What's Your Authority?

[Abu]

Per Crucem #636
I am asking you sincerely. The reason being because I get what you’re saying about tradition, history, etc. preventing Popes from decreeing something willy nilly. However and ultimately, there’s nothing that prevents one from doing so. At least, not anything binding. Because, as I’ve said before, the only ultimate authority within Catholic ecclesiology is the papacy. Everything else is secondary to his authority.
#644
My question is, what canonical method exists to prevent the Pope from changing something that a previous Pope or council has said? The question is related to whether the Pope** would **do it, but whether he could do it

.
You are failing repeatedly to read the facts as written, but if you are sincere you can now accept the reality. You are still failing to listen to Christ, who is God the Son, and until you do you will remain in confusion.

There is no “canonical method” – there is the highest possible assurance – from God Himself – who specifically gave St Peter and his successors that final and irrevocable authority and power, and gave it to no one else. God Himself prevents all Popes from teaching error on Faith and Morals to the whole Church. What could be more binding than God Himself?

No Pope has ever taught error to the whole Church on faith and morals and no Pope ever can, and an Ecumenical Council has no authority or power to “depose a Pope” who is Christ’s Vicar on earth – it never has and never will.

So start really accepting Christ’s great commission to St Peter concerning Christ’s Church:
Four promises to St Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve Apostles].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Or it could be less nefarious and I posted before I saw his reply

OK … I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt

 

[SjMelnychuk]

I get why people from within the Protestant Tradition have issues with Papal Authority.

So in this case we come full circle to Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) Theology.

**Here’s a few questions: **

1. Is the bible and only the bible the sole rule of faith / the final authority in matters of faith and Christian living?

***The only Scripture verse that many Protestants turn to is 2 Tim 3:16 which says:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.***

While attending a Pentecostal Bible College my Hermeneutics Prof, who I still respect to this day, said something which stuck to me and even to this day said some very wise words when it comes to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. He drilled it into to our minds almost every class. He said:

***Context, Context Context… CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING! ***

You know, after spending even just one year attending Bible College it’s relatively easy for the Bible College student to start believing that they have the upper hand when it comes to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. It’s like, “I know everything and I have the market when it comes to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture” The problem many Catholics point out is that, by the end of the day, with Bible Alone theology it’s not really the Bible many Protestants trust in but rather their own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture. This fallibility we all have in common. So instead of saying that our interpretation of Sacred Scripture is right lets ask the question, is our understanding of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture correct? Do we have the right context to certain scripture verses?

**Lets take a closer look at 2Tim 3:16-17 **

In all my years within the Protestant Tradition this is the one major verse that many Protestants turn to when trying to bring evidence to Sola Scriptura teaching. Well, as my Bible College instructor used to say A LOT … Context, Context, Context… Context is EVERYTHING … Lets find the context.

The Apostle Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, a young man Paul was mentoring.

So we know that this letter was written before the NT was gathered and so therefore, before the canonization of Sacred Scripture. As a matter of fact, this letter was written a few hundred years before the canonization of Sacred Scripture or what we know today as the Bible.

So what Scripture was St. Paul referring to when he told Timothy that all scripture was inspired by God etc?

St. Paul was referring to the OT. Did they have the full NT gathered by that time? NO!

1. So do we throw out the OT when it comes to our understanding of the NT? NO! but that however, is a conversation for another thread.
2. Can we say, just like St. Paul did with the OT that NT is inspired by God and useful etc etc? YES! We can! Does this prove Sola Scriptura teaching? Absolutely not!
   Why not?

Well, the verse says, inspired by God. As Catholics we don’t reject this.

1. The verse also says profitable for teaching, reproof, correction. Does this verse imply that this is the only source for authority in the life of the believer? If that’s true? How then are we to interpret the following verse:

1 Timothy 3:15

… if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

1. How then are we to interpret Sacred Scripture when we’re told that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?

