Which Protestants believe their Church has authority?

[Jack_Bauer]

Early Church | 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, etc.

Considering all of the branching off from the beginning and you believe the bible’s authority, where do you justify a group breaking off from the previous church authority? Is faithfulness so slip that we simply ignore the authority of our parents, teachers, government, church, etc.?

 

[stephe1987]

I don’t think anyone believes their church has authority. The people as individuals believe they have authority to interpret the Bible by virtue of their being a Christian. Then they choose the denomination that best fits their interpretation. Or they stick with what they know, stay with the denomination they were born into or the people who converted them to Christianity.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I don’t think anyone believes their church has authority. The people as individuals believe they have authority to interpret the Bible by virtue of their being a Christian. Then they choose the denomination that best fits their interpretation. Or they stick with what they know, stay with the denomination they were born into or the people who converted them to Christianity.

I believe you are wrong. I’ve been in those shoes. I learned that if my belief differed from the leaders of a church community they would either discredit me or denounce my findings, even if I was right. But, I did notice that there were those that regurgitated what they were taught, but behind the scenes sometimes revealed their disbelief in a particular teaching, rarely though. Many of the preachers lived in fear that they’d be fired so would only teach what the elders told them to teach…church authority.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I don’t think anyone believes their church has authority. The people as individuals believe they have authority to interpret the Bible by virtue of their being a Christian. Then they choose the denomination that best fits their interpretation. Or they stick with what they know, stay with the denomination they were born into or the people who converted them to Christianity.

I hope that you don’t get criticised here for this. What you have said is actually the most concise and accurate description of authority in Protestantism I have ever encountered! Well done (sincerely)!

However, I must disagree with you first sentence, as a statement of fact, ie. “I don’t think anyone believes their church has authority.”. Although the members of a Protestant church do not usually accept that their church has authority, the leaders of the church often think they exercise the authority of the apostles in the New Testament. This is where the divisions start. Some of the members think that their leaders are “wrong”, and that they (the individual) are the true interpreter of scripture, and that they must therefore start a new “church”, in which they have the authority of the Apostles. Or else they stay in their church in a state of confusion, where their leaders think they have authority, and some members have rejected it.

Whatever church you are in, I suggest that you ask your leaders whether they have the same authority as the apostles did in the early church. In the Catholic Church, the answer is an unequivocal “Yes”.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I hope that you don’t get criticised here for this. What you have said is actually the most concise and accurate description of authority in Protestantism I have ever encountered! Well done (sincerely)!

However, I must disagree with you first sentence, as a statement of fact, ie. “I don’t think anyone believes their church has authority.”. Although the members of a Protestant church do not usually accept that their church has authority, the leaders of the church often think they exercise the authority of the apostles in the New Testament. This is where the divisions start. Some of the members think that their leaders are “wrong”, and that they (the individual) are the true interpreter of scripture, and that they must therefore start a new “church”, in which they have the authority of the Apostles. Or else they stay in their church in a state of confusion, where their leaders think they have authority, and some members have rejected it.

Whatever church you are in, I suggest that you ask your leaders whether they have the same authority as the apostles did in the early church. In the Catholic Church, the answer is an unequivocal “Yes”.

I used to ask difficult questions in my bible classes, true to my nature. When an elder, deacon or preacher said something that didn’t sound quite right I’d roll up my sleeves and engage in the Socratic method, so to speak. I had to be careful not to trod on them, but I initially didn’t see them as “having authority”. However, I began to realize that they and the congregants believed they did. that’s when my real journey began. Who has authority and why. How do we know they have authority and are the true teachers of the gospel? It was quite disconcerting and I would end up declaring myself as possible asking too many questions. It was very hard for m.

You see, I left the Catholic Church thinking I would perish in it, but found a comfort in the fundamentalist group, which I perceived as safe and persistent. In fact, they were remarkably consistent between congregations, but slowly I began to recognize the differences, though slight. What really was interesting in my conversion, my brother in law acknowledged how similar the Catholic Church was to his church. He argues that the difference in authority are basically the only real differences. Not that I believe it’s true, but it was interesting to hear an elder/preacher say such a thing.

