Protestantism and Authority

[ErichK]

This is a serious question and not one intended to mock or harass protestants.

How do many protestants, such as Lutherans, Calvinists, Mormons, etc., explain why they do not accept human authority on theological teachings and biblical interpretation and promote sola scriptura, yet militantly support the teachings in near personality cult form that of Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith, and the other reformers that I haven’t mentioned?

Mormons, I know, reject the ecumenical councils because they see them as nothing but human attempts to govern religion, yet has a governing body in and of itself. Why is this? What about these synods and the latter in other protestant sects - these “elders” and such - what gives them their authority, and to what extent? Who gives these bodies the authority to make doctrinal changes, such as women ordination, changes to liturgy and mass, etc? If it is only sola scriptura that governs our earthly theology (according to protestants), then how do people allow themselves to come into agreement with the teachings of those reformers mentioned above? Why do they submit to the authority of a body that rejects authority?

Thanks, and God bless.

 

[BrianH]

This is a serious question and not one intended to mock or harass protestants.

How do many protestants, such as Lutherans, Calvinists, Mormons, etc., explain why they do not accept human authority on theological teachings and biblical interpretation and promote sola scriptura, yet militantly support the teachings in near personality cult form that of Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith, and the other reformers that I haven’t mentioned?

Mormons, I know, reject the ecumenical councils because they see them as nothing but human attempts to govern religion, yet has a governing body in and of itself. Why is this? What about these synods and the latter in other protestant sects - these “elders” and such - what gives them their authority, and to what extent? Who gives these bodies the authority to make doctrinal changes, such as women ordination, changes to liturgy and mass, etc? If it is only sola scriptura that governs our earthly theology (according to protestants), then how do people allow themselves to come into agreement with the teachings of those reformers mentioned above? Why do they submit to the authority of a body that rejects authority?

Thanks, and God bless.

Just real quick. Mormons are not Protestants.
catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp

And not all Protestants are Sola Scriptura in the sense you describe.
And not all Protestants “reject authority”.

 

[JonNC]

This is a serious question and not one intended to mock or harass protestants.

How do many protestants, such as Lutherans, Calvinists, Mormons, etc., explain why they do not accept human authority on theological teachings and biblical interpretation and promote sola scriptura, yet militantly support the teachings in near personality cult form that of Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith, and the other reformers that I haven’t mentioned?

Mormons, I know, reject the ecumenical councils because they see them as nothing but human attempts to govern religion, yet has a governing body in and of itself. Why is this? What about these synods and the latter in other protestant sects - these “elders” and such - what gives them their authority, and to what extent? Who gives these bodies the authority to make doctrinal changes, such as women ordination, changes to liturgy and mass, etc? If it is only sola scriptura that governs our earthly theology (according to protestants), then how do people allow themselves to come into agreement with the teachings of those reformers mentioned above? Why do they submit to the authority of a body that rejects authority?

Thanks, and God bless.

Hi Erich,
For Lutherans, sola scriptura is probably not best described as a governing principal, but instead the practice of using scripture as the final norm, to hold authority accountable.
In addition, it is wholly inaccurate to claim that Lutherans “militantly support the teachings in near personality cult form that of Luther” the man. Luther the man is also held to the final norm of scripure and accountable to it.
Lutherans are held to the Lutheran Confessions, not Luther the man. And that is not a paradox, as there are opinions that he had that Lutherans are not obliged to believe.

Usually when Catholics talk about authority, they are talking about the pope and Magisterium, and Sacred Tradition. For Lutherans, it isn’t the pope that we necessarily object to, but the power that is given the Bishop of Rome that we do not find confirmed in scripture or the early councils. Philip Melanchthon describes the Lutheran view in “A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”. While it contains polemics in it that I find dated, the basic argument is there.
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

For me at least, the heart of the issue is here:

VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

13] VII. Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several. 14] The same was observed [for a long time, not only in the East, but] also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands laid on him.

15] Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

16] Such superiority is impossible. For it is impossible for one bishop to be the overseer of the churches of the whole world, or for churches situated in the most distant lands to seek ordination [for all their ministers] from one. For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ is scattered throughout the whole world; and to-day there are many churches in the East which do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop [which have ministers ordained neither by the Pope nor his bishops]. Therefore, since such superiority [which the Pope, contrary to all Scripture, arrogates to himself] is impossible, and the churches in the greater part of the world have not acknowledged [nor made use of] it, it is sufficiently apparent that it was not instituted [by Christ, and does not spring from divine law].

Notice Melanchthon does not reference Luther, he references the councils.

Speaking only for me, were Rome to resolve the issue of authority with Orthodoxy, it would go a long way in resolving it for me, and I believe at least some portion of western non-Catholic Christianity, as well.
Jon

 

[gcnuss]

How do many protestants, such as Lutherans, Calvinists, Mormons, etc., explain why they do not accept human authority on theological teachings and biblical interpretation and promote sola scriptura, yet militantly support the teachings in near personality cult form that of Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith, and the other reformers that I haven’t mentioned?

Erich,

Jon has answered well from the Lutheran perspective. I just want to emphasize that Lutheranism is not a personality cult. We Lutherans do not follow in lockstep everything that Luther wrote or said. To be sure, we treasure his catechisms as faithful teachings of God’s word. But we acknowledge that he made errors as well, notably in his later diatribes against the Jews. Luther was neither infallible nor impeccable, something he has in common with other Christian theologians in the history of the church.

 

[O.S.Luke]

For Methodists, one would point to the Articles of Religion for authority, which came from the Anglican Church. John Wesley was more of a cheerleader and “emphasizer” than anything, and died an Anglican priest in good standing. It would be misleading to say that Methodists are sola scriptura-ists as most folks tend to (mis)define it - as do the Anglicans, the three-legged stool of scripture, reason, and tradition applies.

John Wesley certainly wasn’t perfect - for one, his marriage was an abysmal failure.

Like Jon, if Rome resolved authority issues with the Orthodox, it would speak loads to teh Western Church. However, I doubt that I will live long enough to see it.

O+