Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?

[po18guy]

A couple of excellent books for those who wish to dabble in the fathers (on sale actually, at Our Sunday Visitor): The Fathers, Volume 1 and Volume 2. Written by Pope Benedict XVI. They are coffee table type books, and give a digest view of 35 of the most prominent and influential early Church fathers, with 4-5 pages on each. Classic artwork associated with each is interspersed among their histories. Very practical and informative books which demonstrate how the Lord’s revelation through the Apostles was applied as teaching in the early Church. For about $15 plus shipping, both hardback books may be had.

 

[Indifferently]

I agree with this. the early Reformers themselves had much more respect for the ECFs then todays evangelicals do.

Indeed! Read the works of Bishop John Jewel (Apology of the Church of England) or Archbishop Cranmer (Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ) and Hooker (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity) and they all point to the Fathers. Indeed, Church of England canon law even specified that preaching was not to be contrary to the teaching of the catholic Fathers.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Indeed! Read the works of Bishop John Jewel (Apology of the Church of England) or Archbishop Cranmer (Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ) and Hooker (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity) and they all point to the Fathers. Indeed, Church of England canon law even specified that preaching was not to be contrary to the teaching of the catholic Fathers.

As I always state…Reform begets Reform…When one looks back at Church history and history of Christianity…with each reform…the Church Fathers were forgotten more and more. Anglicans of every type and Lutherans know of the Church Fathers. A typical Baptist or Methodist probably not so much.

 

[joemf]

Yes of course they matter. How am I supposed to interpret the Bible exactly - just sit there and hope the Holy Spirit tells me its true meaning? Or read learned theologians, doctors and fathers of the Church and try to establish the universal consensus. The Vicentian canon, ‘that which was believed everywhere, always and by all’, that is , the guide to the authentic Faith, is central to my understanding, and therefore, the Church Fathers are very important.

Although there are many aspects to bible interpretation, I have to disagree with the implication that the Holy Spirit CAN’T tell me its true meaning. On the contrary, Jesus’s own words in John 16 tells me plainly that “when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide me into all truth”. And he winds up, in verse 15 by telling me that “the Spirit will take from what is His and make it known to me(you)”. Not to say that the church fathers don’t have anything to say, but applying the scriptures shouldn’t be attempted in our own strength,nor relying totally on the church fathers. Ironically, we note from these same church fathers, that the council that met at Jerusalem was guided/instructed by the Holy Spirit concerning their decisions. Let’s make sure we realize the power for the decision making was(as they admitted) originated from the Holy Spirit, and not the natural abilities of the church fathers themselves. I know someone who owns the complete works of the early church fathers, he reads them, and yet he is no more illuminated by them than the light in my hallway(which is turned off by the way) …due to the fact he is not letting the Spirit guide him in understanding those volumes.

 

[adf417]

Okay, I’m Catholic but here are my thoughts for all their worth.

**The Early Church Fathers give us a unique hermeneutical and traditional milieu that we lack today. **They were so close to Christ and the Apostles (especially some, like Clement, Ignatius or Irenaeus) that what they have to say about the faith is very likely more on the mark than anything we can say in the 21st century.

In fact, I think it’s a kind of arrogance to say that the Early Church Fathers, who wrote quite frankly about the Real Presence, Church authority, and so on, were wrong whereas we - separated by hundreds, if not a couple of thousand, years are more likely correct.

The Church Fathers are like our magnifying glass on Scripture and Tradition. To lose or disregard them is to lose or disregard the intricacy of the faith.

Especially when you consider we have so many translations & interpretations of scripture…

A man once told me something like this:

Question 21st century scholars on the interpretation of the meaning of John 6 and you will get a plethora of different answers. Question the ECF’s and you will get “what do you mean translate?”

Pick up the newest best seller from Amazon on salvation history and will read something like “and in Jesus’ day they understood this to mean…” Pick up an ECF writing and the cultural understanding is assumed and transcends to the reader as it was written for their own culture.

Makes sense to me!

 

[po18guy]

Although there are many aspects to bible interpretation, I have to disagree with the implication that the Holy Spirit CAN’T tell me its true meaning. On the contrary, Jesus’s own words in John 16 tells me plainly that “when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide me into all truth”. And he winds up, in verse 15 by telling me that “the Spirit will take from what is His and make it known to me(you)”. Not to say that the church fathers don’t have anything to say, but applying the scriptures shouldn’t be attempted in our own strength,nor relying totally on the church fathers. Ironically, we note from these same church fathers, that the council that met at Jerusalem was guided/instructed by the Holy Spirit concerning their decisions. Let’s make sure we realize the power for the decision making was(as they admitted) originated from the Holy Spirit, and not the natural abilities of the church fathers themselves. I know someone who owns the complete works of the early church fathers, he reads them, and yet he is no more illuminated by them than the light in my hallway(which is turned off by the way) …due to the fact he is not letting the Spirit guide him in understanding those volumes.

