Who Has Authority?

[Flying_Bison]

Come home to The Catholic Church.

We’d love to have all Christians as ONE body of Christ in communion with each other.

At one time all Christians were Together in one church. I pray that this may happen again.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

What is **your **authority for telling Christians what they are “supposed” to believe? In fact your unfounded assertion contradicts itself, because there is nothing in scripture which supports it. It’s just your opinion. ***An opinion which not one Christian in the first 1500 years of Christianity held. ***

There’s no authority necessary to say what you’re supposed to blieve. It’s all in the Bible. Open it up and take a peak inside.
And how can you back up your last statement there that I bolded?

 

[Spirithound]

Blue_Serenity:
There’s no authority necessary to say what you’re supposed to blieve. It’s all in the Bible. Open it up and take a peak inside.

Have you looked at the state of Christianity recently? The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that has not changed a single doctrine in its history. Do Lutherans believe what Luther believed? I’ve heard not. Do any substantially-sized group of Protestants agree with each other? If not, how do you know who is right? Are you willing to label 900 million Protestants (in addition to the 1B Catholics) as heretics?

 

[mrs_abbott]

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.

I did not know this. I’ll have to read more history now so I can keep up with these things.
shawn34:

When you say the pope and the bishops decided on what to adopt, you exclude the fact that the future Protestants decided too. They were the same church then. They only had different labels. Don’t get fixated on titles when you are talking prereformation for they were all one body within the Catholic church.

Did the Protestants branch off of the West or the East after the Schism happened? Sorry for the random question but your post made me think of that.
By the way, I agree with what you are saying.
shawn34:

St Augustine would not believe in the gospel if not for the Catholic Church? I’m sure there is a lot more to it then just that. My beliefs stem from Jesus Christ and his word, not from anyone church. They may provide clarification or some additional insight, but my faith established before going to church.

I agree that it’s necessary to have a faith established before going to church because otherwise why would you go to church?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I did not know this. I’ll have to read more history now so I can keep up with these things.

Did the Protestants branch off of the West or the East after the Schism happened? Sorry for the random question but your post made me think of that.
By the way, I agree with what you are saying.

I agree that it’s necessary to have a faith established before going to church because otherwise why would you go to church?

Hi,

I believe protestants broke off from the west.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that has not changed a single doctrine in its history

.Hi, Im not so sure you can back that up. According to Orthodoxy they have. Obviously protestants do as well otherwise they would not have broke away. Divisions have happened since day 1 because it seems to be human nature. There are divisions amongst catholics as well as protestants. There are numerous divisions among Jews.

Do Lutherans believe what Luther believed?

Probably not all of them…

Do any substantially-sized group of Protestants agree with each other?

Actually all of the protestants I know(and we go to different denoms)all believe in the same doctrines of faith.

If not, how do you know who is right?

That is why we have the bible so we can discern what is right and what is false teaching. That is why it is extremely important to study the bible so when someone teaches you something you can say you know that sounds like what it says in the bible or that doesnt sound right–let me go check what the bible says.

Are you willing to label 900 million Protestants (in addition to the 1B Catholics) as heretics?

I dont label anyone in the Christian faith a heretic That would be judgemental.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree that it’s necessary to have a faith established before going to church because otherwise why would you go to church?

So far in my life, I have never met anyone who read the Bible first, and then started going to Church.

My experience is that how it works is that a person is taken to Church by someone else (parents, friends, or even invited by a friendly-seeming stranger), starts learning things at Church, and then starts to read the Bible, usually with a group, and usually under the instruction of someone who either has definite ideas that he wants to teach, or who has access to training materials developed by the Church for the purpose of teaching Bible classes.

The very few people I’ve ever met who read the Bible by themselves after being introduced to it in a church, I met in RCIA Inquiry.

But I have never seen it happen in any other order than that, and I’ve never heard of anyone who, never having set foot in a Church before, started reading the Bible on their own.

