods). In fact, the use of the codex (book form) by Christians was revolutionary and likely tied to having collections of authoritative texts (maybe the four Gospels in one codex, etc.), showing an intentional effort to shape a canon. This technological and cultural practice was itself an aspect of Tradition – the way the Church handled Scripture physically and liturgically.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258)

Moving to the mid-3rd century, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, provides perspective on ecclesial authority and unity, which relates to Scripture/Tradition in practice. Cyprian, in his letters and treatises (like On the Unity of the Church), stressed the authority of bishops in apostolic succession and the necessity of remaining in communion with the Church. One of Cyprian’s famous dicta is “He can no longer have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother.” He argued strongly for the unity of the Church under the college of bishops, each bishop being a successor of the Apostles in his local church, all together forming one episcopate.

Cyprian dealt with controversies like the Novatian schism. Novatian was a Roman priest who broke away and had himself consecrated a rival “bishop” after disagreeing with Pope Cornelius’s leniency toward Christians who lapsed in persecution. Cyprian sided with Cornelius (the legitimate bishop), emphasizing that Novatian had no authority or succession. In a letter (Epistle 75, to Pope Cornelius, sect. 3), Cyprian wrote of Novatian: “He is not in the Church, nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who succeeds to no one, and despises the evangelical and apostolic tradition, springing from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way.” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). Here Cyprian explicitly says Novatian “despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition” has made himself an outsider (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). The “evangelical and apostolic tradition” in this context likely refers to the established practice and teaching regarding Church order and penance – basically, the normative way handed down from the Apostles (through their gospel and letters, and through their ordained successors) to handle repentant sinners. Novatian’s stricter stance (refusing reconciliation to the lapsed) was novel and against the custom that had developed under bishopric authority. Cyprian thus frames it as violating Tradition. He underscores that without proper ordination and succession, one lacks the Holy Spirit’s guarantee and thus cannot rightly interpret or enforce doctrine.

Cyprian certainly knew Scripture and often quoted it (for example, insisting on John 20:22–23 for the power to forgive sins being given to bishops, or Matthew 16:18 for Peter as source of episcopal unity, albeit his interpretation of the latter is debated). But he always speaks with the consciousness of the Church’s authority behind those Scriptures. He would never say an individual Christian could just pick up the Bible and autonomously decide doctrine. In fact, Cyprian famously clashed (respectfully) with Pope Stephen of Rome over the issue of baptism by heretics. Cyprian and some African bishops held that baptisms performed outside the Church (by schismatics/heretics) were invalid, so converts should be rebaptized. Pope Stephen appealed to earlier Roman tradition (claiming since Peter’s time, Rome accepted such converts with only a laying on of hands, not rebaptizing) and probably to the fact that baptism in Christ’s name, if done properly, is a sacrament that doesn’t depend on the baptizer’s holiness. This was a rare case of two different traditions clashing – local North African vs Roman practice – both claiming apostolic origin. Cyprian insisted “we must follow truth rather than custom” if a custom is in error (Letter 72.2), effectively accusing the Roman practice of deviating from what he thought Scripture and original tradition taught (one baptism, in the Church). Stephen, on the other hand, reportedly called Cyprian’s side “innovators” for requiring rebaptism, asserting the older tradition of recognizing heretical baptism was correct.

What’s instructive is how Scripture was used by both sides but was not seen as self-evident enough to settle the matter; appeals to tradition and authority were crucial. Stephen’s view eventually prevailed in Church-wide practice (affirmed later by councils and by St. Augustine in the 4th/5th century), showing that even a saint like Cyprian could err in some disciplinary matter – but the resolution came through the consensus of the Church, not by quoting a proof-text alone. The Council of Nicaea later in 325 implicitly endorsed the Roman view by not requiring rebaptism of heretics, demonstrating how the Church as a whole exercises authority to interpret the implications of biblical principles like “one baptism.”

However, it’s key to note: Cyprian did not base his stance on private interpretation but on what he sincerely believed was apostolic tradition in North Africa and what scriptural logic demanded. And he submitted the issue to a council (Carthage 256) and corresponded with other bishops (like Firmilian of Caesarea) to try to persuade Pope Stephen. This shows doctrinal unity was sought through collegial discussion and appeals to earlier practice, not simply by each bishop saying “my Bible says this so I’ll do it my way.” In fact, Cyprian’s willingness to convene councils indicates his respect for the Church’s corporate authority to decide controversies. He even says, “no one sets himself up as a bishop of bishops” (On Unity, a line sometimes seen as directed at Pope Stephen’s tone), implying each bishop must ultimately act in concert with others and not domineer – a very collegial view of authority. This collegiality is itself part of the sacred Tradition of governance.

