Change this: Why didn't I read this stuff earlier?

My first title on this was misleading.  I thoroughly enjoyed and benefited from from my seminary days -- all the classes, etc.  I was explosed to these men, but I did not pursue them since them seemed pre-Catholic!  Wow, was I ever prejudiced.

In the providence of God my reading has been taking me back into multiple examples of the early centuries of the church.  Here was a huge gap in my education.  I have three books by these early fathers on my shelf.  But I am now reading Athanasius on The Incarnation plus multiple excerpts from the fathers in defense of the Trinity and the union of God and man in the person of Jesus the Messiah.   I am seeing some truths spoken in a way that is fabulous and I am wondering why I have missed these.  Up til now I guess my view of church history has been something like this:  PAUL (1500 year gap following)  . . .  Luther, Calvin . . . . Edwards . . .  various Reformed writers . . .  Warfield, Machen . . . Piper.  I act as though the men of the first centuries did not do much!  Not at all -- they simply upheld the core of the Gospel and defended it at risk of their own lives! I have some musings  . . .

The first thing I noticed in reading Athanasius is that he wrote in terms of biblical theology.  His argument is a metanarrative -- a grand sweeping picture of the the redemption of humanity.  There are not too many categories of the systematician.  He does not sound "reformed" nor "arminian" -- he sounds like he is telling a story. 

The second thing I noticed is that he does not think individualistically.  The story of redemption is the redemption of the fallen image of God.  His doctrine of original sin is strong but not developed in the ways the later writers state it.  He sees his sin as part of a larger problem -- the corruption of the created race of man.  Jesus incarnation was to restore the image of God and to carry it into God's presence.

The third thing I noticed is that many of these writers are exceptional in their Christology and have reflected on every element of it deeply.  Recently reading Dawson on the ascension (see sidebar) I have been blown away by how glorious is the continuing incarnation of Jesus and how little I have thought about it.  I have made cross-centeredness all about the cross.  It is not.  Gaffin (see sidebar) in his new book insists that the death and resurrection of Jesus are one event, cannot be separated and are not separated.  I think the early theologians would add the ascension to that.  I think the NT would insist the ascension is consummate!  How many times is Jesus exaltation the capstone of an argument?  Yet, I rarely think of it.

The fourth thing that strikes me is that many of them develop their theology from the Gospels and from Hebrews.  Hebrews is a different viewpoint on the achievements of the Savior.  It is deeply rooted in incarnation as the means of rescuing a fallen race.  It is also Hebrews that amplifies on his ministry at the right hand of God for us today!

Finally, these men are unquestionable orthodox -- but they say things that I might be critical of if I were reading them as contemporaries. I think C S Lewis is correct.  In his introduction to Athanasius' work on The Incarnation, he notes that the reading of old books sometimes takes us into ideas that we may otherwise pigeonholed as "Catholic" or "Arminian" when we are reading someone who cannot be so classified.  They also see and say things in a way I would not and is corrective -- included in that for me is the doctrine of the incarnation and ascension.

I find reading these men humbling -- to read them on their own terms and not to try to assess whether they fit into my system -- and to see them see and say things in a way that is quite different from me -- and to know many of them suffered deeply for the Gospel.  Before I become too doctrinaire, I may need to remember that my sweeping judgments of other systems may also be judgments of men who were martyred for their convictions.

Comments

[Mike]

Good work! Since graduating from seminary, I've read at least one history book a year-usually from the early church authors. Note to Toby: yes, we all go through some version of patristics in varying degrees of investigation. But, not wanting to fulfill Santayana's warning, I read with the aim to understand how the heck did we get to be like we are today as the church?

No final answers to that question, but I've also discovered some rich understanding of Christ, God, and the mission of the church. Honestly, I've received some "I-missed-the-forest-because-of-the-trees" missional theology, theology forged in the day-to-day soul care, justice-enacting, and evangelizing that folks like the Gregory's and Athanasius learned along the way: and took the time to write it down. I missed it in seminary because (the seat belts light is on): I assumed that anything important about Christ, God, and the mission of the church was happening "now". It simply hadn't occured to me that God might have performed something enduring and transformational between Pentecost and my present.

Ditto on what Mark discovered: and then some...I am still repenting...gladly.

[Steve]

This really is a great post. I laughed when I read your view of church history because I think most of us see it just that way. Thanks for championing the great men that should be read and treasured.

[Toby Kurth]

Great post...Sounds like you might have to modify the tagline of this blog.

I am slowly working my way through the Gospel of John and I recently added Chrysostom and Augustine to my reading. It has been great. It has been fascinating to see the different burdens that these men carried given their unique historical settings.

Another quick thought...Your post made me think of how beneficial it can be to incorporate the historical creeds into our churches (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon). I think it ties us to our shared history with all the saints through the ages. Reading the words "And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church" always makes me pause and appreciate a world broader than my own.

GDL: we did the Nicene all through Christmas!!

[Custard]

What? There's a seminary somewhere where patristics isn't compulsory?

Is that normal in the US?

I'm at seminary in the UK, and patristics is compulsory on the course, and required by my denomination too.

GDL: we certainly read them some, but not extensively. Read JND Kelly on the early doctrines. But they were not esteemed.

[Andrew]

Wow, that's a wonderful post and some profound thoughts!

Just yesterday I was listening to Chuck Swindoll discussing the biblical narrative in exactly the same way. It's not about the cross but about Whom we hung upon it. I think Billy Sunday also wrote a very moving reflection along the same lines.