What's Your Authority?

[GiveTheTruth]

Are there any quotes from St. Irenaeus criticizing Rome or the Pope or speaking out against its primacy?

I got one from Martin Luther: "You tell me what a fuss the Papists are making, because the word alone is not in the text of Paul … say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so’ … I will have it so, and I will order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word “alone” is not in the Latin or the Greek text.

Was that the Holy Spirit speaking through Luther, the father of the reformation?

Even Martin Luther didn’t believe in sola scriptura.
Martin Luther: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day.”

 

[Erich]

Your premise that the gospel too complicated for the average person to grasp is an old and pernicious fallacy. If so, the infant church would not have flourished as it did.

You’re doing it again. I never said that “the gospel is too complicated for the average person to grasp.” What I said (or, rather, what I quote from the linked article) was that sola scriptura was not something the average person could implement without (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills.

Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today.

Neither would the Reformation have succeeded if it only could be understood by the scholars. It was no coincidence that the printing press and the translation of the bible into common languages and the Reformation appeared at the same time.

Thank you for making my point. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!

 

[eazyduzit]

Explain then, why the Bible says the CHUCH is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH. Doesn’t it then seem logical that God would preserve His Church from error if His Church is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH? And even if the “other half is the Holy Spirit” and even if God is supreme Authority, doesn’t seem logical that Jesus would allow for His Authority to be exercised in the way He intended?

Question remains …

Either Jesus established Apostolic Authority or He gave authority to each and every individual… the problem with authority being given to each and every individual is the fact that it then implies a dependency on ones ability to interpret Sacred Scripture… as we’ve seen over the last 500 years or so, a great multitude of people interpreting Sacred Scripture wrongly.

Before the Bible, what did the Church have? TRADITION

In the bible the Apostles have commended members for adhering to the TRADITION passed down from the Apostles. Just what do you suppose is TRADITION?

And if Sola Scriptura was a necessity ie sole rule of faith wouldn’t the Apostles have made sure that every common Christian had a copy of Sacred Scripture … oh but wait, it wasn’t even canonized until quite a few HUNDRED years ago … so, Sola Scriptura cannot be the case, other wise there wouldn’t be TRADITION and Sacred Scripture… So, again, what do you suppose is the TRADITION? And how do you suppose this TRADITION was passed down from the Apostles to the rest of the Church?

First, let us not confuse the “church” with “truth” they are two distinctly different things. Neither does the verse give men control over truth. Rather, it makes ministers responsible to hold up the truth of God in a dark world, as in “setting your light on a hill”.

What then is the “foundation?” Many think “hierarchy”, but Paul’s definition is “Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His, And let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity”.2Tm.3:19
The foundation does not refer to special men who alone have a special way to know and define truth. They have to do it the same way we all do, for as 1Cor. 3:5 says: Who then is Paul and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to EVERY man?"

Now, did the early church rely on Tradition? NO, the had Revelation. There was no guess work involved. Peter, John, and Paul received it directly from Christ. But as Paul warned, only the original messages should be considered pure and without error. Anything subsequent was to be considered was to be carefully compared to the original, so the purity of the Gospel might be maintained. As Jude said “earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.” It was then written once and for all.

Traditions only muddy the waters.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

First, let us not confuse the “church” with “truth” they are two distinctly different things.

I’m not the one confusing anything. The bible says…and I quote, "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The problem with Sola Scriprura is that it rely’s heavily on two things. First Rely’s heavily on ones own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture and then second on perceived revelation from God. Many claim to have "revelation from God but they don’t. Why is it hard to see that God entrusted the Church with the truth?

Neither does the verse give men control over truth.

The Church as the bible says is the pillar and foundation of truth. Are not Protestants suppose to go by what the bible says? Besides, this does not mean the Church “controls” anything but rather be more like stewards of this truth and more then stewards but the guardian of truth.

Rather, it makes ministers responsible to hold up the truth of God in a dark world, as in “setting your light on a hill”.

And the way God intended and established that this would be is through Apostolic Authority.

I’d like to respond to more but have to get going…

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Now, did the early church rely on Tradition?

They had both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

2 Thess 2:15
So then brethren, stand firm and hold firm the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Cor 11:23
For I received from the Lord what I also handed onto you.

There was no guess work involved. Peter, John, and Paul received it directly from Christ.