Cyprian also reinforced the visible unity of the Church. He taught that Christ gave the keys first to Peter as a symbol to indicate the unity of the episcopate – “the episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole” (On Unity, 5). Thus, every bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, holds office as part of the one college inheriting Peter and the Apostles’ authority. His emphasis is on unity of teaching and practice – that is, a unified Tradition. For Cyprian, dividing from the universal Church was one of the greatest sins; no amount of scriptural argument or austere practice could justify schism. In today’s terms, Cyprian was more concerned with orthodoxy (right teaching) and orthopraxy (right practice) as maintained in the Catholic Church, than with someone’s claim to follow “the Bible alone” against that Church. He would deem such a person deceived and out of the Church.

In summary, Cyprian’s era shows the Church functioning with a clear sense of Tradition and authority: Councils of bishops, deference to apostolic sees, excommunication for those who deviate, and so forth. Scripture was central in their deliberations (they often opened sessions reading scripture and citing it in canons), but the final decisions came with the weight of “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” in council – echoing Acts 15:28 – which is the Church exercising her interpretive authority. By Nicaea in 325, this conciliar exercise reached a new level: defining a creed that goes beyond a mere string of Bible verses (introducing homoousios, “consubstantial,” as a term to exclude Arian interpretation). Nicaea demonstrates the Church’s self-understanding of having authority to protect and define the apostolic faith in ways not explicitly spelled out in Scripture (the creed uses non-biblical phrases to nail down biblical truth). This is a capstone to our period: the same Church that preserved and venerated Scripture also defined dogma authoritatively through Tradition and council.

We should mention one more primary source up to Nicaea illustrating Scripture & Tradition: Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339), the first Church historian, writing just after Nicaea, but covering earlier period. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius often shows how doctrine was preserved. For instance, he quotes a letter of Serapion of Antioch (c. 200) about the Gospel of Peter, where Serapion says at first he allowed a church to read that text, but on finding it heretical he rejected it, “for we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other Apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that nothing of the sort has been handed down to us” (Hist. Eccl. 6.12.3-6). This is a window into how early bishops discerned books: by whether their content matched the received faith (“nothing of the sort handed down to us”).

Eusebius himself in discussing the canon (Hist. Eccl. 3.25) categorizes books into “recognized” (Homologoumena) vs “disputed” (Antilegomena), based on the testimony of Church tradition – which churches use them, which earlier writers mention them. He had access to records of apostolic succession and council decisions. For instance, he notes how the Bishops in Asia Minor responded to Montanism by collectively examining and condemning it (Hist. Eccl. 5.16). Eusebius clearly trusts councils and synods as carrying authority. About doctrinal disputes, he doesn’t say “they just looked it up in the Bible and that solved it,” but rather he narrates meetings, letters, references to ancient practice, etc., as the means by which consensus is reached. This underscores the patristic understanding: the Church is the living interpretive community, guided by the Holy Spirit, wherein Scripture is read and Tradition is actively extended (not adding new revelation, but faithfully applying what was handed down).

Doctrinal Unity and the Development of the Canon (150–325)

By 325 AD, the Church had largely weathered the major doctrinal storms of the first three centuries (with the Arian storm breaking at Nicaea). Throughout this time, the twin pillars of Scripture and Tradition – inseparable and mutually reinforcing – enabled the Church to preserve unity in essential doctrine. We’ve already touched on many aspects of this, but let’s summarize some key ways unity was maintained or challenged in this era, especially focusing on the role of bishops, apostolic succession, and the formation of the biblical canon:

