then there is no such thing as Colossians 1:25
– Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
Then there is no such thing as 2 Timothy 2:2
– this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Of course the Church is a body of believers, but that does not exclude the organization and development of apostolic authority. Christ is the foundation of the Church, you don't need to remind me. But the Apostles are also the foundation of the Church, Ephesians 2:20, which we call an institution, another word for which you have a different definition. Scripture does not say the body of believers are the foundation of the Church, but you do.
You create an anti-institutional false dichotomy that is not in scripture. NOWHERE does the Bible teach that a body of believers can collectively bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19).
I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith, and not some vague "body of believers".
The authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”) is not granted to "a body of believers", which contains ordained leadership. 1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17) You muddy the waters with Calvinistic dichotomies.
Peter, the other Apostles and elders, formed an institution in Acts 15, whether you like it or not. They represented "the body of believers". Don't waste your time with dictionaries, lexicons, concordances and commentaries trying to disprove the biblical definition of "institution". Your anti-institution mentality is not in Scripture, but you force scripture to say the opposite.
The 'reformers' unbiblically abolished the office of bishop and priest, so you resort to scriptural gymnastics to defend it, or make empty out-of-context assertions.
You always complain that the Scripture we provide that backs up our claims are out of context, but you never provide your private version of "context". You just declare it. This is sheer nonsense. The hallmark of Protestantism is division, sectarianism and schisms, the very things that the Bible condemns. The very things that Luther and Calvin lamented over. Protestantism fails Paul's test for a Biblical Church. The Council of Jerusalem was infallible, but you reject that or ignore it because it doesn't fit in the man made tradition of a supposedly non-infallible Church!
"
base faith and practice on Scripture" my ass. Get off your high horse and face reality. It is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance and freedom of conscience. The
evidence presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. Catholics and Anabaptists were killed or supressed for doing that very thing.
I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW
II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
BIBLIOGRAPHY
That is the consequence of your dogmatic "
base faith and practice on Scripture" which violated Scripture at every turn.