And they passed on this through both word of mouth and by letter. I
By word of mouth = Tradition see again (2 Thess 2:15) you see Tradition is viewed as both oral and written. Clearly the Apostles regarded tradition as Sacred as Scripture (letters of the Apostles) … Clearly see both letters and oral teachings as being placed in equality as both being inspired and divine. Otherwise the bible wouldn’t say to hold form to the traditions passed down by BOTH word of mouth AND by letter.

And your right, there is no guess work involved because the traditions passed down by word of mouth and by letter and it being consistent with the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Catechism of the Catholic Church congruent with both the writings of the Early Church Father’s plus Sacred Scripture plus Sacred Tradition all inclusive takes out any and all guess work and if and when somebody receives a revelation from God they can look at ALL THIS to see if they have in fact discerned right.

 

[benhur]

Your premise that the gospel too complicated for the average person to grasp is an old and pernicious fallacy.

Are you trying to be catholic eazy? You sound like this Catholic quote,

“Holy Writ (is) such surpassing authority…,easy for everyone to read,… and accessible to all men”

And this way before Hans Gutenberg and his printing press.

St Augustine, Confessions, Book 6, Ch. 5, vs. 8

Blessings and carry on.

 

[benhur]

First, let us not confuse the “church” with “truth” they are two distinctly different things. Neither does the verse give men control over truth. Rather, it makes ministers responsible to hold up the truth of God in a dark world, as in “setting your light on a hill”.

 

[Denise1957]

The foundation does not refer to special men who alone have a special way to know and define truth. They have to do it the same way we all do, for as 1Cor. 3:5 says: Who then is Paul and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to EVERY man?"

How exactly did our Lord give truth to EVERY man, in your opinion? (if that’s what you’re saying; I’m not sure I’m understanding your post correctly).

 

[LionHeart777]

…Irenaeus, in his book,“Against Heresies”, proposed that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to 'humbly accept one doctrinal authority-episcopal councils". He did not say the Pope or the or any permanent central authority. Most all churches accept the councils up to Chalcedon…

Easy, do you have a book, chapter and verse for me to look at?

St. Irenaeus was very clear about not departing from Apostolic succession:

“2. Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.” (Book IV 26:2)

He had this to say about the Roman church

“2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Book III: 3:2)

And in keeping with Catholic Ecclesiology, he speaks of both particular churches (cf. Book III 3:1) and the Universal (Katholikos) Church:

“1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” (Book III 4:1)

Also, you mention the Council of Chalcedon which was a General Council. The first was Nicaea in the 4th century as you know. St. Irenaeus was writing his “Against Heresies” towards the end of the second century. As you may know, the Assyrian Church of the East has been out of communion with Rome (and therefore with the Catholic Church) since the Council of Ephesus, which preceded Chalcedon. It seems as though you are saying that synods can be binding on believers, is that so?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your premise that the gospel too complicated for the average person to grasp is an old and pernicious fallacy. If so, the infant church would not have flourished as it did.

The Early Church did not rely on sola scriptura AT ALL. Living witnesses to the resurrection were able to shepherd those who were new to the faith via oral teaching.

Neither would the Reformation have succeeded if it only could be understood by the scholars.

And here you assume that the Reformation has actually been a success. But there has not been a single reformation of the single Church founded by Jesus but an explosion of reformation upon reformation upon reformation as one group disagrees with and splits off from another.

And this chaos has been the unavoidable bitter fruit of sola scriptura and private judgment.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

And here you assume that the Reformation has actually been a success. But there has not been a single reformation of the single Church founded by Jesus but an explosion of reformation upon reformation upon reformation as one group disagrees with and splits off from another.

And this chaos has been the unavoidable bitter fruit of sola scriptura and private judgment.

And this is what those of us who are Catholic on this thread have been saying over and over again. The only real unity among Protestants is the fact that their Church denomination wouldn’t exist today without a few people who Protested against the Church from whence the name Protestant comes from. Many Protestants have what I call a false kind of unity… They agree on who Jesus is, the Triune nature of God, they agree Sacred Scripture is inspired by God but many of the doctrines they don’t agree on. Not all Church’s agree speaking in tongues is for the Church today, some don’t agree the gifts of the Spirit are for today, and in matters of salvation some believe once saved always saved, others believe one can lose salvation …the good ol Calvinism vs Armenianism debate. The Protestants disagree on numerous doctrines and theology, how can they say that Sola Scriptura is a good doctrine when the fruit ofit is division?