• Role of Bishops and Apostolic Succession: The monoepiscopacy (one chief bishop per city) was established by the 2nd century (Ignatius of Antioch’s letters attest that around 110 AD). By 150–325, this system was universal. Bishops were seen as the guardians of the apostolic deposit in their locale. As Irenaeus and Tertullian argued, the unbroken succession of bishops from the Apostles was a guarantor that the faith taught was genuine (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). This structure itself is an element of Tradition (the New Testament outlines the ministry in nascent form, but the monoepiscopal structure and diocesan system developed as a practical tradition). It proved crucial for unity: in controversies, people looked to prominent bishops (for example, bishops of apostolic sees like Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc.) for guidance. Councils (meetings of bishops) became the mechanism to resolve larger disputes – an expression of the collegial tradition handed from the Apostles (who held a council in Jerusalem as described in Acts 15). Cyprian’s axiom that the Church is a united episcopate demonstrates how seriously this was taken: one bishop’s teaching had to align with the whole college’s consensus. Bishops used both Scripture and received apostolic custom in their rulings. For instance, in debates on when to celebrate Easter (the Quartodeciman controversy), bishops cited what tradition they inherited (John’s practice vs Peter’s practice, supposedly) rather than purely scriptural arguments (since Scripture doesn’t fix a date). They convened and eventually agreed (Nicaea in 325 standardized Easter). Unity was thus maintained by sometimes imposing one practice over another through authority, not by individual exegesis alone.

• Synods and Councils as Tradition in action: The decisions of councils themselves became part of Sacred Tradition. For example, regional councils in the 3rd century that condemned certain heresies or established penance practices – their rulings were considered binding for those regions and often received elsewhere too. The Council of Nicaea, within our period, not only produced a Creed (tradition of faith) but also issued 20 canons dealing with church order. Canon 6, for instance, recognized the traditional authority of the major sees (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch) – basically codifying existing custom. Canon 19 addressed what to do with Paulianist heretics, requiring them to be rebaptized – showing a shift or clarification in tradition on that front (since earlier, as we saw, it was disputed). The very fact the Creed and canons were promulgated indicates the Church’s consciousness that she had authority to define and regulate – an authority rooted in the apostolic commission (Matthew 18:18, “whatever you bind on earth…”). A sola scriptura framework, which emphasizes deriving doctrine by each person’s interpretation, would be at odds with this conciliar, juridical approach.

• Formation of the Biblical Canon: One of the most significant developments in this period is the emerging consensus on the New Testament canon. By 325, as evidenced by Eusebius, the core (4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation mostly) was universally recognized, while a few books were still debated (Hebrews, James, Jude, 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Barnabas, Didache, etc. had mixed status). How was the canon settled? Not by an angel delivering a table of contents, nor by a Bible verse listing all books, but by the Tradition of usage and the discernment of the Church’s leaders. They considered apostolic authorship (or attribution), orthodoxy of content (does it accord with the rule of faith?), and widespread usage (had most churches long used it in liturgy?). The Muratorian Canon (c. 170) explicitly cites the criterion of church usage and says some texts should not be read in church. When councils later formalized the canon (Hippo 393, Carthage 397, etc.), they were essentially codifying the traditional usage of the Church. This is a prime example where the authority of Tradition is apparent: the Church decided which books “count” as Scripture, something that sola scriptura by itself could not do (since sola scriptura presupposes a known set of Scriptura). Protestants today accept the New Testament canon as received from these early Catholic decisions – effectively relying on Tradition at least for the canon, even as they might not admit other traditions. Scholars like F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger (both Protestants) acknowledge that we owe the recognition of the NT canon to the early church councils and fathers who, guided by the Spirit, discerned and handed down these books. Larry Hurtado similarly notes that by end of 2nd century, Christians had an impressive collection of texts they treated as Scripture, and this was a communal process (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods) (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods). Without the Church’s tradition, one wouldn’t know for sure, e.g., that 2 Peter (disputed by some) is canonical but the Gospel of Thomas is not. The early Church’s criterion “if it’s not in harmony with apostolic tradition, it’s not true” also meant spurious gospels and acts that contradicted the known faith were rejected (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract).

• The Liturgical Tradition: Unity was also reinforced by common worship practices. By 150, there’s evidence of a fairly uniform shape of liturgy (readings, sermon, offering, Eucharist prayer, Communion). The Didache (c. 100, earlier) and Justin Martyr describe liturgical elements. In the 3rd century, things like the Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus (c. 215) gave standardized prayers and rites (like ordination prayers). These liturgical texts aren’t scripture but they convey doctrine and practice (for instance, Hippolytus’ text includes a baptismal creed and an Eucharistic prayer that encapsulates salvation history). The spread of such liturgical traditions meant that a Christian in Carthage or in Gaul received the same faith in prayer form as one in Antioch. Lex orandi, lex credendi – the law of prayer is the law of belief – played out as the liturgy itself was a vehicle of Tradition. The early pre-Nicene creeds (like the Old Roman Creed, an ancestor of the Apostles’ Creed) were memorized by converts at baptism and recited as the rule of faith. These creeds are distilled Tradition; while every phrase has biblical basis, the formula itself is extrabiblical. Their use ensured a baseline orthodoxy for all members. To deviate from the creed was to mark oneself as heretical. This is precisely how Tradition functioned to preserve unity: it provided fixed summaries of “what we all believe” that new ideas had to measure up to. Arius, for example, despite quoting Scripture for his subordinationist Christology, was seen as violating the traditional understanding of Christ’s divine status (as attested in liturgy and prior teachers). Nicaea’s Creed effectively said, “here’s the authentic apostolic faith in sum, by which Arius’ ideas are rejected.”

