Who do you think taught 1st century bishops and martyrs? The Apostles. Who laid hands on men to become 1st century bishops and martyrs? The Apostles. As there was no “New Testament” at the time, what do you propose they taught?
The answer? The Scriptures, which at that time, was the Septuagint, as well as all of the teachings of Jesus Christ as given to them by the Apostles.
For review, Jesus’ Apostles created bishops by the laying on of hands, giving them the authority to teach. Before the laying on of hands, these men were taught by the Apostles. Currently, we are discussing the teachings of these men, which pre-date the New Testament, and were students of the Apostles.
So, did Jesus lack the authority to send the Apostles preaching and teaching? Did the Apostles lack the authority to appoint bishops (successors)? How is/was the truth of Jesus Christ to be spread authoritatively without the provision to appoint qualified successors?
Finally, who is more credible as a source of teaching, a disciple of the Apostles, or someone separated from the Church by choice and 1500 years (Calvin, Luther, etc.)? Again, who is more credible: someone taught by a man who physically learned at the feet of Jesus Christ himself, or someone denying the truth that had been taught for over 1500 years?
Clearly, when one decides anyone can have their own version of Christianity, then there is a problem. This was demonstrated in the early part of the Reformation, when denominationalism spread. Different Protestant leaders were dis-fellowshipping other Protestant leaders and sects because they weren’t in agreement. Clearly, with each man being his own judge, relativism is sure to follow.
When one believes they alone are the final arbiter of Scripture, then there is no possibility of unity, the unity Paul called for in 1 Cor 1:10-13.
Peter already called Paul's writings scripture.
>>Currently, we are discussing the teachings of these men, which pre-date the New Testament, and were students of the Apostles.<<
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
>>Finally, who is more credible as a source of teaching, a disciple of the Apostles, or someone separated from the Church by choice and 1500 years<<
By the time John wrote Revelation in 96AD six of the seven churches were already in error. Paul had to publicly shame Peter because he whimped out when he was eating with Gentiles and Jews showed up. Who are you kidding by trying to get us to trust anyone later than that?
Evidently NOT!!!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Which was CAUSED by the folks above!!