It’s going to be interpreted in two different ways …

A. The Church (the most obvious interpretation but the one question, which Church?)

B. Each member within the body of Christ ( the believer, their own interpretation)

---

Either way, the Bible cannot be what the Church is, the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible cannot be the pillar and foundation of truth. So the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith in the life of the believer. Is the Bible inspired by God? Yes, is the Bible profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction? Yes, is the Bible the pillar and foundation of truth? NO! The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Keeping this in mind, if you’re a “bible believing Christian,” you’d have to admit right now that the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith in the life of the believer but that there is another source for authority to determine TRUTH because the Bible says that the Bible is not the pillar and foundation of truth but rather that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth ***

My Challenge to people within the Protestant Tradition. Answer the below question:

For those who are Protestant, interpret 1 Tim 3:15. What is this scripture verse REALLY saying?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

I decided to respond to what was written in another thread because I felt it was more in line with this thread than the other …

A previous comment of mine:

If you’re Pentecostal you believe in Apostolic Authority … in a sense.

If you’re Pentecostal you believe in the laying on of hands and the receiving of impartation of gifts, spiritual gifts, you believe in spheres of influences, perhaps you follow teachings out of Bethel as teachings on the 7 Mountains, you also believe in Offices of the Prophet, Priest, Teacher, etc you would then believe that some have greater authority than others and will have greater responsibility than others.

Lets just say you believe “the verse” does mean the Apostles were given authority to forgive sin.

Take for example Elijah and Elisha … I believe it was Elisha that through the cloak of Elijah received a double portion of Elijah’s Office as Prophet so he received a double portion blessing etc … if you believe that, which I know is taught in Pentecostal circles because I went through 3 years of a Pentecostal Bible College etc so if this is a common belief system that Elisha could receive the prophetic authority from Elijah through his cloak why couldn’t Priestly Authority be passed on through the laying on of hands etc?

And help me follow through with how you could think that perhaps the Apostles were given Authority to forgive sin and have that tradition, Sacrament, or “Priestly Authority” not be passed on from Apostles to Priests who would perform the same Priestly duties as the Apostles?

Of course.

I believe in the laying on of hands.

I’m not familiar with that terminology.

I don’t subscribe to 7 Mountains teaching, and Bethel is kind of too radical for me, although I appreciate a lot of their music.

I believe in the offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. I believe every Christian is a priest. The question is not authority but what kind of authority.

Because you are assuming that a special “priestly” caste was meant to “receive” this authority. This authority, if it was to continue, would have went to the church as a whole. We are a holy nation, a royal priesthood. Binding and loosing, declaring forgiveness of sins and withholding forgiveness are ministries of the church as a whole.

OK … So by your responses you fit more in line with Classic - Pentecostal teachings. Within the Pentecostal world so to speak there’s PAOC, AOG, and of course there are Pentecostals that are super big on Apostolic Authority, then there are those who are more Charismatic and Apostolic in nature but don’t fall in line with PAOC or AOG however, Bethel Church is affiliated with the AOG but are more Charismatic than Classic. With Classic - Pentecostal’s there’s an emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit but in a more controlled environment vs the Charismatic - Pentecostal’s.

So you believe in Apostolic Authority. If you believe in Apostolic Authority than you believe that there are 5 Offices within the context of Apostolic Authority.

1. Apostle
2. Prophet
3. Evangelist
4. Pastor
5. Teacher

Some are called to be Apostles and some are called to be Prophets and others Evangelists, Pastor, and Teacher.

Within the context of Apostolic Authority each category has a certain amount of favor within the ministry each person is called into. If you believe in the “Office” of these than you’d agree that some can operate in the giftings of Apostle, the giftings of Prophet but the person operating in the giftings would do so but not within the context of his or her own authority. The individual who are gifted within the “Office” of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher have a kind of Authority within the context of his or her ministry. In other words, just because you operate within the giftings of Prophet, doesn’t make you a Prophet so on and so forth. If you do not agree with this than you don’t technically agree with Apostolic Authority.

So expand on what you mean by agreeing with Apostolic Authority.

Because you are assuming that a special “priestly” caste was meant to “receive” this authority. This authority, if it was to continue, would have went to the church as a whole. We are a holy nation, a royal priesthood. Binding and loosing, declaring forgiveness of sins and withholding forgiveness are ministries of the church as a whole.

So … if you believe that the Church as a whole can forgive or retain sins don’t you think the Church can have the authority to decide how this would be made available to members within the Church?

