What do protestant scholars think of the church fathers?

[Bluegoat]

On topic - what is the best place to start reading the ECF’s ? Is the internet a good place or can you recommend some books?

I have heard Catholic apologists say that the fathers are what triggered their conversions and I have seen books by Protestants saying that the fathers supported Protestant doctrines. Has anyone ever read any of McCarthy’s books?

The best thing is to pick one that interests you, in a good translation, and get reading.

Here is an internet translation of Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. I suggest it largely because of the excellent introduction by C.S. Lewis on reading old texts. He gives the excellent suggestion that one should not read books about Plato, Augustine, or Thomas; but rather read their own writings.

That being said, some good history on the early church can be a good companion to this kind of reading - it can help prevent making inappropriate anachronistic interpretations of the texts.

 

[Noesis]

They all do what you are doing: Rationalizing the truth to justify your particular belief system.

Yes, it’s true that people interpret things in accordance to their own reason. You must not fall into this trap that has been set for you by the ancient Roman government’s acceptance of Christianity, of believing that a person’s reason, and their right to make choices based on this reason, is something which must be totally controlled.

 

[simspt]

Yes friend, I realize that is your belief and the belief your church fosters…it is not a universally held belief by scholars today however. New archeological evidence and a more critical look at the development of early Christianity simply does not bear your position as credible.…but I understand…THAT is your position and the position of your church tradition…completely understandable your position.

Just a side note…I believe the growing version of proto-orthodox/catholic tradition wasn’t called “catholic” until the 2nd centruy…not the first.

To quote you earlier that depends on what scholars you accept as bearing a credible position. I dont necessarily know if the Jesus Seminar represents that but i would bet they are in quite the minority when it comes to “critical scholarship”. Obviously that says nothing about the credibility of their position but i find it interesting you taking the same tone that they do when it comes to giving the false impression that they represent “credible scholarship” as if those who disagree with most of their thesis (the majority by the way) are peddling pious albeit false scholarship to the faithful.

 

[Noesis]

…branding all other Voices “heretic” and through their very organized “heirarchy” became the dominant form of Christianity.

I think that the entirety of the Christian religion is contained in that one word haeresis, and how its meaning was perverted by them.

In Greek philosophy, heresy was not even neutral, let alone evil. In actuality, it conveyed the very positive idea of a serious school of thought, and way of life adhered to by genuine philosophers.

 

[simspt]

Early Christian Doctrines? Would this be a good one to START with?

Its a classic.

Henry Chadwick is another Protestant that i would recommend.

 

[simspt]

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.

Did Beckwith grow up in the Catholic Church? I thought he pretty much became an evangelica at a very ealry age. Anyways that was a surprise especially considering the position he was holding ETS president. that must of been pretty difficult.

 

[cooterhein]

Fine** – except for one thing: You were speaking in sweeping general** terms – not from *personal *experience. Go back and read your original post.
Get your story straight.

I’m going to suggest that you tone down the use of emphatic colors and boldfact type. It doesn’t do good things for your tone. As to what you said…I read my post several times before I posted it; I always do that so I can keep typos to a minimum. Then I go back and read it a couple more times after I post. I don’t feel a pressing need to read it again because I wrote it recently enough and read it enough times that I can still come rather close to quoting it from memory at this point. Additionally, my story comes from my own experience with the kinds of Protestant scholars that the OP inquired after. (In that they are, in fact, Protestant scholars). My story is plenty straight, and I will thank you to stop acting like it’s your job to straighten it out.

**As for present **day examples of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists converting to Catholicism – you need to crack open a book or 2.

I have to hand it to you, you’re really, really good at the condescension game. I did some of it too, though, so I guess I deserved that. Can we stop now? I don’t want to get into a contest where the winner is the biggest jerk-face.

*The “Surprised By Truth” ***series will show you quite a few of them.

That’s a series about Catholic converts. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if none of them are currently Protestant scholars who study the ECF’s. I’m going to remind you- again- that the OP asked what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers, not about Catholic converts and what they wrote once they became Catholic.

I have at least read through portions of things by all the people you listed, and it’s quite valuable. But there’s one thing it’s not, and that is an example of what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers.

Finally – regarding John Henry Newton – he is a perfect example of what these people discovered. You disregard his testimony simply because he is from another century.
Using his famous quote was perfectly in line with the OP but you can’t handle it because it doesn’t bolster your position.

You need to assume good faith, and that means believing me when I tell you my reasons for “disregarding” something. When the OP asks what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers, John Henry Newton is a poor example for two reasons. One, he’s not a Protestant scholar, he’s a Catholic convert. Two, he’s not someone who “is”- he’s an example from over a century ago, and for those two reasons, it hardly helps answer the question of what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers. And finally, I don’t disregard it entirely- I just call it what it is with respect to the OP, and it’s something that doesn’t answer the question that is being asked here.

If you have any more examples you’d like to talk about, please remember to ask yourself if you’re talking about a Protestant scholar. Ask yourself two things: Is this a Protestant? And is this a scholar? It would also help if this person is alive. Seriously, how did you not think of this when you were bringing out all the examples of people who aren’t Protestant scholars?

