Although studying the so-called Church "Fathers" can be useful, it is far too often abused to defend a wide range of heresies. Sometimes, it's a newer heresy, such as Theistic Evolution, whose proponents often misquote Augustine. Other times, the heresy is much older than that. Catholics, towards whom this article is mainly directed, are especially notorious for claiming "to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant" (1).
It would be beyond foolish to claim that there is no value in the study of history. Indeed, the irony is the Reformers themselves were quite adept at citing historical sources in their defence, and many Protestant historians continue this tradition today. However, there is a limit to its fruits. Let us not forget that though Christ has been risen for nearly 2,000 years, Satan has been prowling His fields, sowing seeds that grow into many a tare, for just as long.
There are two major problems with building a case upon the Church "Fathers", the first of which is that they were not the Fathers of the Church. The title "Church Father" is both deceptive and revealing. In reality, the Church was set up in the first century, and not upon the backs of the men who bear this name.
A simple question to ask is if the previous generation suffered anything for not knowing the next? Ignatius, for example, was martyred before Irenaeus was born. Was Ignatius' faith lacking? Irenaeus never read a word Eusebius wrote. Was he lacking critical information? Eusebius had returned to the dust before Augustine took his first steps. For what did his faith want?
We can compare the situations between both Testaments here. In the New Testament, it absolutely could be said that the Jews were missing something. The Messiah they had been promised had not yet been raised. Abraham did not even know the Lord's name (Exodus 6:2-3). Thus, we can gladly accept the new revelations brought by Moses, followed by Joshua, followed by the other prophets, followed by the Apostles. Yet when Jude wrote his epistle, he said something very interesting indeed. "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3). The KJV is unique in this particular rendering. Every other translation of which I am aware, including the popular Catholic NABRE, renders this "once for all".
In other words, there is no new revelation we are expected to receive. Every doctrine we could possibly need was given to us in the first century. Now, obviously, this does not prohibit us from expounding upon the faith. This, however, should be limited to explaining what already exists. Lacking the authority of God and His messengers, we should stick very aggressively to the messages we have been given.
For the most part, this is indeed what the Church "Fathers" did. Sadly, being human, they did tend to go off script a little. Many Church "Fathers" had some very crazy beliefs indeed, as we'll see in a moment. But most of the Church "Fathers" were quite firm believers in the authority of scripture, and firmly opposed any idea that one needed extra traditions to adequately interpret them. The aforementioned Irenaeus, for example, wrote, regarding heretics, "When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth." (2).
You see, then, how Irenaeus was firmly against the common attitude of the Catholic Church. Far from regarding himself and his fellow Church "Fathers" as such a great authority that they are essential to interpreting the scriptures, he held scripture in such a high regard as to believe that they are both authoritative and perspicuous. Even when he cites tradition, he submits those traditions to scripture, which he called "...the ground and pillar of our faith."
This is an excellent attitude to have, as we even see from within the scriptures themselves. Read, for example, Psalm 119:97-100: "O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts." Verse 130 further tells us "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple."
We see, then, just how valuable scripture is. Even if you are "simple", you can study scripture, and it will make you wiser than your enemies, give you more understanding than your teachers, and help you understand more than the ancients. It boggles my mind that anyone can read Psalm 119 and still believe they ought to surrender their thinking capacity to their priests, and cardinals, and least of all to the Pope! Not even Paul, a genuine Apostle, enjoyed such cult-like reverence! In Acts 17, we see that the Jews in Berea, when He preached the Gospel to them, tested his words against the revelations they had already received, i.e. the scriptures, and that they were called "fair minded" for it!
For all their flaws, the Church "Fathers" had this going for them: They loved scripture. In fact, they loved it so much that they cited it often in their own teachings. This leads to the second flaw in rushing to them as a defence. To quote William Cunningham: "The substance of the matter is this: The apostolical fathers generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. He who sees Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrines clearly and explicitly taught in the Bible, will have no difficulty in seeing also plain traces of them at least in the works of the apostolic fathers; and he who can pervert the statements of Scripture into an anti-Calvinistic sense, may, by the same process, and with equal ease, distort the apostolic fathers." (3).
This is indeed a major problem. Even if we were to grant the Church "Fathers" an honor greater than is due to them, namely, to consider them divinely guided authorities on par with the Apostles, their words often mirror those of scripture so closely that it is actually difficult to tell when they mean to cite it! One could even argue that but for the controversies and false doctrines each of them faced, we would scarcely have heard of these men. But we do hear of them, and thus we hear their citations of scripture, along with their use of its language, which means he who is able to twist scripture is equally capable of twisting the Church "Fathers".