 

[eazyduzit]

**All seven churches of Revelation were Catholic Churches, under the authority of John, their bishop.

At the time it was written, there was one Church, the Catholic Church. The seven Churches listed were all part of the same universal, apostolic Church. John’s job as bishop, was to ensure that the seven Churches listed in Revelation were united in doctrine.

The idea that the churches were different as today (i.e. Catholic/Protestant) is just not historically factual. All seven were part of one, universal, apostolic Church - the Catholic Church.**

What I was hoping is that someone would notice that these churches had a variety of false doctrines, not unlike today. What was the remedy? To submit to a central authority? NO. In each case Jesus says, “he who hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying”. This is the solution to divitions and heresies, not a human authority which doesn’t work. Today, if you look at a church that is powerful, it is one were people are taught to listen to God’s voice. While i admit that it is very rare, it still should be the goal because it works and it is the biblical solution. If people learn to hear the shepherds voice, there will not only be unity, but people will also know their specific place, purpose, and function. Not only this, but the divorcece rate would fall in the church where as today it is the same as the world or worse. Also, there would be prosperity in every church. This is God’s ideal, but we don’t do it because we think it is unworkable. Instead we look to the world for our model, a chain of command with a central authority. Remember that ancient Israel was originally ruled by God as a theocracy. Eventually the people looked around and wanted a king like the world, so Samuel asked God for a king and God said you will not like it because it will put heavy burdens on you, but people still insisted they had to have a king because it was something they could see and hear. Now let me ask you, say that if Jesus had not left and was still here, would we need to be ruled by a central authority? Surly not. But has He not said that He would not leave us as orphans? Did He not say it would be better for us when the Spirit came? Then why do we act as if the HS cannot rule in every believers heart as Jesus would. The reason is because we haven’t tried it and we are afraid to. It sounds foolish. The church has remiss for not teaching believers to hear the voice of their shepherd. That should be job one. Here is an example. In 17th century France an nun by the name of Madame Guyon circulated (by her friends) hand copied pamphlets which was simply called “A Short and Easy Method of Prayer”. It instructed how to come into the presence of God by reading and meditation on the scriptures. The result was that revivals broke out spontaneously. However, the Jesuits (Pharasees or religious police) got wind of what was going on and had it condemned by the bishop. Sadly, God’s ways are not our ways.

 

[eazyduzit]

I decided to respond to what was written in another thread because I felt it was more in line with this thread than the other …

A previous comment of mine:

OK … So by your responses you fit more in line with Classic - Pentecostal teachings. Within the Pentecostal world so to speak there’s PAOC, AOG, and of course there are Pentecostals that are super big on Apostolic Authority, then there are those who are more Charismatic and Apostolic in nature but don’t fall in line with PAOC or AOG however, Bethel Church is affiliated with the AOG but are more Charismatic than Classic. With Classic - Pentecostal’s there’s an emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit but in a more controlled environment vs the Charismatic - Pentecostal’s.

So you believe in Apostolic Authority. If you believe in Apostolic Authority than you believe that there are 5 Offices within the context of Apostolic Authority.

1. Apostle
2. Prophet
3. Evangelist
4. Pastor
5. Teacher

Some are called to be Apostles and some are called to be Prophets and others Evangelists, Pastor, and Teacher.

Within the context of Apostolic Authority each category has a certain amount of favor within the ministry each person is called into. If you believe in the “Office” of these than you’d agree that some can operate in the giftings of Apostle, the giftings of Prophet but the person operating in the giftings would do so but not within the context of his or her own authority. The individual who are gifted within the “Office” of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher have a kind of Authority within the context of his or her ministry. In other words, just because you operate within the giftings of Prophet, doesn’t make you a Prophet so on and so forth. If you do not agree with this than you don’t technically agree with Apostolic Authority.

So expand on what you mean by agreeing with Apostolic Authority.

So … if you believe that the Church as a whole can forgive or retain sins don’t you think the Church can have the authority to decide how this would be made available to members within the Church?

I don’t believe that the church has any authority to forgive sins. Only God has. This has not changed. Jesus still holds the keys of heaven and hell. The apostles (churches) job is to discern if someone’s behaviour is in accord with true repentance, and if not, to say so.

