[Art's correspondant begins:]

The Holy Spirit is indwelling in all Christians in the same way that the popular sovereignty is present in all US citizens.  That does not mean that all US citizens have an equal right to make treaties with foreign governments, enact laws, interpret laws, or enforce laws.  We live in an ordered society where everyone has a place in the grand scheme of things.  The anarchy that you are suggesting is precisely what St. Paul was writing against in 1 Corinthians 12.  In fact @95 AD the Pope, St. Clement of Rome, wrote an epistle to the Corinthians on the very subject of the authority of ordained ministers.  The Corinthian lay people had this problem of wanting to "follow the spirit" and do their own thing without regard to their bishops and elders.  They were being flagrantly disobedient to their ministers.  St. Clement in a very pastoral way, tells them that the Apostles appointed men in authority as their successors and draws parallels to the organization of the 70 elders by Moses in Exodus 24, which also was paralleled by Christ appointing seventy disciples in Luke 10:1.  He makes the point that the Corinthian lay people were to submit to their ministers as to Christ.

It is not the Pope alone who possesses the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is actually in the Church as a whole.  In matters of doctrine, the special superintendence of the Spirit presides over the Church AS A WHOLE so that a belief held universally by all Catholics in union with the bishops (including the pope) is considered to be infallible.  If the bishops as a college proclaim a doctrine to be believed by the faithful, that also is taught infallibly.  Finally, the Pope can exercise a special prerogative and bind all the members of the Catholic Church to believe a particular doctrine as infallibly true.

This is Gnosticism.  The Church is not purely spiritual.  It is like its Savior and Lord: INCARNATE!  There are both spiritual and material elements to the Church.  You cannot reduce her to only one or the other.  The grave error of the Protestant Deformers was to over spiritualize Christianity to the point that everything was up for grabs at the whim of the individual.  The result is true anarchy: Protestant Pandemonium!

Frankly, you need to read ALL of them.  Most particularly, the 1st Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch.  It is St. Ignatius who first called the Church "catholic" in his epistle to the Smyrneans.  You will find the whole program there: bishops, presbyters, deacons; the SUBSTANTIAL presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; marriage before the bishop; "nothing is to be done apart from the bishop"; eucharistic sacrifice; the bishop as high priest; and more.  Go and read it for yourself.

You are a very patient and forgiving person.  I am a crustly old retired LTC who has dealt with quite a few nasty characters in my day, especially in the apologetics arena.  I apologize if I was somewhat gruff.  I do not presume to know the state of anyone's heart.  I am sorry if that was not clear.  While you may be a person who is subjectively innocent of willful error, you are holding to opinions that are OBJECTIVELY erroneous.  An honest man can make an honest mistake and still be an honest man.  But he has still made a mistake.  There is no middle ground on this.

Fair enough.  There are few basic principles that we hold to which may be new to you.  They are:

The incarnate nature of the Church: she is neither purely spiritual nor purely carnal.

Historical superintendence of the Church by the Holy Spirit from the very beginning to prevent teaching error in matters of faith and morals.  This is what we mean by infallibility.  This is called the Magisterium.  (I personally think this also extends to matters of discipline in a different but nonetheless authoritative way.  The Church has not passed final judgment on this idea so it remains my opinion only.)

The primacy of the Scriptures as the source of doctrine.  The Scriptures alone are verbally inspired and inerrant (that is, the Bible contains the fulness of truth not merely the absence of error.)  It is the Word of God himself.

Sacred Tradition also contains revealed truths, but is not verbally inspired.  It contains the Word of God in the words of men.  Much of Sacred Tradition relates to the proper understanding of the Scriptures.

The righteousness of the believer before God comes through the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul which generates in us the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity.  Ordinarily, this grace is infused at the sacrament of water baptism, but God can grants such grace to anyone at any time.  The faith which precedes baptism (and consequently precedes the infusion of Sanctifying grace) is not a saving faith but the result of prevenient grace by God who draws all men to Himself.  This is a very serious difference between Catholics and Protestants.

The Church is the body of Christ and we Catholics are all organs (a better term than members) in the body with diverse roles to play.

