Scriptures and tradition. The scriptures don't have a contents page saying what they are supposed to contain, but the liturgical life of the church through the lectionaries are what eventually becomes scripture. This is tradition, and is not recorded in scripture.What do you think those ecumenical councils and synods established? Individual bishops interpretations like Arius etc aren't infallible, but the church's interpretation as a whole is. Likewise, a couple of Europeans in separation from the rest of the Church, cannot establish any sort of catholic doctrine. Just like doctors not granted the right to practice in Malaysia cannot establish KKM guidelines.

Who gets to judge what the early church got right and wrong? By whose standard?

“These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/act.17.11.nkjv

Sure, and is that how the early church interpreted it? Is scripture alone the interpreter of itself found in the writings of the church fathers and ecumenical councils? If it is not, and if it is not what has been taught everywhere, always and by all, then it is an innovation. The scripture itself is the arsenal by which all heretics draw their doctrines from, to paraphrase Johann Eck, papal legate vs Martin Luther.

What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius.)

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)

We did not evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures. (Cited from Eusebius, Church History, 7.24.7–9)

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)

Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (The Good of Widowhood, 2)

Thank you for those quotes, and happy new year.

Were those church fathers writing within the context of people pitting scripture against tradition - as is the purpose of the conception of Sola Scriptura; to debunk Roman Catholic tradition? Or was it in the context that scripture and tradition were not at odds with each other, and that scripture is the tradition written down? Were they participating within the liturgical life of the church, that also shaped their thinking and interpretation of scripture?

Irenaeus -
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they [Gnostics] object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (Against Heresies 3.2.2; ANF p. 416

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times . . . . (Against Heresies 3.3.1; ANF p. 416

St. Gregory of Nyssa which you quoted(c.A.D. 335-394),brother of St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Catholic Church and bishop of Nyssa writes:

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" (Against Eunomius,4:6).

St. Basil the Great(A.D. 329-379), Doctor of the Catholic Church, bishop of Caesarea, and brother St. Gregory of Nyssa’s writes:

"Of the dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to a mere term" (Holy Spirt 27:66).

Tertullian, which you quoted:
"Now, what that was which they [the Apostles] preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very Churches which the Apostles founded in person, by declaring the Gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the Apostolic Churches—those moulds and original sources of the Faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the Truth of the Churches and Apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the Tradition of the Apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the Apostolic Churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics
(Does your church have apostolic succession? I'd be surprised if any Protestant church still holds to it outside of certain conservative Anglicans and Lutherans)

Tertullian again:
"But even if a discussion [with the heretics] from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very Faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and Faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian Traditions." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 19
ALL the Christian Traditions. Not the cherrypicked ones that some people claim are in line with their own private reading.
So for Tertullian, in order to be a legitimate interpreter of scripture, one must be within a church with apostolic succession, and hold to all the Church's traditions. And finally, the checkmate from Tertullian:
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us [the Church], 'as many as walk according to the rule,' which the Church has handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, 'Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine?'"

It is clear then that the context in which the church fathers talk about scripture is safely within the bounds of Holy Tradition, and not in the attitude of pitting scripture against tradition, as Sola Scriptura is used for. Even what is defined as scripture is determined by tradition, unless you can find me a contents page in scripture. It is like Doctors within KKM talking about some treatment modality, while random people online who do not undergo the same training as those KKM doctors at all, give their opinions on the same treatment modalities. They may practice TCM, or Ayurveda, or believe that they are doctors, but unless they are registered Drs with Malaysian Medical Council - searchable on MERITS, they are not licenced to practice medicine in Malaysia.

If scripture alone is so clear, why the need for any ecumenical councils? Surely everyone would read the same thing the exact same way, everyone would sing kumbayah and think the same way? If scripture alone is meant to return the church to its primordial state of unity, why all the thousands upon thousands of schisms? Arminian vs Calvinist vs Molinism and everything in between? I myself used to belong to the Methodist church which is a schism from the Anglican church, which is a schism from the Roman Catholic church, which is a schism from the Pentarchy. The Methodist church gave birth to even more schisms, the Salvation Army etc and many many more from the Holiness movement. Even Joseph Smith was involved with the Methodist church at one time. And this is just one mainline denomination. Scripture Alone is the great divider, the idea that brings forth disunity and breaks the body of Christ into a million pieces. You may say you are united in certain fundamental doctrines, but then, what makes your interpretation more valid than Joseph Smith? Or Arius? It is just the church of the least common denominator. Then what makes you different from Islam, Judaism or Sikhism? They too believe in one God. How low does the bar go and according to whom? This is why only those churches who are the spawn of the Solas hold to liberal theology, women presbyters, same-sex unions, same-sex married clergy. The "United" Methodist Church in the US kicking out those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even the Roman Catholics will not sink that far.

And yet the canon of scripture is not in scripture. That is an extra-scriptural tradition, which is somehow assumed as authoritative, in order to prove the scriptures as the ultimate authority. So if that one extra-scriptural tradition is binding, who is to say the rest aren't? According to whose authority?

