What do protestant scholars think of the church fathers?

[Bluegoat]

Protestants rely on the bibleas their source of knowledge of God, is that or is that not correct? No need for scholars to tell you what scirpture says then correct?

As you no doubt notuiced I said writings of the church fathers indicate the presence of the doctrines catholics hold to to this very day. Lets be specific and see

No.

 

[ignatius777]

No.

LOL then lets talk specifics

 

[cooterhein]

Its “protestant scholar” an oxymoron? I thought for most protestants sola scriptura was the order of the day?

You can certainly hold to SS and also hold a doctorate that you earned for your studies on the ECF’s. I posted a link to a professor like that earlier in the thread.

The church fathers were CLEARLY catholic and believed all the things catholics believe today.

Obviously not true. The West has changed a lot more than the East has since then. Everyone knows that, right? That’s got to be common knowledge, even on this kind of forum.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Its “protestant scholar” an oxymoron?

That is a bigoted statement.

 

[Bluegoat]

LOL then lets talk specifics

I’m not sure what specifics you are thinking of?

Like - who are these Protestant scholars? Or what do they think? Something else?

 

[ignatius777]

I’m not sure what specifics you are thinking of?

Like - who are these Protestant scholars? Or what do they think? Something else?

I am just speaking in hyperbole. Maybe we should talk specifically of what the church fathers thought

 

[Bluegoat]

I am just speaking in hyperbole. Maybe we should talk specifically of what the church fathers thought

That is a rather broad category.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Of course I’ve heard of him. He’s the most over-quoted Catholic convert of all time, and this news is over a century old.

There’s the quote! He’s not the best counter-example, though, because he started Anglican and had to work through the reasons behind his church’s departure from Rome. My examples have to do with Evangelicals who grew up in Christian traditions that didn’t break directly from Rome. (I would say “or Orthodoxy,” except there are no relevant examples on that side). Consequently, these are people who grow up as Christians, yet the degree to which they’re influenced by either Orthodoxy or Catholicism is close to zero until they start getting into the ECF’s. Being raised as an Anglican (particularly in the 19th century) hardly qualifies.

Now, there are a few prominent examples of converts from Evangelicalism to Catholicism that are a lot more recent. But many of those- Francis Beckwith comes to mind- are examples of people who were raised in Catholicism, drifted away, and eventually returned to the religion of their childhood.

I’m sure you know a lot of people who converted to Catholicism. I probably know three times as many who converted from Catholicism, but that’s beside the point. If they never considered Orthodoxy, it’s probably because they wound up talking to Catholics who made them believe the only two choices are Catholic or Protestant. That seems pretty typical, even around these forums. Additionally, what I said of my experience has a lot more to do with what the OP is looking for than yours does.

The OP wanted to know what Protestant/Evangelical scholars tend to think of the ECF’s, and the implication is that “somewhat current” information is preferred. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing some of these scholars and the way it works with them and their students on campus and in their classes, and what I said about them is true. You counter with a former Anglican from the 19th century as if that’s supposed to negate my personal experience of what Evangelical scholars are doing right now? Really? Okay, that’s how it was with some Anglicans in the 19th century. Why don’t you pick up some material from, I don’t know, this lifetime and get a look at what’s happening right now. I’ve had the chance to meet some of these people, take their classes, hear their lectures, and maybe grab something to eat with them. Maybe you can take the opportunity to read some of the things they’ve written.

Let me remind you of who we’re talking about: Protestant scholars who do in-depth studies pertaining to the ECF’s. Not your buddies from home who use them for proof-texting and barely know what Orthodoxy is, and not your favorite convert from the 19th century- I’m talking about people in academia right now. These are people whose research of the ECF’s is done for the purpose of getting a doctorate, publishing their work, and making meaningful contributions to the Protestant body of work on this topic. I’m talking about scholars- people you can rightly call “experts in the field.”

These are my people. I know them. You will defer to me on this one.

