John H Armstrong

The Supreme Authority of Scripture and Interpretation

Yesterday, I wrote about the authority of Scripture. I am often asked what has kept me from embracing the Catholic Church in its present state? I have many friends who’ve converted to Roman Catholicism. I have many supporters of this mission who are Catholic. This happens because these friends and donors know I am serving the whole church in a unique and ecumenical context. The fact is that I have great love for the Catholic Church. And I am clearly not an anti-Catholic. Further, I have no desire to become a polemicist who engages in anti-Catholic evangelicalism. I am a serious ecumenist and as such I love all Christians – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. I long to see full communion between the great ancient churches of the Christian faith. Because of this love and longing I will continue to engage with these kinds of issues for the rest of my life. It is because I love Christ and all his people that I do so.

But I am sometimes asked, What keeps you from becoming a Catholic? There are several reasons I remain a Reformed Protestant but a major one is related to this issue of authority. Over time I believe the Catholic Church developed a two-source view of authority. I believe this view is wrong. I believe this view was correctly challenged by the magisterial Reformers of the sixteenth century because the errors it had produced were harmful to the health of the church. I also believe, as I began to show yesterday, that this two-source view is in conflict with the teaching of the early church fathers as well. This point will be strongly opposed by good Catholic friends. The danger in this debate is that we will simply trade quotes and throw verbal bombs. Good ecumenism will not do this. It will listen respectfully and keep the discussion moving forward. In the end a person has to be persuaded in their own conscience by the facts they read and seek to understand. I have wrestled with these facts deeply. I remain persuaded that the Catholic claim that final authority residing in two-sources is wrong.

For my Catholic friends I urge you to respect me even if you disagree with my reading of this important issue. I know most of you do. Catholic academics clearly engage in this dialog without the heated rhetorical devices of many untrained apologists. For my Protestant friends, I urge you to not give up this precious truth in the midst of the modern polemics used against it by popular Catholic authors and speakers who often rail against it by using stereotypes and misrepresentations. What is at stake here is very important, so important that at least for now it hinders the union of our respective Christian churches. (It should not hinder unity even while we cannot attain union with this disagreement on the table!)

Yesterday, I cited some sayings from early church theologians. Here are a few more that I find extremely helpful:

What the Scriptures have not declared, you will never find.
(St. Athanasius, De S. Trin. Dial.)

It is a mockery to ask questions, or to make discourses, on that which is not written. (St. Athanasius, Epist. Ad. Serap.)

In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. (St. Athanasius, adv. Gentes init.)

Do not believe me simply, unless you receive the proof of what I say from Holy Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. A.D. 348)

Keep that faith only which the Church is now giving to you and which is certificated out of the whole of Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech.)

Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, even the most casual remark ought not to be delivered without the sacred Scriptures. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV.12)

It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written. (St. Basil c. 329-379, bishop of Caesarea, de Vera Fide)

How can we use those things, which we find not in the Scriptures!
(St. Ambrose c. 339-397, Offic. Lib. 1, c. 23)

When we receive money, we do not trust to those who give it to us; we wish to count it ourselves: and when there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures. (St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.)

When you shall see the wicked heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea head for the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the Scriptures. For the true Judea is
Christendom, and the mountains are the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: “Her foundations are in the holy mountains.” But why should all Christians at this time head for the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken
possession of the churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true church of Christ no way to know it except only the through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has everything just like the church. How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of Christ know it in the midst of this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands that Christians who…want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take refuge in nothing else but the Scriptures.

Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and will perish, because they will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the church. (Traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom, glossa ordinaria 49th Homily, on Mat. 24)

We deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those which are not written. That God was born of a Virgin, we believe, because we read; that Mary married after she gave birth to him, we believe not, because we read not. (St. Jerome c. 347-c. 420, adv. Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. IV. Part II)

In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals. (St. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana A.D. 427, Lib. II, c. 9)

The canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and in itself suffices to the full, and more, for all demands. (St. Vincent of Lérins, Adversus profanes omnium novitates haereticorum commonitorium A.D.434)

Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone. (Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.)

