Direct Answer
According to Bercot, the absence of controversy or records should make us skeptical of claims that the early Church radically changed core doctrines, ordinances, or morals shortly after the apostles. He argues that major changes normally leave traces of conflict, dissenters, and debate.
Support from Transcript
- He states that “every major change in doctrines, ordinances, or moral teachings has always been accompanied with some sort of controversy.” - He adds, “Invariably, someone in the group doesn’t go along with a change, and we have a record of the controversy.” - He points to the 16th-century reformers, whose work was “surrounded by conflict with the existing Church and with the other reformers.” - He asks whether Christianity’s cardinal teachings and ordinances could have changed “all without any conflicts, debates, or dissenting congregations.” - He compares that idea to the entire Roman Catholic Church suddenly adopting Anabaptist beliefs “without any controversy, dissenters, or discussion.”
Discussion Follow-ups
For Bercot, radical-change theories need to explain not only what changed, but why the early record lacks the kind of controversy such changes normally produce.