A fair re-write. I owe them a great debt, even while I disagree with some of their theology.
I disagree with various reformers on their views of Mary, infant baptism, and others - but their courage and commitment to scripture is to be admired. At least, I do.
I still read Calvin’s commentaries, even while disagreeing at times.
I have no problem appreciating those fathers who first systematized Scripture even if I disagree with them at points.
We are all creatures of our time and influenced by the philosophy of our times. The early theologians were influenced by the philosophy of their time. Those areas in which they were unduly influenced by the philosophy of their time needs to be purged as authentic interpretation.
The medieval theologians tended to speculate even further from Scripture into speculative philosophy. This is what the Reformers sought to correct.
The historical/grammatical method was the corrective for the speculative philosophy placed over and above Scripture. For the modern man I think too often the historical aspect is neglected. Unless we understand Scripture as it was meant to be understood by the listening audience we are too prone to interject our own situadedness upon Scripture. Our contemporary situation is different than those audiences and we need to keep that in mind when reading Scripture.
And yes, we should always be looking for correctives of our own favorite theologians. The Reformers knew this and that is why one of the most famous cries of the Reformation was, Semper Reformada! The Church always reforming to the word of God. But as we are always reforming we should also bear in mind the contributions and structures that our early fathers contributed.