Comments

The creation of this program is to be welcomed in every way. Recent church history suggests, at the same time, that the persons least likely to profit in any even-handed way from the study of the Early Church are disgruntled evangelical Protestants who proceed on the assumption that the branch of the church they have been connected to, to date, is a "poor cousin" to the "real".

I am referring here to branches of evangelicalism which have stood on a kind of a "primitivist" foundation and thought that they were the epitome of the book of Acts today. Evangelical Protestants in confessional traditions, by contrast, (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and some Baptists)can approach the Early Church with the healthy confidence that their branch of the Christian tradition has _already_ wrestled with the relationship of Protestantism to Christian antiquity and the relationship of tradition to Holy Scripture.This historic approach can be tested,built upon, and (where necessary) corrected.

Yet some of the most popular guides to these questions in the past quarter century have, alas, started from the disgruntled evangelical Protestant standpoint; they were past the point of finding anything from the ancient past that could affirm them in their current form of evangelicalism. The question instead was that of where else in the Christian tradition they could find a congenial home. I refer here to writers such as Peter Gilquist, Thomas Howard, Michael Harper and the late Robert Webber. Three of these were running from evangelical fundamentalism or the parachurch; one left the comprehensive Church of England for Antioch.

The paradox of this desertion-syndrome is that while disgruntled fundamentalists seek solace in a romantically-constructed facsimiles of the Early Church, the global church - oblivious to these niceties, marches on with its own Book of Acts style approach to doing church. This has disgruntled evangelicals doing embroidery, seeking the perfecting of their Christianity (even while the Western Church is moribund)while the global church advances without the benefit of this kind of theological reflection.Neither is ideal.

So, the key must be to find "resources" in the Early Church rather than a "template" to be taken up again and repeated.
If Wheaton's program can advance the first approach, the whole American evangelical church will benefit. If it even unwittingly advances the second vision, the net effect will be the further depletion of the evangelical church, which is itself a bona fide movement of the Spirit.

Ken Stewart

Posted By: Ken Stewart | April 30, 2009 1:12 PM

David, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Is this center based in a Masters program? Or are there plans for a doctoral program?

Ken, as always, you've added depth and richness to the conversation. Thanks! May we engage in truly nuanced and mature reflection on tradition, rather than using the Great Tradition as a stick with which to beat our own churches.

Posted By: Anonymous | April 30, 2009 3:08 PM

Didn't Fuller Seminary start out that way? Evangelical, even inerrantist, and today it is a seminary whose professors constitute a wide variety of Christianities and faith traditions?

Posted By: Edward T. Babinski | May 2, 2009 11:29 AM

this is splendid and exciting news, indeed.

the only degree i hold is an honorary one; but while not a scholar in traditional terms, as a pastor and chaplain who seeks to be a responsible practitioner of verities, values, forms and dynamics handed down through the centuries from ancient israel, the early church and beyond i have a vested interest interest in such studies .

when the eleanor of aquitaine character in 1968's film, "the lion in winter," uttered the words, "every family has its ups and downs," about her dysfunctional medieval nuclear family she was spot on about the larger christian family as well. in most families it seems that often the source material of those ups and downs can be traced to the very headwaters of that family. (i.e. our earliest forebears in the garden.)

i suspect that so much of what is both right and wrong with any facet of the christian family can be traced back to the patristic era. isn't it logical that the "generational curse" of the "sins of the fathers" would continue to manifest in subsequent generations (exodus 20, numbers 14, deuteronomy 5, jeremiah 32?) many have observed that there has really emerged no new heresy since those early times and that each new emergence is in fact just a re-emergence in a new era and sometimes in a new suit of clothes.

but it would also seem to follow that the various and diverse merciful riches (perhaps alluded to in the same referenced scriptures) that are embodied and enjoyed by each facet of the family have also come down to us through whichever branch of the family tree our clan happens to be connected.

