Trusting the Church Fathers

In the Bibliovore's household, the church fathers are a fairly frequent topic of discussion. I've written previously about a volume of the Apostolic Fathers' writings that I read about a year ago. Having gone from a theological tradition that places relatively less (but still more than no) weight in the writings of these early Christians to one that places a fairly significant amount of weight in the writings, I figured that an exploration of who the Fathers were and why I think they are trustworthy guides to Scriptural interpretation is in order.

Who Are the Church Fathers?

In the history of Christianity, there are several categories of ancient writings preserved and translated for us. Almost all Bibles contain only the canonical books of Scripture; some Bibles also contain the Apocrypha (non-canonical but canon-adjacent). Besides these groups of writings, there are also writings from the first several generations of Christians after the Apostles (Church Fathers). The dates of these writings span from the first century AD through the mid-eighth century AD.

Here is a partial list of the Church Fathers, roughly in chronological order, from Logos Bible software. Bear in mind that there are varying degrees of trustworthiness generally accorded to each Father's writings, based on things like the amount of Scripture quoted (Hermas quotes hardly any, while Clement of Rome quotes both Old and extant New Testament works extensively) and proximity to the time of the Apostles or to the first four ecumenical church councils.

• Hermas: sin after baptism can be forgiven; moral focus rather close to Judaism
• Ignatius of Antioch: Christ truly suffered and died, and the New Testament holds equal authority with the Old
• Papias: fragments quoted in other writings focus on how the Gospels originated
• Clement of Rome: linked by apostolic succession to Peter, writing to the Corinthians to settle an issue of leadership among them
• Polycarp: see below
• Tertullian: shaped the use of ecclesiastical Latin and wrote on apologetics
• Origen: as the Bibliovore puts it, quite smart but a little crazy; he wrote biblical commentaries, mini-sermons, and (of note to the Biologist) an opinion on Genesis that allegorical interpretation of the creation accounts was not out of the question.
• Gregory of Nyssa: see below
• Eusebius: see below
• John Chrysostom: see below
• Basil of Caesarea: focused on anti-Arianism, monasticism, and canon law
• Gregory of Nazianzus: see below
• Ambrose: wrote fine Latin, composed several hymns including At the Lamb's High Feast we Sing and Holy God we Praise Thy Name, and brought Augustine to Christ. Notably, he was baptized then immediately ordained as bishop of Milan.
• Hilary of Poitiers: wrote against Neoplatonism and Arianism, defending and defining orthodox Trinitarian belief
• Jerome: see below
• Athanasius: see below
• Augustine of Hippo - 30 volumes: wrote extensively on biblical exegesis, shaping much of Christian thought in the West for centuries afterward
• John of Damascus: defended the use of images/icons to facilitate worship of God, in larger works of systematic theology
• Bede the Venerable: wrote scriptural commentaries and a church-related history of the English
• Maximus the Confessor: wrote on Christology, humanism, and mysticism

Too Many--What are the Categories of the Fathers?

In published translations of the Church Fathers' writings, there are typically four divisions. These are based on the time frame of their writing relative to the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD; the primary language spoken by each Father; and the general area of residence, whether Africa, the Greek Empire, or the Roman Empire. 

The earliest Fathers wrote in Greek and are called the Apostolic Fathers, since each of them knew at least one of the twelve Apostles. See the post linked at the start of this post for a book reflection on the excellent collection of the Apostolic Fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa and Polycarp of Smyrna. (These two hold special significance for my family, for those who know me in person.) More broadly, they may be called the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which stretches the time frame to 325 AD or so.

The next grouping is the Greek-speaking Nicene Fathers, who lived and wrote in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Of particular interest to me are Eusebius, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Eusebius is best known for his volumes on church history with an apologetics thrust, which influenced numerous later theologians. Chrysostom ("golden-mouthed") spoke most often on proper use of wealth; the Book of Common Prayer has a prayer attributed to him. Gregory was named after Gregory of Nyssa and wrote a thorough defense of Trinitarianism.

The next grouping is the Latin-speaking Nicene Fathers, who lived and wrote in the same time frame. Of particular interest to me are Jerome and Athanasius. Jerome (also called Eusebius Hieronymus) translated the bulk of the Vulgate following extensive education in the Latin language. Athanasius is best known for the Athanasian Creed, one of the three ecumenical creeds that specifically dives into Trinitarian orthodoxy and rebuking heresy (particularly Arianism).

Finally, the post-Nicene Fathers spanned the fifth through mid-eighth centuries AD. I haven't yet read any of these writings. Focus areas included Trinitarianism (contra Arianism), Christology (two natures of Christ), grace, free will, and Adam's fall.