• Early Heresies and Schisms as Contrast Cases: We’ve reviewed Marcion, Gnostics, Montanists, and Novatianists. Each of those movements, because they failed to carry the seal of apostolic continuity (either by content or by communion with the mainstream Church), ended up isolated and considered heretical or at best schismatic. Marcion’s sect, despite initially popular in some areas, dwindled by the 4th century. The Gnostic sects either died out or went underground (though some influence lingered, e.g. Manichaeism, a 3rd-century syncretist religion, borrowed from gnosticism; interestingly, it too had a strict dualist “scripture-only” kind of approach, rejecting church authority). Montanism persisted in Phrygia into 4th century but was marginalized. Novatianism did last a while as a rigorist schism (Novatian “churches” existed into the 5th century in some places), but eventually it merged back or disappeared. The great Church survived all these, which is evidence to the Fathers that Christ’s promise to preserve the Church in truth held firm. The means of survival was that the vast majority of Christians and their pastors held to what they had received rather than follow novel offshoots. In a sense, catholicity (universality) was itself a test of truth: if only one region or one small group believed X but the rest of the world believed Y, X was suspect. As Tertullian put it, “Is it likely that so many and such great churches should have strayed into one and the same faith?” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). He assumed error would be more scattered and diverse, truth would be one and consistent. This indeed was a working principle: the consensus of the churches (later called the “consent of the fathers”) carried great weight.

• Modern Scholarly Insights: Contemporary historians like J. N. D. Kelly affirm that in the ante-Nicene period, Scripture and the Church’s tradition were not in tension but part of one deposit (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). Kelly writes: “in the early centuries scripture was never thought of as separated from tradition; indeed what was handed down was precisely scripture as interpreted by the church and clarified by the regula fidei.” (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 41). Larry Hurtado emphasizes early Christian devotion to scriptures but in context: they read them in community and with reference to the teachings received (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods) (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods). N. T. Wright notes that the early church’s concept of authority was more narrative and dynamic – God’s authority working through Christ and Spirit in the Church, with scripture as a vital instrument. Wright warns moderns not to misinterpret sola scriptura; the early church did give scripture a primary place, but always within the community of faith (Scripture and the Authority of God, ch. 2). As one review of Wright puts it, he “outlines the growth of tradition and authority in biblical use up to the Reformation” (Review: N.T. Wright, “Scripture and the Authority of God” – By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog), showing that only with the Reformation did a major attempt occur to re-set the balance by elevating scripture’s role in reaction to perceived abuses of extra-biblical tradition. But Wright would likely agree that in the earliest centuries, the Bible was only authoritative in the context of the Church’s teaching. He even uses an analogy of a five-act play, where Scripture covers acts 1-4, and the Church is in act 5 improvising consistently with prior acts – tradition is that improvisation guideline. Thus, modern scholarship corroborates that the Catholic/Orthodox paradigm (Scripture + Tradition + Church authority) describes the early Church better than the classical Protestant paradigm of Scripture as sole infallible authority and every Christian as interpreter.

Now, having established that, we should address directly the Protestant claims of patristic support for sola scriptura and evaluate them.

Early Church and Protestant Claims of Sola Scriptura: A Critical Evaluation

It is not uncommon for Protestant apologists or scholars to comb the Church Fathers for statements that, taken out of context, might seem to endorse a “Bible only” theology. Some examples we’ve touched on: Irenaeus calling scripture “pillar and ground of faith” ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ), Tertullian saying “it is written, that suffices” in some argument (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong), Origen saying “we have learned from Scripture” or Athanasius (post-325, but often cited) who said “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of truth.” How do these square with what we’ve outlined?

