Table of Contents

1 Recognizing Traditions in Christianity
2 Evaluating Traditions in Christianity
3 Traditions in Judaism
4 Traditions in the NT
5 Traditions of the Early Church Fathers
6 Traditions in Romanism
7 The Papacy in Romanism
8 Mariology in Romanism
Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 13.5

Traditions of the Early Church Fathers

Table of Topics

A) Introduction to the Early Church Fathers

B) Tradition as Scripture in the 2^nd & 3^rd Century Church Fathers

C) The Inconsistent Claims of 4^th & 5^th Century Church Fathers to an Extra-biblical Apostolic Tradition

D) Examples of Extra-biblical Traditions of the Early Church Fathers

E) The Limitations of the Authority of Early Church Fathers

F) The Value of the Writings of the Early Church Fathers

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

The leaders of Christendom after the first century and generally before the sixth century are often referred to as the Church Fathers or Patriarchs.
Many of the extra-biblical practices and teachings of these men continue to influence the Church in significant ways, especially the more ancient Roman and Orthodox branches of Christianity.
Our question here is to what degree should we allow the extra-biblical writings of the Church Fathers to exercise authority over our lives?
For the earliest Church Fathers (up to c. 200), the apostolic tradition and “rule of faith” was synonymous with Scripture.
For third and fourth century Church Fathers, extra-biblical traditions began to take on apostolic authority.
The first reason we do not give biblical authority to the writings of the Church Fathers is that they did not claim divine revelation.
The Church Fathers too often contradicted themselves and one another.
Extra-biblical traditions in the early Church included facing the East when praying, men, women, and children sitting separately in church, baptizing infants, baptizing people three times, setting the dates for Easter and Christmas, and the Church sanctioning marriage. Obviously, some of these traditions have been kept, and some have been abandoned.
Unfortunately, some of the teachings of the Church Fathers, particularly those who supported universalism or pluralism were heretical.
Perhaps the most unbiblical and strongest tradition in the early Church was the practice of baptizing infants and the belief that baptism was necessary for the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
Even Protestants who have historically guarded against the unnecessary veneration of the Church Fathers, need to admit that their foremost Teachers, including Luther and Calvin, were deeply indebted to them, especially Augustine. While we do not put them anywhere near the level of Scripture in authority, they constitute some of the very best commentary available on the meaning of Scripture and life in the Church.

A) Introduction to the Early Church Fathers

The leaders of Christendom after the first century and generally before the sixth century are often referred to as the Church Fathers or Patriarchs. From this designation comes the term patriarchialism, designating the early Church after the original Apostles but before Roman Catholicism was established (c. A. D. 100 to 500). ^[1] It is the preserved writings of these early Church leaders that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even Protestant Christians refer to as Tradition with a capital “T.” Many of the extra-biblical practices and teachings of these men continue to influence the Church in significant ways, especially the more ancient Roman and Orthodox branches of Christianity. Concerning their value as a source of truth, G. W. Bromiley writes:

Various answers may be given to the question of patristic authority. From the Roman Catholic standpoint, the fathers are infallible where they display unanimous consent, although even in this regard [Thomas] Aquinas [the most influential Roman Catholic theologian] clearly ranks them below Scripture. Otherwise they may err, but are always to be read with respect. Protestants naturally insist that the fathers too are subject to the supreme norm of Scripture, so that their statements or interpretations may call for rejection, correction, or amplification. ^[2]

Our question here is to what degree should we allow the extra-biblical writings of the Church Fathers to exercise authority over our lives? It is easy for Protestants to simply reject the Roman Catholic and Orthodox approach and adopt their own as described by Dr. Bromiley above. However, let us consider a statement from Origen (c. 185-254) in the early third century, who was one of the most learned and influential leaders in the whole history of Christianity:

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. ^[3]

Origen gave his life to preserving and defending the teaching of the Apostles. He, probably more than anyone else in his day, knew what the Christian churches were teaching in the early third century. In fact, it is Origen, more than any other individual, who was relied upon by the early Church to determine what documents belonged in the NT. As we demonstrate clearly elsewhere, the most reliable source of certainty we have concerning what writings came from the pens of inspired Apostles is early Church tradition, and Origen was a foremost investigator, collector, and preserver of both the texts of Scripture and the traditions surrounding them. So while Protestants may scorn the authority of tradition, they cannot escape the fact that the apostolic authority of Scripture depends on it. This is what Augustine meant, nothing more and nothing less, when he said that he would not have believed the Scriptures had the Church not declared them to be true. ^[4] And neither could we. ^[5]

More specifically, if our faith in the authority of 1 Peter is enhanced by Origen’s early report that it was accepted throughout Christendom as being authentically written by the Apostle Peter, we cannot easily dismiss his testimony that infant baptism was also an apostolic tradition in the early Church. Even practitioners of infant baptism agree that it is not a clear teaching of canonical Scripture and that the primary authority for the practice comes from the consistent testimony of early Church leaders that the Apostles had taught this practice, but that it was not recorded, and was only passed on orally through generations of Christians. We see then, the vital need to understand and evaluate extra-biblical traditions of the early Church.

