# Book on Reformation appeals to the Fathers?



## Davidius (Jan 7, 2009)

Does anyone know of a book that documents how the Protestants and Catholics differently used the Church Fathers in polemical literature during the Reformation?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 7, 2009)

Davidius said:


> Does anyone know of a book that documents how the Protestants and Catholics differently used the Church Fathers in polemical literature during the Reformation?



Sounds interesting. 

From the Reformation literature I've read, the appeal to the fathers seems to be selective; in other words, it was limited to the things they got right, as the particular author understood, rather than as infallible guides. "Trust but verify" as we accountants say.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 7, 2009)

Don't know of one that does just this, although I am certain that Muller's 4 volume masterpiece does some of this. On the issue of worship, you can seek to find Hughes Old's book "The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship."


----------



## py3ak (Jan 7, 2009)

Anthony N.S. Lane's _John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers_ might give you some general pointers in that direction.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Jan 7, 2009)

Davidius said:


> Does anyone know of a book that documents how the Protestants and Catholics differently used the Church Fathers in polemical literature during the Reformation?


Good question. For the Calvinist side, you might want to read over the Anglican Homilies, which you can find online. Many of these homilies cite the Fathers extensively. 

Also John Calvin himself was one of the best patristic scholars; I think that there was nothing that he wrote that wasn't historically part of the church's teaching.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 7, 2009)

Thanks for the help so far. Primary sources are good, too, but I'm really looking for a scholarly work that would give a good overview, make connections, provide a bibliography, etc. If I can't find something, I'll probably write it for my dissertation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 7, 2009)

I don't remember where (sorry, it might have been on Triablogue, quoting a recent author) but I read recently that the discipline of "patristics" was basically a Protestant invention.

Until the Renaissance, why should there even be this discipline? The churches E/W were split, few people in the Latin world spoke or cared much for Greek. And Rome just said "Trust us, whatever we say has been _quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est_ otherwise we wouldn't be saying it!"

Then come the early humanists, then come the Reformers on their heels, and they are ransacking the Fathers, etc, for what they actually taught and held, and looking for support. Lo and behold, there's quite a bit there. These aren't completely "new doctrine," just because Rome says so. Plenty of churchmen in old-time could read Scripture's plain sense, and they could theologize. In fact, a bunch of stuff Rome says _is as old as Peter,_ frankly, isn't.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 7, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't remember where (sorry, it might have been on Triablogue, quoting a recent author) but I read recently that the discipline of "patristics" was basically a Protestant invention.
> 
> Until the Renaissance, why should there even be this discipline? The churches E/W were split, few people in the Latin world spoke or cared much for Greek. And Rome just said "Trust us, whatever we say has been _quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,_ otherwise we wouldn't be saying it!"
> 
> Then come the early humanists, then come the Reformers on their heels, and they are ransacking the Fathers, etc, for what they actually taught and held, and looking for support. Lo and behold, there's quite a bit there. These aren't completely "new doctrine," just because Rome says so. Plenty of churchmen in old-time could read Scripture's plain sense, and they could theologize. In fact, a bunch of stuff Rome says _is as old as Peter,_ frankly, isn't.



That's fine. I'm just interested in what the polemics were. Obviously we were both looking at the same bible and coming to different conclusions, but since the Protestants were bringing us back to apostolic doctrine, and the Catholics said they were maintaining apostolic doctrine, they were coming to different conclusions by reading the same texts. I'm just interested in seeing what the key texts were, how they were used, who used them, etc.


----------



## Grafted In (Jan 7, 2009)

From what I have read in Calvin's _Institutes_ he uses the Father's in a polemical way, often positing a counter interpretation to Medieval Catholic interpretations. 

If you look at the McNeil edition of the _Institutes_ you might find some bibliographical information in McNeil's excellent footnotes that will lead you to some other scholarly works that have analyzed the varying uses of the Fathers, RC and Reformed. 

Of course, I think that McNeil's edition was published in 1960, so it will not give you anything recent to work with.