in some respects i wonder if the study of patristics should not rank second only in importance to the study of the heroics, foibles and failures of all the characters in the scriptures both in ancient israel and the apostolic era. observing them we find soundings and metrics for our own lives and behavior, both good and ill. there we find understanding of our temperaments, how to celebrate our heroics and how to handle our foibles and failures.

one thing i have learned not only through lengthy sojourns among evangelicals, charismatics and anglicans but also in the ecumenical community of the robert e. webber institute for worship studies is that every branch of the family tree has blind spots and deficiencies. but i have also observed that every facet of the family also has incredible treasures in its storehouse that are hidden and unknown to the rest of us.

the study of patristics and the origins of those blindnesses and treasures can only help us become more understanding of one another on our road to becoming one as father and the son are one.

i give thanks for this program and pray an outpouring of god's abundant blessing on it!

thanks for this news david and to the authors of these other thoughtful comments.

shalom to all~

Posted By: darrell a. harris | May 2, 2009 12:14 PM

In 1963 at the encouraging of a great Black Historian at Lincoln Univ. (MO), I began doing research in church history. That effort would cover more than 250 sources and all 2000 yrs. of church history and amount to some 3000 5x8 notecards with material recorded on both sides of the cards. It was organized only by authors. The project went on for 6 yrs. The question I have for those involved in establishing this new center for the study of the early church fathers is how much will they allow for the study of those who were persecuted by those claiming to be Christians as the ones persecuted did? I remember reading about how the Montanists, Novationists, and the Donatists fled to the Alps to escape the tyranny of the state church. I also read about the Paulicians and how they would do the same. And then there was a Waldensian Historian who said there were no heretical or sectarian groups in the Alps prior to Peter Waldo, It made me wonder as I thought the Alps look like the cross roads for ever out of sync group prior to Waldo. And then there was the fact that the Inquisitor in the 1200s (R. Saccho) who stated that the Waldensians had churches even then in Constantinople and in Philadelphia (as in Rev.3 Philadelphia). I also read where the last commander of the Roman Empire in Britain was the son of the pastor of the Novation church in Constantinople and how he became the successor to his father. And then there was the committee the Waldensians sent to South India to see how the church there was doing. All these warm fuzzies of togetherness remind me that man is stll totally depraved, and when those who only think they are converted get into positions of power they will reveal their true colors in acts of horror. Mr. Lewis' That Hideous Strength rather cogently makes the point that only the coming down of Heaven to earth as in what History knows as a Great Awakening is the only hope we have. Will the study of the early fathers take that reality into account?

Posted By: Dr. James Willingham | May 2, 2009 3:04 PM

Good Evening:

I am considered a "Armchair Historian" for original Biblical Studies of the church. If you guys are serious about looking at the original church that was established in Acts chapter two; then how do you explain and teach to your students Ephesians 3 without telling them something that isn't true?

There is one Faith, Body, & Christ. If the Bible is the "God-breathed" final message to his people, then we must accept what is written as the final truth from God.

I have written (3) books. Books one and two are available from www.amazon.com and the third one is available at www.sable-publishing-house.com.

1- ISRAEL the 51st State
2- Secular Humanism
3- The Search...for the Church That Christ Built

I would like to be invited as a guest lecturer at Wheaton and present my writings to your students.

Thank you,
Morris Bowers
1.256.233.2082

Posted By: Morris Bowers | May 2, 2009 7:52 PM

Thank-you, D. Harris for your comments. They express my heart as well. While a missionary mother in Guatemala I took solace in all the Christian History magazines that came to "Christian Academy of Guatemala" and began my journey into deeper understanding of our present faith in light of our shared past. Growing up Swedish Covenant, then Presbyterian, but working among all the rainbow of denominations, I knew that our "oneness" was of vital importance.

We returned to the US in 1999, after 25 years of ministry in Latin America, and I embarked on a course of study that eventually allowed me to earn a Masters in Religion from Trevecca Nazarene University. There I thoroughly enjoyed learning the Arminian mindset (though never quite convinced that I could ever leave my beloved Lord and Savior). I continue to read and study, though the big dream of teaching church history eluded me.