Of course, this, again, assumes they are worth twisting. How much authority did these men actually wield? In truth, no more than our modern pastors, for even the Apostles were considered mere stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10). That is, when it is received, it must be well used.
And so let us ask, where do we find the mysteries of God? Scripture tells us plainly: It is the primary source by which we may find them. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, we read "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (Emphasis mine).
From this extract, we see why the early Church were so reverent of the scriptures. When God gives a command, it is a sinner who disobeys. When God speaks wisdom, the fool refuses to listen. He who removes from the word of God will swiftly rush to error, and he who adds to it will soon be reproved and found a liar. To change the word of God in any way, be it for man made tradition, or even revelation directly from an angel, is an act of open rebellion against God Himself.
As we see in Galatians, even the truest of God's servants can fail. Paul, who by his own reckoning is least of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:9), withstood Peter to his very face (Galatians 2:11), asking him "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (v14). If Peter can so tragically play the hypocrite, leading astray even Barnabas (Galatians 2:13), then we do not even need to belittle the Church "Fathers" by calling them heretics in order to call them out for their own errors.
Tragically, as can be expected, and contrary to the narrative of the Catholic Church, the Church "Fathers" often contradicted each other, themselves, the Bible, and frankly, common sense. As I read their writings, far from being convinced to become Catholic, I am convinced all the more to bury myself in the word of God, that I may be immunised from the failures of other fallible men. Let's look at some examples.
"Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer." - Jerome (4)
Jerome is a well respected figure in Catholicism. Canonised as a saint, Jerome produced the famous Latin Vulgate. In spite of this, he believed the only purpose of sex was reproduction, and that sex for any other purpose was evil. In fact, Jerome considered it adultery to be "too ardent a lover" of your own wife. This, of course, is in stark contrast to scripture. Aside from the fact an entire book (Song of Solomon) of the Old Testament is dedicated to the beauty of sex within marriage, Paul was especially vocal on the legitimacy of sex within marriage. In Hebrews 13:4, he tells us "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled (...)" (emphasis mine), and in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, He says "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (Emphasis mine).
Does this seem like Paul shares Jerome's view? Far from it, Paul seems to describe sex as if spouses have the right to do it, almost have the responsibility to do so frequently, not only for the purpose of childbearing, but because it is the only context in which natural sexual desires are legitimate. A husband and wife can have as much sex as they want as long as it is exclusive and private. Not only is it not adultery, but regular sex within marriage is actually a great defence against adultery! Jerome's view, therefore, is anti-biblical, and just plain daft. What's worse is that Jerome translated this, yet apparently, putting it on paper does not engrave it on the heart.
It is worth noting that Jerome also said in the same work "And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married." This is quite significant to me personally, as some Catholics, when I quote Origen, dismiss him, because he had the same view (because obviously, when history disagrees with them, it suddenly becomes irrelevant). While they can dismiss Origen, as he is not a canonised saint, they cannot, and very often do not, dismiss Saint Jerome.
I don't necessarily feel the need to use scripture to dismiss this view of Jerome, since Catholics evidently already do, but I will do so anyway, just for the sake of consistency. Jerome claimed that we must maintain that they were virgins in Paradise, and were married only after sin. However, Genesis 2:24-25 clearly identify Adam and Eve not only as husband and wife, but indeed the very foundation for the doctrine of marriage. In His defence against divorce in Matthew 19:1-10 and Mark 10:1-12, Jesus explicitly states that this was the ideal from the beginning of creation. This renders Jerome's statement not only crazy, but contrary to some of the most basic and easily accessible statements of scripture on the topic of marriage.
Justin Martyr shared a similar view to Jerome regarding sex, but he took it a step further: "But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children (...)" (5) This is especially fascinating to me, as to my knowledge, Justin Martyr is one of the earliest proponents of the perpetual virginity myth. Now, if Christians marry only to produce children, for what purpose did Mary and Joseph marry? This leads to a contradiction in Martyr's theological views, as well as contradicting the scriptures mentioned above.
Continuing with this theme is Augustine of Hippo, who said "What difference does it make whether it is in a wife or in a mother, provided we nonetheless avoid Eve in any woman?" (6) and "I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." (7)
It seems sexism is a common theme among the Church Fathers. I am by no means a Feminist, but frankly, Augustine's statements are among the most offensive. I feared I may break my keyboard as I wrote my rebuttals to them.
First, note that it once again causes conflict for the Catholic Church. As of yet, I am unsure if Augustine believed all, or indeed any of the primitive versions of the Marian dogmas, but his statement here would surely conflict with it. "We must beware of Eve the temptress in any woman." Even Mary, who by Catholic reckoning was spared original sin?