 

[eazyduzit]

Pentecostals enjoy unity thru the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is called “fellowship in the Holy Spirit”. This is not an enforced unity. We do not rule by law, but by example and by love. Love is the law of the kingdom. As Jesus said, “he who hath an ear, let him hear”. One word from God changes everything. If some are unwilling to listen or to develop an ear to hear, then that is their problem. The job of the minister of the Gospel is to uphold the truth, not lower the boom.

 

[Erich]

Pentecostals enjoy unity thru the Holy Spirit.

So why are there still “Holiness”, “Finished Work” and “Oneness” Pentecostals?

From this link (emphases mine):

The earliest Pentecostals drew from their Methodist and Wesleyan Holiness roots, describing their entrance into the fullness of Christian life in three stages: conversion, sanctification, and baptism in the Spirit. Each of these stages was often understood as a separate, datable, “crisis” experience. Other Pentecostals, from the Reformed tradition or touched by the Keswick teachings on the Higher Christian Life, came to view sanctification not as a crisis experience, but as an ongoing quest. This debate resulted in the first major schism among early Pentecostals. Groups such as the Church of God in Christ, the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church continue to teach the former position, known as “Holiness”. Groups such as the Assemblies of God and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel hold the latter position, called “Finished Work”.

A second major schism developed between 1907 and 1916, in discussions over the “apostolic” baptismal formula. Most Pentecostals argued for the ** classic Trinitarian formula**, while others contended for the **formula “in the Name of Jesus Christ” **recorded in Acts (cf. Acts 2:38). By 1916 a new group of churches known as “Oneness” or “Jesus’ Name” churches had formed. Among them are the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the United Pentecostal Church. Many of these groups ultimately embraced an understanding of the Godhead in terms that border on a **modal understanding. **
Modalism is an ancient heresy on the nature of God dating back to the 3rd century.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

So why are there still “Holiness”, “Finished Work” and “Oneness” Pentecostals?

From this link (emphases mine):

The earliest Pentecostals drew from their Methodist and Wesleyan Holiness roots, describing their entrance into the fullness of Christian life in three stages: conversion, sanctification, and baptism in the Spirit. Each of these stages was often understood as a separate, datable, “crisis” experience. Other Pentecostals, from the Reformed tradition or touched by the Keswick teachings on the Higher Christian Life, came to view sanctification not as a crisis experience, but as an ongoing quest. This debate resulted in the first major schism among early Pentecostals. Groups such as the Church of God in Christ, the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church continue to teach the former position, known as “Holiness”. Groups such as the Assemblies of God and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel hold the latter position, called “Finished Work”.

A second major schism developed between 1907 and 1916, in discussions over the “apostolic” baptismal formula. Most Pentecostals argued for the ** classic Trinitarian formula**, while others contended for the **formula “in the Name of Jesus Christ” **recorded in Acts (cf. Acts 2:38). By 1916 a new group of churches known as “Oneness” or “Jesus’ Name” churches had formed. Among them are the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the United Pentecostal Church. Many of these groups ultimately embraced an understanding of the Godhead in terms that border on a **modal understanding. **
Modalism is an ancient heresy on the nature of God dating back to the 3rd century.

This has been a point I basically made to eazyduzit. There cannot be TRUE unity when major doctrines are different. We can take the schism within the Pentecostal Churches since it’s beginning. It actually didn’t take long for such schisms within the Pentecostal Churches to take place and yet I know these Pentecostal’s are quick to distance themselves from one another. That’s why I was asking Eazyduzit quite a while ago, “what kind of Pentecostal is he?” Because there’s the Pentecostal’s that teach the “oneness theology” or “modal understanding theology” debunked as heresy in the 3rd century … there are Pentecostal’s who believe that in order to be saved you have to be baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues… as a former Pentecostal (PAOC) Pentecostal member I know there’s a false sense of unity. The Pentecostal’s (not all but many) believe they are the only ones that can affectively hear God’s voice and are the only ones with the fullness of all revelation from God… ie the fullness of all truth… but are quick to accept Protestant Christian brothers and sisters in Christ but there’s a mixed bag of Pentecostal’s view on Catholics… many Pentecostal believers are anti-Catholic… or at the very least believe Catholics don’t have the fullness of all revelation revealed… with some Catholics saved and other Catholics not … point is,

WHO or WHAT gives us such AUTHORITY to decide the follow:

1. Which books are to be in Canonized Scripture
2. To say who’s REALLY hearing and who REALLY has a deaf ear
3. WHAT gives us the AUTHORITY to say out REVELATION is REALLY from God?

So far Eazyduzit - you haven’t really answered the question but rather with a vague response that kinda skirts around the topic and not really on target.

Point is … Eazyduzit - how do you know that you’re not actually the one with a deaf ear?

 

[eazyduzit]

In bible times God cofirmed his word and gave approval by signs and wonders. He still does today. If a prophet is speaking for God, his prophecy should pass the test. Personally it is
not hard to discern God’s voice. It is much more profound and powerful than ours.

 

[eazyduzit]

So why are there still “Holiness”, “Finished Work” and “Oneness” Pentecostals?

From this link (emphases mine):

The earliest Pentecostals drew from their Methodist and Wesleyan Holiness roots, describing their entrance into the fullness of Christian life in three stages: conversion, sanctification, and baptism in the Spirit. Each of these stages was often understood as a separate, datable, “crisis” experience. Other Pentecostals, from the Reformed tradition or touched by the Keswick teachings on the Higher Christian Life, came to view sanctification not as a crisis experience, but as an ongoing quest. This debate resulted in the first major schism among early Pentecostals. Groups such as the Church of God in Christ, the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church continue to teach the former position, known as “Holiness”. Groups such as the Assemblies of God and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel hold the latter position, called “Finished Work”.

A second major schism developed between 1907 and 1916, in discussions over the “apostolic” baptismal formula. Most Pentecostals argued for the ** classic Trinitarian formula**, while others contended for the **formula “in the Name of Jesus Christ” **recorded in Acts (cf. Acts 2:38). By 1916 a new group of churches known as “Oneness” or “Jesus’ Name” churches had formed. Among them are the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the United Pentecostal Church. Many of these groups ultimately embraced an understanding of the Godhead in terms that border on a **modal understanding. **
Modalism is an ancient heresy on the nature of God dating back to the 3rd century.

One of the church fathers, Tertulian, whose theology accounts for a great deal of Catholic doctrine, also became an heretic. How do you explain that?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

In bible times God cofirmed his word and gave approval by signs and wonders. He still does today. .

I get what you are saying … signs follow the believer! Right! At least when I was a member of the Pentecostal Churches and attending Bible College, that’s what I was taught. Signs follow the believer, his miracles, the gifts of the spirit, healing, prophesy etc etc… however, not everyone who has “signs” following them will enter the Kingdom of Heaven … look at what Matthew 7:21-23 says!

**Matthew 7:21-23 **
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

***What did these people do? Keeping in mind, these people didn’t enter the Kingdom of heaven … signs followed these “believers” ***

**Some Prophesied in the name of Jesus
Some Delivered People from demons in Jesus name
Some did “mighty works” in Jesus name **

***And yet Jesus said to these people “depart from me, I never knew you,” ***

Like WOW! That’s a sobering thought eh? Jesus said to people who prophesied and casted out demons and who did might work for the Lord "depart from me, I never knew you.

If a prophet is speaking for God, his prophecy should pass the test.

So clearly, it’s not enough to have signs and wonders following the believer. So, how do you suppose somebody who Prophesy’s is “speaking for God” and do you suppose is the “test” they should pass? It’s clearly not just the following of signs of wonders because clearly there were people who Prophesied and did mighty works and had wonders following them and yet they did not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So, what “test” are you referring to?

Personally it is not hard to discern God’s voice. It is much more profound and powerful than ours.

2 Corinthians 11:12-14
***And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. ***

Clearly, we need to really examine a few things if we actually think the discernment of God’s voice REALLY is that easy, especially in light of the fact that Satan can come in as an angel of light. For example, take the different shades of white! Isn’t it easy to think something really is white until something much whiter stands to contrast how off-white what we previously thought to be white? Much the same, Satan, who used to be an Angel knows exactly how to be an Angel especially to us mere humans. I mean, the minute we think so highly of ourselves, that we possibly can’t be deceived, we’re actually quick to be humbled.

However, there are ways to know if we’re being deceived or not. Just because signs and wonders follow that don’t mean that what we’ve discerned is from God even if we’ve prophesied and worked miracles in His name. Just because that happens that doesn’t mean that we’re truly following Jesus! Just because signs and wonders are following that doesn’t mean that Jesus actually knows us or that we know the TRUE Jesus… granted, chances are, the folks on this forum, we’re all in the same boat in that, we don’t know Jesus fully because our knowing Jesus is and will forever be a work in progress, like any relationship … like if you’re dating somebody you won’t know them as well as you would after you get married to that person, then you KNOW that person and even then, the first year or two is a learning curve as you get to know the person more and more and wouldn’t married couples agree that even years into the marriage you’re still getting to know your spouse? It’s the same way with the Church and Jesus, with us personally and Jesus. It’s hopefully an eternity long of getting to know Jesus deeper and deeper. However, let us not kid ourselves because it might actually be easier to be deceived then we actually think it is.

Well, I don’t know about the Pentecostal because it seems to me that when I was part of the Pentecostal there was a huge emphasis on miracles and the works of an individual that my Pentecostal faith was actually more works based … go figure because most Pentecostals feel that Catholics of a works based faith.

**How do we as Catholics know we’re not being deceived? **

***1. Does it line up with Sacred Scripture AND Tradition?
2. Does it line up with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Apostolic Authority)?
3. Does it line up with what the Church has historically taught?
4. Does it bear fruit of righteousness?
5. Does it edify the body of Christ? ***

You see, we don’t trust in our own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture, we look at many things to guide us in discerning TRUTH. As it states in Matthew 7:21-23 it’s not by sins and wonders alone we discern whether or not we’ve been deceived. And based upon 2 Cor 11:12-14 Satan can come as an angel of light. So…

 

[SjMelnychuk]

One of the church fathers, Tertulian, whose theology accounts for a great deal of Catholic doctrine, also became an heretic. How do you explain that?

He wasn’t excommunicated by the Catholic Church. I don’t know where you get your information from but a brief search on google lead me to some of his work and also a slew of information about Tertullian and I read something to the effect that “it’s a wonder the Catholic Church did not excommunicate Turtillian.” There’s a HUGE difference. And really, from the basics of what I just read about him, he was like the axe or the grinder, he was sharp, spoke loudly and boldly, abruptly, and really didn’t care if he came across harshly in his communication. I also read, “it’s a wonder the heathens didn’t kill him” but with all this however, he never placed himself among Priests but rather the Laity. He also NEVER spoke with Magisterial Authority so in other words … HE NEVER SPOKE INFALLIBLY!

Tertullian was noted as the Father of Latin Christianity … he wasn’t the CREATOR of “CATHOLIC” doctrine or more accurately described as Christian doctrine because Catholics are the original Christians and still are Christian He was noted as the Father of Latin Christianity because previous to Tertullian there wasn’t much written in Latin as much of what was written had been in Greek. Tertullian wanted to support Latin Christian education so much of his writings were done in Latin. He was really the first among Christian leaders to write in Latin and because he was really the first to begin writing in Latin, he used the Latin Creatively to come up with Latin theological terms essentially, Fathering Latin Theology. Again, this had nothing to do with the creation of theology but rather educating the people in Latin a theology that already existed but now because of Tertullian translated into Latin.

My goodness, I did a 5 minute search on google and had enough information to form a one year Semester Seminarian Class on Tertullian. You’d save yourselves a lot of heartache or headaches if you just did a bit more research. You might gain some knowledge as I just have.

 

[Erich]

In bible times God cofirmed his word and gave approval by signs and wonders.

The Jews asked this very question of Jesus:“And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (Matt. 21:23)

Jesus’ calling was, of course, an extraordinary one, He being sent on His mission to earth by God the Father directly. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. (John 14:10-12)

He still does today.

*This *should certainly give you pause.

Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or “pastor”: by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways: being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), or being called directly by God. In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.

In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.

So… by what authority does your pastor claim his office? By succession? If so, demonstrate that he was called by a superior authority who himself had a legitimate claim to his office. By extraordinary calling? If so, then show the required signs and wonders that authenticate his ministry. (Remember that Jesus changed water into wine, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, restored the lame, calmed storms, cast out demons, fed thousands, restored a severed ear, and raised the dead – including Himself – to demonstrate His calling.)

You must be absolutely sure, for your own soul’s sake, that your pastor’s calling is legitimate. In Numbers 16, Korah set himself up as an illegitimate authority against God’s appointed authorities, and was destroyed for his audacious act. This problem has not disappeared in our day.

Are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?