How NOT to Read the Church Fathers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Excited about reading the Church Fathers? Good. You should be. But as you embark on a journey of reading the Fathers, there are many common pitfalls you'll want to avoid if you're to get the most out of your reading. In this video, I walk through four mistakes to avoid when reading the Fathers and give advice on what to do instead.
If you'd like to join my Church Fathers book club, you can go to / gospelsimplicity
Read the Church Fathers online for free: www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
01:53 - Don't Just Read Excerpts
04:12 - Don't Just Read for Apologetics
08:05 - Don't Just Read Secondary Sources
09:12 - Don't Read Alone
11:42 - Final Thoughts - Розваги
" Your faith should not be about winning arguments, but seeking Christ." YES!
Amen 🙏☦️
Yes, but we do have to seek the truth and share it with others.
Great advice, brother! I like the focus of your channel and the things you talk about
Glad you enjoy it!
As an Orthodox Christian, It is my understanding that we are to read the church fathers with the mind of the church. That is, we cannot read them in isolation, but rather in the context and tradition of the church's understanding.
As a catholic, we'd say the same thing. We'd Also say the same about the scriptures.
@@belyy_rusky As a baptist I would say the same thing too! The World of God is comprised of numerous diferent books, but we should understand that God United them for a reason.
Accept the baptist and Catholics are not the body of christ and both are outside of the church
@@viniciusn.f7463 God used The Church to compile the books of Scripture. Baptists don't even have the full canon. No baptist was present at any ecumenical council because nobody was a protestant for 1500 years AD. Praying for you! All protestants are heretics.
One of the first things I realized reading patristic literature was that none of these writers were Protestants. I found out that I was the one out of step with Church history, not the other way around.
Neither were they Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox in the present day sense either!
@@jamesolson7143 that’s just factual incorrect. They were, as the creed states, part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”.
@@tbojaiyou realize thats a small c catholic and not the Roman Catholic Church, right?
@@Bbos2383 You realize that you are buying into a very old and often repeated false talking point, right? Just because guys like Ortlund claim such an absurdity doesn’t make it true. But why trust me? Why not look to see how the Fathers themselves viewed their own Catholicity?
“…and if you are ever visiting in cities do not simply inquire where the house of the Lord is - for others, sects of the impious attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the lord’ - nor ask merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” -St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures.
“The succession of priests from the very See of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord after His resurrection gave charge of feeding His sheep, up to the present episcopate keeps me here. And last, the very name ‘Catholic’, which not without reason belongs TO THIS CHURCH ALONE, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic’, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point to his own basilica or house.” -St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the Letters of Mani, 4:5
Does that sound like they see themselves as “little c catholics”? Not at all.
You are correct that they were not "Protestants". But to claim that they were "Catholic" in the current definition (ROMAN Catholic), and not "catholic" in the traditional definition, makes me question how you reconcile teachings from many of them that is explicitly different than current Roman Catholic DOGMA, specifically, the 3 most recent dogmatic declarations from Rome.
Of Course, all of this would require you to interpret the writings of the patristic era, or rely on others who have interpreted them...which, in essence, still requires your personal interpretation.
1st tip - YES!
2nd tip - YES! YES! YES !
3rd tip - YES!
4th tip - YES. With spiritual father, YES!
Very good video!
Thank you.
an Orthodox Christian from Greece
Did I miss Austin’s baptism and chrismation? He’s advocating the Eastern phronema, and he’s wearing a shirt that quotes a uniquely Orthodox saying.
yeah..plus the beard...it definetely points to Orthodoxy..hahaha
@@evans3922 I missed the beard. Good observation.
I have nothing to add; this was a great presentation. If anyone is interested in reading more of the early Church, I highly recommend the correspondence between Saints Augustine and Jerome. Their contrasting personalities come through very strongly, and the subject matter (a dispute over the interpretation of Galatians 2) is fascinating.
me too! One of my early use of my late 1990's CD of the entire church fathers was to extract this correspondence because it shed light on a topic that was of great interest to me. And yes their contrasting personalities do come through. Jerome was a famous (infamous) controversialist and it is amusing to see St. Augustine more or less begin to wear him out. Of course, Jerome was a bit older and getting a bit tired as he himself noted. Oh - need to note that this correspondence/debate took place over many years! Many years back and forth on this topic (well they touched on a few other things too).