Firstly, it is absolutely true that the Fathers constantly uphold Scripture’s supreme authority as God’s Word. If a doctrine or practice could be shown to contradict Scripture, it was rejected. In that sense, one could say the Fathers believed in a material “sufficiency” of Scripture – Scripture contains the saving truth (since it was the product of those who preached saving truth). But, and this is crucial: none of the Fathers believed in a formal sufficiency whereby Scripture could be understood correctly without the Church’s tradition as the interpretive matrix. They did not divorce Scripture from the living voice of the Church. Protestant apologists often emphasize one half (the reverence for Scripture) and ignore the other (the necessity of the Church and tradition). Let’s revisit some earlier-cited patristic quotes often used by Protestants, and see them in context:

• Irenaeus: As discussed, he extols scripture but never to the exclusion of tradition (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge) (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge). A Protestant might cite Irenaeus Book 2, 35.4: “We have learned from none others the plan of salvation than from those through whom the Gospel came to us, which they at one time proclaimed aloud, and at a later period by God's will handed down to us in the Scriptures.” ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). They’d argue: see, Irenaeus says the Gospel is now in Scripture, so we learn from no others – implying Bible alone. However, the very next part is “to be the ground and pillar of our faith” ( St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ), which he footnotes referring to 1 Tim 3:15 (pillar = Church). And then the continuing chapters show Irenaeus appealing to apostolic tradition to settle interpretations (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge) (Did Irenaeus of Lyons teach sola scriptura? – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge). So Irenaeus doesn’t envisage a scenario of a Christian who, apart from Church, picks up scripture and figures out all doctrine. Indeed, he envisages the opposite: he speaks of the illiterate barbarians who have no written Bible but still have the faith via tradition (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)), and those with Bibles (heretics) who twist them because they lack tradition (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)). So any snippet from Irenaeus must be balanced with his total teaching. The preponderance of Irenaeus is clearly on the Catholic side of this debate, as even some honest Protestant scholars admit. For example, the Protestant historian of doctrine Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran-turned-Orthodox) wrote: “Irenaeus did indeed teach the sufficiency of the written Word – but in the context of the tradition of the Church which provided its proper interpretation.” (my paraphrase from Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition, vol.1).

• Tertullian: Protestants like to quote his line to Hermogenes “if it’s not written, be afraid of adding to scripture” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). But we saw how Tertullian overwhelmingly argues that heretics have no right to debate from scripture at all because they lack the Church’s rule of faith (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) (CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)). Tertullian did say at times phrases that superficially sound sola scriptura-ish, for instance in On Resurrection of the Flesh 3: “I adore the fullness of Scripture, which tells me both the birth and passion of God.” But such comments only express that all necessary truths can be found in Scripture – not that they can be found by anyone independent of the Church. Tertullian explicitly said the Church’s rule of faith is the key to unlocking Scripture (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong).

  One might consider: if Tertullian really believed in a Protestant-like sola scriptura, why did he bother with the “prescription” argument at all? He could have just dueled the heretics with proof-texts. The reason he didn’t is because he saw that quoting scripture wasn’t enough; context and authority (the Church’s endorsement) were needed to settle who’s right. Norman Geisler, an Evangelical Protestant, once tried to claim “in this sense, Irenaeus and Tertullian held a form of sola scriptura” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong). But even Geisler had to admit they did not believe in private judgment apart from Church – he phrased it as they saw scripture as containing all doctrine within the Apostolic tradition. That’s basically saying they believed in “scripture in tradition”, not scripture severed from it. Geisler’s own quoted summary (from Kelly) acknowledges Tertullian never contrasted tradition and scripture as opposites (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong).

• Origen: Protestants might reference Origen’s commentary where he says, “The Apostles have taught all things necessary for salvation clearly in their writings”. Origen indeed believed the Apostles were reliable teachers. But as we quoted, Origen also says the Church’s teaching is handed down in succession and “that alone is truth which is in no way at variance with apostolic tradition” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). Origen wrote against some who denied the Holy Spirit’s personhood by saying, essentially, “the Church’s baptismal tradition in the Trinity proves the Spirit is divine, even if scriptures might be interpreted otherwise.” He considered the Church’s consensus as an authoritative interpreter. Also, Origen rationalized that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to accept four Gospels and reject others – an argument from Tradition.

