It's hard enough to get Christians to agree on the one Book that IS accepted as scripture. Let's not bring in suspect or non-authoritative writings to support theories. There are many writings and letters written in the first century AD, but we don't treat them or use them as scripture. Marcion was one of those authors, who was confirmed to be a heretic, and despite that, some still treat his writings as scripture.tom55 said:
What makes any given branch of Christianity an authority over my life?
- Thread starter Allegiant
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Didache was in the running for inclusion into the bible. It is considered a early historical writing articulating what the first Christians practiced and believed. I suppose we could throw out and ignore all early Christian historical writings and act like we didn't know what the people who walked and talked with the apostles believed. I guess we could throw out our history....but I don't think we should.StanJ said:
So each individual church can teach what they want? God did not give us the truth in scripture? He left us a buffet. I find the church that has MY truth and go to that church? Each church and individual has it's own truth? That doesn't make sense. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. How can each church have it's own truth? Someone has to have authority to decide what is true! Otherwise we are all divided....just like satan wantsWormwood said:
You are telling me the very early Christians were Catholic and they got it wrong when they set up a hierarchy? I trust the early Christian beliefs more than I do beliefs 2000 years later. Does that answer your questions?
How is it a RC hierarchy when all churches (even John Does church down the street from you) have a hierarchy? Wouldn't it just be Church hierarchy?
Wormwood
Chaps
I dont think you are following me at all, Tom. I didnt say each church can teach what they want, nor can the RCC teach what they want. The heirarchy of the early church was formed to pass down the TRUTH of the Apostles teaching. Local authority does not mean absolute authority any more than papal authority means absolute authority. Like the verse from 1 John I pointed to earlier says, early Christians determined those who belonged to the truth and those who didnt based on their acceptance of the Apostles teaching. I dont care what title a local pastor, bishop or Pope has, if they reject the teaching of the NT, they are to be rejected.So each individual church can teach what they want? God did not give us the truth in scripture? He left us a buffet. I find the church that has MY truth and go to that church? Each church and individual has it's own truth? That doesn't make sense. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. How can each church have it's own truth? Someone has to have authority to decide what is true! Otherwise we are all divided....just like satan wants
We have what is true. We have the Scriptures. Authority in the church is not about determining truth. We do not see that taught anywhere in the NT. Authority in the local church is about making sure people abide in the teaching of the Apostles and walk accordingly. Paul tells Timothy to "watch your life and your doctrine closely. If you do you will save both yourself and your hearers." Notice what he does not say. He does not say, "Timothy, I have passed my authority to you and you now hold the position of one who determines truth. Make sure everyone comes to you for proper understanding so the church can be unified." Nothing of the sort. Also, we see Paul addressing the division of the early church in Corinth. Notice how he does not combat their divisive behavior by saying, "I am an Apostle, therefore, what I say goes! Dont follow those other teachers, follow me!" Nothing of the sort. Rather, he tells them that their divisive behavior shows that they do not understand the truth of the Gospel. In fact, he tells them that he is glad he did not baptize many of them so they wouldnt use him as rationale for their divisive behavior and say "I follow Paul."
This seems what you would have....debating over "I follow Pope so and so" and if we can just all agree on who the real authority is, then all would be right in the church. This just isnt how it works. Paul corrected divisive behavior by pointing to the humility of Christ and showing people that we are all followers of Jesus and not any human authority. Paul, Apollos, Peter and the others were just workers in God's field.
Look, the early church had Peter and Paul. Yet read the NT. They were still divisive and quarreled. Having the right authority, even Peter and Paul giving specific instruction did not prevent churches from being divided at times and quarreling over the doctrine and practice. Again, your are looking for a silver bullet here and wrongly thinking that everyone having agreement on who is really the true authority will prevent divisive behavior in the church. It just isnt true. It wasnt true in the first century and it wasnt true for the following 14 centuries prior to the Reformation. Even when people agree on one person who is the authority, then they disagree about how to interpret what Pope so-and-so said or what he meant (just like they debate about what Peter or Paul said or meant).
The answer is that we accept one another in our differences in love and strive to honor God as we hold fast to the faith once and for all passed down to the saints.