 

[Publisher]

To quote you earlier that depends on what scholars you accept as bearing a credible position. I dont necessarily know if the Jesus Seminar represents that but i would bet they are in quite the minority when it comes to “critical scholarship”. Obviously that says nothing about the credibility of their position but i find it interesting you taking the same tone that they do when it comes to giving the false impression that they represent “credible scholarship” as if those who disagree with most of their thesis (the majority by the way) are peddling pious albeit false scholarship to the faithful.

Friend, the Jesus Seminar is only a single voice among the scholars today that have taken a fresh look at the beginnings of Christianity and have come up with a scenario much different than what the Catholic church gives…I find their position more credible and more historically plausible and accurate than the “faith based” story which the Catholic church gives of itself…and some of those scholars are Catholic.

If the Catholic position makes sense to you…wonderful…but it makes no sense to me.

 

[cooterhein]

Did Beckwith grow up in the Catholic Church? I thought he pretty much became an evangelica at a very ealry age. Anyways that was a surprise especially considering the position he was holding ETS president. that must of been pretty difficult.

Yeah, he grew up Catholic. Drifted away in…college I think, or maybe post-college. It wasn’t acrimonious; he just wasn’t all that committed to religion in general to begin with. Then he disconnected a little bit, hooked up with some Evangelicals that got him back into it, and eventually returned to the religion he was catechized in.

I’m not looking at the title of his book atm, but it looks something like “Return to Rome: Confessions of a Catholic Evangelical.” And it really was a return- it was the background he grew up in.

Edit- just found a quote from Return to Rome. "Can I give a convincing account as to why I should permanently abandon the Church of my baptism?” (75).

-The church of his baptism was the Roman Catholic Church. And if you read RTR- or any of his other work, his interviews, etc.- there was never a time at which he flatly rejected Catholicism and said “Here I stand” on the opposite side of the Tiber. He sort of drifted away, although it’s to his credit that he could drift in such a manner and wind up being the president of ETS. But he finally stopped drifting when he asked himself that question, and he never did come up with a really good reason to abandon the CC. He never had such a reason to begin with- it just kind of happened, and then he stopped drifting and went back.

 

[simspt]

On topic - what is the best place to start reading the ECF’s ? Is the internet a good place or can you recommend some books?

I have heard Catholic apologists say that the fathers are what triggered their conversions and I have seen books by Protestants saying that the fathers supported Protestant doctrines. Has anyone ever read any of McCarthy’s books?

moses.creighton.edu/harmless/bibliographies_for_theology/Patristics_0.htm

 

[simspt]

Yeah, he grew up Catholic. Drifted away in…college I think, or maybe post-college. It wasn’t acrimonious; he just wasn’t all that committed to religion in general to begin with. Then he disconnected a little bit, hooked up with some Evangelicals that got him back into it, and eventually returned to the religion he was catechized in.

I’m not looking at the title of his book atm, but it looks something like “Return to Rome: Confessions of a Catholic Evangelical.” And it really was a return- it was the background he grew up in.

thanks, i was under the impression he had always been an Evangelical.

 

[simspt]

Friend, the Jesus Seminar is only a single voice among the scholars today that have taken a fresh look at the beginnings of Christianity and have come up with a scenario much different than what the Catholic church gives…I find their position more credible and more historically plausible and accurate than the “faith based” story which the Catholic church gives of itself…and some of those scholars are Catholic.

If the Catholic position makes sense to you…wonderful…but it makes no sense to me.

fair enough:thumbsup:

 

[elvisman]

Friend, I do not make any claim that the ECF’s are “on my side”…in fact I have stated quite plainly that the ECF’s are the originators of “catholic/orthodox” Christianity and through their efforts “orthodox/catholic” understanding took dominance over and above the other Voices of Christianity in those first centuries…branding all other Voices “heretic” and through their very organized “heirarchy” became the dominant form of Christianity.

Your caricature of Protestant belief is yours to foster.

Wrong, friend.
**The other “Voices of Christianity” - as you call them - were heretics. They weren’t dubbed heretics because of some superiority complex on the part of the Church. They were, in fact, teaching heresy. **

Voices such as Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism all held perverted ideas of the very nature of God that went against the grain of the Gospel message.

“Voices of Christianity”, indeed . . .

 

[ajcstr]

moses.creighton.edu/harmless/bibliographies_for_theology/Patristics_0.htm

Thanks !

 

[elvisman]

I’m going to suggest that you tone down the use of emphatic colors and boldfact type. It doesn’t do good things for your tone. As to what you said…I read my post several times before I posted it; I always do that so I can keep typos to a minimum. Then I go back and read it a couple more times after I post. I don’t feel a pressing need to read it again because I wrote it recently enough and read it enough times that I can still come rather close to quoting it from memory at this point. Additionally, my story comes from my own experience with the kinds of Protestant scholars that the OP inquired after. (In that they are, in fact, Protestant scholars). My story is plenty straight, and I will thank you to stop acting like it’s your job to straighten it out.