• Cyprian: Perhaps one could misconstrue Cyprian’s “truth over custom” remark (Letter 72.2) as him favoring scripture (truth) over tradition (custom). But in context, Cyprian thought his custom of rebaptism was the original apostolic tradition and that Rome’s custom was an “old error.” It shows even traditions were tested against what participants believed to be the earlier apostolic standard (derived from scripture and general practice). Ultimately, the unified decision – ironically going against Cyprian – became the authoritative tradition. Cyprian would have been horrified at anyone leaving the Church over a doctrinal dispute; he even forbade laypeople to choose another bishop if theirs was “erring,” insisting on preserving unity. That mentality is anti-sectarian (contrary to how later Protestant movements often started by breaking away).

• Athanasius (post-325, but often cited by Protestants): He wrote in Contra Gentiles 1:3, “the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient in themselves for the proclamation of truth.” Athanasius was combating pagans who demanded Christian doctrine be proven by reason; he responded that the Scriptures suffice to teach the truth – meaning materially sufficient to inform us of doctrine. However, Athanasius in other works vigorously upheld traditions like the sign of the cross, the structured liturgy, and he fought Arians not by citing Scripture alone (though he did that masterfully) but also by appealing to the traditional faith of the Church. In De Decretis (On the Nicene Decrees) 4, Athanasius defends the Council’s use of homoousios precisely because the meaning was in line with ancient Church understanding even if the word is non-scriptural. He calls the Nicene faith “the tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept”, and he praises the bishops at Nicaea for “declaring that this is the one and only faith of the Church”. Clearly, Athanasius didn’t operate under sola scriptura; he thanked God the tradition of truth defeated heresy.

  Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly notes Athanasius held that the “scope” of Scripture (the overall thrust as traditionally understood) was against Arianism, and Athanasius even asserted that “the Arians are not true Christians because their beliefs were not those of the Church from the beginning.” (paraphrase). So Athanasius might say “Scripture is sufficient” meaning it contains the truth, but to get that truth you must read it with the mind of the Church. He himself stood contra mundum (against the world) at times to defend the traditional apostolic Christology versus the novel Arian readings of scripture.

In essence, any Church Father quote that appears to support a proto-sola scriptura can be readily contextualized by that Father’s other statements and actions that presuppose the authority of ecclesial tradition. The Fathers were unanimous in upholding apostolic tradition – whether written or oral – as normative. None of them adopted the principle that later Protestants did: that the Church can err wholesale, and that one’s private interpretation of the Bible can justify breaking communion with the Church. On the contrary, they saw separation from the Church as separation from Christ.

To underscore this: When Martin Luther argued for sola scriptura at the 16th-century debates, Catholic opponents (like Johann Eck) quoted many Fathers (including those above) to show Scripture needed authoritative interpretation. Luther’s response was often to claim the Fathers sometimes erred or that not all their teachings were binding. Essentially, he appealed beyond them to the Bible itself. That move – to largely sideline the Fathers – underscores that the historical reality didn’t fully support his position. Modern Protestant historians (like Heiko Oberman, David Steinmetz) speak of “Tradition I vs Tradition II” – meaning Reformers wanted to go back to an imagined earlier tradition that was just scripture interpreted by general consent (they thought the early Church had a sort of sola scriptura albeit guided by a universal consent), as opposed to Tradition II (the specific Catholic doctrines accrued). But as we have detailed, the early Church’s actual method was not the Reformers’ “just scripture and plain reason”; it was scripture in context of a teaching community with inherited beliefs. If anything, the early Church model is closer to what some call “Prima Scriptura” (Scripture first, but read in tradition) or “material sufficiency” (everything is at least implicit in Scripture, yet you need tradition to draw it out safely). The Reformers’ formal sufficiency (the idea that Scripture can be understood on its own clearly in all essentials by the individual) does not reflect how the early Fathers operated.

Finally, to bring in the promised modern scholars: N.T. Wright describes that the authority in the early church was seen as “the authority of God, given through Christ and the Spirit, mediated in scripture and tradition and teachers.” He notes that by the time of the Reformation, some of that got skewed and Reformers reacted by emphasizing Scripture, but that the pendulum swing tended to ignore how much they still relied on tradition (like the canon itself and creedal orthodoxy). Larry Hurtado's work on early Christian devotion to Jesus (e.g., Lord Jesus Christ) shows that beliefs like Jesus’s divinity were firmly entrenched in worship and practice (tradition) before the full scriptural canon or explicit definitions – indicating tradition carried these doctrines until scripture was written and even then had to be used to verify heresy (like Arius’s sub-biblical Christology was rejected because it went against the traditional worship of Jesus as fully God). J. N. D. Kelly states plainly, “the Bible was the Church’s book, and what the Church taught was the key to its interpretation.” (Early Christian Doctrines). Yves Congar, a Catholic scholar, showed in Tradition and Traditions that the Fathers always insisted on both Scripture and the Church’s tradition, not an either/or.