Maybe I'll look into what Wheaton has to offer online, or by extention. Until then, I will continue to extend guidance and love in the spiritual development of my 4 children, their spouses, and our grandchildren. In these relativistic times, we must know who we are, where we came from, and how, with love and compassion we move into our future. Somebody said once, "Be careful how you live, not as unwise people, but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil."....

Grace and peace from God our Father.

Posted By: Linda Herod | May 2, 2009 7:58 PM

It is heart-warming to hear that such a prestigious evangelical Protestant school as Wheaton College is starting a Early Church study program.

It is especially comforting that Prof. George Kalantzis will be in charge of the program.
(I had a pleasure of meeting George at SBL last year, hearing his presentation, and being personally acquainted.)

The Church Fathers of the Early Church, especially, the Orthodox Fathers of the East are not sole property of the Greek Orthodox Church.

As their title point out, they are the Fathers of the whole Church of Christ, our common heritage.

They are the ones who assembled the Scriptures as we have now, who first started exegete the Scriptures, and who clarified and consolidated our fundamental doctrines.

As the Orthodox Church would say, the Fathers are the ones who kept what Jesus gave and the Apostles taught.

However, the Protestant seminaries have been largely ignoring the great legacy.

Thus, many Protestants like myself had to study the Fathers of the Early Church at Orthodox seminary or Catholic school and Protestant scholars have to teach at those schools.

I hope what Wheaton College is doing is spread out to other evangelical Protestant seminaries.

A word for Early Church study program at Wheaton College:

Do not approach the Early Church and the Fathers to find proof texts to back up the doctrines and practices of our Protestant denominations.

Yes, it is important to approach them as the evangelical Protestants.

However, it is more important to accurately and unbiasedly study them as they believed, said, and acted.
Let them speak for themselves first.

In reflection, we might find proofs or precedence for our own doctrine and practices, but we might also find some errorneous doctrines and practices of ours in comparison with those original and truthful ones of the Fathers.

Then, we should try to correct our errors.

If we don't "learn" from the history, what's the use of studying the history?

Posted By: Samuel Park | May 2, 2009 11:00 PM

The Old Testament
General Outlines

Who is the author of the Old Testament?

One wonders how many readers of the Old Testament, if asked the above question, would reply by repeating what they had read in the introduction to their Bible. They might answer that, even though it was written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, the author was God.

Sometimes, the author of the Bible's presentation confines himself to informing his reader of this succinct observation which puts an end to all further questions. Sometimes he corrects it by warning him that details may subsequently have been added to the primitive text by men, but that nonetheless, the litigious character of a passage does not alter the general "truth' that proceeds from it. This "truth' is stressed very heavily. The Church Authorities answer for it, being the only body, With the assistance of the Holy Ghost, able to enlighten the faithful on such points. Since the Councils held in the Fourth century, it was the Church that issued the list of Holy Books, ratified by the Councils of Florence (1441), Trent (1546), and the First Vatican Council (1870), to form what today is known as the Canon. Just recently, after so many encyclicals, the Second Vatican Council published a text concerning the Revelation which is extremely important. It took three years (1962-1966) of strenuous effort to produce. The vast majority of the Bible's readers who find this highly reassuring information at the head of a modern edition have been quite satisfied with the guarantees of authenticity made over past centuries and have hardly thought it possible to debate them.

When one refers however to works written by clergymen, not meant for mass publication, one realizes that the question concerning the authenticity of the books in the Bible is much more complex than one might suppose a priori. For example, when one consults the modern publication in separate installments of the Bible in French translated under the guidance of the Biblical School of Jerusalem [ Pub. Cerf, Paris], the tone appears to be very different. One realizes that the Old Testament, like the New Testament, raises problems with controversial elements that, for the most part, the authors of commentaries have not concealed.

We also find highly precise data in more condensed studies of a very objective nature, such as Professor Edmond Jacob's study. The Old Testament (L'Ancien Testament) [ Pub. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris "Que sais-je?" collection]. This book gives an excellent general view.

