There is no way that the "Bible" could have played a significant role in the early Church, for the simple reason that the Bible as we know it did not exist for the first four hundred years, and that until then there was no correpsonding theology to fall back on.
The Church didn't even use the Old Testament during the second century, and there are a number of NT books that make no reference to any OT scriptures at all. The second century Church was torn between Marcion's 100% literal reading of the OT and Barnabas' 100% allegorical.
Neither of these ended up with many followers and eventually, somewhere around 360 AD the Church threw out Barnabas (whose Epistle is part of the oldest surviving Christian Bible), who was an Apostolic Father!
The first attempt at bridging the gap between the OT and the NT began with Irinaeus towards the end of the 2nd century, and only because he was looking for an authoritative source that would give the Church's NT some leverage in his dealings with heretical sects which challenged the Church authority and interpretation.
He was the one who devised a "seamless" union between the two Testaments. The real work on Christian theology really doesn't begin to take off until the 3rd century, when Origen began his colossal work or creating a unified theology.
Reasonably uniformed Christian theology really did not exist for the first 200-plus years since Christ, and even after that only loosely until the Nicene Council in 325 AD, and the Canon until 396 AD! Until then, the Church was completely heterodox in her beliefs and practices, and her approach to the scriptures.
I have previously posted what different Fathers considered as canonical, based on their writings, and they were as different as night and day. Along with the Origen's work, the canon slowly began to take shape by concensus, but was still full of books that were later deemed "profane."
The idea of Trinity was likewise very heterodox. The names were there but outside of the three Hypostases mentioned in the Bible (and not even mentioned as Hypostases!), there was no uniform theology as to how they relate, what their nature is, and so on.
The OT and the NT writings were the basis, the mine so to say, that Origen and others used to "dig" for answers and hints, so in a sense, the "Bible" was the basis, the foundation of their postulates, but the authority that made the Bible and the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas unquestioned foundation of the post-Nicene Christian faith (and by that I include all traditional Protestant groups) was the concensus patrum reached in the early Councils.
The scriptures were the "raw" material, and the Councils the blacksmiths that forged theology on which all of Christianity rests. And the, in a brilliant stroke of circular logic, the Church canonized the Bible, completing the loop!
So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the "raw" material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecitng (and even destorying) everything that did nto suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!
First, by consensus, you give yourself (arrogate) the power to make something "holy," then you use that "authority" to proclaim that something is "holy," which "confirms" that you are "holy" because you base your "holiness" on that which you made "holy."
Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.
I don't have a problem with most of your essay till this point. Why the sarcasm? The Church as a whole most definitely has the guidance of the Holy Spirit at all times. The Holy Evangelists had it, Paul and Peter had it, and so the Holy Scripture has it as canonized by the Church. The bishops at Nicea and Pope Leo XIII did not say anything new in that regard.
“So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the “raw” material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecitng (and even destorying) everything that did nto suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made “legitimate” by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!
First, by consensus, you give yourself (arrogate) the power to make something “holy,” then you use that “authority” to proclaim that something is “holy,” which “confirms” that you are “holy” because you base your “holiness” on that which you made “holy.”
Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.”
Sorry Kosta mou, I’m with Alex on this one...except for this part:
“...people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others....”
I know that’s why I do it, but of course I am Greek and therefore excused!
What? I don't understand this at all. For the purposes of it being taught, the fact that the Bible was not in an organized and printed form for a few hundred years is irrelevant. Its contents were taught from the beginning. Do you really think that the theology of the Bible was unknown UNTIL the Bible was formally put together? That would mean there was no such thing as Christianity until hundreds of years after Christ, AND that the Apostles did not individually TEACH Christianity. You can't mean that. :)
The first attempt at bridging the gap between the OT and the NT began with Irinaeus towards the end of the 2nd century, and only because he was looking for an authoritative source that would give the Church's NT some leverage in his dealings with heretical sects which challenged the Church authority and interpretation.
There is no "gap" between the OT and NT (aside from 400 years). They describe the same God. Naturally, that God is different from the God of those who think that only a small part of the Bible describes God.
Reasonably uniformed Christian theology really did not exist for the first 200-plus years since Christ, and even after that only loosely until the Nicene Council in 325 AD, and the Canon until 396 AD! Until then, the Church was completely heterodox in her beliefs and practices, and her approach to the scriptures.
That can't be right. Paul specifically told the Bereans to compare the NT God he was telling them about to the OT God in scriptures to make sure they were the same. If you want to say that Orthodox theology did not come along for a few hundred years that is fine, but the OT and NT God being one is not something that had to be invented.
The idea of Trinity was likewise very heterodox. The names were there but outside of the three Hypostases mentioned in the Bible (and not even mentioned as Hypostases!), there was no uniform theology as to how they relate, what their nature is, and so on.
Believers knew. Of course not all who put out "theology" were believers. I make no judgment as to names, but it is not surprising at all that individual beliefs were all over the place.
So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the "raw" material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecting (and even destroying) everything that did not suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!
I certainly can't argue that this is a view out there. I have read many posts consistent with it. But if the Church gave itself the authority, then what would be the problem with saying that it is a man-made faith?
Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.
I'm sure there are many examples of that across Christianity, but a true believer would have no use in comparing himself to anyone else. The Bible teaches plainly on this very subject.