Well then let me make my point more plainly, and that is to say that the “Fathers” were not infallible then, just as there are none who are infallible today. To say something is true only because the “Fathers” of 2,000 years ago deemed it so is circular reasoning at best.
You wrote:
“Well then let me make my point more plainly, and that is to say that the “Fathers” were not infallible then, just as there are none who are infallible today.”
Your point is meaningless. At least once today you will be infallibly correct. Say, “The earth is not flat,” and you will be infallibly correct. You won’t be an infallible man, but you will be infallible in your statement. So, your point that they are not infallible is simply meaningless. You’re saying nothing.
“To say something is true only because the “Fathers” of 2,000 years ago deemed it so is circular reasoning at best.”
It is not circular reasoning at all. It is common sense. If you find that the overwhelming number of Founding Fathers say the 2nd Amendment meant individual weapons ownership tells us what those Founding Fathers INTENDED with the 2nd Amendment. That’s important. In the same way, the Early Church Fathers tell us what was intended with the NT and early teachings of the Church. And that’s not circular reasoning. I guess you don’t believe in “original intent” interpretation of the US Comstitution either, right? Because you wouldn’t want to be a hyporcrite and contradictory, right?