Neither can you have any assurance that it is the Holy Spirit, and not some worldly spirit, that is leading you. Since you are divided even from other bible Christians, how can you claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit? If so, you must then deny that those others are lead by the Spirit, since they disagree with you. The Holy Spirit is the Unifier - He always and everywhere leads to unity of thought and purpose. Complete accord. How to solve this problem? Hint: Matthew 18:15-18.

In the entire last supper dialog (John 13-17), Jesus was speaking only to the twelve - not to the masses. He promised the Holy Spirit only to the twelve. He opened the minds only of the twelve (and possibly the ferw others with them) to understand the scriptures Luke 24:45. By assuming that you also have this direct appointment of the Spirit by Christ, are you not adding to scripture?

Christ did not send a bible with no Apostles. He sent Apostles with no bibles. I don’t know how we can oppose Christ as to the structure of the Church that He established.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Neither can you have any assurance that it is the Holy Spirit, and not some worldly spirit, that is leading you. Since you are divided even from other bible Christians, how can you claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit? If so, you must then deny that those others are lead by the Spirit, since they disagree with you. The Holy Spirit is the Unifier - He always and everywhere leads to unity of thought and purpose. Complete accord. How to solve this problem? Hint: Matthew 18:15-18.

In the entire last supper dialog (John 13-17), Jesus was speaking only to the twelve - not to the masses. He promised the Holy Spirit only to the twelve. He opened the minds only of the twelve (and possibly the ferw others with them) to understand the scriptures Luke 24:45. By assuming that you also have this direct appointment of the Spirit by Christ, are you not adding to scripture?

Christ did not send a bible with no Apostles. He sent Apostles with no bibles. I don’t know how we can oppose Christ as to the structure of the Church that He established.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

You realize, of course, that the Early Church Fathers did not speak or write in English.

Why?

Because English had not been invented yet, that’s why!

Anyway, here is a book list … about 30 books … right around $800 to get them all, plus shipping and sales tax … count them and see what you come up with:

catholic-books-by-topic/patristics-study-of-writings-of-the-early-church/

stellamarisbooks.com/products/catholic-books-by-topic/patristics-study-of-writings-of-the-early-church/

stellamarisbooks.com/shop/product_view_item.asp?idProduct=2852

 

[Nicea325]

The fathers are respected and studied but not considered Infallible or authoritative. After all, most of them lived hundreds of years after Christ & Apostles, and did not have any direct access to their teachings. A father living in the third century may look to us like a representative of the Early Church, while in reality he was as much distanced from the apostolic age as we are from George Washington or Napoleon.

Regarding the development of the doctrin, the quite earliest fathers seem to be the most reticient of certain doctrinal points that started to flourish centuries later. When St. Irenaeus write a couple of sentences ( among the volumes of text he produced) comparing the Virgin and Eve, he probably did not have all the four Marian Dogmas in mind. It is all too easy to read in retrospect the fathers as supporters of ideas really introduced much later in the Church history.

Not authoritative?Hhhhm? Let us see.

Your words highlighted in black are false. Some were called post-Apostolic because did know some of the Apostles. If they lived hundreds of years from Jesus and had no direct access,then how could anything remotley considered orthodox be passed on from generation to generation? Second of all, those very men had the authority because many were successors of the Apostles and Christ bestowed them with authority. Third, those very men are the ones who wrote and defended orthodox doctrines against all heresies. Last but not least, if they do not have any authority, then did authority cease to exist?

 

[CMatt25]

Neither can you have any assurance that it is the Holy Spirit, and not some worldly spirit, that is leading you.

I can’t speak for the person you question. But it is only by walking by faith, not by sight, that any person of faith has any “assurance”. Therefore when you factor in the requirement of faith in religious matters, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a believer in prayerful discernment as they seek to understand God, has faith that it is the Holy Spirit and not some worldly spirit Who is leading and guiding them.

 

[Nicea325]

joemf:

Although there are many aspects to bible interpretation, I have to disagree with the implication that the Holy Spirit CAN’T tell me its true meaning. On the contrary, Jesus’s own words in John 16 tells me plainly that “when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide me into all truth”.

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said those words? The masses of people or the 12?
If the HS guides everyone, then why so many denominations?

And he winds up, in verse 15 by telling me that “the Spirit will take from what is His and make it known to me(you)”.

Again…the 12.

Not to say that the church fathers don’t have anything to say, but applying the scriptures shouldn’t be attempted in our own strength,nor relying totally on the church fathers. Ironically, we note from these same church fathers, that the council that met at Jerusalem was guided/instructed by the Holy Spirit concerning their decisions.

And again,who made those decisions? The masses or the assigned men who Christ gave full authority when doctrinal issues arised?

