Replies

I do not discount their teaching. I am a historical theologian by training and have an appreciation for the writings of the Fathers, Reformers, etc.

However, the Bible is the touchstone. It alone is the inspired Word of God. Interpreting the Bible [like the Constitution] requires a knowledge of the historical grammatical context. The goal is to lead the meaning out of the text (that meaning intended by the author) rather than reading meaning back into the text making it a "living document."

Studying the other writings of constitutional framers and the commentaries of constitutional scholars is worthwhile, but the goal is the original intent of the framers.

I'm a "Bork to the Bible" kind of guy!

Precisely.

This past year, I took a "Survey of Western Church History" class at SUNY Buffalo (taught by the Campus Crusade director). I got exposed to the writings of men such as Athanasius and Augustine , and found Augustine, particualarly, compelling. His Confessions rang true with me, one of the best devotional books I've ever read.

I can sympathize with the woman in the article above; her reaction to examining the historic Christian figures is not completely unbelievable to me. (Don't worry; I'm not going to jump to the Catholics.... but I do see where she was coming from.)

Even so, I think we can learn a lot from the Catholic theologians. We may believe they have hermaneutical holes (I certainly do believe that), but they were Christians, and that's something we in the Evangelical Protestant church have tended to forget.

I did get a brief chuckle yesterday at church. One of the hymns sung in the worship service was by Bernard of Clairvoux -- for a church that gives more weight to Dave Hunt than to Augustine, well, that's an interesting hymn choice. I doubt if most of the people at my church realized who the author was. Maybe a couple, but most didn't.

**It alone is the inspired Word of God. **

But the Bible didn't drop out of the sky. Don't we have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because because of the Early Church fathers? Weren't the gnostic gospels dismissed because Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr, and Irenaeus dismissed them? And didn't all these men believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist?

For us Catholics, the Real Presence is our defining doctrine and the gospels are the heart of the Bible. But if you can give me some evidence that these men did not believe in the Real Presence (i.e. the core Catholic doctrine), then I think the Protestant argument that the Bible was already generally agreed upon might have more weight.

I'm not a theologian or a church historian. I generally don't like to get involved in discussions like this becuase I'm going by what I learned from the Christian Brothers in high school some 50 years ago. I'm pinging Black Elk, Nyer, and Herman the Cherusker because they're smarter than I.