Are there any denominations that defend their doctrines by appealing to extra-biblical evidence from the 1st/2nd century of the early Church?

When it comes to controversial doctrines, I have a tendency to pay attention to what the early Church had to say on the subject. Of course, the most important early Church writings are compiled in the New Testament, and, therefore, the New Testament should be the first thing to study (together with the Old Testament). In fact, that's exactly what most denominations do. That said, there are certain topics in which the Bible is not as crystal clear as we would like it to be, leaving the door open for different --and sometimes even irreconcilable-- interpretations. When this happens, I personally think that it is a good idea to inform ourselves about what the apostolic fathers and other extra-biblical early Church authors had to say on the matter, especially if they were direct disciples of or at least not too many generations away from the primary sources, i.e. the apostles. In light of this, I was wondering if there are any denominations that have adopted any practice along these lines. **Question**: Are there any denominations that defend their doctrines (or at least, the ones which are most controversial) by appealing to extra-biblical evidence from the 1st/2nd century of the early Church? _________________________ Responding to concerns raised in the comments: *I think the question could be improved by giving examples of the "more or less ambiguous" passages and asking specifically about those. Currently the question invites a frame challenge because no denomination will accept the ambiguity: all will come down on one side or the other.* Below some examples: - [Mark 13:29-30](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13%3A29-30&version=ESV) , [Matthew 16:28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A28&version=ESV) , [Matthew 24:34](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+24%3A34&version=ESV) , [Revelation 1:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1%3A1&version=ESV) , [Revelation 22:6-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022%3A6-21&version=ESV) . These passages include expressions such as 'this generation' and 'soon', that full preterists claim to be indicative of an early second coming. Of course, everyone else disagrees. What did the early Church have to say about this discussion? - [1 Corinthians 13:8-9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A8-9&version=ESV) . This passage is commonly cited by Cessationists to argue that the sign gifts have ceased. Of course, Continuationists disagree with this interpretation. What did the early Church have to say about this discussion? - [Colossians 2:16-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+2%3A16-17&version=ESV) . This passage is commonly cited to argue that Christians no longer have to keep the Sabbath or the Feast Days. Of course, Sabbatarians and denominations that still keep the Feast Days are against this interpretation. What did the early Church have to say on this? - There are doctrines such as Intercession of Saints that [lack a biblical basis](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80656/50422) , yet certain denominations endorse them. What was the early Church's position on doctrines like these? - Other controversial topics: - Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism vs other views of the Godhead. - Christology (is Jesus divine, did Jesus pre-exist, etc.). - Pneumatology (is the Holy Spirit a person, etc.). - Etc.