To conclude this analysis: the evidence from 150–325 AD strongly aligns with the Catholic/Orthodox perspective. The early Church revered Scripture as uniquely inspired and normative, yes, but also relied on the living continuity of apostolic tradition and the Church’s magisterium (though not yet called that) to preserve, expound, and at times even develop doctrine (e.g., clarifying the Trinity or the canon). There is no direct patristic analogue of the Reformation sola scriptura principle whereby each believer could do away with unwritten tradition and challenge the Church’s teaching by “the Bible alone.” When challenges did arise of that sort, the Fathers responded with “the Apostles didn’t teach that; we know what they taught via the succession and rule of faith” (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)).

In summation: throughout the period 150–325, the most commonly held view in the Church was that authoritative doctrine came from the Apostles – and that apostolic teaching reached the later Church through two tightly interconnected channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, safeguarded by the ongoing ministry of the Apostles’ successors (the bishops in communion). This is essentially the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position today. The Protestant view that the Fathers were “sola scripturists” is not borne out by a holistic reading of their works or the actual practices of the early Christian communities.

Conclusion

The inquiry into 150–325 AD reveals a Church deeply committed to both the Scriptures and the Traditions received from the Apostles, without pitting them against each other. The doctrine of “sola scriptura” as formulated in the 16th century – the idea that Scripture alone, interpreted apart from any binding apostolic Tradition or authoritative Magisterium, is the final norm of Christian truth – finds no full precedent in this early period. Instead, we find what might be called a doctrine of “Scripture in Tradition”: the Bible was authoritative precisely because it was the apostolic testimony, and it was read within the believing community that preserved the apostolic teaching. Early Christian writers unanimously affirm the supreme importance of the sacred writings, but they also consistently appeal to the rule of faith, the teaching of the bishops, and the consensus of the Church universal as the proper context for understanding those writings.

In the battles against heresy, it was the preponderance of evidence – from Scripture rightly interpreted and from the continuous Tradition – that secured the orthodox victory. Gnostic speculations were refuted by the clear public doctrine the Church had always taught (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)). Marcion’s truncation of the canon was rejected by pointing to the cherished Scriptures and the God they revealed (the Creator and Redeemer both). Montanist claims of new prophecy were measured against the “faith once delivered” and largely found wanting. Across these confrontations, the Catholic/Orthodox principle emerged strongly: nil innovetur nisi quod traditum est – “let nothing new be introduced, except what has been handed down.” The Church saw itself not as an inventing body, but a conserving and transmitting body. In that capacity, it had authority to declare what was authentic apostolic teaching – whether that meant confirming the canon of Scripture, composing creeds, or excommunicating those whose doctrine strayed.

The Protestant perspective maintains (rightly) that the early Church held Scripture in the highest regard and that the Fathers often turned to Scripture as the first and fundamental source in debate. But Protestant interpreters often overlook that the Fathers did so as Churchmen – assuming the organizing framework of tradition to guide interpretation. No Father taught the concept of the Bible as an independent authority that an individual could correctly interpret apart from the ecclesial context. Even when they spoke of “the Bible is sufficient” (Review: N.T. Wright, “Scripture and the Authority of God” – By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog), it was understood that “sufficient” meant sufficient when used by the Church, within the Church. The difference in paradigms can be subtle but critical: the Fathers would say “Scripture is materially sufficient – it contains all truth – and within the Church’s tradition it effectively teaches us saving doctrine”. The Reformation sola scriptura holds “Scripture is formally sufficient – it not only contains all truth but by itself (with the Spirit’s illumination to each reader) it can guide us into all necessary truth, so the Church’s traditional interpretations are not binding.” The research here indicates the early Church clearly embraced the former, not the latter. They did not divorce the content of faith from the community entrusted with that faith.

