Definition of Terms:
|
Doctrinal Development in the Early Church
The development of Christian doctrine in the early Church was not a project of theological speculation, but rather a pastoral and theological response to the needs of the Christian community—especially when core elements of the apostolic faith were challenged. The early Church did not attempt to create doctrine but to clarify what had been handed down from the Apostles through Sacred Tradition. This process involved an organic but authoritative method of discernment, relying on Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church. In contrast to the modern Protestant principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone), the early Church operated under the assumption that divine revelation was transmitted through both written and unwritten means, requiring the guidance of the Church to interpret and preserve it faithfully.
How Doctrine Was Formed in the Early Church
1. Doctrine in Response to Heresy
In the earliest centuries, doctrinal definitions generally arose as responses to error. The core content of the Christian faith—Christ’s divinity and humanity, the Trinity, the resurrection, salvation, baptism, Eucharist, etc.—was handed down through what the Church called the “rule of faith” (regula fidei). This unwritten Tradition functioned as the living memory of the Apostles and guided the Church’s reading of Scripture. Only when false teachers distorted the apostolic message did the Church formally define doctrines.
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202) exemplifies this approach. Writing against Gnosticism, he emphasized the unchanging Apostolic Tradition preserved in the succession of bishops:
“It is within the power of all… to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors down to our own times” (Against Heresies 3.3.1).¹
Likewise, the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea (325) arose in response to Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Christ. The Church did not invent new dogmas but clarified the meaning of the faith once delivered (Jude 3).
2. Tools of Doctrinal Definition: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium
The early Church approached doctrinal development using a threefold pattern that mirrors the later formulation of Catholic theology:
- Scripture: The writings of the Apostles and prophets were revered as inspired and authoritative. But Scripture was not yet fully compiled into a formal canon until the late 4th century (e.g., Synod of Rome 382, Council of Carthage 397), and the Church always read Scripture within the context of Tradition.
- Tradition: The oral preaching and teaching handed down from the Apostles was considered equally authoritative. Paul exhorted believers to “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).² Early Fathers like Basil the Great explicitly distinguished between written and unwritten traditions, both originating from apostolic sources.³
- Magisterium: The bishops, particularly when gathered in councils, exercised authority to define doctrine. The decisions of ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus) were binding on all Christians. Athanasius, a major figure at Nicaea, recognized the authority of conciliar decisions and regarded opposition to them as heretical.⁴
This structure functioned with remarkable consistency, demonstrating that the early Church saw doctrine not as a personal interpretation of Scripture but as a deposit entrusted to the Church to guard and proclaim.
Defined Doctrine was Considered Binding
The early Church held that doctrinal decisions were binding on all Christians. Paul commands, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:9). The Acts 15 Council in Jerusalem—often called the proto-council of the Church—demonstrates the pattern of doctrinal definition by apostolic authority, binding on the universal Church (Acts 15:28).⁵ When the Council of Nicaea defined the homoousios (“of the same substance”) formula to describe the Son’s divinity, it did so precisely to defend apostolic teaching. To reject the council’s conclusions was to break communion with the Church.
Contrast with the Modern Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
Sola scriptura—the idea that Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority for Christian belief and practice—is a Reformation doctrine not held by the early Church. It was formally articulated by Martin Luther and other Reformers in the 16th century. While it arose in reaction to perceived corruption and abuses within the Church, sola scriptura was not a return to ancient practice but a theological innovation.
Problems with Sola Scriptura
a. It’s not Biblical: Ironically, sola scriptura cannot be found in Scripture itself. Nowhere does the Bible teach that Scripture alone is the only rule of faith. Instead, the Bible affirms multiple sources of divine revelation:
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15 – “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
- 1 Timothy 3:15 – The Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
- Acts 15 – Doctrinal disputes were resolved by Church authority, not private interpretation.
