I don't know why; but, isn't the concept of the invisible church widely held by much of the evangelical / Protestant confession? Do you reject the idea of an invisible church that is composed of actual Christians irrespective of their denominational identification?
versus Godly people of God which are within the visible body progressively showing general consensus as to what and who is of God.
This sounds like progressive revelation. Are you not a sola scriptura adherent?
It seems that you are saying that a visible church, over some years, reached a consensus about what would be accepted as Holy Scripture. Have I accurately understood?
I am not sure I am getting your point, but will keep trying.
I don't know what you mean by invisible? You mean without visible manifestation, as in a class of people called by a distinctive name which are identified as being so by what they overall basically believe and do (and do not do) - actions constituting the real evidence of that?
And which people claim historical faith based upon an objective transcendent body of Truth held to be wholly inspired of God, baptize and disciple people, and affirm the magisterial office or role of teachers, and ordain presbuteros/episkopos (elders/overseers as pastors) to preach and shepherd the flock?
And or do you mean that have a centralized magisterium and one standardized liturgy and claims formal historical descent, under the magisterial office which claims ensured veracity?
And which ordain hiereus (priests) who primary function is to offer the body and blood of Christ to the flock, which prays to angels and saints in Heaven, etc."
This sounds like progressive revelation. Are you not a sola scriptura adherent? It is actually progressive realization of revelation, while SS actually fully pertains to a 66 book canon, and is based upon the fact that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
It seems that you are saying that a visible church, over some years, reached a consensus about what would be accepted as Holy Scripture. Have I accurately understood?
Basically that the people of God, who are manifest in a body, did so. The question then is, must we then submit to that body in all like issues.