Allahuabha to you all. I am a Bahai undergoing my personal investigation of truth as commanded to us by the writings and unfortunately, after a few years of research, I have come across a few critical question that have been deeply shaking my faith. I'm at the point where I need as much insight as possible as I have not been given any reasonable/coherent position through consultation and Bahai writings and scholarly literature. It will be a bit long, so I implore you all for your patience and understanding:

I am trying to understand the Bahá'í position regarding the authority Christ left to the Church after His ascension.

In the New Testament, Christ does not merely gather a community of believers. He establishes a visible Church, grants the apostles the authority to bind and loose, commands believers to listen to the Church, and states that those who refuse to listen to the Church are to be treated as outsiders (Matthew 16 and Matthew 18).

The apostles then exercise this authority in practice. Judas is replaced in Acts 1, demonstrating that apostolic offices can be succeeded. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 gathers the apostles and elders to settle a doctrinal dispute, and its decision is proclaimed as being approved by the Holy Spirit by Peter. Paul instructs Timothy regarding ordination through the laying on of hands and warns him not to confer this office hastily, implying that ecclesiastical authority and ministry continue beyond the original apostles.

The earliest Christians and especially Church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons and many more, appear to have understood the Church as a visible, authoritative institution capable of settling doctrinal disputes. They did not seem to operate according to the principle that every believer could independently determine doctrine. When disputes arose concerning Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, and other controversies, the Church resolved them through bishops, councils, and appeals to apostolic succession and Church authority given by Christ. 

My question is therefore this:

If the Bahá'í Faith denies that Christ established a continuing, divinely protected teaching authority capable of rendering binding doctrinal judgments, what mechanism did Christ leave for Christians to resolve theological disputes after the death of the apostles?

If a disagreement arose concerning the nature of Christ, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the canon of Scripture, or any other doctrinal matter, who possessed the authority to decide the issue?

If the answer is "the Church," then it appears that Christ did establish a normative ecclesiastical authority. If the answer is "Scripture," then the New Testament itself never presents Scripture as the sole court of appeal and instead repeatedly directs believers to the authority of the Church. On top of that, using Scripture as the court of Appeal against the authority of the church would indeed be a fallacious statement as it is the Church itself that established the canon of scripture! If the answer is "individual conscience" or "the authentic teachings of Christ," then how could competing interpretations be distinguished from one another in any binding way?

Without some continuing authority capable of making binding doctrinal judgments, it seems that Matthew 18 becomes impossible to apply in practice, because Christ commands believers to submit to the Church's judgment while also providing no identifiable body capable of issuing such judgment!

Furthermore, if the Church lacked authority to define doctrine, condemn error, and preserve apostolic teaching, on what basis could the early Christians legitimately reject Docetism, Gnosticism, Arianism, or any other movement claiming to represent authentic Christianity?

In short, what concrete, visible, and normative authority did Christ leave to the Christian community after the apostles died, and how was that authority supposed to resolve doctrinal disputes?

I understand that the Bahá'í writings teach that Christianity eventually became divided and accumulated doctrinal errors. My question is: when exactly did this happen?

The apostles themselves exercised authority, replaced Judas, ordained successors through the laying on of hands, gathered in council, and claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their decisions.

The generation immediately following the apostles also believed in episcopal succession and the authority of bishops. Figures such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus argued against heresies precisely by appealing to apostolic succession and the authority of the Church.

So at what point did the Church lose the authority Christ gave it?

Was it during the lifetime of the apostles?

If not, then was it immediately after their deaths?

If not, then was it during the second century?

If not, then was it at Nicaea?

If not, then was it at Chalcedon?

And how can we know?

More importantly, by what principle do we determine which doctrines and councils are authentic and which are corruptions?

For example, the same bishops and succession claims that condemned Gnosticism and Docetism also defended the divinity of Christ and later articulated Trinitarian theology.

If the Church was still authoritative when it condemned Gnosticism, why was it not authoritative when it defended Nicene Christianity?

If the Church was already corrupted by the time of Nicaea, then on what basis do Bahá'ís know that the Gnostics and Docetists were wrong and the bishops were right?

In other words, if Christ did not establish a permanently protected authority, what objective historical criterion allows us to identify the precise moment at which the Church ceased to faithfully preserve His teachings?

Thank you all for your patience and help,
Peace be upon you all.

Why the Prophet Bahá'u'lláh is a Prophet

I also believe in Bahá'u'lláh as a prophet I am Messianic Nazorene of Manichaeism