Thus, from 150 AD to Nicaea (325 AD), the consistent witness is that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture were twin channels of the one apostolic Faith. Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, and Cyprian and the decisions of early synods all reflect this integrated approach. When we consult modern patristic scholars or church historians, this conclusion is reaffirmed. J. N. D. Kelly concludes that for the early fathers, “Scripture was not an independent or exclusive authority, but it was always Scripture as understood in the Church.” (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) Larry Hurtado highlights how the early Christian reverence for scripture occurred within a unique communal matrix of worship and teaching, differentiating it from how any individual might read those texts outside that matrix (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods) (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods). N. T. Wright urges us to remember that the authority of Scripture is really the authority of God exercised through Scripture, and God also works through the Church; the early Church knew no sharp separation of Word and Church, but viewed the Spirit as active in both the inscripturated Word and the Body of Christ handing it on (Review: N.T. Wright, “Scripture and the Authority of God” – By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog).

In the final analysis, the Church of the first three centuries provides a powerful testimony that Christ did not leave behind a book alone, but a book within a believing community. That community (the Catholic Church, in the broad sense of the undivided early Church) identified, preserved, and faithfully expounded the book in line with what it had received. The “most commonly held view” in that Church was not a reductive “Bible-onlyism,” but rather a “Bible and Apostolic Tradition” view – or better, a recognition that the true interpretation of the Bible was itself an apostolic tradition (a point Tertullian and Vincent of Lérins after him would stress).

By 325 AD, this approach had yielded a largely unified Christian front: a defined core canon of Scripture; a universal creed (Nicene) encapsulating the apostolic gospel; an episcopal structure linking churches worldwide; and a common liturgical life. This unity would soon be tested by further controversies (Arianism’s aftermath, the Pneumatomachi, Nestorian and Monophysite disputes later in the 4th-5th centuries), but the model for resolving them remained the same: convene councils, articulate the consensus of the apostolic faith drawing on both the witness of Scripture and the inherited understanding in the Church. It was this model that eventually produced, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ – teachings not explicitly spelled out word-for-word in Scripture, yet considered authentic developments, true to and required by the biblical and traditional evidence. Such developments are inexplicable under a strict sola scriptura lens but are natural outcomes of the Catholic/Orthodox paradigm of a Spirit-led Church expounding Scripture within Tradition.

In conclusion, the evidence from 150 to 325 AD strongly vindicates the Catholic and Orthodox position that Scripture and Tradition form one sacred deposit of faith (as Vatican II’s Dei Verbum would later say), with the Church as its guardian. While Protestants can take inspiration from the Fathers’ love of Scripture, a full reading shows that the Fathers would reject the idea of sola scriptura as later defined, because they never separated the “teachings of the Scriptures” from “the faith of the Church.” The early Church was, to use an image, a three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium – remove any leg, and the stability of the faith would have collapsed. But with all three in place, the Church navigated crises, preserved unity, and transmitted the truth of Christ intact for future generations.

This study, following on the previous paper (pre-150 AD) and setting the stage for the post-Nicene era, demonstrates a fundamental continuity: from the Apostolic age through Nicaea, the normative principle was not sola scriptura but rather what might be termed “sola verbum Dei” – by the Word of God (embracing both Scripture and the apostolic preaching) as entrusted to the Church. The “Word of God” was both read in the Holy Scriptures and remembered in the Sacred Tradition. In the end, the early Church’s stance can be summarized in St. Paul’s exhortation: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15) (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract). The Church of 150–325 took this command to heart, and by holding fast to both the written and oral apostolic teachings, it laid the theological and canonical foundations of Christianity as we know it.

---

Works Cited:

(Primary Sources)

• Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I.
• Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum (The Prescription Against Heretics), De Corona (On the Crown), etc., in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III.
• Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (Miscellanies), in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II.
• Origen, De Principiis (On First Principles), in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV.
• Cyprian of Carthage, Epistles and De Unitate Ecclesiae (On the Unity of the Church), in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V.
• Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. II, series 2.

(Secondary Sources & Modern Scholarship)

• Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. HarperOne, 1978 (rev. ed.). (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong)
• Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol.1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). University of Chicago Press, 1971.
• Hurtado, Larry. Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World. Baylor University Press, 2016. (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods) (Interview with Dr. Larry Hurtado—Destroyer of the gods)
• Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. HarperCollins, 2013. (Review: N.T. Wright, “Scripture and the Authority of God” – By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog)
• Congar, Yves. Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay. Macmillan, 1966.
• Armstrong, Dave (ed.). The Church Fathers: A History of Patristic Apologetics (Patheos articles collection) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong) (Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian Are Sola Scripturists | Dave Armstrong).
• Catholic.com Tracts, “What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition.” (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract) (What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract)

(Scripture)

• Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version (RSV).