Most church fathers are Saints and they became saints not because of their apologetic ideas but because of the lives they lived.
The Catholic church recognizes and canonized most of the early church fathers as saints for their holy works for the church. All the early church fathers were Catholic, although some did fall into heresy and were no longer Catholic. Today the Catholic church is still canonizing saints and one of them is Blessed Stanley Rother who is my relative.
God, not the rcc determines who is a saint. all saved are saints,
What I appreciate about your four points is that each of them can be applied to Scripture as well, which helps keep these grounded and understandable!
'On the Incarnation' is awesome. I'm maybe 1/4 of the way through it right now.
Keep going!
"A text without context is pretext for a proof text." I love it. I don't know where this saying came from, but I first heard it back in the early 2000s from Hank Hanegraaff "The Bible Answer Man," back before we both became Orthodox 😊 Still a wise saying!
It certainly didn't come from me! I suspect it's something that Hermeneutics professors have been saying for so long that no one knows who said it first
Thank you so much for the Way of the Fathers podcast recommendation! Very helpful resource.
Any time!
One I would recommend is thinking that they all agreed with each other.
That's a good point
@@GospelSimplicity yeah it was reading the ante nicene fathers and not seeing prayers to saints, prayers to Mary, veneration of icons that made me question how unchanged EO is.
Thank you for sharing this with us! I don't know how I found your channel but I needed to hear this.
You are so welcome!
All great points, Austin. One should not be afraid to hear what those whom were much closer to Christs' time have to say!
Your a legand thanks for great content. Always appreciated
My pleasure!
Such good advice. So wise.
Lovely and spirited speech. ❤As you witness with your insights on Christianity, it has always been much more than just a church, or teaching, or specific interpretation of Bible. As you stated, the faith journey is over winning any argument. May all the Christians unite again, in the true Church of Christ!
You have such a beautiful and relaxing voice. I learned such a lot. Thank you.
My pleasure!
Very Good!
Don’t read the church fathers in your own interpretation like it’s the Bible and respect what they have to say. These men were filled with the Holy Spirit for a reason.
We shouldn't read the Bible in just our own interpretation, either.
You shouldn't read the bible that way either. You will be lead astray. We tend to read as we think in the west. You must think like your a jew in the first century.
Awesome Austin 😊
Aren’t all christian’s filled with the Holy Spirit? Any reasons to hold the church fathers above others would have nothing to do with that.
@@carlossardina3161 would you say then the apostles and normal bealivers are at same level?
we for example as Oriental Orthodox Consider the Church Fathers little bit lesser than the Apostles but are like them.
So there is difference between people who lived perfect life,and people who do not.
just as Christ says there are people who have 100 fold
Those who have 60 fold
And those with 30 fold
which means perfect,middle,and the lesser.
For anyone looking for a good edition of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, I certainly recommend Michael Homes'.
Very important points
Wish I knew others who would read this with me! Excellent!
Well done.
Still doing a good job Austin
What I would like to know from this man is how he learns from the Church Fathers and remain Protestant of any kind?
As a "recent" convert to EO from atheism (1.5 years ago), I approach information in an "apologetical" manner. I understand that is not optimal, but in a sense I discuss against myself and against "imaginary critics" of my faith. I feel like I can't have big holes in my understanding, from where doubts could creep in and take over, specially when I struggle so much trying to leave my bad habits.
I do see a lot of value in reading Patristics in full but there is also value in reading them liturgically like the readings as apart of the Divine Hours or even a more simple office like in the 1979 BCP with the Readings for the Daily Office from the Early Church. The rhythms of the liturgical year are just as important as reading the Fathers in full. At least for me it has been.
