Who Has the Final Authority?

[Ahimsa]

And if Jesus points you to your own authority, then so be it?

If Jesus points you to your own authority, then would you follow Jesus?

 

[lyrikal]

If Jesus points you to your own authority, then would you follow Jesus?

That’s the wrong question to ask. Reality is, Jesus does NOT point me to my authority. In reality, Jesus has pointed me to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Where has Jesus pointed you to? Your own authority? If so, then we have a contradiction here. Can Jesus contradict Himself here? He tells me to go to the authority of the Church and tells you to follow your own authority and the authority of the Church teaches things contrary to your own authority. Which means Jesus is telling us both to believe two different things. Which, in this case, it means this:

1.) “This is my Body” to me means the ACTUAL Body of Christ. Which means I am to worship the Eucharist.

2.) “This is my Body” to you means the symbol of the Body of Christ. Which means you are not to worship the Eucharist.

Now if #1 is correct, then you are sinning by not worshipping Almighty God. If #2 is correct, then I am sinning by worshipping an idol. And so we have Christ promoting and encouraging sin by leading us into two different beliefs.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

In the same context you have given here, who has final authority in the Catholic Church?

 

[lyrikal]

In the same context you have given here, who has final authority in the Catholic Church?

The Pope and the Ecumenical Councils held by Bishops. In other words, the successors of the Apostles. That is the practice/belief of the Early Church. “Private interpretation” that goes against what the Church teaches is a practice that is frowned upon by the Early Church. They considered those types of people heretics.

 

[boastinjesus]

Where does this passage teach that we are to come up with the truth by studying the Bible on our own? You’ve basically read your beliefs into the passage rather than letting the passage shape your belief.

What happened in the book of Acts when there was a dispute among the Christians? Did they all say “figure it out yourselves and do your best! Good luck!”? Or did they gather in a council together (Acts 15) as a Church, proclaimed the truth that the Spirit of Truth taught them? I suppose if your theory is correct, then we would find each Apostle continuing with whatever teaching he believes to be the right one. We don’t find this in Scripture. Not only that, but we would expect the laymen who are not Apostles to be told to “do your best and figure it out on your own! The Spirit of Truth is with you!” But do we find this at all? On the contrary, we find the Church coming together to hold a council to proclaim what is true.

Grace and peace.

I think that Protestants would agree that there is tremendous value in Christians getting together to discuss difficult issues and coming to a consensus. Again, we would say that this is good, right and biblical. The question is whether or not that consensus is equally authoritative with the Bible. Many Protestant denominations have confessions that they adhere to, and affirm as accurately reflecting what the Bible teaches. They usually state that those confession are in submission to the Bible. This is true when you have teachers / preachers, also. How do you know if they are teaching the truth? You act like the Bereans:

Acts 17:10-11 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

They examined the Scriptures to confirm the teaching. What would have happened had the teaching contradicted the Scriptures? They would have rejected the teaching. I do know that Catholics have a well thought out faith, so I’m sure there will be many responses to my use of this passage. I’m just trying to answer your question from a Protestant perspective. This would be an example in the Bible where they didn’t just take an Apostles word for it, but appealed to Scripture themselves to verify (and it was called noble).

In summary, we believe that there is tremendous value in councils, but believe that they can err, and the only way too determine the veracity is by comparing the teaching to Scripture. Hermeneutics is a crucial issue, and one in which many Protestants woefully err.

 

[lyrikal]

I think that Protestants would agree that there is tremendous value in Christians getting together to discuss difficult issues and coming to a consensus. Again, we would say that this is good, right and biblical. The question is whether or not that consensus is equally authoritative with the Bible. Many Protestant denominations have confessions that they adhere to, and affirm as accurately reflecting what the Bible teaches. They usually state that those confession are in submission to the Bible. This is true when you have teachers / preachers, also. How do you know if they are teaching the truth? You act like the Bereans:

Acts 17:10-11 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

They examined the Scriptures to confirm the teaching. What would have happened had the teaching contradicted the Scriptures? They would have rejected the teaching. I do know that Catholics have a well thought out faith, so I’m sure there will be many responses to my use of this passage. I’m just trying to answer your question from a Protestant perspective. This would be an example in the Bible where they didn’t just take an Apostles word for it, but appealed to Scripture themselves to verify (and it was called noble).