I have provided only a small sample of hundreds of such early church texts. When I began to wrestle with this issue of biblical authority some years ago, and then re-engage it through my deep love for the whole Christian church over the last fifteen years or so, I came to a deeper appreciation for a sound and balanced understanding of the truth of sola scriptura. Often Protestants hold very bad views of sola scriptura. This does not disprove the true doctrine but it should make us careful about how we state it and teach it.

But this pursuit has also caused me to see many of the more common errors taught by Protestants who hold to this principle. Some Protestant evangelicals make amazing claims about the Bible, especially when it comes to interpreting Scripture. In their desire to avoid various forms of interpretation (allegory comes to mind) embraced by the whole church throughout her history they sometimes fall into grievous errors. One such egregious error was made by a now deceased professor of mine who also became a personal friend. He once lectured for our ministerial meeting here in the Chicago area. In his lecture on Scripture he said:

We don’t criticize the apostolic use of the Old Testament in the New because the apostles were inspired but we cannot follow it because  they were wrong.

I am not misquoting my departed friend. So amazing was this claim that I have discussed it now and again with friends. (This professor actually wrote a book on the Old Testament in the New!) When my dear friend, Fr,. Wilbur Ellsworth, once a Baptist and now an Orthodox priest, brought his up to me a few days ago I was mortified by its conclusion once again. I asked myself, “What made a brilliant man make such a statement?” What my friend was seeking to uphold was a particularly evangelical view of how to interpret the Bible literally. I believe in this case his view of Scripture had gone wrong.

I am again reminded that Catholic and Orthodox Christians read the Bible as the Word of God. This is why I am especially delighted when I see all of us reading and discussing Holy Scripture. For now we disagree about the nature of biblical authority but we can agree on far more than we realized not too long ago. This will remain true so long as we keep talking and listening. By talking and listening we can still learn and so long as we are learning there is room to grow in knowledge and the grace of God. A true ecumenist doesn’t have all the answers but knows the way forward. After all the central message of Holy Scripture is the same for us all – God is love and Christ died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and ascended to the Father from where he will come again at the end of this age. He thus came to redeem all who trust in Him!

The Supreme Authority of Scripture

A major tenet of Protestant theology is the authority and finality of the biblical revelation. This principle is often poorly stated but the essential point is that Scripture serves as the supreme court in all matters of faith and practice.

For some all one needs to do is quote a verse and the issue is settled. For others they are aware of the difficulty of some questions and realize Scripture does not directly address some doctrinal and ethical issues with complete clarity. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts this principle rather clearly:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Here, and elsewhere, the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura reflects a nuanced tension between the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture necessary for final authority, and the occasional need for its meaning to be revealed by careful exposition (Hebrews 5:12).

The errors made by many Protestants regarding this truth are too numerous to engage in through one post. They are legion and they are often extreme.

Sola scriptura teaches that the only doctrines which should be admitted or confessed are found directly within Scripture or indirectly therein by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning discovered within scripture. But, and this is vitally important, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion! This is the error large numbers of modern evangelicals have made by appealing wrongly to sola scriptura. What the principle simply says is that all other authorities are subordinate to, and to be corrected by, the written word of God.

Another major error is to believe that sola scriptura ignores Christian history and tradition when interpreting the Bible. In principle the doctrine sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice but not the only authority. Martin Luther thus said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.

One of the more important aspects of this doctrine is the idea of efficacy of Scripture. Scripture, united with the power of the Holy Spirit, not only demands, but creates the acceptance of its clear teaching. Thus a proper teaching of Scripture produces faith and obedience. The Holy Scripture is not a dead letter, an academic tool box. By the power of the Holy Spirit inherent in its witness it is powerful and living in the human soul. Put more clearly, Scripture compels more than intellectual assent to its doctrine. By the power of the Spirit it works to create the living agreement of faith. The Smalcald Articles affirm, "in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word.” This statement does not deny that divine revelation comes through other means (e.g., in nature, etc.) but simply affirms that the spoken teaching of the Christian faith must firmly hold to the canon of the written Scriptures and then proceed in the power of the Spirit.