Many people are unaware, and Edmond Jacob points this out, that there were originally a number of texts and not just one. Around the Third century B.C., there were at least three forms of the Hebrew text: the text which was to become the Masoretic text, the text which was used, in part at least, for the Greek translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the First century B.C., there was a tendency towards the establishment of a single text, but it was not until a century after Christ that the Biblical text was definitely established.

If we had had the three forms of the text, comparison would have been possible, and we could have reached an opinion concerning what the original might have been. Unfortunately, we do not have the slightest idea. Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cave of Qumran) dating from a pre-Christian era near the time of Jesus, a papyrus of the Ten Commandments of the Second century A.D. presenting variations from the classical text, and a few fragments from the Fifth century A.D. (Geniza of Cairo) , the oldest Hebrew text of the Bible dates from the Ninth century A.D.

The Septuagint was probably the first translation in Greek. It dates from the Third century B.C. and was written by Jews in Alexandria. It Was on this text that the New Testament was based. It remained authoritative until the Seventh century A.D. The basic Greek texts in general use in the Christian world are from the manuscripts catalogued under the title Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican City and Codex Sinaiticus at the British Museum, London. They date from the Fourth century A.D.

At the beginning of the Fifth century A.D., Saint Jerome was able to produce a text in latin using Hebrew documents. It was later to be called the Vulgate on account of its universal distribution after the Seventh century A.D.

For the record, we shall mention the Aramaic version and the Syriac (Peshitta) version, but these are incomplete.

All of these versions have enabled specialists to piece together so-called 'middle-of-the-road' texts, a sort of compromise between the different versions. Multi-lingual collections have also been produced which juxtapose the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic and even Arabic versions. This is the case of the famous Walton Bible (London, 1667). For the sake of completeness, let us mention that diverging Biblical conceptions are responsible for the fact that the various Christian churches do not all accept exactly the same books and have not until now had identical ideas on translation into the same language. The Ecumenical Translation of the Old Testament is a work of unification written by numerous Catholic and Protestant experts now nearing completion [ Translator's Note: Published December 1975 by Les Editions du Cerf and Les Bergers et les Mages, Paris] and should result in a work of synthesis.

Thus the human element in the Old Testament is seen to be quite considerable. It is not difficult to understand why from version to version, and translation to translation, with all the corrections inevitably resulting, it was possible for the original text to have been transformed during the course of more than two thousand years.

ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE

Before it became a collection of books, it was a folk tradition that relied entirely upon human memory, originally the only means of passing on ideas. This tradition was sung.

"At an elementary stage, writes E. Jacob, every people sings; in Israel, as elsewhere, poetry preceded prose. Israel sang long and well; led by circumstances of his history to the heights of joy and the depths of despair, taking part with intense feeling in all that happened to it, for everything in their eyes had a sense, Israel gave its song a wide variety of expression". They sang for the most diverse reasons and E. Jacob mentions a number of them to which we find the accompanying songs in the Bible: eating songs, harvest songs, songs connected with work, like the famous Well Song (Numbers 21, 17), wedding songs, as in the Song of Songs, and mourning songs. In the Bible there are numerous songs of war and among these we find the Song of Deborah (Judges 5, 1-32) exalting Israel's victory desired and led by Yahweh Himself, (Numbers 10, 35); "And whenever the ark (of alliance) set out, Moses said, 'Arise, oh Yahweh, and let thy enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee nee before thee".

There are also the Maxims and Proverbs (Book of Proverbs, Proverbs and Maxims of the Historic Books), words of blessing and curse, and the laws decreed to man by the Prophets on reception of their Divine mandate.

