On the Fathers

[dizzle]

I’ve come to believe that the authority of the church fathers in the popular mindset is often under-informed and thus misleading. Indeed most of the times that people claim they are bowing to the authority of tradition, it would be more precise to say that they have made their decision based on their favorite secondary source’s reading of their favorite fathers. Perhaps they have moved to primary sources as well, but it is almost always still the case that they are reading one or two favorite fathers and demanding that these be taken as more authoritative and normative than the rest.

For instance, when was the last time someone read the fathers and said “Hey I want to be Tertullian. I’m going to start advocating delayed baptism!”?

More simply, why should the “Cappadocians” (a disputed term in itself) be given more authority than Hilary or Ambrose? Gregory of Naziansus is authoritative now, but he wasn’t authoritative enough at Constantinople to convince the council to state that the Holy Spirit is homoousios with the Father.

Another aspect to consider when using the authority of the church fathers is that we only have a small bit of the writings and thinkers that were active in the church. Ossius of Cordoba held a pre-eminent position at the council of Nicaea. How many of us have even heard of him? And what about the small-town preachers? There are probably thousands of names and a number of emphases that held sway in certain communities that never managed to achieve headline status. That many of these sorts of things still exist in some form should be evidenced by the various ethnic and regional subcultures within churches. How much of “tradition” is simply the triumph of a particular subculture?

And is that necessarily a bad thing?

It isn’t a bad thing for historical development. After all, this is precisely the stuff of history. It becomes a bad thing when it moves from history to myth, and that’s precisely the Protestant critique. We should honor and respect history, but we ought not bow down to history. The Holy Spirit works in the church throughout history, to be sure, but He works through people in the church, and it doesn’t take much reading in church history to realize that you are dealing with people everywhere.

I certainly cannot end without connecting this with the Reformed “fathers” as well. There are many points where I disagree with Calvin, though I can still respect him and identify with him. Indeed, I’ve begun to find myself appreciating folks as varied as Luther and William Ames, though still being strongly critical of some of their positions. This is the posture that I would recommend. I don’t think this is liberalism. I think this is care and assiduousness. If we factor in the place of the Hebrew language and Hebrew worldview, then I think we have even more ground to criticize past thinkers. We know more now about Hebrew and the Old Testament than ever before. We have better Bible studies, however inadequate they may be, than the majority of Christendom ever has.

We’ve got to be able to look back, forward, and then directly at ourselves (the most difficult place!), all the while moving forward.


http://wedgewords.reformedblogs.com/2007/11/09/on-the-fathers/

[rogue06]

Martin Luther had something to say about this: "Whenever we observe that the opinion of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be or elders. Nevertheless we do not depart from the authority of the Scriptures for their sake."

I think the various Church Fathers can give us an idea how some Christians at different times interpreted the Bible, but should never be understood to be a final word on anything.

[dizzle]

Yes precisely.

[David_A_Reed]

Amen!

David

[eschaton]

Everybody agrees that the fathers are okay as long as they agree with the scriptures. The problem is that not everybody agrees what the scriptures say. I think that is where the fathers come in. The fathers don't necessarily have any authority at all. The ones who have authority are the apostles and ultimatly Christ.

Before the NT was written there was the oral tradition of the apostles. The fathers are helpful in what they reveal about that tradition, and what they confirm about the scriptures. There are volumous writings from Christians in the first few centuries. Phillip Schaff, a compiler of early writings, said that if the NT hadn't survived until today, nearly the entire volume could be compiled with quotes from the church fathers.

The church fathers are valuable when questions about what the scriptures really mean arise. That should coincide with what they reveal about the apostolic tradition. They are much more likely to be correct when they are talking about something a couple of hundred years earlier than some modern agnostic who is talking about something two thousand years ago.

[Trout]

Many go to the fathers to validate some goofy idea, i.e. deification.

When someone wants to tell me something that the ECF's taught, a red flag flies immediately.

[dizzle]

The idea that the ECF must necessarily be more accurate as they are closer in time is completely fallacious. While the Apostle Paul was still alive and writing crazy errors crept in. The ECF can be just as whacky and off base as some of the screwy ideas we have today.

