Yes, I have read the early "fathers" writings. And I notice a divergence of opinions early on about myriad of issues. While their writings may be edifying [or not... depends upon who one reads and what pre-disposition one brings. Think about Origen and Tertullien (sp?)], they are NOT Scripture. If they were, perhaps they would be in the New Testament. Their writings, no matter how prolific, do not rest side-by-side with Scripture.
The only thing here with you is fear of being wrong.
You are correct in one thing: I, like everyone else, don't like to be wrong. However, I have been. And I fully expect the trend to continue. It was the "accident of birth" that saw me raised in the RCC. It was study of Scripture that led me out. It was further study of Scripture that led me away from TULIP Calvinism. I try to remain open to God's instruction. But I don't want Him to have to teach me the same lesson more than once.
Understanding history is to cease to be a Protestant.
I am no Protestant. I acknowledge the RCC members' right to believe in anything they wish. I am no Martin Luther. I do not wish to Reform any church.
As to history causing one to become RCC. I've had plenty of RCC-slanted history thrown my way. And today's secular history completely white-washes the importance of religion to man. To wit, I have read plenty of good books that chronicle the development of Christendom. The more I read and compare such development with Scripture, the more I am convinced that the majority of men has utterly distorted and twisted the original workings of the Body on earth. For this reason, I will not become a member of any hierarchical structured, denomination. The New Testament makes it clear that each local assembly was independent, autonomous, and loosely bound together through their common faith in Christ.
Pope St. Clement I, a student of Sts. Peter and Paul, wrote a commentary on the apostolic preachings around 90 A.D. When did your sect start?
First, there was no Pope Clement I. The term "pope" did not exist in 90 A.D. There was a man named Clement who was a distinguished elder (bishop or overseer if you will) in one of the assemblies in Rome, and he wrote many things.
While it is likely that Clement knew Paul (given that Paul was under house arrest in Rome for two years), I am not aware that he ever encountered Peter, let alone was his student. Especially given that the assemblies in Rome pre-dated even Paul's first trip to Rome (See Acts 28).
Clement's writings may be edifying, but like every other non-Inspired writing they are secondary to Scripture.
The Church I have been added to upon my obedience to the Gospel is spiritual in nature, and began on the day of Pentecost shortly after the Lord's resurrection through the power granted the disciples by the Holy Spirit. My local assembly is an autonomous, independent congregation of like-minded believers modeled after those of the New Testament. How about yours?
sigh
I associate with a non-denominational church of Christ where others that believe in a similar manner attend. We discuss Scripture, and don't always agree.
Now you write:
My local assembly is an autonomous, independent congregation of like-minded believers modeled after those of the New Testament.
You're not "like-minded" you are all practitioners of YOPIOS and prove that sola scriptura doesn't work or else you would all be in complete agreement.
It was further study of Scripture that led me away from TULIP Calvinism.
Further proof of the fallacy of YOPIOS, it just doesn't end. At the start of the Reformation, Luther left the Church. Soon after, Calvin left, but he didn't agree with Luther so he started another group. In the five hundred years since, thousand more splinter groups have sprung up, none of them agree with one another. If scripture was really so "simple" that any Christian could grasp it, none of this would occur.