The Apostles vs. The Early Church Fathers: Who is Foundational?

 Those appealing to the early church fathers really have to appeal to the earliest of the earliest to be consistent, and that would be the Apostolic fathers, the first generation after the Apostles themselves (and when we can read the Apostles in the inspired, written word of God, we ought not to place the generation after the Apostles on equal or even higher footing as an infallible interpreter of the Apostles).

But within the first several centuries (and thereafter) of the Church after Christ's ascension, there was much debate, development, disagreement, etc. This shouldn't surprise us, as we see that throughout Scripture itself. An appeal to oral tradition in itself is fine, so long as that is not regarded as infallible or the highest authority. No reasonable person denies that the inscripturated word was transmitted orally before it was written down. No one has a problem that God had inspired prophets and men and women having visions or dreaming dreams, etc., but now "in these last days has spoken to us by His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). But the idea that there has existed an infallible or clearly definable inspired oral tradition that gives God's very own perfect interpretation of Scripture, is absurd and laughable. We cannot agree on the details of doctrine in the Scripture. The belief that this will be resolved by adding church tradition as the definitive and infallible interpreter of Scripture (or at least being able to identify points where it has spoken infallibly and under inspiration, etc.), and therefore in effect the highest authority, denigrates the Scriptures and only compounds the problem. The argument from John 21:25 to prove some sort of co-equal authority of church tradition (oral or written outside of Scripture) is also self-defeating, "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." If books, which are a more permanent and sure medium of communication (hence the reason God has committed His word and full revelation of Himself to writing) could not contain all that Jesus had said, how would oral tradition be able to do so? It is less capable. What was "handed down" orally, that tradition, was then "written down" in Scripture. Every last spoken word? Of course not. But the full scope of God's self-revelation is recorded for us in Sacred Scripture. The point of John 21 is not that there is only a small sliver of truth about God that we have come to know through the written Scriptures and revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures. It is not as if the Bible has only given us a small piece or part of the puzzle. Rather, God in all His attributes is revealed to us in the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit illuminates in our hearts and minds the Word of God, so that we know Him, trust in Him, love and obey Him. So we do not need to fret about lost gospels or lost parables of Jesus Christ. Whatever else Jesus did say, would not reveal something brand new about God, but only further elucidate what we already know and have in the written Word of God. Jesus has many parables on the kingdom of God, and it isn't a stretch to imagine there were more that God did not see fit to have committed to writing. But no new revelation of God was lost on that account. The Scripture is sufficient. No one denies that there was a process of canonization. The question is over whether that is a matter of the Church recognizing and formally receiving, or a matter of authoritatively and infallibly declaring which books are inspired, infallible, and inerrant, or somehow making the books such, and connected to that, thinking that the declaration of the Church being the only means by which one could know which books were inspired and which were not. Of course, this was a process with some dispute itself. Another canard is that Protestants teach that all of Scripture is clear and easy to understand. That is false. The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture does not claim this. Scripture itself would contradict this. The essence of the gospel of salvation is easy enough for a child to understand and repent, believe, and follow Jesus Christ. The totality of Scripture is not easy to understand but is quite difficult. And this is pretty JV stuff if you just read and comprehend the very first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith. If you have been listening to Baptists or non-denominational pop Evangelicals and they have been saying things contrary, well, stop listening to them. WCF 1.6-7: The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. [a] Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; [b] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. [c] a. Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Tim 3:15-17. • b. John 6:45; 1 Cor 2:9-12. • c. 1 Cor 11:13-14; 14:26, 40. VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; [a] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. [b] a. 2 Pet 3:16. • b. Psa 119:105, 130. Notice the Scripture reference, 2 Pet. 3:16: "as also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." Now, when you look at all the books of the early church fathers that have been destroyed or lost, altered, dubious, the fact that they themselves changed their minds and even at times appealed to Scripture as the final authority, that the early creeds and councils also at times were consensus or compromise documents (even as our latter catechisms and confessions are), etc., how does adding an oral tradition, or extra-biblical written tradition, resolve things? It is good and proper to receive what the Lord has done by the anointing of His Spirit in wise and holy men/teachers and preachers down through the generations, as witnesses to the truth of God's word, as subordinate authorities, etc. That is a proper claim, but it is also a modest claim. Some people seem to want the certainty of not only having an infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God, nor merely an infallible, inerrant, inspired interpretation of the written word of God, but in fact what they really desire is to be personally inspired and inerrant in their own hearts and minds. Because that is what would be needed to arrive at "full truth" this side of glory. But God has not granted us to have such until Christ returns. What He has granted to each of us, especially in the new covenant era through the finished work of Jesus Christ, is the abundant outpouring of His Holy Spirit upon each sincere Christian, each anointed one. 1 John 2:26-27, "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." (cf. 2 Cor 1:21-22; Col. 3:16, etc.) If you respond by saying, "Look, you stupid Protestant, 1 John 2:24 just above also says, 'If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.'" I will reply with, "listen (heh heh) moron, do you not know that Protestants believe that the faithful preaching of the Word of God (Bible) is the Word of God? Do you not know that Paul like Christ was constantly reasoning from the Scriptures with his voice in the synagogues, at the temple, etc.? And do you not know that it is the Apostles and the prophets with them that were inspired, and that they and they alone are considered foundational to the Church? Eph. 2:20-22, "Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." Have you read two chapters later (or read it out loud if that's what you need) in Ephesians 4:12ff. that Christ has given various spiritual gifts and offices, some foundational (Apostles, Prophets, and the Evangelists connected with them), and some that continue until Christ returns (and note the bold)? "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." As the ministry of "pastors and teachers" continues to this day, some 2,000 years after Christ, is it not evident that the Church never has come to perfect unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God? Not in the early church, and still not today. Is it not plain and obvious that the Church still to this day is assaulted by various winds of doctrine and wicked deceivers? Is it not true that this did not begin to happen only after the close of the Scriptures, but throughout the Scriptures in the old and new testaments? Is it not clear, then, that only when faith is made sight, that we will have perfect and complete comprehension of God Himself, and that Scripture itself will give way in light of the glory of seeing Jesus in glory above, and face to face? This is little different from the reality that we will not be sinless or fully sanctified until glory, and it is heresy to claim otherwise. It is the Apostles, and not the Apostolic fathers, much less the early church fathers, that are foundational. It is the 12 Apostles who have their names on the foundation of the city of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14), not all the prophets, not even all called an Apostle in the New Testament, certainly not the apostolic or early church fathers, and not Calvin or Knox or Luther either. Let us thank God for godly and gifted men whom He has given us throughout the centuries, and for the creeds, confessions, and catechisms that the Church has produced, and which faithful ministers of God's Word adhere to. But let us benefit from them in their proper place and order, beneath the Scriptures, as a servant to the Scriptures, and as incomplete, imperfect, consensus statements that will be in need of further refining and developing in new, clearer, and fuller statements in the centuries and generations ahead, when we are wiser and holier and more faithfully walking by Christ's Spirit in times to come.