B) Tradition as Scripture in the 2^nd & 3^rd Century Church Fathers

We noted in the previous chapter that what the Apostles referred to as “tradition” was synonymous with what they wrote in Scripture. This understanding of referring to biblical teaching as Christian “tradition” was carried on in the second century of the Church as well. After the death of the Apostles, none of the leaders of the early Church claimed to be Apostles, nor do they refer to anyone else as Apostles. And they certainly did not put their writings on par with the authority of Scripture.

For example, Ignatius, (c. 35-c. 110) Bishop of Antioch, who wrote many authoritative epistles to churches just like the Apostles, nonetheless wrote in his Epistle to the Romans: “I do not give you orders like Peter or Paul: they were Apostles.” ^[6]

Likewise, Polycarp (c. 69-c. 155), Bishop of Smyrna wrote:

I am writing you these comments about righteousness, brothers, not on my own initiative but because you invited me to do so. For neither I nor anyone like me can keep pace with the [gift of divine] wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who, when he was among you in the presence of the men of that time, accurately and reliably taught the word concerning the truth. And when he was absent he wrote you letters; if you study them carefully, you will be able to build yourselves up in the faith that has been given to you. ^[7]

Polycarp, like Ignatius, was one of the most powerful and popular leaders of the early Church, yet he intentionally distanced himself from the Apostles because in his day, none existed, and he did not want to be considered one of them. Nor did they want their writings to be invested with the same authority as Scripture.

In subsequent years early Church leaders such as Irenaeus (c. 175), Clement of Alexandria (c. 155– c. 220), and Tertullian (c. 160–225) often appealed to apostolic “tradition” in their attempts to defend the Christian faith against another source of traditionalism, the Gnostics.

Gnosticism was a widespread religious phenomenon in the first and second centuries and a continual thorn in the side of authentic Christianity because it adopted many Christian beliefs. However, it also promoted other unbiblical beliefs, claiming they had received unwritten teachings and traditions from Christ and the Apostles which had not been recorded in recognized Scripture. Sound familiar? Thus, leaders in the second century appealed to the authentic Christian tradition. However, the “traditions” these earliest Church Fathers spoke of were to be found in Scripture.

Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, France was a pupil of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155), who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John. Therefore, Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, written c. 180 A. D. is an important source for what the second century church believed, at least in southern Europe. In his treatise he was primarily combating the Gnostics’ claim to extra-biblical apostolic revelation and accordingly wrote:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ^[8]

Elsewhere, Irenaeus described the contents of the “apostolic tradition” or “rule of faith” as he and others often called it:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and their disciples this faith: [We believe] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation;

and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations ^VIII-1a-84of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven” and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all;

that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and ₃₃₁the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. ^[9]

For Irenaeus, NT teachings and apostolic traditions were essentially synonymous.

Around the same time in northern Africa, Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160-220) was also writing against the Gnostics’ claim to secret apostolic traditions and wrote in his customary memorable way, “Our Lord called himself the ‘truth,’ not ‘custom.’ ^[10] And like Irenaeus, he described the “rule of faith” and its contents were wholly scriptural:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith . . . which we defend, it is . . . the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth;

that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ;

thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; [then] having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father;

sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh.

This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics. ^[11]

Likewise, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258), and a pupil of Tertullian, wrote the following in an argument with Stephen, Bishop of Rome who was appealing to extra-biblical tradition:

Let nothing be innovated, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. From where is that tradition? . . . [I]t descend[s] from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or . . . it come[s] from the commands and the epistles of the Apostles . . . For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes . . . What obstinacy is that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance, and not to observe that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine precepts. . . . Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. ^[12]

We could wish that Cyprian’s correction of the Bishop of Rome in the third century regarding the authority of extra-biblical traditions would have been heeded and preserved in the subsequent history of the Roman branch of Christianity.

Nevertheless, at this point in Church history, the “rule of faith” and the “apostolic tradition” was thought to be completely contained in Scripture. Former Professor of Theology at Dubuque Seminary, Donald McKim, has written:

As Irenaeus and Tertullian refer at times to the Christian tradition as that which transmits Christ’s teachings, which come to the church through the Scriptures; neither theologian contrasts tradition with Scripture. ^[13]

Likewise, Professor of Church History R. P. C. Hanson confirms that for the early Church, the content of the “rule of faith” was “identical with that of Scripture.” ^[14]

C) The Inconsistent Claims of 4^th & 5^th Century Church Fathers to an Extra-biblical Apostolic Tradition

While Church leaders in the second and third centuries were essentially united and consistent in the rejection of any claim to divine authority outside of written Scripture, beginning in the third century and becoming more prominent in the fourth and fifth centuries, Church Fathers began to speak of the authority of an extrabiblical apostolic tradition.