E. Jacobs notes that these words were either passed down from family to family or channelled through the sanctuaries in the form of an account of the history of God's chosen people. History quickly turned into fable, as in the Fable of Jotham (Judges 9, 7-21), where "the trees went forth to anoint a king over them; and they asked in turn the olive tree, the fig tree, the vine and the bramble", which allows E. Jacob to note "animated by the need to tell a good story, the narration was not perturbed by subjects or times whose history was not well known", from which he concludes:

"It is probable that what the Old Testament narrates about Moses and the patriarchs only roughly corresponds to the succession of historic facts. The narrators however, even at the stage of oral transmission, were able to bring into play such grace and imagination to blend between them highly varied episodes, that when all is said and done, they were able to present as a history that was fairly credible to critical thinkers what happened at the beginning of humanity and the world".

There is good reason to believe that after the Jewish people settled in Canaan, at the end of the Thirteenth century B.C., writing was used to preserve and hand down the tradition. There was not however complete accuracy, even in what to men seems to demand the greatest durability, i.e. the laws. Among these, the laws which are supposed to have been written by God's own hand, the Ten Commandments, were transmitted in the Old Testament in two versions; Exodus (20,1-21) and Deuteronomy (5, 1-30). They are the same in spirit, but the variations are obvious. There is also a concern to keep a large written record of contracts, letters, lists of personalities (Judges, high city officials, genealogical tables), lists of offerings and plunder. In this way, archives were created which provided documentation for the later editing of definitive works resulting in the books we have today. Thus in each book there is a mixture of different literary genres: it can be left to the specialists to find the reasons for this odd assortment of documents.

The Old Testament is a disparate whole based upon an initially oral tradition. It is interesting therefore to compare the process by which it was constituted with what could happen in another period and another place at the time when a primitive literature was born.

Let us take, for example, the birth of French literature at the time of the Frankish Royalty. The same oral tradition presided over the preservation of important deeds: wars, often in the defense of Christianity, various sensational events, where heroes distinguished themselves, that were destined centuries later to inspire court poets, chroniclers and authors of various 'cycles'. In this way, from the Eleventh century A.D. onwards, these narrative poems, in which reality is mixed with legend, were to appear and constitute the first monument in epic poetry. The most famous of all is the Song of Roland (La Chanson de Roland) a biographical chant about a feat of arms in which Roland was the commander of Emperor Charlemagne's rearguard on its way home from an expedition in Spain. The sacrifice of Roland is not just an episode invented to meet the needs of the story. It took place on 15th August, 778. In actual fact it was an attack by Basques living in the mountains. This literary work is not just legend ; it has a historical basis, but no historian would take it literally.

This parallel between the birth of the Bible and a secular literature seems to correspond exactly with reality. It is in no way meant to relegate the whole Biblical text as we know it today to the store of mythological collections, as do so many of those who systematically negate the idea of God. It is perfectly possible to believe in the reality of the Creation, God's transmission to Moses of the Ten Commandments, Divine intercession in human affairs, e.g. at the time of Solomon. This does not stop us, at the same time, from considering that what has been conveyed to us is the gist of these facts, and that the detail in the description should be subjected to rigorous criticism, the reason for this being that the element of human participation in the transcription of originally oral traditions is so great.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/3old.htm#ORIGINS%20OF%20THE%20BIBLE

Posted By: arah | May 3, 2009 1:16 PM

Please stay within the guidelines of the holy scriptures, do not cross lines, angle from side to side, but stay straight to the word. Do no pick one view of Christian history but embrase those that are proven true no matter
what is at stake.

Good luck and May God bless in this work.

Posted By: Lloyd Walraven | May 3, 2009 3:06 PM

Re: "What does George Kalantzis hope to accomplish? He is very clear that this should not be a nest from which students can swarm to Eastern Orthodoxy. It is not what the donors had in mind (although they are themselves Greek Orthodox). Instead, this program is about seeing the early church tradition as the common roots of evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox.

“By studying the early church,” George says, “we are studying about our commonalities much more than our differences.

“Our goal is to understand our common tradition, explore it, live with it, be with it, instead of just going back and plundering it—finding the eight quotes to justify whatever I want to do.”

+ + +

The irony is too delicious!

I am a former-Evangelical who traveled to the Orthodox Church via the route that Kalantzis is laying out for the students of Wheaton College, namely, I studied the writings of the Church Fathers.

