I’ve read large portions of the Patristics, having the privilege to do it sometimes even in the original languages. They are an incredibly important voice for understanding the historic Christian faith, one that cannot be ignored. Simultaneously, reading the breadth of the Church Fathers can sometimes be like walking into a modern Christian book store — you’ll find everything from Joel Osteen, to Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin. There’s quite a spectrum of ideas, often (although obviously not always) conflicting and sparring with one another. As means of a brief example: The first invocation of holy tradition is by Ireneaus, arguing that Jesus was nearly 50 years old at his death (AH 2.22). Origen taught that human souls preexist their bodies and that you and I don’t come into existence but simply get assigned to bodies (OFP 1). Clement of Alexandria argued that the first sin was lust, and that the serpent was a metaphor for sexual pleasure (Exhortation to the Heathen, 11). Tertullian believed that those who are unmarried should postpone their baptism until they are married because of the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness of sins after baptism (OB, 18). Hilary of Poitiers, in his commentary on the Psalms, argued that Jesus’s physical body was incapable of experiencing pain because he was God and though fully man his divinity superseded the physical reality of his incarnation. Now don’t get me wrong here, I think it is *vitally* important that Christians read as much of these people as they can get their hands on. Nonetheless, the Fathers are neither a monolith nor in perfect agreement/harmony with one another on all things. If anyone says “the Early Church Fathers believed ______,” your follow up should be, “who and where?”(Maybe even “why?”) Because that matters a great deal. Nonetheless, you should read them.