Yesterday, I watched an anti-Jesus, anti-Christian “documentary” called “The God Who Wasn’t There,” directed by Brian Flemming. He and his conspirators claims there are 45,000 churches, which clearly shows a lack of continuity. I believe they were using this as a way to show that Christianity is false. The guy behind it was a former fundamentalist gone astray. The point is that we Catholics claim there are over 33,000 denominations out there now, which shows the massive division. One individual studies scripture and decides what they believe, as if that’s okay. But those individuals don’t seem to realize that the bible tells us the opposite, “don’t close yourselve up to interpret privately.” So, I can’t help but see that there is an engrained rebellion involved in accepting this anti-Christ doctrine.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I used to ask difficult questions in my bible classes, true to my nature. When an elder, deacon or preacher said something that didn’t sound quite right I’d roll up my sleeves and engage in the Socratic method, so to speak. I had to be careful not to trod on them, but I initially didn’t see them as “having authority”. However, I began to realize that they and the congregants believed they did. that’s when my real journey began. Who has authority and why. How do we know they have authority and are the true teachers of the gospel? It was quite disconcerting and I would end up declaring myself as possible asking too many questions. It was very hard for m.

You see, I left the Catholic Church thinking I would perish in it, but found a comfort in the fundamentalist group, which I perceived as safe and persistent. In fact, they were remarkably consistent between congregations, but slowly I began to recognize the differences, though slight. What really was interesting in my conversion, my brother in law acknowledged how similar the Catholic Church was to his church. He argues that the difference in authority are basically the only real differences. Not that I believe it’s true, but it was interesting to hear an elder/preacher say such a thing.

Yesterday, I watched an anti-Jesus, anti-Christian “documentary” called “The God Who Wasn’t There,” directed by Brian Flemming. He and his conspirators claims there are 45,000 churches, which clearly shows a lack of continuity. I believe they were using this as a way to show that Christianity is false. The guy behind it was a former fundamentalist gone astray. The point is that we Catholics claim there are over 33,000 denominations out there now, which shows the massive division. One individual studies scripture and decides what they believe, as if that’s okay. But those individuals don’t seem to realize that the bible tells us the opposite, “don’t close yourselve up to interpret privately.” So, I can’t help but see that there is an engrained rebellion involved in accepting this anti-Christ doctrine.

We must realize that what is happening today, is a scandal to God. Just think how confusing it is to the world when so many claim to be Christians yet their teachings are all different from each other. we have become discredit to the world. How can the world believe in such a confused Truth. The CC says she is the True Church, then come other so called christians and try to discredit the Holy Catholic Church to the world. They are an impedement to many to convert to the Church of God.

that is why is so important for those outside the Church to realize what they are doing is causing scandal to God. We have lost many souls due to such lack of uniformity. that is why Jesus commanded them to be one. St Paul commanded the Church to be of one mind all saying the same things. different teachings are not to be allowed. They not only confuse the world but has also confused many Catholics with their lies and falsehood.

 

[vsedriver]

The Catholic church believes it has the “authority”, doesn’t it?

No, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe it has the authority. The CC knows it has the authority because Christ Himself gave the keys to Peter. Where Peter’s successor sits there sits the authority given by Christ.

I think each “church” thinks they are “right”, yes? (just like every religion thinks they are right)

But there’s a difference between ‘thinks’ and ‘knows’.

But we have to remember…Christianity was around for hundreds of years BEFORE the bible was put together. The different beliefs, the different gospels written, different sects, different rituals…

Not exactly. The Church was in communication with all the local bishops. No one was working in isolation and since the Magisterium is made up of the bishops they held councils to determine doctrine. Many of these bishops learned their Christianity right from the Apostles.

so all sorts of different interpretations were around before Constantine or the group of Bishops or whoever at those councils tried to “define” what it mean to be a Christian in the 4th century and beyond…and they made the canon reflect what they thought we should believe.

Yes, but those groups of people were not part of the Church. And you have it right. The Canon reflects the teachings handed down by the Apostles.

Never mind that gospels that were supposedly written by Mary…by other male apostles…by very important eyewitnesses…were just left out. Poof!

I suggest you do a little research on gnostic gospels. The Church had good reason to exclude these writings. It always amazes me when people act like the early Christians/Catholics had no idea what they were being taught or were teaching. The councils made up of the bishops were quite capable of understanding what was taught to them by the Apostles.