Kudos to you. I can speak from personal experience. I was evangelical and converted to Catholicism. The reason I chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy was one thing in particular-accessibility. Catholic parishes were large and plentiful. Orthodoxy was nowhere to be found in my area. Two areas that began to crack my Catholic armor were the buying and selling of indulgences, and Filoque. Even as an evangelical, I questioned the often uncritical acceptance of Flioque among the western Evangelicals.]

Orthodoxy seems like a more plausible option for me now, but I am still weighing things out.

 

[Geremia]

Were John Dewey and William Heard Kilpatrick Protestant? :bigyikes:
Please don’t say Lutheran. :nope: It could push me into the Tiber.

Jon

I’m not sure if Dewey was Lutheran specifically, but he was a non-Catholic Christian. He probably turned atheist because he advocated supernatural religion be taken out of schools.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Wow I thought this thread died! I am more focused on evangelical/ non-denominational/ Baptist/ etc. protestants and not so much Anglican and Orthodox. It just seems to me that there is a lot of things in the ECF’s like the Eucharist and I was curious as to what protestant intellectuals and scholars think of these things. I’ve not read the early church fathers so I’m going to start reading them soon. I’ve only read Augustine’s Confessions and he says a few Catholic sounding things in there (the Eucharist and Purgatory specifically).
I’m sure you’ve all seen many of these quotes. These are the kinds of things I’m referring to:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” -Justin Martyr (“First Apology” Ch. 66, 155 AD.)

“ Let no man do anything connected to the church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is (administered) either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude (of the people) also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church,”
-St. Ignatius of Antioch [Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ -St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” -St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189])

Also, please try and keep the comments respectful and charitable. I’m just hear to learn and I want your honest opinions

 

[Geremia]

Here is a book on what Luther thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Chruch’s greatest theologian: by Denis Janz*Luther on Thomas Aquinas: The Angelic Doctor in the Thought of the Reformer *

 

[aquohn]

For me, what the early church fathers have to say is compared with scripture. Whatever is said in agreement with scripture is appreciated. Whatever doesn’t agree is tossed out into “file 13”.

Fascinatingly, the Biblical Canon was only closed long after many of the Church Fathers died. The Gospel of John may only have been written in 110 AD, but Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were born in 35 and 69 AD respectively. Just saying. (This means that Ignatius may have DIED before the Gospel of John was written, and almost certainly lived prior to the writing of all the Gospels).

And also, what agrees with Scripture? And what doesn’t? It’s up to your interpretation. So basically, you really just select whatever you want. Very strong logic you have there.

 

[aquohn]

Its “protestant scholar” an oxymoron? I thought for most protestants sola scriptura was the order of the day? The church fathers were CLEARLY catholic and believed all the things catholics believe today.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say oxymoronic, but trawling through Wikipedia turned up far fewer Protestant scholars than Catholic ones.

This reminds me of a debate with a Protestant friend of mine. If I’m not wrong it was on the logic of predestination (don’t bother trying to find any; it doesn’t exist). An extreme position like predestination crumbled easily, even under rudimentary philosophical proofs without invoking scripture (much) or ECFs, and in the end his fallback line was “Well, your religion is based on reason, whereas mine is based on faith”. Aside from the fact that that statement is a non-sequitor, this shows the likelihood for a subscriber of the sola scriptura and sola fide heresies to slip into such ridiculous thinking. Obviously someone who thinks like this is hardly a scholar. And it seems that studying the Bible can weaken a Protestant’s blind fanaticism (I’d be hard-pressed to call it ‘faith’ or ‘trust’), whereas ECFs and history can demolish it entirely. Take, for example, our old pal the Real Presence. Ignatius of Antioch (born c. AD 35, see above) has the following to say (and this is on Wikipedia):

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1"

If you’re going to see this written by a guy who lived while the Gospels were being written (and may have died before John’s Gospel was), and similar stuff about how great the doctrines of the hated Babylon the Catholic Church is, as part of your job, I’d say you’d have to have insanely good defense mechanisms to stay Protestant.