Replies

So how about those before the Bible was canonized?

Your question actually helps to make my point.

Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church--particularly, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20)--not to mention that He told His disciples: "OI will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church's existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian's only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully wirtten--much less settled in terms of its canon--until 65 years after Christ's Ascension, how did the early Chruch possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

The answer is that, of course, they did have authority to proceed. They had the authority that was the hierarchical structure of the Church in which Peter, as See of Rome, was the leading authority -- an authority giving to him by Christ.

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church's existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared

And that is the Catholic religion...Out of Rome...The persecutions were done by Romans...And it's conglomeration of pagan and quasi-religous zealots who worshipped the queen of heaven which is still being worshipped today...Your religion is not the religion of the Apostles...

(cf. Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian's only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully wirtten--much less settled in terms of its canon--until 65 years after Christ's Ascension, how did the early Chruch possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

So you claim that God was with his church always but yet He let them wander in the wilderness for 400 years til He summoned your Roman religion to come up with doctrine???

400 years of dying, ignorant Christians who had no doctrine...No Holy Spirit to lead...No scripture to rely on...

I can't imagine how intelligent people can fall for a fairy tale like that...

bdeaner, you know I appreciate your post.

However, I think this is a bit of a jump:

“They had the authority that was the hierarchical structure of the Church in which Peter, as See of Rome, was the leading authority — an authority giving to him by Christ.”

During those years, we see in Acts and the Epistles NO hierarchical structure, with Peter as the leading authority. In fact, Paul refers to Peter (and James & John) as “those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential” and “who seemed to be pillars”.

From this I deduce that from the beginning of the Church, there were many who gave extra weight to the teachings of James, Peter & John. After all, they couldn’t seem to be pillars without folks who believed they were in fact pillars.

However, I also deduce that Paul, writing under Divine Guidance, denies that their teachings were any more important than Scripture (as it existed then - the Old Testament). If “Peter, as See of Rome, was the leading authority — an authority giving to him by Christ”, then Paul could not have described him as someone “who seemed to be pillars”. For if what you said was true, then Paul would have acknowledged either Peter as A pillar, or as THE Pillar.

I believe - and remember, I’m an aging EWO, not a church scholar - that most Baptists think Apostles were responsible for providing guidance until Scripture was complete, and after that time, the role of apostle disappeared.