The fact remains that the church did not begin under you model, but began upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation in dissent from those who were the stewards of Scripture, and the inheritors of promises of God's presence and preservation, and had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses with a structure and authority.
And thus under the Roman model, in which those whom she rejects are invalid (based upon the premise that she is the stewards of Scripture, and the inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and has historical descent), then the church itself began on an invalid basis.
And while you can rant about Al Sharptons, ignoring the unity that has made evangelicals overall more unified in conservative views than even weekly Catholics, your model has the problem is competing sola ecclesia churches each claiming to be the OTC based upon their interpretation of evidence.
You can argue for Rome being the OTC based on evidence, yet that is not your basis for assurance, as it is for evangelical types regarding Scripture, but your assurance is based upon the premise that Rome's interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and history is correct. But which is not the basis under which the church began.
But which is why you never actually deal with the fundamental problems with your polemic, and what refutes the false premises, logical fallacies and broken record irrelevant rants about men that you invoke. Thus you have marginalized yourself as just another ranter.
“polemic,” “false premises,” “logical fallacies” and “broken record.”
Wow! that I guess describes all the writings of the early Church Fathers; the works and treatises of scores of historical and theological scholars spanning over 2000 years, the writings from Augustine to Aquinas- Newman- Benedict, and all the saints and martyrs were misled on the teaching of the Christ. Voila!
So says the “The Church of Daniel1212)