Not all churches have a hierarchy. Some Protestant church models are "congregational" and each congregation operates autonomously in terms of authority. I point to the RCC because it probably has the largest hierarchy that spans many continents which certainly predates Protestant models (not to mention the fact that you seem to question Luther's acts and ideas which indicate to me that this is the place you are coming from). Moreover, the RCC and Orthodox models are the only ones who really see authority as a means of determining truth. Pretty much all Protestants are based on the concept of sola fide and do not see church authority as comparable to Scriptural authority. Protestant hierarchies are primarily a means of governance, not determining truth. In fact, that was one of the main issues that led to the split. Protestants felt that the authority of Christ was being violated by acts that were contrary to the Scriptures in the Western Church (indulgences, simony, etc.) and demanded reform. Whereas the RCC felt that no one had the right to question their leadership or the voice of the "see of Christ" and believed their demand for reform was a rebellion against the authority Christ had established. This is why Luther was put on trial. Not because of they felt the content of his 95 theses was wrong, but because he had the audacity to challenge God's authority on earth. So, the whole thing became really a battle over where authority comes from...the sola scriptura or the hierarchy of the RCC. This is also why Luther regularly appealed to conscience because he felt that each person was accountable to God first through the Scriptures before they were accountable to the demands of any human authority. The RCC taught that the Pope and the authority of the church had the power to grant salvation and even limit time in purgatory based on a decree from the Pope alone and that not only was the Church the only proper interpreter of the Scriptures but that the Church had equal authority to the Scriptures. Thus, regardless of what the Scriptures taught, the Pope could anathematize a person which would result in their eternal condemnation. (and, in truth, much of the Reformation and rebellion against the RCC was also about land, poor governance and lack of representation by the monarchy....truth be told. It wasnt all religious in nature...much of it was about property, taxes, representation and so forth).
So, as you can see, the Protestant view of "authority" and the purposes behind various Protestant groups hierarchies is very different from the RCC view and their understanding that they carry equal weight to the Scriptures and that the Pope can act as someone's eternal judge by either accepting them into the Church or casting them out. The Protestant view (for the most part) is simply that hierarchy exists to ensure that the local churches are in order and that those who are presiding over them are fit leaders that embrace the core tenants of the Scriptures (as they understand them). They do not see themselves as "the true church" and their leaders as those who speak for Christ and have the power to determine who is in or out.
Wormwood
Chaps
I think you are misunderstanding the different concepts of "authority" and what that means. A local pastor has the "authority" to teach the Bible as they want and express ideas they think the Bible conveys. A local pastor does not have the authority to establish new inspired truth or contradict the teaching of the Bible because of their "authority." In essence, what I am saying is that all church authority should be subject to the authority of God's Word. Christ is the head of the Church, not some pontiff, bishop, pastor or pope. We are all under orders to teach, "everything [he] has commanded" and not what I or some other church leader wants to command. If a pastor, teacher or pope starts teaching things contrary or without relation to the Scriptures, then their authority does not mean anything...at least from a spiritual point of view. Consider the "authority" of the Sanhedrin that sought to prevent Peter and John from preaching Jesus. Their position did not mean anything in this instance because they were opposing the desires of God. The same is true for any church leader. Our "authority" is always subject to Christ and the Apostles teaching.
Let us not confuse the content of the Scriptures with the interpretation of the Scriptures. Everything has an interpretation, including a pastor's sermon, a pope's decree, or a verse from the Bible. I believe the Bible is "inspired" which means that it conveys the thoughts of God in a way that it can be understood. Most controversy on verses in the Bible relate to issues that are debatable and are not crucial issues of faith and practice. Divisive behavior does not cease, nor is truth established because you have the right ecclesiology. Even Peter said that false teachers would twist Paul's writings. The answer is not to establish one person or one group as the divine interpreter. The answer is to help people mature and understand the content and context of an inspired Word that is not beyond our grasp...as well as to have the humility and grace to recognize that there are debatable issues and we can still fellowship and love one another in the midst of minor doctrinal differences.
There will always be Westboro groups just like there will always be Arians and Gnostics. Proper ecclesiology is no remedy for false or errant teaching and cult groups. The idea that if we just all agree on the right pope or church ecclesilogy that no one will listen to the Fred Phelp's of the world is just fanciful thinking. So again, the means by which we determine who is false and who is true is through the Scriptures themselves, not some authority we all bow to. If inspired and infallible Scriptures are not sufficient to teach us, do you really think a fallible human will be an improvement!? Certainly not. Anyone with a shred of reading comprehension can see that the Westboro Baptists are misusing the Bible. There will always be false teachers and false ideas. No ecclesiology is going to change that or prevent people from following after those false teachers (see 2 Peter).
No, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying Paul's primary means of addressing divisive behavior was the content of the Gospel and not imposing his position. We have that same Gospel and same information to deal with divisive, arrogant and ungodly behavior. We dont have to have a title to deal with it. Paul did not use his title to address these issues, why should we think titles are necessary to handle such issues?! To be clear, I am not saying titles are a bad thing or are useless in the church. They are just not the means by which "truth" is established. The truth has been made known and we are called to learn it, grow in it and hopefully become mature enough that we can teach and guide others. However, if we begin to teach ideas contrary to the message of the Gospel and the Scriptures, then our titles do not amount to much. That is the point I have been trying to make. Scripture is the ultimate authority and it can be understood (or else we must conclude the Holy Spirit did a poor job in inspiration...which I do not accept).
