What's more accurate, Early Church Father writings or modern scholarship?

[Gregory Thompson]

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

This is a slippery slope.

I'll explain.

The early church fathers canonized the bible.

If the ECF writings are scritinized, then so will the bible in future generations - as is the case with the emergent church movements.

 

[Albion]

Can you nail down your point for us by naming a few of the many members of the two councils (Hippo and Carthage) that canonized the Bible?

 

[hedrick]

I don't think the answer is obvious, for two reasons.

First, not that many passages depend upon understanding weird syntax. It's more important to understand the 1st Cent cultural context. I'm not convinced that all the fathers actually did. They were operating in a culture with significant differences from 1st Cent Palestinian Judaism, and many of them were actively hostile to Judaism.

Second, even though the Greek Fathers spoke Greek, a modern comparison would be whether a modern American is more likely to understand 18th Cent British English, compared to Japanese expert in 18th Cent English literature. There's a good chance the Japanese scholar would be the better source.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It depends on the Church Father and it depends on the modern scholar. I generally prefer the Fathers because they had an ancient mindset and were more closely connected to the Apostles and Christ in time and culture than we are today. This valuable for seeing the development in theology and should help us not to create new heresies or unorthodox beliefs. A good Christian scholar will consider themselves to be in a line like this going back to the foundation, not on his own pedestal somewhere else. The value of modern scholarship is the abundance of resources and have fresh perspectives on issues in the past.

As to accuracy, again, it depends on the scholar. I think Bart Erhman is wrong when he denies the historicity of a lot of the New Testament regarding Jesus. The Church Fathers are right to believe Jesus rose from the dead but there are other modern scholars who also believe in the resurrection and the life of our Lord.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

There is truth and error in both camps. This why we need to study the scriptures using Holy Spirit hermeneutics . Be blessed.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Can you nail down your point for us by naming a few of the many members of the two councils (Hippo and Carthage) that canonized the Bible?

Should be able to find the information here.

Work info: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Redwingfan9]

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

No matter who we are talking about we need to ask what a theologians biases are. Today it's important to ask if a modern theologian is influenced by natural law, enlightenment thinking, liberal higher criticism, sciencism etc. The early church fathers don't have these issues to contend with but likely have local biases and influences from paganism in their cultures. One reason to appeal to the early church is that it was much less of a worship and theological free for all, which is the sad state of the modern American church.

 

[Valletta]

They are commentaries nothing more. Most if not all preserved by the Catholic Church. Which by the way persecuted people for not believing as they. And was rather staunch on eliminating people and literature that disagreed with their theology.

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

The Early Church Fathers shouldn't be taken as the only evidence of the original beliefs of the church, and especially not when they disagree among themselves (as often is the case).

But I disagree with the comparison to scientific research. While there is a point to be made there, establishing the beliefs of the early church is more like taking testimony in court.

For one thing, the importance of the ECFs, to the extent that they are turned to for answers, is not in them being translators or interpreters of Scripture. It's in their statements about the beliefs of the church and its members at some point in time, most importantly at the time they were personally observing it.

First-hand witnesses are in a better position to know the actual facts than people who, despite their sincerely and intelligence, are dealing instead with something that has been passed through many hands and over a long period of time.

First, remember that some of the Church Fathers lived long before the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible. Ignatius, for example, was a disciple of John the Evangalist. I''ll give an example. Ignatius wrote about what was believed about the Eucharist. The three leaders of the "reformation" not only disagreed with the Catholic Church on the topic of the Eucharist, but disagreed with each others. Ignatius said : "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." By reading the documents of the early Church fathers and the early Doctors of the Church one can come to a decision as to which of the four, if any, are properly representing the beliefs of Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Toro]

IF both are led by the same Spirit... then neither is more correct than the other.

The problem is, that some people, even IF led by the same Spirit..... take a personal conviction and insist that conviction be carried by all His people or they (according to them) are not led by the same Holy Spirit.