 

[eazyduzit]

Some translations of 1 Cor 11:18-19 reads as follows: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”

• So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval. Hence, my question to you about whether or not those who do not have God’s can approval be saved? Yes or no?

As I have understood tne letter, Paul is not saying that some have lost their salvation, but that they are yet carnal. His solution was to remind them that they are the “temple of God”.
However, if one is lost, God is always willing to give a second chance, based on true repentance. Thank God for His abundant mercy.

 

[Magdalena59]

What I was hoping is that someone would notice that these churches had a variety of false doctrines, not unlike today. What was the remedy? To submit to a central authority? NO. In each case Jesus says, “he who hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying”. This is the solution to divitions and heresies, not a human authority which doesn’t work. Today, if you look at a church that is powerful, it is one were people are taught to listen to God’s voice. While i admit that it is very rare, it still should be the goal because it works and it is the biblical solution. If people learn to hear the shepherds voice, there will not only be unity, but people will also know their specific place, purpose, and function. Not only this, but the divorcece rate would fall in the church where as today it is the same as the world or worse. Also, there would be prosperity in every church. This is God’s ideal, but we don’t do it because we think it is unworkable. Instead we look to the world for our model, a chain of command with a central authority. Remember that ancient Israel was originally ruled by God as a theocracy. Eventually the people looked around and wanted a king like the world, so Samuel asked God for a king and God said you will not like it because it will put heavy burdens on you, but people still insisted they had to have a king because it was something they could see and hear. Now let me ask you, say that if Jesus had not left and was still here, would we need to be ruled by a central authority? Surly not. But has He not said that He would not leave us as orphans? Did He not say it would be better for us when the Spirit came? Then why do we act as if the HS cannot rule in every believers heart as Jesus would. The reason is because we haven’t tried it and we are afraid to. It sounds foolish. The church has remiss for not teaching believers to hear the voice of their shepherd. That should be job one. Here is an example. In 17th century France an nun by the name of Madame Guyon circulated (by her friends) hand copied pamphlets which was simply called “A Short and Easy Method of Prayer”. It instructed how to come into the presence of God by reading and meditation on the scriptures. The result was that revivals broke out spontaneously. However, the Jesuits (Pharasees or religious police) got wind of what was going on and had it condemned by the bishop. Sadly, God’s ways are not our ways.

I am really amazed by this post. In all the protestant churches I attended everyone said they were being led by the Holy Spirit. Despite the fact that they didn’t agree with each other, each one was being led by the Holy Spirit.

I do agree God’s ways are not our ways but that is the problem, when we feel we, each individually, are led by the Holy Spirit, individually, in all different directions, we are going our own way. Accepting that it is not our own individual thoughts but God who is in charge, is not easy. God’s way is the Church.

You are right, a human authority doesn’t work. That is why individually interpreted scripture doesn’t work. That is what is human authority. We can see the mess it has created.

The Catholic church is not human authority but God. That is why it has worked, is working and will continue to work.

I don’t believe that the church has any authority to forgive sins. Only God has. This has not changed. Jesus still holds the keys of heaven and hell. The apostles (churches) job is to discern if someone’s behaviour is in accord with true repentance, and if not, to say so.

First of all just because you don’t believe something has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Next, how can an apostle, church, pastor or whoever discern if a person’s behavior is in accord with true repentance and tell them whether or not it is, if they do not know what the behavior is? Wouldn’t somehow they need to get that information?

When Jesus told the apostles what *sins they forgive *they knew right then if they were going to forgive sins they would have to know what those sins were.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

I don’t believe that the church has any authority to forgive sins. Only God has. This has not changed. Jesus still holds the keys of heaven and hell. The apostles (churches) job is to discern if someone’s behaviour is in accord with true repentance, and if not, to say so.

No this is biblically incorrect. This is the whole debate.

Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to exercise His authority. Protestants take this to mean that we ALL have the keys to exercise His Authority whereas Catholics believe these keys were first handed to Peter and established Papal Authority.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

What I was hoping is that someone would notice that these churches had a variety of false doctrines, not unlike today. What was the remedy? To submit to a central authority? NO. In each case Jesus says, “he who hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying”. This is the solution to divitions and heresies, not a human authority which doesn’t work. Today, if you look at a church that is powerful, it is one were people are taught to listen to God’s voice. While i admit that it is very rare, it still should be the goal because it works and it is the biblical solution. If people learn to hear the shepherds voice, there will not only be unity, but people will also know their specific place, purpose, and function. Not only this, but the divorcece rate would fall in the church where as today it is the same as the world or worse. Also, there would be prosperity in every church. This is God’s ideal, but we don’t do it because we think it is unworkable. Instead we look to the world for our model, a chain of command with a central authority.

Papal Authority does not take away from our ability to hear what the Lord may say to us individually. As if Catholics don’t believe the Holy Spirit can’t work in our hearts? No, Catholics do believe this is possible. There are many Charismatic Catholics, like myself. However, we are also called to discern whether or not to see if what we hear is actually of God. We are called to be held accountable to God and His Church.

The question isn’t about God’s work in us individually but rather who has the final authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and how we aught to live our lives.

A good example:

Gay Marriage and Pro-Gay Theology

Many Christians are beginning to believe God blesses same sex marriage while there’s many who believe that God intended Marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Who’s right? Both can’t be right? Look at the many folks in the Gay Christian Network lead by Justin Lee who recently published a book titled Torn. Protestants believe you should be able to read the bible for our sole rule of faith and know the truth but obviously people are reading the bible and not knowing TRUTH because you have people on multiple arguments on this side and every person says, “I have the correct and infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture” yet not all can be right!!

So the question is, do we have the arrogance to suggest that our interpretation of Sacred Scripture is infallible?

I think, when we view the bible as our sole rule and authority in matters of faith and every day living it’s rather uncomfortable to think that our interpretation of Sacred Scripture could actually be wrong. And if the bible was the sole rule / Authority in faith and life don’t you think the Church would have greater unity in how the bible is interpreted? But instead of unity there’s division and different denominations. 30,000+ or so of different denominations each claiming to have the infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture. How can that be when churches can’t agree on gay marriage, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, dietary laws for today or a thing in the past, hair coverings today or a thing in the past, ordained women in the church or not?

 

[eazyduzit]

I am really amazed by this post. In all the protestant churches I attended everyone said they were being led by the Holy Spirit. Despite the fact that they didn’t agree with each other, each one was being led by the Holy Spirit.

I do agree God’s ways are not our ways but that is the problem, when we feel we, each individually, are led by the Holy Spirit, individually, in all different directions, we are going our own way. Accepting that it is not our own individual thoughts but God who is in charge, is not easy. God’s way is the Church.

You are right, a human authority doesn’t work. That is why individually interpreted scripture doesn’t work. That is what is human authority. We can see the mess it has created.

The Catholic church is not human authority but God. That is why it has worked, is working and will continue to work.

First of all just because you don’t believe something has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Next, how can an apostle, church, pastor or whoever discern if a person’s behavior is in accord with true repentance and tell them whether or not it is, if they do not know what the behavior is? Wouldn’t somehow they need to get that information?

When Jesus told the apostles what *sins they forgive *they knew right then if they were going to forgive sins they would have to know what those sins were.

In all the Pentecostal churches I have experienced, the people were unified. Disagreement happens because most people just go on feelings, not really hearing exactly. The. Bible says that the sheep know the shepherd’s voice and a stranger they will not follow. Should we not believe God’s word? Or do we keep second guessing and not believing? Jesus still says to the churches: “he who hath an ear, let him hear”. That is how He communicates with His churches. He put His Holy Spirit in every one who is baptised in the HS. This is how a mature church is to operate. This is the ideal. It is not ours to question. If a believer does not hear, he cannot follow and will not know his part in God’s plan and there will be confusion. Creating a central authority is not a fix or a substitute. It is not what God would have, It does not foster the maturity of believers but is a baby sitting operation. So why do we keep insisting it is the only way?
Because our mind is so earth-bound?
Are you saying the HS leads in all different directions? Is that your objection? Sorry, but it is never possible for Him to miss lead.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

In all the Pentecostal churches I have experienced, the people were unified.