- 2 Peter 1:20 – “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”
b. Contradictions and Fragmentation: Sola scriptura cannot account for the proliferation of thousands of denominations that read the same Bible yet arrive at conflicting doctrines. This fragmentation is precisely what early councils were designed to prevent.
c. Translations and Interpretive Errors: Without an authoritative Church, discrepancies in translations or interpretive difficulties have no final arbiter. For example, Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 in his German Bible (“faith alone”), a move rejected by Catholic and Orthodox Christians as unwarranted.⁶
c. Canon of Scripture: The very canon of the New Testament was determined by the Church—through synods and councils—without an existing Bible to appeal to. This means that sola scriptura depends on a canon that itself is not derivable from Scripture alone. As Protestant historian F.F. Bruce noted:
“The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list… on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired.”⁷
Conclusion
The early Church never operated under a sola scriptura framework. Doctrinal definitions emerged organically in response to heresies and were discerned through the combined weight of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s authoritative teaching office. Far from undermining Scripture, this process upheld it within the broader context of apostolic faith. The Protestant principle of sola scriptura, though appealing in its simplicity, cannot account for the historical reality of the canon’s formation, the interpretive authority of the Church, or the unity of doctrine in the early centuries.
It was not the insufficiency of Scripture but the pastoral need for clarity and unity that prompted the development of doctrine and ultimately the codification of Scripture itself. In this sense, Scripture is not the foundation apart from the Church but within it—the fruit of the Church’s faithful witness and the enduring voice of the Holy Spirit.
Footnotes
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.1, trans. Dominic J. Unger, Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 55 (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).
- Holy Bible, ESV (Crossway, 2001), 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
- Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27.66, trans. David Anderson (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980).
- Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1.9, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 4 (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892).
- Acts 15:28 – “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden…”
- See Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700), Vol. 4, The Christian Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 220.
- F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1988), p. 276.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), §§85–95.
Bible Verses:
Matthew 10:40
Matthew 16:18-19
Matthew 18:15-17
Acts Chapter 15
1 Corinthians 11:2
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13
“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God”
2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
2 Timothy 2:2
“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
Acts of the Apostles 8:30-31
“So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.”
1 Timothy 3:15
“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
2 Peter 1:20
“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”
3 John 13-14
“I have much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; instead I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.”
The Gospel of Matthew 18:17
“If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
The Gospel of John 21:25
“But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
Church Father Quotes:
see also; Early Church Heresies & Early Church Councils:
Papias of Hierapolis (60-163 A.D.)
“Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions… There are other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 A.D.)
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.)
“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 father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Origen of Alexandria (184-253 A.D.)
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
Cyprian of Carthage (200-258 A.D.)
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.)
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373 A.D.)
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Epiphanius of Salamis (313-403 A.D.)
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.)
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.)
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.)
“And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. . . Therefore the apostle says: Now abides faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity: 1 Corinthians 13:13.” -On Christian Doctrine Book I: 39:43
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . 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” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason?” -Augustine of Hippo, Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Chapter 5
“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” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Cassian (360-435 A.D.)
“Why then, you heretic, did you not in this way quote the whole and entire passage which you had read? . . . Why then, you heretic, did you not in this way quote what you had read in the Apostle, entire and unmutilated? But you insert part, and omit part; and garble the words of truth in order that you may be able to build up your false notions by your wicked act. I see who was your master. We must believe that you had his instruction, whose example you are following. For so the devil in the gospel when tempting the Lord said: If You are the Son of God, cast Yourself down. For it is written that He shall give His angels charge concerning You to keep You in all Your ways. Luke 4:9-10 And when he had said this, he left out the context and what belongs to it.” -On the Incarnation of Christ Book VII: Chapter 16 (Written in 429 A.D.)
Vincent of Lerins (Died 445 A.D.)
“But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else.” –Commontorium 23:28
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . . Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
“[T]he holy Church of God . . . has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [and possesses that faith that] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls” (Letter read at fourth session of III Constantinople [A.D. 680]).
Non-Catholic Quotes:
Dr. James Allen Hewett, Pastor, PhD, University of Manchester
“This tense . . . occurs rarely in the [Greek New Testament], but the student will do well to be familiar with it. Consider Matthew 16:19 (two examples) and 18:18 (two examples): “Whatever you bind on the earth will have been bound [estai dedemenon] in heaven and whatever you loose on the earth will have been loosed [estai lelumenon] in heaven.” The construction declares that a completed heavenly action and its continuing results will come to exist on earth upon the completion of a future earthly event.” –New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar, 152
J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997, A Protestant and an early Church historian)
“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).