Skimmed it but found it too simplified. Seems like we agree on the history, and for the norms the Orthodox only have the plus that they weren't the ones who split. The problem is that in theory any individual or group can set new norms and they have done this, even in the first millennium among those who are still professing Christian churches today, because they believed it was conscientiously incumbent to split. Both sides are acting out of good conscience, and in such cases God seems to say the division is from him.

Consider the history of denominations and see whether the whole argument over who is the root isn't best resolved by Jesus's statement that he is the root and we are (all) the branches.

More important, I'd ask if in turn you could skim R. C. Sproul and see if my summary of him has some error.

Skimmed it but found it too simplified. Seems like we agree on the history, and for the norms the Orthodox only have the plus that they weren't the ones who split. The problem is that in theory any individual or group can set new norms and they have done this, even in the first millennium among those who are still professing Christian churches today, because they believed it was conscientiously incumbent to split. Both sides are acting out of good conscience, and in such cases God seems to say the division is from him.

Consider the history of denominations and see whether the whole argument over who is the root isn't best resolved by Jesus's statement that he is the root and we are (all) the branches.

More important, I'd ask if in turn you could skim [R. C. Sproul](https://communities.win/search?query=canon of scripture&community=christianity&sort=old) and see if my summary of him has some error.