The Church is composed of three distinct groups of members:

The Church Militant (the Church on Earth)

The Church Suffering (the saved who are being perfected in purgatory)

The Church Triumphant (the saints in heaven)

All three groups in the Church remain united so that they are aware of each other and can pray for each other.  The saints in heaven have no need of our prayers, but they can pray and intercede for us on earth.

The faith that saves us is threefold:

fides (belief in what God has revealed)

fiducia (trust that his promises will come true for us)

fidelius (the will to act in accordance with our beliefs and hopes)

Outside of the Body of Christ, there is no salvation.  The best explanation of this is in the document Lumen Gentium, paragraph 14 from Vatican Council II.

The seven sacraments were bequeathed to us by Christ to continue all of the elements of his earthly ministry within the Church for all time.

The ultimate goal of the Incarnation was not merely to save men from sin but to make us sharers in the Divine Nature itself.  The beatific vision is the final revelation in heaven where each soul beholds God in His totality unmediated and is beheld by God in turn.  There is a distinctly nuptual flavor to this and it is no accident that the book of Revelation concludes with the "wedding feast of the Lamb".  It should also be noted that the Greek word for revelation is "apokalypsis" which literally means "unveiling" and is used to refer to a bride undressing before her groom before consummating their marriage.  When Catholic religious take a vow of celibacy, they are not rejecting marriage.  Instead they are pledging themselves as spouses to God alone in anticipation of the eschaton where (as Jesus said) people will no longer marry nor be given in marriage.

That ought to be enough to get us started.

We do not consider them inspired either.  They do provide important historical information about the second generation of the Christian Church in its organization and beliefs.

The popes rarely exercise the highest level of authority when teaching.  But even when teaching in a less formal way, it is not the pope's opinion that we respect, but rather the charism of the Holy Spirit's superintending of him.  The best quotations from Scripture to explain this are:

All of these verses – and more – testify to the gift of prophecy among the ministers of the Church in virtue of their office.  It is this to which we pay heed, not the opinions of the men who hold the office.

The Bible is the raw data.  Tradition is the collected doctrines discerned both from the Bible and from the other teachings handed on by the Apostles.  St. Paul bears witness to this:

This next quotation is the most important since Protestants invariably misinterpret it.  Please note my insertions in [BRACKETS].

St. Paul is advocating that the Christian acknowledge the three sources of knowledge: Tradition, Magisterium, and Scripture.  With all three the Christian is COMPLETE and fully equipped.  Most Protestants quote only verses 16-17 which distorts the meaning of the passage.

Remember the hymn: "Onward Christian soldiers onward as to war"?  The missionary outreach of the Church is the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) in the war with the "lord of this world", Satan.  This is why Jesus said:

Too many people read this as if it is saying that the forces of Hell will not prevail against the gates of the Church.  Actually it is the other way around.  We are on the offensive and it is the gates of Hell which are going to fall.

The seven sacraments are:

Baptism (by water: John 3:5, Romans 6:4)

Confirmation (laying on of hands: Act 8:15-17, 19:5-6)

Reconciliation (confession: John 20:23, James 5:16)

Eucharist (Communion: John 6:53ff, 1Cor 10:16ff)

Holy Orders (Ministry: Luke 9:1, 10:1; 1 Corinthians 12:24, 1 Timothy 4:14)

Matrimony (Matthew 19:7ff, Ephesians 5:21ff)

Anointing of the Sick (Mark 6:13, James 5:14)

[Art's correspondent continues:]

This was a typical ceremony in the ancient world whereby one was granted authority.  The blessing that Issac gave to Jacob instead of Esau was done in this way.  It authorized Jacob to carry on as his father's primary heir and as head of the family.  It was also part of the ceremony when Aaronic priests were ordained.  The rabbinic at the time of Jesus also underwent a similar ceremony with the laying on of hands (smicha) when they were officially recognized as rabbis in their own right.  Sometimes the laying on of hands was an ordination rite such as we see in Acts 6:5-6 and Acts 13:3.  But not always.  When men were charged with a certain job to be done, they might have hands laid on them.  Also, it was used as a sign of solidarity when a group would lay hands on someone.  In short, it was a common symbol of the conferring of authority which was used in the Church as the official ceremony of ordaining to the ministry.