I do not write these things to debate with Catholic apologists, though they any are welcome to disagree and post their response. What I write these things to establish a basic principle, one I believe taught by the Reformers and the early church Fathers as well. While Luther’s doctrine of faith, at least as he put it, is not clearly found in the writings of the earliest Christian theologians (Alister McGrath has established this beyond any reasonable doubt in his magnum opus, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification), the doctrine of the authority and finality of the Holy Scripture is abundantly evident in the writing of early church fathers. Consider these few quotations:

We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God's will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. (St. Irenaeus, Lib. III. c. 1)

Let the shop of Hermogenes prove that what it advances is written; or if it be not written, let it fear the malediction uttered against those who dare to add or to retrench. (Tertullian c. 160-240, adv. Hermog.)

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will
exercise piety towards God, can learn it no where but from the Holy Scriptures. (St. Hippolytus c. 170-c.235, adv. Noetum, c. IX)

In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must “commit to the fire” what remains, that is, reserve it unto God. (Origen c. 185-c.254, Hom. in Lev.)

When I arrived in the district of Arsinoe, when as you know this notion had long been widely held, so that schisms and secessions of entire churches had taken place, I called a meeting of the presbyters and teachers of the village congregations, with any laymen who wished to attend, and urged them to thrash out the question in public. So they brought me this book as positive and irrefutable proof, and I sat with them for three days on end from
dawn to dusk, criticizing its contents point by point. In the process I was immensely impressed by the essential soundness, complete sincerity, logical grasp, and mental clarity shown by these good people, as we methodically and good-temperedly dealt with questions, objections, and points of agreement. We refused to cling with pig-headed determination to opinions once held even if proved wrong. There was no shirking of difficulties, but to the limit of our powers we tried to grapple with the problems and master them; nor were we too proud, if worsted in argument, to abandon our position and admit defeat; conscientiously, honestly, and with simple-minded trust in God, we accepted the conclusions to be drawn from the proofs and teachings of Holy Writ. (Eusebius, in The History of the Church, quoting Dionysius c. 200-c. 265, bishop of Alexandria)

The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the truth. (St. Athanasius 296-373, Orat. Contr. Gent. Tom. I)

If you desire a new quotation, if you pretend to affirm anything besides what is written, why do you dispute with us, who are resolved to hear nothing, and to say nothing, besides what is written? (St. Athanasius, De Incarn. Chr.)

A Theology of Negation

In the fourth century three eminent Greek theologians, called the Cappadocian Fathers, gave birth to a theology that has remained in the church through the centuries. I am quite persuaded that a recovery of this theology is underway among some Christians in the West. Let me explain.

Two brothers, Basil of Caesarea (icon at left) and Gregory of Nyssa, together with their close friend Gregory of Nazianzus, began to stress the incomprehensibility of God. This emphasis, which was later called apophatic theology (from the Greek for negation), reached a climax by the end of the fifth century in the divine darkness of Dionysius. It was Dionysius who introduced into theology the terminology of mysticism. For Dionysius the word theology meant wisdom, indeed theology was the highest form of wisdom. Theology was not an end in itself but a wisdom that should be used to serve and love God. The word mystical is thus derived from the word mystery. In mystery there is a hidden, dark and ineffable sense to knowing God, thus mystical theology. This cannot be expressed in clear-cut images and concepts thus it will always be rejected by people who crave rational and purely logical theology.

Dionysius is himself a controversial figure. His identity and orthodoxy have both been questioned. All we know for sure is that someone in the ancient world affixed to his writings the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of St. Paul (Acts 17:34). Though questions of authenticity remain the Dionysian writings became extremely influential in the Eastern world. They were eventually translated into Latin in the ninth century and greeted with considerable enthusiasm in the West. Bonaventura called Dionysius the prince of mystics and Thomas Aquinas quoted him some 1,700 times. The theology of Dionysius influenced Western writers like Tauler and Eckhart to St. John of the Cross. These writings are read to this day and their popularity has recently surged. The author of The Cloud of Unknowing made a free translation of Dionysius.

Both Erasmus and the Reformers raised questions about the writings of Dionysius but most scholars now conjecture that he was a Syrian monk, a Christian neo-Platonist. He seems clearly to have possessed a deep commitment to Jesus and a profound religious experience.