 

[sterryfamily]

That is why we have the bible so we can discern what is right and what is false teaching. QUOTE]

“Why we have the Bible” is because the Catholic Church gave it to us in the late fourth century. It is a product of her Sacred Tradition and a part of the deposit of faith. It would be heresy to discard any part of the deposit of faith in favor of another as the Bible tells us (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

[Eddy]

1. 
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the sacred writers wrote Holy Scripture.
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the Church leaders compiled Holy Scripture.
   *]But the Holy Spirit was unable to prevent error when teaching the true meaning of Holy Scripture.

1. 
   To go back to the original question it seems there’s something there around the word ‘able’. ‘Able’ implies what God can do, and since God is omnipotent, God can do anything.
   
   However ‘able’ is not the same as ‘did’. God gives us free will. We all choose when, and the extent to which we co-operate with God. Therefore, to say ‘the Holy Spirit was unable to prevent error’ is untrue, but there may be an argument to say ‘the Holy Spirit did not prevent error’, because human beings got in the way.
   
   We’re human. We mess up. Peter messed up. Paul messed up. Moses messed up. But in the context of a discerning community, Scripture got put together.
   
   Now, I don’t believe it’s inconceivable, that our passion and our clarity, and our commitment is not always uniform. As the Church got larger, as there were no longer living witnesses to Christ, as Christianity became a state religion (by which it was possible to benefit), the clarity of that discernment may have changed.
   
   So, if you ask me, who has authority? God. God alone. The perfect Church? There isn’t one. Only God is perfect. The job of Christians is to do their level best, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to follow faithfully. At least that’s what I think

 

[mrs_abbott]

So far in my life, I have never met anyone who read the Bible first, and then started going to Church.

Hi! Now you’ve met someone who didn’t set foot in church for a about half a decade of my life but yet was being taught the Bible and even had a children’s Bible of my own to read. I knew alot about Jesus before I even knew about the Mass.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM;1849948:

That is why we have the bible so we can discern what is right and what is false teaching. QUOTE]

“Why we have the Bible” is because the Catholic Church gave it to us in the late fourth century. It is a product of her Sacred Tradition and a part of the deposit of faith. It would be heresy to discard any part of the deposit of faith in favor of another as the Bible tells us (2 Thess. 2:15).

Hi,
With all due respect–the Church did not create the canon, it did not determine which books would be called scripture, the inspired word of God. Instead, the Church recognized or discovered which books had been inspired from their inception. Let me state it this way—A book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather, it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. God gives the book its divine authority man merely recognized the divine authority that God gave it.

I think it is important to give ALL the credit to our ALMIGHTY GOD and not the people of God. To claim anything else is arrogant and prideful. We need to humble ourselves before God and cant possibly take credit for something that came from God.

 

[sterryfamily]

sterryfamily;1850035:

Hi,
With all due respect–the Church did not create the canon, it did not determine which books would be called scripture, the inspired word of God. Instead, the Church recognized or discovered which books had been inspired from their inception. Let me state it this way—A book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather, it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. God gives the book its divine authority man merely recognized the divine authority that God gave it.

I think it is important to give ALL the credit to our ALMIGHTY GOD and not the people of God. To claim anything else is arrogant and prideful. We need to humble ourselves before God and cant possibly take credit for something that came from God.

You are absolutley right. And almighty God promised His eternal protection to the Church He established for us on earth, “I will send my Spirit to guide you into all truth”, “anything you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven”, “Who’s sins you forgive are forgiven”, “lo, I am with you even to the end of time”.

It was the Holy Spirit, acting through the men appointed in His Church, who determined the canon.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM;1850179:

You are absolutley right. And almighty God promised His eternal protection to the Church He established for us on earth, “I will send my Spirit to guide you into all truth”, “anything you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven”, “Who’s sins you forgive are forgiven”, “lo, I am with you even to the end of time”.

