Hello, I hope this question finds you well. I appreciate your ministry in revealing the reasonableness of Christianity.

My latest question regards the role of tradition in formulating theology.

What role, if any, should tradition hold in your view?

Obviously, some groups like Catholics and Orthodox elevate it to be on par with Scripture.

Or, from the Orthodox perspective, more accurately, Scripture is part of a broader apostolic tradition.

Other reject tradition as having any value.

The Church of Christ's denomination comes to mind.

I know Wesley taught it to be on par with reason, but subordinate to Scripture.

I'm really struggling with this issue.

My biggest hang up with this is that rejecting tradition appears self-defeating, as the canon of

scripture is itself a tradition.

Obviously, there is no divinely inspired table of contents.

So any attempt to divorce Scripture from tradition seems to me to be epistemically flawed

as we derive Scripture from tradition. The question obviously implicates the question of

what tradition is accorded infallibility.

As to say, all tradition is not infallible, would necessarily entail we have a fallible

set of books in Scripture.

The Orthodox would say only ecumenical councils are infallible, and that the consensus of the fathers is the truth.

Yet, there doesn't always seem to be a consensus, and certain issues seem to have changed over time.

E.G., the Church Fathers prior to Christianity being adopted by Rome, seem to be more critical of Christian use of violence than later

Church Fathers.

Gunner, United States.

...