We have already noted Origen (c. 185-254) who wrote in his commentary on Romans:

A hundred years later, Basil Bishop of Caesarea (c. 330-379), also known as Basil the Great, emerges as an enigmatic figure on the issue of the authority of extra-biblical tradition. Writing in his On the Holy Spirit c. 374, ^[16] Basil clearly supported the idea of oral apostolic tradition when he wrote in his treatise:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery,” by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;-no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals. ^[17]

We have to agree with the Methodist theologian William Abraham, who, prompted by Basil’s statement, writes, “This passage completely over-turns the view that the early Church was officially or canonically committed to a doctrine of sola scriptura. ^[18]

Nonetheless, we observe in Bishop Basil the same inconsistency on this issue that we will notice in others during this period. While Basil could write above (c. 374) that there was an unwritten apostolic tradition with equal authority to written Scripture, at about the same time ^[19] he wrote the following To Eustathius the Physician when confronted with Christians who wanted to claim authority for their own unwritten apostolic traditions:

What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. ^[20]

However, several years earlier in his Moralia (c. 361), Basil wrote:

We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. ^[21]

Likewise, Bishop Basil wrote:

The [things] taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. . . . Plainly it is a falling away from faith and an offense chargeable to pride, either to reject any of those things that are written or to introduce things that are not written.” ^[22]

Why Basil would write with equal strength and conviction two opposing views on the issue of the relative authority of Scripture and extra-biblical traditions is difficult to discern. But as mentioned, the same inconsistency is found in other Church Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries.

For example, such greats as Chrysostom (349-407) in the eastern Church and Augustine (354-430) in the West, seemed to at times support the authority of unwritten Church tradition. For example, Chrysostom wrote:

It is manifest that they [the Apostles] did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. ^[23]

Likewise, Augustine writes in the context of his controversy with the Donatists and Bishop Cyprian:

The Apostles, indeed, gave no injunctions on the point; but the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. ^[24]

Likewise, Augustine wrote:

But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church. ^[25]

Not surprisingly, however, we can quote Augustine on several occasions as believing otherwise:

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema. ^[26]

Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles. ^[27]

I must not press the authority of [the Council of] Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both-the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. ^[28]

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. ^[29]

But in the productions of those who lived afterwards [after the Apostles], which are contained in numberless books, but in no way equal to the most sacred excellence of the canonical Scriptures, even in whatever one of these equal truth is found, yet their authority is far unequal. ^[30]

Finally, in a letter to St. Jerome, Augustine writes:

I have learned to give this reverence and honor to those books of Scripture alone which are now called canonical, as firmly to believe that no one of their authors erred in writing anything . . . but I so read the others, that however excellent in purity of doctrine, I do not therefore take a thing to be true because they thought so; but because they can persuade me, either through those canonical authors, or probable reason, that it does not differ from the truth. Nor do I think that you, my brother, are of a different opinion. I say further, I do not suppose that you wish your books to be read as if they were the writings of the Prophets or Apostles, which beyond a doubt are free from any error. ^[31]

Jerome did agree with Augustine and wrote to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria: “I know that I esteem the Apostles differently from certain [writers]; the former as always speaking the truth, the latter as men sometimes making mistakes.” ^[32] Elsewhere he writes:

Origen should be read occasionally, as Tertullian, Novatus and Arnobius, and some ecclesiastical writers, so that we may extract what is good from them and shun the opposite, according to the Apostle’s direction, prove all things, hold fast that which is good. ^[33]

Therefore, while some statements of the above men can be interpreted as investing divine authority in an extra-biblical apostolic tradition, we see here that they also spoke very clearly about the superior authority of Scripture.

An example of misinterpretation would seem to be Athanasius, the fourth century Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt (c. 295–373) who has also been thought to have believed in the authority of extra-biblical apostolic tradition. For example, he wrote in a letter:

[L]et us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers [not Scripture]. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian. ^[34]

Such a statement could imply that the extra-biblical traditions of the second and third century Church leaders were derived from preserved oral tradition from the Apostles. However, once again, if we read on, Athanasius describes what this “tradition” is and it becomes clear that he was referring to biblical teaching:

There is a Trinity, holy and perfect, acknowledged as God, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of a fashioner and an originated, but entirely creative and fashioning. . . and thus there is preached in the Church one God, “who is over all, and through all, and in all. ^[35]

Likewise, in another letter Athanasius wrote: “[T]he apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, ‘Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh,’ and in what Paul writes, ‘Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’”. ^[36] Notice here that the “apostolic tradition” is synonymous with written Scripture. Accordingly, Athanasius wrote elsewhere against the Arians that “the holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.” ^[37]

If there was inconsistency on this issue in some fourth and fifth century Church Fathers, there was not in the mind of Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 310–386) who wrote:

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures. ^[38]

In conclusion, we would claim that the inconsistency among Church Fathers, and even within themselves on the issue of the authority of extra-biblical apostolic tradition renders any support of this as unconvincing. Accordingly, supporters of such a view can hardly name a Church Father who consistently believed in the authority of such tradition.

In addition, we are suspicious of the obvious and significant change of opinion that occurred on this issue from the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries to the 4^th and 5^th. Accordingly, we read in the Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature:

In coming to a decision on the merits of the question respecting doctrinal tradition, everything depends upon making the proper distinctions with regard to time. In the first period of Christianity, the authority of the Apostles was so great that all their doctrines and ordinances were strictly and punctually observed by the churches, which they had planted. The doctrine and discipline which prevailed in those apostolical churches were, at the time, justly considered by others’ to be purely such as the Apostles themselves had taught and established.

This was the more common, as the books of the New Test. had not, as yet, come into general use among Christians; nor was it, at that early period, attended with any special liability to mistake. In this way we can account for it that Christian teachers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries appeal so frequently to oral tradition [and equate it with Scriptural teachings].