Really? All the Pentecostal Churches you have experienced unified?

Just what Pentecostal Churches have you attended? Curious because in my 20+ years of being involved with the Pentecostal Churches + 3 yrs of attending a Pentecostal Bible College I’ve encountered many different Pentecostal Churches to know the opposite to be true.

PAOC
Assemblies Of God

Within the branches of these Pentecostal Churches you have 2 main branches:

1. Classic
2. Charismatic

The two are very divided when it comes to how the gifts are to operate.

Even further, you have Missionary-Alliance.

Missionary-Alliance was born from a split within the Pentecostal Church. The difference is that Missionary-Alliance didn’t emphasize the gifts but rather Missions but was very closely related to the Pentecostal Churches, in fact, it was born out of a disagreement between what should be emphasized.

Then within the Pentecostal Churches there was a wide range of disagreement on the doctrine of the Trinity. One Pentecostal group followed what was termed the “Oneness” Theology. You’ll still find Pentecostal Churches who follow the “oneness theology” although no longer associated with the PAOC but still Pentecostal.

Furthermore, William J. Seymore, African American. One of the founding Fathers of the PAOC/AOG who was forbidden to be granted accreditation for his studies because he was black. There was a Pentecostal movement within the African-American community. This Pentecostal denomination only in just recent years went through reconciliation within PAOC/AOG … This happened around about the time I was attending a Pentecostal Bible College.

So much for unity!

How much of Pentecostal Church history do you know? It’s a relatively young history. PAOC had its beginning shortly after AOG inspired by Azuzu Street Revival that was inspired by the hay stack revival.

Also you have The Vineyard Churches that was born out of division from within the PAOC. I actually know some of the major worship leaders out of the Vineyard movement like Brian Doerkson, and some of my friends are friends with Andy Park and a few others. I remember when the Toronto Blessing movement began. Toronto Airport Fellowship was a PAOC church but was basically thrown out of the PAOC because of the manifestations the PAOC didn’t agree with. They called it demonic.

In the United States you had a bunch of Revivals within the AOG various churches were thrown out of the Pentecostal Fellowships and as a result quite a few different denominations were created.

Again, which Pentecostal Churches did you experience?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Point is… In all these revivals, having experienced quite a few myself, all groups claiming to hear and know God’s voice yet division was always seen most clearly when a revival would break out. Yet all claiming to hear God’s voice. Question is, in all the division, who really heard God’s voice?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Oh and btw… I was a gung ho die hard Pentecostal baptized with the Holy Spirit, I experienced it all! I am not saying there wasn’t any fruit to any of the Revivals… I was merely pointing out the division but true to Protestant Tradition if you don’t agree just start a new church denomination. So really what unity in major doctrine is there within the Protestant Tradition?

 

[eazyduzit]

Papal Authority does not take away from our ability to hear what the Lord may say to us individually. As if Catholics don’t believe the Holy Spirit can’t work in our hearts? No, Catholics do believe this is possible. There are many Charismatic Catholics, like myself. However, we are also called to discern whether or not to see if what we hear is actually of God. We are called to be held accountable to God and His Church.

The question isn’t about God’s work in us individually but rather who has the final authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and how we aught to live our lives.

A good example:

Gay Marriage and Pro-Gay Theology

Many Christians are beginning to believe God blesses same sex marriage while there’s many iwho believe that God intended Marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Who’s right? Both can’t be right? Look at the many folks in the Gay Christian Network lead by Justin Lee who recently published a book titled Torn. Protestants believe you should be able to read the bible for our sole rule of faith and know the truth but obviously people are reading the bible and not knowing TRUTH because you have people on multiple arguments on this side and every person says, “I have the correct and infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture” yet not all can be right!!

So the question is, do we have the arrogance to suggest that our interpretation of Sacred Scripture is infallible?

I think, when we view the bible as our sole rule and authority in matters of faith and every day living it’s rather uncomfortable to think that our interpretation of Sacred Scripture could actually be wrong. And if the bible was the sole rule / Authority in faith and life don’t you think the Church would have greater unity in how the bible is interpreted? But instead of unity there’s division and different denominations. 30,000+ or so of different denominations each claiming to have the infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture. How can that be when churches can’t agree on gay marriage, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, dietary laws for today or a thing in the past, hair coverings today or a thing in the past, ordained women in the church or not?