**As I have explained many times on this forum – using colors**** is the way I emphasize certain points. I’m *****not *****angry in the least so there’s no need to tone down.

****As for your own personal experiences – next time, state that. Don’t make sweeping generalizations about how Evangelical Protestants will convert to Orthodoxy instead of Catholicism unless you have documented proof of such a claim. It only serves to invalidate your position.
**

I have to hand it to you, you’re really, really good at the condescension game. I did some of it too, though, so I guess I deserved that. Can we stop now? I don’t want to get into a contest where the winner is the biggest jerk-face.

**I agree.
****Again - I only ask that you do some research before making such sweeping generalizations.
**

That’s a series about Catholic converts. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if none of them are currently Protestant scholars who study the ECF’s. I’m going to remind you- again- that the OP asked what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers, not about Catholic converts and what they wrote once they became Catholic.
I have at least read through portions of things by all the people you listed, and it’s quite valuable. But there’s one thing it’s not, and that is an example of what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers.

*Yet, again – I wasn‘t *answering the OP. I was challenging you about your false claims regarding converts to Catholicism. However – you have refused to revisit your first post on this thread and have, instead chosen to attack me because I am holding you accountable for these fabrications.

---

You need to assume good faith, and that means believing me when I tell you my reasons for “disregarding” something. When the OP asks what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers, John Henry Newton is a poor example for two reasons. One, he’s not a Protestant scholar, he’s a Catholic convert. Two, he’s not someone who “is”- he’s an example from over a century ago, and for those two reasons, it hardly helps answer the question of what Protestant scholars think of the church fathers. And finally, I don’t disregard it entirely- I just call it what it is with respect to the OP, and it’s something that doesn’t answer the question that is being asked here.

If you have any more examples you’d like to talk about, please remember to ask yourself if you’re talking about a Protestant scholar. Ask yourself two things: Is this a Protestant? And is this a scholar? It would also help if this person is alive. Seriously, how did you not think of this when you were bringing out all the examples of people who aren’t Protestant scholars?

**John Henry Newman WAS a Protestant Scholar who changed his views about the Catholic Church BECAUSE of the writings of the ECFs. He is therefore, a perfect example of the OP.

****Scott Hahn was a Protestant Theologian who changed his tune because of the ECFs. Another perfect example.

****As I expressed earlier – the Protestant scholars I have read twist what the ECFs wrote to fit their splintering views and, at times, have chosen to simply disregard them.

 

[simspt]

Yeah, he grew up Catholic. Drifted away in…college I think, or maybe post-college. It wasn’t acrimonious; he just wasn’t all that committed to religion in general to begin with. Then he disconnected a little bit, hooked up with some Evangelicals that got him back into it, and eventually returned to the religion he was catechized in.

I’m not looking at the title of his book atm, but it looks something like “Return to Rome: Confessions of a Catholic Evangelical.” And it really was a return- it was the background he grew up in.

Edit- just found a quote from Return to Rome. "Can I give a convincing account as to why I should permanently abandon the Church of my baptism?” (75).

-The church of his baptism was the Roman Catholic Church. And if you read RTR- or any of his other work, his interviews, etc.- there was never a time at which he flatly rejected Catholicism and said “Here I stand” on the opposite side of the Tiber. He sort of drifted away, although it’s to his credit that he could drift in such a manner and wind up being the president of ETS. But he finally stopped drifting when he asked himself that question, and he never did come up with a really good reason to abandon the CC. He never had such a reason to begin with- it just kind of happened, and then he stopped drifting and went back.

thanks again for the extra info, i attended one of his lectures in the early 90s after his politically correct death book came out. always enjoyed his thoughts. from what i understand he is very appreciative of his Evangelical background. anyways thanks again for the info.

 

[simspt]

Thanks !

your welcome,
William Harmless bibliography website is very extensive.
Its a good resource for those of us who have not studied theology formally and are interested as well as for his students.

 

[Bluegoat]

**

---

John Henry Newman WAS a Protestant Scholar who changed his views about the Catholic Church BECAUSE of the writings of the ECFs. He is therefore, a perfect example of the OP.

Newman was an Anglo-Catholic, which is just about as far from an Evangelical Protestant as you can get.

 

[GKC]

The best thing is to pick one that interests you, in a good translation, and get reading.

Here is an internet translation of Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. I suggest it largely because of the excellent introduction by C.S. Lewis on reading old texts. He gives the excellent suggestion that one should not read books about Plato, Augustine, or Thomas; but rather read their own writings.

That being said, some good history on the early church can be a good companion to this kind of reading - it can help prevent making inappropriate anachronistic interpretations of the texts.

Before I reached Lewis’ name in your post, I was pretty sure I knew what you were going to recommend.

GKC

 

[prodigal-sun]

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”.

So I curious how you regard the Eucharist. The ECF’s talk about & explain the real presence of the Our Lords Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity as in accorddance with scripture John 6. Since you compare these statements with the bible you must see an overwhelming belief in the Eucharist!

That’s awesome!

Peace!