Reading the Fathers

[The Calvinistic Methodist]

Hello! I went for it! I’m finally exposing myself to the church fathers! So my my only exposure has been reading Polycarps biography and letter to the Philippians!

I am also to some extent, familiar with Augustine (though I don’t know if he is a father or not?)

My question! What should I look out for? Where should I start? I bought the Baker academic Greek-English edition by Michael W. Holmes. What are some theological insights I should look for? Any errors or contextual things I should know about? What has been your experience reading the fathers?

Thanks!
-Ryan

 

[RamistThomist]

Hello! I went for it! I’m finally exposing myself to the church fathers! So my my only exposure has been reading Polycarps biography and letter to the Philippians!

I am also to some extent, familiar with Augustine (though I don’t know if he is a father or not?)

My question! What should I look out for? Where should I start? I bought the Baker academic Greek-English edition by Michael W. Holmes. What are some theological insights I should look for? Any errors or contextual things I should know about? What has been your experience reading the fathers?

Thanks!
-Ryan

I'm not a trained expert on the Fathers, meaning I haven't done any official graduate work on them. That said, I've probably read more of the Fathers than 99% of laymen. I've also read most of the scholarly literature up to 2012. Here is my "off the cuff" answer:

The Apostolic Fathers: the time period between the death of John and the ministry of Justin Martyr. In terms of theology, they are underwhelming. At most, with the exception of Ignatius and Polycarp, you'll get a pastiche of bible verses. Although Tatian and Papias are important for textual criticism.

The Apologists: Namely, Justin Martyr. Fascinating polemic with Judaism. Valuable for showing how the church worshiped.

Irenaeus: THE most important Father between Justin and Athanasius. In fact, he probably ranks just below Athanasius, Cyril, and Nazianzus for all time greatest fathers.

Clement and Origen: heavily Platonic, although Clement is safer than Origen. Origen's problems are well-known, but he is important for showing the transition to the Nicene debates.

The Nicene Age: Obviously, Athanasius is the most important father here--and the most important of all time. But do not let Athanasius's On the Incarnation crowd out his Orations Against the Arians. From there move to Gregory of Nazianzus, particularly his Five Theological Orations. This is theology at its finest.

Basil and Gregory of Nyssa: Basil is the most practical of the fathers and in many ways, one of the easiest to read. Nyssa is a bit Platonic, but his Catechism is quite good.

I'm skipping Cyril of Alexandria because that demands an analysis of how Cyril used the term hypostasis, which isn't intuitively what we think.

 

[MW]

What has been your experience reading the fathers?

Oftentimes it seems like I am reading children. But the church had to start somewhere. Every now and then they drop an absolute gem. But that gem still needed to be polished.

 

[Phil D.]

@RamistThomist - any thoughts on Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem?
Also, Chrysostom and Augustine (assuming you consider him a father...)

 

[RamistThomist]

@RamistThomist - any thoughts on Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem?
Also, Chrysostom and Augustine (assuming you consider him a father...)

Cyprian: very clear writer; his view of the church got him into trouble.

On the Church: Select Letters (Cyprian)

St Cyprian of Carthage. ed. and trans. Allen Brent. On the Church: Select Letters. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006. The background to Cyprian’s various controversies is the Decia…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Cyril of Jerusalem is good. He summarizes more than anything.

Chrysostom is valuable for commentary work.

So much has been written on Augustine that I have little to add. I've always been a bit underwhelmed by him, to be honest.

 

[TheInquirer]

In my opinion, when Augustine is at his best, frankly there is no one better. There is a reason Western theology has been called "A Footnote on Augustine." However, his writing style and thinking is different than what we are used to and can be a challenge to understand at first. Additionally, there is much we would disagree with as Protestants in certain areas.

There is much today that is called "Calvinism" that should rightly be called "Augustinianism." After all, one guy formulated it 1,100 years earlier than the other.

 

[davejonescue]

In my opinion, when Augustine is at his best, frankly there is no one better. There is a reason Western theology has been called "A Footnote on Augustine." However, his writing style and thinking is different than what we are used to and can be a challenge to understand at first. Additionally, there is much we would disagree with as Protestants in certain areas.

