Scripture and Tradition

Today we consider Church Tradition as a body of teaching and rites solely derived from man, so we tend to think little of Tradition in in light of the testimony of Sola Scripture. However, the early Church placed a high value on both Scripture and Tradition, though Tradition was never the usurpation of Scripture. Tradition was understood as the concise body of doctrine which came from Christ to the Apostles and finally to the Fathers successively. This, in turn, was critical in binding the faith and refuting heretics. Tradition had to conform to Scripture, but early formulated Traditional Doctrines were used as evidence to crush the deceptive interpretations of Scripture by dangerous groups like the Gnostics.

Taken out of Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly (page 31 1978 revised edition) quotes Athanasius in defining Tradition as it was understood early on. Kelly writes, "The ancient meaning of the term is well illustrated by Athanasius's reference to 'the actual original tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord bestowed, the apostles proclaimed, and the fathers safeguarded'." As a side note, Catholic Church is not a reference to Rome here but rather the Church as a whole.

Therefore, we concur with the early Fathers that Tradition is not something to be tossed aside, for it helps us grasp the early teachings of the Church as bestowed by Christ and proclaimed by the Apostles. We use such Doctrinal Traditions to rightly interpret the Scriptures, yet, with that being said, there are doctrines that have been introduced over time with little explicit or implicit Scriptural warrant. These are are certainly worth debating, of which some may or may not have sbustantive support. For this reason, the analogy of faith (Scripture intereprets Scripture) is critcal in formulating right Doctrine.