# research help request: gospel of Q



## JohnV (Jun 18, 2003)

Greetings all:
Our local newspaper has published a number of articles by a pastor who is preaching another gospel. Much of what he writes is easy to refute. But he has an edge on me in his knowledge of the gospel of Q research. He is so vague that I have hard time making out exactly what he is saying about it. He plays it like a trump card, without indicating what it really is. I need to know more. 

He has written four essays on the essentials of his thesis, of reinterpreting the historical Jesus. It is time for rebuttal. I have written an outline of what I would like to say, but I lack the knowledge of what he refers to as the Q group of gospel writers, as well as the &quot;other&quot; gospels purportedly written before the four in Scripture. 

Can anyone direct me to some good Reformed critical work in this area? Has anyone had to deal with this before? 

Thank you in advance,
your brother in Christ,
JohnV


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 18, 2003)

I can find some sources for you - let me check the library tonight.

As a note for those who do not know - The Q source has nothing to do with Star Trek.  
The Q source is the &quot;Quell&quot; source, or in layman's terms &quot;the mystery Gospel&quot; or &quot;mystery document&quot; that Mark, Matthew and Luke may used in collecting their data for their own Gospels. Overlapping infomraiton in these 3 seemed to press the higher critical school into thinking there may have been another source they all shared.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by webmaster]


----------



## RICK (Jun 18, 2003)

I thought they collected their data from Marcus Borg's &quot;The Jesus I Never Knew&quot;.



[Edited on 6-18-2003 by RICK]


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 18, 2003)

From my understanding Q is based on the idea that the Gospel writers wrote from a source document. According to some of the liberal scholars, disciples of a teacher would write down the statements that their teacher made. In regards to the four Gospels, all of them used the Q document, which is an attempt to explain why at least 3 are so similar. The problem is that there is no evidence that this Q document actually exists, it is simply a theory.

F.F. Bruce's book &quot;The Canon of Scripture&quot; is a good source for how the Canon was formed and talks about the various &quot;Gospels&quot; that were not accepted such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. Both of these Gospels were considered to be written by gnostic writers.

These additional Gospels and other writings are held up as legitimate writings by the Jesus Seminar folks who are attempting to find the Historical Jesus versus the Jesus of Faith.

Another good book out that refutes the Jesus Seminar findings was written by a consortium of authors titled &quot;Jesus Under Fire&quot;. I believe they also talk about the Q document.


----------



## Drdad (Jun 18, 2003)

I have &quot;Jesus Under Fire&quot; but it has been years since I read it and it is somewhere in a box. It is a good book with some great scholars (some of whom were my prof's). Essentially, though, the entire Jesus Seminar was laughed off the stage by other liberals who didn't like the irrationality of their conclussions. 

Some scholars who believe in Q are conservative. I remember reading a book by a well known reformed author who seemed to support the &quot;Q&quot; idea. Actually, I was very dissappointed in this part of his book (though the rest of the book was wonderful). 

This type of criticism of the Bible I think is rather useless because it is based on a philosophy of writing that has premises not able to be tested or tried... so it is speculation. Furthermore, it is more a philosophical exercize than an actual science. 

Derick


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 19, 2003)

One of my Greek profs wrote the following on the black board (Yep, we had real slate black boards. I'm getting old.)

Higher Criticism = Histerical Conclusions

Lawrence


----------



## grace2U (Jun 19, 2003)

The point about Q is that it is a hypothetical document; there is no evidence whatsoever that it ever existed. It is a way of trying to solve the 'Synoptic Question'; that is, the relatonship between Matthew, Mark and Luke. The idea is that Matthew and Luke are based partly on Mark and partly on this supposed Q. My own view is that there never was a Q.
The problem that you have is that someone has written what he thinks Q might have been. He has taken all the miraculous material out of Matthew and Luke and said, 'This is the original story of Jesus before Mark came and put all those miracles and the resurrection in'. What you're left with in this Q is our Lord's ethical teaching, but none of the evidence for His Divinity.
I saw this book in a liberal 'Christian' bookshop some years ago; I expect it's out of print by now. I hope this is helpful to you.
Every blessing,
Steve


----------



## JohnV (Jun 19, 2003)

Thanks:

I found a write-up on the CARM site, but it doesn't say much. I don't have these books you suggest, but I'll see if the I can get them. But your comments are most helpful. 

