But that logic, since most of the Divine writings were established as Scripture before there ever was a church in Rome, and as unlike that entity, Scripture specifically states the Jews were the stewards of Holy Writ, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and to whom promises of perpetuation and guidance were given, then all should have submitted to them.
And as, like Rome, they presumed these promises and historical decent promised a level of veracity and perpetuation that forbid any dissent or replacement, thus they challenged the itinerant preacher from Nazareth, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk. 11:27-33)
To which the Lord required that they tell them by whose authority the Baptist acted, which they refused to answer on political grounds, though he also was rejected by them, as Rome rejects any who have not her sanction.
The transcendent issue is one of authority. Why would or should seekers of Truth follow this itinerant preacher from Nazareth who had not the sanction of the historical heavyweights and turned over the tables of their power?
The answer is that, in contrast to them, the Lord Jesus established His claims on Scripture, in word and in the manifest power of God it affirms, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)
And the most critical aspect of this basis of authority is that the of the gospel of grace, and manifest regeneration by repentant faith in it, and which kind of living effectual faith the church relies upon for its members and for storming the gates of Hell.
And which affirms that the church is that of the living God, (1Tim. 1:15) versus its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant. “For the kingdom of God is not in word [self declaration], but in power, ” (1 Cori. 4:20) by “manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2)
Good post, daniel, authority is what this is all about. I just posted this on another thread about Constantine. He was the authority sitting upon his throne ruling over the Bishops at Nicea. Not exactly in the same vein as your post, but I think you can catch the drift:
............................
Catholics claim the church conquered the Roman Empire, but in reality the Roman Empire conquered the church - by making the church over into the image of the Roman Empire.
Beginning with Constantine, the church changed its nature, entered its great apostasy, became a political organization in the spirit and pattern of Imperial Rome, and took a nose-dive into a thousand years of Papal tyranny and abominations.
The Imperial Church became an entirely different institution from the persecuted church of the first centuries. In its ambition to rule and subjugate all to the Pope it became the persecutor.
Worship, at first very simple,was developed into elaborate, stately, imposing ceremonies having all the outward splendor that formerly belonged to pagan temples.
Ministers became priests. The term “priest”was not applied to Christian ministers before a.d.200. It was borrowed from the Jewish system, and from pagan priesthood. The Catholic priesthood eventually became celibate, forbidden to marry by the law of the Imperial Church.
Conversion of the pagan masses filled the church with all kinds of pagan practices and philosophies. Various Greek and Oriental philosophies became amalgamated with Christianity.
Was all this Constantine’s fault? Not really, he only did what Emperors normally do, he took charge. We have all the weak-backed compromising Bishops, who allowed Constantine to sit in the place of authority over them at Nicea, who sold out the true church to statism, transforming it into an Imperial church, to thank.