Scripture vs. Tradition

The Story of a Man Named Measure

The Parable of Measure

There once lived a master furniture maker named Measure. His creations were renowned for their beauty, symmetry, and most of all, precision. Unlike others of his time, Measure crafted each piece using a wooden rod he fashioned from the length of his own foot—the length etched permanently into the floor of his workshop. This rod became his standard, his measure. With it, he could divide, multiply, and replicate with precision. His furniture was not only admired—it was trusted.

Measure freely shared his method. Many made exact copies of his rods, but only a few used them consistently. Some merely displayed the copied rods in their shops, hoping people would associate Measure’s precision and quality with their furniture, even though they continued crafting by eye.

Others tried to use them but needed training. Still others, driven by pride, created their own schools and guilds, modifying the method to suit their ambitions. They taught eloquently, wore ornate robes and caps to foster a sense of superiority, and gain followers—but their students resulting furniture lacked the precision, consistency, and beauty of Measure’s.

Yet among the earliest who received Measure’s rods were a group of humble craftsmen from nearby Berea. They were not drawn by fame but by truth. They studied Measure’s way diligently, returned often to his workshop floor to recalibrate their rods, and passed down his teachings faithfully to their apprentices. For several generations, these craftsmen preserved the method through oral instruction and careful practice. But as time passed and the guild’s influence grew, they saw the need to codify Measure’s teachings into a written record—so that future generations would not be led astray by imitation or innovation.

These craftsmen gathered regularly, each contributing chapters to a book that came to be known as Measure’s Way. It was not a collection of opinions but a faithful record of the original method—verified by the rod, shaped by experience, and preserved with reverence. The book became the standard by which all furniture was to be judged. Those who followed it produced works of enduring beauty and most important, near flawless fit and finish. Those who deviated produced confusion and flawed works.

In time, others tried to mimic this effort. The guild, jealous of the book’s influence, began writing their own volumes—borrowing Measure’s words but altering his meanings. They added ceremonial steps, invented new tools, and created secret societies with special aprons and symbols. Their books were ornate, but their furniture was flawed. Discerning buyers could tell the difference.

As centuries passed, the guild grew powerful and corrupt. Masters arose who cared more for gold than craftsmanship, who sold inferior furniture at premium prices, who demanded tribute from other craftsmen. They claimed exclusive authority over Measure’s way while their own workshops produced shoddy work.

Still, the book of Measure’s Way endured. It was copied, translated, and carried to distant lands. Faithful craftsmen—though few—continued to build by its standard, returning often to the original rod etched in Measure’s workshop floor. When corruption reached its peak, some craftsmen broke away entirely, declaring that the book alone was sufficient, that the guild’s additions had obscured rather than clarified the true way. Their furniture bore the mark of truth, even as the guild condemned them.

Just as the earliest furniture makers who followed Measure’s way gathered to record his teachings into a book—each contributing chapters shaped by their experience and fidelity—so too did the earliest followers of Christ labor to preserve His words. These were not distant philosophers or institutional bureaucrats; they were craftsmen of truth. Men like John—the apostle, Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius did not invent doctrine—they received it, lived it, and passed it down. Their writings, like the chapters of Measure’s Way, were forged in the fires of persecution, shaped by firsthand witness, and calibrated against the original standard. They gathered not to embellish but to preserve. Their legacy is not tradition for tradition’s sake—it is faithful transmission of the Way.

The Measure of Truth

This parable is not about furniture—it’s about faith. In the realm of Christian doctrine, a fundamental question persists: When Scripture and Church tradition conflict, which should have preeminence as our measure of reliable truth? Like Measure’s rod, Scripture offers an objective, enduring standard. Church tradition, while often containing valuable wisdom and serving as a faithful transmitter of biblical truth, becomes dangerous when it claims equal or superior authority to Scripture—especially when that tradition becomes corrupted by human ambition, political maneuvering, or doctrinal innovation.

This is not to dismiss the valuable role tradition has played in preserving and transmitting biblical truth. Indeed, Scripture itself emerged from and was preserved by tradition-bearing communities. However, history demonstrates that when tradition gains authority equal to or greater than Scripture, the door opens to abuse, corruption, and departure from apostolic teaching. The question is not whether tradition has value, but which authority should serve as the final arbiter when conflicts arise.

To evaluate these competing claims to authority, we must ask: Which one demonstrates internal consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance over time? These three criteria form the backbone of any reliable worldview. Scripture meets them all. Tradition, when it remains faithful to Scripture, shares in this reliability. But when tradition departs from or supersedes Scripture, it falters under scrutiny—as history has repeatedly demonstrated.

The Witnesses, the Canon, and the Tests of Truth

The Faithful Craftsmen: Apostolic Fathers and the Preservation of “The Way”

The Apostolic Fathers were those who lived in the late first and early second centuries, many of whom are believed to have had direct or near-direct contact with the apostles themselves. Their writings offer a vital bridge between the apostolic era and the emerging church, preserving the teachings of Jesus and His disciples with reverent clarity.

Clement of Rome, writing around 96 AD, was an early leader in the Roman church. While later traditions connect him with Peter and Paul, what we know with certainty is that his First Epistle to the Corinthians addresses division within the church and appeals to apostolic authority—not as a developing hierarchical tradition, but as a faithful transmission of truth. He writes, “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle” (1 Clement 47:1), affirming the authority of Scripture already in circulation.

Ignatius of Antioch, en route to martyrdom in Rome around 107 AD, penned seven letters to various churches. His writings emphasize the full humanity and divinity of Christ, the importance of unity, and the danger of heresies like Docetism. He writes, “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Romans 7:3), affirming the incarnation against early denials.

Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote to the Philippians with pastoral warmth and theological precision. His letter quotes extensively from New Testament writings, demonstrating their early acceptance and authority. His martyrdom, recorded in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, became a model of Christian faithfulness under persecution.

Papias of Hierapolis, though his writings survive only in fragments, collected oral traditions from those who had known the apostles. Eusebius quotes Papias as saying, “I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as the word of a living and surviving voice” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4). Interestingly, while Papias valued oral tradition, his purpose was to verify and supplement what was being written down, not to replace written apostolic testimony.

These men did not invent doctrine—they preserved it. Their writings reflect a church grounded in emerging Scripture, shaped by apostolic witness, and resistant to distortion. They are not authoritative in themselves, but they testify to the authority of the Word. Significantly, when later church traditions conflicted with their witness, it was often these earliest voices that supported the reformers’ return to biblical simplicity.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Defenders of Orthodoxy Before Nicaea

Following the Apostolic Fathers, the Ante-Nicene Fathers lived between the late 2nd century and the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). They defended the faith against philosophical attacks, heretical distortions, and cultural compromise.

Justin Martyr, a philosopher turned Christian apologist, wrote First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho to defend Christianity against pagan accusations and Jewish critiques. He argued that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and that Christian worship was rational and morally superior to paganism.

Irenaeus of Lyons, writing around 180 AD, confronted the rising tide of Gnosticism in his seminal work Against Heresies. He emphasized the unity of Scripture and the continuity of God’s redemptive plan. While Irenaeus did appeal to apostolic succession as a safeguard, his ultimate authority remained the apostolic writings themselves. He 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” (Against Heresies 3.1.1).

Tertullian, a fiery theologian from Carthage, coined the term “Trinity” and wrote extensively on ethics, heresy, and ecclesiology. Though he later joined the Montanist movement, his early writings remain foundational. Significantly, his famous question “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” warned against the very philosophical corruptions that would later plague medieval Christianity.

Clement of Alexandria sought to harmonize faith and reason, writing Exhortation to the Greeks and Stromata. He emphasized spiritual maturity and the supremacy of Christ over philosophy.

These fathers were not infallible, and their writings are not Scripture. But they consistently pointed back to the apostolic witness and the authority of the Word. Their theological battles clarified orthodoxy and exposed error, helping the church remain faithful to “the Way.” Crucially, their writings often support the reformers’ later critiques of medieval innovations.

The Canon: Scripture’s Enduring Measure

The formation of the biblical canon was neither arbitrary nor imposed by later ecclesiastical authority—it was a process of recognition of what had already proven itself through apostolic origin, doctrinal coherence, and widespread acceptance. The early church did not create Scripture; it received it and recognized its inherent authority.

The Old Testament had already been preserved by Jewish scribes and was affirmed by Jesus Himself:

“Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44, ESV).

The Hebrew canon was essentially settled before Christianity began.

The New Testament emerged as apostolic writings were circulated, read publicly, and affirmed by churches across the Roman Empire. Paul’s letters were already being treated as Scripture during his lifetime:

“I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers” (1 Thessalonians 5:27, ESV).

Peter refers to Paul’s writings as “Scripture”, showing early recognition of their unique authority.

“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16, ESV)

By the late second century, a core collection of authoritative texts was widely recognized, though some variation existed at the margins. The Muratorian Fragment (traditionally dated c. 170-200 AD, though some scholars date it later) lists most New Testament books. Athanasius’s Easter Letter of 367 AD was the first to list precisely our 27-book New Testament canon, and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) officially ratified this recognition—not by invention, but by acknowledgment of what had already proven itself through centuries of use and testing.

Controversies and Clarifications

The canonical process was shaped not by political maneuvering but by fidelity to apostolic truth. When Marcion rejected the Old Testament and edited Luke and Paul’s letters to fit his anti-Jewish theology, the church responded by reaffirming the unity of Scripture. When Gnostic writings like the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas emerged, they were rejected for lacking apostolic origin, doctrinal coherence with established apostolic teaching, and widespread acceptance by the churches founded by the apostles.

The Apocrypha, though included in some early manuscripts and versions, was distinguished from canonical Scripture by Jewish authorities and was questioned by many church fathers. Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, noted this distinction, and the books were often viewed as useful for edification but not for establishing doctrine.

As Paul declared,

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).

The canon is not primarily a product of ecclesiastical tradition—it is the standard by which all tradition must be measured.

