Roman Catholic apologists like to emphasize the tradition of the early church, and claim that other unwritten oral apostolic traditions that Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, are brought out later in church history. The problem is, the main early church fathers, when they explicate what “the tradition of the apostles”, or “the faith” or “the preaching” or “the rule of faith” is, the content is all Biblical content. It is all doctrinal points that are in Scripture, and based on and outlined from the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, organized around The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these are very similar in content to the early creeds such as the Apostles Creed, and the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Nowhere do these early fathers mention anything that Rome has deemed as dogmatic centuries later in these passages. There is nothing about a Pope, or Marian dogmas or piety (except for the virgin birth, which Protestants accept), nothing about indulgences, purgatory, or Transubstantiation, or priests, etc. Nothing.
Since these are all in Scripture, this points to the truth that the early church held to Sola Scriptura, and the fact that no extra Biblical traditions or doctrines are included in these explications of “the tradition” or “the rule of faith” or “the preaching”, it shows that all that was necessary for the church to function and minister in the power of the Holy Spirit was written down in the Scriptures.
This is true apostolic succession – faithfully passing down sound doctrine to the next generation.
Kinda blows the rcc outta the water doesn’t it.
I’ve pointed out that the bible is in fact the advice of the ancients. The “trick” for us is to get out of God’s way when His Spirit seeks to make plain the advice that He would have us apply at a particular time. I’m not immune to bragging about getting this piece of oh so rarely grasped theology, or that piece, at least until some neighbor happens to mention it seemingly randomly in passing...