Because my view is also the faith of the fathers for 2000 years; yours isn't.
I am agreeing with people not only from just 500 years ago, but also with the writings of some early Church Fathers. Some of the writings of these Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Tertullian) were thrown out by the Church as heresy, but which support what I believe today on some subjects
The cornerstone of Protestant or Baptist beliefs - Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide or predestination of the reprobates were not taught by anyone prior to the Reformation. At best you have some writings of St. Augustine that can be bent the predestinationalist way despite his own clarifications to the contrary. There is nothing in the Reformed belief system that conforms with the consensus of the fathers at any time.
Because my view is also the faith of the fathers for 2000 years; yours isn't.
You're right. And the Jewish faith is at least 3,800 years old, so I guess, using your reasoning, that they are right more than you and me combined. :)
There is nothing in the Reformed belief system that conforms with the consensus of the fathers at any time.
Well that's clearly impossible, or else you would not waste a minute of your time with the likes of me. You are only talking about the things we disagree on, so what kind of a statement is it to say that nothing we disagree on conforms to your beliefs? :) My point is that if Reformed core beliefs matched Catholicism, then there would have been no need to break away.
Plus, the original subject of this line was about reading plain meaning. I have come to learn that Catholics and Protestants cannot even agree what plain meaning is IN GENERAL. Catholics seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with Tradition. Protestants seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with the words of the text. This is a very big difference.