How Should We Read the Church Fathers?

[Prayer Warrior]

Here's the question. Is this spirit telling you something different than what is in the Bible, or reiterating something already there?

Here's another question. Has God ONLY spoken what is written in the Bible, or has He spoken words in addition to what is recorded there?

We know from what is written in God's inspired Word that there were prophetic words and tongues and interpretations spoken by Christians in the churches because Paul addressed this in 1 Corinthians 14. These words spoken by these Christians were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they were not recorded for us to read. I assume that we don't need to know what God spoke through these Christians, or the Holy Spirit would have moved on men to write them down for us. We know that the Apostles spoke words that were not recorded in the written Word.

Indeed, Paul said to desire the spiritual gifts, but especially that we may prophesy. I take these Spirit-inspired words of Paul very seriously.

1 Cor. 14:1-5-- Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
.

 

[reformed1689]

Here's another question. Has God ONLY spoken what is written in the Bible, or has He spoken words in addition to what is recorded there?

No that's not the question, nor is it an answer to what I asked of you. You dodged.

Indeed, Paul said to desire the spiritual gifts, but especially that we may prophesy. I take these Spirit-inspired words of Paul very seriously.

You would do well to do a study on what Paul actually means when he says prophesy.

 

[Giuliano]

One of the great challenges as a Protestant is to know and understand how we came to be. The Reformation is our roots in history, but the Bible is our root in theology. Simply put, to be Protestant means you leave the man-made teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and look towards Scripture as your authority for faith and practice.

Why do I make this point when talking about the Early Church Fathers (ECF)? It is simple. Catholics tend to put an inordinate amount of weight and authority in the ECF. They do this to the point of elevating their writings to the level of Scripture. However, they will tell you that they do not do this. Yet, when shown their interpretation is incorrect Biblically, they will say, “But Origen said…” or “But Iraneus argued….” or “But Clement states…” and so on. When you simply say they are wrong, and point out the error, they will say that are we to know better than those that sat under the Apostles?

This, of course, is a logical fallacy. It is an appeal to authority. However, there is no authority there.

It may be an even worse "logical fallacy" if I were to elevate myself above the early writers, imagining "my private interpretation" was better than theirs or believing that someone 500 years ago who invented new ideas show be given much credence. I rely on "Scripture" for that too.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I also rely on the Jewish writings not as authorities but to check and to compare. If I had an idea and cannot find any precedent for it in either the early Church Fathers or the Jewish writings, I figure I'm probably on shaky ground. I realize these people have different views at times; but I think I need to find some precedents somewhere. For example, the Bible does not say how "trees" there were in Eden. I once got the idea that there were probably seventy; so I checked to see if anyone else ever thought so too. I found out some had.

We do not hold that the ECF were infallible. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the ECF, or the church today, including the Pope, are infallible in any way (though the Catholics will try to argue that there is). So how are we to use the ECF?

The answer to this is not difficult. We should use the ECF as we use any other commentary. It is useful for study and instruction but must always be tested against the Scriptures. The Scriptures and Scriptures alone have the final say in all matters of faith and practice. The ECF did get things wrong, and often, they even contradicted each other. Scripture, on the other hand, has no contradictions. It is the perfect and holy words of God.

I daresay the people who assembled the Bible might not included some of them if they had foreseen the day when a generation would arise which took this view. Some things in the Bible are not going to be understood by relying on Scripture alone. Again I cite Scripture for that view.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

I do not know why you assert the Bible has no contradictions. Several come to mind. Many are of little consequence, but let me return to the concept of "seventy" again. How many souls out of the loins of Jacob were in Egypt? Seventy or seventy five?

Exodus 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.

Acts 7:14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.

I doubt anyone on his own could sort that problem out. That was the result of an error in translation from the Hebrew to the Greek, of course. That may look like a trivial thing, but there are more serious contradictions as well. When people say there are no contradictions in the Bible, it makes me wonder if they remember what they read, or do they only remember what they want it to say?

 

[reformed1689]

I doubt anyone on his own could sort that problem out. That was the result of an error in translation from the Hebrew to the Greek, of course. That may look like a trivial thing, but there are more serious contradictions as well. When people say there are no contradictions in the Bible, it makes me wonder if they remember what they read, or do they only remember what they want it to say?

