Church Fathers Book Recommendations?

[Reformed Catholic]

Hello everyone,

I was interested in reading ancient/medieval sources more, specifically for edification/devotional purposes. What are your best recommendations that have had a great impact on your own lives?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Reformation era sources, especially the Puritans, usually have more devotional value than ancient and medieval ones. One could be edified more by one volume of Matthew Henry's commentary than reading all that was written during the middle ages.

From ancient sources, though, the following are nice:
The sermons of Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom.
Athanasius's On the Incarnation.
Augustine's Confessions.

From medieval authors, anything by Bede, Wessel Gansfort, or Herve of Bourg-Dieu. Jerome of Prague and Jan Huss are nice as well, although not many works of their survive, and they're hard to come by.

The scholastics have no devotional value whatsoever. One would sooner be edified by watching paint dry than by reading Lombard, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, Beale. Even Wycliffe is too scholastic to be of much devotional value, even though he's sounder than the rest.

The soundest pre-reformation Scripture expositions are those of the Greek Fathers (Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others; see the Catena Graecorum Patrum). Even Origen, for all his errors, actually had a pretty good understanding of justification in his writings on Romans. If one is deciding between a post-reformation commentator like Matthew Poole or Johannes Piscator and these pre-reformation writings it's not even a competition, but if one must have something older these are a lot better than, say, the Glossa Ordinaria, or Denis Carthusian, or Thomas's commentaries.

 

[RamistThomist]

A Patristic Linkstorm

This is a database (or will be) of my references to the church fathers. People ask me, “So what should I read?” This might help. Getting the Trinity Right Barrett, Matthew. Simply Tr…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[omniavanitas]

Early Church Fathers

This is a collection that isn't in print anymore (you can find it, but not cheap). There's a Kindle version of it if you don't wanna download them individually, but these are free.

Highly recommend Charles' recommendations as they're both instructive and edifying (haven't read the medieval ones on his list, though). I'd like to add Ambrose of Milan and Gregory the Great (you can find them on the page I linked). They have good OT commentaries that have helped me a lot on this last read-through.

 

[Knight]

See here for free, updated translations.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

Reformation era sources, especially the Puritans, usually have more devotional value than ancient and medieval ones. One could be edified more by one volume of Matthew Henry's commentary than reading all that was written during the middle ages.

From ancient sources, though, the following are nice:
The sermons of Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom.
Athanasius's On the Incarnation.
Augustine's Confessions.

From medieval authors, anything by Bede, Wessel Gansfort, or Herve of Bourg-Dieu. Jerome of Prague and Jan Huss are nice as well, although not many works of their survive, and they're hard to come by.

The scholastics have no devotional value whatsoever. One would sooner be edified by watching paint dry than by reading Lombard, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, Beale. Even Wycliffe is too scholastic to be of much devotional value, even though he's sounder than the rest.

The soundest pre-reformation Scripture expositions are those of the Greek Fathers (Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others; see the Catena Graecorum Patrum). Even Origen, for all his errors, actually had a pretty good understanding of justification in his writings on Romans. If one is deciding between a post-reformation commentator like Matthew Poole or Johannes Piscator and these pre-reformation writings it's not even a competition, but if one must have something older these are a lot better than, say, the Glossa Ordinaria, or Denis Carthusian, or Thomas's commentaries.

Is that how the Reformers themselves saw the church fathers? From my understanding, they greatly revered and respected the church fathers and would cite them frequently to support the idea that they were not creating anything new.

If this is true, I would expect there to be a great deal of value in the Church Fathers, especially the early ones. Oftentimes Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox criticize Protestants by saying that they created something new, and when you admit that there isn’t much value in reading anything before the Reformers, you’re indirectly proving them right. At least that’s what it seems like to me, and it is discouraging

 

[Charles Johnson]

Is that how the Reformers themselves saw the church fathers? From my understanding, they greatly revered and respected the church fathers and would cite them frequently to support the idea that they were not creating anything new.

If this is true, I would expect there to be a great deal of value in the Church Fathers, especially the early ones. Oftentimes Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox criticize Protestants by saying that they created something new, and when you admit that there isn’t much value in reading anything before the Reformers, you’re indirectly proving them right. At least that’s what it seems like to me, and it is discouraging

Calvin used the analogy of "nuggets of gold in a dung heap" to describe the church fathers. There is gold but there's also a lot of junk. The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox mine the dung and throw out the gold. Hopefully, we're mining the gold and throwing out the dung.

My point here isn't that pre-reformation sources are bad. My point is that post-reformation sources are a lot better, because they're just gold, not gold mixed with a lot of nonsense.

The quality of Scripture exegesis and purity of doctrine in something like Cartwright or Piscator or Matthew Henry or Poole or Turretin or Van Mastricht has no parallel in pre-reformation writers. It would be like looking for someone in a first grade classroom to compete with the high schoolers in a math competition. Sure, some first graders are really good at math, but they're not going to rival those with more age and maturity.