This much we know. After the Cappadocians and Dionysius the theology of negation flowed into the mainstream of Christian thought and practice. The Fourth Lateran Council, held in November 1215, declared that “between creator and creature no similarity can be noted without a greater dissimilarity being noted.” Please read that again. We are like God, in some ways. But our likeness must always remind us of just how unlike God we really are when all is said and done. Vatican I (1869-70) added that “the divine mysteries so exceed the created intellect that, even when given in revelation and received by faith, they remain covered over by the veil of faith itself.” This is, in my understanding, good theology! Faith reveals truth to us, mostly by revealing Truth. But faith leads us to see that there is much more we do not see than we ever understood before we knew Christ.

Mystical theology has assumed an even greater role in the church today for several reasons. First, postmodernism has rightly challenged what we know and how we know it. The whole idea of certitude is being challenged, in many cases for good reasons. Second, this theology of negation will become more important as the Christian faith encounters other religions and thus different ways of expressing the mystery of the divine nature. This is especially true when you deal with Asian and Indian religions.

Don’t let these developments frighten you. Paul himself said “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9). This text is placed into a context where the apostle is talking about the wisdom of God which transcends all human ability to comprehend. Paul says we understand these things because “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16b). So there is paradox here if I read this correctly. We have “the mind of Christ” but we do not comprehend as God comprehends and we must confess this as well as the positive.

Mystical theology has its own unique and practical ways of speaking about negation. It insists that God is not this, not this and then not this! It urges all who believe to live in a cloud of unknowing, forgetting things seen in this world in order to enter into a silent mystery of God. Does this have dangers? You bet. But it also has huge potential in an age like ours, driven by science and efficiency.

Apophatic theology has a role in modern Christian faith and practice. It has served me in some rather wonderful ways over recent years.  But it must always have this role with an equal and proper emphasis upon cataphatic theology, or a theology of affirmation. The Cappadocian Fathers avoided the dangers of mystical theology by giving us a solid model of spiritual life that emphasized both the role of negation and affirmation. They were, pre-eminently theologians of the Trinity. Gregory of Nyssa said that the believer who ascends into the divine darkness also enters into the mystery of Christ. (Gregory was about all being Christocentric).When this happens God then speaks to the believer “face-to-face” because the Christian is God’s friend, as Moses was on the mountain. So the Cappadocians blended this negative theology of what God was not with a positive theology of what God was as he was revealed in Jesus Christ. This resulted in them believing there was a single paradoxical experience! This paradoxical experience is what I have found so helpful in understanding my growing relationship with God.

St. Clement of Alexandria on the Value of Wealth

I wrote several blogs last week about the value and importance of the Church Fathers. One of the early Greek Fathers was Clement of Alexandria, born in Athens around A.D. 150. His parents were pagans. He was converted to faith in Christ and began to travel widely searching for faithful Christian teachers. He attended the famous School of Theology in Alexandria, founded by Pantaenus in A.D. 180. After he settled there he became the director of the school, thus Clement of Alexandria. A few years after he became the director he was forced to quickly flee during the persecution of Septimius Severus. He took refuge in Cappadocia, where he died in A.D. 215, thus he is called a Cappadocian Father.

St. Clement is considered one of the forerunners of what we now call systematic theology. He was the first Christian writer to recognize secular philosophy (Neoplatonism) and incorporate some of its major ideas in service of the Christian faith. Most of his literary output has been lost but one work, on riches and wealth, is still considered valuable to the church. Commenting on Mark 10:17-22 Clement addressed some of the common interpretations of this text by saying:

1. Our Lord was not telling Christians to get rid of their wealth. He was telling them to banish from their souls the primacy of riches. “Unfettered greed can suffocate the seed of true life.”

2. It is not something new to renounce riches and distribute them to the poor. This, said Clement, was done long before Jesus came. Some did this to devote themselves to the arts and in search of vain knowledge while others sought fame and glory by this means.

3. What our Lord does command here is something new, something proper to God who alone gives life. Clement writes:

He does not command what the letter says and what others have already done. He is asking for something greater, more divine, more perfect than that which is stated –that we denude the soul itself of its disordered passions, that we pull out the roots and fling away what is foreign to the spirit. Here, then, is the teaching proper to a believer, and the doctrine worthy of the Savior. Those, who before Christ’s coming despised material goods, certainly gave up their riches and lost them, but the passions of the soul increased even more. For having believed that they had done something superhuman, they came to indulge in pride, petulance, vainglory, despising others.

