Which Protestants believe their Church has authority?

[Edmundus1581]

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.

Agreed. I still love and respect Protestants for bringing me to Christ, but I was only a Protestant for a couple of years before I became troubled by the widely divergent beliefs, with each person and “church” (in the Protestant usage) quite sure that they were accurately obeying scripture, and not just following their own feelings. When I saw myself heading down that path too, by studying the Bible and finding the “church” which I agreed with, I just observed that the whole approach was flawed, and thought that God must have given us a better way.

 

[Ceil-1]

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?

The early Church did. It seems they did a better job than our leadership has since they took over the job. A few good ones slip through. But, just barely.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

The early Church did. It seems they did a better job than our leadership has since they took over the job. A few good ones slip through. But, just barely.

Sort of true, but not quite that accurate . Think about it. What were some of the largest heresies during the time? At one point the majority of bishops supported Arianism beliefs, yet the Church still survived. This is how I dealt with coming back to the Church once I realized the historical church of the bible was in fact Catholic. I say fact, because there is no less doubt in my mind as the laws of physics from my science classes. It’s academic ignorance or dishonesty to claim otherwise.

 

[JonNC]

=stephe1987;8576327]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.

Depends on the interpretation. To be Lutheran, one must accept the Lutheran confessions, in terms of doctrine. For example, I cannot personally interpret away the real presence. To be Lutheran I must accept the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and Luther’s Small Catechism, at the least, as a right reflection of the faith.
On areas that we consider adiaphora, some of the marian teachings, for instance, yes we are free to hold opinions for ourselves.

Then they choose the denomination that best fits their interpretation.

One could argue that Catholics here depend on that for protestants’ conversions to the CC.

Or they stick with what they know, stay with the denomination they were born into or the people who converted them to Christianity.

This surely applies to Catholics and Orthodox, too.

Jon

 

[Kc906]

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.

Peace be with you CMatt25.

When we turn to the scriptures we see that God does not leave his people “leaderless.” The Israelites begged and pleaded for an authoritative figure, someone they could see and hear, and God granted this wish in the OT. The succession of a King of Israel was passed down for some time after. Do you really think that the all-knowing God would not have foreseen what would happen if all you needed to do was confess Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God? The vast majority of Christian denominations accepts these statements, and some accept it and believe it means something different (Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

The problem is that there is no unity involved in Jesus’ body if that is the case. Every denomination out there can point to scripture and “prove” their dogma and why they believe what they believe. Nobody could prove another wrong unless they were partaking in something that was not part of the Word of God; it’s one mans fallible opinion over another. But if that belief differs from the beliefs passed down both Orally and/or Written from the Apostles, are they really unified with the One Church that Jesus Christ is the head of?

**1 Corinthians 1:10 **“Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

The only way to answer this is by not accepting Sola Scripture, and looking to the writings of the early church. What did they say regarding the One Church and Peter; was he just 1 of the 12 or did he possess some kind of unique authority granted to him by our Lord and Savior?

St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8, “You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.”

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:2, AD 189 "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition

The Little Labyrinth, AD 211, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 5:28:3, “Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter.”

These are just but a few of course. Constantly throughout the OT God used 1 person to lead his people on Earth, beginning with Moses. It’s up to each of us whether we accept that he did appoint Peter as the head of the disciples, and that this headship was passed down unbroken all the way until now.

God Bless