Irene,
we view the church as existing well before the New Testament was canonised and younger even than the time of the individual writings.
If you are looking at scriptural evidence though, i’d put forward the idea that the scriptures plainly make Peter the leader.
I’d reference Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 with Isaiah 22:22 and the continuation of the Jewish High Priesthood with Peter.
The book to the Hebrews deals with the ‘New Judaism’ of Christianity. This was the first church. They were closest to the historical Jesus on earth.
I’d reference the loosing and binding as pointing the infallibility on morals.
I’d point to the widespread description in the scriptures and early writings of ‘laying on hands’ to denote the handing on of authority after the fall of the Jewish temple system (see Hebrews).
I’d point to John’s description of Jesus sprecifically telling Peter three times to care, guide and shepard his sheep.
Jesus often spoke of himself as the shepard, and the usage of the same word (sheparding) in John’s gospel is significant. The Jewish idea since Moses was that the high priest was the temporary steward acting on behalf of God on earth.
For me personally, even before i start looking at the bible it just makes sense to have a church which of course has a head. This was the nature of the Jewish understanding of Church since Moses and Jesus spoke on earth about ‘obeying those on the seat of Moses’, even if they act badly. He never spoke of the destruction of the priesthood or its abolition. He did speak about tearing down the temple and building it again.
Without a heirachy of Church you never would have had agreement on what was a canonised list of New testamant writings. It would have been a mess. It would make Jesus actions / personality / reason for coming and divinity claims arbitrary and up for grabs depending on who has the most charisma at any one particular time.
For me the continuing miracles in the church is the further clarification down the centuries for that presence.
Otherwise it just looks an arbitrary mess and, for me personally, detracts from the validity claims of Christianity.
But that’s me.
If we put our faith in the bible alone, we are ignoring that there needed a church to write and authorise and explain the bible.
We are also dismissing the Jewish idea of high Priest stewardship.
We are also ignoring the very early church who didn’t have a bible and the many generations of Christians in later generations down the centuries who did not have access to the written word, because of many factors including the heavy dependency on agricultural labour and the heavy costs of hand writing copies on animal hides.
It’s only since the cheap invention of paper (China) and the printing press (Germany) and the Industrial revolution (Great Britain) and the mass innoculation against disease (France) that allows today the access to affordable, relatively cheap education supplied by healthy, stable, concentrated urban populations that produce the mass printing of bibles.
But that is a latter development in my opinion and is totally out of step with the history of Christianity. It is a great improvement and a good thing, but i think building a Christinity with the bible as the total base i think cuts itself off from historical Christianity which to me, cuts at the very heart of the validity claims of Christianity and is not a good thing if as part of that, the Christian history is thrown overboard.
Christian history, as i see it, is a connection to the time of Jesus.
Cutting out part of that history makes for a weaker Christianity, not stronger IMHO.
A reliance on the bible alone MAY work for salvation (which is the most important thing - agreed) but does not make sense for a complete historical view of the true Jewish-Christianity (or Christianity) itself from 33 A.D IMHO.
God bless.