Good, then you know it is not an actual contradiction. Try again.

 

[reformed1689]

It may be an even worse "logical fallacy" if I were to elevate myself above the early writers, imagining "my private interpretation" was better than theirs or believing that someone 500 years ago who invented new ideas show be given much credence. I rely on "Scripture" for that too.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I also rely on the Jewish writings not as authorities but to check and to compare. If I had an idea and cannot find any precedent for it in either the early Church Fathers or the Jewish writings, I figure I'm probably on shaky ground. I realize these people have different views at times; but I think I need to find some precedents somewhere. For example, the Bible does not say how "trees" there were in Eden. I once got the idea that there were probably seventy; so I checked to see if anyone else ever thought so too. I found out some had.

Classic taking out of context. This is not talking about interpreting what is in Scripture. This is talking about no Scripture was produced out of the private interpretation of man. In other words, this is talking about the Inspiration of Scripture.

 

[reformed1689]

I daresay the people who assembled the Bible might not included some of them if they had foreseen the day when a generation would arise which took this view. Some things in the Bible are not going to be understood by relying on Scripture alone. Again I cite Scripture for that view.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

And how can this not be understood? Please explain.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

No that's not the question, nor is it an answer to what I asked of you. You dodged.


You would do well to do a study on what Paul actually means when he says prophesy.

To ME it is the question, but I won't argue with you about it. I KNOW that the Holy Spirit distributes and uses all of the gifts listed by Paul. It's too bad you and other cessationists don't.

 

[reformed1689]

To ME it is the question, but I won't argue with you about it. I KNOW that the Holy Spirit distributes and uses all of the gifts listed by Paul. It's too bad you and other cessationists don't.

Again, you need to learn what prophesy actually meant in the Greek.

 

[Episkopos]

Here's the question. Is this spirit telling you something different than what is in the Bible, or reiterating something already there?

Does this not reveal the deadness of the religion you espouse? Do you think the Spirit is limited to what is written in the bible?

Can you be told to tarry only in Jerusalem? Can't God articulate speech patterns that are unknown to the bible?

If you live in a city not mentioned in the bible...are you going against the word?

 

[Truther]

I don't read any ECF, nor do I read any commentary anymore.

I only read the Bible as the lone source.

I don't mind historical references, but to listen to commentary which is nearly always wrong in some way....no thanks.

How do we think the Christian faith splintered into hundreds of groups, all thinking theirs is best?

Right, it all began with some fella's "writings".

I don't want what someone has to say about something, but I want the something someone is talking about.

 

[Giuliano]

Good, then you know it is not an actual contradiction. Try again.

It is a contradiction because the manuscripts say 75. Our Bibles say 70 in one place and 75 in another. That is a contradiction.

Stephen's speech contains several other mistakes. Here's another.

Acts 7:16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.

Abraham didn't buy that land. Jacob did.

Genesis 33:18 And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.
19 And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money.

That's an incredible mistake that no one learned in the Old Testament would make and that no one living in Israel then or now would make. Only a Gentile unacquainted with both geography and the Old Testament would have written that. Herod had built a huge monument over Abraham's burial site. It was famous then, and it's well known today. There are so many mistakes in that speech, I am sure someone added it later to the original text. Incredibly the author has Stephen's audience who were educated Jews saying nothing to correct him. Shall I go on with the other errors in that speech that contradict the Old Testament?

 

[Grailhunter]

Again, you need to learn what prophesy actually meant in the Greek.

It is very important to take the words of men, 1500 plus years after that fact....surely they know more than those that knew and were disciples of the apostles....I have a guy down the road here that thinks he has the Protestants beat....Wait another couple hundred years and maybe we will finally know the truth....of course what truth could a Calvinist possibly give you, when his every sentence should begin with....And God forced you....

 

[Giuliano]

Classic taking out of context. This is not talking about interpreting what is in Scripture. This is talking about no Scripture was produced out of the private interpretation of man. In other words, this is talking about the Inspiration of Scripture.

Surely you jest. Interpreting the Bible is not the same as writing it.

And how can this not be understood? Please explain.

