Get Thee to a Bishop

Over at the Reformed Orthodox Bridge, not to be confused with this blog, Robert Arakaki is doing a 4 part series on James White and his criticisms of Hank Hanegraaff and the Orthodox Church.

In part 3 he discusses the importance of the Church Fathers.

The early Church Fathers are a valuable resource for understanding the historic Christian Faith.  For this reason, they have been a frequent topic of discussion between Reformed and Orthodox. Protestants are to be commended for utilizing the Church Fathers, however, due to their lack of familiarity with the Church Fathers Protestants often misread them or take them out of context.  

...the importance Orthodoxy places on the patristic consensus.  This is the understanding that while Church Fathers may be fallible individually, their collective witness to Tradition is considered infallible. This belief is based on Christ’s promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and the teaching ministry as charismatic gift to the Church (Ephesians 4:11).

 He ends his article with this paragraph:

In closing, Reformed Christians and Evangelicals are strongly encouraged to learn about the early Church and to read the writings of the Church Fathers.  The Church Fathers represent a rich theological and spiritual heritage shared by all Christians. However, Protestants should not rush into this thinking that it will be easy.  Becoming familiar with the Church Fathers and the early Church won’t be easy but it will be richly rewarding.

As an Orthodox believer Robert is an opponent of Sola Scriptura.  The Scripture alone is not the sole source of truth for Robert or the Orthodox. What's more important is the "patristic consensus" of what the Scriptures teach.  To the Orthodox you can't just pick up the Bible and read it and hope to get to the truth.

In fact the Orthodox actively discourages Christians from reading the Scriptures. It's in their confession of faith.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

So, it's rather interesting that Robert encourages Reformed Christians and evangelicals to read the Fathers. If the Scriptures are not plain then how are the Fathers any plainer?  In his article he accuses Protestants of cherry picking the Fathers and often getting them wrong.

...due to their lack of familiarity with the Church Fathers Protestants often misread them or take them out of context. 

I agree with Robert that the Fathers are to be read and that it is not easy.  So does Matthew Raphael Johnson.

You can’t deal with the church and the church Fathers without first being well-versed in metaphysics in general. The metaphysics of the Western philosophical tradition from Plato onward, that's necessary first before you begin reading somebody, an ancient figure like John of Damascus, or a more contemporary figure like Theophan the Recluse because they’re using vocabulary that presupposes that you know the basic history of metaphysics and epistemology. You can’t just pick up St. John of Damascus if you want to get deep into these people you have to study the Greek philosophers first and then that will….because they’re using a vocabulary that goes back to these people.  And they are using words like “hypostasis” or “physis” or you know these kind of things…”nous”. These were words that were first defined in the ancient world and they presuppose that you know what these things are. 

The Orthodox Nationalist episode 132, 17:40 

You do not deal with the church fathers before you have become a fairly well-versed student in Plato and Aristotle, the Stoics, Plotinus, etc.  

The Orthodox Nationalist episode 132, 19:20

You study the history of philosophy first and then that will give you the grounding and the vocabulary that you need to then interpret the later Church Fathers. 

The Orthodox Nationalist episode 132, 19:49

It is the opinion of Matt Johnson that before one reads the Fathers one needs to be well-versed in Greek philosophy.  Regrettably there is much truth in his statements.  It is an undeniable fact that Platonism and Neo-Platonism informs much of early Christian theology.  

Jaroslav Pelkian agrees.  From "The Christian Tradition Volume 1"

pg. 51

pg. 53

All throughout the first chapter of this book, "Preparatio Evangelica," Pelikan discusses the interplay and exchange of ideas between Christian theology and Greek Philosophy.  "The continuing hold of Greek philosophy on Christian theology" is essential to understand the writings of the Fathers and th development of doctrine.

So does one need to be well-versed in the history of western metaphysics to understand the Fathers? I don't think so. Certainly it would be very helpful but to posit a thorough familiarity of western philosophy before one engages the Fathers would mean no one would be reading the Fathers. 

I think Robert might agree as well since he does recommend the reading of the Fathers.  However he refers to the importance of the "patristic consensus."  That means you can't just read Justin or Irenaus or Augustine or Athanaisus or the Cappadocians or anyone else without taking into consideration the whole of the tradition of the Fathers. That means you have to read them all and then distill their writings into a singular consensus and tradition. 

This is not even a complete set of the Church Fathers!

Who's got the time to read thousands of pages of the Church Fathers in an effort to figure out the "patristic consensus?" And since even Robert admits Protestants who do read the Fathers often get it wrong how can anyone hope to get it right just by picking up a book and studying hard?

How can Robert Arakaki, with any sincerity, point Protestants away from the simplicity of the Scriptures to the philosophical complexity of the Church Fathers?

We are saying it’s time to let go of sola scriptura and to go a different way — to stop being Protestant and to embrace Orthodoxy and Apostolic Tradition. 

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/reformation-continues-fail/#comment-30857

Robert considers the "patristic consensus" to be infallible and because Scripture is also infallible this equates the two. Surely the following from the Confession of Dositheus applies to the Fathers:

It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit.

Rather than tell Protestants to read the Fathers why not just point them to their local Orthodox bishop? Why tell them to read books they won't understand which is exactly what the Confession of Dositheus prohibits?