Who Has the Final Authority?

[benedictus2]

Jesus.

Agreed! (1 John 5:8 )

BTW, what is a “Jesus Buddhist”?

That is the most absurd answer ever.

It is precisely Jesus’s own words that we are disputing!

Considering that He is no longer around to ask precisely what He means, then who decides?

 

[benedictus2]

It seems to me that Catholics seem to think that the Church must have a visible head on earth, the successor of Peter, and that unity means being institutionally connected and adhering to a perfect doctrinal conformity. Protestants don’t think in that way. We believe that all Christians are united spiritually. We may not agree on everything, but if our faith is based on Christ and his atoning sacrifice, then we are the Church.

There is one head of the Church who is Christ. He has sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. However, there will never be complete unity until Christ returns, because sin and flesh get in the way of perfect obedience to Christ.

Bishops and councils can and may err. We all do. Protestants place emphasis on self study, which isn’t perfect. There is a need to look to others, especially those who have dedicated their lives to studying and teaching the Word. So the final authority is Jesus. We know his will because He has left us His Word. Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we believe the Word of God can be understood and lived out. The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation. It is the standard of Christian life and practice.

But the question is, what does the Word really mean? For the protestant, who determines that?

I think what Protestants will not acknowledge is that they are their own Pope and Magisterium, which is why they dislike the Pope and the Magisterium.

 

[benedictus2]

Ask Jesus. If Jesus points you to the Magisterium, then so be it.

Since it seems you know what Jesus thinks, what did He say? And when did He say it to you?

In the meantime there is anothe chap down the road who claims to have had a revelation as well which contradicts your claim. So which one of you did Jesus really speak to?

 

[benedictus2]

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

So now you are saying that Jesus is contradicting Himself? If Jesus points you to your own authority then that is one sure way to know that it is the devil who speaks, not Jesus.

 

[benedictus2]

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

How do you know that it is Jesus who speaks? If there are several competing people all claiming to have been told by Jesus, are you then saying that even Jesus does not know what He really meant which is the reason why He is giving this varied and contradictory revelations?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

And who determines what is “essential”?

 

[Ginger2]

And who determines what is “essential”?

Jesus isn’t around any longer!!!

Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Mark 13:11 “…do not worry beforehand about what you are going to say–simply say the words you are given when the time comes. For it is not really you who will speak, but the Holy Spirit.”

Now, you can claim the Holy Spirit is only given to the Apostles, and the Pope by succession, but the Scriptures repeatedly tell of others who were also given the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15)

Jesu told us what is essential. For instance: Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

That sounds pretty essential to me!

 

[Erich]

Now, you can claim the Holy Spirit is only given to the Apostles, and the Pope by succession, but the Scriptures repeatedly tell of others who were also given the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15)

I don’t recall anyone (and certainly not anyone Catholic) claiming that the Holy Spirit is only given to the Apostles and the Pope by succession; for one thing, the Catholic Church teaches that we all receive the Holy Spirit at our baptism (and, of course, at our confirmation).

Jesu told us what is essential. For instance: Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

From Disunity on Essentials:
Catholic apologists commonly point out the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought. Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura). …

 

[Erich]

Jesu told us what is essential.

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Jesus isn’t around any longer!!!

Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Mark 13:11 “…do not worry beforehand about what you are going to say–simply say the words you are given when the time comes. For it is not really you who will speak, but the Holy Spirit.”

Now, you can claim the Holy Spirit is only given to the Apostles, and the Pope by succession, but the Scriptures repeatedly tell of others who were also given the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15)

Jesu told us what is essential. For instance: Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

That sounds pretty essential to me!

Jesus also said:

Luke 10:16, “He who hears you, hears me…”

and:

Matt 18: " [17] …if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

And did St Paul not also say:

1 Tim 3: [14] These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. [15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[Ginger2]

Jesus also said:

Luke 10:16, “He who hears you, hears me…”

Matt 18: " …if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Gal 1:8 &1 John 5:13 I am not required to believe anything not clearly written in the Scriptures.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church is the children of God regardless of where they fellowship

 

[lyrikal]

Gal 1:8 &1 John 5:13 I am not required to believe anything not clearly written in the Scriptures.

