Who Has the Final Authority?

[Nicea325]

The Holy Spirit is our guide on Earth.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now before you ask why do some Protestants believe different things, I would suggest it is for the same reason some Catholics don’t believe everything the RC teaches.

Does not matter if a Catholic denies or rejects any Catholic doctrine or dogma. Truth is Truth and no amount of rejection changes an iota of God’s Truth. One may deny Hell all they want but it does not matter…it is a reality founded by God.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger if a catholic does not believe in all the teachings of the Catholic Church then he/she is not a Catholic at all… if a catholic protests against anything that the Church Teaches then he/she is really a “protestant” in the Catholic Church.

My point, exactly!!!

[If that is the case, then for protestants protesting against their own church, then they will just leave and start another church that fits their teachings/likings. You know this is true just look at the facts look how many protestant churches there are popping up daily.

Ufam Tobie [/COLOR]

Not so, many pretend to agree and work hard to wiggle themselves into positions of power and then try to change the church’s written discipline.

Others leave, b ut not to start a new church. Rather they are upset with one or two people or they don’t like the way something was handled and they simply go to the same church in a neighboring town or another Protestant church who shares the same basic beliefs.

You see True Protestant churches are very similar and believe the exact same “essential” doctrines. So it is easy for us to go from one church to another and have everything spiritual stay exactly the same.

 

[Ginger2]

I think that you need to consider that Jesus was saying this to his apostles at the time, and was referring to pentecost. The way I understand it he is ensuring that his Church will always be guided by the Holy Spirit (which it is). Go with the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, and you can’t go wrong. That doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t also speak to us individually. But when you decide “I’m just going to listen to the spirit and not the Church” and deliberately start teaching things that go against the Church, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, you can be sure that doesn’t come from the Holy Spirit but from your own pride. The Spirit does not create disunity, but only unity.

I am wondering also what would you say to a person who says “I just need the holy spirit, I don’t even need the Bible”? If they really are being led by the Holy Spirit in the way that you understand, they shouldn’t need a Bible to teach them what they need to know should they?

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Ro 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

 

[Erich]

Who has the final authority to tell us what the essentials are, let alone give us the correct understanding of the essentials?

Please feel free to give Scripture passages/Patristics/Councils to back up your claim.

Wouldn’t it be logically inconsistent for Protestants – who claim that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and morals – to quote the ECFs/Councils (i.e. extra-biblical sources) to back up their claim?

This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes some good points. In summary:

Consider 1 Cor 11:18-19: “*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.

Believers in an “invisible church of true believers” tend to also be believers in the notion that there are “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines and as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”

The notion that that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth… is a false notion. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church… they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. Again, from 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity?

 

[JonNC]

=lyrikal;8456186]Thank you, Jon. Hopefully, Radical will understand your position better. You hold the 7 great councils as binding and authoritative, no?

Yet not equal to scripture. To the extent that they do in fact reflect the truth of scripture, yes.

I do have a question that I am curious about: As a Lutheran today (true Lutherans that are obedient to the Lutheran Confessions), how are doctrinal matters settled today? Let’s say a question arises about a doctrinal matter that was not defined in the first 7 great ecum. councils, what would happen to settle the matter?

Let’s say there is a controversy within our parish regarding a specific doctrine, we would rely on the leadership of the LCMS, guided by scripture and the confessions to resolve it.

Also, do you believe all the teachings that are binding have to be found in the 7 great councils?

No. Obviously, as Lutherans, we look to our symbols, the Lutheran confessions as well. And again, scripture is the final norm.

Do you believe that Oral Tradition is also binding on Christians? The universal belief of the Early Church of Apostolic Doctrines? Councils were held when there were disputes/questions. Scripture and Tradition can aid in knowing what the universal truth was for the earliest Christians even if those things are not all found in the 7 councils, right?

Again, where oral Tradition does not contradict scripture, it can be accepted. Tradition can aid, as chemnitz points out, but for Lutherans, all teachings and teachers, all doctrines are held to the final norm.

It’s always nice to hear from you, Jon! Looking forward to hearing your side of things.

Likewise.

God bless.

His blessing also with you,
Jon

 

[Ginger2]

Does not matter if a Catholic denies or rejects any Catholic doctrine or dogma. Truth is Truth and no amount of rejection changes an iota of God’s Truth. One may deny Hell all they want but it does not matter…it is a reality founded by God.

I agree 100%!!!

 

[E.E.N.S]

You see True Protestant churches are very similar and believe the exact same “essential” doctrines. So it is easy for us to go from one church to another and have everything spiritual stay exactly the same.