In summary, we believe that there is tremendous value in councils, but believe that they can err, and the only way too determine the veracity is by comparing the teaching to Scripture. Hermeneutics is a crucial issue, and one in which many Protestants woefully err.

Please compare the canon of Scripture (which came down to us from Tradition and proclaimed in Councils) with the Bible. Where does the Bible teach what the canon of Scripture is?

You said:

Many Protestant denominations have confessions that they adhere to, and affirm as accurately reflecting what the Bible teaches. They usually state that those confession are in submission to the Bible.

Where can I find the canon of Scripture in the Bible?

Also, where can I find Christ having two wills in the Bible?

And are you aware that your approach to the councils are 1500 years removed from historical Christianity?

You say the councils err, can you provide a scripture passage that says this? Did Acts 15 council err? How do you know which ones err or not? IF you say “I check my Bible…” Well then what does your Bible say about the canon of Scripture or the two wills of Christ?

The whole argument fails because it presupposes that councils can err. When you claim such a thing, you are saying that you are the final authority. You are the one who determines what the truth is and what the truth isn’t. You can claim that your system is based on what the Bible says but that brings us back to the first issue: Protestants don’t even agree with each other on doctrinal matters. So now you have a system that has failed greatly. If I were to convert to Protestantism right now, which denomination should I join? We have anything from Fundamentalists to Anglicans. Which one should I join? Which one is the most biblical?

The issue isn’t about if councils are “useful” or not. The issue is if councils are authoritative. If you don’t believe they are then why do you have 27 books in your New Testament Bible? Why is 2nd and 3rd John in your Bible? Why is Hebrews in your Bible?

 

[Ahimsa]

That’s the wrong question to ask. Reality is, Jesus does NOT point me to my authority. In reality, Jesus has pointed me to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Many Protestants would say that if Jesus points you to the authority of the Catholic Church, then you should follow what Jesus tells you.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Pope and the Ecumenical Councils held by Bishops. In other words, the successors of the Apostles. That is the practice/belief of the Early Church. “Private interpretation” that goes against what the Church teaches is a practice that is frowned upon by the Early Church. They considered those types of people heretics.

And yet anyone who has spent any time on CAF can see that discovering what the consensus of the Catholic Church is on many issues can be rather difficult.

Just look at a question like the theology of the Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholics, or some of the Traditionalist Catholics. Not as simple as it seems to discover the final word on many teachings.

My answer is that if we want to find the final authority we need to look at the consensus of faith in the Church. A difficult task in a Church where visible unity is compromised.

 

[lyrikal]

And yet anyone who has spent any time on CAF can see that discovering what the consensus of the Catholic Church is on many issues can be rather difficult.

Just look at a question like the theology of the Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholics, or some of the Traditionalist Catholics. Not as simple as it seems to discover the final word on many teachings.

My answer is that if we want to find the final authority we need to look at the consensus of faith in the Church. A difficult task in a Church where visible unity is compromised.

Please take a look at my original question:

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?

Notice I was careful to use “essentials”.

With regards to Trad, Eastern, RC, not agreeing on everything: I would suggest you learn the faith essentially from the horse’s mouth instead of the people on CAF. There certainly are many Catholics who could be misinformed. To me, I don’t put much weight on what people say, I put the weight on what the Church says. A “Catholic” can teach that the current pope is not a real pope and Vatican II was bad and all that but I ask “what does the CHURCH teach?” What the Church teaches, THAT is what a Catholic should believe. I don’t see anything wrong with theological differences or different approaches to theological questions, but when a church can’t even agree on essentials (salvation, baptism, eucharist, bible alone, tradition, Trinity, etc.).then a red flag goes up. Let’s not pretend they’re the same thing here.

Could you perhaps list any essential differences and show me where the Church(es) teach different things?

Protestants can’t even agree on what the essentials are let alone agree on the essentials.

 

[Radical]

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?

It depends…some Protestants recognize a final authority and some do not. I believe that JonNC (Lutheran) is a Protestant/evangelical Catholic poster here who recognizes a final authority. I do not. As such, if the disagreement is between Jon and myself, there is no final authority that either of us could appeal to, as we do not share a recognition wrt such an authority. Both he and I will, however, appeal to the scriptures (as we recognize the same scriptures) and history (as we both view history as a valid discipline) to make our respective cases ( and mine, of course, is the vastly superior case )

.

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

again, it is as described above.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

Thank you for your answer. In my opinion, your answer has been the most honest answer of all so far.

