Why Protestants Need the Church Fathers

Introduction

In this podcast recap we’re going to look at the main ideas we discussed with Dr. Michael Haykin of Southern Seminary on the significance of the Church Fathers for Protestants today. We’re going to talk about John Henry Newman’s challenge to Protestants, get acquainted with a few of the Church Fathers, learn about their sacramental theology of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as well as their understanding of church polity and Scripture’s authority. 

The Challenge of John Henry Newman

The Anglican-to-Roman Catholic convert John Henry Newman famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But Newman blinds himself with only two options: Protestant or Roman Catholicism. The Eastern, Oriental, and Ethiopic Orthodox traditions make just as bold a claim over church history as Roman Catholicism. The Reformers viewed themselves as in line with the church Fathers and claimed medieval Roman Catholicism deviated with doctrines about Mary and the Eucharist that find no root to develop from in the first four hundred years of church history, unlike the doctrine of the Incarnation or the Trinity

Who were the Church Fathers?

The church fathers lived from 100 AD after the Apostles to Islam’s conquest of Europe and North Africa in 800 AD. A few notable church Fathers: Augustine of Hippo, one of the most influential minds of Christianity, Basil of Caesarea the defender of the Holy Spirit’s deity, Athanasius the defender of Christ’s deity, Patrick of Ireland one of the early missionaries, and finally Macarius-Symeon a monastic monk who shaped western Christian spirituality through sermons.

Patristic Theology of Sacraments

The Fathers wrestled over doctrinal controversies about the deity of Christ and Trinity, but not as much over baptism or the Lord’s Supper. Since controversy brings clarity to doctrine we’re hard pressed to find a fully articulated theology of the sacraments.

The fathers agreed that conversion comes by the Holy Spirit, requires faith, and results in public baptism. Infant baptism begins as a minority view outside of the Roman world in Western Europe because of illiteracy and lack of contact with the Scriptures. The early church practiced believer’s baptism by immersion with some exceptions of infant baptism. Most fourth century theologians never received infant baptism despite growing up in Christian homes. Infant baptism does not emerge as a major practice until Augustine and his defense of original sin. Babies need baptism to wash away original sin or else they go to hell.

This brings up the sticky issue of “baptismal regeneration”, the idea that the act of baptism causes salvation. Cyprian speaks of the “saving waters of regeneration” or "bath of regeneration”, but Haykin argues that this does not imply a modern concept of baptismal regeneration. The early church always coupled baptism with faith, the reception of the Holy Spirit, and in some cases, public profession in a local church with a ruling elder in communion with the other bishops.

Ignatius talks about the Lord’s Supper as the “medicine of immorality” which early modern Roman Catholic’s interpret as evidence of the doctrine of transubstantiation, that the substance of the bread and wine become the substance of the body and blood of Christ. Haykin rejects this interpretation as anachronistic. Ignatius uses metaphor to describe the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace to keep Christians obedient to Christ. Even 17th century Baptists speak metaphorically of the Lord’s Supper as eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. Ignatius view the Lord’s Supper as a critical tool of discipleship, but later Roman Catholics read transubstantiation back into Ignatius. 

Patristic Theology of the Church

The Apostles set up the early church with two offices: elder and deacon. The New Testament uses the term bishop and elders synonymously, but Ignatius of Antioch speaks of a ‘bishop’ designated from among the elders as a kind of ‘senior pastor’ of a house church. The emergence of the bishop from a group of elders develops over time which leads to a diversity of practice: Augustine presides as a single bishop over a congregation of 800 in Hippo whereas Cyrial presides over 50-60 congregations in Alexandria.  

The bishop concept developed alongside the hierarchy of the Roman Empire as a preventative measure against heresy. Roman Catholics cite men like Clement, the author of the early church letters 1st and 2nd Clement, as early evidence of the Pope, or Bishop of Rome. However, Clement functioned not as the sole bishop of Rome, but rather the secretary of a group of bishop/elders that presided over the fifteen house churches at Rome. This explains Ignatius’s silence on the bishop of Rome because Rome possesses more than one bishop.