If you have any more personal encounters with this theoretical gospel, let me know. I'm very interested. 

I'm also interested in your material, Matt. Especially if its something I can get off the internet. 

If I'm as big on apologetics as I think I am, then here's my chance to do something positive. Of course, though, its always harder to refute nonsense, because logic doesn't count for anything. In this case I think that I'm up against someone with a doctorate degree who has written off a divine Jesus, making Him a mere myth. But he's a minister of the Word in a local church. His denomination has accepted gay marriages, and condones and counsels abortions. People who don't need Christ, but think they are Christians, are hard to convince of anything. They have no rules but their own. But the truth needs to get out there. 

I appreciate your help.

JohnV


----------



## cupotea (Oct 27, 2004)

Hey, JohnV, fellow countryman! :bigsmile:

Anyway, I can tell you a bit about the Gospel of Q. I'm currently taking a course on Early Christian Writings at U of T and I find this stuff amazing. Alright, so, when you read the Gospels, you find that Mt, Mk, and Lk all share common information, some of it verbatim. Weird, since these are 3 different guys writing at 3 different times, and they probably didn't know each other. So how did they all learn exactly the same information, and remember it long enough to write it down? Well, there was probably a written source they were consulting for their information. Some scholars therefore have taken the parts that match and made a book out of them, which can be studied as an individual source, and they call that book Q. And yes, it is still in print. I've read it. And if you want to take a two-hour drive, they sell it at Crux Books at U of T. Here's the info: The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English, ed. James M. Robinson, Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 2002. And, again, don't get the wrong impression of it; it's just a bunch of verses from the NT Gospels that are shared by Mt, Mk, and Lk. Nothing new, nothing horrifying. What is sort of neat, is it's primarily Jesus' teachings, not his actions. It seems his miracles must have passed down by word of mouth, or other sources. Another source you may want to consult is: Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press, New York: 2004. Also available at Crux, though you may want to call ahead and check, since a lot of students need to buy these books for their classes, so they may have sold out.

And remember, the Bible that we have now is the right one. We know this through the working of the Holy Spirit. So who cares where the information came from? The fact that it is divinely inspired is the important part. 

By the way, I've got to ask, have you ever been to the Dunnville Pumpkin Festival?  Oh, our terrific Canadian sense of humour!


----------



## JohnV (Oct 27, 2004)

Hi neighbour Cottonball:

The source of my concern was, in fact, a member of the team working on the gospel of Q at the U. of T. He is pastoring in our area, and has a regular article in our local paper. He was taken to task by one of our local vocals, but he was plenty slippery enough to turn it all around upon the critic. So I had a mind to address the issue, but I needed to know more about the gospel of Q thing. 

It was, as it seemed, just as you said. What I was curious about is what all the research is about. Its kind of like studying a bumper sticker for all its innuendo, I guess. I couldn't make any more of it than that. I still don't know what it is they are researching, what the project is that they are working on, if it isn't just sitting there conjecturing, possibility thinking so to speak. As far as I'm concerned its just another reason to have a Starbuck's. 

Anyways, its nice to have another PB member so close to home.


----------



## cupotea (Oct 27, 2004)

Hey John,

Wow, thanks for no Hamilton jokes! Anyway, he's from Toronto, eh? Now I understand why he supports gay marriage and abortion.  I was so disillusioned about this city til I studied here! Yeah I'm not sure what the fuss is about either, with studying the Gospel Q. I mean, I think it's absolutely fascinating that they've managed to find another Gospel within the Gospels, but at the same time, I don't know how they can learn any more from that. However, I suppose the intent is to find the "original" gospel; that is, one that is oldest and hence most historically accurate in regards to Jesus' actions. Since the source gospel, the Gospel Q, is obviously older than Mt and Lk, it is closer to their goal. Oh shoot, you know what? I just realized, I was mixed up in my last post. The Gospel Q is the verses from Mt and Lk that aren't in Mk. Mt, Mk, and Lk do share many verses, and probably Mk is the oldest of them. However, Mt and Lk agree in some things that aren't in Mk, and THAT'S what the Gospel Q is.. alas, it's been a long week.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 27, 2004)

WM,
Man you beat me to it Q is one of my favorite characters in Star Trek!!

blade


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 28, 2004)

> they've managed to find another Gospel within the Gospels


Simply not a true statement. "They" have epistemological biases. No matter how hard one tries to mitigate them, or cloak their effects. "They" have an axe to grind. "Q" is a secular cop-out for anti-supernaturalists. And why eliminate Jesus' works? This is the "ethical teacher" theory. The "history of religions" approach.