The eunuch didn't understand it until Philip explained it to him. Nor did the two Jesus met on the road to Emmaus understand many things in the Scriptures until Jesus explained them.

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[Episkopos]

I don't read any ECF, nor do I read any commentary anymore.

I only read the Bible as the lone source.

I don't mind historical references, but to listen to commentary which is nearly always wrong in some way....no thanks.

How do we think the Christian faith splintered into hundreds of groups, all thinking theirs is best?

Right, it all began with some fella's "writings".

I don't want what someone has to say about something, but I want the something someone is talking about.

It isn't the early church fathers that brought division...it is men like Luther who re-interpreted the bible with a carnal understanding and thus opened up the interpretation of the bible to whatever feels good to the reader.

One day the whole reformation will be seen for what it is...a great delusion. And I say this as a non-Catholic...or from any other human opinion.

The ECF were good examples to all who would follow Christ. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were martyrs who were sacrificed to the pagan mob in the arena. Polycarp was such a godly man that the mob felt that it was wrong to sacrifice any more Christians...and the persecutions stopped for awhile.

 

[reformed1689]

Surely you jest. Interpreting the Bible is not the same as writing it.

And I never claimed that it was.

The eunuch didn't understand it until Philip explained it to him. Nor did the two Jesus met on the road to Emmaus understand many things in the Scriptures until Jesus explained them.

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

And notice the explanation was IN SCRIPTURE.

 

[Episkopos]

Again, you need to learn what prophesy actually meant in the Greek.

Just like the Greek alphabet comes from the ancient Hebrew...so does the terminology of God and His attributes. So you need to understand the Hebrew idea more than the Greek if you want to really know of what you are speaking of.

The new testament doesn't stand without the old. Jesus came to build on the law and the prophets...not abolish these.

 

[reformed1689]

It is a contradiction because the manuscripts say 75. Our Bibles say 70 in one place and 75 in another. That is a contradiction.

Stephen's speech contains several other mistakes. Here's another.

Acts 7:16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.

Abraham didn't buy that land. Jacob did.

Genesis 33:18 And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.
19 And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money.

That's an incredible mistake that no one learned in the Old Testament would make and that no one living in Israel then or now would make. Only a Gentile unacquainted with both geography and the Old Testament would have written that. Herod had built a huge monument over Abraham's burial site. It was famous then, and it's well known today. There are so many mistakes in that speech, I am sure someone added it later to the original text. Incredibly the author has Stephen's audience who were educated Jews saying nothing to correct him. Shall I go on with the other errors in that speech that contradict the Old Testament?

First, it isn't a contradiction between the manuscripts and the Bible. It is a contradiction in one manuscript, the Septuagint, which Stephen would have likely studied, and the Bible. That being said, this is a historical record of a speech that was given by Stephen. The speech itself was not the Word of God. It is only the Word of God as recorded as a historical record. In other words, God wanted it in the historical record of the book of Acts. But that does not make the Bible contradict itself. To say that it does is either dishonest or ignorant.

Second, Again, Abraham and Jacob is not a contradiction either. Abraham did, in fact, have land in Shechem where an altar was built and most likely purchased the land on which he built it. The land at some point reverted to the people of Hamor, likely because Abraham did not settle there. Jacob then repurchased it like Isaac repurchased the well at Beersheba. These are not contradictions. Rather, by stating they are contradictions, it shows you haven't studied closely enough and want there to be contradictions.

 

[reformed1689]

Does this not reveal the deadness of the religion you espouse? Do you think the Spirit is limited to what is written in the bible?

Can you be told to tarry only in Jerusalem? Can't God articulate speech patterns that are unknown to the bible?

If you live in a city not mentioned in the bible...are you going against the word?

You and your nonsense....

 

[reformed1689]

So you need to understand the Hebrew idea more than the Greek if you want to really know of what you are speaking of.

This is literally stupid.

 

[Episkopos]

You and your nonsense....

That's a re-direct. You can't possibly defend a position that allows NO intervention from God that doesn't have a chapter and verse. So you must obfuscate and invert the logic to deflect truth away.

John says that ALL the books in the world cannot contain the works and words of Jesus. The silly nonsense is in your limiting God to just one of those books.