The bishop also functions like a patron for those in need. The Roman system ran on patronage. If a person needs medical or financial help they seek out a patron who supports them. A pagan who converts to Christianity loses his patrons and needs the support of the church. The bishop becomes the new patron especially for widows and the poor. 

Modern Day Bishops?

Haykin notes the Apostle Paul’s emphasis on geographical unity. He views local church as united and involved with one another. The earliest Baptists emphasized local associations as well as modern day multisite churches. Haykin also considers figures such as John MacArthur, Martin Lloyd-Jones, and Billy Graham as functional bishops. They exercise a bishop-like authority that reflects the informal and organic structures of the early church. 

Church Authority vs. Scripture’s Authority

The way in which the Fathers argued against heretics demonstrates their conviction that Holy Scripture stands as the final authority. Augustine uses Scripture to defend the doctrine of human depravity against Pelagius. Basil of Caesarea defends the deity of the Holy Spirit with twenty-two chapters on Scripture and only one on tradition.

Irenaeus argues against Gnostics who claim their teaching comes from a secret tradition passed on by the Apostles. Irenaeus debunks this by pointing to the fact that he learned from Polycarp who learned from the Apostle John. Irenaeus lives in the second century which means an appeal to an Apostolic line of teaching makes sense. However, time distorts tradition and we no longer possess the historical proximity to make such claims. We do, however, contain the written deposit of the Apostolic teaching in the New Testament. The early church disputed the inclusion of the “apocrypha” or “deutero-canonical books”, that is, additional books of the Old Testament recognized by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but not Protestants. However, the early church disagreed on their canonical status. Jerome rejected them, but Augustine accepted them.

Why We Need the Fathers Today

We need to recapture their theological precision regarding the Trinity and the Incarnation. We also need to recapture their emphasis on prayer and holiness of life. Theologians like Paul Tillich and Karl Barth disqualify themselves due to their immoral lifestyle. Gregory of Nazianzus speaks about how the holiness of a pastor equips him to do theology. The Fathers do not belong to the Roman Catholic church. We need Protestants who study the Patristics, but that takes time because they do not use evangelical language.

What Do We Do About Origen?

Origen helped articulate the doctrine of eternal generation and committed himself to the orthodox faith to the point of torture and death as a martyr. His use of allegory troubled the Reformers, but even they recognized the allegorical nature of Song of Solomon. For Origen, allegorization only happens when the literal and historical meaning makes no sense. Some accused Origen of believing in the salvation of the devil, but he rejected that notion. He’s not right on everything, but still provides important insights through his writings. 

Church Fathers as Conversation Partners

The Fathers exist as conversation partners we must esteem, but they’re not infallible. Neither were the Reformers. The Fathers help us bring theological precision and depth to our doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation as well as the catholicity of the church. Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on Christianity. 

Final Thoughts

There’s a lot of insight in how he describes organic versus formal authority, particularly on a local or regional level. Modern Evangelicals build associations around personalities rather than doctrinal distinctives. This waters down doctrinal commitments, but allows for greater cooperation and mutual admiration. Many Presbyterians greatly respect John MacArthur and look to him for guidance on a whole host of issues. The same may be said of the late Tim Keller across multiple denominational lines. We shouldn’t embrace celebrity culture, but we also cannot deny the natural gravitas of particular leaders. 

Churches that plant campuses may approximate some of the early church dynamics with a regional focus built upon personal relationships among the pastors of the church. Accountability and genuine camaraderie gets more difficult with distance. A regional focus on connection may provide a way forward for Protestant unity. 

On the issue of baptism I’m curious about why, if baptismal regeneration was not the primary vision of the early church, fathers like Augustine held to such a strong sense of the forgiveness of sins through baptism. Tertullian argued against infant baptism because he believed deferring baptism allowed the washing of sins later in life. It does seem like some form of baptismal regeneration permeated the early church. More study is needed in this area.