Many of the non-Trinitarian views were condemned as heresies by church councils.
Protestants do recognize the first councils as authoritative.
Many arguments against Sola Scriptura ignores the other Sola's. One must Start with the Sola about Christ first.
History and church fathers are used to identify correct interpretations.
It was those same fathers who made copies of the books in the NT for us today --- The earliest ones were taught by the apostles themselves.
Like the OT was written for us to learn from, there is no reason not to learn from Christians closer to the NT period.
The Scriptures were not written in a vacuum. yes, we do look for something that is inconsistent.
spiting out the bones and keeping the good meat.
Protestants do recognize the first councils as authoritative.
Many arguments against Sola Scriptura ignores the other Sola's. One must Start with the Sola about Christ first.
History and church fathers are used to identify correct interpretations.
It was those same fathers who made copies of the books in the NT for us today --- The earliest ones were taught by the apostles themselves.
Like the OT was written for us to learn from, there is no reason not to learn from Christians closer to the NT period.
The Scriptures were not written in a vacuum. yes, we do look for something that is inconsistent.
spiting out the bones and keeping the good meat.
It's fine to do but there is no reason to give authority to "history and church fathers" which have without doubt been subject to politics and human fallibility. Even if we look beyond Sola Scriptura, the question comes back to "whose version of history?" and "which church?"
Is scripture read from the heart ever in a vacuum?