For example, IF the Holy Spirit convicts me to give away all my money and I do so...THAT is obedience. IF I lead others and say "Jesus wants YOU to give away every last dime!"

That is incorrect, for it was a personal conviction given to me. He will certainly give that conviction to others, but not to all.

It is when people take personal convictions and try to press them upon others that it becomes an issue and "error" is found.

For not all are feet, not all are a hand, or a mouth. In general, a foot is not meant to hold a knife, no more than a hand is meant to wear shoes.

All that are His have different walks, but the destination and leader to that destination is the same.

So, IF one truly has Spirit filled direction... neither is any more or less correct. Today, yesterday, tomorrow.

 

[Swan7]

To add onto @Toro, the Book of Acts is a very good read for such a depiction (Paul receives a mission from Jesus Christ but Spirit-led Christians tell Paul not to go to Jerusalem, as an example), and also I think Ephesians speaks about that as well.

 

[Hmm]

All that are His have different walks, but the destination and leader to that destination is the same.

So, IF one truly has Spirit filled direction... neither is any more or less correct. Today, yesterday, tomorrow

So are you saying that God wants there to be different denominations so that we can find the one that best suits us? If so, I find that idea very plausible because they all essentially agree on the main tenets of the faith i.e. those given by the Nicene creed. I say essentially because there is some difference of opinion regarding the filioque. When I read or watch a talk by an informed Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox I get the feeling that they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit even though they say different things about relatively minor issues i.e. those that are outside of the Nicene creed and the main biblical teachings and themes.

 

[Toro]

Not so much that we "find one thats suits us" as everyone's heart is wicked and above even our own understanding of ourselves and just how truly wicked we are.... so it CAN be dangerous to seek out a church that "suits us".

But... also in a way... yes.

Depends solely on which spirit leads one to that denomination or not. If one is lead by the spirit of the world for example that paints a truly false image of who Jesus is or turns God into a genie... then no... seeking out something comfortable and pleasant that suits us ... is wrong.

If lead by the Holy Spirit to a denomination church that one truly finds fellowship, guidance and above all, service to, drawing closer to and TRULY knowing the Lord as who Jesus truly is and to TRULY know God as a Father..(The one who loves, provides and WILL correct His children). then... yes, by all means find what "suits" them.

It is important that the individual has a relationship to the Father, for not all children are told to do the dishes at the same time.

One is told to do the dishes, the other takes out the trash, while still another folds the clothes and another washes.

We should have mutual love and respect for our brothers and sisters in Christ.

We should be more concerned with if our brother or sister truly knows Christ and has God as their Father.... not what day they hold sacred, whether they tithe or any of tge other oetty bickerings the enemy uses to keep us divided.

We are to be set apart from the world, not eachother... a body is hurt when divided against itself.

There ARE legitimate reasons to take issue with a differing denomination (one that truly paints a false image of Christ) but only if that denomination is a true danger to one knowing Jesus and the Father for who they are

 

[Swan7]

Again, to tack onto @Toro post: My dad and I prayed that we would be led to a church that He saw fit for us. Months later He answered us by means of testing the spirit of the church, in which case was the pastor since he is the one leading it. Some churches did not fit the script, so to speak - despite what they say on their website, even after we spoke with them.

So, my dad and I went to the church God moved us to. Keep in mind that even though God sees fit in some people doesn't mean believe them with every word they speak either. We, as humans, still get things wrong, the difference being if we take correction from God or not as His children. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Cis.jd]

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

it depends

 

[chilehed]

Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Someone coming along 2,000 years later knows the language and the times better than the men who were native speakers of the languages and who actually lived during those times? Preposterous.

Clement of Rome learned the Gospel from the mouth of St. Peter. Ignatius of Antioch learned it from the Apostle John, as did Polycarp of Smyrna. There's no way that someone today could understand what the Apostles actually taught better than those who learned it directly from them.

 

[chad kincham]

Christians are lead and taught by The Holy Spirit.

