# Early Church Fathers



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 26, 2006)

A few questions concerning reading material. Often we here look to the Reformation for our reading but I want to think a bit further back.

Which of the early Church Fathers are good to read? Are there any famous authors which one would do best to stay away from (ie. Gnostics)? Who are the most suprising concerning their theological depth?

So far I have thought of the writings of;

Clement of Rome
Polycarp
Irenaeus
Eusebius of Caesarea

Are any of these wrong? Who should be added? Also what about Origen? I understand there were a few people by this name. Who are safe to read and who are not?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2006)

I've read quite a few the last few months. They are great reading but must be read with discernment. Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ has some beautiful parts. So does his Against Praxeus, his defense of the Trinity. Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word is also good, though be cautious of the easten influence. And you can't go wrong with reading Augustine. He has his faults for sure, but in reading him you can see where Western theology derived much of it's terms and concepts. Chrysostom has much in print to and you will find some very edifying portions. I enjoyed Irenaeus too but he can get quite tedious at times. I still would like to read more. The early fathers have much to offer our times because we live in such similar circumstances as they did with religious pluralism, syncretism, and worldliness.


----------



## Theoretical (Nov 26, 2006)

Origen I believe was thoroughly Semi-Pelagian, maybe even Pelagian. I've always been advised to regard him with extreme care. - Please correct me if I am very wrong.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 26, 2006)

I heard he was Arian but I also heard there were a few men by the same name. Is this true? If so how do you tell them apart?


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 26, 2006)

So Fraser, what you are asking is which Origen is the Origenal? Is that correct?


----------



## caddy (Nov 26, 2006)

There are also some very good material on these guys in Schaff's Church History. Schaff is very _readable_ and interesting. He might be a good start on who to read. I am a huge fan of Augustine. I have the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers--the 1st series, but have not read much of it save Augustine at this point.


----------



## DTK (Nov 26, 2006)

Theoretical said:


> Origen I believe was thoroughly Semi-Pelagian, maybe even Pelagian. I've always been advised to regard him with extreme care. - Please correct me if I am very wrong.


Yes, Origen (185-254), as with all the ECFs, should be read with caution. However to connect the term "Pelagian" with him at all is anachronistic; he lived well before the Pelagian controversy emerged in Augustine's day (354-430). The dates for Pelagius are approximately 354-420.

Moreover, Origen was not an Arian. Again, he predates that controversy as well. But as John Gerstner pointed out, Origen was a good man, but his Christology did pave the way for the views of Arius. 

Origen was very fond of the allegorical hermeneutic, which became rather popular for theologians who followed him in Alexandria.

DTK


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 26, 2006)

Thanks for that. You get all sorts of random information by just searching the web that you wonder what you are achieving.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Nov 26, 2006)

I believe Eusibeius was an Arian, wasn't he? Origen believed in things like the pre-existance of souls and was the first to push the existance of Christ as Chist back into eternity, somewhat along the lines of what we call "Eteral Generation". He's one of the strangest church fathers you'll ever meet, from what I recall. ;-)


----------



## DTK (Nov 26, 2006)

polemic_turtle said:


> I believe Eusibeius was an Arian, wasn't he?



Eusebius of Caesarea (b. 263/264-340?), like many ECFs, was a rather complicated individual, and cannot (as R. P. C. Hanson argues) be formally classified as an Arian. Here's a extract from Hanson's work on the Arian controversy. Though Hanson is/was a liberal compared to our standards of orthodoxy, he is usually accurate as a historian. He devotes a whole chapter to Eusebius of Caesarea in his extensive treatment



> *R. P. C. Hanson:* Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was certainly an early supporter of Arius. He was claimed by Arius as a supporter; he wrote several letters on his behalf and attended at least one local synod which vindicated his views as orthodox and at another synod was censured and disciplined for refusing to condemn propositions ascribed to Arius. But he must be placed in a rather different category from the others because from the point of view of theology he was a much more important person. He was universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day. He left a large body of literary work to posterity. Neither Arians nor anti-Arians speak evil of him. Six later historians paid him the compliment of writing a continuation of his Church History. Though a supporter of Arius he cannot precisely be classified as an Arian.
> 
> Eusebius was not primarily a theologian, though, like all bishops of that period, he was compelled to interest himself in theology. He was an historian and an antiquarian. His style is elaborate and ineffective and he has little skill at expressing his thoughts clearly or preserving strict intellectual consistency. But some of his works were necessarily concerned with theology and on the doctrine in contention, the Christian doctrine of God, he could not avoid expressing himself and had no wish to avoid doing so. R. P. C. Hanson, _The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God_ (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), p. 46.


Hanson devotes an extended section in the above referenced work to Eusebius of Caesarea, showing where he differed from and agreed with Arius in his christology, as well as how he deviated from those we would regard as orthodox in their views. But he defies carefully delineated categories of distinction in his christology, which is why some have labeled him as a semi-Arian, but that too seems to be an overly simplification of his position historically. Hanson concludes his section on him in the following way, "...he gradually moved towards a theological stance which could be called modified Arianism. Eusebius' experience was a demonstration of what could happen if one side of Origen's thought was developed without the balance of the other sides of that many-sided theologian's doctrine being preserved" (p. 59).

Church history can be very messy, and we moderns seem to love categorical distinctions to tidy up such messes.

DTK


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Nov 27, 2006)

Eusibeius was not an Arian but some claimed he was. There were some people at the time who did not believe in the three persons of the trinity but held a more unitarian view. From how I understand it Eusibeius opposed them and opened himself up for elegations that he was Arian. I read the other day in the introduction to his Church History that he made this a bit worse for himself by not attacking the Arians as hard as he attacked the unitarians.


----------



## New wine skin (Nov 27, 2006)

Your thinking of Eusebius of Nicomedia. He was assoc w Arians.


----------

