Every Christian is Selective on the Church Fathers, not just Protestants

I enjoy learning from Christians of different traditions. As a Protestant Evangelical, I believe in one holy apostolic catholic Church that shines in different groups. In having friendly dialogue with different Christians, there is something about the Church Fathers that I feel needs to be addressed when understanding differences of theology and denominational identity.

There is no Christian tradition that 100% lines up with all the Church Fathers.

Tensions regarding this can be very high. The last thing I want is any Catholic or Orthodox sibling to read my blog and come away feeling attacked. I want to talk about this in a spirit of humility and charity.

My goal with this blog is not to convince a Catholic or Orthodox Christian to become Protestant. My hope is that we can bring more nuance to the subject of the Church Fathers, Tradition, Scripture, and how we understand all these coming together in our Christian faith.

Do Protestants cherry-pick the Church Fathers?
This is a popular accusation I’ve seen on the internet from Catholic apologists. The argument is that Reformers like Luther and Calvin may not have abandoned the Church Fathers all together, but they severely cherry-picked what they wanted to fit their theological agenda.

I don’t agree with everything Luther and Calvin said regarding the Church Fathers. One small example is that I’ve blogged multiple times about the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch. John Calvin famously dismissed the authenticity of these letters. While I am admittedly not a scholar, and while I do recognize there are scholars to this day that question the letters’ authenticity, I believe there are good reasons to accept the letters as authentic. (Lookadoo, 2021, Pg. 209-213)

But regardless of what different views I may hold to in comparison with some of the Reformers, it is an oversimplification to suggest that Protestantism cherry-picks the Church Fathers while implying Roman Catholicism doesn’t.

To be fair, I have seen Evangelicals cherry-pick the Church Fathers in an irresponsible way. One example would be seeing far-right Evangelicals quote The Didache’s condemnation of abortion to argue that their Pro-Life stance is historical to Christianity.

In chapter 2 of The Didache, Christians are instructed to avoid certain sinful practices such as murder, adultery, theft, sorcery, and abortion. (The Didache 2.2) A similar list of sins that includes abortion is also given in The Epistle of Barnabas 19.5.

In my opinion, other Christians globally have more credibility in quoting The Didache in regards to abortion due to their more consistent upholding to Church history and tradition. Far-right American Evangelicals, however, tend to show a lack of knowledge/care on historical theology, making said reference to The Didache come off disingenuous. On one hand, they are correct regarding abortion as a historically condemned practice by the Church. On the other hand, the allegiance far-right Evangelicals tend to have to an American political party and their adamant fight to own guns at all costs are heavily contradictory to the teachings and spirit of The Didache.

However, with all of that said, there is a difference between carefully selecting traditions from Church history and irresponsible cherry-picking. In my opinion, multiple Reformers did a good job showing how different Church Fathers were consistent with their interpretation of Scripture as well as their ambition to reform the Church. I would also add that despite the poor witness of mainstream far-right Evangelicalism, there are several Protestants today that also do a good job retrieving the Church Fathers for today.

As a Protestant, I can say there are good arguments Catholic friends can make for their tradition using Scripture and the Church Fathers. However, similar to Protestant arguments, this narrative cannot be done by referencing all the Church Fathers and all the theology they wrote, because frankly not everything fits into the doctrines and practices the Roman Catholic Church holds today.

To be fair, one could argue that Protestants are worse at it than Catholics and less consistent. Although I disagree with that claim, that’s also a different argument all together and not the focus of this particular blog. My purpose for this blog is more addressed to the popular notion that all the Church Fathers can be “claimed” by an exclusive denomination.

An honest dive into both the Church Fathers and Church history as a whole shows an overwhelming theological and cultural diversity.

Due to this massive diversity of thought, I don’t think it would be even possible for any Christian denomination to 100% hold to every doctrine taught by the Church Fathers. Why? Because the Church Fathers don’t agree on everything and there would be multiple contradictions. There is simply too much diversity for that, which is where careful discernment must come in.

This is not at all to suggest that the early Church was divided into multiple denominations. The Pre-Nicene Church had diversity, but there was still a broad unity as one Church that was rooted back to the Apostles. In spite of heretical groups coming out of the Church such as Gnosticism, even critics of Christianity like Celsus seemed to have noticed the difference between such groups and the “Great Church”. (Robinson, 2009, Pg. 77)

The bigger point I’m making is in regards to the idea that a Christian denomination today can claim to have the Church Fathers completely on their “side”. From the Pre-Nicene era alone, there are different thoughts from the Church Fathers regarding what is canon to Scripture, the intermediate state of the dead, Trinitarian theology, and Mariology, just to name a few.

Roman Catholicism has used their own discernment in deciding which traditions and theological conclusions from history to hold on to, and which ones to reject. Protestants have done the same, believing they hold to the Christian traditions of old while rejecting later traditions as not aligning with both Scripture and Church history.

Reading the Church Fathers on their terms, not ours
While we should continue to learn from the Church Fathers and apply their wisdom to the Church today, we also need to be responsible for not reading our bias into their writings. One popular example of this is Ignatius of Antioch and his words on the Eucharist.

Ignatius had a strong view of the Eucharist, seeing it as essential to the Christian life. While Ignatius doesn’t give an exhaustive theological description, he makes it clear that the partaking of the Lord’s Supper is far more than mere symbolism. For Ignatius, Jesus Christ is present in the bread and wine.

The most blatant example of this is in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. In condemning a certain group of professing Christians, most likely Docetists, Ignatius says, “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, which the Father raised up by his goodness. Those who deny God’s gift are dying in their squables; it would be better for them to love so that they may rise.” (Ignatius to Smyrnaeans 7.9. Translated by Grant, 1966, Pg. 120)

There is a right way and wrong way to apply Ignatius’ words on the Eucharist. The right way is to recognize that Ignatius challenges the mainstream Baptist view of the Eucharist as merely a symbol for Christ’s sacrifice. He, Justin Martyr, and other Church Fathers believe something much deeper is happening when partaking in the bread and wine. This does not necessarily dismiss the Baptist view all together, but it certainly brings a historical challenge to such a theology.

The wrong way to apply Ignatius’ words on the Eucharist is to argue that Ignatius shows the Church always believed in a doctrine like Transubstantiation. Believing that Christ is present in the Eucharist is not the same as believing in Transubstantiation. The Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Methodist views of the Eucharist (just to name a few) all believe in their own way that Christ is present in the bread and wine.

Ignatius’ words on the Lord’s Supper are strong and definite, but his description is too nuanced to exclude doctrines like Consubstantiation or even Spiritual Presence in fitting his theology. Ironically, John Calvin may have rejected Ignatius’ letters as authentic, but Calvin’s views on the Eucharist could align with Ignatius’! Catholics could certainly look to Ignatius as being consistent with their views on the Eucharist, but so could several Protestant denominations.

Ignatius and all the Church Fathers have to be carefully read on their terms and circumstances, not ours.

Conclusion
There are more examples to give regarding this subject, but I just wanted to share a couple examples for this blog. It is a blessing to both read from Church history and dialogue with brothers and sisters on how we are to apply those who’ve come before us today. But I ask that we do this in humility, good faith, and recognize that we need to be careful in how we both look to the Fathers and how we accuse others of not looking to the Fathers.

Bibliography
Lookadoo, J. (2021). The Letters of Ignatius. In M. Bird and S. Harrower, The Cambridge Companion to the Apostolic Fathers. University Printing House, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, T. (2009). Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations. Peabody, MA. Hendrickson Publishers.
Grant, R. (1966). The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary Volume 4: Ignatius of Antioch. Eugene, OR. Wipf and Stock Publishers.