No authority!

[CadyandZoe]

The Apostles had been dead for 2 centuries before before the inspired books were compiled and made binding on all Christians. The authority you describe makes "remembering what He taught" into a mere historical event, not perpetual.

So, for example, when Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel or to baptize, virtually all Christians today think that this applies to all Christians in perpetuity. Yet when Jesus tells the same disciples to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18; Jn 20:23; also to St. Peter individually in Matt 16:19), somehow that is not seen as a thing that is perpetually relevant through history, and is relegated to their time only.

This makes no sense. For one to take such a position, they have to establish a solid reason why they regard one instance as perpetual and the other as temporary. I contend that it can’t be done; that any such criterion would be completely arbitrary. Often, sadly, it comes down to merely a contra-Catholic mentality and rationale: “Catholics believe thus-and-so, and so we must oppose it, no matter what the Bible may state on the subject.”​

Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession

I don't agree with your first premise, that it had been two centuries before the canon was developed. The canon was known during the time when the apostles were still alive and able to authenticate it.

Your question isn't that difficult to answer, given that Paul taught us to liken the church as a body, each with it's own function. It makes perfect sense that the Twelve apostles and Paul would serve a special purpose, just as an organ of the body serves a special purpose.

You have no Biblical basis to conclude that the binding and losing is alienable. With regard to the Great Commission, the commandment is to make disciples "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", which indicates that these three alone are to be our teachers. We grant the scriptures belief authority over us because we have confidence that the scriptures accurately document what these three have said. To the degree that the Roman Catholic church kept the scriptures out of the hands of the laity, to that degree the RCC is antichrist, working against Jesus Christ. I don't say this to be insulting; perhaps this injustice was inadvertent.

I personally don't have, what you called, a "contra-Catholic mentality and rationale". Rather, I object to all forms of orthodoxy, whether Catholic or Protestant. Why? Because Orthodoxy is nothing but dogma with an army behind it. As such, Orthodoxy is inflexible and unable to tolerate correction. Had Catholic dogma been open to correction, the Protestant Reformation would never have taken place. Whereas people like me believe that the Holy Scriptures are inspired and infallible, authoritarian organizations such as the RCC and the various official Protestant denominational organizations, claim inspiration and infallibility for their particular catechism, magisterium, or other extrabiblical writings.

Herein lies the difference. Authoritarian based organizations preach "thus saith the Lord!" without allowing for correction or introspection. Affirming dogma is a religious act, rather than a rational act. Whereas, those like me, who give sole authority to the scriptures, appeal to fellow Christians, with a question, "Isn't this what the Lord is saying?" The process is rational, open to correction, and allows others freedom of the mind and space to walk his or her own journey. Orthodoxy and Religion are Christ's enemies and these things oppose those who truly follow Jesus Christ.

 

[Illuminator]

I don't agree with your first premise, that it had been two centuries before the canon was developed. The canon was known during the time when the apostles were still alive and able to authenticate it.

The Apostles had copies of the New Testament??? Core beliefs like this make discussion with you impossible.
A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon

Note that the sources for the diagram are ALL PROTESTANT!

1) J. D. Douglas, editor, New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 edition, 194-198.

2) F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 232, 300, 309-10, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069.

3) Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12, 117-125.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Apostles had copies of the New Testament??? Core beliefs like this make discussion with you impossible.

I thought everyone understood this. Consider an epistle of Paul, for instance. His epistles were copied hundreds, if not thousands of times by believers. The same with the other letters and the gospels. By the second century the only question was this: what writings have believers throughout the known world always accepted as authentic? With regard to THAT question, 200 years isn't that long of time. When was the Constitution of the United States written? 1787. Is there any doubt as to its authenticity? No.

I also don't accept the testimony of the Early Church Fathers. Why? They are just like us. They aren't inspired, or infallible. In fact, their "fathers" were the ones to whom Paul and the others wrote their epistles correcting their understanding of the gospel. Bottom line, proximity to the Apostles is no guarantee of correctness.

If you want to toss out Second Peter, that is your right. Go ahead. But all of this is beside the point. It says nothing at all to the question of whether anyone other than the Apostles have belief authority over me or any other Jesus follower. We are following Jesus. Get it?

 

[Illuminator]

I thought everyone understood this. Consider an epistle of Paul, for instance. His epistles were copied hundreds, if not thousands of times by believers. The same with the other letters and the gospels. By the second century the only question was this: what writings have believers throughout the known world always accepted as authentic? With regard to THAT question, 200 years isn't that long of time. When was the Constitution of the United States written? 1787. Is there any doubt as to its authenticity? No.

I also don't accept the testimony of the Early Church Fathers. Why? They are just like us. They aren't inspired, or infallible. In fact, their "fathers" were the ones to whom Paul and the others wrote their epistles correcting their understanding of the gospel. Bottom line, proximity to the Apostles is no guarantee of correctness.

If you want to toss out Second Peter, that is your right. Go ahead. But all of this is beside the point. It says nothing at all to the question of whether anyone other than the Apostles have belief authority over me or any other Jesus follower. We are following Jesus. Get it?

So you disagree with 3 prominent Protestant reference manuals?

 

[Brakelite]

So you disagree with 3 prominent Protestant reference manuals?

There's Protestant, then there's Protestant.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So you disagree with 3 prominent Protestant reference manuals?

I didn't read what you sent. If these men disagree with me, then they are wrong.

 

[Brakelite]

Catholic apologists will always deny the Peshita. It destroys their invention that they were responsible for the Bible.