It depends…some Protestants recognize a final authority and some do not.

That’s where the issue lies. Disagreements on something as essential as authority. This practice has never been the way God “ran” things in the past. Exodus 18 is a great example of a need for authority and how God “ran” things.

I believe that JonNC (Lutheran) is a Protestant/evangelical Catholic poster here who recognizes a final authority.

Jon is the most “Roman Catholic” Protestant I have ever encountered.

I do not.

Wouldn’t you say that for you, the final authority would be you? Your interpretation of Scripture and history would be the final authority, no?

As such, if the disagreement is between Jon and myself, there is no final authority that either of us could appeal to, as we do not share a recognition wrt such an authority.

[15]"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

-Matthew 18:15-18

I would also refer you to Acts 15. There was a dispute but they didn’t figure it out on their own; rather, the Church held a council.

Both he and I will, however, appeal to the scriptures (as we recognize the same scriptures) and history (as we both view history as a valid discipline) to make our respective cases ( and mine, of course, is the vastly superior case )

Appealing to Scriptures and history really boils down to interpretation. If you are interpreting it to your liking, then you are the final authority, right?

Also, I highly doubt that Jon refers to history (councils, Tradition, etc.) as merely a valid discipline. I think he regards them as authoritative and binding on Christians. Though I should let Jon speak for himself here. I am only assuming.

Now you mentioned history as a “valid discipline”. Are you aware that historical Christianity (Patristics) saw a hierarchy of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Laymen? Also, their beliefs about baptism are different than the Calvinistic views on Baptism. The Fathers interpreted John 3 (Nicodemus) as a passage about Baptism and saw it as essential for salvation. Also, their appeal to the Bishop of Rome was also something historical. They also recognized Tradition and Councils as authoritative and binding on Christians. They didn’t see them as merely “disciplines”. And I’m talking about Ecumenical Councils and Apostolic Tradition. Also, they only recognized valid teachings, valid sacraments (with the exception of Baptism), valid Bishops, valid Church with those who have Apostolic Succession who can trace their Bishopric all the way to the Apostles. They also recognized the Bishop of Rome having Primacy over the other Sees.

I highly doubt you recognize any of these. That is why I say that you are the final authority. You determine which traditions/councils you like and throw the ones you don’t like away. The Bible isn’t anyone’s final authority, really. The interpretation of it is the final authority. We recognize the Patristics/Tradition/Councils as a guide to helping us understand the Bible and what God is trying to communicate to us. We understand Tradition to be the oral Word of God and we understand the Councils to be guided by the Holy Spirit so Ecumenical Councils cannot err.

again, it is as described above.

Do you really believe that this is the way God intended for us Christians to be? To adhere to private interpretations? Even humans recognize that there is a need for authority. Authority is everywhere because it is necessary in keeping order.

Can you provide Scripture, Tradition, and/or Councils that back up the claims that you’re making?

God bless you, Radical.

 

[JonNC]

=lyrikal;8450088]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?

Hi lyrikal,
For a Lutheran, it is the Church, and the basis is the Lutheran Confessions. Historically, it was (and ought to be again) the councils unified Bishops, which we do not have currently, and therefore cannot have a truly ecumenical council.

As for the Eucharist, there is no debate for Lutherans. We believe it is the real and substantial body and blood of Christ. To deny this is not to be Lutheran.

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

The Bible says take it to the Church. That’s what the 7 great ecumenical councils were all about.

Jon

 

[lyrikal]

Hi lyrikal,
For a Lutheran, it is the Church, and the basis is the Lutheran Confessions. Historically, it was (and ought to be again) the councils unified Bishops, which we do not have currently, and therefore cannot have a truly ecumenical council.

As for the Eucharist, there is no debate for Lutherans. We believe it is the real and substantial body and blood of Christ. To deny this is not to be Lutheran.

The Bible says take it to the Church. That’s what the 7 great ecumenical councils were all about.

Jon

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

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?

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

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

God bless.

 

[Radical]

Thank you for your answer. In my opinion, your answer has been the most honest answer of all so far.

I thought Itwin was spot on.

Disagreements on something as essential as authority. This practice has never been the way God “ran” things in the past. Exodus 18 is a great example of a need for authority and how God “ran” things.