Military service is highly revered.  During the Medieval Period there were several monastic orders in which the monks were actually knights who fought against the Muslim invaders.  Such orders included the Knights Templar, the Order of St. John of Malta, and the Teutonic knights.  Killing of any kind is reserved to the State acting out of necessity to protect the lives of its citizens, except in cases of personal self-defense.  The Church has always held that killing of criminals or enemy soldiers should only be used as the most extreme form of punishment when a bloodless way of settling the dispute is neither possible or feasible.

Pope's are entitled to their private opinions as theologians.  The only time that a pope's teachings have any authority in the Church is when he is teaching the universal Church (that is, he is clearly addressing the Church as a whole, not just a small group of people such as in a sermon at Mass).  The teaching must concern a matter of faith or morals.  If he does not make it clear that he is defining a matter for all to believe and accept as a matter of faith, then his teaching may be considered modifiable in the future.  But if his intention is clearly to give a definitive statement of the Catholic Church's teaching in a particular matter of faith or morals, that matter is considered to be infallibly taught (that is taught without error, though not necessarily in an exhaustive way) and thereby irreformable.  Please don't forget that Popes only rarely exercise this power.  The teachings of the Church are most often handed down by the bishops as whole either by consensus opinions or through the teachings of Ecumenical Councils.  This too is considered to be taught infallibly.  Likewise, any teaching held definitively by the the Catholic people as a whole is also considered infallible.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is the first to use the term "catholic" for the Church in his letters.

As to a direct reference to "the Pope", you won't find any that early.  The word "Pope" is an early medieval term and was not used until several centuries later.  But if you are interested in evidence of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, I suggest you read the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.  It contains numerous quotations from the early Fathers on the Primacy of the Roman See.  You will also find reference to this in St. Irenaeus of Lyon's work, Against the Heresies.

I will tell you some of the things you did find:

In the epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome to the Corinthians, you found him telling the lay people to submit to their ordained ministers.  You also found an explicit comparison of the ministers of the Church to the elders and priests set up by Moses.  Furthermore, you will find that he Apostles designated successors to carry on their ministries.  You will find nothing there justifying every Christian being empowered to act as a minister.

St. Ignatius' epistles show the three fold ministry (bishop, elder, and deacon) as the norm.  He says that nothing can be done apart form the bishop.  He advocates the real SUBSTANTIAL presence of Christ's actual body and blood in the eucharist.  He speaks of sanctifying marriages before the bishop.  He also refers to the bishop as the "high priest" of the community.  He calls the Church "catholic".

The Didache describes the threefold ministry as "Apostles, prophets and teachers" and specifically says that "prophets and teachers" are equivalent to "bishops and deacons".  (At this very early time the words "elder" and "bishop" were often used synonymously.) The terms were more clearly developed by the end of the 1st Century as we can see in St. Ignatius.  The term "apostle" still referred to a traveling evangelist at that time.  For this reason, many date the Didache to the 60's or 70's.  It also talks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, mentions the confession of sins, and fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays.

[Art's correspondent continues:]

No offense, but you are a typical modern American Protestant.  You want a sound byte, and a proof text.  There is no quick fix.  What you need is an education.  You have to get a feel for the ancient Church.  When you do, you will find that it was NOT a Protestant cult.  It had bishops and priests and a sacramental life that no Protestant cult could even comprehend because Protestants come to the Bible with gnostic presuppositions and they have abandoned genuine Christian worldview.  The problem I have with Fundamentalists is that they memorize a few texts but have not actually read the Bible IN CONTEXT.  Now that you have read what the first generation after the Apostles believed and how they organized the Church, go back and read the real core of the New Testament(NT): Matthew, 1 Corinthians, John, and 1 John.  You will see direct parallels to what you read in the Apostolic Fathers (AF).  That is because there was a direct trajectory from the NT to the AF in several areas.  None of it is Protestant in any way.