Clement wrote that a person could give everything away only to doubly regret his decision. To teach that Jesus intends for every disciple to give up everything contradicts statements like those of Luke 16:9, which urges us to make friends by the use of wealth. “Riches then should not be rejected if they can be of use to our neighbor. They are accurately called possessions because they are possessed by people, and goods or utilities because with them one can do good and because they have been ordained by God for the use of men.”

What Clement is saying is that goods and possessions can be instruments in the hands of skilled servants who use them to bless others and advance great good. “Riches, then, are also an instrument.” If rightly used they can bring about justice and service. He added, “In themselves riches are blameless.”

So what is the problem with riches? Riches present an opportunity to do great good or serious evil. “The one to be accused is the person who has the ability, through the choice he makes, to put it to good use or to misuse it. And this is up to the mind and judgment of man, who is free and able to manage what is given him for his use.” Simply put, we are required to be good stewards of all goods and possessions we have been given by whatever means.

So the problem riches present to us, concludes Clement, is in how they are used by our disordered passions. “The rich – who are going to find it difficult to enter the kingdom – will have to understand these words intelligently, and not in a dull and superficial way.”

My experience with people who possess great means is that this is an accurate understanding of the true problem. The real problem is not in riches themselves but in human passions and desires. Wealthy people can bring immense blessing to people and mission. Make no mistake about this, prosperity is always to be preferred to poverty. But those who prosper must understand that they bear greater responsibility to deal with their passions and desires and to use their possessions and goods for the kingdom of God.

Church Fathers: Who and Why?

The first teachers of Christianity are called the Church Fathers. The reason is that these teachers were seen, over time, as the great teachers of spiritual truth for the whole church. The term “Fathers of the church” refers to those theologians and teachers who were the earliest post-apostolic thinkers and writers who left us a rich legacy of faith and doctrine in their written works.

There is no clear cut-off date by which someone may be called a “Father” or not but I lean toward the fifth century for several reasons. The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) was critical to the entire future of the church. Up to and through this time period the major theologians were the greatest Fathers of the faith. But St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) is included on some lists, as well as Venerable the Bede (d. 735) and St. John Damascene (d. 749). No arbitrary time period works perfectly but tradition generally treats the patristic period up to and through the middle of the fifth century as the core of the time period in which the Fathers wrote.

The earliest histories of this period are found in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Jerome (d. 420). But it wasn’t until the era of the printing press that great editions of these works became more widely available to a growing circle of Christians. One major collection of Latin Fathers numbers 222 volumes while the Greek Fathers reach 161 volumes. This is, obviously, a large body of written work. Scholars who make it their life’s work to study and interact with this work have become a great blessing in my own life. Projects which provide this work to the masses are now producing a rich harvest of spiritual and doctrinal fruit for all the church and evangelicals are at the forefront of this recovery.

Who Is a Church Father?

St. Vincent of Lerins, in his famous work Commonitorium (A.D. 434) gave us an accurate and useful description when he said: “The Fathers of the Church are those alone who, though in diverse times and places yet persevering in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have been approved teachers.” Modern writers follow the same course and believe that a Father of the Church must have been faithful to sound doctrine who lived a godly life.

Add to this things like the following; e.g. the writer is cited by a general council, referenced in addresses to the whole church or included in the public readings of the early church and you get the general idea.

But do all the Fathers teach the same truth? The answer is clearly no. On those matters that are universally believed by every part of the church they are, in general, of one mind and spirit. But the Fathers clearly held to very different ideas on some matters. To cite but one example, the Fathers were not one on their beliefs about eschatology. Their views of hell, for example, were diverse. They also held very different views of the millennium. Both Tertullian and Origen, as examples, taught things that many Christians did not believe. A consensus of the Fathers, in all doctrinal teaching, is simply not to be found. This alone should say something to schismatic Christians who think that we must all agree on every point of ancient Christian teaching or we are heretical.

Must We Agree with the Fathers?