I LOVE this video. It's so so important to read the Church Fathers in the context of the society they lived in. It genuinely did shape some of their opinions. For example, a Church Father from a time when paganism in his country was dead would have different opinions about Scripture relating to pagan practices (like nephilim, the tower of Babel) than a Church Father who was surrounded by similar practices
Glad you enjoyed it!
Just choose a work and sit down and read it through, there's really nothing difficult about it. Not only is it good for learning theology, it can be quite entertaining too. St. Athanasios the Great is a bible-thumping firebrand whose energy comes through the page, St. Basil the Great is a literalist with a wonderful sense of sarcasm as contemptuous of philosophy as he was knowledgeable of it, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Dionysius the Areopagite stand at the apex of the Christian mystical tradition, St. Gregory the Theologian writes just exquisite Greek that surpasses even that of Demosthenes and clearly and succinctly states the theology of the Church in a manner intended for the masses to comprehend as well as being one of the greatest Greek poets in history, St. Maximos the Confessor is a cautious writer, always reluctant to say too much, but if you stick with him long enough and give him time he will reveal to you all the mysteries of the universe, and St. Symeon the New Theologian will reveal to you the very Mind of God or at least the path to it, it as he quickly runs into the inherent limitations of human language in such matters, he embodies the famous words of Evagrius of Pontus 'If you are a theologian you truly pray. If you truly pray you are a theologian.'
They are all excellent writers and very learned men, each with their own quirks and with an abundance of virtues, you will learn not only theology but history, philosophy, and anthropology as well, you will learn to think as men then thought, to view the world through their eyes, you will learn their categories and methods, their crafts and their arts, and come to understand the worldview that prevailed from the dawn of antiquity until rise of modernity and in doing so you will also learn of how truly strange and bizarre the modern world has become in comparison.
Plus the Mishna and Talmud were written then too
Gavin Ortlund needs to hear this.
Well, he's a patron of my channel, so there's a chance he already has! But, I trust if he hasn't, none of it will be new to him. He does, after all, have a PhD in historical theology. It would be pretty hard to get through that without learning about how to approach historical texts
@@GospelSimplicity idk.... The rebuttal videos by Joe Heschmeyer, William Albrecht, Trent Horn, etc. make one wonder....
@@GospelSimplicity Well, Gavin for instance quotes Augustine to support Sola Scriptura to justify Protestantism.
But we all know that Augustine is a Bishop of the Catholic Church who wrote "On the Holiness of the Catholic Church" and can be considered a defender of the Catholic Church par excellence.
As you say, the fathers, like scriptures, must be read in context. Rightly so.
THE most important context when it comes to reading Augustine is this:
Augustine was a Catholic bishop and a Doctor of the Catholic Church, a Catholic apologist who made it his lifelong work to defend the Catholic Church against the schismatics and heretics of his day and who believed without doubt that the Catholic Church was THE one true Church established by Jesus Christ Himself. He never wavered from that conviction.
Augustine would be shattered if he knew that his writings would be quoted by those he would consider to be schismatics to attack the Catholic Church he defended so vigorously throughout his life.
@@AL_YZeveryone was Catholic at that point. We will never know what he would say today.
@@austins.1068 Well I wouldn't say they were all Catholics after all the Donatists who broke away from the Catholic Church in 312 even then protested that the Catholic church had been compromised and that Catholic leaders had betrayed the church and Augustine was busy defending the Catholic Church against them.
Also the Oriental churches were on their way to formal schism just a few decades after Augustine in the 450s but the differences were already there.
So while you're right that we can't know what he would say today, you would be hard pressed to find anything he wrote that in any way questioned his position that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
Austin taught me the validity and to appreciate proof texting
And the bad side of it is 'Pre Text'
Thank Man!
Definitely Dr. Gavin could learn from you:
Dr. Gavin: snippeting the Church Fathers, AHA!!! Ammunition
Lovely presentation. Im intrigued to know if youre still attending a non-denominational type 'church' (i don't use the quotation marks to be provocative but because as a convert to catholicism, i dont see those as a church anymore)... And if so, how do you square that with what you're reading in the church fathers? Genuine interest
Quotations can also be misunderstood without context.