I would be interested in knowing what you find.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 8, 2009)

If you find something that addresses that, or write it yourself, let me know. I'd be interested in seeing a detailed analysis of the differences in the way that RCs and Protestants cited the fathers.


----------



## DTK (Jan 8, 2009)

py3ak said:


> If you find something that addresses that, or write it yourself, let me know. I'd be interested in seeing a detailed analysis of the differences in the way that RCs and Protestants cited the fathers.


Ruben,

You have already recommended one of the very best books that deals with Calvin's use of the ECFs by Lane.

One set that deals with the differences in the way that Romanists and Protestants made use of the ECFs would be the two volumes edited by Irena Backus, _The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists_, published by Brill, particularly vol. 2. There are many different contributors who composed the chapters in this set. 

Anything published by Brill is very expensive, but this set can be obtained in paperback, which makes them slightly more afforable.

DTK


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 8, 2009)

Thanks


----------



## Davidius (Jan 8, 2009)

DTK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > If you find something that addresses that, or write it yourself, let me know. I'd be interested in seeing a detailed analysis of the differences in the way that RCs and Protestants cited the fathers.
> ...



That sounds like an excellent place to start. Who were the Maurists?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 8, 2009)

DTK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > If you find something that addresses that, or write it yourself, let me know. I'd be interested in seeing a detailed analysis of the differences in the way that RCs and Protestants cited the fathers.
> ...



I wrote no such book, David. What's up with you?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 8, 2009)

Those seem like good volumes to obtain. Thanks for the information, Rev. King. I knew Lane often referred to Irena Backus, but the cost of Brill books is something of a hurdle.


----------



## DTK (Jan 8, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Those seem like good volumes to obtain. Thanks for the information, Rev. King. I knew Lane often referred to Irena Backus, but the cost of Brill books is something of a hurdle.


Ruben,

A. N. S. Lane's volume, Calvin, _Student of the Church Fathers_, is, I think, the most substantial volume dealing with this subject as it respects Calvin. A. N. S. Lane's research is very extensive. Just the sheer statistics that he compiles for Calvin's use of the Fathers, let alone his analysis, is staggering.

DTK


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2009)

These guys aren't exactly Reformed but more Evangelical-ish. Haven't read them so can't really say, but seemed pertinent to the issue.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Scripture-Church-Fathers-Christopher/dp/0830815007/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231436197&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Reading Scripture With the Church Fathers: Christopher A. Hall: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Theology-Church-Fathers-Christopher/dp/0830826866/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b]Amazon.com: Learning Theology With the Church Fathers: Christopher A. Hall: Books[/ame]

Colin Gunton, a Reformed scholar, employed the Church fathers in his corpus. His book _The Triune Creator_ is an example. I really disagree with Gunton on his interpretation of Scotus and Aquinas, but the book is good on Irenaeus.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Triune-Creator-Historical-Systematic-Constructive/dp/0802845754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231436376&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: The Triune Creator: A Historical & Systematic Study (Edinburgh Studies in Constructive Theology): Colin E. Gunton: Books[/ame]


----------



## py3ak (Jan 8, 2009)

DTK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Those seem like good volumes to obtain. Thanks for the information, Rev. King. I knew Lane often referred to Irena Backus, but the cost of Brill books is something of a hurdle.
> ...



Rev. King, yes I was going cross-eyes at times wondering how he arrived at such precise statistics and sorting through his tables! The amount of labour that went into that volume is staggering.

I read the _Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers_ volume Ivanhoe links to a few years ago. At the time I was profoundly unimpressed; he didn't exactly appeal to my better nature by starting off with a sort of apology for there not being church mothers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2009)

Again, I can only vouch for the Gunton work (I just posted the other two because they seemed relevant). The Gunton work is amazing, even if he is wrong on Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, and Darwin.


----------



## DTK (Jan 8, 2009)

py3ak said:


> I read the _Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers_ volume...a few years ago. At the time I was profoundly unimpressed; he didn't exactly appeal to my better nature by starting off with a sort of apology for there not being church mothers.



Yes, I've read it too. Ditto to your comments.

DTK


----------

