Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
The Apostles or the Fathers?
Does Scripture Judge Tradition, or Does Tradition Judge Scripture?
Every theological controversy eventually arrives at a single question:
Does Scripture judge tradition, or does tradition judge Scripture?
When a doctrine is challenged from Scripture, the response is often not an appeal to Scripture at all. Instead we hear:
The fathers believed it.
The councils affirmed it.
The churches practiced it.
The tradition preserved it.
Those facts may be historically interesting, but they do not answer the question.
The fathers were not inspired.
The councils were not inspired.
The traditions were not inspired.
Scripture alone is God-breathed.
The Bereans were commended not because they accepted Paul on the basis of his authority, but because they:
"searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)
Even an apostle's teaching was examined in the light of Scripture.
How much more should later fathers, theologians, councils, and traditions be examined by that same standard?
This does not mean tradition is worthless. Tradition can inform. Tradition can preserve history. Tradition can help us understand how earlier generations interpreted Scripture.
But tradition cannot establish truth.
Truth establishes tradition.
A doctrine is not true because a council affirmed it.
A council should affirm it because it is true.
A doctrine is not true because the fathers taught it.
The fathers should teach it because it is true.
A tradition is not true because it is ancient.
A tradition is true only if it agrees with Scripture.
The question therefore is never:
"What did the fathers believe?"
The question is:
"What saith the Scripture?"
Every other authority stands beneath that one.
Sola Scriptura
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 1979, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.
Does Scripture Judge Tradition, or Does Tradition Judge Scripture?
Every theological controversy eventually arrives at a single question:
Does Scripture judge tradition, or does tradition judge Scripture?
When a doctrine is challenged from Scripture, the response is often not an appeal to Scripture at all. Instead we hear:
The fathers believed it.
The councils affirmed it.
The churches practiced it.
The tradition preserved it.
Those facts may be historically interesting, but they do not answer the question.
The fathers were not inspired.
The councils were not inspired.
The traditions were not inspired.
Scripture alone is God-breathed.
The Bereans were commended not because they accepted Paul on the basis of his authority, but because they:
"searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)
Even an apostle's teaching was examined in the light of Scripture.
How much more should later fathers, theologians, councils, and traditions be examined by that same standard?
This does not mean tradition is worthless. Tradition can inform. Tradition can preserve history. Tradition can help us understand how earlier generations interpreted Scripture.
But tradition cannot establish truth.
Truth establishes tradition.
A doctrine is not true because a council affirmed it.
A council should affirm it because it is true.
A doctrine is not true because the fathers taught it.
The fathers should teach it because it is true.
A tradition is not true because it is ancient.
A tradition is true only if it agrees with Scripture.
The question therefore is never:
"What did the fathers believe?"
The question is:
"What saith the Scripture?"
Every other authority stands beneath that one.
Sola Scriptura
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 1979, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.
Last edited: