Suppose the head or leader of your church decided that the Pope is right -

[Jon_Hus]

A couple of folks are asking me to explain my stance. A little difficult to do on this forum without writing a book.

First of all, there are really only three (3) kinds of church governments:

1. Episcopal
2. Presbyterian
3. Congregational

Of the three, the RCC is Episcopal in form, it is run from the top down. Local pastors are appointed by the heiarchy at their good pleasure. At the other end of the spectrum, the Congregational form is run by the membership. Pastors are placed by the local membership at their good pleasure within the guidlines of their incorporated by-laws and statement of faith. In the middle, acceptable canidates MAY be approved by the Presbytery but final decision MAY be made by the local congregation, depending on the incorporated by-laws and statement of faith.

So, in a congregational setting, when a pastor or any other member for that matter acts in a manor contrary to the statement of faith, they become subject to disclipline as described in the the by-laws. So, given that any church that I would join would have a statement of faith that would not be compatable with much of what the RCC (and or the Pope) practices, one can see the problem that would transpire if the pastor announced that the pope is right after all, ie: this would be in violation of the statement of faith. The offending pastor would be aware of this though and the discord that would result would not come as any surprise to him.

Please note that with regard to the type of church government, there are many other aspects of the government that come into play, not just the hiring of pastors. For example, the Bishop in a RCC setting may shut down a particular church for what ever reason and the local members have to live with the decision. In a congregational setting, the local church members (through the incorporated entity) probably owns the building and is responsible for running and paying all of the expenses. So, for example, a local Southern Baptist church cannot be shut down by the southern Baptist Convention, however the Southern Baptist Convention can discontinue fellowship with a local SBC church and vis versa, a local SBC church can discontinue fellowship with the SBC.

Probably way more information than anyone wants to know but if anyone is wondering by folks like me would react to the OP the way I did they may find some answers in the above.

 

[kcmekim]

• that catholicism does indeed contain the fullness of truth, and let’s suppose the leader of your church declared that while individuals in the congregation (you) may not fully understand everything within the catholic church or it’s mysteries, it is non the less true, would you convert to catholicism, and if not, why not?

No, I wouldn’t convert. I’m assuming you mean our pastor. Our pastor is just a man and is just as fallible as the pope. If he declared that Catholicism contained the fullness of the truth, then he would be denying the Biblical teaching that our local assembly is a part of the church and also contains the fullness of the truth.

Likewise, if he affirmed Catholic doctrines, particularly relating to justification, he would be removed from the pulpit pretty quickly.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

No, I wouldn’t convert. I’m assuming you mean our pastor. Our pastor is just a man and is just as fallible as the pope. If he declared that Catholicism contained the fullness of the truth, then he would be denying the Biblical teaching that our local assembly is a part of the church and also contains the fullness of the truth.

Likewise, if he affirmed Catholic doctrines, particularly relating to justification, he would be removed from the pulpit pretty quickly.

Who declared that your local assembly and church contains the fullness of truth and how was that done? What proces was one thorugh to come to that conclusion, and is there a process for review?

 

[kcmekim]

Who declared that your local assembly and church contains the fullness of truth and how was that done? What proces was one thorugh to come to that conclusion, and is there a process for review?

We don’t need someone to declare it. We can compare our church with scripture.

What is the role of the Pastor in your church?

Primarily in Christian churches, the pastor is devoted to the study of scripture, to prayer, and to the preaching and teaching of God’s word.

Does the Pastor have any authority in the matter of faith and morals?

In regard to dictating them?

If he is interpreting the word of God for the congregation, who decides what he is sayng is correct?

Typically, pastors partner with elders for mutual accountability and in most churches, such as ours, there is an “open door” policy, whereby any member can come to the pastor with a concern about something he’s said or preached or taught.

Do you mean ‘‘we’’ as the whole assembly, or the leaders in your church?

The church body as a whole.

What happens then when you compare your church with scripture and discover an anomoly?

We correct it.

Who deals with that situation?

The pastor and elders are the front line of defense against false doctrines.

Who decides on the interpretation of the scriptures?

Typically, the pastor and elders, although we do believe in the Biblical teaching of the priesthood of the believer.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

So, in a congregational setting, when a pastor or any other member for that matter acts in a manor contrary to the statement of faith, they become subject to disclipline as described in the the by-laws. So, given that any church that I would join would have a statement of faith that would not be compatable with much of what the RCC (and or the Pope) practices, one can see the problem that would transpire if the pastor announced that the pope is right after all, ie: this would be in violation of the statement of faith. The offending pastor would be aware of this though and the discord that would result would not come as any surprise to him.

Please note that with regard to the type of church government, there are many other aspects of the government that come into play, not just the hiring of pastors. For example, the Bishop in a RCC setting may shut down a particular church for what ever reason and the local members have to live with the decision. In a congregational setting, the local church members (through the incorporated entity) probably owns the building and is responsible for running and paying all of the expenses. So, for example, a local Southern Baptist church cannot be shut down by the southern Baptist Convention, however the Southern Baptist Convention can discontinue fellowship with a local SBC church and vis versa, a local SBC church can discontinue fellowship with the SB.

Very interesting. Thank you. How was your statement of faith drwn up, and by who, and how can you be sure it does not contain any errors.

No, I wouldn’t convert. I’m assuming you mean our pastor. Our pastor is just a man and is just as fallible as the pope. If he declared that Catholicism contained the fullness of the truth, then he would be denying the Biblical teaching that our local assembly is a part of the church and also contains the fullness of the truth.

Likewise, if he affirmed Catholic doctrines, particularly relating to justification, he would be removed from the pulpit pretty quickly.

What is the role of the Pastor in your church? Does the Pastor have any authority in the matter of faith and morals? If he is interpreting the word of God for the congregation, who decides what he is sayng is correct?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

We don’t need someone to declare it. We can compare our church with scripture.

Do you mean ‘‘we’’ as the whole assembly, or the leaders in your church? What happens then when you compare your church with scripture and discover an anomoly? WHo deals with that situation? Who decides on the ionterpretation of the scriptures?

 

[Contarini]

Very interesting. Thank you. How was your statement of faith drwn up, and by who, and how can you be sure it does not contain any errors.

Why do you think we need to be sure of this? Why not just correct errors as we become aware of them?

Or do you think that God sits up in heaven marking down points against people when they get their theology wrong?

Ediwn

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Why do you think we need to be sure of this? Why not just correct errors as we become aware of them?

Or do you think that God sits up in heaven marking down points against people when they get their theology wrong?

Ediwn

If I understood the posts correctly, some seemed to be saying they would judge their pastors words against the statement of faith. If there was a contradiction he would be corrected, or asked to leave. So that seems to suggest to me that the statement of faith is finalised and contains no errors. So my question is how was that arrived at? And who declared it contains no errors.

If errors can be corrected in the statement of faith as they are discovered, then how does a person know the staement of faith, which they adhere to, is suffficient. That seems to suggest the statement of faith can contain errors, and if so, whos to say then, in the scenario I gave, that when the pastor declares the teaching of the catholic church contains the fullness of truth, he’s incorrect. Some seem to think he would be as compared to their statement of faith,

I hope Im making sense.

As for whether God keeps a score sheet - I have no idea.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Very interesting. Thank you. How was your statement of faith drwn up, and by who, and how can you be sure it does not contain any errors.

What is the role of the Pastor in your church? Does the Pastor have any authority in the matter of faith and morals? If he is interpreting the word of God for the congregation, who decides what he is sayng is correct?

I will take a stab at answering both questions although I understand one of them was not directed to me and my answer may differ from the intended recipient of the question.

In general, there are many different ways a statement of faith could be drawn up. Small differences can account for one of the reasons why there are thousands of different protestant denominations. Most confessions or statements of faith probably are adapted from the historical creeds and confessions of the church (ie: the AnteNicene and other early documments), some come from the confessions of the reformation era, some could be of more modern times. It is really up to the church or organization to make that decision.

The statement of faith of the church that I belong to is descended from the one of the historical confessions of the reformation era. From time to time they may be revised with updated language or whatever. Everything in the statement of faith is compared to the plain teaching of the Bible. Take for example, the Apostles creed, in the form we have today has been revised several times over the years. It is throughly Biblical though and every statement of that creed can be traced to the Bible. Godly men who understood the Scriptures formulated this creed and compared everything to the Bible. As for protection from error, it is up to the individual to study, know and compare their statements of faith with the Holy Bible and with the aid of the Holy Spirit determine if there is error. We do not place our faith and trust in someone else, nice as they may be, to make sure our statement of faith is Biblical, this is my personal responsibility.

Here are links to two (2) seminaries statements of faith. They can be somewhat involved or short and to the point, depends on the organizations and their goals.

The first is from Westminster Seminary. This is mainly a Reformed (Calvinistic) Seminary. Graduates would gravitate to Presbyterian churches but it is up to the graduate and the church making the hiring decision. See my earlier post regarding Presbyterian type of government. wts.edu/about/beliefs/historiccreed.html

The second link is to Dallas Theological Seminary. This is a dispensational (mildly calvinistic) more of the Congregational (independant) church government. A graduate from Dallas wouldgravitate to a Baptist/Independent church environment. dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

I could comment forever but I will stop here. To address the second question, The pastor leads the flock. His interpretation of the Bible is within the scope of the statement of faith. He is to teach the Bible to the congregation. Of course, the pastor has been trained in the Bible and should know enough to teach it to us. We on the other hand are expected to know enough about the Bible and the nature of God to know when something we hear from the pulpit is not right. If we suspect it is not right, we investigate further. It is not an adverserial relationship and we do not expect 100% total agreement. However, the pastor will be called to account if there is disagreement of a basic of the faith.

We respect our pastor and decons and elders but not the way Catholics revere the Bishops and Pope. Our belief as from the Bible does not elevate anyone above the rest. The statements on faith and morals come from the Bible, that book is full of these and we feel no further pronouncements are necessary. Sometimes I really have to search the Scriptures to find and answer to a question that I may have. I try to get those answers from prayerful Bible Study but at times I will ask for Godly opinions.

Probably not answering everything you ask but this is enough for now.

Take care,
Jon

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Jon many thanks for the detailed reply. I appreciate the effort youve taken.

 

[kcmekim]

I will take a stab at answering both questions although I understand one of them was not directed to me and my answer may differ from the intended recipient of the question.

No, actually, your answer was pretty similar to mine.

 

[Jon_Hus]

If I understood the posts correctly, some seemed to be saying they would judge their pastors words against the statement of faith. If there was a contradiction he would be corrected, or asked to leave. So that seems to suggest to me that the statement of faith is finalised and contains no errors.

You are probably not going to understand or accept this. The statement of faith is a human documment based on the infallable Word of God. Any church that I have been part of, as their first article states something regarding the infallability of the Bible.

I understand that this is not compatable RCC teaching. They for example claim that the canons and tennents of the Council of Trent are to remove error brought on by the reformation and thus making the council documments infallable themselves. I, on the other hand, take the documments of Trent and compare them to the Scriptures to decide if they are worthy of my belief. For this believer, there is no human documment that is error free, only the Bible in it’s autographs can get that honor.

 

[JRKH]

You are probably not going to understand or accept this. The statement of faith is a human documment based on the infallable Word of God. Any church that I have been part of, as their first article states something regarding the infallability of the Bible.

I understand that this is not compatable RCC teaching. They for example claim that the canons and tennents of the Council of Trent are to remove error brought on by the reformation and thus making the council documments infallable themselves. I, on the other hand, take the documments of Trent and compare them to the Scriptures to decide if they are worthy of my belief. For this believer, there is no human documment that is error free, only the Bible in it’s autographs can get that honor.

INteresting exchanges here.
I highlighted the first part because I want to go back a bit - Forgive me if I confuse who said what and I am trying to communicate the gist of what I have read so agin forgive and correct me as needed.
The early responses indicated that the “leader” or pastor would be removed quickly and unceramoniously.
Then it was said that the leader would be removed for having violated something in the “Statement of faith” for that church group.
Finally the question was raised about the validity of that statement of faith and the response was that it was a human document and thereby liable to error.

So

My question on this would be this. The Pastor, who is charged with studying and teaching Scripture, determines from said Study that the Pope, or papal office and RCC are correct and containe the fullness of truth. In so doing he believes he has uncovered a “flaw”, an “error” in the community’s “statement of faith”.
Now remember, this is not just any, “fella in the pew” but a person whom is educated and in whom the church placed trust to get things right. He believes that he has uncovered a Truth that is critical, not just to himself. but possibly to the salvation of those under his care as pastor.
So I guess my question is this,
If the “Statement of Faith” can err, and the pastor’s decision is based firmly on Scripture, how can he be dismissed without a chance to make the case before those who are responsible for the accuracy and relative “inerrancy” of the “Statement of Faith”? In the interest of Truth, shouldn’t he be given the chance to explain and defend his position?

Peace
James

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

• that catholicism does indeed contain the fullness of truth, and let’s suppose the leader of your church declared that while individuals in the congregation (you) may not fully understand everything within the catholic church or it’s mysteries, it is non the less true, would you convert to catholicism, and if not, why not?

X’s choice may be right for X - that does not make it right for Y or for Z.​

BTW, Christ is the only leader of the Church. He is unlikely to become RC or to submit to the Pope. And it is idolatrous & sinful for any Church to claim to “contain the fullness of truth” - that amounts to claiming to contain God, which no creature can: it’s a denial of God’s grace and freedom, and a deification of the Church.

This essay explains why Catholicism is not and cannot be a choice:

• [http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2004/novdec/12.30.html?start=1 (http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2004/novdec/12.30.html?start=1)

It’s about C.S.Lewis, and answers your question far better than I could. Rome is as stuck in her false security, what Luther called her sicherheit, as she was in 1517. If there were no other failings but that in her, it would be enough to require the Protestant rejection of her, because here, in this world (or age), we have no abiding city - not even in the form of a Church; not even in the form of the Roman Church.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

BTW, Christ is the only leader of the Church. He is unlikely to become RC or to submit to the Pope. And it is idolatrous & sinful for any Church to claim to “contain the fullness of truth” - that amounts to claiming to contain God, which no creature can: it’s a denial of God’s grace and freedom, and a deification of the Church.

Two points:

1. For churches started by men, it would indeed be “idolatrous & sinful … to claim to 'contain the fullness of truth. '” But Christ’s Church is not man-made! Christ himself is the founder and builder, and thus his Church a divine, not a human institution. And indeed, we say the Church is Christ!
2. St. Paul explicitly teaches that the Church at Rome does have the “fullness of truth!”

I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another. Rom. 15:14

What Protestant church ever would or could claim to be “full of goodness” and “filled with all knowledge?”

 

[Contarini]

X’s choice may be right for X - that does not make it right for Y or for Z.​

BTW, Christ is the only leader of the Church. He is unlikely to become RC or to submit to the Pope. And it is idolatrous & sinful for any Church to claim to “contain the fullness of truth” - that amounts to claiming to contain God, which no creature can: it’s a denial of God’s grace and freedom, and a deification of the Church.

This essay explains why Catholicism is not and cannot be a choice:

• [http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2004/novdec/12.30.html?start=1 (http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2004/novdec/12.30.html?start=1)

It’s about C.S.Lewis, and answers your question far better than I could. Rome is as stuck in her false security, what Luther called her sicherheit, as she was in 1517. If there were no other failings but that in her, it would be enough to require the Protestant rejection of her, because here, in this world (or age), we have no abiding city - not even in the form of a Church; not even in the form of the Roman Church.

I didn’t realize that *Books and Culture *had reprinted this. I would have written them if I had known. It’s an outrageous twisting of the passage from Lewis, which is put in the mouth of an idealist philosopher who winds up in limbo because he will not let himself believe. Reading this article nearly made me convert to Catholicism on the spot, because I realized that I had been living in the ecclesiology of limbo for years.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If I understood the posts correctly, some seemed to be saying they would judge their pastors words against the statement of faith. If there was a contradiction he would be corrected, or asked to leave. So that seems to suggest to me that the statement of faith is finalised and contains no errors. So my question is how was that arrived at? And who declared it contains no errors.

If errors can be corrected in the statement of faith as they are discovered, then how does a person know the staement of faith, which they adhere to, is suffficient. That seems to suggest the statement of faith can contain errors, and if so, whos to say then, in the scenario I gave, that when the pastor declares the teaching of the catholic church contains the fullness of truth, he’s incorrect. Some seem to think he would be as compared to their statement of faith,

I hope Im making sense.

Yes, you are. You are right that if the statement of faith is trusted so implicitly, then one should have rock-solid reasons for doing so.

Sorry for responding with my boiler-plate reaction to Catholic claims for infallible authority. Your argument was a legitimate one. Statements of faith that originate from doctrinal re-examination (i.e., all Protestant statements for starters) cannot be trusted implicitly and should not be used to condemn off the cuff a hitherto trusted human authority.

There are no infallible authorities except Scripture, and Scripture is difficult to interpret.
But the ongoing wisdom of the fallible human community of the Church is far more trustworthy than some document drawn up on the past by some particular fallible human community at a particular place and time.

Ediwn

 

[Departed_Light]

Two points:

1. For churches started by men, it would indeed be “idolatrous & sinful … to claim to 'contain the fullness of truth. '” But Christ’s Church is not man-made! Christ himself is the founder and builder, and thus his Church a divine, not a human institution. And indeed, we say the Church is Christ!
2. St. Paul explicitly teaches that the Church at Rome does have the “fullness of truth!”

I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another. Rom. 15:14

What Protestant church ever would or could claim to be “full of goodness” and “filled with all knowledge?”

Hold the phone. Talk about pulling verses out of context as a proof text. Romans 15:14 proves that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith? How about some Official Church Teaching on that exegesis?

What about the very next verses?

Romans 15:15, 16 - But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Why would a Church that was just spoken of as having the fullness of the Truth have to be boldly reminded of anything?

Haydock has no remark on this verse.

Here (newadvent.org/fathers/210229.htm) is St. John Chrysostom’s Homily on that verse. St. John clearly points to this verse as speaking to the particular Christians in Rome at the time and has nothing to do with an overall prophetic message that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth.

From Sacra Pagina’s Interpretation of Rom 15:14 - (see attached thumbnail)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6484&d=1251899497

If the Catholic Church points to this passage as Scriptural proof that the Catholic Church posses the fullness of the truth, I sure would like to see that.

On several occasions the non-Catholic posts Scriptures to back up their arguments the Catholic antagonist retort is that there is no private interpretation and the Church is the official interpreter of Scripture – then the Catholic when posting Scripture to prove their point must back it up by some sort Church document showing that the poster is using the verse in question correctly according to Catholic teaching.

There is no way this verse in Romans points to the Catholic Church having the fullness of the truth. Even a simpleton like me can see that.

 

[Jon_Hus]

INteresting exchanges here.
I highlighted the first part because I want to go back a bit - Forgive me if I confuse who said what and I am trying to communicate the gist of what I have read so agin forgive and correct me as needed.
The early responses indicated that the “leader” or pastor would be removed quickly and unceramoniously.
Then it was said that the leader would be removed for having violated something in the “Statement of faith” for that church group.
Finally the question was raised about the validity of that statement of faith and the response was that it was a human document and thereby liable to error.

In the context of this discussion, we are speculating what would happen if a pastor in (say my church) announced that he now believes the Pope (and hence all of RCC doctrine) “is correct after all”. This would be basically the pastor saying that much of what we believe is incorrect. So, we are not talking about some small doctrinal issue like “how many angles can dance on a the head of a pin?” We could debate that question all day and disagreement in the end will not change what we believe in any real sense. We are talking about large issues here.

So

My question on this would be this. The Pastor, who is charged with studying and teaching Scripture, determines from said Study that the Pope, or papal office and RCC are correct and containe the fullness of truth. In so doing he believes he has uncovered a “flaw”, an “error” in the community’s “statement of faith”.
Now remember, this is not just any, “fella in the pew” but a person whom is educated and in whom the church placed trust to get things right. He believes that he has uncovered a Truth that is critical, not just to himself. but possibly to the salvation of those under his care as pastor.
So I guess my question is this,
If the “Statement of Faith” can err, and the pastor’s decision is based firmly on Scripture, how can he be dismissed without a chance to make the case before those who are responsible for the accuracy and relative “inerrancy” of the “Statement of Faith”? In the interest of Truth, shouldn’t he be given the chance to explain and defend his position?

Peace
James

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we, the people in the pews have a responsibility to study and know the Scriptures. In addition, we should know our doctrine. So, if the pastor on Sunday morning expounds on a doctrine and is teaching that which is incorrect, it would certainly be noticed more than one person. Everyone at one time or another will ask the pastor what he ment by a comment on a scripture verse or something to that effect. You ask pastor the question, listen to the answer and then act accordingly. Sometimes I have to go back and really dig into the scriptures to find out what is being taught. I have to be satisfied that it is sound teaching although, as mentioned, I don’t have to agree with pastor on 100% of every thing, but we do have to have agreement on the basics of the faith. So of course a chance to explain is given and we take it from there.

Even in a small church like the one I belong to, we only have 1 paid staff member and that is our pastor. The decons and elders are lay persons. The Bible in 1 Timothy and Titus lays out the qualifications for these offices. It is assumed that the persons holding these positions meet the requirements and take the responsibility seriously. They would take a leading role if the pastor went off the reservation so to speak but the final decision would rest with the membership. It is not in any way shape or form a game of “got ya”. I have not personally seen a pastor removed from office for this issue, but I have seen a pastor resign a post because he changed his view on a major doctrine.

Not sure if this is the answer you are looking for or not. Hopefully though it gives you some idea how it works. I think you looking for something that doesn’t exist in a church like mine, that is inerrant creeds or statement of faith. Only the Bible is inerrant. I personally find no theological fault with the Apostles creed and this is I believe the position of many Roman Catholics. But do we place that creed on a par with the Bible? I know I don’t. And yet here is one of the flaws (in my opinion) with the theology of the RCC. If you make the claim the the Apostles Creed is an early statement of faith but try to justify things like IC or the office of Pope, you have to look beyond the creed itself. Catholics (I think) take the statement in that creed …I believe in the Catholic Church to find any kind of justification for these doctrines. But that is a whole other discussion for another day.

Take care,
Jom

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

So, we are not talking about some small doctrinal issue like “how many angles can dance on a the head of a pin?” We could debate that question all day and disagreement in the end will not change what we believe in any real sense. We are talking about large issues here.

How have you come to the conclusion on what matters are small doctrinal issues and which are big? I haven’t ran across any where in the Bible which lays out for us the major issues and the less than major issues.

God bless you