God also had burnt offerings from Adam through to Jesus. Things can change. Also, please keep in mind that it was God’s will that his children not have a king to rule over them. They demanded and God relented by appointing Saul. That amounted to a rejection of God as their king. At the time I suppose that the children of Israel could say exactly what you have said here: authority is needed and you gave us Moses as a leader before.

Jon is the most “Roman Catholic” Protestant I have ever encountered.

true that

Wouldn’t you say that for you, the final authority would be you? Your interpretation of Scripture and history would be the final authority, no?

well, from that perspective, isn’t “you” the final authority for everyone? Didn’t YOU, by either YOUR blind faith or YOUR personal interpretation of Scripture and history determine that, for YOU, YOU would follow the official teaching of the CC? My determination is a continuing process. Your determination, unless you revisit it, is a past accomplishment.

Matt 18:15-18

and? Do you not understand that Protestants (of all stripes) put this passage into practice quite a bit?

I would also refer you to Acts 15. There was a dispute but they didn’t figure it out on their own; rather, the Church held a council.

At that council some apostles (but not all) were in attendance. Apostles had an authority not possessed by others and so a council with apostles in attendance would have authority not possessed by other councils (w/o apostles)
At that council, Paul and Barnabas and a few believers attended from one church and they reported to the congregation, the elders and the apostles of the other church. Only two Churches were involved. The whole congregation of one of the two churches was involved…if Acts 15 is the template, then it hasn’t been followed very well…Where were the apostles and the congregations at the subsequent councils. You should know that someone claiming to be a successor of an apostle hardly serves as a replacement for an apostle (IMHO). BTW, did Acts 15 establish a precedent for ruling on only matters of behavior…church discipline?.. or do you believe that it dealt with a matter of doctrine? Also, is there any thing in Acts 15 to suggest that the practice was imbedded in stone and could not be revisited?

Appealing to Scriptures and history really boils down to interpretation. If you are interpreting it to your liking, then you are the final authority, right?

for myself, yes…as are you regarding yourself…

Also, I highly doubt that Jon refers to history… as merely a valid discipline. I think he regards them as authoritative and binding on Christians.

you are missing my point…in a discussion with Jon, we both can only appeal to authorities that the other also recognizes…I listed the things Jon and I share.

Now you mentioned history as a “valid discipline”. Are you aware that historical Christianity (Patristics) saw a hierarchy of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Laymen?

are you aware that until the beginning of the third century, no Christian text uses the term priest (hiereus/sacerdos) directly to designate a particular individual or group of ministers within the Church? The “priests” who conducted sacrifices in the early Church were only found at the temple in Jerusalem.

Also, they only recognized valid teachings, valid sacraments (with the exception of Baptism), valid Bishops, valid Church with those who have Apostolic Succession who can trace their Bishopric all the way to the Apostles.

yah, “that all the way back to the apostles” thing is debatable at best. I recommend that you read Sullivan’s From Apostles to Bishops. Sullivan is a Catholic historian who believes in Apostolic Succession, but feels forced to admit that it is a thing that rests on faith and not the evidence of the NT or the first ECFs.

I highly doubt you recognize any of these. That is why I say that you are the final authority. You determine which traditions/councils you like and throw the ones you don’t like away.

and so do you…

The Bible isn’t anyone’s final authority, really. The interpretation of it is the final authority.

The CC isn’t anyone’s final authority, really. Your decision to submit to it is the final authority

We recognize the Patristics/Tradition/Councils as a guide to helping us understand the Bible and what God is trying to communicate to us. We understand Tradition to be the oral Word of God and we understand the Councils to be guided by the Holy Spirit so Ecumenical Councils cannot err.

we understand the error to be tragically obvious.

Do you really believe that this is the way God intended for us Christians to be? To adhere to private interpretations?

God intended for us to be part of a community of believers led by the Holy Spirit.

Even humans recognize that there is a need for authority. Authority is everywhere because it is necessary in keeping order.

How does this differ from the OT where the Israelites thought it was necessary for them to have a king?

Can you provide Scripture, Tradition, and/or Councils that back up the claims that you’re making?

yep…if I understood you correctly, you read a previous thread where Pneuma07 and I discussed things…here is another thread with him where we discussed Church governance

God bless you

 

[ufamtobie]

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.

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.

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

 

[lyrikal]

I thought Itwin was spot on.