Can you prove which canon in which Ecumenical Council is wrong, and according to which authority?

I agree with you on the Roman Church, which is why I am not a Papist. However, I believe the early church fathers would still be able to recognize a lot of what they teach within the Roman Church, in contrast to the amorphous mess which is Protestantism. They have a unity which no Protestant denomination can even come close to.

"If only we allow scriptures to say what it means, and mean what it says, we’ll all be singing kumbayah together" This sentence is very nice, but it is like communism. Nice to talk about, very utopian ideals, but useless in practice. I'm a medical doctor. I only care about evidence-based medicine, and I apply the same rule as well to this. And the evidence for Protestant unity is quite non-existent, unless in the church of the least common denominator sense.

With regards to Mary, again, evidence based. How do Protestants treat God's mother? When you visit your friend's house, do you barge past your friend's mother and completely ignore her except for one month in a year, or do you say hi to your friend's mother, ask her how she is, and then only see your friend? If you say yes, you will show your friend's mother the respect she deserves instead of treating her like the convenient uterus that carried your friend. Which is how all Protestant churches, except for the High Church Anglicans and Lutherans, treat the Theotokos. Unless of course, you can show me evidence that most Protestants do, practice in real life, respect of God's mother every time they visit His house. Which, growing up in various Protestant churches, they don't. They don't even mention her once during the church service, unless she appears as part of the scripture reading for that Sunday, as an occasional sermon illustration, or around Christmas. Then she gets stuffed back into the closet for fear of seeming too "Catholic". Again, evidenced based. I know that the Reformers, Luther, Calvin, even Zwingli, spoke highly of the Theotokos, affirmed Her ever-virginity etc, and some even advocated for praying the Hail Mary. There is zero evidence that such practices have survived in contemporary times among those who owe their existence to them, and even if they do, they are fringe and dying views and practices at best.

They may debate traditions, the novus ordo and the results of Vatican II is a travesty, but for every one finger you point at Rome, 4 fingers point back at Protestantism. At least Rome still has the FSSP, the Eastern Catholics and the more Traditionalist bishops to act as a counterbalance. Whereas Protestants are happy to throw out their traditions altogether for happy clappy discotheque rock bands, church split and schism sesuka hati. Liturgical abuse may be rampant in the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church, but they can never beat Protestantism for liturgical abuse and liberal theology.

Thank you for expounding on the Protestant view of the compilation of scripture. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by divine providence, whether you mean that poof one day the KJV Bible appeared out of thin air and a voice from heaven spoke saying that the contents page of said Bible is all there is and that is all to the first Protestant, or you actually believe that certain writings have been divinely protected all along to endure till now. If it is the latter view, how do you know that the other things that were not written down, such as those if they were written down, the whole world could not contain them, or the tradtions passed down by word of mouth did not survive too? How do you know your canon, and not the Roman Catholic, or the Eastern Orthodox, or the Ethiopian Tewahedo canon is correct? By what authority do you know it is correct?

I believe as the Ethiopian eunuch did, and let's be honest, as you do too. Did the Eunuch have a problem asking a fallible human to explain the scriptures to him? I don't recall. We all need and had someone else to explain it to us, whether it be through Protestant lenses, Roman Catholic lenses, EO lenses, Oriental Orthodox lenses, Mormon lenses, etc. To assume you can go at it alone is the very reason why Muslim apologists find it so easy to convert Protestants. They can rattle off a litany of Bible verses to support the Arian position that Jesus was a mere prophet and a created being, and who are you to say their interpretation of the Bible is wrong and according to what authority? They also have the Bible what. The Mormons can also do the same, and the Jehovah's witnesses, who are you to say that John Calvin is more correct than Joseph Smith? It is a house of cards to divorce the Bible from the tradition that established it. You may say you don't, that yes, you value tradition, but what tradition in practice?

I believe the church that Jesus Christ established that is the pillar and foundation of faith (not the Bible btw, that's what the verse says), exists to this day and the gates of hell did not prevail for even one millisecond. And yes, you are correct, men are fallible, but the church is infallible.

I believe you are falling for the same Collyridianism that certain 6th century Arabs believe that Christians believe in. Either that, or you do not understand that yes, people can, and do understand the difference between latria and dulia. Even Roman Catholics do not practice Mariolatry, and that is a caricature of their beliefs. They know exactly that Mary is due honor and veneration, but not worship. If you cannot differentiate that, then it your problem, not theirs. Also, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, High Church Anglicans and Lutherans do the same thing too.

Sub tuum praesidium. Veneration of the Theotokos predates even the canonisation of scripture. Are you so sure you want to go there?

I'm glad that we can agree on something at least. I see how the faithful pockets of mainline Protestants are trying to hold out against the overwhelming tide of liberal theology, and I feel sad for them.

Any comments guys? It seems logical by Zakir's arguments.

Want to asked, why ppl believe christianity when there are million of other religion in the world? In fact, where one is born seems to be the most likely indicator of what religion one is.

What makes u think christianity the "special one" that is definitely correct?

How do u reconciled the fact that it is statistically likely christianity was made up by human?