Some church fathers were very godly men, and there is a lot of historical value in reading their writings, but the church was immature in those days and if post-reformation theologians are high schoolers, the fathers are first graders. Many of them couldn't even explain something simple, like the nature of justification. They didn't know Hebrew, the western ones often didn't know Greek either, and their understanding of Scripture is often poor, often allegorical, and often fanciful.

I think if you read a passage of the New Testament and compare the original languages, then read Matthew Henry or Poole on the passage, then read Augustine or Jerome on the same passage, what I'm saying will become evident.

 

[TylerRay]

In the section of Calvin's Institutes on the doctrine of the Christian life, he says that for a fuller treatment, one should read the homilies of the Fathers. When I read that, I couldn't help thinking that if Calvin had had the Puritans, he would have recommended them instead, as they give a much fuller and sounder exposition of the Christian life, standing on the shoulders of both the Fathers and the Reformers.

To @Charles Johnson's point, I don't think he would have given the same unqualified commendation of the Fathers on other points, but on practical Christian living, he saw them as generally safe guides. Calvin described the Christian life as consisting in self-denial, cross-bearing, and meditation on the future life, all of which are emphases found in the Fathers.

 

[RamistThomist]

Get Athanasius's Four Works Against the Arians.
Then read everything you can by Cyril of Alexandria.
Read and reread Gregory of Nazianzus's Five Theological Orations.
Read Basil's On the Holy Spirit.

Calvin loved Bernard of Clairvaux, but I could not get into him.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

Calvin used the analogy of "nuggets of gold in a dung heap" to describe the church fathers. There is gold but there's also a lot of junk. The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox mine the dung and throw out the gold. Hopefully, we're mining the gold and throwing out the dung.

My point here isn't that pre-reformation sources are bad. My point is that post-reformation sources are a lot better, because they're just gold, not gold mixed with a lot of nonsense.

The quality of Scripture exegesis and purity of doctrine in something like Cartwright or Piscator or Matthew Henry or Poole or Turretin or Van Mastricht has no parallel in pre-reformation writers. It would be like looking for someone in a first grade classroom to compete with the high schoolers in a math competition. Sure, some first graders are really good at math, but they're not going to rival those with more age and maturity.

Some church fathers were very godly men, and there is a lot of historical value in reading their writings, but the church was immature in those days and if post-reformation theologians are high schoolers, the fathers are first graders. Many of them couldn't even explain something simple, like the nature of justification. They didn't know Hebrew, the western ones often didn't know Greek either, and their understanding of Scripture is often poor, often allegorical, and often fanciful.

I think if you read a passage of the New Testament and compare the original languages, then read Matthew Henry or Poole on the passage, then read Augustine or Jerome on the same passage, what I'm saying will become evident.

Very helpful clarification. Thank you

 

[PreDustined]

I've been getting some good devotional elements from the apostolic Father's from Ante-nicene book 1

 

[paranymph]

Daily Readings – the Early Church Fathers by Nick Needham

Glean from the insights of twelve of the Early Church Fathers. The early church fathers have always had a special place in Christian theology. As the first interpreters of the gospel, their words exude the sheer freshness and tangible reality of the gospel. More than this, they were the...

www.christianfocus.com

 

[RamistThomist]

I've found, with CS Lewis, that reading for doctrine *is* reading for devotion. Reading devotionals is a lot like reading someone else's quiet time experience.

 

[RamistThomist]

Also, find the *best* scholarly material on the fathers and read that. It might be expensive, but it is more worthwhile to read one quality $50 book published by a legit publisher than five $10 conference calvinism books that simply feed off of the previous speaker.

The following series, although not directly related to patristics at all times, is generally outstanding.

Oxford Studies in Historical Theology

Visit Amazon's Oxford Studies in Historical Theology Page and shop for all Oxford Studies in Historical Theology books. Check out pictures, author information, and reviews of Oxford Studies in Historical Theology

www.amazon.com

https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/o/oxford-early-christian-studies-oecs/?cc=pl&lang=en&

And the first thing you should read is Christopher Hall's Four Volume series, Learning with the Church Fathers. And it even has a devotional flair, if people like that kind of stuff.

Christopher A. Hall - InterVarsity Press

www.ivpress.com

The Ancient Christian Commentary series is good, not great, and the expensive price will limit its usefulness. Better to invest in the Ancient Christian Doctrines series and the Ancient Christian Texts series.
https://www.ivpress.com/ancient-christian-texts (obviously, don't buy the whole series at once).

 

[Reformed Catholic]

I've found, with CS Lewis, that reading for doctrine *is* reading for devotion. Reading devotionals is a lot like reading someone else's quiet time experience.

This is true. I don't exclude doctrinal works from being devotional. Nonetheless, I think there are some doctrinal works that have more of a devotional bent than others.

 

[Relztrah]

For assurance and edification, The Prayers and Meditations of St. Anselm is the best I've found.