Catholics do seem to believe that theHS cannot bring unity and as one poster seemed to imply that He brings differences. However, I agree you are right that an infallible authority should not prevent people from hearing God, it tends to be a substitute and promotes a spiritual lazyness when we think others will do it for us. Yet the word still proclaims that the sheep hear God’s voice.

I understand how you would not think this could work since it does not seem to work at all in the Protestant churches. But should this be the reason why we won’t pursue unity through the HS? I believe the problem is that believers have not been taught how to come into His presence. Also, drawing nere to God is the part that takes much time, sacrifice, and personal dedication. I am afraid that it is few who love God this much. We don’t believe it is worth it
to pray, worship, and journal for 4 or 5 hours every day. Have you ever read “Practicing the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence? God’s best servants or saints knew Him in this intimate way. They did not need babysitting. Shall we continue to make excuses that we can’t be like them? This is not what God would have.

What about the question of gay marriage? The churches of God should know what the bible says without any question. It is so clear that you need someone to help you misunderstand what it means. More important is to proclaim the truth to the world. Does it convince unbelievers to hear “the Church teaches…” No, they don’t care about your church. But if I say “God’s word says…”, then that carries more weight.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Have you ever read “Practicing the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence? God’s best servants or saints knew Him in this intimate way. They did not need babysitting.

Oh I read that book! One of my fav books! What I learned in that book revolutionized my faith journey and relationship with Jesus! Oh but wait, Can a Catholic, does a Catholic, do Catholics have an intimate relationship with our Creator?

Pentecostals seem to think they’re the only ones lol

I think too there’s a wealth of Catholic Mystic writers and Priests that you probably have never heard about.

Have you heard about the discipline called Lecto Davina? Sorry I may have misspelled it. I’ll come back to explain it shortly.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Catholics do seem to believe that theHS cannot bring unity and as one poster seemed to imply that He brings differences. However, I agree you are right that an infallible authority should not prevent people from hearing God, it tends to be a substitute and promotes a spiritual lazyness when we think others will do it for us. Yet the word still proclaims that the sheep hear God’s voice.

I understand how you would not think this could work since it does not seem to work at all in the Protestant churches. But should this be the reason why we won’t pursue unity through the HS? I believe the problem is that believers have not been taught how to come into His presence. Also, drawing nere to God is the part that takes much time, sacrifice, and personal dedication. I am afraid that it is few who love God this much. We don’t believe it is worth it
to pray, worship, and journal for 4 or 5 hours every day. Have you ever read “Practicing the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence? God’s best servants or saints knew Him in this intimate way. They did not need babysitting. Shall we continue to make excuses that we can’t be like them? This is not what God would have.

What about the question of gay marriage? The churches of God should know what the bible says without any question. It is so clear that you need someone to help you misunderstand what it means. More important is to proclaim the truth to the world. Does it convince unbelievers to hear “the Church teaches…” No, they don’t care about your church. But if I say “God’s word says…”, then that carries more weight.

Put aside the ‘closeness to God’ and ‘spiritual laziness’. There are many Catholics who spend at least an hour in prayer everyday, and their are actual consecrated men and women who spend almost all their time in prayer. And guess what? They still believe the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded. So do I.

You know how I know? I investigated the history of the Church. I read the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Justin the Martyr, Ireneaus of Lyons, some of Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, ect. They teach the Sacraments. They condemn false teaching and disunity and submit to the guidance of the Church as an actual, visible body. They are not Protestant by any stretch of the imagination.

So besides the fact that when you say ‘God’s word says,’ you are speaking from a collection of works which was canonized by this same visible body of believers (with all the hierarchy we have now, namely bishops, priests, and deacons), when I claim that ‘THE Church says…’, it comes backed with the weight of 2,000 years of unity against false teachings, the rich tradition and spirituality of the fathers through the ages, and the identical signs of holiness that the original Church had. If one does not listen to it, then it is their folly.

