Why the Early Church Writings Matter: A Protestant’s Journey into Catholic Tradition

I used to think that if it wasn’t in the Bible, it wasn’t worth much.

The Bible alone—Sola Scriptura (which I now refer to as, willful ignorance)—was the ultimate authority in my faith.

But then, I started reading the early Church Fathers, those Christians who lived in the first few centuries after Christ, and everything changed.

It wasn’t just their wisdom or eloquence that caught my attention; it was the realization that these were the very people wrestling with how to preserve and interpret Christian teaching.

And they weren’t throwing away tradition—they were preserving it.

created using Venice AI

The Bible Didn’t Just Appear Out of Thin Air

Let’s start with a reality check: the Bible didn’t drop from heaven in leather-bound, gold-edged pages.

It was compiled by the early Church.

Before there was a neatly packaged New Testament, there were letters being passed around, gospels being shared, and church leaders debating which writings were truly inspired.

The Church Fathers played a huge role in this process, and their discussions shaped what we now call Scripture.

Take St. Ignatius of Antioch, for example.

Writing in the early 2nd century, he spoke of the Eucharist as the "body and blood of Christ" and emphasized the authority of bishops.

These weren’t rogue opinions; they reflected what was already being practiced.

Yet his writings weren’t included in the Bible.

Why?

Why Some Writings Made It Into the Bible—And Others Didn’t

The Church used several criteria to determine which books should be included in the New Testament canon:

Apostolic Connection – The writings had to be linked to the Apostles or their close companions. This is why Mark and Luke, though not among the Twelve, made the cut—they were companions of Peter and Paul, respectively. The Church Fathers, though essential to Christian thought, came a generation or two later.

Universal Acceptance – The writings needed to be widely recognized and used in Christian worship across different regions. Some texts, though popular in certain areas, didn’t have this broad acceptance.

Doctrinal Consistency – A work had to align with what was already taught by Jesus and His Apostles. If something contradicted known teachings, it wasn’t included.

The early Church had the difficult job of distinguishing inspired Scripture from valuable—but non-canonical—writings.

This didn’t mean the excluded texts were unimportant; they just weren’t part of the biblical canon.

Scripture and Tradition: A False Divide?

One of the biggest surprises for me as a Protestant-turning-Catholic was realizing that the early Church didn’t see Scripture and Tradition as rivals.

The idea that Christianity is just “me, my Bible, and Jesus” would have seemed bizarre to the early Christians.

They had bishops, councils, and oral teachings passed down from the Apostles.

St. Paul even wrote, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Church tradition wasn’t an afterthought—it was how the faith was preserved before the Bible was compiled.

The earliest Christians weren’t arguing about whether to follow the Bible or tradition. They were using tradition to define the Bible itself.

Was There Ever a Discussion About Ditching Tradition?

If there was ever a time for the early Church to abandon tradition in favor of Scripture alone, it would have been during the formation of the canon.

But that never happened.

In fact, the councils and synods that helped solidify the canon (like the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century) did so within the framework of Church authority and tradition.

The idea that the Bible would be the only authority was simply not how Christianity operated for its first 1,500 years.

Even Martin Luther, the great champion of Sola Scriptura, initially leaned on Church tradition when assembling his German Bible.

But once he questioned certain Church teachings, he also questioned books of the Bible that supported those teachings (hence why Protestant Bibles are missing seven Old Testament books).

Ironically, Protestants inherit a Bible that was debated, preserved, and canonized by the very Church they later rejected.

Why the Early Church Writings Still Matter

Even though the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others didn’t make it into the Bible, they are treasure troves of wisdom. They show us how the first Christians understood Scripture, worshipped, and structured the Church.

Reading them is like stepping into a time machine and seeing Christianity in its raw, unfiltered form—before denominational splits, before the printing press, before theological debates were reduced to InLeo fights with @jongolson .

And you know what?

It looks a lot more Catholic than I ever expected.

So, if you’re a Protestant curious about where your faith came from, don’t stop at the Bible.

Go further.

Read the early Church Fathers.

You just might find, as I did, that the Church didn’t break away from the Bible.

It preserved it.

Matthew 16:25 "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it."

Posted Using