 

[BrianH]

Fundamentalists and Conservative Catholics are actually peas in a pod when it comes to authority. I have come to learn that as I have seen so many converts persuaded by the authority argument. It really just boils down to what authority they accept.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Fundamentalists and Conservative Catholics are actually peas in a pod when it comes to authority. I have come to learn that as I have seen so many converts persuaded by the authority argument. It really just boils down to what authority they accept.

Very shallow perspective, and assuming quite a bit. Most people don’t discuss all of the reasons that convinced them to become Catholic. Many of us can give you a litany of reasons, real evidence not found in Protestant faiths. The lineage can be followed, contrary to Protestant faiths. The only lineage that can be followed back as far back as the CC is the Orthodox Church. The least Protestants should be is Orthodox. IMHO

 

[x1980x]

From an Evangelical Protestant perspective, there are two main meanings of “church”. One is the invisible communion of all true believers in Jesus Christ. The second is the local congregation. Neither has the authority to redefine revealed truth. They only have the ability to read the Bible and determine what they feel is the correct interpretation, and teach that.

That means that when Baptists get up and say that infant baptism is invalid, they are not saying that because they feel that they have the authority to define what doctrine is correct, but because they feel that they have studied the Bible and that the Bible teaches that.

Individual Evangelical Protestants generally always have the ability to dissent from local leadership. If they stray too far, they will lose the respect of others and increasing pressure will be put on them and they may be excommunicated from a specific congregation or a specific tradition, but such actions are not considered infallible and they can simply find another congregation that will accept them.

From the perspective of Evangelicals, there is a concept of the “pale of orthodoxy” which is supposed to consist of all valid ways that the Bible can legitimately be interpreted. There is no body or individual that defines the exact bounds of this, and it is determined through the interplays of personal study, group study, prominent preachers, and statements of faith. Sometimes, Evangelicals disagree on the bounds of the “pale of orthodoxy” and anathematize, excommunicate, or preach against other Evangelicals. For example, the Seventh Day Adventists do not always have universal recognition among Evangelicals as a lower-case orthodox Evangelical church (some accept them as fully orthodox, some accept them as heterodox but still Christian, and a few may define them as apostate). The LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses are nearly universally considered apostate/non-Christian.

 

[Ceil-1]

"Obedience, Guiseppe, that is the first thing!" --The Reluctant Saint

It is interesting to note, albeit subjection to Godly authority is the common thread thoroughout the Scriptures, that God tisk-tisk’d the Isreaelites for asking for a king.

He chided them for not just following the law of God, and subjecting themselves to a fallible leader. And boy, were they led down the wrong path.

On the other hand, Moses was given all authority. He spoke for God and no one questioned him. Jesus told the Jews to do as the Pharisees said because they sit on the seat of Moses.

Bottom line, if one wants to be safe, he or she needs to stick to the Magisterium of the Church.

I personally think that obedience to the bishop, when he goes against our rights and Church norms, is overused. I judge a bishop by his adherence to the Faith.

I believe we have a right to override his idiosyncrasies and stick to our rights as outlined by the Magisterium in Rome. This comes from being under fraudulent, unfaithful, and abusive bishops who shall remain nameless, but, nonetheless, continue in their positions.
I believe we should be allowed to choose our own bishop from among our priests. I think that’s why we’re in trouble, now.

Protestants forget, I think, that God does not change with the times the way we do. Then again, what do I know?

 

[Edmundus1581]

From an Evangelical Protestant perspective, there are two main meanings of “church”. One is the invisible communion of all true believers in Jesus Christ. The second is the local congregation. Neither has the authority to redefine revealed truth. They only have the ability to read the Bible and determine what they feel is the correct interpretation, and teach that.

That means that when Baptists get up and say that infant baptism is invalid, they are not saying that because they feel that they have the authority to define what doctrine is correct, but because they feel that they have studied the Bible and that the Bible teaches that.

Individual Evangelical Protestants generally always have the ability to dissent from local leadership. If they stray too far, they will lose the respect of others and increasing pressure will be put on them and they may be excommunicated from a specific congregation or a specific tradition, but such actions are not considered infallible and they can simply find another congregation that will accept them.

