Question of the Week: What role do the early church fathers play in personal bible study?

When it comes to anything we use apart from the Bible in order to better understand it and how it applies to our lives practically, it is important to first understand why we are studying the Bible in the first place. Once the Bible is put in its proper place in our lives, everything else we use to equip us for a godly life will fall into line. The Bible is a collection of 66 books compiled over 1500 years of human history that were tested and verified (Deuteronomy 18:18-22) to come from authentic prophets/spokesmen of God. Though physically written by men, the thoughts and points emphasized in these historical, poetic, and prophetic writings were inspired by God. Therefore, it is the greatest possible source available to us concerning what God is like, how to have a relationship with Him, and what He expects of us personally.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:19-21 (NKJV)

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The question then remains where the early church fathers fall in line to this equation. If the Bible is and remains the ultimate source for any consistent and authentic Christian’s understanding of what God has revealed about Himself, then anything less is speculation. This doesn’t mean we discard these observations and writings out of hand, but make sure we don’t put them at a higher position of influence in our lives then the authors themselves would want to be.

What are the “Early Church Fathers?”
The early church fathers are usually referring to church leaders and their writings between the time of the Apostles in the 1st century AD and the 13th century AD. The time of the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance would not be considered early church fathers. They would fit into their own category. Some of the more prominent names in this category would be; Justin Martyr’s Apologies, Irenaeus of Rome, Polycarp, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Athanasius. These are only a small handful of a long list of names that would fit into this category of early church fathers.

Why are the Early Church Fathers different from the writings of the Reformers or Modern Commentaries?
The reason early church fathers are held in a higher regard than modern writings is for one and only one reason. History. These men lived closer to the lifetimes of the original authors of scripture. Therefore, they were more familiar with cultural customs that may have been referenced that we aren’t familiar with or terms that may go over our heads when reading the text. Polycarp and Irenaeus in particular were disciples of the Apostles John and Peter respectively. Therefore their insights are something we’d want to hear given the fact they would have been able to clarify certain points from the author that we don’t have the ability to today.

How do we know we’ve gone too far with citing the Early Church Fathers?
People who err when citing early church fathers usually do so when they have already committed two kinds of mistakes. The first and most common mistake is the fallacy of equivocation when reading something in the Bible. A term is confused, deliberately or otherwise, with a word that has a different meaning and imposed on the Bible. The second mistake is what we call eisegesis. When someone reads an idea into the text of scripture rather than taking that idea out of what is plainly written. The early church fathers are cited to affirm these ideas that are either being imposed or twisted into the text of the Bible as an opinion more authoritative than either of the people discussing them. The problem with either of these mistakes is extremely straight-forward. The early church fathers aren’t infallible. Even if someone in history affirms the opinion of someone who is mistaken, that only proves that two people have now made the same mistake. The overwhelming majority of the claims made against scripture to affirm dogmas or cultic teachings can be either proven or disproven without leaving the pages of scripture. The person who insists on coming to conclusions outside of the Bible has shown where their ultimately authority lies. No Christian should want to find themselves in that position.

How do we avoid abusing the writings of the Early Church Fathers?
The best way to read the early church fathers is the same way you would read modern commentaries. It is an interesting source of insight that may point out things you weren’t familiar with. However, if you trust a fallen sinful human being without verifying what they have said or claimed, you’re treating them like an authority on par with scripture. That is a dangerous position to take without holding them to that very same standard the authors of scripture were tested by. If anyone comes to you claiming to speak with the credibility and respect due only to God, hold them to the standard of a prophet. Are they historically accurate, doctrinally consistent, accountable to capital punishment if they are lying, and able to back up their claims with miracles? The early church fathers weren’t always wrong, but they weren’t always right either. Likewise, they weren’t held to this standard. Therefore, the way we treat them shouldn’t be the same way we treat the text of scripture.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Does the prohibition against “touching the Lord’s Anointed” mean that you can’t criticize or question those in church leadership?