Another suggestion is to NOT quote mine, quote mining the Holy Fathers to prove a point is just as bad as prooftexting the scriptures to prove a point
Why? If you are quoting them to prove a point that leads others to truth, that should be commended!
Church father's...not Holy Fathers
@@ajmeier8114 I think the issue is if you aren't actually engaging with what the church fathers are really saying and are just trying to pull quotes to prove your point even if they're out of context. I've seen that happen a lot.
@@ajmeier8114If you're just reading them to prove a point you will never understand what they are saying. Their worldview and presuppositions are so fundamentally different from that of modern western society that we simply cannot approach them with our modern understandings in mind, we must first learn to see the world as they saw it and only then can we make sense of what they said. Same goes for the scriptures if we're being honest, but the world of the scriptures (or at least the New Testament) and the world of the Fathers was largely the same world, the Greco-Roman world, so they are far closer to the scriptures than we are now.
@@costakeith9048 I never said to just read them to prove a point
James Papandrea has some good books and UA-cam videos on the church fathers.
Do we find them online or do we buy books? And yes we can pick and choose but how do we even pick and choose I would like to do this, but I’ve got a find one to start with that makes sense.
I get what you mean the way I do it is I look up different church fathers and martyrs and read their life story
I take in account who did they know, when did they live and where. And what separates them from other theologins
one I personally like a lot is saint Gregory of Nyssa. Though he has some beliefs that I don't agree with I picked him because of his neoplatonic beliefs and I wanted to see how neoplatonism works with Christianity. I also loved his homilies on prayer and the lords prayer which are free online
but yeah main takeaway is do research on specific people and see if they are somone you think have interesting beliefs then look at their works and decide which one to read first
You can do either. I've linked an online resource in the description.
online
In reading the church, fathers, would you say that it has affirmed your Protestant views, or has it persuaded you to question things.
Oh wow, I just read the introduction of "The Lord's Prayer"
Hope you enjoyed it! That's the first reading for our book group on Oct. 3
I don't really agree that you shouldn't read the fathers to prove a point. Yes, everything we should do is to seek Christ. But reading them to "win arguments" is often reading them to lead others to the truth of the early Church and the truth of Christ.
This implies to the Word of God too.
Yep!
Not only how ... but where to start?
Oh, you've given an answer to this.
I already know atleast one is holding the book upside down.
😂
Wherever the bishop shall appear,
there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is,
there is the Catholic Church.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8,
St. Ignatius of Antioch, AD 107
❤orthodoxy Is ALIVE❤
the cornerstone is in Rome
Neoplatonists and Stoics mainly.
jrsus and the 12 were the church fathers.
Πολυ και σχετικα ευκολο ειναι οι 50 ομιλιες του Αγιου Μακαρίου του Αιγυπτίου γιατι μιλαει πολυ απλα και με παραβολες ,οι ελληνες πατερες ειναι πιο δυσκολη κατα τη γνωμη μου.Αλλα ο Μεγας Αθανασιος συμφωνω μαζι σου ειναι απλα φανταστικος
Strange. Never considered molesting any text 🤯
If I remember correctly Jesus said call no man on your Earth your father.