God also had burnt offerings from Adam through to Jesus. Things can change. Also, please keep in mind that it was God’s will that his children not have a king to rule over them. They demanded and God relented by appointing Saul. That amounted to a rejection of God as their king. At the time I suppose that the children of Israel could say exactly what you have said here: authority is needed and you gave us Moses as a leader before.
true that
well, from that perspective, isn’t “you” the final authority for everyone? Didn’t YOU, by either YOUR blind faith or YOUR personal interpretation of Scripture and history determine that, for YOU, YOU would follow the official teaching of the CC? My determination is a continuing process. Your determination, unless you revisit it, is a past accomplishment.
and? Do you not understand that Protestants (of all stripes) put this passage into practice quite a bit?

At that council some apostles (but not all) were in attendance. Apostles had an authority not possessed by others and so a council with apostles in attendance would have authority not possessed by other councils (w/o apostles)
At that council, Paul and Barnabas and a few believers attended from one church and they reported to the congregation, the elders and the apostles of the other church. Only two Churches were involved. The whole congregation of one of the two churches was involved…if Acts 15 is the template, then it hasn’t been followed very well…Where were the apostles and the congregations at the subsequent councils. You should know that someone claiming to be a successor of an apostle hardly serves as a replacement for an apostle (IMHO). BTW, did Acts 15 establish a precedent for ruling on only matters of behavior…church discipline?.. or do you believe that it dealt with a matter of doctrine? Also, is there any thing in Acts 15 to suggest that the practice was imbedded in stone and could not be revisited?
for myself, yes…as are you regarding yourself…
you are missing my point…in a discussion with Jon, we both can only appeal to authorities that the other also recognizes…I listed the things Jon and I share. are you aware that until the beginning of the third century, no Christian text uses the term priest (hiereus/sacerdos) directly to designate a particular individual or group of ministers within the Church? The “priests” who conducted sacrifices in the early Church were only found at the temple in Jerusalem.

yah, “that all the way back to the apostles” thing is debatable at best. I recommend that you read Sullivan’s From Apostles to Bishops. Sullivan is a Catholic historian who believes in Apostolic Succession, but feels forced to admit that it is a thing that rests on faith and not the evidence of the NT or the first ECFs.
and so do you…
The CC isn’t anyone’s final authority, really. Your decision to submit to it is the final authority
we understand the error to be tragically obvious.
God intended for us to be part of a community of believers led by the Holy Spirit.
How does this differ from the OT where the Israelites thought it was necessary for them to have a king?
yep…if I understood you correctly, you read a previous thread where Pneuma07 and I discussed things…here is another thread with him where we discussed Church governance

God bless you

Thank you, Radical, for your response.

To be fair, I will refrain from responding to this post until I have read your exchange with Pneuma07 in it’s entirety. I am only on page 3 but I’m not sure when I’ll be able to finish.

I might be busy until Monday or Tuesday though.

By the way, how was your Canadian Thanksgiving?

Lastly, I want to apologize to you sincerely for having a harsh tone with you at times. I’m wiling to bet that we would get along well if we sat down and had a cup of tea/coffee together. Anyway, please accept my apology.

I will eventually reply to this post and also to the “Augustine” post. It could be tomorrow, or it could be by next Tuesday; I’ll play it by ear and see.

God bless you, Radical!

PS: In the meantime, if you’d like, you can read this here and also this here with regards to Apostolic Succession and Church governance.

 

[CompSciGuy]

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.

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?

 

[Zooey]

The mind of the church throughout history. This would include the EFs, the Creeds, etc.
Many Methodists would say that they also look to the writings of John Wesley. I tend to be a little less inclined to spend my time reading every word Wesley ever said & very much inclined to the Three Basic Rules For Biblical Understanding:

1. 
   *]Context.
   *]Context.
   *]&Context.

 

[Radical]

Thank you, Radical, for your response.

To be fair, I will refrain from responding to this post until I have read your exchange with Pneuma07 in it’s entirety. I am only on page 3 but I’m not sure when I’ll be able to finish.

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

By the way, how was your Canadian Thanksgiving?

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

Lastly, I want to apologize to you sincerely for having a harsh tone with you at times. I’m wiling to bet that we would get along well if we sat down and had a cup of tea/coffee together. Anyway, please accept my apology.

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,

 

[Nicea325]

The CC isn’t anyone’s final authority, really. Your decision to submit to it is the final authority

Sounds very much like Satan: God isn’t my and our (fallen angels) final authority it is your decision to submit to him. Amazing how much pride runs amongst humans much like the fallen angels and the father of pride: Satan.