I was doing a little web reading about divorce, and ran across some statements by William Luck, a former professor of Bible and Theology at Moody Bible Institute. Mr. Luck (not a Ph.D. as far as I know, so no disrespect intended) was a professor of church history and Christian thought, but I found it really interesting that after doing a lengthy discussion about early Christian attitudes about divorce and remarriage he felt compelled to include this:
Again, let me remind my reader that in accord with the teachings of the Reformation, I do not consider tradition the equal of the Scriptures. Scripture should be interpreted with Scripture, rather than by tradition. I have presented this historical material out of interest (since I have been a professor of Church history) and as a response to contentions of such as Heth/Wenham that there is a strong tradition in the early church that stands against the positions taken in this book.
Isn’t it a shame that a professor of history has to bend so far over backwards for his Protestant audience to excuse himself for bringing up early Christian beliefs. Apparently this is such an egregious act that Mr. Luck felt he needed to make sure that he wasn’t taken for someone who believed that historic Christianity meant anything when it comes to understanding Scripture. When Protestant historians work under such bizarre constraints it’s no wonder than Protestants so often get history badly wrong, and it’s no wonder that their track record of exegetical consistency is abysmal.
Instead of worrying that some traditional Christianity might leak into how they read Scripture they should fully embrace it and ask if their Christianity bears any resemblance to the Christianity of our forefathers.