 

[eazyduzit]

Really? All the Pentecostal Churches you have experienced unified?

Just what Pentecostal Churches have you attended? Curious because in my 20+ years of being involved with the Pentecostal Churches + 3 yrs of attending a Pentecostal Bible College I’ve encountered many different Pentecostal Churches to know the opposite to be true.

PAOC
Assemblies Of God

Within the branches of these Pentecostal Churches you have 2 main branches:

1. Classic
2. Charismatic

The two are very divided when it comes to how the gifts are to operate.

Even further, you have Missionary-Alliance.

Missionary-Alliance was born from a split within the Pentecostal Church. The difference is that Missionary-Alliance didn’t emphasize the gifts but rather Missions but was very closely related to the Pentecostal Churches, in fact, it was born out of a disagreement between what should be emphasized.

Then within the Pentecostal Churches there was a wide range of disagreement on the doctrine of the Trinity. One Pentecostal group followed what was termed the “Oneness” Theology. You’ll still find Pentecostal Churches who follow the “oneness theology” although no longer associated with the PAOC but still Pentecostal.

Furthermore, William J. Seymore, African American. One of the founding Fathers of the PAOC/AOG who was forbidden to be granted accreditation for his studies because he was black. There was a Pentecostal movement within the African-American community. This Pentecostal denomination only in just recent years went through reconciliation within PAOC/AOG … This happened around about the time I was attending a Pentecostal Bible College.

So much for unity!

How much of Pentecostal Church history do you know? It’s a relatively young history. PAOC had its beginning shortly after AOG inspired by Azuzu Street Revival that was inspired by the hay stack revival.

Also you have The Vineyard Churches that was born out of division from within the PAOC. I actually know some of the major worship leaders out of the Vineyard movement like Brian Doerkson, and some of my friends are friends with Andy Park and a few others. I remember when the Toronto Blessing movement began. Toronto Airport Fellowship was a PAOC church but was basically thrown out of the PAOC because of the manifestations the PAOC didn’t agree with. They called it demonic.

In the United States you had a bunch of Revivals within the AOG various churches were thrown out of the Pentecostal Fellowships and as a result quite a few different denominations were created.

Again, which Pentecostal Churches did you experience?

The differences you gave for examples are not theological except for the one concerning the Trinity, which I am familiar with. If someone wants to do church in a different way or have an emphasis on youth or missions etc.then I say “go for it”. If it works, then God bless you. We should have freedom. We don’t have to all be cookie cutter alike. God is bigger than that.
The church I’m with now is under the PAW(Pentecostal Assemblies of the World) which also traces back to Azuza Street. Back home I was with a Rivers of Living Water church. I am also familiar with the COGIC churches. We all have conferences together. No problems.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Oh I read that book! One of my fav books! What I learned in that book revolutionized my faith journey and relationship with Jesus! Oh but wait, Can a Catholic, does a Catholic, do Catholics have an intimate relationship with our Creator?

Pentecostals seem to think they’re the only ones lol

I think too there’s a wealth of Catholic Mystic writers and Priests that you probably have never heard about.

Have you heard about the discipline called Lecto Davina? Sorry I may have misspelled it. I’ll come back to explain it shortly.

Lectio Divina - Latin for Divine Reading

This is a traditional Benedictine practice of scriptural reading, meditation, and prayer intended to promote communion with God and to increase the knowledge of God’s Word. The roots of scriptural reflection and interpretation go back to Origen in the 3rd century after whom St Ambrose taught them to St Augustine. The Monastic practice was first established in the 6th Century by St Benedict.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

The differences you gave for examples are not theological except for the one concerning the Trinity, which I am familiar with. If someone wants to do church in a different way or have an emphasis on youth or missions etc.then I say “go for it”. If it works, then God bless you. We should have freedom. We don’t have to all be cookie cutter alike. God is bigger than that.
The church I’m with now is under the PAW(Pentecostal Assemblies of the World) which also traces back to Azuza Street. Back home I was with a Rivers of Living Water church. I am also familiar with the COGIC churches. We all have conferences together. No problems.

Well, there may be increased unity among these churches today but nevertheless, there’s a history of division.