Second, and this is the statement that really ticks me off, what kind of man would dare say "I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children"? First of all, is that not enough? Do the scriptures not teach that children are a blessing from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5)? This is not how a real man speaks. Real men cherish women. Our mothers, our sisters, our wives, our daughters, these are extremely precious in God's sight, and in no sense inferior to men in honour or dignity. How is it that a well-respected Christian writer had the audacity to pick up a quill and put such vile thoughts to paper?
Beyond that, what if we switched the statement? "I fail to see what use man can be to woman, if one excludes the function of providing his seed". As far as I am concerned, Augustine was a sexist pig, and way out of line here, demonstrating extreme ignorance. Ignorance common to his time, but ignorance nonetheless, and ignorance that he could have been immunised from had he known his Bible. The Bible says he who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord (Proverbs 18:22). Mary was a woman. Our mothers, whom we are commanded in the scripture to honour, are women. The greatest honor the Bible could bestow upon women is this: Wisdom herself, all throughout the scriptures, is personified as a woman!
The way Jesus spoke to the woman at the well broke several major barriers, including the one between men and women. Who found the tomb empty? Women! This is even one line of evidence that shows the empty tomb is a historical fact. Women were no more regarded in Jesus' day than in Augustine's, and the mere fact that the resurrection was first beheld by "a half frantic woman" (8) was actually preyed upon by anti-Christian sceptical philosopher, Celsus. Augustine, therefore, finds himself more in line with Celsus than with our Lord and Savior, at least in this one issue.
With the above in mind, I hope it seems reasonable that Augustine's insanity renders his word woefully insufficient to validate any Church in my eyes. It is not Biblical, it is disgusting, and I am very very grateful that views like his began to die out after the Reformation.
Radical Asceticism, a low view of marriage, and disgraceful sexism are not the only wacky views of the so-called "Church Fathers". Tragically, many of them were aggressively anti-semitic. Justin Martyr, for example, wrote in His dialogue with Trypho, "The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and your cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of your land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem." (9)
Is this true? Was circumcision really a distinguishing mark to set Jews apart from Christians? Is there even supposed to be a dividing wall between Christians and Jews? Not if Paul (a Jew) is to be believed! In Ephesians 2:11-18, we read "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." (Emphasis mine)
Now, if Christ spilled His own blood to tear down the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile, who is Justin Martyr to set it back up, and who are Catholics to tell me that I must believe him?
John Chrysostom was even worse. According to him, "The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, rapacious, greedy. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them." (10)
Once again, our dear brother Paul, a Jew himself, strongly disagrees. Aside from the Bible's very clear message that hatred has no place in the Christian faith, Paul makes it quite clear that God has not cast away His people. How? By saying "...has God cast away His people? Certainly not! (...) God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew." Anti-semitism has no place in Christianity! Can Chrysostom hate whom God loves? Is it true that no pardon is possible for those of whom Christ cried "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do!"? Can Catholics cast off whom God has chosen? My Catholic friends, if statements like these do not show you that the so-called Church "Fathers" are a terrible source of authority, then you can join these men in their sins, but you alone will bear the consequences.
[Additional note: Catholics have a silly slogan "that's our book you're reading" in reference to their claim that they gave us the Bible. Well, my Catholic friends, that's actually a Jewish book we're reading, and so their authority will always trump yours, even by your own logic.]
I maintain my position that it can be useful to study the writings of the so-called Church "Fathers". And indeed, as Catholics seem to regard them as being so authoritative that they can overrule the Bible, it is all but essential to do so while witnessing to them. However, as I hope I have shown today, the Church "Fathers" are anything but prophets of God. Whether canonised saints, or despised scholars, these men are exactly that: men. Their writings are not inspired, and they are not shielded from all error. Rather, like all men, they are prone to make mistakes, and even the most faithful of them were capable of propagating the most detestable heresies. For as long as my faith endures, I will stubbornly reject anything a Church "Father" says that contradicts scripture, and even that which does not directly contradict scripture, I will take with a grain of salt. I strongly encourage everyone to do likewise, and if you are Catholic because of anything the Church Fathers said, or that you have been told they believed, my only advice to you would be to repent. Their errors just aren't worth repeating. Let God teach you instead.
References
1. Newman, John Henry - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
2. Irenaeus - Against Heresies
3. Cunningham, William - Historical Theology, Volume 1 (link)
4. Jerome - Against Jovinianus, Book 1 (link)
5. Justin Martyr - The First Apology of Justin (link)
6. Augustine of Hippo - Letter to Laetus
7. Augustine of Hippo - The Literal Meaning of Genesis
8. Celsus, cited in Origen - Contra Celsum, Book 2 (link)
9. Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho
10. John Chrysostom - Orations against the Jews