AN: It is not as accurate.
Thank you for having the integrity to recognize the truth.
AN: This is why the Fathers of the Church wrote a lot of material in addition to the canonical inspired scripture. To separate the canonical scripture formt he exegetical work of the Fathers is to discard the teachings of Christ in favor of traditions of the lead liars of the so-called "reformation".
The idea that you would try to include those that came after the NT was written and equate their writings as of equal importance is without merit on it's face. You aren't claiming their writings were "God Breathed" are you?
If these theologians who wrote after the Inspired writings had been penned were not inspired, how were they different then those who wrote later?
The courts have written much after the Constitution was penned. Somehow I think you'd have to go over to DU to find anyone who thinks that turned out well.
The writings of the Church Fathers do not serve the same purpose as inspired and canonical scripture. Their role is to illustrate how the Early Church, build by the apostles and their immediate spiritual heirs understood the scripture that at some point became controversial.
For example, from the Fathers we see that the Church was highly hierarchical and sacramental; that salvation was understood as a process rather than one time event; that veneration of saints was encouraged by the Church.
This witness of the Early Church is infinitely more valuable than the ravings of Luther, Calvin, or Joel Osteen is due to the fact that the fathers - St. Irenaeus, St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr and others argued from what they learned from the Apostles and from the previous generations, when people 1500 years later could only argue from the spin they put on the scripture and their sociopolitical biases. The leaders of the Reformation lost contact with the Sacred Deposit of Faith and for that reason their interpretation of the scripture is incoherent.