Much to my chagrin, I learned that these Fathers were not proto-Evangelical Protestants! The faith that the believed, lived and died for was nothing like any of the forms of evangelical Protestantism.

Like a another famous convert from Protestantism, I learned that:

"Whatever be historical Christianity, it is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it...This is shown in the determination already referred to, of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men would never have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it...To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Proestant. To remain an evangelical Protestant, the e-P will be forced to do exactly what Kalantzis said that Wheaton students would not do, "going back and plundering it—finding the eight quotes to justify whatever I want to do."

Good luck Wheaton College Early Church scholars! I'll see you when you make it to your final destination, the Orthodox Church!

Posted By: Anonymous | May 4, 2009 9:52 PM

Isn't it weird that if any of the Church Fathers showed up personally at Wheaton, they would not be allowed to teach.

How could they possibly sign the Statement of Faith, when it is plainly heretical in light of the teachings of the Church Fathers?

Posted By: Anonymous | May 4, 2009 10:29 PM

I periodically teach an adult class (age 60s). Is there a good video that I could use on church history? Even something designed for home schoolers could work.

Posted By: Richard | May 7, 2009 6:44 AM

So, does that mean that Orthodox Christians will now be welcome to Wheaton's graduate programs? I eagerly requested information a few years ago and was treated very well, but was given every indication that my reservations about the Statement of Faith (which, being Orthodox, I am bound to have) would be a severe obstacle for admission. In the end I didn't apply, which is a shame, because I really would have liked to have the chance to study exegesis at a place committed to a high view of Scripture.

Posted By: Anonymous | June 9, 2009 11:34 PM

This is a very inspiring read. History is such an awesome study, it maybe about early church or the history of other nation. We get to learn valuable lessons in life and try to apply it.

Posted By: Dentist Torrance | August 25, 2009 9:09 PM

Thank you for posting. I really enjoyed reading this. If anything reading about the early church and it's history can teach us so much not only about the past but about our future. Thanks again

~andrew

312 azusa street

Posted By: andrew jones | February 2, 2010 10:59 AM

Isn't it weird that if any of the Church Fathers showed up personally at Wheaton, they would not be allowed to teach...I think so..

Posted By: du hoc uc | April 7, 2010 2:37 AM

I would be interested in discovering exactly which part of the following statement of faith is "plainly heretical in light of the teachings of the Church Fathers?"

WE BELIEVE in one sovereign God, eternally existing in three persons: the everlasting Father, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy Spirit, the giver of life; and we believe that God created the Heavens and the earth out of nothing by His spoken word, and for His own glory.

WE BELIEVE that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.

WE BELIEVE that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, was true God and true man, existing in one person and without sin; and we believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, in His ascension into heaven, and in His present life there for us as Lord of all, High Priest, and Advocate.

WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.

WE BELIEVE that our first parents sinned by rebelling against God’s revealed will and thereby incurred both physical and spiritual death, and that as a result all human beings are born with a sinful nature that leads them to sin in thought, word, and deed.

WE BELIEVE in the existence of Satan, sin, and evil powers, and that all these have been defeated by God in the cross of Christ.

WE BELIEVE that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice, triumphing over all evil; and that all who believe in Him are justified by His shed blood and forgiven of all their sins.

WE BELIEVE that all who receive the Lord Jesus Christ by faith are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become children of God and are enabled to offer spiritual worship acceptable to God.

WE BELIEVE that the Holy Spirit indwells and gives life to believers, enables them to understand the Scriptures, empowers them for godly living, and equips them for service and witness.

WE BELIEVE that the one, holy, universal Church is the body of Christ and is composed of the communities of Christ’s people. The task of Christ’s people in this world is to be God’s redeemed community, embodying His love by worshipping God with confession, prayer, and praise; by proclaiming the gospel of God’s redemptive love through our Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth by word and deed; by caring for all of God’s creation and actively seeking the good of everyone, especially the poor and needy.