There is much today that is called "Calvinism" that should rightly be called "Augustinianism." After all, one guy formulated it 1,100 years earlier than the other.

I am not sure, I havent researched this much, but I think I read somewhere that the difference between Augustinianism and Calvinism is that Augustine believed that God wills that all should be saved, but seeing mans incapability, elected some as vessels of mercy. While Calvin believed God sovereignly elects some to salvation and others to reprobation. Meaning in the case of Augustine, God only elects and the rest are reprobate by proxy. While Calvin believed God not only elects, but predestines some to damnation. Again, I could be wrong about this.

I dont know, I am looking forward to getting Augustines Works, L.W. as my next big, year-long Logos purchase. I usually take one out a year on payment plans. Right now, I got 13 payments left on the one I am working on. So it will be a bit.

 

[MW]

Yes, Calvin is Augustine 2.0. All the bugs have been resolved. It's a much better operating system.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Yes, Calvin is Augustine 2.0. All the bugs have been resolved. It's a much better operating system.

That would make the Puritans (including the Westminster Standards) Augustine 3.0. Another upgrade to the operating system

 

[TheInquirer]

That would make the Puritans (including the Westminster Standards) Augustine 3.0. Another upgrade to the operating system

Personally I find Calvin dry, boring to read, and not very spiritually edifying. I find much more spiritual life in Augustine and the Puritan's. Calvin was good at what he did and made a tremendous contribution at a very important time in history but if I am looking at systematics and commentaries to use now, he isn't my go to guy on either of those (commentary set is going up for sale shortly).

 

[Charles Johnson]

Personally I find Calvin dry, boring to read, and not very spiritually edifying. I find much more spiritual life in Augustine and the Puritan's. Calvin was good at what he did and made a tremendous contribution at a very important time in history but if I am looking at systematics and commentaries to use now, he isn't my go to guy on either of those (commentary set is going up for sale shortly).

I think the Institutes are anything but dry. On the level of style and rhetoric it's probably the best systematic ever written. In terms of solid proofs, force of argumentation, detail, and analysis though, Polanus, Walaeus, Hoornbeeck, Van Mastricht, Turretin all do better.

Additionally, Calvin has an acerbic tone that unfortunately feeds into a lot of young men's cage stage zeal.

His commentaries were probably the absolutely best in 1560 but by 1650 they had already been surpassed to a great measure, much less today. Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Piscator, etc are simply better researched, more thoughtful, and do better at getting at the true meaning of the text in most cases.

All in all I think everyone should at least read the Institutes through once. The commentaries are alright to compare with others but I wouldn't make them the one commentary one uses in preparing a sermon. If one only has time to read one commentary, Poole's Synopsis and Piscator are both good options. Cartwright is unsurpassed in the books he wrote on, which is just the gospels, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

 

[TheInquirer]

It’s a preference thing and not a knock on his contribution - I just don’t connect with Calvin’s style for some reason and don’t find myself getting the same “bang for my buck” when reading him vs others. Entirely subjective opinion here.

It’s interesting how different people connect with authors. I love Bavinck and Van Mastricht but when I tried to read them with friends, they didn’t like them (they are clearly deficient individuals and I am looking forward to their complete sanctification in the life )

 

[Charles Johnson]

It’s a preference thing and not a knock on his contribution - I just don’t connect with Calvin’s style for some reason and don’t find myself getting the same “bang for my buck” when reading him vs others. Entirely subjective opinion here.

It’s interesting how different people connect with authors. I love Bavinck and Van Mastricht but when I tried to read them with friends, they didn’t like them (they are clearly deficient individuals and I am looking forward to their complete sanctification in the life )

I've starting finding Van Mastricht more fruitful after beginning to look up all the Scripture texts cited.

 

[TheInquirer]

That’s the beauty of God working through the men He raises up - using all the unique personalty attributes, thought processes, intellects, and communication skills along with how their own cultural contexts shaped them. God’s providence on full display.

I never understood the wisdom into getting locked into one guy, seems like a misunderstanding of how God works through the body of Christ. I remember getting annoyed at Piper recommending to his listeners to deep dive into one guy instead of reading more broadly. On the flip side, I don’t understand the wisdom of reading a book a week either (probably modern junk food anyway).