From the perspective of Evangelicals, there is a concept of the “pale of orthodoxy” which is supposed to consist of all valid ways that the Bible can legitimately be interpreted. There is no body or individual that defines the exact bounds of this, and it is determined through the interplays of personal study, group study, prominent preachers, and statements of faith. Sometimes, Evangelicals disagree on the bounds of the “pale of orthodoxy” and anathematize, excommunicate, or preach against other Evangelicals. For example, the Seventh Day Adventists do not always have universal recognition among Evangelicals as a lower-case orthodox Evangelical church (some accept them as fully orthodox, some accept them as heterodox but still Christian, and a few may define them as apostate). The LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses are nearly universally considered apostate/non-Christian.

I’m very interested in the question of how Evangelicals determine the bounds of Evangelical orthodoxy, which is really the bounds of valid interpretation of scripture. Your explanation makes sense. I like the “pale of orthodoxy” as a term!

In my observation the Evangelical world has major splits just not over extremes such as SDA, but also over, for starters: women’s ordination, gay marriage, infant baptism, the nature of holy communion, “ordination” and continuity of authority (eg. Anglican Evangelical vs. “home church” Evangelical). Another big one, which really should be a major issue, but doesn’t seem to trouble anyone very much is whether or not Roman Catholics are Christians, and hence part of “the church”! Many Evangelicals think we are not, and some do. It seems strange that they are not sure whether or not they are in communion with the largest part of “the churc” on the earth, and don’t care. And then, they could also consider the Orthodox, who also outnumber Evangelicals (I think). While each locality and congregation largely agrees within itself on these issues, they disagree strongly with other congregations holding different views.

 

[fred_conty]

@ x1980x you mentined:
“That means that when Baptists get up and say that infant baptism is invalid, they are not saying that because they FEEL that they have the authority to define what doctrine is correct, but because they FEEL that they have studied the Bible and that the Bible teaches that.”​

Now I my feel as an individual on Tuesday that infant baptism is ok. On Wednesday
after reading the paper that it’s not ok. On Thursday who knows what I may FEEL
that day because I never FEEL the same on any two days.

That is not a criticism of you, but of that FEELY GOODY doctrine. We just can’t go
on our feelings because … Again authority, valid authority, rock solid authority,
on every day of the week is needed.

And also to me, to feel like I have authority is the same thing as saying that I feel like I
know.

Just a thought.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Fundamentalists and Conservative Catholics are actually peas in a pod when it comes to authority. I have come to learn that as I have seen so many converts persuaded by the authority argument. It really just boils down to what authority they accept.

it all comes to who wants and longs to find the Truth. Once they find they obey and follow.
that is different from someone who just want to be part of something.

it comes down to seek the Truth and find it so they dont get swayde by myriads of people who claim to know the Truth. there is only one place on this earth that the Truth is cemented according the Master. I personally having to chose between a man’s designed gatherings and the Ancient Church, i see not much to think about it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

"Obedience, Guiseppe, that is the first thing!" --The Reluctant Saint

It is interesting to note, albeit subjection to Godly authority is the common thread thoroughout the Scriptures, that God tisk-tisk’d the Isreaelites for asking for a king.

He chided them for not just following the law of God, and subjecting themselves to a fallible leader. And boy, were they led down the wrong path.

On the other hand, Moses was given all authority. He spoke for God and no one questioned him. Jesus told the Jews to do as the Pharisees said because they sit on the seat of Moses.

Bottom line, if one wants to be safe, he or she needs to stick to the Magisterium of the Church.

I personally think that obedience to the bishop, when he goes against our rights and Church norms, is overused. I judge a bishop by his adherence to the Faith.

I believe we have a right to override his idiosyncrasies and stick to our rights as outlined by the Magisterium in Rome. This comes from being under fraudulent, unfaithful, and abusive bishops who shall remain nameless, but, nonetheless, continue in their positions.
I believe we should be allowed to choose our own bishop from among our priests. I think that’s why we’re in trouble, now.

Protestants forget, I think, that God does not change with the times the way we do. Then again, what do I know?

choosing our own bishops. I certainly hope not. It is God who calls them and not us.

we can chose the country’s leaders, how well do you think we did?

 

[Tony888]

fred, can you provide better examples?
Baptists are not wishy washy on infant baptism, changing their view by the day of the week. Rightly or wrongly, they cite scripture, not their feelings.

@ x1980x you mentined:
“That means that when Baptists get up and say that infant baptism is invalid, they are not saying that because they FEEL that they have the authority to define what doctrine is correct, but because they FEEL that they have studied the Bible and that the Bible teaches that.”​

Now I my feel as an individual on Tuesday that infant baptism is ok. On Wednesday
after reading the paper that it’s not ok. On Thursday who knows what I may FEEL
that day because I never FEEL the same on any two days.

