And here we are finally starting to peel away the layers of the theological onion, so to speak, and getting at the root of the problem. Surely it's true the Fathers didn't agree with each other (although they certainly agreed with themselves, or else they are crazy and not to be trusted at all). But this then begs the same question as is begged with Scripture interpretation: WHO gets to decide when the Fathers taught the true fsith and when they taught in error?
This is the ultimate question that must be answered and addressed when studying their work as when studying the written Word of God. It's a question of authority really, and in brief, Protestants don't have such authority to decide which Father taught "Scriptural Truth" when. This is simply and obviously because the only "authority" any one person has to make such a determination either comes from a grounding in the teachings of a Church with authority that is historically valid (traced back to Christ) or a community of people who decide for themselves when a Father teaches something "Scriptually true".
This narrows such candidates to the Catholic and Orthodox churches already. It certainly can't include the Proteststants who didn't come on the scene until 1600 years later! What kind of authority is that? Where did it come from? Only the circular answer "it comes from Scripture" can be given at this point.
In other words the Protestant claim is, "The authority to decide which Father taught Scriptural truth and when comes from Scripture. We know this because even the Fathers say so. We know the Fathers said so because 'we' can see them doing so 'here', 'here' and 'here' and 'we' can know this because 'we' can decide this from Scripture alone"
Here we can see the fatally circular flaw of the Protestant reasoning, because each sets himself up as supreme arbiter of "which Father teaches Scriptural truth and when" because each Protestant again arbitrates by THEMSELVES, for no valid reason, historical or otherwise, "from Scripture alone when each Father teaches truth"
They think they take themselves out of the arbitration process when claiming "Scripture alone decides for us", but they haven't. It's the same error as claiming 2 Tim 3:16-17 "proves" sola scriptura. It only does so because the Protestant INSISTS it does. The same for the Fathers: they are all Proto-Protestants because the Protestant INSISTS they are, and for no other reason. Certainly for no authoritative reason OUTSIDE themselves, which a personal interpretstion of Scripture is NOT.
>>This narrows such candidates to the Catholic and Orthodox churches already.<<<p
No, it does not. It’s only by the words of those organizations that they believe themselves to be the interpreters of scripture. Scripture itself show them to be wrong. Scripture says that all true believers have the Holy Spirit as a teacher and counsellor. That and the fact that the Catholic Church relies on proven spurious documentation is cause enough to regard them in error. Add to that the belief in the assumption of Mary which didn’t even surface until 100s of years after the passing of the apostles and it’s easy to see they are NOT the “church” Christ was talking about.
This is simply and obviously because the only "authority" any one person has to make such a determination either comes from a grounding in the teachings of a Church with authority that is historically valid (traced back to Christ) or a community of people who decide for themselves when a Father teaches something "Scriptually true".
Your 'Church's' history if rife with forged documents and lies from one end to the other...Your religion is no authority on any thing...Least of all the scriptures...You wasted a lot of ink in this post...