Being a protestant myself for 20 years, I have to disagree with this statement. And it also leaves me with a question: What is a “True Protestant church”?

 

[Zooey]

Yet not equal to scripture. To the extent that they do in fact reflect the truth of scripture, yes.

Let’s say there is a controversy within our parish regarding a specific doctrine, we would rely on the leadership of the LCMS, guided by scripture and the confessions to resolve it.

No. Obviously, as Lutherans, we look to our symbols, the Lutheran confessions as well. And again, scripture is the final norm.

Again, where oral Tradition does not contradict scripture, it can be accepted. Tradition can aid, as chemnitz points out, but for Lutherans, all teachings and teachers, all doctrines are held to the final norm.

Likewise.

His blessing also with you,
Jon

Take Jon’s post, change Lutheran to Methodist & .

 

[lyrikal]

Yet not equal to scripture. To the extent that they do in fact reflect the truth of scripture, yes.

Let’s say there is a controversy within our parish regarding a specific doctrine, we would rely on the leadership of the LCMS, guided by scripture and the confessions to resolve it.

No. Obviously, as Lutherans, we look to our symbols, the Lutheran confessions as well. And again, scripture is the final norm.

Again, where oral Tradition does not contradict scripture, it can be accepted. Tradition can aid, as chemnitz points out, but for Lutherans, all teachings and teachers, all doctrines are held to the final norm.

Likewise.

His blessing also with you,
Jon

Thank you for your answer, Jon. This is very close to what Catholics believe as well. We just word it a little differently.

As a Catholic, we are allowed to believe that Oral Tradition is a guide to helping us understand the Written Tradition (Bible) better. It’s almost like we are sitting in a dark room with a book (Bible) and we take out a flash light (Oral Tradition) and light it on the book to help us see it clearly.

When people ask “show me a list of Oral Traditions that we are to follow” then these people have a wrong idea about Oral Tradition and are asking the wrong question. Although most of what Oral Tradition is, is to help us understand the Bible better. There are somethings in OT that are not found explicitly (or sometimes implicitly) in the Bible but at the same time does not contradict the Bible. There are also things that are found in OT that are no where to be found in the Bible.

For example, we have the Canon of Scripture. It is no where to be found in the Bible even implicitly. It comes from Oral Tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Councils.

Another example, we have the Assumption of Mary. I believe it is VERY, VERY, VERY implicit in Scripture to the point where it is improbable for someone to regard it as being found in Scripture. We do find it in OT, though. Question is: Does it contradict Scripture? I’d say no. Therefore, if I believe it to be true, I am not contradicting Scripture. Same way I believe the Canon to be true even though it isn’t found in the Scripture (yet it doesn’t contradict Scripture).

As Catholics, we believe that the Scriptures AND OT are the highest authority since they are both the Word of God and they cannot be used on their own to understand what God is communicating to us. If the Bible is used on its own, then divisions arise. Of course, both of these revelations are inspired by the Holy Spirit and would need an interpreter that is inspired by the Holy Spirit to help us understand them. This is (for us Catholics) where the Magesterium comes in. For some Protestants, it is the individual who is inspired by the HS and therefore, one doesn’t necessarily need a hierarchy that is inspired by the HS to aid in the interpretation. I see this type of “system” to be lacking in the Early Church and also in the Scriptures.

My follow up question to you would be: As a Lutheran, is it ok to believe in doctrines that are found in Oral Tradition but are not found in the Bible? We both agree that OT cannot contradict the Bible and vise versa, but what about doctrines in OT that are not found in the Bible and so don’t necessarily contradict the Bible; are those beliefs ok to follow?

Blessings.

 

[lyrikal]

Take Jon’s post, change Lutheran to Methodist & .

Thank you, Zooey. I’d like to hear your point of view as well with regards to the follow up question that I asked Jon. Please and thank you.

Blessings.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Ro 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

Right, like I said, each of us does have the Holy Spirit but that doesn’t give us the authority to teach against the Church, of whom the Holy Spirit is her very soul. These verses talk about how we belong to Christ because the Holy Spirit is in us. It is our mark. These verses do not say to each and every one of us that we are infallible in our personal interpretation of scripture, or that we have the authority to reject what God has revealed to His Church.

Once again, I want to ask you, if you believe that the Holy Spirit leads in this way, why even use the Bible? From what I understand the Quakers don’t believe you need to listen to the Bible even, just to be led by the Holy Spirit (correct me if I’m wrong here). What would you say to them?