WE BELIEVE in the blessed hope that Jesus Christ will soon return to this earth, personally, visibly, and unexpectedly, in power and great glory, to gather His elect, to raise the dead, to judge the nations, and to bring His Kingdom to fulfillment.

WE BELIEVE in the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, the everlasting punishment of the lost, and the everlasting blessedness of the saved.

Posted By: Jason | June 1, 2011 10:46 PM

One can't speak of the Fathers as a monolith, but the first line of the "creed" you quote wouldn't pass muster with the Cappadocians. Apologies for the long reply but this essay on Trinitarianism may be helpful:

"Some 30 years ago, Karl Rahner claimed that most Christians are “mere monotheists,” that if the doctrine of the Trinity proved to be false, the bulk of popular Christian literature, and the mindset it reflects, would not have to be changed. Unfortunately, this is largely still true.
Defining the doctrine of the Trinity as a mystery which cannot be fathomed by unaided human reason invites a position such as Melanchthon’s: “We adore the mysteries of the Godhead. That is better than to investigate them.” But the danger of not reflecting carefully on what has been revealed, as it has been revealed, is that we remain blinded by our own false gods and idols, however theologically constructed.
So how can Christians believe in and worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet claim that there is only one God, not three? How can one reconcile monotheism with trinitarian faith?
My comments here follow the structure of revelation as presented in Scripture and reflected upon by the Greek Fathers of the fourth century, the age of trinitarian debates. To avoid the confusion into which explanations often fall, it is necessary to distinguish between: the one God; the one substance common to Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and the one-ness or unity of these Three.
The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the world “God” (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures. This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: I believe in one God, the Father…”
“For us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 8:6). The proclamation of the divinity of Jesus Christ is made no so much by describing Him as “God” (theos used, in Greek, without an article is as a predicate, and so can be used of creatures; cf. John 10:34-35), but by recognizing Him as “Lord” (Kyrios). Beside being a common title (“sir”), this word had come to be used, in speech, for the unpronounceable, divine, name of God Hiself, YHWH. When Paul states that God bestowed upon the crucified and risen Christ the “name above ever name” (Phil 2:9), this is an affirmation that this one is all that YHWH Himself is, without being YHWH. This is again affirmed in the creeds. “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God… true God of true God.”
According to the Nicene creed, the Son is “consubstantial with the Father.” St Athanasius, the Father who did more than anyone else to forge Nicene orthodoxy, indicated that “what is said of the Father is said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father” (On the Synods, 49). It is important to note how respectful such theology is of the total otherness of God in comparison with creation: such doctrines are regulative of our theological language, not a reduction of God to a being alongside other beings. It is also important to note the essential asymmetry of the relation between the Father and the Son: the Son derives from the Father; He is, as the Nicene creed put it, “of the essence of the Father” – they do not both derive from one common source. This is what is usually referred to as the Monarchy of the Father.
St Athanasius also began to apply the same argument used for defending the divinity of the Son, to a defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit: just as the Son Himself must be fully divine if He is to save us, for only God can save, so also must Holy Spirit be divine if He is to give life to those who lie in death. Again there is an asymmetry, one which also goes back to Scripture: we receive the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead as the Spirit of Christ, one which enables us to call on God as “Abba.” Though we receive the Spirit through Christ, the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, yet this already implies the existence of the Son, and therefore that the Spirit proceeds from the Father already in relation to the Son (see especially St Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius: That there are not Three Gods).
So there is one God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit, three “persons” (hypostases) who are the same or one in essence (ousia); three persons equally God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really distinct, known by their personal characteristics. Besides being one in essence, these three persons also exist in total one-ness or unity.
There are three characteristics ways in which this unity is described by the Greek Fathers. The first is in terms of communion: “The unity [of the three] lies in the communion of the Godhead” as St Basil the Great puts it (On the Holy Spirit 45). The emphasis here on communion acts as a safeguard against any tendency to see the three persons as simply different manifestations of the one nature; if they were simply different modes in which the one God appears, then such an act of communion would not be possible. The similar way of expressing the divine unity is in terms of “coinherence” (perichoresis): the Father, Son and Holy Spirit indwell in one another, totally transparent and interpenetrated by the other two. This idea clearly stems from Christ’s words in the Gospel of John: “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (14:11). Having the Father dwelling in HIm in this way, Christ reveals to us the Father, He is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).
The third way in which the total unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is manifest is in their unity of work or activity. Unlike three human beings who, at best, can only cooperate, the activity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one. God works, according to the image of St Irenaeus, with His two Hands, the Son and the Spirit. More importantly, “the work of God,” according to St Irenaeus, “is the fashioning of man” into the image and likeness of God (Against the Heretics 5.15.2), a work which embraces, inseparably, both creation and salvation, for it is only realized in and by the crucified and risen One: the will of the Father is effected by the Son in the Spirit.
Such, then, is how the Greek Fathers, following Scripture, maintained that there is but one God, whose Son and Spirit are equally God, in a unity of essence and of existence, without compromising the uniqueness of the one true God.
The question remains, of course, concerning the point of such reflection. There are two directions for answering the question. There are two directions for answering the question. Theological reflection is, to begin with, an attempt to answer the central question posed by Christ Himself: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:15). Yet at the same time, it also indicates the destiny to which we are also called, the glorious destiny of those who suffer with Christ, who have been “conformed to the image of His Son, the first-born, of many brethren” (Rom 8:29). What Christ is as first-born, we too may enjoy, in Him, when we also enter into the communion of love: “The glory which though hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one” (John 17:22). "