The Apostolic Fathers are not that long.  Heck I am a practicing medical doctor and I read 4 books a week that are each 2-3 times the size of the AF.  But look for the things I noted above in St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and the Didache.  that will be a good start.  And check out Jesus, Peter, and the Keys for specific early references to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

That is incorrect.  Gnosticism is a syncretistic heresy that included a number of characteristics but was primarily centered on the idea that the possession secret esoteric knowledge was in and of itself salvific.  They made a distinction between "spiritual" and "carnal" Christians.  Most Gnostics were formally dualistic and denied that the flesh was in any way good or connected with spiritual things.  I am afraid that the Protestant deformation was a gnostic movement.  Luther himself admitted to affinity worth various gnostic and dualistic heretics from the Middle Ages such as the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Bogomils, the Paulicians, and others.  Protestantism denied the actual physical existence of the Church and over-spiritualized it to the point that salvation was merely based on trusting faith without any practical connection to embodied existence.  The gnostic connection of the Deformers' theology is well attested to in many books.  Check out the book Against the Protestant Gnostics written by Phillip Lee, a Canadian Presbyterian Minister.

Well, you asked for proof texts of Papal authority in the Fathers.  That is a typical Protestant approach to doctrinal questions.  Proof texts are merely icing on the cake.  The substantial case for papal authority is not based on proof texts but on a thorough study of the way the Church functioned throughout its history.  Clearly the Church was not a collection of loosely affiliated local groups but an international communion of people under the discipline of Bishops.  The Bishops were organized along lines of hierarchy with the Petrine Sees given pride of place and Rome honored above them all.

That is because you do not know your Bible very well.  Your scruple is not biblical but a mere human tradition invented by the Protestant Deformers.  Please note:

St. Paul had no problem distinguishing the authentic Apostolic traditions from the vain traditions of men.  Why do you?

Like what?  I would submit that your alleged departures from the Bible are nothing more than traditions which have blinded you to what the biblical text actually says.  Give me some examples.  There is a lot more to religion that reading the Bible.  For example, do you know where the Bible came from?  How it was formed?  Who canonized it?  Why you have inherited TRADITIONS about it?  I can provide those answers but you will not find them in the Bible itself.  In fact, the Bible no where teaches Sola Scriptura.  That is an extrabiblical TRADITION invented by the the Protestant Reformers.  I am sorry if you thought my comment were harsh, but I believe I must speak the truth in season and out of season.  I can see that you are a sincere person and I thank you for being patient with a crusty old scrapper like me.  The central point of my recommendations for you is to show you how the Early Church REALLY was.  The "unbiblical" things you see in the Early Church were the authentic Apostolic Traditions.  The alleged "biblical" teachings that you have inherited from your religious teachers are heretical innovations derived from a gnostic/dualist worldview.  I will be happy to show you the foundation of any Catholic doctrine from its biblical roots.  I will also be happy to point out the roots of any anti-Catholic heresy.  At least I can give you the rationale for why we believe what we believe.

The Protestant notion of justification by faith alone is inherently gnostic.  It stipulates that one is saved by belief and trust in certain theological principles that are unknown to the common masses of men.  It requires no volition or action on the part of the saved and consists in a purely passive knowledge.  Furthermore, the Protestants also taught that men were totally depraved: that natural man was inherently evil.  Consequently, the Protestants denied any possibility of moral theology.  Ethics became purely secular and pragmatic with the sole exception of clear proscriptive commands from Scripture.  This whole package parallels the teachings and practices of historic Gnosticism.  It was this to which the Catholic Church objected in the 16th Century.  I believe that our salvation is wholly funded by Jesus' sacrifice for sin, which is common public knowledge that is understandable by anyone.  No amount of good works on my part could pay the price for my sins.  The price for my sins is death.  Jesus paid that price, if he had not, then I would die in my sins.

Your views here are very Catholic.  We are in substantial agreement on these basic issues.  The last sentence above is very important.  St. Paul bracketed his epistle to the Romans with a call to the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5, 16:26).  I wish more Protestants would take the hint.

It always seemed so to me as well.  As a Catholic I cut my teeth on the Gospels and it was always clear to me that Jesus was warning people not to think that righteousness was some imputed phantasm.  That was what he dismissed as whited sepulchre theology (Matthew 23:27).  You raised an objection to the following:

For example the opening words of Clement of Rome first epistle to the Corinthians:

Every book in the Bible is from individuals to other individuals or individuals to local churches.  Never does one local church direct the affairs of another local church in the Bible.  Well, you asked for evidence of the primacy of the Church at Rome and I think you found it.  In 95 AD no less.  Remember this was while St. John the Evangelist was still alive.St. Clement was the successor of St. Peter in the Roman See.  He did not have any authority in himself but only as the Bishop of Rome.  That is why he addresses the Corinthian Church in the name of the Roman Church.  By the way you are wrong about the Apostles only addressing individuals in their epistles:

Also in the KJV we have the following:

This is clearly one local church › the Church of Rome › speaking to another local Church through its Bishop.