 

[Zooey]

As a Lutheran, is it ok to believe in doctrines that are found in Oral Tradition but are not found in the Bible? We both agree that OT cannot contradict the Bible and vise versa, but what about doctrines in OT that are not found in the Bible and so don’t necessarily contradict the Bible; are those beliefs ok to follow?

Yes. With the caveat that it is really necessary to be sure that such beliefs don’t contradict the Bible.
I say this, because it has been recently brought rather forcefully to my attention, that a certain number of people will just believe a pastor, Christian author, etc, if that person says that something is in the Bible (in, say, chapter 411 the 6th verse of [insert Bible book of choice here]** without looking up the for themselves to see** what is said, & checking to see if anyone has ever, in all history, ever thought of that before. (I once caught a TV preacher adding a chapter to Ezekiel, & referencing it as the source of his teaching [so-called].He had, apparently, counted on it that no one was going to check on him).

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for your answer, Jon. This is very close to what Catholics believe as well. We just word it a little differently.

As a Catholic, we are allowed to believe that Oral Tradition is a guide to helping us understand the Written Tradition (Bible) better. It’s almost like we are sitting in a dark room with a book (Bible) and we take out a flash light (Oral Tradition) and light it on the book to help us see it clearly.

When people ask “show me a list of Oral Traditions that we are to follow” then these people have a wrong idea about Oral Tradition and are asking the wrong question. Although most of what Oral Tradition is, is to help us understand the Bible better. There are somethings in OT that are not found explicitly (or sometimes implicitly) in the Bible but at the same time does not contradict the Bible. There are also things that are found in OT that are no where to be found in the Bible.

For example, we have the Canon of Scripture. It is no where to be found in the Bible even implicitly. It comes from Oral Tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Councils.

Another example, we have the Assumption of Mary. I believe it is VERY, VERY, VERY implicit in Scripture to the point where it is improbable for someone to regard it as being found in Scripture. We do find it in OT, though. Question is: Does it contradict Scripture? I’d say no. Therefore, if I believe it to be true, I am not contradicting Scripture. Same way I believe the Canon to be true even though it isn’t found in the Scripture (yet it doesn’t contradict Scripture).

As Catholics, we believe that the Scriptures AND OT are the highest authority since they are both the Word of God and they cannot be used on their own to understand what God is communicating to us. If the Bible is used on its own, then divisions arise. Of course, both of these revelations are inspired by the Holy Spirit and would need an interpreter that is inspired by the Holy Spirit to help us understand them. This is (for us Catholics) where the Magesterium comes in. For some Protestants, it is the individual who is inspired by the HS and therefore, one doesn’t necessarily need a hierarchy that is inspired by the HS to aid in the interpretation. I see this type of “system” to be lacking in the Early Church and also in the Scriptures.

My follow up question to you would be: As a Lutheran, is it ok to believe in doctrines that are found in Oral Tradition but are not found in the Bible? We both agree that OT cannot contradict the Bible and vise versa, but what about doctrines in OT that are not found in the Bible and so don’t necessarily contradict the Bible; are those beliefs ok to follow?

Blessings.

Let’s look at Marian doctrine as an example.
Lutherans believe as doctrine in the virgin birth and Theotokos. These are clearly scriptural.

The confessions mention sempre virgo, and while it isn’t technically doctrine, it is very Christocentric. The reformers believed it, so do I, and it is certainly not contradictory to scripture.

On the IC and the Assumption, Lutherans are free to decide for themselves. They are not explicit in scripture, neither do they contradict it, and are therefore adiaphora.

Jon

 

[lyrikal]

Yes. With the caveat that it is really necessary to be sure that such beliefs don’t contradict the Bible.
I say this, because it has been recently brought rather forcefully to my attention, that a certain number of people will just believe a pastor, Christian author, etc, if that person says that something is in the Bible (in, say, chapter 411 the 6th verse of [insert Bible book of choice here]** without looking up the for themselves to see** what is said, & checking to see if anyone has ever, in all history, ever thought of that before. (I once caught a TV preacher adding a chapter to Ezekiel, & referencing it as the source of his teaching [so-called].He had, apparently, counted on it that no one was going to check on him).

Thank you for your answer, Zooey!

Your “Yes.” is very Catholic.

Wouldn’t the “Yes.” to the question mean that the Bible is not sufficient by itself? Just a thought. I’m interested in hearing your views in more detail if you desire to spell them out.

With regards to the TV preacher, all I have to “say” is

Blessings!

 

[lyrikal]

Let’s look at Marian doctrine as an example.
Lutherans believe as doctrine in the virgin birth and Theotokos. These are clearly scriptural.