Well, John referred to certain church members as "fathers":
"...I am writing to you, FATHERS, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one." 1 John 2:13
also
Paul referred to himself as "father":
"....Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your FATHER through the gospel." 1 Cor 4:15
"...But you know how Timothy has proved himself. Like a son with his FATHER he has served with me in preaching the Good News." Phil 2:22
Paul called Abraham "father":
"....so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring-not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the FATHER OF US ALL." Rom 4:16
"....he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the FATHER of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them." Rom 4:11
"...This dear woman, a DAUGHTER of Abraham, has been held in bondage by Satan for eighteen years. Isn’t it right that she be released, even on the Sabbath?” Luke 3:16
"...Know then that it is those of faith who are the SONS of Abraham." Gal 3:7
Jesus confirmed the father-son relationship with Abraham and he is "father":
"...Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a SON of Abraham." Luke 19:9
"...“You hypocrites!” the Lord replied, “Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it to water? Then should not this DAUGHTER of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be released from her bondage on the Sabbath day?” Luke 14:15
In the next verse he likewise says to call no man teacher. Yet despite this, Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father and teacher. Either scripture contradicts itself, or there is context to Christ's statement which needs to be understood
@@kylejacobson9587 scripture does not contradict itself. The context is, Paul might refer to himself as being a spiritual father and teacher, but in obedience to Jesus injunction he did not expect any of his converts to actually *call* him father or teacher. There is a difference..
@@TeeG-er3eh So you can read Paul's mind? He calls himself a spiritual father and a teacher, he doesn't in any way prohibit or discourage others from using it, with the most natural conclusion being that he expects people to consider him what he declares himself to be.
Do you have a word to describe your male parent? Do you have a word to describe the person who instructs you in school?
@@kylejacobson9587 show me one verse where he tells his converts to call him father or teacher.
Why do we call them a "Father". Didn't Jesus say not to do that?
You have never called or referred to your dad as Father? He also said call no one teacher. He’s not speaking literally
@@markweakland1984What's metaphorical about his injunction to call no man father, and how do you interpret that metaphor?
@@markweakland1984 The context is about who we look to for spiritual guidance and humility in what we allow others to call ourselves. It seems clear that the labelling of spiritual leaders as Father/Rabbi/Teacher or allowing oneself to be called the same is contrary to what Jesus taught.
@@trappedcat3615"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." 1 Cor. 4:15
St. Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father to many. If taken literally, then, St. Paul would appear to be in direct violation of Christ's command by referring to himself this way. However, that's clearly not the case, as Christ's command is not about never using the term "father".
Mark, how do you know that He's not speaking literally here? Are you coming to this conclusion by private interpretation? @@markweakland1984
Church Fathers were Catholic priests.
.. *Dont read church Fathers like Gavin Ortlund*
By this comment do you mean searching the fathers for some nuance that doesn’t fit with ultimately how the Church came to view things in order to undermine the Catholic faith?
Having read the fathers for myself - it often seems like that to me whenever I hear him speak on these things
I am still waiting to hear him find in the fathers those who don’t believe in a visible (meaning particular) church founded by Christ or those who deny the binding authority of the church hierarchy etc
@@mikeoconnor4590 That is exactly what Gavin does he reads them with a view of finding amo for apologetics. Not that some catholics and EO don't do that themselves. A good point that stands out is that even those things which are so straightforward in church Fathers his denomination does not practice so I don't get the point .
@@yalechuk6714 he certainly misses the big picture
Why do we call them Fathers or even Holy Fathers when Jesus said explicitly not to call anyone your father because there is One we have - Who is in heaven, Our Father?
That's what happens when you have the wrong interpretation like some Protestant groups.
@@theRockSalter I’m not a Protestant. I’m not classified or defined by man. That is from a Scripture from the Word of God.
@@shayalynn I never said you were Protestant. I said you had the wrong interpretation. Cheers!
@@theRockSalter The Scriptures speak for itself. It plainly says to not call anyone on earth your father?
@@theRockSalter You alluded to it just like every Catholic or Orthoxody. I’m always called things by you guys. Don’t you understand that the Scriptures are prophecy? They are spirit and they are truth? “The words I speak to you are spirit and truth” is what Jesus said. Isn’t it strange how the Catholic Church has matched every single woe mentioned? Do you think it’s possible it was prophecies what would happen to the early assemblies of the Way? I’m surprised that more don’t think about why Paul felt an urgency to warn the shepherds of the flock to keep watch for there would be wolves from *themselves* would sneak in and devour the flock. Then in Revelation, in the message to the Ephesian ecclesia (assembly), it mentions about false apostles?? Where and when do you think this fulfillment took place?