Introduction to Patristic theology

I have been asked quite a few times recently what to read to begin studying the Church fathers. These are a few of the resources that helped me begin to study Patristic theology.

First, I must recommend two essential volumes. One is J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and the other is Jeraslov Pelikan's The Christian Tradition vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. These are really the two standard scholarly introductions to Patristic theology. While I don't always agree, the extensive one volume treatment of such a broad topic remains unsurpassed.

I do not recommend reading the Ancient Christian Commentaries series, nor do I recommend Jurgen's three volume introduction to the fathers. These are commonly recommended resources that I have found less than helpful. Regarding the Ancient Christian Commentary series, I have found that the quotes are selective, and contain no context. A list of Patristic citations often betrays the author's beliefs rather than the father who is being quoted. I also find it somewhat strange that these volumes contain quotes from known heretics such as Pelagius. Jurgen's volumes betray a heavy Roman Catholic bias. The quotes he selects show continuity with later defined Roman Dogmas which are often far from the majority views in the early Christian period.

Rather than reading compilations of Patristic quotes, I would recommend going to the sources themselves. But where should one begin? There are so many volumes out there, it is just about impossible to read them all. I will give you some of my personal favorites, though there is far more out there, and I'm sure others would list different books than I will recommend.

First, I recommend Augustine's Confessions. This is an easy to read (provided you get a modern translation) autobiography that contains numerous great spiritual insights. Most people I have met who have an interest in Patristics began with this book, including myself. Second I recommend reading the apostolic fathers. I would recommend Michael Holmes translation, as a modern English version. This contains the earliest Christian writings. While you may be flat out confused by the Shephard of Hermas, the epistle of I Clement, the Ignatian writings, and the epistle to Diognetus are spiritual gems.

And on to my personal favorites:
Irenaues's On the Apostolic Preaching This is a great introduction to the Christian faith from one of the greatest early Christian writers. http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Preaching-Irenaeus-Saint-Bishop/dp/0881411744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321984147&sr=8-1

Augustine's On the Spirit and the Letter This was one of Luther's favorite writings, as it introduced him to what would be known as the distinction between law and gospel. This can be found in a modern translation in http://www.amazon.com/Answer-Pelagians-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480929/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1321984376&sr=8-10

Prosper of Aquitaine's The Call of All Nations. This book is quoted in the Augsburg Confession (though attributed to Ambrose) and was often recommended by Luther. It is by far the best book written on the subject of grace and predestination in the first 1500 years of the church. Prosper defends a moderate Augustinianism which defends both the election of grace, and God's universal saving will. http://www.amazon.com/14-St-Prosper-Aquitaine-Christian/dp/0809102536/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321984612&sr=1-1

Ambrose's Patriarchal Treatises, specificall On Jacob and the Happy Life. Ambrose is a brilliant rhetorician, and while often his exegesis is strained, his Christ centered pastoral approach brings out some of the best preaching the church has ever seen. http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Exegetical-Fathers-Church-Paperback/dp/081321355X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321984807&sr=1-2

Finally, so as not to be too overwhelming in my recommendations, I recommend John Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians. Chrysostom's commentaries follow a grammatical historical approach, much like a modern commentary would. This is a work I have continually come back to for edification and encouragement in my Christian life. This can be found with some of his other excellent commentaries. http://www.amazon.com/NICENE-POST-NICENE-FATHERS-St-Chrysostom-Thessalonians/dp/1602066140/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321985027&sr=1-6

Let me know if this is helpful, or recommend other introductory resources that I may not have come across that you have found useful in Patristic study.

Lutherans and the use of images Part 2

Having explained what the Lutheran view of images is, I will now attempt to give a brief defense that this is a Biblical understanding.

The main Reformed objection is of course from the second commandment (first for Lutherans). The commandment states:
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4)

The main thrust of the command is against worship of images. In the ancient middle east, it was common for religions to venerate statues of false gods. As many other laws given to Israel, this law served to protect the people from Israel from the corruption of the false religions of surrounding nations. It is not opposing using images for any purpose whatsoever.

This is clear from the fact that Israel was actually commanded to make images.

"You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel." (Exodus 25:17-22)

If it was acceptable to use images in the worship setting in the Old Testament (the ark was of course the most holy place for Jewish worship), why is it assumed to be wrong in the new?

One may object that images of saints and angels are permissible, but images of God are not. But must this be the case for the incarnate God, who willfully took an image upon himself? Sure, images of God in his glory cannot begin to approach his majesty in the heavens, but how can one argue against an image of a real historical event on this earth? Crucifixes are not meant to give an exact image of what Jesus' face looks like, but to be a visual reminder that God became an actual man, in real history, and truly died a bloody death for the sins of the world.

Lutherans and the use of images Part 1

One of the things that initially scared me away from Lutheran churches was the crucifix placed in the front of the sanctuary behind the preacher. Doesn't that violate the second commandment? Do Lutherans venerate icons?

This is a common apprehension Reformed Christians have about Lutheran worship. I would look to clear up a few misconceptions.

Lutherans do not venerate icons. At the second council of Nicea in 787, the issue of images was at hand. One side, called iconoclasts, were against the use of images altogether. Churches should not be adorned at all with pictures of Jesus, or the saints. The other position, represented most adequately by John of Damascus, argued that icons of Jesus, Mary, the Angels, and the Saints, should be displayed and churches and homes. One could venerate (in distinction from worship) the icons. When one venerates the icon, he is not venerating the picture, but what it represents.