Fact is, we have no positive knowledge about how the gospels were formed, or what proto-material there was, aside from Luke's testimony (1:1-3). Luke may have used Mark, or Matthew, or both, if they were already in existence, and I believe at least Matthew was. I have even read one cogent argument that suggests Mark may have been the _last_ of the three synoptic gospels and drew from both. Hey, its a theory--as goood as most, and better than some. At least the gospel-source theory leaves the self-contained, integral gospels intact.

What is totally ignored by Q-theorists (or rejected--most of these guys are late-date, non-apostolic-authorship guys) is the "chronological problem," the existence from virtually the inception of the NT age of an obvious "body" of uniform, accepted, authoritative tradition. The _existence_ of Paul, the Apostle, is the "Waterloo" for the Q-theory (see J.G. Machen, _The Origin of Paul's Religion_). Even more honest liberals like Martin Hengel acknowledge this (for them) exquisite difficulty.

As faithful Christians, we believe the Spirit Christ promised (John 16:13, etc) would guide the apostles in what to say. So, even without gospels, the faithful Christians of that era had one, consistent message drummed into their heads from daily, relentless preaching and teaching. This stuff started to get written down. Collections of Jesus words and actions were taken down. Sermon notes were compared. These were people _accustomed_ to memorizing huge portions of the Word of God (OT)! Why should they not begin memorizing the Word of Christ _including his life details and works_ proclaimed by the apostles? The consistency of the written witness bespeaks of a consistency of oral proclamation. Unless you're pre-disposed to reject such an explanation...

Preachers and scattered believers (Acts 8:1, 4, etc) began to take this stuff with them wherever they went. As they went out, it doubtless soon became apparent that they would need a full, apostolic and authoritative written account. 12 or 13 Apostles couldn't be everywhere. Or live forever. How was their witness to the truth to be better preserved and propagated (WCF 1.1)? Eusebius informs us that first Matthew was commisioned to put the story down in full. Perhaps he used notes, perhaps not. Perhaps he made a Hebrew/Aramaic version (first? second? not really important), we're not sure. In any case, the similarity of material with the other two does not demand a "Q" for its explanation.

And while you may not get the "truncated" Q-gospel from any other publisher, harmonies (stacked or inparallel) are readily available, and have been for ages.


----------



## cupotea (Oct 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> > they've managed to find another Gospel within the Gospels
> ...



I'm so lost. Ok, people have reasons to believe that Q may not have existed. But how is it anti-supernatural to believe that it did?! What is so wrong with the proposition of Q? How is it secular?!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 29, 2004)

Here's the problem, as I see it.

One cannot take a theory (here "Q") and simply abstract it from its milieu, from its parent theories, from its creative background. Before we say, "Hey, that sounds like a great conclusion!" we have to check out how it was arrived at. And after we check it out, and discover the junk-science that produced the theory, we can't say, "Well, the background may be worthless, but hey, the product is still worthwhile. I think I'll keep it."

You can't keep it, and still be rational. 

You have to establish the theory from a new basis, a legitimate one. And if that can't be done (and it probably cannot be done without producing more than a few major changes in the theory) then the theory is demonstrably wishful thinking, the "hopeful monster."

"Q" is the product of anti-supernaturalistic thinking. 
(Note: I am not denying "source-material" for gospel writers.) 
Q-theory, taken as a unit, cannot be separated from 
1) an apriori that "the real Jesus" differs significantly from the Jesus presented in the completed gospels,
2) a common-denominator view of the origin and development of the Christian "religion," 
3) non-apostolic authorship (late-date) of the gospels, 
4) the belief that the gospels and Acts, being the _objects_ of the critical process, are therefore excluded as witnesses of the origin and early life of the Christian Way--they are to be suspected, in fact, of tendentiousness, embelishment, hero-worship, and a myriad of cultural influences spanning a couple centuries (at least) which it is the critic's job to pare away, to get at the essence of the original core of the religion. 
What do they say the "core" is? A few enigmatic, ethical, proverbial, and apocalyptic sayings from an itinerant Jewish folk-rabbi with a little bit of charisma, who created a following, lost most of it due to his radical precepts, but not before he had made enough powerful enemies to get himself executed. "What an interesting historical anecdote," they say, "that out of such unimpressive beginnings this guy's peculiar views were transmuted by his followers and took off popularly, and beat the field. 
Kinda like the Blue Jays winning the World Series."