The answer to this is more complicated than might be understood by ordinary readers. The witness of one Father never made a truth universally valid. Their words carried weight, and thus had great influence. But the Fathers were not apostles! Some teaching of the Fathers became normative for the whole church and thus is still held by orthodox believers to this day; e.g. St. Augustine’s teaching on the Trinity and St. Athanasius on the divinity of the Son of God come to mind here.

Both piety and good judgment suggest that we proceed with caution if we disagree with the general consensus of these Fathers. This is why the early Protestant writers studied and cited the Fathers far more than their heirs do today. They did not see themselves as creating a new church or simply throwing off all the core beliefs of previous Christians and the entire Catholic Church. This is one reason, among a number I might cite, for why the fundamentalist Protestantism’s rejection of the Catholic Church, ipso facto, is ludicrous. We who are not Roman Catholics did not get here without a Christian family in history and that family is not rooted solely in Geneva or Wittenberg.

The Fathers include the Apostolic Fathers, thus those second century writers who were closest to the apostles, and the Greek apologists of that same era. These include men like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. The Western apologists include Tertullian. By the third century we have the Alexandrian writers and people like Hippolytus in Rome. The great African writers include names like Cyprian. By the fourth century we have Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa. And in Antioch we have the greatest preacher of them all, John Chrysostom. I could go on but this gives you a general sense of some of the greatest thinkers of the early church.

Why Are These Writers Important to Us?

We desperately need a growing sense of who we are and where we came from. We live in a world going global and viral. Should we be rooted in modern readings of the Bible without these great thinkers of the early church? Do the dead matter to the way we read the Bible that they read long before us? Amazingly, there are Protestant fundamentalists who mock this idea of the importance of reading and listening to the Church Fathers. This response not only reveals immense ignorance but incredible arrogance. Should I be led to believe that an English Bible reader living in the 21st century is to be preferred in every way to an ancient writer who lived closer to the time of Jesus, to his culture and to the Holy Scriptures and the acceptance of the Canon? If you listen you will hear current some very conservative (popular) evangelicals making this kind of argument regularly. I am appalled by the short-sightedness and arrogance of this response. I also believe it harms the faithful in profound ways, especially when people actually begin to believe that right interpretation lies within their own minds once they have read a text for themselves. This was never Luther or Calvin’s idea, but that of radicals who wanted to throw out the past entirely. Avoiding extremes is never easy but we must try or we will surely fall. The Fathers provide a great blessing and are also a great aid in this process of how tradition and the Bible serve one another.

The Importance of the Church Fathers

Many evangelicals know little or nothing about the Church Fathers (and in a few cases Mothers). These ancient writers were the early Christians who taught and wrote about Christ and the sacred truths of the faith in the first centuries after the death of the apostles. I was asked once, in a public dialog with Catholic peers, why this was so. I answered, “Because we think that citing the Fathers is a Catholic practice and, furthermore, we think that trusting in the authority of the Scripture means we don’t need to read these Fathers.”

I still think that response is warranted, at least in general. But more recent developments, which are now beginning to spill over into the wider church among non-professional readers, is to place increasing value on reading and understanding the patristic writers. We can thank scholars like Thomas Oden, Christopher Hall and Daniel Williams, among others, for these developments. I believe reading and using the Fathers is important for personal reasons. It is also extremely productive for missional-ecumenism.

Pope John Paul II said, “There can be no true formation of Christian understanding without constantly drawing on the tradition of our Fathers in the faith . . . . The Fathers of the Church did not cease to meditate upon the Mystery of Christ and seek to transmit to their contemporaries what they themselves received. . . . They were the first theologians, for they were able to examine the Mystery of Christ by drawing on ideas borrowed from the thought of their time, formulating them with no hesitation to give them universal meaning.”

Whether or not your view of authority begins and ends with the canonical Scripture, and mine does in a very carefully and narrowly defined way, you should read and honor the writings of the Fathers. Why?

1. The Fathers were the first Christians after the apostles to comment on biblical texts in a context still like that of the original writers. We should listen to all faithful teaching rooted in Scripture. These were (generally speaking) faithful teachers in every way that is important to our faith today. And they inspire and encourage true faith, writing as they do out of the context in which they lived.

2. The earliest Fathers knew some of the apostles and for several generations this knowledge impacted the lives of leaders who had a “living memory'” of what the earliest churches and teachers were really like and how they understood the life of Christian faith under trial and the nature of the church.