There is scripture that says God is Spirit, and another that says spiritual truths can only be spiritually discerned.

Jesus said we must be born twice...the second birth refers to our spiritual birth, ie our spirit is brought to life.

There is a promise from God, that if we are born again then we will receive the indwelling of The Holy Spirit.

Scripture tells us that we no longer need to teach each other, because we all have The Holy Spirit teaching us directly.

So the deduction would be....no, it would make no difference if we were born in Jesus' time or now...we are being taught the exact same truths by the exact same Spirit. He imparts understanding to us, and that understanding is timeless.

That’s all well and good, but scripture has the final say on doctrines - the Holy Spirit does not replace scripture.

When it says the HS leads us to truth, it means He reveals scriptural truth to us as we study the scriptures.

Where does it say we won’t need teaching?

The Holy Spirit gives gifts that include teaching:

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the WORD of truth.

2Ti 3:16 All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[chad kincham]

Christians are lead and taught by The Holy Spirit.

There is scripture that says God is Spirit, and another that says spiritual truths can only be spiritually discerned.

Jesus said we must be born twice...the second birth refers to our spiritual birth, ie our spirit is brought to life.

There is a promise from God, that if we are born again then we will receive the indwelling of The Holy Spirit.

Scripture tells us that we no longer need to teach each other, because we all have The Holy Spirit teaching us directly.

So the deduction would be....no, it would make no difference if we were born in Jesus' time or now...we are being taught the exact same truths by the exact same Spirit. He imparts understanding to us, and that understanding is timeless.

That’s all well and good, but scripture has the final say on doctrines - the Holy Spirit does not replace scripture.

When it says the HS leads us to truth, it means He reveals scriptural truth to us as we study the scriptures.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Where does it say we won’t need teaching?

The Holy Spirit gives gifts that include teaching:

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Ephesians 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

 

[Swag365]

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

My guess is that you want to throw out the ECF completely in areas whey they disagree with your theology (perhaps the Real Presence, for example). Would that be a fair guess?

I mean, you have modern scholars, using all the modern tools, that agree with the ECF. You have have other modern scholars, using all the modern tools, that disagree with the ECF (not to imply that there is complete uniformity among them on every issue). So even if you conclude that modern scholarship is superior, you still don't have an answer as to whether the Real Presence is true or false.

So to me at least, it seems that your motivation must be to throw out the ECF all together as a source that should be considered in evaluating an issue, where they are fairly uniform and disagree with your theological beliefs.

Of course, that's just my speculation.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

No, it's not. Modern translators have vast resources to draw from, including thousands of pieces of writing, in order to translate and interpret ancient languages into modern English (or another receptor language).,

"Church fathers" had resources available to them but nowhere near the quantity and quality that scholars have today.

How do you know quality and quantity of the resources available to the church fathers? Most records from ancient times don't survive today.

Medicine is an apt comparison. We have far greater knowledge of the human body and medical techniques and applications than ancient physicians had. The same can be applied to Christian wisdom and knowledge.

With the natural sciences, you're studying something that remains constant throughout history. Modern science is the product of centuries of study of what has remained constant. With the social sciences you're studying something that changes significantly throughout history. Historical facts are known to us through written and archaeological records, which generally become fewer and fewer the further back in time we go.

 

[Hmm]

Someone coming along 2,000 years later knows the language and the times better than the men who were native speakers of the languages and who actually lived during those times? Preposterous.

Not "preposterous" at allnif you allow yourself to think about it. Future historians and linguists is very likely to understand the cultural and language of your country better than you do unless you think you have a perfect knowledge of these things. Do you?

Clement of Rome learned the Gospel from the mouth of St. Peter. Ignatius of Antioch learned it from the Apostle John, as did Polycarp of Smyrna. There's no way that someone today could understand what the Apostles actually taught better than those who learned it directly from them.

Did you never misunderstand anything ever said to you by any of your teachers at school. Well?

And please try to be more civil if you reply.