The "reality" of "Q" is not just a matter of "looking at the facts." Its an outcome of selecting the facts one thinks are pertnient, and filtering them through a pre-established grid of understanding.


----------



## cupotea (Oct 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Here's the problem, as I see it.
> 
> "Q" is the product of anti-supernaturalistic thinking.
> ...



I'm sorry, but I still don't see how this is anti-supernaturalist. Surely, it's God's will that we have the Bible that we have today. Studying how we got that Bible from a secular standpoint--ie this guy copied that guy, etc.--is not opposing its spiritual foundation. Could it not have been God's will that the Q writer was divinely inspired, and his works were copied by Mt and Lk, for Christians to read centuries later? Whether Jesus said or did certain things that aren't in the Bible, or didn't do things that are in the Bible, it is God's will that we have the Bible's version of his life. The only problem we might have, arises when we find the difference between what Jesus did, and what the Bible says he did. But this discovery seems impossible anyway, since the Bible is our earliest source, the only first century source, I believe. Is your message that scholars are looking for information we're not supposed to have?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 30, 2004)

I pondered how to respond to the previous post. Part of the difficulty lies in defining "Q". What is it? For our purposes here, is it (?):
1) simply "a symbol of material which was partly written and partly oral"? (R.M. Grant, as attested by D. Guthrie)
2) Is it simply the common material found in Matthew and Luke?
3) Or is it an interpretive product, such as the J.M. Robinson work mentioned above? I have been assuming this definition for this critique, as it was the one basically proposed by Cottonball.
?) Or is it something else? 

And why "Q"? If there isn't a _rationale_ for "Q", why propose a "Q"? Is "Q" the best answer to whatever the question is?

In the end I've simply decided to try and address the two _questions_ that were raised.


> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> I'm sorry, but I still don't see how this is anti-supernaturalist. Surely, it's God's will that we have the Bible that we have today. Studying how we got that Bible from a secular standpoint--ie this guy copied that guy, etc.--is not opposing its spiritual foundation. Could it not have been God's will that the Q writer was divinely inspired, and his works were copied by Mt and Lk, for Christians to read centuries later?


Sure. And maybe it was his will that myna birds were originally carried around on the shoulders of the twelve apostles while they were following Christ, and they acted like pre-modern tape recorders for the "words of Jesus." Don't like that theory? It has the same amount of _evidential support_ that "Q"-theory does.

We have to start somewhere. To pick up "Q" and start there is imprudent. Because "Q" never has had an _independent_ existence. "Q" was not discovered somewhere, and then hypotheses proposed to explain it. "Q" is the _*product*_ of hypotheses about how we got our biblical synoptic gospels. These hypotheses are based (as all scientific endeavor is based) on pre-interpretive assumptions or axioms. And these hypotheses and assumptions are very often in _conflict_ with the *supernatural* biblical witness--of the synoptics themselves, of John, of Acts, of the letters, and of the whole biblical doctrine of inspiration attested through the entirety of Scripture.

This is why I said "Q" cannot simply be accepted "as is" or a "given" according to liberal or secular assertions. Which "Q" do you want? Prove _your_ "Q" or define it in a non-controversial way. Deal with the following "scholarly" commentary:


> _Donald Guthrie, NewTestament Introduction, The Gospels and Acts (IVP, 1968), p.144, 48_"Once admit the originality of Matthew's arrangement and the _raison d'etre_ for Q's existence is virtually at an end. Another solution would be to regard the Q material as oral rather than written, but in this case also the existence of Q as a self-contained entity becomes more difficult to maintain, and indeed hardly remains necessary."
> 
> "If the Gospels are dated much later than Q (i.e. twenty-five or thirty years, as is generally maintained), then the advocates of the latter can reasonably claim to have pushed back the evidence to a significantly earlier time. But if the dating of the Gospels is considerably brought forward it is more difficult to attach any significant value to Q."