Worldview Tests: Why Scripture Must Retain Preeminence

A reliable authority must meet rigorous criteria for truth and trustworthiness. Philosopher Kenneth D. Samples, in his work 7 Truths That Changed the World, outlines several tests for worldview validity. Here are three foundational ones applied to our question of ultimate authority:

1. Internal Consistency

Scripture presents a unified narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration across 66 books, multiple authors, and over a millennium of composition. Jesus said,

“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35, ESV).

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible maintains coherence across genres, authors, and centuries.

Church tradition, by contrast, has often contradicted itself across councils, cultures, and centuries. Medieval traditions contradicted patristic ones; papal decrees have been reversed; and conciliar decisions have been overruled. The selling of indulgences, the prohibition of Bible reading by laypeople, and the doctrine of papal infallibility were all defended as “apostolic tradition” despite lacking any clear biblical or early church support.

2. Empirical Adequacy

Scripture explains the human condition with piercing clarity:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV).

It accounts for sin, suffering, and salvation in ways no tradition or philosophy can replicate. Its historical claims continue to be supported by archaeology, manuscript evidence, and fulfilled prophecy.

When church tradition has strayed from biblical principles—as in the corruption of the medieval papacy, the Crusades, or the Inquisition—the results have been empirically disastrous. History demonstrates that Scripture’s moral teachings, when followed, produce human flourishing; tradition’s departures from Scripture often produce the opposite.

3. Experiential Relevance

Scripture speaks to the soul across cultures and centuries.

“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105, ESV).

It comforts the broken, convicts the proud, and transforms the repentant. The Reformation itself demonstrated Scripture’s power to reform and revitalize when it was freed from the overlay of corrupted tradition.

Tradition, when faithful to Scripture, shares in this transformative power. But when tradition becomes an end in itself—laden with ritual, ceremony, and human innovation—it often burdens rather than liberates, adding layers of complexity that obscure the gospel’s essential simplicity.

Other tests—such as correspondence with reality, practical effectiveness, and integration with other truths—further demonstrate why Scripture must maintain its preeminent authority. It has proven itself through scrutiny, competition, persecution, and lived experience across two millennia.

The Historical Imperative: When Tradition Becomes Corruption

The question of Scripture versus tradition is not merely academic—it has profound historical and practical implications. The late medieval period provides a sobering case study of what happens when tradition gains equal or superior authority to Scripture.

The Papal Crisis: The Western Schism (1378-1417) saw multiple competing popes simultaneously claiming ultimate authority. The Avignon Papacy (1309-1377) had demonstrated papal subservience to political power. Popes like Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) were notorious for corruption, simony, and moral failure. These were not men who could credibly claim to be infallible interpreters of divine tradition.

Doctrinal Innovation: Practices like the sale of indulgences, the treasury of merit, and purgatory were defended as apostolic tradition despite having no clear biblical foundation and no support from the earliest church fathers. When Johann Tetzel proclaimed, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs,” he was not preserving apostolic tradition—he was innovating for financial gain.

Suppression of Scripture: The medieval church increasingly restricted access to Scripture, forbidding translation into vernacular languages and prohibiting lay reading. The burning of Bibles and Bible translators like William Tyndale demonstrated how far tradition had departed from its supposed foundation.

Institutional Corruption: The church became a political and economic power that often contradicted its own moral teachings. The wealth, worldliness, and warfare of the institutional church stood in stark contrast to the apostolic simplicity described in the New Testament.

The Reformers’ cry of sola scriptura was not an innovation—it was a return to the principle that Scripture must judge tradition, not the reverse. When Martin Luther stood at Worms and declared, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason…my conscience is captive to the Word of God,” he was not rejecting all tradition but asserting that Scripture must have the final word when traditions conflict with apostolic teaching.

Return to the Rod

The guild may boast of its robes and rituals, its accumulated wisdom and ancient practices, but the discerning craftsman knows the difference between faithful tradition and human innovation. Scripture is that eternal rod—breathed out by God, preserved by faithful men, and proven by time. As Isaiah declared,

“To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Isaiah 8:20, ESV).

This is not to dismiss the valuable role that faithful tradition has played in preserving, interpreting, and applying biblical truth. The Apostolic Fathers, the great councils that defended orthodox Christology, and the rich heritage of Christian scholarship all serve the cause of truth when they remain anchored to Scripture. But history teaches us that when tradition claims authority independent of or superior to Scripture, corruption inevitably follows.

The question is not whether tradition has value—it does. The question is not whether the church has a role in interpreting Scripture—it does. The question is which authority serves as the final arbiter when human wisdom conflicts with divine revelation. On this point, the witness of history is clear: Scripture must maintain its preeminence as the ultimate standard of truth.

Let us build by the measure of truth—submitting all human tradition, however ancient or revered, to the final authority of God’s written Word. For in the end, it is not the traditions of men that will judge us, but the Word of the Lord, which “remains forever” (1 Peter 1:25, ESV).

Tradition may echo truth, but only Scripture defines it.

---