ADDENDUM:

The foundation of the Church and its doctrine is the New Testament, and it is the Apostles who were given the words of God to pass down (and then write down), not the early church fathers. The early church fathers had no higher office than a Minister or Theologian today.

This does not at all mean the historic creeds and councils are unimportant. They are quite important. But it does mean they are not foundational, and they are not divinely inspired. Further, like later confessions and catechisms that were written down, the councils and the various creeds produced had a process and development and refinement within the early church period itself.

Another way to put this -- the only thing we should give "jot and tittle" subscription to is the Bible, the Scriptures. It is also important to note that the Holy Spirit would inspire a man to write a book of the Bible, not a council to debate, discuss, and iron out a statement of doctrine or practice.

So you can look at the creeds, catechism, confession of faith, etc., and recognize that among the very men that helped craft these, there were differences among them about what precisely was meant by any given statement within the creed, catechism, or confession. It is correct to call all of these documents consensus documents, or even compromise documents, that is, written in such a way that each person on the council or assembly could affirm the statement, even though the persons affirming the statement in the details would often mean something different.

It should not bother you that more confessions have been written after the early church period. It should not bother you that newer or broader or more refined explanations of certain phrases in the creeds, catechisms, and confessions would emerge. This process has happened from the beginning. It would be a-historical to deny this.

As more theological controversies have emerged and will emerge throughout history, going back to the Scriptures first and foremost, but also subordinately reviewing the history of the church and its teaching as recorded in creeds, confessions, and catechisms is essential. But this isn't new. This is often the reason why we first began writing creeds, confessions, and catechisms to begin with.

Do not be deceived by those who put the early church fathers on a unique pedestal that nearly if not literally makes their councils and creeds inerrant, inspired, infallible, etc. But also do not be deceived by certain Evangelicals today who throw out the baby with the bathwater, and reject any real positive use of the early church fathers and various creeds, councils, and confessions of faith.

Christ by His Spirit has given gifts to His Church, as we read in Ephesians 4. Those ongoing offices are Pastor and Teacher. We should recognize every godly and gifted "divine" from Chrysostom to Calvin to contemporary Christian theologians (frankly we do not have any living today remotely of the caliber of the two aforementioned men) as filling this office.

What does that entail? That means that a Calvin can critique a Chrysostom, and a faithful pastor or theologian can critique the teaching of both men today, from a position (at least in terms of office) of equality. I do not say that they are likely equal in terms of gifting. But lesser gifted men are not always ignorant men or wrong when they examine the teaching of their superiors in gifts. Further, I have learned in whatever period of church history, but even more fundamentally in reading the Scriptures themselves and commentaries or sermons on them, that from any given text or point of doctrine, you will find godly men with different shades of meaning and understanding. Whether it is the early church fathers or the reformed, you cannot simply point to every phrase in every creed, confession, or catechism they wrote and say, "this is precisely what all of them meant here, to the last degree and detail, all of the time." You cannot do that with passages of Scripture either.

This obviously does not mean that we know nothing of God, Christ, Sin, Salvation, etc. But we must admit how weakly we do know, and how imperfect and incomplete our understanding is. But like our personal sanctification, progress has been made over the last 2,000 years, even though if we could live another 2,000 years, this side of glory we would still be so far from sinless perfection. And the same is true of our knowledge of God. If we could live 2,000 more years, or if the the Lord tarries another 20,000 years, our knowledge of God will still be imperfect and incomplete, yet true and sufficient. Undoubtedly, unless the Church is in a period of intense apostasy and darkness, in the millennia ahead, the Spirit will shine for light upon God's Word and help us to understand it more clearly and fully, and most important of all, to love God and His Son Jesus Christ through the revelation of Him.

But the touchstone and basis for that fresh and fuller understanding of God will be the Bible. This does not mean that the teaching of officers in the Church is thrown into the trash heap or unexamined. But it does mean that even the most gifted and godly Pastor or Teacher is still a sinner and is not inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down infallible or inerrant decrees or even interpretations of God's holy word. To the degree that any pastor or theologian speaks truth, it is at root uncovered through the Word of God, the Scriptures, and the Spirit working by and with the Word of God.

I want my children to respect me, obey me, and learn from me. And as they mature, to exceed me in wisdom, godliness, holiness, zeal, etc. We should respect our fathers in the faith, those men full of the Holy Spirit and zeal for God's Word and godly living, of any and every generation. But we should also strive to excel them, or if we realize we are sunk so beneath them, to raise up children and grandchildren, future generations that will reach and then surpass them. This is what a godly father desires. Any who claim otherwise are not asking you to respect or revere or father, but to treat a father like a god. Do not conflate the two. It is dangerous and will not lead you into truth and righteousness.

Scripture is sufficient for our salvation, and not only our salvation, but for doctrine or teaching, for reproving and correction and instructing in righteousness. Not imperfectly, but perfectly. It does not have to be completed by oral tradition or creeds, confessions, catechisms, and Bible commentaries. However, each of these things are immensely helpful as aids to understanding and comprehending the Scriptures. Especially helpful and indispensable is the preaching of the Bible. True preaching is not new revelation, but is a proclamation of God’s Word by God’s Minister. We do not teach that a Christian can be complete by simply going under a tree and reading your Bible by yourself. The Christian needs the body of Christ, and especially the gifts the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven has poured out, especially in the office of pastors and elders.  Paul in Eph. 4:11-16,

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”

So notice that faithfulness, broadly considered here, requires personally knowing the Scriptures, the Bible, but also knowing your Pastors and Teachers, especially knowing their teaching and doctrine and seeing that it accords with the Scriptures, but also their way of life, their godliness. Unity of faith will not be achieved by being a lone ranger Christian with your Bible under a tree, or at home scouring information off of the internet. We should read the Bible, and it is helpful to get sound teaching from written and online resources. But you must really use discernment, and be helped by your pastor and elders.

But through the word read and proclaimed, particularly preached and taught by God’s ordained ministers, we mature in the faith, we become more united in the faith, we become more faithful and are not tossed about with every wind of doctrine that blows through by tricksters and deceivers. Indeed we see that the whole body works together and does its share to grow together in the Lord.