But in later periods of the Church, the circumstances were far different. After the commencement of the 3^rd century, when the first teachers of the apostolical churches and their immediate successors had passed away and another race sprung up, other doctrines and forms were gradually introduced, which differed in many respects from apostolical simplicity. And now those innovators appealed more frequently than had ever been done before to apostolical tradition, in order to give currency to their own opinions and regulations.

They went so far, indeed, as to appeal to this tradition for many things not only at variance with other traditions, but with the very writings of the Apostles which they had in their hands. From this time forward, tradition naturally became more and more uncertain and suspicious. No wonder, therefore, that we find Augustine establishing the maxim that it could not be relied upon, in the ever-increasing distance from the age of the Apostles, except when it was universal and perfectly consistent with itself. ^[39]

Along the same lines, the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) wrote:

This concept of tradition [in the second century] was clear; it referred to the doctrine and practices that had been received from the Apostles and were preserved and reproduced in the churches. But as the distance from the apostolic age became greater, it became progressively more difficult to tell whether a given thing really was of apostolic origin.

[In the Bible] all that lies outside of Scripture is as firmly as possible ruled out. Traditions are rejected as the institutions of human beings (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:3, 9; 1 Cor. 4:6). The tradition that developed in the days of the OT prompted the Jews to reject the Christ. Over against it Jesus posited his “but I say to you” (Matt. 5:27, 32, 34, 38, 44), and against Pharisees and scribes he again aligned himself with the Law and the Prophets. The Apostles appeal only to the OT Scriptures and never refer the churches to anything other than the word of God proclaimed by them.

Inasmuch as in the early period tradition sought to be nothing other than the preservation of the things personally taught and instituted by the Apostles, it was not yet dangerous. But the Roman Catholic tradition has utterly deteriorated from that level. It cannot be demonstrated that any doctrine or practice is of apostolic origin except insofar as this can be shown from their writings. The Roman Catholic tradition, which gave rise to the mass, to Mariolatry, to papal infallibility, and other Roman distinctives, is nothing but a sanctioning of the actual state of affairs of the Roman Catholic Church, a justification of the superstition that has crept into it. ^[40]

We note here that it is possible that some of the Apostles may have had individual methods, customs, and habits which they introduced to particular areas as they traveled widely spreading the faith. However, these were not meant to be permanently authoritative, and therefore the Apostles did not dictate their adherence and they were not then preserved in writing. Still, they would have been influential in isolated areas for some time.

In summary, we can say that while “traditions” based on Scripture in the first and second centuries are to be given divine authority, the traditions that were espoused 200 to 400 years after the Apostles, and which have no Scriptural support, can safely be categorized as merely “rules taught by men” (Matt 15:9). Nonetheless, as we will see, both Protestants and Roman Catholics still adhere to several of those traditions.

D) Examples of Extra-biblical Traditions of the Early Church Fathers

D.1) Extra-biblical Traditions No Longer Practiced

The obvious question that follows a claim to extra-biblical apostolic tradition is what did it contain? Basil the Great provides a list when he writes:

[W]ho is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.

Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechuman who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing three times? ^[41]

Basil goes on to mention standing for prayer on Sunday, the season of Pentecost, standing for prayer during the season of Pentecost, and the doxology.

Other early Church traditions included the place of the Church in regards to marriage. Initially, Christians were not required to seek the blessing of the Church to validate their marriage, however, by the time of Tertullian (c. 200 A. D.) it became customary to have a ceremony conducted by the local church leadership. ^[42]

It also became quite common for the men, women, and youth to all sit separately during the Sunday church services. ^[43] A custom of virgins veiling themselves in public and a special service for setting apart virgins for service to Christ was developed as well. ^[44]

Tradition dictated that Christians have a day of fasting before Easter day. ^[45] Sometime around the end of the second century, a synod of Bishops determined what day Easter should be celebrated. ^[46] By the end of the fourth century, the twenty-fifth of December had become recognized as the birthday of Christ. ^[47]

Those who had suffered for the faith as martyrs and had survived were believed to have the power to declare sins forgiven. ^[48] After the fifth century, the presence of a relic [of a martyr] in the altar was held to be essential to a church. ^[49]

In the fifth century one of the Popes expressly forbade any special ecclesiastical dress. By the end of the fifth century a second tunic, with large sleeves, called the dalmatic, worn over the undergarment and under the cloak, became a distinguishing mark of the Pope and his clergy. ^[50]

We immediately notice that some of these traditions are observed even today including marriage ceremonies and the celebration of Easter and Christmas. We also notice that most of them would simply be considered extra-biblical instead of unbiblical.

D.2) Various Unbiblical Traditions Including Baptism

Unfortunately, however, we find more than extrabiblical traditions in the writings of the Church Fathers, but also outright heresy. Some of the more surprising examples include Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) who believed that, “irrespective of one’s religious loyalty, he who lives according to the light of the Logos [reason] implanted in the human heart will be saved.” ^[51] Likewise, Origen (c. 185-254) wrote in support of universalism, the belief that eventually all humans would be saved.