Posted By: anon | October 28, 2011 4:04 PM

Great question about the Statement of Faith. I don't see how any Christian faithful to the understanding of the early Church could affirm it as anything but a departure from the historic Faith.

Line 1: I suggest that the Cappadocian Fathers would not find it to rightly express Trinitarian dogma - Christ reveals one God, the Father, who before all ages begot his Son and eternally breathes forth his Spirit; in so doing, He bequeaths to them everything that He is, including the fullness of His Divinity.

Line 2: clearly there was no indication in the Fathers that they viewed the Scriptures in a way that would correspond to modern fundamentalist literalism, which is likely what this line is meant to affirm.

Line 3 appears to be proper Christology and a right understanding of Scripture.

Line 4 might or might not fly, depending on the Father. Certainly many affirmed a historical understanding of our first parents, though I assume this is meant to affirm modern fundamentalism, in contrast to typological or allegorical readings. I recommend Bouteneff's Beginnings to get a first hand look at how the early Church received the beginning of Genesis. And which Fathers would claim an original state of "righteousness"? Where does the Bible say this? What does it even mean.

Line 5 and 6 seem compatible with Patristic understanding.

Line 7 would certainly conflict with any of the Fathers. To the extent it implies a "satisfaction theology" it would be rejected. Also, we are saved by union with God through Christ and that requires our Baptism. Nor are all our sins "automagically" forgiven in the Patristic view - we are to repent in order to receive forgiveness through Christ.

Line 8: According to the Scriptures we are Baptized into Christ. The Holy Spirit is first received in Chrismation in the understanding of the Fathers, a Mystery of the Church. Spiritual worship would be understood as Eucharistic worship involving the very Body and Blood of God.

Line 9 - the Fathers most certainly do not affirm the Spirit leads individuals outside the Church to an individual, independent understanding of Scripture.

Line 10 - all Fathers believed the Church was composed on the faithful gathered around the Bishop in the Eucharistic Liturgy. Moreover, that Bishop would both be in communion with other Orthodox/Catholic Bishops and within the succession of Apostles. This directly conflicts with the Scriptural, historical and patristic understanding.

Line 11: we are to watch, but we cannot know when Christ will return according to the Fathers.

Line 12: by language, this is compatible with some of the Fathers, though certainly not all. Some (Gregory of Nyssa for example, Isaac of Syria, etc) would clearly disagree.

Line 4

Posted By: anon | October 28, 2011 5:33 PM

great content!

Posted By: TheContent | November 10, 2011 12:42 PM