It was the Holy Spirit, acting through the men appointed in His Church, who determined the canon.

 

[sterryfamily]

…Christ promised he would rule over His Kingdom, which is the Catholic Church in Heaven and on earth.

 

[shawn34_a]

Your problem is that God communicated with and governed His people throughout salvation history through the use of covenants, all with covenant signs and covenant mediators.

Christ told us He came to establish his Church, not His book. He appointed its leaders and established its government and hierarchy and passed it on to us through his apostles. He speaks of the blood of the new covenant. Then he told that Chruch that any who reject them reject Him and the One who sent Him.

Hierarchy of apostles when Jesus first left yes. The Church foundation was to be built upon Peter. But where was the command to pass it on?
Most of the NT was written in Greek. Church comes from the Greek word Ekklesia (sp?) which means “an assembly.” Christ said, where two are more are gathered in my name, there He is in the midst of them. So a church doesn’t even need a physical structure, only a spiritual one. A church can be in a park, your house, or on a boat.
Peter and the original apostles were the foundation. Like any house, first you must have a foundation. They went out and built that foundation on the word of Christ through the witnessing of the word.
The road can lead to two valid paths:

1. The apostolic succession is the house that is being built. Further justifying it you could say, why would one build a foundation and not a house.
2. Once the foundation (Peter’s teachings) was built, why continue building it. He and the other apostles spread the word so that it would auto-populate. The disciples they influenced would make disciples of others. Why did Jesus himself not appoint future apostles? He came to Saul and he was not one of the original 12. When Jesus appointed his disciples, he bestowed certain abilities, ie healing, to them that disciples did not have.

Criteria for being considered an apostle
They have seen The Lord:
They were called directly by Jesus Christ
They have the Holy Spirit of God:
They respect and teach The Word of God, not their own philosophy:
They have done miracles:

keyway.ca/htm2000/20001122.htm

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20 RSV)

Where is the commandment to make future apostles? Only disciples (maybe there is a command somewhere, but I don’t know where). I know that they casted lots to see who would replace Judas. However we don’t know if that was God’s choice of replacement. The lots would have fallen on one of the two regardless. Being that there was an odd number of people, someone would win.

The word of God is the foundation of the Church. We live are to live inaccordance to Christ’s teachings. You cannot separate the Church from the Bible. When we gather in his name, there he is in the midst of us. We cannot have a church without having Christ present.

 

[sterryfamily]

Where is the commandment to make future apostles? Only disciples (maybe there is a command somewhere, but I don’t know where). I know that they casted lots to see who would replace Judas. However we don’t know if that was God’s choice of replacement. The lots would have fallen on one of the two regardless. Being that there was an odd number of people, someone would win.

We DO know that this was God’s choice because He promised us. “I will send my Spirit to guide you into all truth” and “lo, I am with you always”.

It is clear from the writings of the early Church fathers that the apostles themselves taught apostolic succession and this follows from Mosaic succession (Christ commanded His followers to obey those whos authority is derived from the fact that they sit on the chair of Moses).

Good questions!

 

[sterryfamily]

…Remember, the Church (and all her practices, Sacraments, liturgy, and hierarchy) was around long before one word of the New Testament was penned (by that same Catholic Church).

Christ didn’t tell us he came to establish a book. He told us He came to establish His Church, in Heaven and on Earth, and He told His Church leaders that any who reject them reject Him and the One who sent Him.

Succession is apparent in the old testament when one is given an office of authority (with or without symbols such as keys or signet rings) that office and its authority always passes to the successor. Jesus and the apostles were keenly aware of this as evidenced by the understandings of the early Chruch fathers.

 

[RNRobert]

To go back to the original question it seems there’s something there around the word ‘able’. ‘Able’ implies what God can do, and since God is omnipotent, God can do anything.

However ‘able’ is not the same as ‘did’. God gives us free will. We all choose when, and the extent to which we co-operate with God. Therefore, to say ‘the Holy Spirit was unable to prevent error’ is untrue, but there may be an argument to say ‘the Holy Spirit did not prevent error’, because human beings got in the way.

