Consent of the Church Fathers

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

“‘But, after all,’ said the Duke of Bavaria to them, ‘can you refute by sound reasons the Confession made by the elector and his allies?’ ‘With the writings of the apostles and prophets-no!’ replied Eck; ‘but with those of the Fathers and of the councils-yes!’ ‘I understand,’ quickly replied the duke; ‘I understand. The Lutherans, according to you, are in Scripture; and we are outside.’”

-A conversation between Dr. John Eck and the Duke of Bavaria, both Roman Catholics, at the Diet of Augsburg, as recorded in J.H. Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Dr. H. White, Vol. V (Rapidan, VA: Harland Publications, reprinted 1846 London edition), p.568.

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

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches boast that their doctrines are affirmed by the unanimous consent of the Church fathers. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church places its infallibility on the line quite a few times in its creeds and councils by saying that their doctrines are in line with the “constant 2,000 year teaching of the Church”. Contrary to their claims, many of the doctrines that they teach cannot be found in the writings of the early Church for many centuries (and sometimes a millennium) after the Resurrection. Some of these doctrines include the Primacy of the Pope, the infallibility of the Pope and councils, many of the Marian dogmas, the authority of tradition, the perspicuity of Scripture, confession and penance, the nature of the Eucharist, and the veneration of images just to name a few. As for the Eastern Orthodox, the doctrines that are not in line with many in the early Church include the infallibility of councils, the authority of tradition, the perspicuity of Scripture, the veneration of images, and the ‘Filioque’.

Having said all that, the Church fathers were by no means Protestants (even though one could make a good case that the apostolic fathers come very close). There were a few issues in which the Church fathers would agree with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy over Protestant Evangelicalism. It is this fact that will be dealt with in this article. Are we bound to follow the Scriptural interpretation of the Church fathers, or are we free to reject their beliefs as the teachings of men? This article will argue that there are many good reasons to embrace the latter.

First, the charge of hypocrisy that is usually made by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox must be dealt with. “You use the Church fathers to argue against both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Isn’t it hypocritical and arbitrary to use the fathers on one point and reject their opinion on another?” they ask. However, this charge of hypocrisy is a misunderstanding of the Protestant argument. While the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches must have the agreement of the Church fathers because of their reliance on ‘Sacred Tradition’, the Protestant does not because of his adherence to the Scriptures alone. In other words, we do not use the Church fathers as proof of doctrine, but rather, they are used to disprove the historical claim of the Greek and Latin Churches to only interpret Scripture according to the “unanimous consent of the fathers”.

So, why should one not accept the writings of the Church fathers as the interpretive grid of Scripture?

1. The theological debates of the early centuries were focused upon Christology.

The Church fathers focused their theological attention upon Christology and Trinitarian issues rather than anything else. This lack of theological debate on other issues resulted in theological speculation on such things as Justification. As Alister McGrath notes:

“The patristic inexactitude and naïveté on the question merely reflects the absence of a controversy which would force more precise definition of the terms used.”

–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2^nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), p.23.

Theological speculation is a far cry from ‘Apostolic Tradition’ or “the constant 2,000 year teaching of the Church”.

2. Lack of Consensus on Important Issues

On many important issues, there was a general lack of any consensus. Again, Alister McGrath:

“For the first three hundred and fifty years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined. There had never been a serious controversy over the matter, such as those which had so stimulated the development of Christology over the period...The medieval period was characterized by its attempts to accumulate biblical and patristic material considered to be relevant to particular issues of theological interpretation, and by its attempt to develop hermeneutical methods to resolve the apparent contradictions encountered in this process.”

–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2^nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.23, 38.

If the early Church preserved the apostolic tradition so well, then why was there a lack of consensus on these important issues? If anything, this proves that the clear message preached by the apostles was distorted at an early age.

3. The Early Corruption of Apostolic Tradition

The apostolic traditions were corrupted at a very early stage. [See the article on the contradictions of tradition.]

4. The Invasion of Philosophy

The early Church began using philosophy as a means of interpreting the Scriptures. As Jaques LeGoff notes:

“The two theologians were indebted to ancient Greece for the idea that the chastisement inflicted by the gods is not punishment but rather a means of education and salvation, part of a process of purification. In Plato’s view this chastisement is a boon offered by the gods. Clement and Origen deduce from this the idea that “to punish” is synonymous with “to educate” and that any chastisement by God contributes to man’s salvation…Their Platonic idea of Christianity led Clement and Origen to take a comforting view of the matter…In keeping with this attitude, the two theologians give a soothing interpretation of the Old Testament passages in which God explicitly uses fire as an instrument of his wrath...Origen develops to the full the theory of purification, catharsis, which came to him from Plato, the Orphics, and the Pythagoreans.”

-Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp.52-53, 55.

The inevitable result was the ‘paganization’ of Christianity. This is clearly seen in the unbiblical doctrines of Purgatory in the Roman Catholic Church and Apophaticism in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

5. The Cultural Influence

When Christianity went outside the Jewish culture (in which it started) as the Lord Jesus commanded, some converted gentiles imported their cultural beliefs into the Scriptures:

“…it is necessary to observe that the early theologians of the western church were dependant upon their Latin versions of the Bible, and approached their texts and their subject with a set of presuppositions which owed more to the Latin language and culture than to Christianity itself. The initial transference of a Hebrew concept to a Greek, and subsequently to a Latin, context point to a fundamental alteration in the concepts of ‘justification’ and ‘righteousness’ as the gospel spread from its Palestinian source to the western world.”

–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2^nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), p.15.

The doctrines of Christianity are bound to the real apostolic traditions, not the Latin language.

6. Even the Church Fathers Admitted Fallibility

The Church fathers never intended themselves to be the standard by which the Scriptures are to be interpreted. Cyril of Jerusalem said:

“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.” (emphasis mine)

-Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.17

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-09.htm#P452_92480

Basil of Caesarea wrote:

“Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.” (emphasis mine)

-Basil, Letters of Basil, Letter CCLXXXIII

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-301.htm#P6114_1915781

John Chrysostom said:

“Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers.” (emphasis mine)

-Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, Homily 9

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-13/npnf1-13-58.htm#P2178_1458414

The early fathers made Scripture the judge of the truthfulness of teachers, not the other way around.

6. Precedent in Augustine

Augustine is an example of a Church father who rejected the traditions of the fathers before him because the clear teaching of Scripture demanded it:

“Vincent of Lerins appears to have formulated his canon within the specific context of his refutation of Augustine’s predestinarianism. The nature of truly catholic doctrine is that it is quod ubique, quod semper, quo ab omnibus creditum est. As Augustine’s doctrine of predestination failed to conform to this triple test of ecumenicity, antiquity and consent, it cannot be regarded as catholic.”

–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2^nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.72-73.

As Augustine stated:

“This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.” (emphasis mine)

-Augustine, City of God 11.3

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-17.htm#P1779_1021077

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

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