Likewise, we read concerning Augustine:

On the crucial doctrine of justification by faith, which Luther called “the head and cornerstone which alone constitutes the church of god,” Luther had to admit that not even Augustine had followed Paul as closely as he should have. Luther said, “Let’s not put our trust in Augustine, let us listen to the Scriptures. ^[52]

Some of the most important patriarchial traditions concerned water baptism. Among the more minor practices were anointing the person with oil before and afterwards, having the baptized drink a mixture of milk and honey, abstaining from any bath for a week after baptism, and performing all baptisms only once a year at Easter time. However, much more serious traditions regarding baptism included the belief that infant baptism regenerated the infant and erased original sin, salvation and regeneration occurs in the act of adult baptism, and that adult baptism washes away previous sins.

We have already noted Origen’s comment on infant baptism above, stating that the Apostles had handed down an unwritten tradition that infant baptism erased original sin. On the related matter of baptismal regeneration, Tertullian (c. 160–225) began his treatise On Baptism with: “Happy is oursacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!” ^[53] Along the same lines, Basil the Great asked rhetorically: “How will you enter Paradise without having been sealed by Baptism?” ^[54] The almost universal belief in the saving powers of water baptism is even reflected in one of the earliest creeds (Nicene, A. D. 325) which reads: “I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.” ^[55] The widespread belief that baptism erased all past sins convinced even the Emperor Constantine (272-337) to delay his baptism until just before he died.

Augustine was especially influential in perpetuating the extrabiblical powers of water baptism. Regarding infants he wrote:

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, `Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or `by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam. ^[56]

Likewise, Augustine wrote:

Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted. ^[57]

There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized. ^[58]

Not only did Augustine believe water baptism was required for salvation, but participation in the Lord’s Supper as well:

[According to] Apostolic Tradition . . . the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too. ^[59]

Finally, we will note that Augustine believed in Purgatory and praying for the dead:

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire. ^[60]

We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place. ^[61]

Why then is Augustine so popular among Evangelical Reformed Teachers today? Because he was one of the few who wrote clearly on the issue of salvation by grace and the predestination of the elect to salvation. Obviously, his beliefs on the former were obscured by the beliefs noted above. But it is particularly his writings on predestination that draw the attention of modern Reformed Teachers. Unfortunately, in their understandable and legitimate effort to find ancient support for “Calvinism,” they habitually overlook the heresy that even Augustine taught, and which has been perpetuated in the Romanism.

E) The Limitations of the Authority of Early Church Fathers

While some branches of Christianity grant the early Church Fathers almost biblical authority, we do not. First of all, none of them to our knowledge claimed divine authority for their writings apart from Scripture. As noted in section B, even very early Church Fathers such as Bishops Ignatius (c. 35-c. 110) and Polycarp (c. 69-c. 155) intentionally distanced themselves from the authority of an Apostle and their writings. This is one reason Augustine, near the time of his death, wrote his Retractions, noting the errors he perceived in his own writings.

Secondly, the value and work that the early Church placed on developing the canon of Scripture reflects their own belief that these writings were more authoritative than their own. Along these lines, John Stott quotes NT scholar Oscar Cullman:

The infant church itself distinguished between apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical tradition, clearly subordinating the latter to the former, in other words subordinating itself to the apostolic tradition. The fixing of the Christian canon of Scripture [sc. the New Testament] means that the church itself, at a given time, traced a clear and definite line of demarcation between the period of the apostles and that of the church, between the time of foundation and that of construction, between the apostolic community and the church of the bishops, in other words, between apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical tradition. Otherwise the formation of the canon would be meaningless. ^[62]

Another reason we do not give the writings of the Church Fathers divine authority is that they too often contradicted themselves and one another. This fact is another sure sign that they do not carry near the authority of Scripture. The renowned medieval theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142) argued in his Sic et non, that the authority of the Church Fathers was questionable, and compiled a list of 158 propositions showing disagreement among them to prove his point. We have noted several examples on the question of the authority of extra-biblical apostolic traditions. Contradictions are a hallmark of human writing, not divine.

The Church Fathers were clearly great men of God, but still human, and some of their writings so vast that clear contradictions can be found. This illustrates the common warning that while patristic writings are incredibly valuable for understanding the Christian faith, they can be quoted to support a number of different and conflicting viewpoints. In the end, we must insist that such writings do not even come close to having the divine authority of Scripture, a point often ignored by more tradition bound parts of Christianity.

Some have suggested that the biblical commentaries of Church Fathers would somehow be more authoritative than modern ones. Indeed, if we had a commentary from first and second century Church leaders such as Clement, Polycarp, or Ignatius, then we might have insight into the interpretations of Apostles like Paul, Peter, and John. But even by the time of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen, any kind of superiority in interpreting the Scriptures from a knowledge of apostolic interpretation seems lost. This would seem especially evident in Origen who takes a great deal of liberty to interpret the Scriptures in an allegorical way.

