MY CONDOLENCES. You were never a Christian in the first place and you have been massively duped and cheated into a damning production of fallen men with satan behind it all.

" I deny that the Bible should be the sole rule of faith, and I think history and logic prove Christianity drew useful truths not only from the Bible, but also from Sacred Tradition."

I and I and anyone else who is born from above does not care what you deny or not for that has no meaning whatsoever besides the truth that you are confused and possibly lost.

" Without the Church and it's Tradition, we have no way to reliably interpret the Bible. "

Really, what a bogus hogwash. So how is that Athansasius stood for DECADES against all of the world (Athanssius contra mundum) and all of the other Bishops and Emperor who all wanted him to deny Christ and become Arian as they all did? What was he standing on traditions? Church? Really? All of Church and all of traditions went HERETICAL for they were ARIAN. No He stood on the Word of God as a empowered and enlightened by God the Holy Spirit. This example shows you how wrong and duped you are and there are many more from the Church History and from the Scripture itself.

"This is why Protestantism is so horribly fractured."

You WERE NEVER a Protestant in the first place and you are horribly ignorant and tricked.

"Let's wrap this up, shall we? I have a life outside of Zionica. "

Gee, really? You must be the only one then…

Hogwash. There is no sacrificial preisthood in NT besides ONE and ONLY in the Person of Christ. All your priests are impostors as is their "re sacrifice" or "continuation of sacrifice" or however semantically you want to frame the blasphemous Roman sacrificial mass developed hundreds of years after true Lord Supper.

"And it is that Church, which as Martin Luther rightly stated, that gave us the Bible."

Bogus. No church and no Apostolic Church which was not your later Roman development "church" gave us the Bible. The Church only RECOGNIZED what was INSPIRED BY GOD. Get the difference.

You have no factual responses and you cannot respond to fact as quoted to you from Early Church Fathers or from the Scriptures. Your loyalty belongs not to God and His inspired Word but to your syncretic Church with its paganized pseudo "gospel" that does not save but damns and damns only. That is why for the most part and over 90% of your posts were deceitful, evading, nonfactual ad illogical avoiding the substance to my arguments. YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS but lame propaganda only. Your Roman church made you believe that traditions are not subservient to the Scritpures but EQUAL and in observed practice of your idolatreous religion actually HIGHER than the Word of God all of this lie:

" As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with ***equal*** sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Catechism of Rome 82

Deceiver, not only I did answered to that but I ALSO provided quotes from Early Church Fathers who spoke to that which you have totatly and completely IGNORED while asking for them in prior. You are a dishonest indvidual and you will not stop from any lie to advance the interest of your Roman Church just as Muslims do who lie to according to their principle of Taqiyya … After all they are your "saved" brothers who adore and worship the same "god" as your Roman Cathechism teaches in point 841.

In claiming that Nicea was about Trinity… The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God i.e. hypostatic union but that union did not just popped up at Nicea bit was taught 200 year before and later. By the way hypostatic union of Christ is not all encompassing for the truth of Trinity nor are these separable issues as it could be read from your imprecise assertion of: ""…good examples of this are the Trinity, AND THE HYPOSTATIC UNION."

The rest is usual propaganda.

Nope, every LOCAL church was and the Apostolic Church was local with FEW CENTERS like Antioch, like Jerusalem, like Alexandria etc. and not ONE and LATER i.e. Rome.

"How ridiculous! "

Yes your straw men and contradictions are ridiculous.

"Would not the truth that is recognized at the church at Ephesus, also be the same truth recognized at the church of Philippi, Thessalonika, or Corinth? Talk about Eisegesis! "

Nope, talking about the straw man on your part, and being dishonest for the sake of your agenda and denomination.

"Yes, I am well aware that Irenaeus wrote about the Trinity."

HAhhahahaahahaha, you were so "aware" that you denied it here asserting councils and hundreds of years later:

""Sorry, but the Bible alone could never have given the Christians the understanding they have today about this without the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople."

"I thank you for providing a great example (Irenaeus) of how sacred Tradition (as opposed to the so-called "self-sufficiency" of Scripture) as passed down by an Early Church Father, helped the church in its theological understanding of this great truth."

You are completely irrational, brainwashed religious loyalist and you do not understand the Church History and the Scriptures. So Ireneous understood the Trinity from "traditions" of your then non existent Roman Church. Wrong, He understood it FROM THE SCRIPTURES gullible man:

"The Word of God, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who appeared to the prophets according to their way of prophesying…"

Alister E McGrath, "The Christian Theology Reader" , 2nd ed, Blackwell 2001, pp 174-175.