The church is the children of God regardless of where they fellowship

Where can I find the canon of Scripture clearly written in Scripture? What about Christ having two wills?

 

[Zooey]

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.

The Bible is sufficient. Its us, who are the problem. Although the Bible contains all the written word of God, we are apt to be less than capable of interpreting what we are reading. For this reason,in questions of doctrine, Methodists rely on what has come to be known as the Wesley Quadrilateral.
There are about a million sources online, so naturally, I went to Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

This is actually a :thumbsup:very good article on the subject. I HTH.

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

Blessings!

Yeah…It was one of those moments when you can’t do much else besides , actually.

 

[Erich]

Gal 1:8 &1 John 5:13 I am not required to believe anything not clearly written in the Scriptures.

Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should **preach **a gospel other than the one we **preached **to you, let them be under God’s curse!” Nothing there about any written Scriptures!

As for 1 John 5:13, the two previous verses say, “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

Conveniently, this brings me back to the question I asked earlier, which you did not (yet) answer, namely: Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

The church is the children of God regardless of where they fellowship

There are three possibilities regarding “the church.” Either:
a) Jesus established more than one church, or
b) Jesus established an invisible, abstract, spiritual church in which all believers, regardless of denomination, are members, and in this church either: (1) doctrine does not matter, or (2) conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable, or
c) Jesus established one Church, which is visible and in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.

I think we can both agree that Jesus did not found more than one Church. But do you honestly believe that Jesus established an invisible, abstract, spiritual church in which all believers, regardless of denomination, are members and that doctrine does not matter or conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable?

I ask again, did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

 

[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 think it’s a safe bet to assume that either each respective, autonomous church leadership has the final authority regarding the members of their church only, with regards to the interpretation of the Bible, or, each and every sola scriptura advocate has the final authority with regards to the interpretation of the Bible.

Like Radical mentioned: folks like JonNC embrace the first one and Radical, the second one. The second option clearly is not biblical so I am not sure why a scripture alone advocate like Radical, would subscribe to it.

 

[joe370]

The Bible is sufficient.

Just curious: If a doctrine or practice is to be believed, from a sola scriptura standpoint, it must be found somewhere within the pages of the holy bible. Where does the bible tell us that the bible is sufficient?

 

[Ginger2]

Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should **preach **a gospel other than the one we **preached **to you, let them be under God’s curse!” Nothing there about any written Scriptures!
As for 1 John 5:13, …

1 John 5:13 **I write these things **to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

 

[JonNC]

=lyrikal;8460119]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.

Goodness no. We are here to dialogue and learn from each other. No?

You said:

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?

I don’t believe adiaphora would be the correct term, but the confessions do not set a canon of scirpture. Techincally speaking, that leaves the canon open, though in practice we make a distinction between the protocanon and the deuterocanon, that being that doctrine ought not be determined by the deuterocanon alone.

On a side note, honestly speaking, I believe American Lutherans are wrong to use bibles that do not contain the deuterocanon. They ought to be there for study. Some Lutheran lectionaries do occasionally have readings from them.

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?

I am aware of both issues, yes.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

1 John 5:13 **I write these things **to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

That verse was not written to state if it is not written in the Bible,then do not believe it. Your interpretation is faulty.

Where does Jesus teach: If it is NOT written in the Bible,do not believe it.

Chapter and verse please…

 

[E.E.N.S]

Just curious: If a doctrine or practice is to be believed, from a sola scriptura standpoint, it must be found somewhere within the pages of the holy bible. Where does the bible tell us that the bible is sufficient?

Oh, I know!

2 Tim 3:16

[16] “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, …”

…oh wait that says profitable, not sufficient…nevermind.