An "excuse"??
The event described in Acts clearly indicates how disputes, and questions of dogma were settled in the early Church; not by reference to a book. That is your point, isn't it? We should conform to how things were done in the early Church, right?
There was no book. Paul and Barnabas conferred with the Apostles.
This also clearly indicates that before the book, there already was the Church. That is, the Church gave us the Scriptures and not vice versa.
That is why Paul and Barnabas had no need of a book when it came to resolving the dispute over circumcision. They consulted the "apostles and ancients". Likewise, evangelists had no need of a book. They were sent by the Apostles in the name of Jesus.
This is precisely the model used by the Catholic Church.
Wrong. Paul had direct revelations from the risen Christ. He did NOT receive it of man, neither was he taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11,12.
I’m assuming you mean no documents that were considered scripture? If so, Peter, how apropos, would disagree and did consider Paul’s letters scripture.
Peter believed the writings of Paul to be scripture as he included them with scripture.
2 Peter 3:15b. As also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given him, [16] as in all his letters, speaking concerning these matters, in which some things are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. [17] You then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being let away with the delusion of the lawless.
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a heathen or publican." --Jesus
Protestants should take note of the following.
Jesus did not say, "listen to the Scriptures."
He did not say, "listen to your local church."
He said, "the church."
The church that He founded.
The church that the gates of hell would not prevail against.
The church which St. Paul calls, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
“An “excuse”??
Yes, your excuse is that they didn’t “have a book”. You do.
“The event described in Acts clearly indicates how disputes, and questions of dogma were settled in the early Church; not by reference to a book. That is your point, isn’t it? We should conform to how things were done in the early Church, right?”
No. The Apostles were the foundation before the Scriptures were complete. We have them now. Use them.
“There was no book. Paul and Barnabas conferred with the Apostles.”
There were PLENTY of scrolls and letters circulating.
“This also clearly indicates that before the book, there already was the Church. That is, the Church gave us the Scriptures and not vice versa.”
God gave us the Scriptures by directly inspiring men to write his words. He started this during the Old Testament times thousands of years before His gathering.
“That is why Paul and Barnabas had no need of a book when it came to resolving the dispute over circumcision. They consulted the “apostles and ancients”. Likewise, evangelists had no need of a book. They were sent by the Apostles in the name of Jesus.”
No the answer is above.
This is precisely the model used by the Catholic Church.