What can we say regarding the baptismal traditions in the early Church Fathers? While a full discussion of these matters must be taken up elsewhere, ^[63] we can summarize our response as follows. Again, it must be admitted that many leaders of the early Church taught that water baptism is the God-ordained method for receiving the regeneration of the Holy Spirit necessary to salvation. This is obviously a serious claim, suggesting that without the act of water baptism, someone could not be saved. And some Church Fathers essentially said the same. Nevertheless, no number of merely human writers has any God-given authority to bind our conscience with teachings that are not only extra-biblical, but unbiblical. The Church Fathers have unfortunately forced us to make a choice between their writings and God’s writings and the correct choice is clear.

In addition, one will find that while the Church Fathers claim their extra-biblical teachings on baptism were obtained through unwritten apostolic teaching, they often attempted to support it with questionable interpretations of Scripture. This was obviously because we would expect some supposed “secret” apostolic teaching to at least have some support from their writings. However, the allegorical method of interpretation often used by the Fathers consistently lead them astray, and such was the case with their beliefs in baptismal regeneration.

Finally, we find in the Church Fathers clear statements that baptism does not save, and therefore, we again find those contradictions that expose the patristic writings for what they are: the words of men, not God.

The influential seventeenth century Reformed theologian Francis Turretin (1623–1687), after a thorough study of the Church Fathers, concluded:

[T]he fathers, regarded separately as individuals or collectively, were not prophets or apostles who, acting through an immediate call and endowed with extraordinary gifts, had the privilege of infallibility; rather they were men fallible and exposed to error, of imperfect knowledge and capable of being influenced by hearty zeal and swayed by their feelings. Nor did that mediate calling with which they were furnished place them beyond the danger of error. Not only could they err, but they often undoubtedly did err on many vital points, whether as individuals or taken together. . . . The fathers themselves acknowledge that their writings ought not to be authoritative, nor their bare assertion in matters of religion to be absolutely decisive. . . .

Although the fathers who were nearest to the age of the Apostles were necessarily the purest, it does not follow that their writings can be considered as a rule of truth with the apostolic writings. The gift of infallibility was the peculiar distinction of the apostleship and cannot belong to their successors who were not furnished with the same gifts. ^[64]

The increasingly honest evaluations of the Church Fathers has led even Roman Catholics to recognize their limitations. Even Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890) wrote:

We take them as honest informants, but not as a sufficient authority in themselves, though they are an authority too. If they were to state these very same doctrines, but say, “These are our opinions; we deduced them from Scripture, and they are true,” we might well doubt about receiving them at their hands. We might fairly say, that we had as much right to deduce from Scripture as they had; that deductions of Scripture were mere opinions; that if our deductions agreed with theirs, that would be a happy coincidence, and increase our confidence in them; but if they did not, it could not be helped—we must follow our own light.

Doubtless no man has any right to impose his own deductions upon another, in matters of faith. There is an obvious obligation, indeed, upon the ignorant to submit to those who are better informed; and there is a fitness in the young submitting implicitly for a time to the teaching of their elders; but beyond this, one man’s opinion is not better than another’s. ^[65]

Accordingly, J. I. Packer writes concerning the idea of an oral apostolic tradition that, “the idea is only a permitted speculation, which few Roman Catholic teachers today would endorse.” ^[66]

F) The Value of the Writings of the Early Church Fathers

Perhaps because of some of the limitations and errors of the Church Fathers noted above, Francis Pieper, an expert on Luther, wrote:

Luther . . . ascribes . . . to divine providence . . . that [a large] part of the ecclesiastical writers perished, so that men could not find the time which they should devote to the reading and scrutiny of Scripture taken up by the study of the wallowing of the Fathers and the councils. ^[67]

Nonetheless, there is a need for balance here as these ancient Church writings are very valuable to the modern Teacher of Scripture. It is when patristic writings are set on a level with Scripture that they become a curse rather than a blessing. Even Protestants who have historically guarded against the unnecessary veneration of the Church Fathers, need to admit that their foremost Teachers, including Luther and Calvin, were deeply indebted to them, especially Augustine. While we do not put them anywhere near the level of Scripture in authority, they constitute some of the very best commentary available on the meaning of Scripture and life in the Church.

Accordingly, Dr. Packer writes:

The only course that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the church will sanction is to approach Scripture in the light of historic Christian study of it. Church tradition, in the sense of traditio tradita, that which is handed on, should be valued as a venture in biblical understanding by those who went before us, whom the Spirit helped as He helps us.

It should not, indeed, be treated as at any point infallible, any more than our own ventures in biblical understanding should be, but rather as the product of honest scholarly endeavor for which the Spirit’s aid was sought. Accordingly, we should expect to find it helpful as a guide, much more right than wrong. As we would think it perverse for a student of Scripture to refuse the help given by contemporary churchly scholarship in written commentaries, theologies, and manuals of various kinds, as well as in oral teaching, so we ought to think it perverse to refuse the help given by the churchly scholarship of the past.