The confessions mention sempre virgo, and while it isn’t technically doctrine, it is very Christocentric. The reformers believed it, so do I, and it is certainly not contradictory to scripture.

On the IC and the Assumption, Lutherans are free to decide for themselves. They are not explicit in scripture, neither do they contradict it, and are therefore adiaphora.

Jon

Thank you again, Jon, for your answer and your charity!

I hope I’m not bugging but I have another follow up. Feel free to ignore this if you’re tired of all my questions.

You said:

On the IC and the Assumption, Lutherans are free to decide for themselves. They are not explicit in scripture, neither do they contradict it, and are therefore adiaphora.

My question: The canon of Scripture is neither implicitly or explicitly found in the Scriptures, would the Lutheran consider this an adiaphora? If not, then we are making an exception to the rule here, no? If we make one exception to this rule, wouldn’t that mean that we can make more exceptions to this rule? Wouldn’t that suggest that there are things outside of the Bible that are more than just adiaphora?

By the way, as Catholics, we have these adiaphoras as well. Some examples of this:

1.) Was Mary alive or dead when she was assumed?
2.) Do unbaptized babies go to Heaven?

Blessings!

 

[lyrikal]

that thread isn’t precisely on topic, but it does touch on a number of relevant passages, doctrines etc.

good, very good. Thanks…though it signals that winter is about here.

accepted, but I didn’t think an apology was necessary…I would love to be able to have coffee with you on a regular basis…I doubt that the conversation would ever be dull (though you should know that I am way too old and set in my ways to be able to “get” rap…my daughters have given up trying). Anyway, your tone is not bad at all (considering that I am often telling you that your cherished beliefs are unfortunate, misguided and flat out wrong… dealing with someone that views things very differently from oneself is frustrating at times, fun at times, educational at times…and might just be a good experience for someone possibly headed to the priesthood).

God bless you,

Thanks, Radical!

By the way, I rarely ever listen to rap music (believe it or not). If I do, it’s Christian rap.

You are absolutely right about discussions being educational, frustrating and yet fun at times. It really sharpens the sword of apologetics. I enjoy discussing with Protestants who have knowledge of the Church Fathers and who don’t recycle the same arguments such as “Jesus said call no man father…You Catholics call your priests father…”

I enjoy the more well thought out arguments that are more unique in nature. Looking forward to responding to your posts.

Blessings!

 

[lyrikal]

Wouldn’t it be logically inconsistent for Protestants – who claim that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and morals – to quote the ECFs/Councils (i.e. extra-biblical sources) to back up their claim?

This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes some good points. In summary:

Consider 1 Cor 11:18-19: “*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.

Believers in an “invisible church of true believers” tend to also be believers in the notion that there are “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines and as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”

The notion that that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth… is a false notion. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church… they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. Again, from 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity?

Great points.

 

[joe370]

Jesus.

So all I have to do is ask Jesus?

 

[joe370]

I would like to pose this question for our Protestant brothers and sisters. I am not posing this question for debate reasons (though I won’t refrain from discussing with the posters), but I am posing this question to get an understanding of where you’re coming from.

Who has the final authority (on earth) with regards to the interpretation of the Bible? If two Protestants disagree on an interpretation of a Scripture passage such as “Take, eat, this is my Body…” who would have the final authority to say who is right? Who has the final authority to tell us what the essentials are, let alone give us the correct understanding of the essentials?

Please feel free to give Scripture passages/Patristics/Councils to back up your claim.

God bless.

I have been told the following by non-Catholics:

No one has the final authority (on earth) with regards to the interpretation of the Bible.

The bible interprets the bible.

The Catholic Church had the authority but then lost it.

The holy spirit guides each and every Christian to correctly interpret the bible.

Each respective/autonomous church, regarding just their members, has the final authority (on earth) with regards to the interpretation of the Bible.

No one (non-Catholic that is) - will ever admit that the Catholic Church has the final authority (on earth) with regards to the interpretation of the Bible?

This is why doctrinal differences, within the protestantism, will sadly, never be resolved.

 

[benedictus2]

The Holy Spirit is our guide on Earth.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now before you ask why do some Protestants believe different things, I would suggest it is for the same reason some Catholics don’t believe everything the RC teaches.

So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is one majorly confused spirit who does not know what the truth is?

After all, if He is guiding every Tom, Dirk and Harry and these people disagree on what the interpretation is then it would seem that the Holy Spirit does not know the truth because He tells this person this is the truth and then tells that person another version.