Where do the Fathers Fit in Christianity?

In the Bibliovore's educated opinion, the Church Fathers are under-read by many in various Christian traditions, to the detriment of maintaining the theology that was in the first generation of Christian churches. Christian denominations have a rather extensive family tree (example below). 

In the thinking of most, the Fathers are classified under the "tradition" category, in terms of a source of authority in the denomination's authorized interpretation of Scripture. Based on Learn Religions, which major denominations actually use the Fathers' writings as a source of authority? Roman Catholic churches typically place the highest weight on the Fathers; next come Anglican/Episcopal branches; next (contra the site) come Lutherans. Although the motto of the Reformation, started by Martin Luther, included "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone), Luther knew the Fathers and referenced them.

The other major denominations (Assembly of God, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian) utilize English translations of Scripture as the stated sole authority for biblical interpretation. This is problematic and not quite accurate. 

Why problematic? While it is true that the Fathers didn't have the advantage of centuries of improvement of historical and philosophical methods, and were largely unaware of how much Platonism was influencing their sub- and surrounding cultures, they were much closer in time than we are to the original human authors of Scripture. They could read and understand the Scriptures in the languages of the original autographs, and did not rely primarily on English translations to develop doctrine.

Why inaccurate? Put simply, it is rare for a denomination decades/centuries after its founding to spell out its philosophical assumptions coherently unless one goes back to the writings of the denomination's founders. Yet, the philosophy and associated presuppositions have over the decades become part of the fabric of how theologians think--while feeling to the theologian that the worldview is perfectly objective and natural. Much of worldview can be compared to the fishbowl around a fish--unless one steps "outside" the worldview, one doesn't realize the water one is submerged in. 

I do not claim any detailed knowledge of the worldviews of the originators of any denominations except for LCMS and (to an extent) the ACNA since it is a rather young denomination. However, I would encourage those in these and other traditions to look back to the founders, how they were trained, the cultural currents around them, and whether they participated in those currents or reacted against them to a degree. Did one or another founder emphasize the use of reason, special inspiration, or a logical framework in interpreting Scripture? 

How can we Reliably Interpret the Church Fathers?

The writings are, like other historical documents, best interpreted with sound historical and exegetical principles. This year, one of my audiobook listens was Michael R. Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach - 600+ pages exploring how to do good history when it comes to evaluating the resurrection hypothesis. While Licona is a Christian, the biggest strength of his book is its attention to rigorous historical method

What did I learn from his book?

• Use primarily (or exclusively) evidence accepted by a majority of scholars
• Apply logical principles and Occam's Razor
• Consider all hypotheses and possibly-relevant historical documents using the same criteria to evaluate each, including explanatory scope and explanatory power
• Be aware of your own biases and be able to suspend them if necessary
• Stand on the shoulders of giants (e.g., Gary Habermas on the resurrection)
• Prefer to use historical credulity than to start with incredulity

The other piece, often considered more specific to CHristianity or at least theology, is exegesis. I found sets of principles from two sources, Logos Bible Software and Compelling Truth.

• Logos
• Contrast "reading out" an analytical meaning with "reading into" the text one's preferences (eisegesis). Know just what the text says (authorial intent)!
• Hermeneutics = principles. Exegesis = application thereof.
• 8 steps to exegesis (from exegete/professor Andy Naselli):
• Discern the genre of  the passage
• Textual criticism - exact original wording
• Translate from original - compare translations
• Analyze Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic grammar
• Graphically represent author's argument
• Dive into historical/cultural context
• Examine literary context (book + Bible)
• Word study
• After going through these 8 steps, go directly into Biblical, historical, systematic, or practical theology
• Compelling Truth has 5 general principles of sound exegesis:
• Grammatical - know the original languages and how they work in the text
• Literal - take at face value unless indicators exist for otherwise
• Historical - dominant context is the one in which the text was written
• Socio-cultural - immerse self in text's author's society and culture
• Scripture interprets Scripture - clearer passages help less-clear passages

When we apply these principles and steps to the Church Fathers' writings as well as to Scripture, we find that Scripture is the most trustworthy but that certain of the other writings do point to a trustworthy consensus (or unexpected diversity of opinion) on various doctrines contained within Scripture. The most obvious implication of this is when one is considering theological triage. What has actually been considered a core doctrine since the beginning of the Christian faith? Not all the things that are considered vital in current debates were considered so early on, and vice versa.

What are the Implications in the ACNA?

Since I haven't done the necessary background reading for this section as of 2024, I am leaving it as a placeholder for an update in a subsequent year. I would love to hear your thoughts on your own theological tradition!