The former perversity would at once be diagnosed as that of a conceitedly self-sufficient person who fails to appreciate that the fellowship of the saints is the proper milieu for learning to understand the Bible; the latter perversity should be viewed in the same terms. Much of today’s biblical study and exposition . . . suffers through what C. S. Lewis somewhere called “chronological snobbery,” the supposition that what is most recent will always be wisest and best, and that the latest word is nearer to being the last word than any that went before; those under the influence of this assumption do not seriously consult work done prior to our own time, and that is very much to our loss. ^[68]

Likewise, G. W. Bromiley writes concerning the value of the Church Fathers:

[T]hey deserve serious consideration as those who have preceded us in faith and made a serious attempt to express biblical and apostolic truth. Their support is thus valuable, their opinions demand careful study, they are to be set aside only for good reason, and their work constitutes no less challenge to us than ours to them. ^[69]

Finally, NT scholar N. T. Wright writes:

Paying attention to tradition means listening carefully (humbly but not uncritically) to how the church has read and lived scripture in the past. We must be constantly aware of our responsibility in the Communion of Saints, without giving our honored predecessors the final say or making them an “alternative source,” independent of scripture itself. When they speak with one voice, we should listen very carefully. They may be wrong. They sometimes are. But we ignore them at our peril.

Looking at our much more recent past, it is important for Christians today to be aware of the tradition(s) within which they themselves stand. Each tradition has much about it for which its adherents can be thankful. None is complete in itself-including those, as I have said already, that pride themselves on being “biblical.”

A way of assessing how valuable, and how incomplete, any tradition may be is to discern the extent to which each tradition can find itself at home in both public reading and private study of the scriptures, without resort to selective readings and exegetical trickery . . . Traditions tell us where we have come from. Scripture itself is a better guide as to where we should now be going. ^[70]

Extras & Endnotes

Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven we are grateful for the wonderful men who have preceded us in the Faith and who have left us their writings on our Faith. Thank You for their example, as many of them were martyred for what they wrote. And help us to benefit from them, as we also use discernment with them. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

How do we define the Church Fathers?
Name some examples?
What did first and second century Church Fathers mean by “apostolic tradition” or a “rule of faith”? What are some examples?
How did this perspective change in the third through fifth centuries? What are some examples?
How did later Church Fathers contradict themselves on the issue of the authority of an extra-biblical apostolic tradition? What are some examples?
What are some traditions practiced in the early Church that have since been abandoned by both Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians?
What are some traditions established in the early Church that are still practiced by both Roman Catholics and Protestants today?
What are at least two reasons we do not give the writings of Church Fathers the same authority as Scripture?
What are some examples of heretical teachings in the writings of otherwise rightly respected Church Fathers?
What do we suggest is perhaps the most unbiblical and strongest tradition in the early Church? What is your response to it?
What is the value of the writings of the early Church Fathers?

Publications & Particulars

The Church Fathers can be categorized even further. First, there are what is considered the Apostolic Fathers who lived and wrote between c. A. D. 95 and 150 and include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, and Justin Martyr. Writings coming from this period for which we do not know the authors, and may be as early as A. D. 70 include The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Epistle to Diognetus, and 2 Clement.

A second group can be categorized from c. A. D. 150 to 300 and include Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian. Finally, fourth century Fathers include Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, and Jerome.

Sometimes the early Church Fathers are categorized according to what language they wrote in, whether Greek (e.g. Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) or Latin (e.g. Tertullian, Augustine). Finally, it is helpful sometimes to categorize them by where they lived and ministered including Africa (e.g. Tertullian, Augustine), Rome (e.g. Clement of Rome, Hippolytus), and Alexandria (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius). As G. W. Bromiley puts it: “these are only a selection from the great company of writers who over a wide and complex front gave to the church its earliest magnificent attempt in theology. “Fathers, Church”, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell ed. (Baker, 1984), 409. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Origen, Commentaries on Romans, 5.9; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christianity (Hendricksen, 1975), 175. ↑
See ? testimony of Spirit. ↑
Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, 4:3; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Polycarp, Fragments, 3:1-2; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.1.1; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Ibid., III.10.1-2. Elsewhere, Irenaeus refers to the “ancient traditions” and gives another long list of scriptural beliefs (cf. III.4.2.). ↑
Ref. unavailable ↑
Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 13; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑
Cyprian, Epistle 73, 2, 3, 8; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Donald McKim, Theological Turning Points (Knox, 1988), 102. Dr. McKim adds: “For theologians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, the content of the regula fidei was derived directly from Scripture.” (Ibid.). This would not seem to be true of Origen based on the quote above concerning infant baptism. ↑
Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God (InterVarsity, 2002), 168. ↑
Origen, Commentaries on Romans, 5.9; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑
Phillip Schaff writes concerning Basil’s On the Holy Spirit:

It is in this same year, 374, that Amphilochius, the first cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus and friend and spiritual son of Basil, paid the first of his annual autumn visits to Cæsarea (Bishop Lightfoot, D.C.B. i. 105) and there urged St. Basil to clear up all doubt as to the true doctrine of the Holy Spirit by writing a treatise on the subject. St. Basil complied, and, on the completion of the work, had it engrossed on parchment (Letter ccxxxi.) and sent it to Amphilochius, to whom he dedicated it. (Preface; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Basil, On the Holy Spirit, XXVII.66; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
William J. Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology : From the Fathers to Feminism (Clarendon Press, 1998), 37-8. ↑
The editor of this letter places the date at 374-375; cf. online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Basil, To Eustathius the physician, Letter CLXXXIX, 3; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
This is a summary statement given by Phillip Schaff of Basil’s Moralia in Prolegomena, Works, Ascetic (iii); online at http://www.ccel.org. Schaff claims Moralia was one of Basil’s earlier works, c. 361. ↑
Admittedly we cannot find these exact quotes in Basil, but they are given by William Jurgens in his The Faith of the Early Fathers (Liturgical Press, 1979), 18. Perhaps this too is summary statement of something Basil wrote. ↑
Chrysostom, Homilies on II Thessalonians, IV; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, V: 23. See also IV: 24. ref. in Jurgens, not found in Schaff. ↑
Augustine, Letter to Januarius; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑
Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Augustine in Letter: “To Maximin the Arian”; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 11.5; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Augustine, Letter 82, “To Jerome”; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Jerome, Letter 82, “To Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria” [NPNF2, 6:173; PL 22.7401); online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Jerome, Letter 62 [76], “Ad Tranquillanum” [NPNF2, 6:133; PL 22.606]; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Athanasius, To Serapion, I.28; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Athanasius, Letter to Adelphus; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑
McKim, 100-101. ↑
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:17; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
“Tradition, Christian,” John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature CD-ROM (Ages Software, 2000). ↑
Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics (Baker, 2003), 485, 490. ↑
Basil, On the Spirit, XXVII.66; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Latourette, 204. ↑
Ibid., 201. ↑
Ibid., 204. ↑
Ibid., 205. ↑
The issue of when Easter should be celebrated is referred to by Church historians as the Quarto-decimanian controversy. ↑
Ibid., 205-6. ↑
Ibid., 216. ↑
Ibid., 204. ↑
Ibid., 211-12. ↑
Bruce Demarest, General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Zondervan, 1982), 259. ↑
Timothy George, Reading Scripture with the Reformers (Intervarsity, 2011), 79 ↑
Tertullian, On Baptism, 1.1; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑
Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit (InterVarsity, 2000), 81. ↑
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 1169. As noted above, it was widely believed that the act of baptism brought the forgiveness of sins. Dr. Latourette explains:

[B]aptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered. After baptism, the Christian was supposed not to sin, and some sins, if indulged in after that rite had been administered, were regarded as unforgivable. Tertullian listed the “seven deadly sins” as “idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud.” Both Hermas and Tertullian conceded that forgiveness might be had for one such sin committed after baptism, but allowed only one. (138) ↑
Augustine, Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]) ↑
Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5. ↑
Augustine, Sermons to Catechumens, on the Creed 7:15. ↑
Augustine, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]). ↑
Augustine, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]). ↑
Augustine, The Care to be Had for the Dead, 1:3. ↑
Oscar Cullman, quoted by John Stott, Guard the Truth : The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus (Intervarsity, 1996), 13. ↑
On a biblical view of baptism see chapter 15.1. ↑
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, James T. Dennison ed., 3 vols. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), I:163-166. ↑
John Henry Newman, “The Times of Antichrist”

(online at http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract83.htm ↑
J. I. Packer, Truth & Power (Harold Shaw, 1996), 288. ↑
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (Concordia, 1950), 1205. ↑
J. I. Packer, in Scripture and Truth, D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge eds. (Baker, 1992), 352-3. ↑
Ibid. ↑
N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (Harper Collins, 2005), 117-119 ↑

Chapter 13.5

Traditions of the Early Church Fathers

Table of Topics

A) Introduction to the Early Church Fathers

B) Tradition as Scripture in the 2^nd & 3^rd Century Church Fathers

C) The Inconsistent Claims of 4^th & 5^th Century Church Fathers to an Extra-biblical Apostolic Tradition

D) Examples of Extra-biblical Traditions of the Early Church Fathers

E) The Limitations of the Authority of Early Church Fathers

F) The Value of the Writings of the Early Church Fathers

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

The leaders of Christendom after the first century and generally before the sixth century are often referred to as the Church Fathers or Patriarchs.
Many of the extra-biblical practices and teachings of these men continue to influence the Church in significant ways, especially the more ancient Roman and Orthodox branches of Christianity.
Our question here is to what degree should we allow the extra-biblical writings of the Church Fathers to exercise authority over our lives?
For the earliest Church Fathers (up to c. 200), the apostolic tradition and “rule of faith” was synonymous with Scripture.
For third and fourth century Church Fathers, extra-biblical traditions began to take on apostolic authority.
The first reason we do not give biblical authority to the writings of the Church Fathers is that they did not claim divine revelation.
The Church Fathers too often contradicted themselves and one another.
Extra-biblical traditions in the early Church included facing the East when praying, men, women, and children sitting separately in church, baptizing infants, baptizing people three times, setting the dates for Easter and Christmas, and the Church sanctioning marriage. Obviously, some of these traditions have been kept, and some have been abandoned.
Unfortunately, some of the teachings of the Church Fathers, particularly those who supported universalism or pluralism were heretical.
Perhaps the most unbiblical and strongest tradition in the early Church was the practice of baptizing infants and the belief that baptism was necessary for the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
Even Protestants who have historically guarded against the unnecessary veneration of the Church Fathers, need to admit that their foremost Teachers, including Luther and Calvin, were deeply indebted to them, especially Augustine. While we do not put them anywhere near the level of Scripture in authority, they constitute some of the very best commentary available on the meaning of Scripture and life in the Church.