Let’s make sure we realize the power for the decision making was(as they admitted) originated from the Holy Spirit, and not the natural abilities of the church fathers themselves.

Wrong! Who do you think guided those men (church fathers,may who were bishops) in defending and ratifying doctrines such as: Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Incarnation?

I know someone who owns the complete works of the early church fathers, he reads them, and yet he is no more illuminated by them than the light in my hallway(which is turned off by the way) …due to the fact he is not letting the Spirit guide him in understanding those volumes.

You contradicted yourself here. If we should not rely on the church fathers,then why would he need to read them at all or by letting the HS guide him to understand their works?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Although there are many aspects to bible interpretation, I have to disagree with the implication that the Holy Spirit CAN’T tell me its true meaning. On the contrary, Jesus’s own words in John 16 tells me plainly that “when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide me into all truth”. And he winds up, in verse 15 by telling me that “the Spirit will take from what is His and make it known to me(you)”. Not to say that the church fathers don’t have anything to say, but applying the scriptures shouldn’t be attempted in our own strength,nor relying totally on the church fathers. Ironically, we note from these same church fathers, that the council that met at Jerusalem was guided/instructed by the Holy Spirit concerning their decisions. Let’s make sure we realize the power for the decision making was(as they admitted) originated from the Holy Spirit, and not the natural abilities of the church fathers themselves. I know someone who owns the complete works of the early church fathers, he reads them, and yet he is no more illuminated by them than the light in my hallway(which is turned off by the way) …due to the fact he is not letting the Spirit guide him in understanding those volumes.

So the Holy Spirit is revealing many different things to many different denominations?

How about what St. Peter talks about here:
*
2 Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.*

The Holy Spirit does guide us - we must be able to discern what is of the Spirit and what isn’t.

That’s why Christ instituted a Church to guide us

Peace.

 

[Nicea325]

So the Holy Spirit is revealing many different things to many different denominations?

How about what St. Peter talks about here:
*
2 Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures*. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

The Holy Spirit does guide us - we must be able to discern what is of the Spirit and what isn’t.

That’s why Christ instituted a Church to guide us

Peace.

Some of the issues I encounter with many non-Catholics is the fact they want to apply every word Jesus had to say to the individual. Many places where Jesus spoke directly to the 12 only.

 

[Attejohannes]

Not authoritative?Hhhhm? Let us see.

Your words highlighted in black are false. Some were called post-Apostolic because did know some of the Apostles. If they lived hundreds of years from Jesus and had no direct access,then how could anything remotley considered orthodox be passed on from generation to generation? Second of all, those very men had the authority because many were successors of the Apostles and Christ bestowed them with authority. Third, those very men are the ones who wrote and defended orthodox doctrines against all heresies. Last but not least, if they do not have any authority, then did authority cease to exist?

The post- apostolic fathers I am familiar with (Ignatios, Polycarp) are inspiring to read as a testimony of Faith, but they do not teach anything that is not already contained in the actual apostolic writings of the New Testament. Never do they refer any oral apostolic tradition that somehow would complement the New Testament or to add something to it. You do not find expressions like, “as I was taught by St John” or " St Peter was of that opinion", but only discernible Scriptural references. Didache is an interesting document describing the Church practices in the second century, but for example the Eucharistic service described there would be considered as highly irregular by any traditional Catholic/ Orthodox to day, and as rather similar to the " breaking of bread" of some non denominational evangelicals.

Being a formal successor of an apostle was in itself not a guarantee of correct teaching, as the wide acceptance of Arianism in East and West by impeccably ordained hierarchy demonstrates. St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius are great thinkers, but all their knowledge of apostolic teaching was second hand, and therefore for example St. Augustine’ s teaching on predestination is just his teaching, and does not have apostolic authority. Even less do the fifth century doctrines on Purgatory or the Assumption of the Virgin ( never mentioned by NT or the post- apostolic fathers) have any apostolic weight.

The authority we have is in the Scriptures as the earliest testimony of Apostolic Faith, and any teaching and any doctrine and any tradition has to be measured against that standard. That is the correct meaning of the “sola Scriptura” principle.

 

[CrossofChrist]

St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius are great thinkers, but all their knowledge of apostolic teaching was second hand, and therefore for example St. Augustine’ s teaching on predestination is just his teaching, and does not have apostolic authority. .

So did the Church hierarchy have any authority to compile the New Testament or was their compilation only their opinion of what should be considered authoritative?

 

[jwinch2]

Check this book "The Sources Of Catholic Dogma", a very good reference for Christians, download the complete free PDF book (49.1M) from here:

archive.org/details/TheSourcesOfCatholicDogma

Excellent book!

