Cold Case Christianity: Is the Bible True? The Value (and Limits) of the Early Church Fathers

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Is the Bible True?

The Value (and Limits) of the Early Church Fathers

Posted: 06 Feb 2019 01:35 AM PST

I had the great pleasure and privilege several years ago to speak to students (and visitors) at Rutgers University. Ratio Christi hosted the three hour event. Julie Miller (RC’s Chapter Director at Rutgers) and her husband Buzz did an amazing job organizing and hosting the event. I was asked to defend the reliability of the New Testament Gospels, and afterward we opened the floor for a one hour question and answer session. As part of my case for the reliable transmission of the key claims of the Gospel authors, I retraced the New Testament Chain of Custody for the audience. This sequence of early believers links the eyewitness authors with their immediate students in an effort to examine the content of the original claims of the Gospels. Early Church Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement play an important role in this chain of Gospel stewards; the writings of these students of John and Paul help us verify the content of the 1st Century teaching related to Jesus.

 If you disagree with conservative Christian scholar Craig Evans' theory that John often puts words in Jesus' mouth that Jesus never actually spoke, then yes.

The ancient letters of these three Church Fathers have great value for this reason. Is the Bible true?

 Fallacy of Generalized question:  Is the Koran true?

These letters are an important piece of evidence.

During the Q and A session, a young man asked an important question, echoing concerns I’ve addressed on other campuses around the country. Here’s the paraphrase: “The Church Fathers wrote about more than what John or Paul taught them about the historical activities and claims of Jesus; they also wrote about theological issues, and many of their theological positions are rejected by non-Catholics. If we reject the theology of some of these men, how can we trust anything else they said? How do we know where to draw the line, and are we just ‘cherry-picking’ as we use what happens to serve our cause (while rejecting the stuff we don’t like)?”

Once again, the best analogy here is a courtroom analogy. There are many times when a witness is asked to describe what he (or she) saw or heard, but there are important limits. I might ask a witness, “What did the suspect say to you?” This kind of question is appropriate and the witness’ response will be allowed in the trial.

 Nope, that's inadmissible hearsay.  You'd have to therefore respond to the objection by citing to a court rule allowing hearsay in certain specific circumstances.

But if I step beyond this and ask, “Why do you think the suspect said that?” the defense attorneys will likely object to my question before the witness even gets a chance to respond: “Your honor, that’s an inappropriate question, the witness is being asked to offer an opinion, and it’s irrelevant what the witness thinks in this regard. This witness can’t read the mind of the suspect.” It’s one thing to ask a witness to strictly recall what he or she heard, another to offer an opinion about what this means or what may have motivated the statement in the first place.

That would fall under the "present-sense impression" exception to the hearsay exclusion rule.

When there are multiple eyewitnesses used in a criminal trial, there’s a good chance these witnesses will come from a variety of worldviews and lifestyles. They will probably hold a divergent set of beliefs, attitudes and opinions.

 But the case usually doesn't center on how different people interpret something somebody wrote.

In fact, they may even have varying opinions about the guilt of the defendant in the case. None of these varying views will be apparent to the jury, however, because our questions on the stand will be limited to the actions or statements of the defendant. In a similar way, the Early Church Fathers provide us with key information related to the statements of the gospel authors.

 Yes, like Irenaeus insisting that Jesus lived into his 50's and had a 10 year ministry.

That’s the limit of their testimony and the evidential boundary for which they have value. They may disagree with each other (or later theologians) about what they think we ought to interpret from the life and teaching of Jesus, but that’s outside the scope of their testimony.

Just one problem:  the NT says Christians have the seal of the Holy Spirit and are otherwise the temple of God, so you run a very serious risk of denying what the Holy Spirit says, when you reject the theological opinions of the church fathers.  I would argue that because apologists like you evince not the slightest interest in viewing somebody as speaking inerrantly by the Spirit, you are effectively nullifying that NT doctrine.  Probably because you live in a modern culture that scoffs at the idea that somebody should be viewed God's mouth-piece.

We simply want to know what John and Paul said about Jesus so we can make sure the Gospels and New Testament letters we have today contain the same information as the originals. I’m not interested in the political, social or theological inclinations of these men;

 Then you should be, because there is a possibility that what they said was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if so, there's no guarantee that standard rules of hermeneutics will help you figure out who spoke for god and who didn't.  If the NT authors often gave OT texts new twists, then standard rules of hermeneutics will not be sufficiently reliable to justify confidence that your interpretation of a NT statement is the correct one.  They were all over the map.

You also overlook that the church fathers wrote for churches to guide them as spiritual leaders.  You might glibbly dismiss any such person today, but back then it was a bit more serious.  And given the general lack of literacy, you really have to wonder:  why did god allow those congregations to be led by these men who allegedly held incorrect theological opinions?  Could it possibly be that there appears no infallible check on their theology because there actually isn't one? Gee, you can't accept that, cuz the bible is inerrant, right?

I simply want to know, “What did John and Paul say about Jesus?”

The content confirmation of the Early Church Fathers is yet another way to verify the trustworthy nature of the New Testament.

 It also opens doors of possibility to gospel authorship denial that you cannot easily close.