3. The Fathers were martyr theologians. Martyr theologians are generally the best theologians! I was reminded of this recently which Dr. Richard Pratt reminded me that America has not done theology in the context of martyrdom for well over two hundred years. I have to believe this is one reason why we can use theology as a club to land blows on our Christian opponents.

Why do so many evangelicals not receive the Fathers as sacred teachers of the faith?

1. They are reacting, often in prejudice alone, to the practice of non-Protestants because Catholics and Orthodox Christians both use them fluently and regularly.

2. They do not know the Fathers from reading them, thus they fear them in some odd way and see no spiritual and formative value in reading them. Ironically, they know the sermons of a few modern pastors and writers and assign overwhelming value to them, the living. I am reminded of G. K. Chesterton’s comment about the “democracy of the dead.” (These writers should at least get to vote on what we believe and why.) In some cases these modern teachers are rigid fundamentalists, thus biblical literalists. They speak against the Fathers out of this understanding. Again, few of them have really read and studied the Fathers at all.

3. They are completely unaware of how important these Fathers were to the magisterial Protestant Reformers; e.g. Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon, etc. The Reformers knew the writings of the Fathers, in Latin, and routinely cited them in scores of contexts in their struggle for reforming the church.

For most fundamentalists they have traded a pope in Rome for a pope in their pulpit or on the radio. In the end the trade is not healthy at all. Any abuse of power, Roman or Protestant, is an abuse of power. We have a lot of spiritual and emotional abuse in our Protestant churches today. Most of it is done with proof texts and great fanfare but it still ends up being abuse. “A rose by any other name is still a rose!”

St. Basil the Great on Living in the Presence of God, Part Two

St. Basil urges us to live in God’s presence by seeking solitude. “Solitude provides us with the greatest help toward the achievement, quieting our passions, and giving leisure to our reason to uproot them completely from the soul.”

I find this one of the most difficult aspects of my modern life. Everything around me screams against solitude and unless I intentionally plan for it then it will never happen. I am not sure this is a modern problem, though modern "conveniences" (creature comforts) make it much more difficult in one sense.

To live in God’s presence we must learn to nourish our souls with “divine thoughts.” We do this best when we begin the day with prayer and song he says. We also do this by reading the Bible. “Meditation on the divinely inspired Scriptures is also a most important means for the discovery of duty. The Scriptures not only propose to us counsels for the conduct of life, but also open before us the lives of the blessed handed down in writing as living images for our imitation of life spent in quest of God.”

St. Basil says the Bible provides the remedy we all need. Just as one would go to a drug store to get medicine for the body so we go to Scripture to get medicine for our soul. He uses the story of Joseph, the husband-to-be of Mary the mother of our Lord, to say we learn chastity from him. He is not only a model of self-control but a habitual lover of virtue.

From Basil’s counsel we get a sense of how the early church theologians used Scripture. They did not merely look for doctrines in texts but they looked for medicine dispensed through the narratives of those who lived well.

Basil says we learn from Job how to remain the same, “preserving untarnished his nobility of soul.” Even when his friends came to offer him comfort, by taking advantage of his unfortunate situation, he was not provoked to anger. In turn if one wants to be meek consider King David who was noble in the deeds of war yet gentle and dispassionate in the punishment of his enemies. Such was Moses who rose in great wrath against those offending God but endured with a meek spirit the slanders against himself.

Finally, we should pray again following our reading of Scripture. We should pray that the Scripture will “take hold upon a fresher and more vigorous soul already stirred to a longing for God.” Our goal is that our earthly thoughts would “cease to interrupt our continual remembrance of Him.”

St. Basil clearly demonstrates the clarity and power of how some of the great Fathers of the Christian Church understood Christian living. For this reason alone we ought to familiarize ourselves with their incredibly fruitful writings. Isn’t it a bit odd that we follow the teachings of modern theologians and ignore the first theologians of the church? These men lived in far more difficult times, were far closer to the origins of the church and in general applied Scripture to the soul in remarkable ways. Our failure to read and appreciate them is our great loss in the twenty-first century. Thankfully a great deal is being done to remove this loss for those who want to read the Fathers for their own growth in grace.