At the very least, I hope this topic will lead you to a consideration of other learned views on this and similar issues. Perhaps even dare to reconsider certain core presuppositions of your own.


> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> Whether Jesus said or did certain things that aren't in the Bible, or didn't do things that are in the Bible, it is God's will that we have the Bible's version of his life. The only problem we might have, arises when we find the difference between what Jesus did, and what the Bible says he did. But this discovery seems impossible anyway, since the Bible is our earliest source, the only first century source, I believe. Is your message that scholars are looking for information we're not supposed to have?


It's not a matter of "having" or "not supposed to have." It's a matter of: what are intelligent questions to ask, and what quests are fool's errands. What is added to our knowledge from the vaporous speculations about "Q"? More importantly, what is lost, because the process is reductionistic by definition? If the Gospel of Matthew is eye-witness apostolic testimony (along with John), and if Mark is essentially Peter's witness, and if Luke is the analytical historian of the first generation of the church, how much "closer" to Jesus and the Apostles does the proposed, hypothetical "Q" bring us? 

The first sentence of the second section there is simply flabbergasting. But it's consistent with an inability to grasp the super/anti-supernatural nature of the question. This is not insulting--it is your own testimony. It shows me that you're simply not well acquainted with the two hundred year old contest between _Christianity and Liberalism,_ (J.G. Machen wrote the book by that name in 1923; paperback still available from Eerdmans). 

To quote Machen, "My Christian life, then, depends altogether upon the truth of the New Testament record" (p. 72). Machen would never agree that the "facts" are immaterial, and all that really matters is that we have the Bible God wanted us to have. Neo-orthodoxy puts divine "truth" on another plane, and reduces history to existentialism. B.S. Childs' doctrine of Scripture tries to transcend the old liberal/orthodox arguments by asserting their essential irrelevance. These are defeatist attitudes of those who capitulate to liberal arguments but prefer to reject liberal conclusions. So they take the "meaningful" aspects of religion out of this world entirely. They say, "You don't have to be rational to be religious."

To be rational is to be human. To be a Christian is to embrace our human identity, repudiated in Adam, covenanted in Christ. Here at the PB, we honor the memory (and minds) of Athanasius, Augustin, Wyclif, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, Owen, Chalmers, Machen, and everyone in their generations who would not surrender their convictions. We are not finished fighting the old battles. We won't quit the field they held and defended.


----------



## cupotea (Oct 31, 2004)

It sounds like you ARE saying that we're looking for information we're not supposed to have.. because once we find it, Christianity is irrational... I personally believe that they won't find anything that contradicts our beliefs. But I guess you disagree. Oh well, whatever. Your post (saying Christianity is embracing human rationality) did remind me of something Archie Bunker once said: "Faith is believing something nobody in his right mind would believe."  Wasn't All in the Family the best? He does sort of have a point though--and I'll explain what I mean. I live in a horrible city, full of skeptics and Athiests. I have to deal with people questioning my faith every day (and I don't just mean on the PB!), telling me I'm irrational, and that Christianity doesn't make sense. Terrible things, really. But when you have ideas drilled into your head, over and over again, though you may try to fight them, eventually they'll get a chance of sinking in. I'm not saying that I ever agree with these people; I'm saying that they have their own ideas of sense and I have mine, so the explanation I give for these divergences is grace. That's why I see the light and they don't. And I refuse to give into their train of thought, so I hold to my "irrational" faith. And to an extent, I guess that IS admitting that I'm irrational.. at least, in their eyes. And if I am, I don't care! But that's why it especially hurts me when people like you, people unlike Torontonians, people who I'm supposed to see eye to eye with, still don't agree with me. It's really a shame we don't get along better. Nevertheless, to get back to the topic of the thread, I guess what I like about studying the NT, even in a secular sense, is you get to see what the earliest Christians saw in Christ--by looking at what they emphasize, you see what they liked, and it gives you a whole new appreciation of him, though still a Christian one, since the authors were Christian. I love reading all of these positive perceptions of Christ (maybe because there aren't any in the place where I live!), so many terrific things to find in him. Well anyway, I guess I'm just rambling now, so I'll stop. So there's my


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 1, 2004)

1) Disagreement, even strong disagreement, does not equate to questioning your faith. Every one of us here is a learner. Some of us have been at it for more years and decades than others. Some are quicker than others. Some like certain areas different than others. No one has arrived.