We’re human. We mess up. Peter messed up. Paul messed up. Moses messed up. But in the context of a discerning community, Scripture got put together.

Now, I don’t believe it’s inconceivable, that our passion and our clarity, and our commitment is not always uniform. As the Church got larger, as there were no longer living witnesses to Christ, as Christianity became a state religion (by which it was possible to benefit), the clarity of that discernment may have changed.

So, if you ask me, who has authority? God. God alone. The perfect Church? There isn’t one. Only God is perfect. The job of Christians is to do their level best, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to follow faithfully. At least that’s what I think

No church is perfect., Not even the 1st century church was perfect. But I do expect the church to teach 100% of the truth. The Apostles were able to teach without error for the years before a single line of the NT was written. The Bible, though it is the inspired Word of God, is not enough; if it was, you would not have hundreds of different denominations all claiming the Bible as their sole rule of faith, but all teaching different things.

 

[RNRobert]

So far in my life, I have never met anyone who read the Bible first, and then started going to Church.

My experience is that how it works is that a person is taken to Church by someone else (parents, friends, or even invited by a friendly-seeming stranger), starts learning things at Church, and then starts to read the Bible, usually with a group, and usually under the instruction of someone who either has definite ideas that he wants to teach, or who has access to training materials developed by the Church for the purpose of teaching Bible classes.

The very few people I’ve ever met who read the Bible by themselves after being introduced to it in a church, I met in RCIA Inquiry.

But I have never seen it happen in any other order than that, and I’ve never heard of anyone who, never having set foot in a Church before, started reading the Bible on their own.

I may be the exception to your rule. I was in Gainesville a couple years when I had some hard times in my life, and wondered about the meaning of it all. I bought a KJV Bible and started reading it, but as Peter "says there are “things hard to understand.” Since I didn’t know anyone in town (and I was very shy and introverted then) and had nobody to invite me anywhere, I was on my own. I wanted to attend church, but which one? There were so many! I had attended a Methodist church briefly as a kid, but all I remembered from that was the minister telling stories (once I even saw a minister doing magic tricks on the altar during the sermon), so I had no particular desire to go back. I believed in my heart of hearts that the Church Jesus and the Apostles founded must still be around somewhere. I came across literature from a couple different groups who claimed to be the “true church” (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists), but after investigating their claims. I found them wanting, and looked elsewhere. Unfortunately, their anti-Catholicism rubbed off on me, so I wouldn’t even listen to the Church’s claims. I attended a couple fundamentalist churches, which were OK, but there was just something lacking. Around this time I met a Catholic friend who encouraged me to go to RCIA, but I had my “Protestant Bible totin’ pride” and thought I knew better. It wasn’t until I met an Eastern Orthodox Christian who showed me that many beliefs I thought to be “non-christian” (prayers for the dead, sacred images, praying to the saints, Marian devotions, etc). made me more amenable to giving RCIA a try, and as a result, “came home” to the Catholic Church in 1996.

 

[Eddy]

The Apostles were able to teach without error for the years before a single line of the NT was written.

.

Really? Peter and Paul had some very real disagreements… And Peter, not once, but three times, said ‘I never knew him’. Don’t misunderstand me, I love Peter, but what was correct teaching among the apostles was always what was agreed collectively in the context of the church - not just ‘Peter said this, therefore it’s right’. They discerned in the context of the groups experience and sense of God.

The Bible, though it is the inspired Word of God, is not enough

Of course it isn’t. The Bible without the Holy Spirit would be nothing but a collection of historic writings. We need the involvement and inspiration of God. I just don’t reckon God reserves his inspiration to a hierarchy. If GOd wants to speak to a Anglican archbishop, or a Mennonite volunteer worker, and reveal God’s truth to them, God will. I don’t believe God limits Godself to one institution.