Actually, there were no capital letters in the original Greek NT text or those of the Fathers.  Nor were there punctuation marks or spaces between the words.  Scholars added all of these later on to make the texts easier to understand.  So really your objection here is beside the point.  Besides, Jesus himself spoke of only ONE church not of many (Matthew 16:18, 18:17).  In John 10:16 he spoke of the same thing: one fold, one shepherd.  Jesus did not found multiple local Churches.  He founded only ONE Church.  St. Paul also acknowledged this when he referred to THE church of God which is at Corinth.

By what right do you sit in judgment on the historic Church?  Why should your interpretation be considered normative?  By what authority do you decide what is and isn't "biblical"?  You say: The Bible came from men who spoke as they were inspired by the word of God.  I would say that it was formed by God.

Get real.  Men created the Bible.  They may have been inspired by God but it was men who wrote the books, collected them together, preached them, and determined what their nature was and how we should understand them.  And it was not just any men.  It was the Bishops of the Catholic Church who did all of this.  Once again you are talking like a Gnostic.  You act as if the Bible is purely spiritual without any physical, historic, or human component.  The reality is that the only reason that Protestants have a Bible is because the Catholic Church created it.  The Bible is not merely a series of texts.  It is a book with certain contents in a certain order to which certain characteristics are attributed.  The very layout of the verses was only imposed in 1250 AD.  Without the context of the living Christian Church the Bible is nothing more than one more religious book among many.  The Church did not make the Bible inspired; God did.  But the Church made the Bible a reality.  This is why Protestantism is self-refuting.  By denying the authority of the Catholic Church to teach infallibly, the Protestants deny the very authority they need to establish the Bible credentials.  The only difference between the Gospel of Peter and the Four Gospels is that only the Four Gospels were acknowledged by the early Church and venerated for centuries afterwards as the word of God.  The Protestant religions are living on borrowed capital and actually have no warrant for their faith in the Bible other than the fact that they inherited the Bible from the Catholic Church.  I fear that traditions of men are hard to overcome.  I try my best to look at the Bible and have no respect for the traditions of men.  I ask that you do the same.  Perhaps one or both of us can take the blinders away so that we can all properly discern between the two.

By what authority do you tell me to ignore the CATHOLIC traditions and then follow your PROTESTANT traditions instead?  St. Paul himself taught us to follow the traditions that come from the Apostles:

Catholicism does that.  Protestantism does not.  You also quoted 2 Timothy 3:14-17 in a previous email and pointed out your (I presume the Catholic Church's) interpretation of it (in brackets) If you will grant me license, I will put my own brackets in the Scriptures to denote my understanding of the same passage:

[Art's correspondent continues:]

Yes you can.  Read Matthew 10:19, 16:16ff, 18:18; Luke 10:16; John 14:26, 20:22-23; 2 Peter 1:15ff.  The Bible is clear that you are obliged to follow the ministers of the Church who have been ordained by the Apostles.  Since you have read 1 Clement, you know that he made this argument and insists that the Corinthians submit to their pastors.  Furthermore, look at the 3 divisions that you yourself made; Gospel, St. Paul the Apostle, and Scripture.  What St. Paul was talking about which you labeled Gospel is CLEARLY the oral traditions that were handed on to the faithful APART from Scripture.  Scholars refer to this as the Regula Fidei or the Rule of Faith.  Essentially St. Paul is advocating submission to NON-SCRIPTURAL teachings promulgated by the Apostles.  That brings us to the 2nd division.  St. Paul did NOT say remember who your TEACHER was.  He said TEACHERS [plural].  He was not bragging about himself but about the teaching authority of the Apostles that they had received from Christ.  Sorry, but even your divisions support my exegesis.

