Protestant Authority

[mozart-250]

Do you believe that the governing authority of your Church is protected from error with respect to matters of faith and morals?

Oh…this was meant for me…

No.

And BTW if I don’t believe my denomination is protected from error with respect to matters of faith and morals, you can logically conclude I don’t believe yours is either. Otherwise I would be stupid to be where I am.

 

[Proletarian]

Oh…this was meant for me…

No.

And BTW if I don’t believe my denomination is protected from error with respect to matters of faith and morals, you can logically conclude I don’t believe yours is either. Otherwise I would be stupid to be where I am.

So (with all due respect) you follow your governing authority, but only as long as their opinion does not conflict with yours? At the end of the day that “authority” means squat; and your own personal authority rains supreme?

 

[JohnnyReb]

I don’t have time to write out a detailed response right now.

But each Protestant denomination (or non-denomination) is different when it comes to authority . Almost all of them claim that the Bible is the sole authority, but most denoms recognize that there are various people who are more qualified to interpret the Bible.

This issue was the Big Issue for me when it came to joining the Catholic Church. I am convinced that in the last decade, many of the evangelical churches have fallen apart and become anarchies (every man, woman and child for himself) over the issue of authority. The Christians in these churches are Biblically literate from a young age, and I believe that many evangelical Christians are uncomfortable with their current church “authorities.” I believe it is simply impossible for many of them who carefully read the Scriptures to continue “doing church” the way they do it, with a Book in charge, and a humanly-appointed heirarchy to lead the day-to-day affairs of the community.

I think this is the main reason why so many evangelicals “fall away.” (According to their teachings, they were never Christians to begin with if they fall away.) I also believe it is the main reason why so many evangelicals flit from church to church in a hopeless search for a church where they can “be fed.” They aren’t looking for food, they’re looking for parents: Papa and Mama (the Pope and the Church).

I believe they leave evangelical churches because they can’t justify opposing what is plainly obvious in the Bible–the CHURCH is the authority, and the CHURCH is not just an esoteric “idea,” but a real physical body with real human leaders who have been given authority to lead by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

If evangelicals ignore this, then they are deliberately ignoring many passages of the BIble, and that is impossible to do and still be an evangelical Protestant Christian.

Amen!!! Thanks for telling my story.

 

[mozart-250]

So (with all due respect) you follow your governing authority, but only as long as their opinion does not conflict with yours? At the end of the day that “authority” means squat; and your own personal authority rains supreme?

Yup you nailed it :banghead: :bigyikes: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Proletarian]

Yup you nailed it :banghead: :bigyikes: :banghead: :banghead:

If I’m missing something please enlighten me. I really don’t get it. You acknowledge a governing authority, yet you believe it to be fallible; meaning that it is ultimately your responsibility to discern whether they are teaching truth; therefore placing yourself in authority rather than that governing body. So why even bother having a governing body at all?

 

[mozart-250]

If I’m missing something please enlighten me. I really don’t get it. You acknowledge a governing authority, yet you believe it to be fallible; meaning that it is ultimately your responsibility to discern whether they are teaching truth; therefore placing yourself in authority rather than that governing body. So why even bother having a governing body at all?

You are saying that an authority that is capable of error is not really an authority?

That line of reasoning does not work in any other areas of life. So why should it work here…

 

[Proletarian]

You are saying that an authority that is capable of error is not really an authority?

That’s exactly my point! An authority must be held in the highest regard at ALL times. How effective would the legal system be if criminals could exercise their own judgment rather than accepting a judgment form a court? There would be anarchy!

That line of reasoning does not work in any other areas of life. So why should it work here…

Because this isn’t just another “area of life”; all other realms of authority deal with the material, the temporal, not the eternal. All other areas of authority (such as civil authority) deal with matters of discipline that maintain social order, rather than having any significance upon our spiritual life.

 

[mozart-250]

That’s exactly my point! An authority must be held in the highest regard at ALL times. How effective would the legal system be if criminals could exercise their own judgment rather than accepting a judgment form a court? There would be anarchy!.

An authority does not need to be incapable of error in order to be respected.

Because this isn’t just another “area of life”; all other realms of authority deal with the material, the temporal, not the eternal. All other areas of authority (such as civil authority) deal with matters of discipline that maintain social order, rather than having any significance upon our spiritual life.

No, but you said that unless the authority “was incapable of error” that it means “squat” and that one’s own personal opinion remains supreme.

You have not answered satisfactorily why that is necessarily a true statement spiritually when it is obviously not a true statement in every other facet of life.

 

[Proletarian]

You have not answered satisfactorily why that is necessarily a true statement spiritually when it is obviously not a true statement in every other facet of life.

Because civil authorities are of men; and as such will always be capable of error. However a religious authority must, in some respect, claim divine authority. If such an organisation is capable of error (on matters of faith and morals) it cannot claim true divine authority,

OK. Let me ask you this. In what respect do you accept the authority of your Church’s governing body? Could you define for me the role of said authority?

 

[Athanasiy]

The Evangelicals do not deny the validity of the first Church councils and accept them as true ones.

The 66 Books of the canon are considered as an authority , though the books by its nature can be only authoritative but not an authority ,

its not possible to look at the binoculars from the opposite lences and to come to the same conclusion ;

the Constitution and the Parlament are not the same thing , so the problem of authority is not eventually decided from the Protestant perspective .

 

[mozart-250]

Because civil authorities are of men; and as such will always be capable of error. However a religious authority must, in some respect, claim divine authority. If such an organisation is capable of error (on matters of faith and morals) it cannot claim true divine authority,

Who says that one must be incapable of error on faith and morals in order to have divine authority. I see no evidence that is a true statement.

OK. Let me ask you this. In what respect do you accept the authority of your Church’s governing body? Could you define for me the role of said authority?

Where I have personally applied this is in the Scripture Hebrews 13:17 where we are commanded to obey and submit to our spiritual leaders. This scripture also defines their role as one that watches out for our souls.

It is unfortunate that some Christians just seem to flit around from Church to Church and never establishing and committing themselves to one place. That is not the role of the church in the life of the believer. Such Christians in the long run do not seem to be spiritually successful.

 

[Proletarian]

Where I have personally applied this is in the Scripture Hebrews 13:17 where we are commanded to obey and submit to our spiritual leaders. This scripture also defines their role as one that watches out for our souls.

If a Church authority is not free from error then that leaves the believer in a highly precarious possition. If such an authority did, at some point, teach a doctrine that was contrary to the Word of God the believer would be forced to disobey that authority and therefore go against the scriptures “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:” These words presuppose an assumption that a Church authority cannot teach error, as Christ would not command us to follow those who do indeed teach error.

Do see what I’m getting at?

 

[East_Anglican]

Who says that one must be incapable of error on faith and morals in order to have divine authority. I see no evidence that is a true statement.

Where I have personally applied this is in the Scripture Hebrews 13:17 where we are commanded to obey and submit to our spiritual leaders. This scripture also defines their role as one that watches out for our souls.

It is unfortunate that some Christians just seem to flit around from Church to Church and never establishing and committing themselves to one place. That is not the role of the church in the life of the believer. Such Christians in the long run do not seem to be spiritually successful.

As the Anglican church is a reformed church rather than a truly Protestant church, we are episcopalian as the Roman Catholics are episcopalian.

We do not believe in the infalabilty of human beings The way some of our bishops carry on we can’t afford to hold to such a belief.

Also we have this mad thing where the Archbishop of Canterbury is selected by the British Primeminister. There is not an Anglican in existance that isn’t against this.​

Some Presbyterians vote for there ministers and if they don’t like them they can vote them out. This basicly menans the congregatoin hears what they want to hear.

Other denominations have structure similar to episcopalians except they believe in the infallability of the ministers.​

Hope this helps.

I don’t know why I’m bothering because by some of the posts here, some Roman Catholics absolutely hate us. (There again everyone who isn’t Anglican has a go at us.)

 

[mozart-250]

If a Church authority is not free from error then that leaves the believer in a highly precarious possition. If such an authority did, at some point, teach a doctrine that was contrary to the Word of God the believer would be forced to disobey that authority and therefore go against the scriptures “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:” These words presuppose an assumption that a Church authority cannot teach error, as Christ would not command us to follow those who do indeed teach error.

Do see what I’m getting at?

Who says that Christ would not command us to follow leaders who are capable of error.

And although I do not believe in a protection of the Holy Spirit that guarantees an “impossible to teach error”, I do at the same time hold to the opinion that the Holy Spirit will preserve essential doctrine as long as the church remains faithful to Christ.

This may be Protestant heresy, but I do see that level of protection upon the Catholic denomination. Otherwise with the passage of 2000 years of time, y’all should be worse than the Unitarians by now.

As long as the church has not departed from Christ and the Holy Spirit is guarding the essentials, my counsel to Christians would be to bloom where they are planted and submit to the churches where they are.

 

[Fisher]

How can they follow those when Protestantism is founded on the “itching ears” principle of 2 Tim 4:3 (one of my favorite verses)???
1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers** to say what their itching ears want to hear.**

2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when they will not endure SOUND DOCTRINE; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.”

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hello, Mozart. Glad to see you’re still on the forum. I always enjoy reading your posts.

Who says that Christ would not command us to follow leaders who are capable of error.

This part of what you said jumped out at me.

It seems to me very strange that someone who is Truth incarnate would ask us to follow leaders capable of error. Or, at the very least, leave us with nothing but inerrant scripture that can be interpreted only by fallible persons–which of course gives us nothing better than fallible interpretations.

If our leaders are fallible, doesn’t that leave us with nothing better than their best guess? If their interpretation of scripture is their best guess, it might be right, but it might be wrong.

Immortal souls are at stake here. There really is no room for error, for the stakes could not possibly be higher.

And although I do not believe in a protection of the Holy Spirit that guarantees an “impossible to teach error”, I do at the same time hold to the opinion that the Holy Spirit will preserve essential doctrine as long as the church remains faithful to Christ.

This, of course, leads to the question of what is essential and what is not and who decides. Fallible leaders? What if they’re wrong about what’s essential?

This may be Protestant heresy, but I do see that level of protection upon the Catholic denomination. Otherwise with the passage of 2000 years of time, y’all should be worse than the Unitarians by now.

It’s wonderful that you can see that. Human nature being what it is, we all tend to want human approval. However, the Church does not bend to that. A couple of examples:

1. The Church was willing to let an entire country go rather than change its stance on divorce (Henry VIII and England)
2. The Church has not budged on its ban on contraception despite enormous pressure

As long as the church has not departed from Christ and the Holy Spirit is guarding the essentials, my counsel to Christians would be to bloom where they are planted and submit to the churches where they are.

I would say it’s better to seek the Church that is incapable of error in its teachings and submit to that.

 

[East_Anglican]

Hello, Mozart. Glad to see you’re still on the forum. I always enjoy reading your posts.

This part of what you said jumped out at me.

It seems to me very strange that someone who is Truth incarnate would ask us to follow leaders capable of error. Or, at the very least, leave us with nothing but inerrant scripture that can be interpreted only by fallible persons–which of course gives us nothing better than fallible interpretations.

If our leaders are fallible, doesn’t that leave us with nothing better than their best guess? If their interpretation of scripture is their best guess, it might be right, but it might be wrong.

Saint paul rebuked Saint Peter because Saint Peter was in error. What doe that tell you?

Immortal souls are at stake here. There really is no room for error, for the stakes could not possibly be higher.

Absolutely correct

This, of course, leads to the question of what is essential and what is not and who decides. Fallible leaders? What if they’re wrong about what’s essential?

If it is not in line with The Apostles Nicene and Athanasian Creeds it is error.

I would say it’s better to seek the Church that is incapable of error in its teachings and submit to that.

One does not exist. If a Church did not contain people, then it would be incapable of error.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Saint paul rebuked Saint Peter because Saint Peter was in error. What doe that tell you?

I meant error in *teaching *about faith and/or morals, not error in personal behavior. Big difference.

Jesus told his listeners to do what the Pharisees told them, because they had the authority.

If it is not in line with The Apostles Nicene and Athanasian Creeds it is error.

Ah, but who decides this? Who has the authority?

One does not exist. If a Church did not contain people, then it would be incapable of error.

I would say offhand you don’t understand what the Church means by infallibility. It doesn’t mean people can’t sin. It doesn’t mean someone can’t have a wrong opinion.

Infallibility, in a nutshell, means that the Church’s official teachings will not be heresy.

Now, you yourself said that what is not in line with the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds is in error. You therefore have to believe there are certain true and correct teachings and that what is out of line with those teachings is heresy. You believe what those creeds teach is infallible, don’t you? Well, who formulated those creeds and where did they get the authority to do so?

 

[East_Anglican]

I meant error in *teaching *about faith and/or morals, not error in personal behavior. Big difference.

The matter of circumcision came up too. This is doctrine not personal behavior

Jesus told his listeners to do what the Pharisees told them, because they had the authority.

He also told his followers to beware of their teaching. This is because they were in doctrinal error. On matters of morality he told them to do what they said.

Ah, but who decides this? Who has the authority?

Jesus Christ, The Word of God and 2000 years of Church history.

I would say offhand you don’t understand what the Church means by infallibility. It doesn’t mean people can’t sin. It doesn’t mean someone can’t have a wrong opinion.

Infallibility, in a nutshell, means that the Church’s official teachings will not be heresy.

I believe the only person who can not be decieved into believing something to be true that isn’t is Jesus Christ. We pray that by his grace we will not be decieved.

As I only recognise one Church of which we are both a member. Christs Church that he is building not ours, what we have in common is official and what contradicts it is heresy.

Now, you yourself said that what is not in line with the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds is in error. You therefore have to believe there are certain true and correct teachings and that what is out of line with those teachings is heresy. You believe what those creeds teach is infallible, don’t you? Well, who formulated those creeds and where did they get the authority to do so?

The Nicene creed was written in the reign of Constantine because it was the standard belief of Christians and still is., The Athanasian creed was written by a Copt to halt the heresy of three gods, rather than one God that is three and the Apostles Creed is a condensed version of The Nicene Creed. The fact that The Bible backs them up, is proof enough that they are official.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The matter of circumcision came up too. This is doctrine not personal behavior

Could you please supply the relevant bible verse? Thank you.

He also told his followers to beware of their teaching. This is because they were in doctrinal error. On matters of morality he told them to do what they said.

Where is this? Because I’m not seeing it.

“The scribes and the pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.” (Matthew 23:2-3)

Jesus did say “all things” so it sure sounds like that would include their doctrinal teaching. “For they preach but they do not practice” sounds like they’re preaching correctly but being hypocrites by not following their own preaching.

Jesus Christ, The Word of God and 2000 years of Church history.

That doesn’t answer the question of authority. Who has the authority to decide if a certain teaching is not in line with certain creeds? If two Protestant ministers disagree about Baptism, who has the authority to decide which one is right? They both appeal to Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and 2000 years of Church history (One claims the Catholic Church went off the rails early but a remnant–the true church–believed as he does. Therefore, he appeals to the history of this remnant church.)

For example, Protestant 101 stated on another post: “My belief is that Jesus was a Protestant, and that the Catholic Church split from the Protestants of Bible times and formed the first ‘denomination’ and then all the other ones are her ‘daughters.’”
(post 163 in the thread about Protestants and history)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170169

I believe the only person who can not be decieved into believing something to be true that isn’t is Jesus Christ. We pray that by his grace we will not be decieved.

Well, I believe that Jesus Christ, being God, can grant infallibility to anyone he pleases. He certainly granted it to the Biblical authors while they were in the process of writing.

As I only recognise one Church of which we are both a member. Christs Church that he is building not ours, what we have in common is official and what contradicts it is heresy.

I think maybe you accidentally left a word out of the bolded part above, so it’s a little hard to respond unless I know what you mean.

The Nicene creed was written in the reign of Constantine because it was the standard belief of Christians and still is., The Athanasian creed was written by a Copt to halt the heresy of three gods, rather than one God that is three and the Apostles Creed is a condensed version of The Nicene Creed. The fact that The Bible backs them up, is proof enough that they are official.

But this again gets into the problem of interpretation. Both creeds and scripture must be interpreted.

And creeds do not cover a host of other problems. Is contraception okay? Can women be ordained? Is divorce allowable, and if so, under what circumstances? The title of this thread is “Protestant Authority.” So where do Protestants get the authority to decide these things?