That is not a criticism of you, but of that FEELY GOODY doctrine. We just can’t go
on our feelings because … Again authority, valid authority, rock solid authority,
on every day of the week is needed.

And also to me, to feel like I have authority is the same thing as saying that I feel like I
know.

Just a thought.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

We must realize that what is happening today, is a scandal to God. Just think how confusing it is to the world when so many claim to be Christians yet their teachings are all different from each other. we have become discredit to the world. How can the world believe in such a confused Truth. The CC says she is the True Church, then come other so called christians and try to discredit the Holy Catholic Church to the world. They are an impedement to many to convert to the Church of God.

that is why is so important for those outside the Church to realize what they are doing is causing scandal to God. We have lost many souls due to such lack of uniformity. that is why Jesus commanded them to be one. St Paul commanded the Church to be of one mind all saying the same things. different teachings are not to be allowed. They not only confuse the world but has also confused many Catholics with their lies and falsehood.

Agree.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

Early Church | 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, etc.

Considering all of the branching off from the beginning and you believe the bible’s authority, where do you justify a group breaking off from the previous church authority? Is faithfulness so slip that we simply ignore the authority of our parents, teachers, government, church, etc.?

That’s a good point. Before returning to the Catholic Church, when I would talk with my son about different protestants or read stories about them I realized I was teaching him it was okay to disobey those in authority. It was like I was saying it was okay to be your own authority, even when it came to matters of God and scripture. It’s crazy.
I am glad now we have someone, something lead us and guide us that is greater than my feeble attempt at interpreting scripture… The Catholic Church, led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

From an Evangelical Protestant perspective, there are two main meanings of “church”. One is the invisible communion of all true believers in Jesus Christ. The second is the local congregation. Neither has the authority to redefine revealed truth. They only have the ability to read the Bible and determine what they feel is the correct interpretation, and teach that.

That means that when Baptists get up and say that infant baptism is invalid, they are not saying that because they feel that they have the authority to define what doctrine is correct, but because they feel that they have studied the Bible and that the Bible teaches that.

Individual Evangelical Protestants generally always have the ability to dissent from local leadership. If they stray too far, they will lose the respect of others and increasing pressure will be put on them and they may be excommunicated from a specific congregation or a specific tradition, but such actions are not considered infallible and they can simply find another congregation that will accept them.
.

I used to attend Evangelical Churches and it used to bother me how I could attend one and he would preach one way and then at another one would preach something else. At one church ( and I say that loosely because they did not like being called a church) the pastor was always the one who would say what was going to happen or what to believe, definitely put himself in authority but he would change his doctrine as time went by, and people would still consider him the one who knew the scriptures above anyone else anywhere. Like God would say, okay I will give just this one man in midwest America all the knowledge of my Word because everyone else is wrong and now he will teach everyone else. I don’t think so. While there, until returning to the Catholic church, that place would have me in tears because of all the confusion and idolizing the pastor and him saying this is how it is and then changing.
Thinking about it sincerely we all know God would not want us to be so confused and so lead us by the Holy Spirit into one true faith not leading us into total confusion.

 

[CMatt25]

No, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe it has the authority. The CC knows it has the authority because Christ Himself gave the keys to Peter. Where Peter’s successor sits there sits the authority given by Christ.

But there’s a difference between ‘thinks’ and ‘knows’.

Yes there is huge difference between thinking or believing and knowing.

You think and believe Peter was the rock upon which Christ’s Church was built and he was given keys which bind and loosen. And because of that you believe Peter and his successors are Christ’s vicar on earth.

Someone else might think and believe it was not Peter the person that was the rock, but Peter’s declaration in the NT of Christ being the Messiah, the Son of God, upon which Christ’s Church was to be built. And they see others as also being given the power to bind or loosen which is what a key does to a lock. And that other disciples and shepherds were to feed the sheep as well by spreading the Gospel.

Someone else of the Jewish faith might not believe the NT.

And so on.

This is not to say there is relative truth. Only that it comes down to faith and belief and what we think. Rather than truly knowing with 100% certainty. We think we know because we believe we do. That’s why it’s called faith.