Protestant Authority

[East_Anglican]

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

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 told them to their face that they did not understand the scriptures.

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 a quite aware that some Protestants believe The Church died soon after the first century and got resserected at the time of Luther or Calvin or their favourite reformist.

Look at their bookshelves. There’s Bible comentaries and then Martin Luther and nothing from the 1500 years in between.

Protestant 101 needs to read Thomas A Kempis. That would burst his bubble.

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.

That sounds like solo scriptura.

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.

Jesus siad he will build hs church not somebody elses.

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?

It would depend on the denomination.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Jesus told them to their face that they did not understand the scriptures.

I’m unsure how this answers the question. I asked for a quote from scripture.

I a quite aware that some Protestants believe The Church died soon after the first century and got resserected at the time of Luther or Calvin or their favourite reformist.

Look at their bookshelves. There’s Bible comentaries and then Martin Luther and nothing from the 1500 years in between.

Protestant 101 needs to read Thomas A Kempis. That would burst his bubble.

I agree with you here. I have a Protestant friend who said her minister gave a sermon on church history. He began with Martin Luther. Isn’t that like giving a lecture on American history and beginning with WWII?

That sounds like solo scriptura.

No, not at all. I merely point out that all Christians believe in some sort of infallibility. I, however, believe it extends beyond the writers of scripture.

Jesus siad he will build hs church not somebody elses.

Exactly. So we need to know which of the many competing forms of Christianity is the Church Jesus built. I am very much disturbed by the fact that some people think they can start a church. (There’s the question of authority again. Where do they get the authority to do that?)

It would depend on the denomination.

Ah, but Christ’s Church, being the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) should teach nothing but the truth in its doctrines.

So, if a denomination in the past (say, prior to 1930) taught that contraception was a moral evil but now teaches that it’s a moral good (that is, that it is morally acceptable), I would have trouble saying such a church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Which leads us back to the question of Protestant authority. Where would a Protestant denomination get the authority to change its doctrine about contraception?

 

[mozart-250]

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.

Coming back from a hiatus and a vacation…

I guess then that is the difference between you and myself. I find it entirely credible that Christ would build His church leaving it

• Inerrant scripture
• The Holy Spirit who will guide His church into truth
• Authoritative leaders who still are capable of error.

Human authority that is incapable of being incorrect seems to me to be the extraordinary claim here. And in my mind at least, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

Guess really is too strong of a word here. My doctor (who is capable of error) recently diagnosed my treatable prostate cancer. But his opinion was certainly not guesswork. It was based on evidence and experience.

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

I guess that is another difference here. I can hardly believe that my immortal destiny is based upon being 100% theologically correct. There are a few essentials (we will get to that) and most of the items Christians traditionally quibble about are not in this set of essentials.

I hardly see whereas being wrong either way about whether Mary was assumed into heaven is grounds for eternal damnation.

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?

Ah yes…what is essential.

Of course this is in response to a comment about the Holy Spirit protecting essentials. Logically we do not need to know perfectly exactly what is essential in order for there to be essentials that the Holy Spirit protects. All that is necessary is for the Holy Spirit to know what these essentials are.

I do think though that through logic and reason, we can have a pretty good idea on what is essential and what is not essential.

• If two genuine Christians who both could be your neighbors in eternity hold two different opinions over issue “X”, then logically issue “X” is not an essential. (Caveat: Christians disagree on which Christians other than themselves and their group presumably will be in heaven. Since Christians are generally bullheaded and arrogant, they probably tend to err to narrowly here)
• If the Bible contains (at least some) genuine ambiguity over issue “X” leading two genuine Christians to hold at least credible Biblical opinions on this issue, then logically issue “X” is not essential. (Caveat: Christians disagree on what exactly is clear and not clear in the Bible. Since Christians are generally bullheaded and arrogant, they probably tend to see clarity (on their own side of course) where in reality some level of ambiguity exists)

Note: this does not mean that being right or wrong about issue “X” is inconsequential. It only means that issue “X” does not hold eternal consequences. Being wrong on the issue of say smoking cigarettes has consequences at least on this side of the grave if not some (but not eternal consequences) on the other side.

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

And that is wonderful. I certainly can see God’s hand upon your denomination (as I can see upon others). That does not mean though that you are incapable of being incorrect.

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

If I became convinced that your denomination is indeed incapable of being wrong, I would be foolish to stick with mine. But as I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Coming back from a hiatus and a vacation…

Welcome back!

I guess then that is the difference between you and myself. I find it entirely credible that Christ would build His church leaving it

• Inerrant scripture
• The Holy Spirit who will guide His church into truth
• Authoritative leaders who still are capable of error.

You’re right that this is the difference. If authoritative leaders are capable of error, they can lead us astray in the essentials as well as the non-essentials. Besides, if the Holy Spirit is guiding his church into truth, but the authoritative leaders are leading it elsewhere, how does one determine if he is following the promptings of the Holy Spirit vs. church authorities who appear to be right (that is, they use the Bible to back their position) but are actually wrong?

Human authority that is incapable of being incorrect seems to me to be the extraordinary claim here. And in my mind at least, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

First, I note you said “human authority that is incapable of being incorrect,” not “humans that are incapable of being incorrect.” We as human beings are of course capable of error, but God can protect an authority. He certainly did with the Bible.

I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can say the same for the claim that the Bible is inerrant.

Guess really is too strong of a word here. My doctor (who is capable of error) recently diagnosed my treatable prostate cancer. But his opinion was certainly not guesswork. It was based on evidence and experience.

Well, when all the evidence (such as scripture) is in, and the evidence can point one way or a completely different way, who decides? At this point, don’t we need an infallible authority? If we don’t have one, aren’t we left with a best guess? (And I do mean a best guess, one based upon evidence, not just plucked out of the blue.)

I guess that is another difference here. I can hardly believe that my immortal destiny is based upon being 100% theologically correct. There are a few essentials (we will get to that) and most of the items Christians traditionally quibble about are not in this set of essentials.

I hardly see whereas being wrong either way about whether Mary was assumed into heaven is grounds for eternal damnation.

Salvation is the hot topic. Yes, I don’t believe God gives us a quiz to see if we’re theologically correct.

However, a doctrine like OSAS can lead many to a false security concerning their salvation. Some Protestant authorities teach OSAS. How can another Protestant authority tell them they’re wrong when they all claim to go by the same Bible under the promptings of the Holy Spirit?

Ah yes…what is essential.

Of course this is in response to a comment about the Holy Spirit protecting essentials. Logically we do not need to know perfectly exactly what is essential in order for there to be essentials that the Holy Spirit protects. All that is necessary is for the Holy Spirit to know what these essentials are.

I do think though that through logic and reason, we can have a pretty good idea on what is essential and what is not essential.

• If two genuine Christians who both could be your neighbors in eternity hold two different opinions over issue “X”, then logically issue “X” is not an essential. (Caveat: Christians disagree on which Christians other than themselves and their group presumably will be in heaven. Since Christians are generally bullheaded and arrogant, they probably tend to err to narrowly here)
• If the Bible contains (at least some) genuine ambiguity over issue “X” leading two genuine Christians to hold at least credible Biblical opinions on this issue, then logically issue “X” is not essential. (Caveat: Christians disagree on what exactly is clear and not clear in the Bible. Since Christians are generally bullheaded and arrogant, they probably tend to see clarity (on their own side of course) where in reality some level of ambiguity exists)

Note: this does not mean that being right or wrong about issue “X” is inconsequential. It only means that issue “X” does not hold eternal consequences. Being wrong on the issue of say smoking cigarettes has consequences at least on this side of the grave if not some (but not eternal consequences) on the other side.

I found that a bit confusing to read. I will say my example of OSAS above shows there is disagreement about an essential (how more essential can you get than salvation?)

And that is wonderful. I certainly can see God’s hand upon your denomination (as I can see upon others). That does not mean though that you are incapable of being incorrect.

And God’s hand upon yours as well.

When you say “you” I assume you mean Catholicism, not me personally. Heaven knows how much error I’m capable of!

(continued below)

 

[Kay_Cee]

If I became convinced that your denomination is indeed incapable of being wrong, I would be foolish to stick with mine. But as I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Then I suggest you examine the evidence. May I suggest *Pope Fiction *by Patrick Madrid?

P.S. So glad to know your cancer is treatable. May God’s hand be upon you as you go through treatment.

 

[East_Anglican]

I’m unsure how this answers the question. I asked for a quote from scripture.

Sorry, I didn’yt have much time when I last posted.

Jesus told his diciples toi beware of the yeast of the scribes and the pharasees. They realised he was talking about their teaching. This was because they were teaching error.

I agree with you here. I have a Protestant friend who said her minister gave a sermon on church history. He began with Martin Luther. Isn’t that like giving a lecture on American history and beginning with WWII?

No, not at all. I merely point out that all Christians believe in some sort of infallibility. I, however, believe it extends beyond the writers of scripture.

I do too.

Exactly. So we need to know which of the many competing forms of Christianity is the Church Jesus built. I am very much disturbed by the fact that some people think they can start a church. (There’s the question of authority again. Where do they get the authority to do that?)

Some would say that The Lord told them personally. How can this be proved? I guess it’s a case of if it’s of God it can’t be stopped and if it isn’t of God it will come to nothing. New Churches spring up like weeds round here. Some last and some don’t. The ones that sddon’t want anything else to do with the rest of The Body of Christ tend to die off.

Ah, but Christ’s Church, being the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) should teach nothing but the truth in its doctrines.

So, if a denomination in the past (say, prior to 1930) taught that contraception was a moral evil but now teaches that it’s a moral good (that is, that it is morally acceptable), I would have trouble saying such a church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Which leads us back to the question of Protestant authority. Where would a Protestant denomination get the authority to change its doctrine about contraception?

First of all after reading an article by a Roman Catholic on the doctrine of contrception, I agree with the Roman Catholic line. Before i read the article I couldn’t work it out.

The Anglican Bishops in agreement authorised the ordination of women priests.

In the case of Gene Robinson, the diocese of New Hampshire didn’t have the authority ordain him because the Anglican Primates said it was against the teachings of the church.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Sorry, I didn’yt have much time when I last posted.

Jesus told his diciples toi beware of the yeast of the scribes and the pharasees. They realised he was talking about their teaching. This was because they were teaching error.

How do you know “yeast” refers to their teachings?

It seems to me to refer to their actions:

“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)

If they were teaching error, why would Jesus tell the people to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you”? Does Jesus want people to follow false doctrine?

It’s their example Jesus warns us not to follow. And why? Because they don’t practice what they preach. Since this is what Jesus condemns, they must have been preaching correctly, but not following their own preaching.

Some would say that The Lord told them personally. How can this be proved? I guess it’s a case of if it’s of God it can’t be stopped and if it isn’t of God it will come to nothing. New Churches spring up like weeds round here. Some last and some don’t. The ones that sddon’t want anything else to do with the rest of The Body of Christ tend to die off.

The problem I have with this is that it makes a good case for Mormonism.

The Anglican Bishops in agreement authorised the ordination of women priests.

Where did they get the authority to do this?

The Catholic Church says it does not have the authority to ordain women.

In the case of Gene Robinson, the diocese of New Hampshire didn’t have the authority ordain him because the Anglican Primates said it was against the teachings of the church.

This leaves me confused about authority in the Anglican Church. Where does the authority to ordain come from and how does one determine who should (and should not) be ordained?

 

[mozart-250]

You’re right that this is the difference. If authoritative leaders are capable of error, they can lead us astray in the essentials as well as the non-essentials. Besides, if the Holy Spirit is guiding his church into truth, but the authoritative leaders are leading it elsewhere, how does one determine if he is following the promptings of the Holy Spirit vs. church authorities who appear to be right (that is, they use the Bible to back their position) but are actually wrong?

Well if an authoritative leader is leading the church astray (even if he is using the Bible) in essentials, what you really have here is a “false prophet” (not an authoritative leader). 2 Peter and Jude give pointers in recognizing a false prophet.

You would have had the same issue in the 300s. How would the believer back then choose between Arianism and Orthodoxy. Well, the believer would ultimately have a choice between the established, historic church and something new. The believer would be wise to choose what is tried and true.

Even though the established church has since divided upon itself, I think the same principle would be in operation now. The believer would be on thin ice following somebody preaching something nobody has believed for 2000 years.

First, I note you said “human authority that is incapable of being incorrect,” not “humans that are incapable of being incorrect.” We as human beings are of course capable of error, but God can protect an authority. He certainly did with the Bible.

I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can say the same for the claim that the Bible is inerrant.

Yup God can protect an authority. But the issue still exists to what extent and under what circumstances. A secondary issue exists on whether God would violate the free will of an errant authority.

Well, when all the evidence (such as scripture) is in, and the evidence can point one way or a completely different way, who decides? At this point, don’t we need an infallible authority? If we don’t have one, aren’t we left with a best guess? (And I do mean a best guess, one based upon evidence, not just plucked out of the blue.)

Actually if you read Acts 15, you can see how this works. I have no indication in reading this chapter that the apostles believed themselves incapable of error. But at the end of the day after meeting, discussing, and praying about the issue of the day, they came to a common agreement as to what the leading of the Lord on the issue. They write to the church it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us (not thus says the Lord) and the church accepts it with rejoicing.

However, a doctrine like OSAS can lead many to a false security concerning their salvation. Some Protestant authorities teach OSAS. How can another Protestant authority tell them they’re wrong when they all claim to go by the same Bible under the promptings of the Holy Spirit?

He probably can not. Division has consequences. I am never going to claim that the broad umbrella of “Protestantism” (whatever that is) does not have its own inherent problems.

BTW although I am not OSAS, if it is properly taught it should not lead to antinomianism.

I found that a bit confusing to read. I will say my example of OSAS above shows there is disagreement about an essential (how more essential can you get than salvation?)

Now I wouldn’t consider OSAS an essential. I am quite confident that both John Wesley and Billy Graham will both be in eternity with the Lord, and yet they disagreed on this point. And furthermore there is genuine ambiguity in scripture on this point. On both sides there is a certain body of scripture one can bring forth to support their position and another certain body of scripture that each side sort of dances around.

From where I sit there can be negative consequences in having extreme views either way on the issue. It is not good to use your salvation as a license to sin, but it is also not good to have no assurance of salvation (example - the Catholics on this board who are absolutely petrified of dying in mortal sin because the grim reaper might catch them after they skipped mass to go skiing).

 

[mozart-250]

Then I suggest you examine the evidence. May I suggest *Pope Fiction *by Patrick Madrid?

P.S. So glad to know your cancer is treatable. May God’s hand be upon you as you go through treatment.

Actually I have read the apologetic arguments by Dave Armstrong and others. Even if I temporarily grant some of the underlying theological premises here, it seems to me that they still rest upon the underlying assumption that when the church divided upon itself in the historic event known as the reformation, that God somehow sided with the Catholic faction over the other faction.

I would not presume to speak for God as to how He reacted in this matter.

Thank you for your kind words. I am in remission now.

 

[Proletarian]

Actually I have read the apologetic arguments by Dave Armstrong and others. Even if I temporarily grant some of the underlying theological premises here, it seems to me that they still rest upon the underlying assumption that when the church divided upon itself in the historic event known as the reformation, that God somehow sided with the Catholic faction over the other faction.

** I would not presume to speak for God as to how He reacted in this matter.**

Yet you would rather side with the reformers.

 

[mozart-250]

Yet you would rather side with the reformers.

Umm… not really. Why should I take sides?

I am “Protestant” because I was born “Protestant”. If I were born Catholic I would be Catholic.

I remain “Protestant” because I see no reason to change. If I were born Catholic I would use the same reasoning to remain Catholic.

To me Catholicism is logically just another denomination to which I don’t belong to. Just because I am not Presbyterian does not mean that I am siding against the Presbyterians. The same logic holds for Catholicism.

Just because one is a member of denomination ‘X’ does not mean that one is siding against all of the remaining denominations that are not ‘X’. It just means that it is logically impossible for one to simultaneous belong to the entire set of denominations that encompass Christianity.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well if an authoritative leader is leading the church astray (even if he is using the Bible) in essentials, what you really have here is a “false prophet” (not an authoritative leader). 2 Peter and Jude give pointers in recognizing a false prophet.

You would have had the same issue in the 300s. How would the believer back then choose between Arianism and Orthodoxy. Well, the believer would ultimately have a choice between the established, historic church and something new. The believer would be wise to choose what is tried and true.

I agree. Which is one of the reasons why I reject sola fide and sola scriptura.

Even though the established church has since divided upon itself, I think the same principle would be in operation now. The believer would be on thin ice following somebody preaching something nobody has believed for 2000 years.

Or for 1500 years either.

Yup God can protect an authority. But the issue still exists to what extent and under what circumstances. A secondary issue exists on whether God would violate the free will of an errant authority.

God doesn’t violate our free will, which is why Arians could preach. This, however, did not make their preaching true.

Actually if you read Acts 15, you can see how this works. I have no indication in reading this chapter that the apostles believed themselves incapable of error. But at the end of the day after meeting, discussing, and praying about the issue of the day, they came to a common agreement as to what the leading of the Lord on the issue. They write to the church it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us (not thus says the Lord) and the church accepts it with rejoicing.

Whether the apostles recognized it or not is not the point. It is whether or not God protects his Church by having its leaders make infallible pronouncements. I assume you believe the pronouncement was correct.

He probably can not. Division has consequences. I am never going to claim that the broad umbrella of “Protestantism” (whatever that is) does not have its own inherent problems.

BTW although I am not OSAS, if it is properly taught it should not lead to antinomianism.

Should not, but can. I shudder to think how many souls are eternally lost because of it.

Now I wouldn’t consider OSAS an essential. I am quite confident that both John Wesley and Billy Graham will both be in eternity with the Lord, and yet they disagreed on this point. And furthermore there is genuine ambiguity in scripture on this point. On both sides there is a certain body of scripture one can bring forth to support their position and another certain body of scripture that each side sort of dances around.

Getting to heaven, as I stated before, is not predicated upon having the right answers to a quiz. And since you agree there is genuine ambiguity in scripture (apparently it’s not so clear a plowboy can understand it–I see you disagree with Luther), that’s all the more reason why we need an infallible authority.

From where I sit there can be negative consequences in having extreme views either way on the issue. It is not good to use your salvation as a license to sin, but it is also not good to have no assurance of salvation (example - the Catholics on this board who are absolutely petrified of dying in mortal sin because the grim reaper might catch them after they skipped mass to go skiing).

Goodness, I can’t imagine anybody not being absolutely petrified of hell. And you make a mortal sin, the absolute rejection of God, sound like a light thing here (skipped Mass to go skiing). Three conditions must exist for a sin to be mortal: 1) it must be grave matter, 2) you must know it is grave matter, 3) you must choose to do it anyway. It is a total rejection of God. The example you state would be rejecting the worship due to God as stated in the Ten Commandments, (that is, keeping holy the sabbath) and choosing skiing in its place. I for one would not want to tell God, “Yeah, I know I was supposed to worship you, but hey, skiing is more fun, so I chose that.”

 

[Kay_Cee]

Actually I have read the apologetic arguments by Dave Armstrong and others. Even if I temporarily grant some of the underlying theological premises here, it seems to me that they still rest upon the underlying assumption that when the church divided upon itself in the historic event known as the reformation, that God somehow sided with the Catholic faction over the other faction.

First of all, it’s not the “Catholic faction.” It is the Catholic Church. And the Church did not “divide itself.” Some who were members left and started their own churches. This was not the same as a Protestant church split.

Now, since Christ is the Truth, he must side with the truth in all circumstances. Churches that teach opposing doctrines can’t all be true.

I would not presume to speak for God as to how He reacted in this matter.

Neither would I, but I am sure he is always in favor of the truth and in opposition to error. That is part of his nature.

Thank you for your kind words. I am in remission now.

Oh, you’re welcome! I’m so glad it was caught early enough to be treatable. My father was not so fortunate (although his was pancreatic cancer–and usually by the time someone shows symptoms, it’s too late). How I miss him.

One more point: It seems to me we’ve drifted far off topic. The OP stated, “Can you identify such a structure of hierarchical authority within your own Church? Do members of your Christian community take seriously the authority of their ministers; or is the individual still the primary source of authority?”

This is a question that seems to me to still be unanswered. And since this thread is about Protestant authority, I would like to add, “From where do Protestant authorities derive their authority? If it is from God, how does God bestow such authority upon them?”

 

[East_Anglican]

How do you know “yeast” refers to their teachings?

It seems to me to refer to their actions:

“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)

If they were teaching error, why would Jesus tell the people to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you”? Does Jesus want people to follow false doctrine?

Matthew 16
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The problem I have with this is that it makes a good case for Mormonism.

Mormonism can be prooved wrong because they claim the original; teaching was lost. As Jesus said that he would build his church and thwe gates of Hell would not prevail, the teaching couldn’t have been lost.

Where did they get the authority to do this?

Scripture

The Catholic Church says it does not have the authority to ordain women.

This is another debate.

This leaves me confused about authority in the Anglican Church. Where does the authority to ordain come from and how does one determine who should (and should not) be ordained?

The Anglican synod and Lambeth councils ussually. Lambeth said “No” New Hampshire decided to do their own thing.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Matthew 16
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This doesn’t answer the question. How do you know “yeast” refers to their teachings?

Mormonism can be prooved wrong because they claim the original; teaching was lost. As Jesus said that he would build his church and thwe gates of Hell would not prevail, the teaching couldn’t have been lost.

I agree, but this is a case against Protestantism also. If what you say is true, the Catholic Church could not have lost its teaching, yet many Protestants claim otherwise.

Scripture

How can writings, no matter how sacred, bestow authority upon a person? How can scripture single an individual out and claim he is an authority?

This is another debate.

I agree and am trying to get back on topic.

The Anglican synod and Lambeth councils ussually. Lambeth said “No” New Hampshire decided to do their own thing.

And who is the final arbitrator to determine who is right and who is wrong? And from where does this arbitrator derive his authority?

 

[Zooey]

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

It seems to me, that it would be on the leader, not on the ordinary Christian, if that leader were in error.
This assumes, I suppose, that said leader has not gone demonstrably round the bend. At that point, it would be necessary to report him, to his superiors.
I saw this happen once, as a child. Our pastor went, no other word for it,uch: nuts. He had been peculiar for some time, but one Sunday, he announced that the temperature in hell bore directly on the:whacky: height of the corn in Kansas. He was reported, removed, & ended his days in what was politely referred to as a “rest home”.

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.

And before you ask, that means: the Creeds.

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.

You know, that’s quite true, & furthermore, it’s good common sense.

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.

To me, this is a sign of spiritual maturity. I know people who wander about endlessly. I don’t mean, people who have real problems with a church, & find they need to look elsewhere to worship. I mean people who keep looking for “good feelings”. I don’t always “feel good” about everything & everybody Methodist. I just have come to realize that, since I am imperfect, I have no business demanding perfection in others.
(Yeah, I know: ironic for a Wesleyan…)

 

[East_Anglican]

This doesn’t answer the question. How do you know “yeast” refers to their teachings?

Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Looks obvious to me.

I agree, but this is a case against Protestantism also. If what you say is true, the Catholic Church could not have lost its teaching, yet many Protestants claim otherwise.

Protestants as a rule do not claim that the teaching was lost. Admitedly a few minor denominations believe it was, but they would call the Anglican Church the daughter of Rome anyway.

None of the reformers claimed the original teaching was lost.

How can writings, no matter how sacred, bestow authority upon a person? How can scripture single an individual out and claim he is an authority?

The Bible is the woord of God and God is the final authority.

I agree and am trying to get back on topic.

I’m relieved.

And who is the final arbitrator to determine who is right and who is wrong? And from where does this arbitrator derive his authority?

It is quite clear from scripture that New Hampshire or ECUSA had no authority to do this.

Fortunately we Anglicans do not believe in any form of Papal Infallibility.

We base truth on three things

1, Scripture

2, Tradition

3, Reason

ECUSA decided to go against scripture and tradition and claim it was reasonable. Of course going against scripture and tradition is not reasonable.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Looks obvious to me.

Not to me. Not at all.

Let me get this straight: Jesus is Truth incarnate.
The teachings of the Pharisees are false.
Yet, Jesus tells the people to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you” (Matthew 23:2-3).
Therefore, Truth was telling people to “do and observe” falsehoods.

Do you see why I have a problem with that?

It seems to me that any “teaching” that Jesus is telling them not to follow is the Pharisees’ example. He calls them hypocrites, doesn’t he? Well, someone who teaches falsehoods yet follows those falsehoods is not a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who teaches one thing yet does another. Jesus does tell the people “do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”

In other words, their official teaching was correct. It was their example that was wrong. They were teaching correct doctrine but not following that doctrine themselves. That’s what made them hypocrites.

Protestants as a rule do not claim that the teaching was lost. Admitedly a few minor denominations believe it was, but they would call the Anglican Church the daughter of Rome anyway.

None of the reformers claimed the original teaching was lost.

A lot of Protestants today claim that it was. Who is the final arbitrator to determine who is right?

The Bible is the woord of God and God is the final authority.

Well, I would say God is the final authority. But this doesn’t answer the question. How does the Bible pick out Joe Smith (as opposed to anybody else in the pews) and say he has the authority to preach the Word of God? Eternal souls are at stake. If Joe doesn’t have authority, why should anyone listen to his interpretation of scripture and follow it?

It is quite clear from scripture that New Hampshire or ECUSA had no authority to do this.

Could you please quote me the relevant passages? And while you’re at it, could you also please quote the passages that allow the ordination of women?

Fortunately we Anglicans do not believe in any form of Papal Infallibility.

We base truth on three things

1, Scripture

2, Tradition

3, Reason

ECUSA decided to go against scripture and tradition and claim it was reasonable. Of course going against scripture and tradition is not reasonable.

Well, I agree with your three things here. Of course, Catholic tradition holds to infallibility for the Pope and Magisterium (I would argue scripture does too, but that’s a subject for another thread. This one is about *Protestant *authority.) I agree that going against scripture and tradition is not reasonable.

Okay, all of this doesn’t answer the questions I asked. I will repeat them:

And who is the final arbitrator to determine who is right and who is wrong? And from where does this arbitrator derive his authority?

You’ve told me how the ECUSA *didn’t *have authority to do something. You haven’t told me how they *do *have the authority to do anything at all. And if such authority is derived from scripture, how does scripture bestow it? How does scripture say, “These persons have authority and these persons don’t”?

 

[East_Anglican]

Not to me. Not at all.

Let me get this straight: Jesus is Truth incarnate.
The teachings of the Pharisees are false.
Yet, Jesus tells the people to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you” (Matthew 23:2-3).
Therefore, Truth was telling people to “do and observe” falsehoods.

Do you see why I have a problem with that?

It seems to me that any “teaching” that Jesus is telling them not to follow is the Pharisees’ example. He calls them hypocrites, doesn’t he? Well, someone who teaches falsehoods yet follows those falsehoods is not a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who teaches one thing yet does another. Jesus does tell the people “do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”

In other words, their official teaching was correct. It was their example that was wrong. They were teaching correct doctrine but not following that doctrine themselves. That’s what made them hypocrites.

You may be right. Jesus also said that our rightousnessmust surpass thatof the scribes and pharasees.Obviously, a lack of hypocrisy would bring this about.

A lot of Protestants today claim that it was. Who is the final arbitrator to determine who is right?

This is because a lot of Protestants don’t know what Christiaans believed for one and a half melenia before Luther or understand what the phrase “The gates of hell will not prevail against it” means.

Well, I would say God is the final authority. But this doesn’t answer the question. How does the Bible pick out Joe Smith (as opposed to anybody else in the pews) and say he has the authority to preach the Word of God? Eternal souls are at stake. If Joe doesn’t have authority, why should anyone listen to his interpretation of scripture and follow it?

How did The Bible pick out Elijah?

Could you please quote me the relevant passages? And while you’re at it, could you also please quote the passages that allow the ordination of women?

Ordination of women is another discussion.

Well, I agree with your three things here. Of course, Catholic tradition holds to infallibility for the Pope and Magisterium (I would argue scripture does too, but that’s a subject for another thread. This one is about *Protestant *authority.) I agree that going against scripture and tradition is not reasonable.

Good.

Okay, all of this doesn’t answer the questions I asked. I will repeat them:

And who is the final arbitrator to determine who is right and who is wrong? And from where does this arbitrator derive his authority?

Anglican’s are episcopalian the same as Roman Catholics. (I say Roman Catholic because we Anglicans regard ourselves as Catholic.) Our arch-bishops are the same as your cardinals.

You’ve told me how the ECUSA *didn’t *have authority to do something. You haven’t told me how they *do *have the authority to do anything at all. And if such authority is derived from scripture, how does scripture bestow it? How does scripture say, “These persons have authority and these persons don’t”?

Would a Roman Catholic cardinal in Toronto have the authority to do something contary to the teaching of the cardinals in Rome? Of course not.

An Anglican bishop in New Hampshire hasn’t the authority do something contary to the teaching of the rest of the Anglican Communion.

 

[Kay_Cee]

You may be right. Jesus also said that our rightousnessmust surpass thatof the scribes and pharasees.Obviously, a lack of hypocrisy would bring this about.

Okay, I guess we can agree on this then.

This is because a lot of Protestants don’t know what Christiaans believed for one and a half melenia before Luther or understand what the phrase “The gates of hell will not prevail against it” means.

I agree here too.

How did The Bible pick out Elijah?

I would say it didn’t. I would say God did.

But this again raises the question of Protestant authority, which is the subject of this thread.

Where do Protestants get their authority? If it’s from God, how do they know it’s from God?

Ordination of women is another discussion.

I agree and will try to stay on topic. However, any church that ordains women must claim to have the authority to do so. Where do they get that authority?

Anglican’s are episcopalian the same as Roman Catholics. (I say Roman Catholic because we Anglicans regard ourselves as Catholic.) Our arch-bishops are the same as your cardinals.

Well, this opens another can of worms, but since it’s off topic, we can drop it.

Would a Roman Catholic cardinal in Toronto have the authority to do something contary to the teaching of the cardinals in Rome? Of course not.

An Anglican bishop in New Hampshire hasn’t the authority do something contary to the teaching of the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Okay, I see where you’re coming from, and I agree.

Now, is there someone in authority who can tell the New Hampshire bishop he’s wrong and make him stop? I admit I don’t know much about the Anglican Church.