Sure you can.  I will reiterate them for you:

You see, true BIBLICAL Christianity distinguishes between mere human traditions and those that come to us from God through his ministers.  It is a Protestant tradition to deny the validity of any traditions which is (as usual for things Protestant) logically inconsistent and thereby incoherent.  It also happens to be contrary to Scripture as well.

There are many people who hold to this thesis of yours.  While I am sympathetic to this idea, I am not sure it is correct.  One of the glaring omissions in the Acts of the Apostles is that it does not mention the writing of any of the books of the NT, yet we know that several of St. Paul's epistles and at least the Gospel of St. Luke had been written before Acts.  1 Timothy 5:18 clearly quotes from Luke 10:7 as Scripture.  So I think this is an open question.  But for the sake of argument, let say you are right.  Then there is a serious problem.  If the only Scripture Timothy had while growing up was the OT, how could he be fully equipped for every good work?  After all, St. Paul made a big deal about the fact that the Mosaic Law did not bind Christians.  That would mean that the oral traditions from the Apostles were sufficient unto themselves to make the people Christians with the OT being used in a supplemental capacity.  Quite frankly, this interpretation thoroughly debunks Sola Scriptura.

That is not true.  The Latin Vulgate Bible was never restricted from the people.  Only CERTAIN vernacular translations were forbidden.  Ordinary lay people were to be guided in their reading of vernacular Scripture by their priests.  This was at a time when literacy was not very common and people were generally uneducated.  Everything you needed to know was in the catechism and was derived from the Bible.  No secrets.

This is calumny.  I defy you to find a single place in OFFICIAL Catholic teaching which says this.  The understanding of the Scripture is a matter of scholarship and the Catholic Church has depended heavily on such learning.  The Popes NEVER claimed to understand the Bible better than anyone else.  They functioned as the final authority for discerning the correct interpretation when disputes arose.  Infallibility does not have any positive content.  It is a charism similar to prophecy in which the Magisterium (whether the Pope, the hierarchy or the church as a whole) is preserved from error in discerning sound doctrine from heresy.

You are very superficial in your reading of Scripture.  St. Paul and St. John were not giving anyone a "salutation".  They were writing with authority to the Churches under their charge.  It is typical Protestant to claim that St. Paul was just giving his personal "suggestions" to the local churches to which he was writing.  Read how St. Paul talks to the Corinthians.  He as an Apostle was giving them their marching orders.  The successors of the Apostles did no less to the Churches left in their care.

There is no biblical or traditional evidence for your assertion.  While signs often accompanied the preaching of the word throughout Church History, the authenticity of doctrinal traditions was a historical matter.  St. Paul acknowledges this in 2 Timothy 3:14ff when he reminds Timothy to remember who his teachers were.  St. Irenaeus of Lyon in 180 AD in his work Against the Heretics reaffirmed against the Gnostics that the doctrine in the Church was not hidden but passed on by tradition through the historical succession of bishops.  I would caution you about using "miracles" to establish the authenticity of doctrine.  There can after all be "lying wonders".  In the Catholic Church we judge the authenticity of miracles on how well they conform to established doctrine, not the other way around.  Besides, a miracle is merely that.  It is not a rational argument or proof that proves something to be true.  It should be noted that we Catholics have always had miraculous events occurring among us.  For example, St. Francis Xavier in the 16th Century preached several sermons in Asia using the gift of tongues such as the Apostles used on the day of Pentecost.  The people from diverse backgrounds all heard him in their own language.  In the 17th Century, St. Mary of Agreda – a cloistered nun in Spain – bilocated and evangelized American Indians in new Mexico and Texas.  This means that she appeared to these Indians while still being physically present in her convent in Spain.  She sent the Indians to find the Spanish priests who were amazed at the story the Indians told.  The Indians described her accurately as she did them.  These are both stories that can be verified.  Do a search on the Internet and you will see what I mean.

By modern standards of proper grammar/vocabulary.  It is all part of the processes of translation.  So the vernacular paraphrases of the Bible which we all use (in fact even the current standard Greek texts of the NT) have been substantially altered in form way beyond what the original texts actually contain.

You are welcome.  I will endeavor to generate more light than heat.

I hope I have steered you well into some new information that you will find helpful.  I might recommend to you another book written by Protestant scholar, Daniel H. Williams: Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants.  I think you will find it interesting and helpful in your studies.