While the Reformed have traditionally accepted the "iconoclast" position, Lutherans have not whole-heartily adopted the Damascene position on the issue either. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, we do not venerate the saints. The saints should be commended and remembered for their great faith and example in this life (Hebrews 11 displays this rather well). However, we do not pray, or perform any act we conceive as worship to the saints.

Second, scripture does not imply that icons are a window into the heavenly realms. Believing in sola scriptura, we simply can't hold to this view.

So what do we use images for?

We use them as tools to instruct and remind us of our faith. The crucifix is a constant reminder of the gospel. It is often placed in the sanctuary to remind both the pastor and the congregation that Christ, and his cross are the center of the church's worship life. We use images of saints to remind us of the great faith of those who have come before us, and remind us of the unity of the church in heaven and on earth.

Lutherans have a weak view of sin?

On a recent episode of the Reformed radio show "Christ the Center", Professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, Lane Tipton, discussed the differences between Lutheran and Reformed views of union with Christ and sanctification. According to Tipton, giving justification primacy in the ordo salutis,(as in Lutheranism) necessitates a view of semi-Pelagianism. Only Calvinists can lay claim to Augustine's anthropology. If justification precedes other soteriological benefits, regeneration must occur as a result of justification. If this is true, faith becomes a possibility of the natural man apart from the Spirit's work. Tipton even went on to compare the Lutheran view of sin with that of the New Perspective. Is this really true? Do Lutherans hold a low view of sin, and approach semi-Pelagianism? What do the Lutheran Confessions say on the topic?

Augsburg Confession Article V: "For through the Word and Sacraments, as though through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God in them that hear the gospel."

This is exactly the opposite of what Tipton suggests Lutherans teach. The Holy Spirit is given to create faith, not because of faith.

Augsburg Confession Article XVIII: "Of free will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, an to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the word."

Again, the Holy Spirit must precede any good in man. This would include faith.

Small Catechism II:3 "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth"

Epitome II:19"Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is to hear; however, it is not of his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it."

These quotes could be greatly multiplied. The entire Article II of the formula of Concord is on the subject of free will. The assertions of Dr. Tipton are unfounded. The Reformed do not lay sole claim to Augustinian anthropology. If one is in fact to read Augustine's anti-Pelagian treatises, they are far from "Calvinistic." For Augustine, all grace is routed in baptism.

1 John and assurance of faith

The question I get asked perhaps more than any other is regarding the first epistle of John. 1 John has often been used by Calvinistic preachers as a test of the genuineness of one's faith. The mode of thought is this,
"am I really a Christian? I am baptized, go to church, partake of the Supper, pray, etc. but none of this matters if I don't have faith. Well how do I know if I have true faith? True faith produces works, therefore I must look at my works. However, I see non-Christians who do seemingly nice things, so I must see if my works are better than theirs by looking at my affections and motivations."
1 John is then the proof that this is a Biblical method of attaining assurance. So how do I as a Lutheran, who is always telling people to look to their baptism, and the work of Christ for assurance interpret this book? Doesn't it point people to their works to gain assurance of true saving faith?

In short-no I don't think so.
First, remember that John begins his epistle by stating that "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1:7-10) Before allowing his readers to assume that Christians are expected to live a sinless life, John reminds his readers that they are simul iustus et peccator. This serves as a corrective for how his later words could be misconstrued.

John does then begin to write about the necessity of works in the Christian life. (yes, works are a necessary result of saving faith) He states, "whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him." (2:4) I propose that John does not do so to tell Christians to judge their works to gain assurance of saving faith, but to continue in repentance after one is in the faith. It was characteristic of many early gnostic groups to promote licentiousness living. Salvation is attained through knowledge, and through escaping the physical world. Therefore whatever one does with the body is irrelevant. Perpetual unrepentant sin was not a barrier to the soul's salvation. John's emphasis on the physical nature of Christ (his language of seeing and touching Christ, or his insistence on Jesus coming in flesh for example) along with the antinomianism he is fighting is evidence that he is battling early proto-gnostic groups. Thus John is not writing to doubting believers that they might have a "test" for the genuineness of faith, but warning Christians against the early gnostic heresy.

Look for example at the second chapter. In verses 7-11 John tells his readers of the necessity of love in the Christian life. After he does this, he does not then tell his readers "see if you measure up" but something very different. He writes, "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake." He does not say "so that you may know if your sins are forgiven", but "because your sins are forgiven." He then mentions that he is writing to those who "know him", and "have overcome the evil one." This is a use of the indicative and imperative.

John, like the rest of the New Testament authors, assures his readers that through confession of sin and repentance they are forgiven and loved by God. However, he is warning that those who live unrepentant lives, deny the flesh of Christ, and hate their brothers are not of the fold. As Luther's first of the 95 theses stated "the entire life of the Christian is one of repentance." John is warning his readers against falling away from the true faith into this gnostic heresy, adopting licentious living and denying the humanity of Christ which he refers to as the "sin that leads to death." (5:16)

Cling to the promise that those who confess are forgiven, and don't fall fall away from repentance, the church, and the doctrine of the gospel. That in short is the message of 1 John.

Sermon

Here is the audio of a sermon I preached a couple weeks ago:
http://stjohnswestfield.com/Radio/St%20Johns%20August%2014%20Broadcast.mp3

The Self Evidencing Power of Truth

This fragment from Justin's lost work "On the Resurrection" is one of the best statements on Christian apologetics that I have ever come across.

"The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore follow the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak."