« Home | WHY STUDY THE FATHERS? » | "TROUBLECHURCH" BROWNE » | NEW FRENCH BLOG » | BAPTISTS AND THE CONCEPT OF LIBERTY--A THOUGHT » | ONE-VOLUME HISTORY OF THE CHURCH: ADDENDUM » | A ONE-VOLUME HISTORY OF THE CHURCH » | HYPER-CALVINISM IN THE SBC » | MOHLER ON THE POPE AND HIS WORDS ABOUT ISLAM » | CHAPEL ATTENDANCE FOR SEMINARIANS » | POEM BY JOHN DONNE--A POSTING BORROWED FROM BRUCE ... »

WHAT TO READ OF THE FATHERS?

In the comment section on the previous post on the Fathers, I was asked about what to read of the Fathers. Everyone who has studied the Fathers will have his or her favourites. Here are some of mine.

I would say Jaroslav Pelikan’s first volume in his history of Christian doctrine, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, is an excellent place to start. JND Kelly on Early Christian Doctrine is another excellent starter. Other secondary sources that provide a good introduction include the works by Christopher Hall (Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers and Doing Theology with the Church Fathers) and Robert Wilken’s The Spirit of Early Thought. Gerald Bray’s Creeds, Councils and Christ is also very good. I also like Henry Chadwick’s two works on the early church: The Early Church (Penguin) and The Church in Ancient Society (OUP).

For primary sources, see Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers and his The Later Christian Fathers give good overviews. Augustine’s Confessions is a natural place to start. You may not agree with all you read, but it is a gem. Also the second-century The Letter to Diognetus is a gem—the cream of second-century Apologetics. I would also strongly recommend Basil’s On the Holy Spirit.

"The Letter to Diognetus" is first class

Excellent choices.

I have been reading D.H. Williams' books on Evangelicals and Tradition. Very eye opening! He too says we ignore the Fathers at our own peril.
One discovery for me was while reading the third letter of Cyril to Nestorius which was connected with the 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus (431 AD). Here are some portions: "He took flesh from the holy virgin and made it his own....He did not cast aside what He was, but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in nature and truth....Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, FOR THAT REASON we call her mother of God." The original usage of "mother of God" was for a passionate defence of the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ right from conception, not to unduly elevate Mary. Theotokos indeed!
Darrin.

Post a Comment