[Natural Law]

"But Protestants are good at interpreting things the way they see fit..so I’m not surprised."

What is most disingenuous is the practice of presenting a few paragraphs, selected by and for the Protestant eye, as though it were all an Early Church Father wrote on a subject. The ensuing hostile incredulity that results when it completely falls apart when seen by those who have actually read and studied the body of work, or now by those who have witnessed its refutation on these threads dozens of times, is both predictable and at times humorous.

Peace be with you

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Thanks for bumping the thread with your posts. I appreciate it more than you know.

[BlueDragon]

Oh really? Just the other day, more than a few instances of limited excerpting, either taken immediately out of context, or ignoring wider information available from the same ECF in ways which would change their meanings, was shown to being committed by Romish apologists, and corrected too.

Further, there were accusations along the lines of that which you have just again insinuated were being committed by Rome's critics---which when fully examined --were NOT changing the meanings whatsoever, although yourself and more than a few others were making big noises about it.

Personally, though it is predictable that such will continue to be alleged by Rome's pom-pom wavers, the truth is that crowd is as much or more at fault --which I do not find humorous at all.

[piusv]

Yup. You speak the truth yet again.