 

[TheInquirer]

To put it another way, I tend to think of an author and his place/contribution in the stream of historical theology and find benefit in picking the outstanding contributors throughout that entire stream. Getting fixated on one person or era is a bit “stunting” and misses out on God’s working in other eras.

 

[The Calvinistic Methodist]

To put it another way, I tend to think of an author and his place/contribution in the stream of historical theology and find benefit in picking the outstanding contributors throughout that entire stream. Getting fixated on one person or era is a bit “stunting” and misses out on God’s working in other eras.

That’s largely why I am jumping into reading the Fathers. I was raised in a free-will Baptist church that neglected all of church history post NT. Since I have come under the reformed conviction I have been immersing myself in the reformers and the puritans exclusively! Looking to broaden my scope of thought to contemporary and ancient theologians.

 

[Pictet]

I'm skipping Cyril of Alexandria because that demands an analysis of how Cyril used the term hypostasis, which isn't intuitively what we think.

I've found few of the Fathers more helpful than Cyril. There's a reason he's one of the only Fathers whose writings have been recommended by an Ecumenical Council, and it's also worth keeping in mind the way that liberal (and other) theologians have tried to paint him out of history since the Nineteenth Century. It's extraordinary that he's not properly covered in the Schaff set, for instance. He's unfortunate that our main biographical sources about him come from his enemies - we wouldn't think much of Luther or Calvin if that's how we learned about him.

The more I read him, the more I spot points where Calvin relied on him.

Yes, his terminology wasn't up to date, but really that's a simply matter of understanding that he uses a couple of terms wrong. The actual theology is as solid as they come. His Commentary on John is stellar, as well as the more polemic writings.

And Augustine: he sometimes takes time to engage with; superficially his exegesis often seems horribly allegorical; but the more you dig in the more he grows on you. Even the exegesis is better than it looks, under the surface - he often comes to the points and applications we do, even if the method of getting there seems different, at least on the surface. But in terms of love and of delight in God's grace he's second to none. Sure, the Reformed Scholastics are better if you simply want to get clear on theological points, but if you want to love God more and appreciate his grace, then Augustine is fantastic. There is a reason that every major reform movement in the Western church - not just the reformation - can be traced either to him or to people primarily influenced by him. Everyone should read the Confessions as a minimum! Along with Athanasius On the Incarnation it's probably the best book to start with as you tackle the Fathers.

 

[py3ak]

Hello! I went for it! I’m finally exposing myself to the church fathers! So my my only exposure has been reading Polycarps biography and letter to the Philippians!

I am also to some extent, familiar with Augustine (though I don’t know if he is a father or not?)

My question! What should I look out for? Where should I start? I bought the Baker academic Greek-English edition by Michael W. Holmes. What are some theological insights I should look for? Any errors or contextual things I should know about? What has been your experience reading the fathers?

Thanks!
-Ryan

The term "fathers" can be used in more than one way. The Apostolic Fathers is a more limited set. The Church Fathers are wider, and include Augustine.

In the collection you're referencing, the Epistle to Diognetus is magnificent, and of course the martyrdom narratives are stirring and there's useful exhortation in the letters of Ignatius. Understanding where you are in history, you can appreciate firmness in basic confession and profound commitment to godliness more so than illuminating interpretations of Scripture or deep theological instruction.

The imitation of Scriptural models in 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas is historically interesting to see what people were working with and what jumped out at them, but there are places where the distance between the model and the imitation can be a bit painful.

In the Church Fathers you find a wide range of abilities. I found Athenagoras a thrilling delight to read, but got stuck in invincible tedium with Gregory Thaumaturgus.

People read with different goals and expectations in mind. As a general rule, we get most out of an author when we read him receptive to the kind of thing he was trying to do (in the case of authors who had the ability to more or less do what they intended). If that's not possible, reading with historical sympathy can help us appreciate even where we don't agree. Frustration often comes when we read a text to extract from it what the author never put in.

 

[MW]

That would make the Puritans (including the Westminster Standards) Augustine 3.0. Another upgrade to the operating system

They are more like adding Office to the program.