Concerning the Church Fathers

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

“Eck appealed to the Fathers; Luther replied to him from the Fathers, and all the bystanders were struck with his superiority over his rival.”

-J.H. Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Dr. H. White, Vol. II (Rapidan, VA: Harland Publications, reprinted 1846 London edition), p.172.

“Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”

-Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.17

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-09.htm#P545_115708

If any evangelical has ever dialogued with a zealous Roman Catholic or read Roman Catholic apologetic works, they know of the constant appeal to the church fathers. Many converts to Roman Catholicism say that the citations of the church fathers used by Roman apologists tipped the scale and caused them to convert. So, a few questions need to be answered.

Who were the church fathers?

The church fathers were a group of prominent men (mostly bishops) that wrote during the first eight centuries of the Christian Church. The first church father was Clement of Rome (1^st Century), the last church father in the west was Isidore of Seville (d. 7^th Century), and the last church father in the east was John of Damascus (d. 8^th Century).

What did they believe?

The church fathers had extremely diversified beliefs across the centuries. Just about the only belief that they were agreed upon was monotheism. There were many church fathers that disagreed with each other, and there were many beliefs which evolved (or devolved depending on your point of view) across the centuries. There were many beliefs of the fathers that agree with Roman Catholic dogma, and then, there are some that would agree with Protestant beliefs. This brings us to the next question.

If they had so many conflicting beliefs, how are Roman Catholic apologists able to use the church fathers to influence others to convert?

Roman Catholic apologists and other theologians of the Roman Church are very selective in the quotations they cite. In fact, many of the contemporary Roman apologists have never even read the works of the church fathers. Often, the only work on the church fathers that they have ever read is William Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers, a three volume set of the major writings of the church fathers. In the back of these volumes is a ‘Doctrinal Index’ of very selective and sometimes out-of-context quotations which lead the reader to believe that the church fathers taught particular Roman Catholic dogmas. For example, Jurgens translates Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures 18.23 as “…it [i.e. the Catholic Church] teaches universally and infallibly…” However, as William Webster points out:

“The original Greek does not support this translation. The quotes…come from

the work, The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens. But this is a

completely novel translation. He is alone in translating the Greek word used by

Cyril to mean infallible. The Greek term employed by Cyril is…(anelleipos),

meaning ‘completely’, not infallibly. This is the translation given by the Roman

Catholic Fathers of the Church series, the Roman Catholic editors Berington and

Kirk in their work The Faith of Catholics, as well as by the editors of the Nicene-

Post Nicene Fathers.”

-William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. II (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources, 2001), p.262.

These are the kind of misleading quotations that fill the apologetic works and tracts of defenders of Roman Catholicism. More examples of the misuse of the church fathers will be documented in other articles.

Another point must be made here. As was stated above, some of the church fathers’ beliefs agree with Protestant theology. For example, it is asserted by Protestants (including myself) that Cyril of Jerusalem taught something similar to sola Scriptura with these words:

“Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”

-Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.17

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-09.htm#P545_115708

However, some Roman apologists make the argument that if the Protestant wants to cite Cyril of Jerusalem and accept what he believed here, then Protestants should have to accept everything that he believed (i.e. a transubstantiation-like doctrine, the Eucharist as a sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, etc.). This argument falls apart on two grounds:

1. The Roman Catholic would not want this kind of argumentation applied to him. Cyril of Jerusalem taught that the canon of the Old Testament included only twenty-two books (Catechetical Lectures 4.33, 35). This canon does not match the Roman Catholic canon that was established at the Council of Trent (c. 1546), but it does match the Protestant canon (with the exception of Baruch). This is significant because it is often asserted that all the early Christians believed that the deutero-canonicals (1 & 2 Maccabees, etc.) were originally part of the canon and that Martin Luther threw those books out of the canon in the sixteenth century. The citation of Cyril proves this assertion to be false. Thus, the belief that one must accept everything Cyril said would actually backfire on the Roman Catholic.

2. William Webster gives the perfect and logical response:

“Although we agree with certain aspects of Cyril’s teachings, such as the fundamental principle of the supreme and final authority of Scripture and its sufficiency, this does not necessitate our acceptance of every conclusion he comes to about the meaning of Scripture. Every doctrine he proclaimed, even those listed by Roman Catholic apologists as supportive of their own teachings, he sought to derive from and defend from Scripture. From a Protestant perspective, we may agree with Cyril on sola scriptura and yet take issue with some of his interpretations of those same Scriptures. This is the same attitude the fathers themselves held toward one another.”

-William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. II (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources, 2001), p.55

He then quotes Augustine as an example of this principle:

“For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.”

-Augustine of Hippo, Letter CXLVIII.15

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-01/npnf1-01-23.htm#P5424_2496570

It is the assertion of Roman apologists that sola Scriptura was a theological novelty that was invented in the sixteenth century. By quoting the church fathers, we Protestants are proving this assertion to be completely false. The fact that some of the church fathers disagreed with our interpretation is beside the point. That merely shows the fallibility of human nature. The fact is that the church fathers accepted the Scriptures as the sole infallible authority for the church in their day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/webster/

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/99.htm (Jan. 30, Feb. 6)

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/00.htm (Dec. 16)

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/02.htm (Jan. 5)

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/04.htm (Feb. 12)

Some helpful online reading can be found here:

http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html