[spiritmech]

It is interesting that there is no mention of the Fathers as saints.
sm

[David_A_Reed]

The idea that the ECF must necessarily be more accurate as they are closer in time is completely fallacious. While the Apostle Paul was still alive and writing crazy errors crept in. The ECF can be just as whacky and off base as some of the screwy ideas we have today.We see this ourselves today. I can think of certain individuals I thought I led to Christ and attempted to disciple, and what they went off teaching on their own. Yet they knew me personally and "sat under my teaching" for a while. Happily, they don't claim to have gotten what they teach now from me -- at least, I hope they're not saying that.

So, some of those fellows who knew Paul or John personally may not reflect at all what they heard from Paul or John.

David

[Jezz]

Many go to the fathers to validate some goofy idea, i.e. deification.

When someone wants to tell me something that the ECF's taught, a red flag flies immediately.
Another goofy idea that people got from the ECFs was the idea of a canon of Scripture. Fortunately, there are theologians around today who are in the process of emancipating us from this goofy ECF idea.

The of course there was that goofy Trinity which, as any JW or Christadelphian or liberal theologian will tell you, was also invented by the ECFs. :teeth:

[eschaton]

It seems to me that most of the comments are negative about the church fathers without addressing the reasons the church fathers have been revered thoughout church history until maybe the last couple of centuries.

I think Spauline makes a good point about saints, although he and I may look a little differently at what sainthood is. The fact is that many of the early fathers lived in times much more difficult for christians than most of us do today. Some of them died as martyrs.

Many people today don't like the Christ centered way the fathers interpreted the scriptures. But they may not like the way Paul interpreted either when he talked about spirit vs. the letter, or the two peoples represented by bondmaid and the freewoman. Maybe they don't like that Jesus taught in parables, or that Christ was the last Adam.

IMO people today want the authority to declare what the scriptures mean. If what ancient men said differs with their own opinion, then they are criticised. I'm not saying the fathers were infallible, but the apostles were ancient men too. Those closest to the time are more likely to look at things in the same way. Modern interpreters may read their own 21st century politcally correct ideas into the Bible rather than read the scriptures the way first and second century people would have. That's when the NT was written. And if we are culturally removed from the first century, how much more are we removed from the days of the OT? The OT may even need to be looked at in ways similar to other ancient writings. They didn't have modern rules of interpretation back then.

So there was error back in those days. Isn't that what people like Irenaeus were trying to set straight? Irenaeus made errors? Look at why the errors were made, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Why just dismiss the church fathers because errors were made? Is it because we are errorless today?

[Trout]

Another goofy idea that people got from the ECFs was the idea of a canon of Scripture. Fortunately, there are theologians around today who are in the process of emancipating us from this goofy ECF idea.

The of course there was that goofy Trinity which, as any JW or Christadelphian or liberal theologian will tell you, was also invented by the ECFs. :teeth:

I think you just validated the point made in the OP, some ideas are sound and some aren't. :teeth:

[dizzle]

Indeed it seem he has.

[tizzidale]

two-legged stools . . .

if the only authority is our own selves, then, yes, the Fathers of the church are only as useful as each of us deem them.

But if an authority outside myself tells me the value of these teachings . . . . Yes, a three-legged stool sits more securely.

rusty

[Trout]

A milking stool has one leg.

[Amazing Rando]

A milking stool has one leg.

But it requires the farmer's two legs (and/or leaning on the cow) to keep it up, does it not?

Oy, what a goofy metaphor.

[Trout]

But it requires the farmer's two legs (and/or leaning on the cow) to keep it up, does it not?

Oy, what a goofy metaphor.

Making tizzidale's 5 legged stool all the more goofy, Oy.

[tizzidale]

One needs two legs to keep a three-legged stool standing . . . ?

[spauline]

One needs two legs to keep a three-legged stool standing . . . ?

:lol:

[spauline]

yeah, like this all begs the Q? Who decides what is true and is not true? again, you can pick fathers here and there and ignore other stuff. Admittedly, some ECFS have errors, but how do we know what those errors are? Who decides what is and is not erroneous?

Again, as eschaton points out, not everybody agrees on what Scripture means. There were two deans of Bible Baptist college that I learned about from a woman who converted to Catholcism. The one of em believed you COULD lose your salvation, the other NOT. And both these men are presumably believers and thorough studiers of Scripture. If Scripture alone settles this debate, will someone please tell me how?

Does the Book stand up and start speaking miraculously on which of these men is right?

Last i knew, that doesn't happen?

???