Most of us have more teachers on our shelves than we have time to digest. We often share what we learn (or think we've learned). We play at being teachers ourselves. Some of us are, or may become, true teachers. But no one can be a teacher who does not have voluntary listeners. Even Paul was a teacher who only had things to say to those who would listen (Acts 17:19, 32-34). Jesus said many times, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

2) Of course no one can find anything that contradicts the Bible's self-witness. Because God can't be successfully made out to be a liar. He mocks the plotters shenanigans (Ps. 2:4). "Science" is not a _*neutral*_ activity. There is no neutral activity. All action is either covenant-keeping or covenant-breaking (1 Cor. 10:31). So, no one ever simply goes out searching for "just the facts" to see where it will lead him. Therefore, it does matter what sort of questions we ask. If you decide to pour money, time, and sweat into finding out why cats bark, you are investing in a heartbreak. And the bigger the investment, the harder it is to pull the plug. Just look at Iraq.

3) This board exists to promote the antithesis of the godless mindset of the secular cities we live in. So where they exist to barrage your faith with their intellectual attacks--to drag you down to share their darkness (Rom 1:21f, Prov. 8:36)--it is one purpose of ours to supply you with intellectual spiritual ammunition, in order that you may be "casting down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). "Love the Lord your God with all your ... *mind*."

4) The atheist knows there is a God (Rom. 1:19). So, when he denies him, he is being irrational. He isn't looking at the world from a "standpoint" that is legitimate, but idiotic. He may _think_ you're a loon, but you _know_ he's a fool (the Bible's technical term for this type of person). He doesn't live in the world he thinks/wants/acts like he lives in. Every moment of his life he is a walking, talking contradiction. Because to get along, he has to live, not in the world of his fantasy, but in God's world.

When he uses his mind and discovers truth, he reinterprets it according to his self-manufactured, tissue paper grid of preunderstanding. (Our grid is, or ought to be, constructed (made over actually) according to "pattern shown to us" in the Bible.) The Fool knows discrete things or minor combinations of things _in spite of_ his belief system, not because of it. Because, since this is *God's* world, then the only fully integrated belief system is Christianity.

5) I hope you stick around at this board--posting, reading, interacting. What you hear here is certainly going to be the polar opposite of what you've told us you get regularly where you are. I hope you get the time to familiarize yourself with some of the true intellectual giants of church history which we admire so much on this board. 

This is the Puritan board. It is in their stream that we drink.


----------



## cupotea (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 5) I hope you stick around at this board--posting, reading, interacting. What you hear here is certainly going to be the polar opposite of what you've told us you get regularly where you are. I hope you get the time to familiarize yourself with some of the true intellectual giants of church history which we admire so much on this board.



It certainly is the polar opposite--I'm still trying to figure out if there's a safe middle ground (and I know, both you and Toronto will shout, NO!, and you're probably right). And I don't mean a middle ground between Atheism and Christianity, just to make that clear! 

As for the PB strengthening me, unfortunately it's done just the opposite. I feel like every time I reach out to someone I have my hands chopped off. Like I'm rejected by the people who should be on my side. I certainly don't mean this as an insult, and especially not a personal one, since it isn't this thread that has done the damage. Nevertheless, I am grateful that you are so welcoming.

Regarding the fathers of the Church, I admit, I have no idea who Machen was. Again, whenever I try and talk religion with people here, the argument becomes, well, an argument. So, rather than being enlightened, I am the enlightener, and one of the strictest Christians these people know--while it flatters me to hear them "insult" me by calling me "puritanical", it sort of disturbs me as well--sinner that I am, I'M the devout model Christian? Yikes! Anyhow, as a result, my knowledge of the Church fathers is limited. My familiarity is greater with 17th century America--and that's through my own research, not through anything I've learned here. However, I have read some Augustine (_The Confessions_, and part of _City of God_) and _The Institutes_ of Calvin. I only read the Institutes recently, and I absolutely loved it--the best simile I can think of is that it was like coffee in the morning; I'd been semi-awake before, but this gave me a huge kick and the strength to get through my day. It was that ammunition you're talking about, and I'm certainly going to look for more of his works.


----------

