I like to spread my knowledge through denominational boundries. But when it comes down to compiling theology I dont bother with anything outside of God's holy word.
BTW I am not questioning your reformed status or your character. I was just stating my current position.
I understand that, and I can respect that. But had Augustine not studied as he did, theologians down through the ages would have struggled to get where was some 540 years earlier.
I study the Bible myself, but I do not limit myself to that and that alone.
If you study the Bible in the Greek language, do you rely only on the translators interpretation? No, you get a lexicon and check to see if they are correct.
I have several dozen books on Systematic theology.
in the 16th century, two major discoveries turned the world on its ears. One, the world was not flat. Two, the earth was not the center of the universe.
For centuries, people just accepted these facts. Why? Mostly because no-where in the Bible is this mentioned. So it was just a universal accepted fact that the earth was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe. It took men, who "thought outside the box" to shatter these theories.
My point is, yes, study the Bible, by all means, and never ever forsake that. but why should we limit our study of Theology Proper, Soterology, Eschatology, Hamartiology, Pneumatology, etc., on only the Bible?
Great theologians down through history, have studied the works of other great theologians. And they usually find a nugget of truth from that person, and build upon, rather, explain further the matter. We wouldn't have our present doctine of "predestination" and "election" had not John Calvin studied Augustine.
Did it matter that Augustine was a Catholic? Evidently not. Should it matter that the Apocalypse of Peter is considered non-canonal book? No it shouldn't. I'm not saying that you should accept it as truth, I'm just saying that it should be read purely for informational value.
I tell you another good non-canonal book. Have you ever read 1&2 Clement? They are good books. Clement says a lot of good things. He repeats nearly word for word some of Paul's teachings. Clement taught election, did you know that? The only fault I have found with Clements writting was that he quotes from Greek literature about the Pheonix. (sp?) other than that, its a real good book to read just for informational value.
If you were to study the primative church, would you limit study to only the book of Acts, Paul's epistles, and the general epistles? No, you would study the likes of Clement, Tertulain, and others. And that is the point.
You don't have to accept the Apocalypse of Peter as fact or even truth. But it does lend support for:
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." -Lk. 12:47-48 (KJV)
And the belief in varying degrees of punishment in hell.
That is all I'm saying.
God Bless
Till all are one.