This one, which sort of follows on to it, is also wonderful.
amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364954840&sr=8-1&keywords=Fundamentals+Of+Catholic+Dogma
Here it is online. archive.org/details/FundamentalsOfCatholicDogma

 

[po18guy]

I can’t speak for the person you question. But it is only by walking by faith, not by sight, that any person of faith has any “assurance”. Therefore when you factor in the requirement of faith in religious matters, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a believer in prayerful discernment as they seek to understand God, has faith that it is the Holy Spirit and not some worldly spirit Who is leading and guiding them.

However, each one of the thousands of disagreeing denominations all believe that the Spirit lead them to where they are now. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic? I thought that He always and everywhere lead to humble submission and unity - not to disagreement, division and discord(?)

In truth, Christ founded a Church, as He described in Matthew 18. He told Christians to take disputes there for a final resolution. Saint Paul had a disagreement with the Judaizers regarding circumcision. The only way to solve it was to go to the Church that Christ founded. The Church held a council, made their decision, and it has been final ever since. Acts 15

Rhetorical question: Which method more resembles Christ’s instructions: Humbly submitting to the Church being convinced that the Church is right, or splitting off and going your own way, convinced that you alone are right?

 

[po18guy]

You realize, of course, that the Early Church Fathers did not speak or write in English.

And, even though Jesus spoke in Aramaic, we will use the version of His words that was translated into Greek to arrive at the truth? So many follow this path and are lead astray by the spirit of the air (Ephesians 2:2).

So the Holy Spirit is revealing many different things to many different denominations?

Precisely! We cannot chop scripture off at artificial chapter breaks for the sake of conveneience. Scripture is, and was written as, a seamless whole. What Jesus said in John 13 also applies in John16. And, He was speaking to the twelve throughout.

But, if you have split off from the Church and rejected the priesthood, what else can you do except re-interpret scripture in a light that is favorable to you? Thus, we all have the Holy Spirit, even though we all disagree! And, we are all correct, except for Catholics, who are wrong by default. I never really understood that bit of logic.

 

[Attejohannes]

So did the Church hierarchy have any authority to compile the New Testament or was their compilation only their opinion of what should be considered authoritative?

The NT books were used ( along with the OT Scriptures) at the end of the first century, as the example of the post- apostolic fathers demonstrates. If the Church later established the Canon, it does not mean that the writings did not have authority before that. Scriptures preceded the Canon just as the doctrine of the Trinity existed before Tertullian coined the word or the Council of Nicea formally defined it.

God miraculously preserved the Scriptures as the true guidance of His people in the midst of the doctrinal turmoils and human errors of the early centuries. As soon as St. Paul had released any of his epistles from his hand, that writing became authoritative to the curches. Not that the Churches first approved its content.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

In the Evangelical church in which I grew up, I never heard anything about the Early Church Fathers. Honestly, I had no idea that they even existed until a couple years ago. My father is a pastor and is aware of the Fathers because of his Catholic upbringing, but again, never have I heard any of them mentioned in any of his sermons, or in any Evangelical church service, for that matter.

I’d be willing to wager that most of the people of my last church are unaware of people like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Augustine. Personal interpretation of the Bible is the key, and of course, “the only possible interpretation” was the Evangelical one. Or at best “it didn’t matter” because “as long as we believe in Jesus” all Christian denominations are essentially “the same.” I’ve even heard people say that all denominations are probably incorrect in some aspect of the faith, and will be “corrected” in heaven, or at the End of Time.

When I discovered the Early Church Fathers and read them, I became stunned at the fact that there was very little that they had in common with the faith I knew. So I began asking myself: can it be that I have a better understanding of the faith than they?

 

[Attejohannes]

In the Evangelical church in which I grew up, I never heard anything about the Early Church Fathers. Honestly, I had no idea that they even existed until a couple years ago. My father is a pastor and is aware of the Fathers because of his Catholic upbringing, but again, never have I heard any of them mentioned in any of his sermons, or in any Evangelical church service, for that matter.

I’d be willing to wager that most of the people of my last church are unaware of people like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Augustine. Personal interpretation of the Bible is the key, and of course, “the only possible interpretation” was the Evangelical one. Or at best “it didn’t matter” because “as long as we believe in Jesus” all Christian denominations are essentially “the same.” I’ve even heard people say that all denominations are probably incorrect in some aspect of the faith, and will be “corrected” in heaven, or at the End of Time.

When I discovered the Early Church Fathers and read them, I became stunned at the fact that there was very little that they had in common with the faith I knew. So I began asking myself: can it be that I have a better understanding of the faith than they?

Without knowing exactly your background I cannot comment, but I find it strange If Ignatios or Polycarp would sound very strange to those who are familiar with Pauline epistles. Some of the early apologetics are a bit strange stuff, when they resort to extremely allegorical interpretation of OT.

Are you familiar with Didache? I have always thought that it could be the “Church manual” of present day pentecostalists and charismatics.