Cult leaders and those who have something they want to avoid criticism about love to use this passage in order to present themselves above any form of correction. The ironic thing is that the two times this passage is applied in scripture, they were both said as the leaders of Israel were being judged for their unbiblical behavior. In order to avoid being deceived or manipulated by false teachers, the best thing we can do when we hear scripture being cited is to ask where, when, and under what circumstances that passage took place. Another good thing to get in the habit of doing is whenever you hear a claim about scripture giving a command, ask for an example of it being put into practice in that way. A Bible teacher that refuses to give you chapter and verse to support their claims shouldn’t have anyone under their teaching. Therefore, let’s go to chapter and verse to support our claims against this teaching lest we fail our own standard.

The statement “Do not touch the Lord’s Anointed” appears two times in scripture.

Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm.”
1 Chronicles 16:22 (NKJV)

Then the men of David said to him, “This is the day of which the Lord said to you, ‘Behold, I will deliver your enemy into your hand, that you may do to him as it seems good to you.’ ” And David arose and secretly cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. Now it happened afterward that David’s heart troubled him because he had cut Saul’s robe. And he said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.” So David restrained his servants with these words, and did not allow them to rise against Saul. And Saul got up from the cave and went on his way.
1 Samuel 24:4-7 (NKJV)

In both of these passages, the situation in no way involves verbal criticism of a leader or king’s handling of scripture. The first passage in 1 Chronicles 16:22 tells us exactly what was going on when this statement was brought up. It leaves no room for ambiguity as to who is being referred to as the Lord’s Anointed and what is meant by touching them. 1 Chronicles 16:1 plainly states that this psalm was written following King David bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem for the second time. Those familiar with the event in Jewish history would recall that the first attempt involved a very serious and dramatic judgment on God’s part towards those who improperly handled the Ark despite knowing the consequences of doing so. David himself was also corrected by God during this situation as recorded in 2 Samuel 6:1-15. No matter how you try to present this situation, the actual quote that came from David’s Psalm was historically following a time where he was directly corrected by God. Israel’s priesthood who put the Ark on an Ox cart rather than carrying it as Moses commanded them to were corrected by God. The man who touched the Ark knowing full well that wasn’t allowed was corrected by God. And the verse immediately before verse 22 states that God corrected kings. (Those in leadership) The kind of person who would use 1 Chronicles 16:22 to exempt leadership from correction is citing a passage where God was correcting those in leadership. This would suggest the person has either never read the passage they’re explaining the application of, or they know the context of the passage and are lying about it in order to avoid accountability.

The second passage follows a similar pattern shown in 1 Chronicles. It explains with a historical example of exactly what is meant by “touching” the Lord’s Anointed. David, who had been anointed King but not yet been given the crown, was being hunted down by King Saul for reasons he himself couldn’t clarify. He had murdered the priests of Israel and driven the rest into hiding. He had forced David from his family and home without reason. And he had now found Saul in a vulnerable position in the very cave David and those who followed him were hiding in. They encouraged him to physically touch Saul in such a way that would result in his death. The encouragement wasn’t to start criticizing Saul for attempting to murder David. It was a physical threat being answered with physical force. Even if you exclusively apply the term anointed to those in leadership, there isn’t room for the term to apply to verbal correction or to ask questions about their handling of scripture.

The question then remains how to correct those in leadership. Even if the passages cited don’t prohibit the act, any action should be informed by scripture. The answer is simple. If scripture should inform our criticism, it should also be the standard by which our teachings and behaviors are informed as well. If you are going to correct leadership it shouldn’t be because of personality issues, emotional slights, or negotiable side issues. Scripture is the metric by which a sound ministry is informed. If you bring an open Bible and consistently and graciously present the text alongside the area you are bringing attention to, then you’re following the Biblical model of criticism. Correction isn’t prohibited. Just make sure that if you’re going to, you do so in a way that you would welcome if you were on the receiving end.

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
Galatians 6:1-2 (NKJV)

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.comFollow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube