Protestant Authority

[scottm]

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?”

Fantastic discussion going on!

I’ve been active in three varieties of Baptist churches, two Lutheran denominations, and a Methodist church. With that background I’ll offer an answer: the Protestants believe that they derive their authority from God. Protestant pastors believe that they are called by God to be pastors. It’s that NT passage about God calls some to be this, and some to be that, and some to be apostles, and some to be “pastors and teachers.” They think that they’re in that latter category.

They believe that God calls them in three ways, all of which must be present: (1) inner call, (2) outer call, and (3) doors open, figuratively speaking, so that they can actually get the necessary education and training and actually go forth and do it.

The “inner call” is that voice of God inside your head and your heart that won’t stop whispering, “Do this. Do this. Do this.” You can’t shut it up and you can’t run away from it. The “outer call” is confirmation by those around you (wife, friends, local church leaders, etc) that you are indeed gifting in such-and-such way and that you would make a fine pastor.

Okay, query then for you, how do Catholics explain evil Popes and evil Cardinals and evil other leaders of past history? Sure, there is evidence that a lot of specific Catholic leaders are blessed by the Holy Spirit. No problem there. But there are other leaders at points in history who, by an objective measuring rod, were doing the work of the devil. (Ditto non-Catholics, but I’m asking only about Catholics.) How do we explain that in a way consistent with the claim that God’s hand is guiding and protecting the Catholic Church?

 

[Proletarian]

Okay, query then for you, how do Catholics explain evil Popes and evil Cardinals and evil other leaders of past history? Sure, there is evidence that a lot of specific Catholic leaders are blessed by the Holy Spirit. No problem there. But there are other leaders at points in history who, by an objective measuring rod, were doing the work of the devil. (Ditto non-Catholics, but I’m asking only about Catholics.) How do we explain that in a way consistent with the claim that God’s hand is guiding and protecting the Catholic Church?

How do we know? Because the Church has NEVER changed its position on any matter relating to faith or morals (as apposed to Protestantism as a whole that is in a continual state of change).

Christ only ever promised to protect the integrity of the Gospel, he never promised to preserve every member of the Church from sin (including the clergy)

 

[Kay_Cee]

Fantastic discussion going on!

I’ve been active in three varieties of Baptist churches, two Lutheran denominations, and a Methodist church. With that background I’ll offer an answer: the Protestants believe that they derive their authority from God. Protestant pastors believe that they are called by God to be pastors. It’s that NT passage about God calls some to be this, and some to be that, and some to be apostles, and some to be “pastors and teachers.” They think that they’re in that latter category.

They believe that God calls them in three ways, all of which must be present: (1) inner call, (2) outer call, and (3) doors open, figuratively speaking, so that they can actually get the necessary education and training and actually go forth and do it.

The “inner call” is that voice of God inside your head and your heart that won’t stop whispering, “Do this. Do this. Do this.” You can’t shut it up and you can’t run away from it. The “outer call” is confirmation by those around you (wife, friends, local church leaders, etc) that you are indeed gifting in such-and-such way and that you would make a fine pastor.

Where does a sola scriptura individual find all this in scripture, especially the “confirmation by those around you”?

And, at what point in this process does God bestow authority? Is it when the individual receives the “inner call”? Is it when the individual receives the “outer call”? Is it when the individual becomes a pastor?

Okay, query then for you, how do Catholics explain evil Popes and evil Cardinals and evil other leaders of past history? Sure, there is evidence that a lot of specific Catholic leaders are blessed by the Holy Spirit. No problem there. But there are other leaders at points in history who, by an objective measuring rod, were doing the work of the devil. (Ditto non-Catholics, but I’m asking only about Catholics.) How do we explain that in a way consistent with the claim that God’s hand is guiding and protecting the Catholic Church?

This is off topic since this thread is about Protestant authority. However, I will say that authority to declare whether or not something is true has nothing to do with the state of a person’s soul. (You’re confusing impeccability with infallibility. The two are not the same.)

God doesn’t state that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the individual. He states they will not prevail against the church.

And we can see an example of this in the way God’s hand guided the writers of scripture. Moses was a murderer. David was a murderer and an adulterer. Peter denied Christ three times. Does that make the scripture they penned invalid?

The Catholic Church claims God’s hand gives it the same kind of guidance. If you want to debate that God doesn’t, please begin another thread in the Apologetics section.

 

[scottm]

Kay Cee:

Where does a sola scriptura individual find all this in scripture, especially the “confirmation by those around you”?

And, at what point in this process does God bestow authority? Is it when the individual receives the “inner call”? Is it when the individual receives the “outer call”? Is it when the individual becomes a pastor?

Judas was replaced via group concensus. Paul, though plainly called by Jesus personally, was not sent out as an apostle until he first had a hearing with the other acknowledged apostles. That there is the idea of confirmation by a group of peers.

The Protestants would say that you can’t really separate the inner call from the outer call. If you don’t have both then you don’t have an actual call from God. They would also say that God bestows authority upon the individual when he calls that person to ministry. Hey, it’s God doing it – there’s your authority.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Judas was replaced via group concensus. Paul, though plainly called by Jesus personally, was not sent out as an apostle until he first had a hearing with the other acknowledged apostles. That there is the idea of confirmation by a group of peers.

The Protestants would say that you can’t really separate the inner call from the outer call. If you don’t have both then you don’t have an actual call from God.

Actually, I would argue it’s Peter who says Judas should be replaced. And Matthias was chosen by lot, not by group concensus.

You are correct that Paul was personally called by Jesus, but it was done in a rather spectacular way–that is, there were witnesses (perhaps not to the voice he heard but to his sudden blindness, and again witnesses to the healing of that blindness). So there’s some kind of sign there in this exceptional case. We certainly don’t see Jesus calling anyone to the ministry in this way now, unless someone knows of a case I’ve never heard of.

They would also say that God bestows authority upon the individual when he calls that person to ministry. Hey, it’s God doing it – there’s your authority.

Then the question arises as to how we *know *this person has received this call from God. If a Christian whose salvation is at stake is going to depend upon this person to give him the truth, shouldn’t he have assurance that this person has been given such authority by God? Upon what can he base his assurance? The person’s say-so? Group concensus?

BTW, welcome to the forum, scottm! I hope we can have a lively discussion.

 

[scottm]

Actually, I would argue it’s Peter who says Judas should be replaced. And Matthias was chosen by lot, not by group concensus.

Random lot, group concensus, whatever, the Protestant’s viewpoint is that this event illustrates the sending forth of a particular minister by his peers. That is what Protestants do today whether it occurs at the level of an individual church, or at the top level of a denomination, or somewhere in between.

Then the question arises as to how we *know *this person has received this call from God. If a Christian whose salvation is at stake is going to depend upon this person to give him the truth, shouldn’t he have assurance that this person has been given such authority by God? Upon what can he base his assurance? The person’s say-so? Group concensus?

That’s right. How do we know?
I’m not blowing off your question. I agree that the question is important. Catholics think that their priests and bishops are called by God. Protestants think that their pastors and denominational presidents are called by God. I don’t know how to say that either of them is wrong.

BTW, welcome to the forum, scottm! I hope we can have a lively discussion.

Gracias. I’m hoping to become more Catholic in my religious faith from this internet forum.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Random lot, group concensus, whatever, the Protestant’s viewpoint is that this event illustrates the sending forth of a particular minister by his peers. That is what Protestants do today whether it occurs at the level of an individual church, or at the top level of a denomination, or somewhere in between.

Okay. So where does this leave us? Since it’s the peers doing the “sending forth” where do they get the authority to do that?

BTW, it occurred to me that even before a Protestant can appeal to the Book of Acts, he first has to appeal to the doctrine that Acts is scripture. But by what authority does he know Acts is scripture?

That’s right. How do we know?
I’m not blowing off your question. I agree that the question is important. Catholics think that their priests and bishops are called by God. Protestants think that their pastors and denominational presidents are called by God. I don’t know how to say that either of them is wrong.

Well, again this thread is about Protestant authority, and I don’t want to derail it. I will say, however, that Catholics appeal to apostolic succession. I will also add that I do believe some individuals are called by God. The question, of course, is how this happens and how we know a particular person is called.

Gracias. I’m hoping to become more Catholic in my religious faith from this internet forum.

Please feel free to begin a thread with any question you have. If I were you, I’d be sure to state that you’re hoping to become more Catholic, so that those who respond to your post will know where you’re coming from.

I’d also like to recommend a book for you: *By What Authority? *by Mark Shea. It’s a skinny little book, easy to read, that traces Shea’s struggle with the question of authority.

God bless you in your journey!

 

[East_Anglican]

Okay, I guess we can agree on this then.

I guess so.

I agree here too.

Good.

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

We agree here too.

The thing is as God picked Elijah, some would say God picked them. You would call it a ‘vocation’ and we would call it a ‘calling’ but it all means the same thing in the end.

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?

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

I guess we know it is by revelation.

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?

I have said the authority comes from scripture and it is another subject.

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

We agree here too.

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

Good.

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.

There are lot’s of people in authority who can tell the New Hampshire bishop he’s wrong. The problem is, as we do not believe in any form of papal infallibility, New Hampshire can just ignore them or disagree.

The Archbishop of Canterbury hasn’t got a veto unfortunately.

 

[Kay_Cee]

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

I guess we know it is by revelation.

Well, again, this thread is about *Protestant *authority, but I will say that Catholics appeal to apostolic succession. That, of course, is another topic for another thread.

There are lot’s of people in authority who can tell the New Hampshire bishop he’s wrong. The problem is, as we do not believe in any form of papal infallibility, New Hampshire can just ignore them or disagree.

The Archbishop of Canterbury hasn’t got a veto unfortunately.

So–just to get this straight because, as I said, I don’t know much about the Anglican Church–the authority is limited to saying someone is wrong? There’s no authority regarding enforcement? If there is no enforcement, what does that leave the people with? A church split? Not criticizing, just trying to understand.

 

[scottm]

Okay. So where does this leave us? Since it’s the peers doing the “sending forth” where do they get the authority to do that?

They think they were called by God at an earlier point in time.

And then you’ll backtrack up the chain to one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus and say, “See – it is supposed to start with an Apostle!” But the Protestants will say, what about John the Baptist? Certainly he was legitimate. And what about the numerous Old Testament prophets and judges? Not all of them were priests, which would be an analagous position to an apostle or bishop, and often the religious authorities of their day were against them.

BTW, it occurred to me that even before a Protestant can appeal to the Book of Acts, he first has to appeal to the doctrine that Acts is scripture. But by what authority does he know Acts is scripture?

Modernly in many circles “sola scriptura” means something to the effect that, if you take a person who has lived in isolation his whole life and give him the Bible (and we’ll say this person can read), what would he think the Bible means? This always leads to a Baptist type of theology regardless of whether they call themselves Baptist or not. I would agree that there is a flaw in this definition of “sola scriptura” in that the table of contents of the Bible was written by Zondervan Publishing Company rather than by Paul or Peter or Moses.

But that’s not what “sola scriptura” meant for Luther or Calvin. Those original Reformers were respectful of tradition and took it as a guide. Their definition of “sola scriptura” allowed them to accept a canon based on tradition. So, if a Protestant has the old idea of “sola scriptura” he would accept Acts as scripture for the same reason that he would accept Genesis as scripture, and that is, “It’s always been this way.”

The question, of course, is how this happens and how we know a particular person is called.

When you figure out how to reject certain pastors without triggering false negatives and false negatives, please share. I do not have a good answer yet to that question. Right now the best that I can do is try to define a minimum core set of beliefs that defines the Christian religion, and to accept everyone who fits underneath that definition, but I’m not convinced anymore that I have even done that correctly.

 

[Philthy]

Judas was replaced via group concensus. Paul, though plainly called by Jesus personally, was not sent out as an apostle until he first had a hearing with the other acknowledged apostles. That there is the idea of confirmation by a group of peers.

Uhhh - not quite. That is not “peer confirmation” that is Apostolic succession. If your pastor’s cannot trace their authority back to the Apostles then it simply does not conform to the NT model. Wouldnt you agree?

scott:

They would also say that God bestows authority upon the individual when he calls that person to ministry. Hey, it’s God doing it – there’s your authority.

If, in fact, someone is “called” to ministry there is no question that God is doing the calling. The question we are trying to answer is how do we determine when someone has received a calling? There is not a single instance in the NT of someone merely claiming that they are called - all of them follow the line of apostolic authority. Your proposed method circumvents this biblical reality - why?

 

[scottm]

Wouldnt you agree?
…
Your proposed method circumvents this biblical reality - why?

Post #70, plus, they would say that the Reformers were obligated to break away from the Catholic church in the same way that the various OT prophets were obligated to break away from the heretical priests of their day. Hey, if Elijah could live on the margins and still be a legitimate priest of God, then we have precedent. And what shall we make of the Maccabbeans, then, too? (Not that it’s in the Protestant Bible, but, still.) Were they right in rising against the High Priest of their day, or should they have consented to the pagan Greek practices that their priests tolerated? Romans 13 “obey your leaders” and all that, you know. I guess they should have followed their priest and eaten the pork, right?

The Protestants say, “No!” They interpret passages such as these as saying that sometimes God wants you to break away from your religious leaders and start a new church line.

 

[Philthy]

And then you’ll backtrack up the chain to one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus and say, “See – it is supposed to start with an Apostle!”

Of course we would - its logical and biblical.

scottm:

But the Protestants will say, what about John the Baptist? Certainly he was legitimate. And what about the numerous Old Testament prophets and judges? Not all of them were priests, which would be an analagous position to an apostle or bishop, and often the religious authorities of their day were against them.

Very simple - Christ hadn’t built his Church yet on the foundation of the apostles with Peter as his rock. To try and develop an authority around the exceptions to the OT patterns is a ridiculous comparison. An appeal to OT authority as validating a modern pastor who’s “authority” lacks conformity with the NT model is pretty desperate IMHO.

scottm:
Modernly in many circles “sola scriptura” means something to the effect that, if you take a person who has lived in isolation his whole life and give him the Bible (and we’ll say this person can read), what would he think the Bible means? This always leads to a Baptist type of theology regardless of whether they call themselves Baptist or not.
Oh come on - how could you possibly present this as anything even remotely worthy of consideration? Honestly, how could anyone possibly know the theology that comes from such an experiment? Seriously…I wouldnt present this type of argument to anyone other than the person you heard it from.

 

[Kay_Cee]

They think they were called by God at an earlier point in time.

And then you’ll backtrack up the chain to one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus and say, “See – it is supposed to start with an Apostle!” But the Protestants will say, what about John the Baptist? Certainly he was legitimate. And what about the numerous Old Testament prophets and judges? Not all of them were priests, which would be an analagous position to an apostle or bishop, and often the religious authorities of their day were against them.

Ah, but these were from before the time Jesus established the Church. We’re talking about authority in the Christian era, which includes things like Baptism, the Eucharist, Jesus as our Savior, and so forth.

Jesus did establish a Church (Matthew 16:18). We’re talking about the authority within the Church he established. What he says to Peter about the keys and then to both Peter and the other apostles about binding and loosing is significant. I don’t recall any instance of Old Testament prophets or John the Baptist being handed authority to bind and loose to the extent that what they bind is bound in heaven and what they loose is loosed in heaven.

Jesus also told the apostles “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16) So to reject the apostles is to reject Christ. Sure sounds to me like he endowed them with a divine authority. Catholicism argues that the successors of the apostles have the same authority (if you don’t think so, again that is the subject for another thread).

Then too Jesus told the apostles, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:23)

In other words, to appeal to Old Testament prophets seems to me to be appealing to an authority of a lesser sort. Now, I’m not saying these prophets didn’t speak for God–they certainly did. But to have the authority to bind and loose, to be told that whoever hears them hears Jesus, to have the authority to forgive or retain sins, well, that’s some authority!

Modernly in many circles “sola scriptura” means something to the effect that, if you take a person who has lived in isolation his whole life and give him the Bible (and we’ll say this person can read), what would he think the Bible means? This always leads to a Baptist type of theology regardless of whether they call themselves Baptist or not. I would agree that there is a flaw in this definition of “sola scriptura” in that the table of contents of the Bible was written by Zondervan Publishing Company rather than by Paul or Peter or Moses.

But that’s not what “sola scriptura” meant for Luther or Calvin. Those original Reformers were respectful of tradition and took it as a guide. Their definition of “sola scriptura” allowed them to accept a canon based on tradition. So, if a Protestant has the old idea of “sola scriptura” he would accept Acts as scripture for the same reason that he would accept Genesis as scripture, and that is, “It’s always been this way.”

If it’s an appeal to tradition, (“It’s always been this way”), then it’s not *sola *scriptura, is it? And if we can appeal to tradition in this case, why can’t we do it in other cases? (Otherwise doesn’t this become a case of special pleading?)

When you figure out how to reject certain pastors without triggering false negatives and false negatives, please share. I do not have a good answer yet to that question. Right now the best that I can do is try to define a minimum core set of beliefs that defines the Christian religion, and to accept everyone who fits underneath that definition, but I’m not convinced anymore that I have even done that correctly.

Uh, I’m not sure what your first sentence means. Maybe it’s me. I’ve been up since 3:30 a.m., and I’m not operating on all thrusters.

I agree it’s a difficult question. Perhaps someone else has an answer. I admit I don’t know a lot about different Protestant denominations, which is one of the reasons I posted on this thread (figured I could learn something!)

Anyway, I’m very much enjoying our discussion!

 

[scottm]

Mr/Ms Filthy, I don’t have to talk to you. If you don’t start being friendly I’m going to ignore your posts.

Ah, but these were from before the time Jesus established the Church. We’re talking about authority in the Christian era, which includes things like Baptism, the Eucharist, Jesus as our Savior, and so forth.

[snip]

In other words, to appeal to Old Testament prophets seems to me to be appealing to an authority of a lesser sort.

Protestant Bibles include the OT, and Protestants believe that Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah, the very God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the very God who gave Moses the Ten Commandments and all those other rules in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Same. That’s Jesus. They further believe that this God (Jesus) is unchanging and consistent. They absolutely deny that this God (Jesus) has a split personality or is otherwise schitzophrenic. They believe that the OT is significantly, dramatically longer than the NT because Jesus wants us to read the OT, and this is because the OT has value and application and meaning for all time.

Scan your four gospels for every occurrence of Jesus preaching. He taught the OT. It’s right there on the pages of your Catholic Bible. Jesus was an itinerant preacher of the OT. His cousin John the Baptist also preached the OT. Peter in Acts 2 preached the OT. The entire epistle to the Hebrews is an OT lecture. And what was Paul’s message? Read 1 Cor 15:1-5. Paul explicitely says that he preached the OT. There you have the Protestant mind: the OT has lasting value and is to be read, studied, and applied to our lives today.

If you don’t see a unity from Genesis to Revelation then you would do well to read Edith Schaeffer’s book “Christianity is Jewish” amazon.com/Christianity-Jewish-Edith-Schaffer/dp/0842302425/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6047388-6206411?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187377744&sr=1-1 She explains it better than anyone.

If it’s an appeal to tradition, (“It’s always been this way”), then it’s not *sola *scriptura, is it?

As I said, the original definition allowed for some tradition. The popular modern definition does not.

Uh, I’m not sure what your first sentence means. Maybe it’s me. I’ve been up since 3:30 a.m., and I’m not operating on all thrusters.

I’ve known ministers in the Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, Conservative Baptist, Missouri Synod Lutheran, Wisconcin Synod Lutheran, and United Methodist Church who were unquestionably filled with the Holy Spirit and doing the work of God. It’s beyond dispute with me. Equally, I am quite aware, there are Catholic priests and monks and nuns who display the same level of righteousness and blessing from God. I cannot think of a way to disparage any of their calls to ministry – not any of them.

On the other hand I’ve known questionable Protestants, sure. But we’ve all heard of, and some of us have met, questionable Catholics too.

 

[Philthy]

Mr/Ms Filthy, I don’t have to talk to you. If you don’t start being friendly I’m going to ignore your posts.

I understand your not wishing to respond. Im sorry if I offended you. It’s Philthy, BTW.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Protestant Bibles include the OT, and Protestants believe that Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah, the very God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the very God who gave Moses the Ten Commandments and all those other rules in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Same. That’s Jesus. They further believe that this God (Jesus) is unchanging and consistent. They absolutely deny that this God (Jesus) has a split personality or is otherwise schitzophrenic. They believe that the OT is significantly, dramatically longer than the NT because Jesus wants us to read the OT, and this is because the OT has value and application and meaning for all time.

Scan your four gospels for every occurrence of Jesus preaching. He taught the OT. It’s right there on the pages of your Catholic Bible. Jesus was an itinerant preacher of the OT. His cousin John the Baptist also preached the OT. Peter in Acts 2 preached the OT. The entire epistle to the Hebrews is an OT lecture. And what was Paul’s message? Read 1 Cor 15:1-5. Paul explicitely says that he preached the OT. There you have the Protestant mind: the OT has lasting value and is to be read, studied, and applied to our lives today.

If you don’t see a unity from Genesis to Revelation then you would do well to read Edith Schaeffer’s book “Christianity is Jewish” amazon.com/Christianity-Jewish-Edith-Schaffer/dp/0842302425/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6047388-6206411?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187377744&sr=1-1 She explains it better than anyone.

I guess I didn’t make myself clear. I plead sleepiness from being up for several hours.

My point was that Jesus endowed the apostles with an authority of a different sort. Of course the OT prophets had authority, but did they have the authority to bind and loose? I don’t recall any example of God granting such authority regarding doctrine to any OT prophet (perhaps you know of one).

Such an authority goes far beyond preaching.

As I said, the original definition allowed for some tradition. The popular modern definition does not.

Okay, so where does this leave us? If the popular modern definition of sola scriptura does not allow for any tradition, that raises the question of how one determines the canon. We could get into this, but it seems off topic.

I’ve known ministers in the Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, Conservative Baptist, Missouri Synod Lutheran, Wisconcin Synod Lutheran, and United Methodist Church who were unquestionably filled with the Holy Spirit and doing the work of God. It’s beyond dispute with me. Equally, I am quite aware, there are Catholic priests and monks and nuns who display the same level of righteousness and blessing from God. I cannot think of a way to disparage any of their calls to ministry – not any of them.

On the other hand I’ve known questionable Protestants, sure. But we’ve all heard of, and some of us have met, questionable Catholics too.

Oh, I don’t doubt at all that this is the case.

However, it seems to me that being filled with the Holy Spirit and having authority are two different things. A person could have both, and I would certainly hope that anyone in authority is filled with the Holy Spirit. Where you and I might differ is in thinking that *everybody *who’s filled with the Holy Spirit has authority. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

It occurs to me that maybe we are talking past each other. Perhaps it would be helpful to define authority.

I’m seeing it in the sense of binding and loosing that Jesus speaks of in the Gospel of Matthew. That is, someone like the pope has the authority to say, in his capacity as pope, something like, “Cloning is evil” and this declaration is binding on all the faithful.

If everyone who is filled with the Holy Spirit has the authority to speak in this manner, it creates a problem. There are many good and holy Protestant ministers who teach that Baptism is regenerative. There are also many good and holy Protestant ministers who teach that Baptism is not regenerative. They can’t both be right. It seems to me that being filled with the Holy Spirit is not a guarantee that one is right concerning faith and/or morals.

I hope that makes sense. I’m still not sleeping well, and it’s so incredibly hot (115 degrees according to the thermometer on my in-law’s patio) that even the air conditioning isn’t handling it so great. So I hope you’ll excuse me if I’m not coming across okay.

What is your definition of authority?

 

[scottm]

My point was that Jesus endowed the apostles with an authority of a different sort. Of course the OT prophets had authority, but did they have the authority to bind and loose? I don’t recall any example of God granting such authority regarding doctrine to any OT prophet (perhaps you know of one).

Such an authority goes far beyond preaching.

Even assuming that such authority was beyond what any OT prophet had, Protestants do not believe that the mantel was passed on to anyone after the close of the canon.

Okay, so where does this leave us? If the popular modern definition of sola scriptura does not allow for any tradition, that raises the question of how one determines the canon. We could get into this, but it seems off topic.

There’s an inconsistency in the belief structure of some Protestants.

However, it seems to me that being filled with the Holy Spirit and having authority are two different things. A person could have both, and I would certainly hope that anyone in authority is filled with the Holy Spirit. Where you and I might differ is in thinking that *everybody *who’s filled with the Holy Spirit has authority. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

Yes, they are different things.

I’m seeing it in the sense of binding and loosing that Jesus speaks of in the Gospel of Matthew. That is, someone like the pope has the authority to say, in his capacity as pope, something like, “Cloning is evil” and this declaration is binding on all the faithful.

If everyone who is filled with the Holy Spirit has the authority to speak in this manner, it creates a problem. There are many good and holy Protestant ministers who teach that Baptism is regenerative. There are also many good and holy Protestant ministers who teach that Baptism is not regenerative. They can’t both be right. It seems to me that being filled with the Holy Spirit is not a guarantee that one is right concerning faith and/or morals.

Agreed. There are a few Protestants who believe that they, or their leader, are infallible. Most of these groups would more properly be termed cults. The vast majority believe that no person and no council is infallible. Not even R.C. Sproul, with all his confidence and outright genius, would claim to have infallible doctrine. The best that we can do is to pick the church that we feel most comfortable with, after considering both theology and style of worship.

I hope that makes sense. I’m still not sleeping well, and it’s so incredibly hot (115 degrees according to the thermometer on my in-law’s patio) that even the air conditioning isn’t handling it so great.

I grew up in west Phoenix. We’d run the AC all day and at best it’d be 78 degrees inside. There are so many 'Zonies in San Diego that the radio stations there started making jokes about them. “The low setting on an oven is 110. Outside in Phoenix it’s 117. To cool off they either have to crawl inside their ovens or come here.”

What is your definition of authority?

I used to have one but now I’m not sure. This question in combination with the discovery of Christian writings from the first few centuries is why I’m drifting toward Catholicism. Protestants don’t talk about the early writings. Basically for them the history of the church begins with Martin Luther.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Even assuming that such authority was beyond what any OT prophet had, Protestants do not believe that the mantel was passed on to anyone after the close of the canon.

That’s a new one on me. I’ve heard different dates for when the Church supposedly went off the rails, usually (I’m told) during the reign of Constantine.

If the mantle ceased to be passed, and new heresies arose, it could not declare which beliefs are true doctrine (and therefore binding) and which are heresies. But the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), and I don’t recall this verse having an expiration date.

There’s an inconsistency in the belief structure of some Protestants.

Yes, and most don’t stop to think about the canon.

Yes, they are different things.

Oh, good. We see eye to eye on this, so we can let the matter drop.

Agreed. There are a few Protestants who believe that they, or their leader, are infallible. Most of these groups would more properly be termed cults. The vast majority believe that no person and no council is infallible. Not even R.C. Sproul, with all his confidence and outright genius, would claim to have infallible doctrine. The best that we can do is to pick the church that we feel most comfortable with, after considering both theology and style of worship.

Sproul’s way of dealing with the question of the canon is interesting, don’t you think (a fallible collection of infallible books)?

But it’s your last sentence that really struck me. If we’re the ones who pick the church we’re most comfortable with, if we’re the ones who consider the theology and style of worship, aren’t we essentially the ones who decide what the church is, not Christ?

I was in a discussion with a non-Catholic Christian who thought it was wonderful that Christianity is so divided, so we could each choose a church we liked. I pointed out to him that Jesus prayed that we be one *as he and the Father are one. *I said I couldn’t imagine Jesus and the Father disagreeing about anything, including doctrine. I asked him if, when Jesus prayed that we be one as he and the Father are, did that include unity of doctrine? He refused to answer the question. I don’t mean he just ignored the question, he flat out told me he refused to answer it.

I grew up in west Phoenix. We’d run the AC all day and at best it’d be 78 degrees inside. There are so many 'Zonies in San Diego that the radio stations there started making jokes about them. “The low setting on an oven is 110. Outside in Phoenix it’s 117. To cool off they either have to crawl inside their ovens or come here.”

Yes, it seems like we’re ready to fry eggs on the sidewalk. I can’t wait for fall and cooler weather!

I used to have one but now I’m not sure. This question in combination with the discovery of Christian writings from the first few centuries is why I’m drifting toward Catholicism. Protestants don’t talk about the early writings. Basically for them the history of the church begins with Martin Luther.

I have a close friend who told me her minister taught them church history. “We started with Martin Luther,” she said. I have to admit I was shocked. Isn’t that like studying American history and beginning with WWII?

Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Keep on reading the writings of those who were instructed by the apostles (and it was the apostles to whom Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” Luke 10:16). I’ll pray that you discover truth and follow it wherever it leads, and I hope you’ll pray for the same for me.

 

[scottm]

That’s a new one on me. I’ve heard different dates for when the Church supposedly went off the rails, usually (I’m told) during the reign of Constantine.

Signs and wonders were no longer normative. Sure, now and then someone will be bitten by a poisonous snake and not die, and now and then people talk in “tongues,” but for almost all Protestants that stopped being normative when the last Apostle died. That stuff about “having the keys of heaven” is included here, for a Protestant.

But it’s your last sentence that really struck me. If we’re the ones who pick the church we’re most comfortable with, if we’re the ones who consider the theology and style of worship, aren’t we essentially the ones who decide what the church is, not Christ?

Yes, that is the conclusion, and it does lead to division, and division is bad. This is bad.

I asked him if, when Jesus prayed that we be one as he and the Father are, did that include unity of doctrine? He refused to answer the question. I don’t mean he just ignored the question, he flat out told me he refused to answer it.

There is no real Protestant answer to the question, because there is no standard that Protestants can point to. And yes, this is a problem. We know that it is a problem. The way we get around it (avoid it?) is by saying that Christianity is defined by a certain set of “essentials” that all Christians believe. I’ve never sat down to count it all up, but probably 90% of theology is common to all Christian groups. That’s “enough” for us. As long as you’re in that common core set, you’re okay. The differences don’t matter, we say.

I’ll be the first in line to say that there is a logical flaw in this line of thinking, but, it’s the best that we Protestants can do.

That said, some Protestants insist that they alone have all the truth. To pick one example, this is the belief of the Wisconcin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and no, that group is not a cult. You’ll ask me now how the WELS determines that it alone is correct. I have no answer. I’ve tried to understand their explanation, but I still do not understand it. But in their eyes they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.