Yes, the early Church had a council to determine what the requirements should be for following Christ now that Gentiles were entering the Church. This was a foundational decision about what it meant to be a Christian decided by those who walked with Jesus. Again, we find NO instruction in the NT that these offices were to be passed down or that this is how we should decide how to interpret the writings of Paul, etc. There is a difference between a meeting were the Apostles and brother of Jesus decided what it meant to be part of their fellowship and a pope or pastor deciding if Calvinism or Arminianism is true. These two ideas are not even in the same ballpark. Scripture is very clear that the Church was built on the "foundation" of the Apostles and prophets, not the "foundation" of Apostolic offices and church leadership positions.
I am talking about debatable matters and not heresy and false teaching. There is a big difference between the debate of whether or not the elements of communion become the actual body and blood of Christ and a debate on whether or not Jesus is the half-brother of Satan and appeared in America with golden tablets for Joseph Smith with a revised Gospel. Of course there is heresy that is to be discredited and those who teach such are to be expelled from the Church. That is precisely what 1 John is about. Yet John makes it very clear that "antichrists" are recognized because they oppose the teaching of the Apostles and not because some human office is the final arbiter of what constitutes orthodox and what constitutes heresy.
Early church councils were much more about finding a consensus regarding what all the churches and church leaders believed on a controversial issue, and not bowing down to a particular pope or exalted bishop as the voice of Jesus on earth. The establishment of the NT canon was decided not because this is what the leader of the Church believed should be the books, but based on the letters and reflections from church leaders all over the known world. The denouncement of Arianism wasnt on the basis of a hierarchy, but more of a republic style-process where hundreds of church leaders discussed and came to a conclusion on the matter based on the teachings passed down to them and the inspired letters they studied. There was never a sense of, "Well, lets go find out what the pastor in Rome thinks since he is more important than all of us and his position gives him authority to speak for Christ." No, it was based on the the leadership of a bunch of men who were reflecting on message. It was not about an office.
Precisely my point. I am not against casting people out of the church. However it is done because they violate the message of the Scriptures and the conduct expected in the inspired Word of God, and not because of hierarchy or some Pope who decided to anathematize Luther, Hus, Wycliffe or some other person because of a power struggle. Again, I just dont think you are hearing me. I am not against authority or labeling people as heretics. I just think this should be done on the basis of the Word and not the basis of someone's decision in a particular office. Luther will stand before God for his actions, whether right or wrong. The Pope's anathema on an individual means nothing if that person is acting in accordance with the truth of God's Word. It is the final authority, not an human office or title.
You have confused me more. I apologize for wasting your time!!Wormwood said:
Respectfully......Tom
I think WW is saying the same thing I am saying...only in more sophisticated terms.
Jesus is our authority. To add to what He commanded in the Bible, or to take away from it, as some men try to do, is to rebel against His authority.
If you or anyone else insists on doing that, don't be terribly surprised when the Lord says that He never knew you...
Jesus is our authority. To add to what He commanded in the Bible, or to take away from it, as some men try to do, is to rebel against His authority.
If you or anyone else insists on doing that, don't be terribly surprised when the Lord says that He never knew you...
Wormwood
Chaps
I apologize if my writing is confusing. The basis of my understanding of "authority" is this: The Scriptures are the ultimate authority and exist as the infallible revelation from God to which all people are subject. I believe it is true, comprehensible and applicable for all people. As I see it, there are three primary issues here with regards to "authority" that we need to examine.
1. Authority to give divine revelation of God's purposes in redemption through Jesus Christ:
Any pastor or person (such as Joseph Smith) who comes along and says they have "new" or more complete revelation from God (via the book of Mormon, personal revelations, or whatever else) is setting up an authority outside of the Scripture. No one has the authority to do this. Paul makes it very clear in his writings that the Gospel is complete and the fullness of God has been revealed in Christ and that any competing Gospel or revelation of God's plan is to be condemned. The Scriptures are sufficient and complete. There is no authority to bring revelation of God's plan for humanity in Christ outside of the Scriptures. They are the final authority for God's plans and purposes in the world through Christ. No one has the authority to take away from them or add to them.
2. Authority to teach/interpret divine revelation:
You seem to continually argue that we need a particular person or group that decides the correct way to understand the Scriptures and that the only way the Church can be unified and come to agreement is if we allow one person or group to decide the "right" interpretation of God's revelation to humanity. There are a host of issues I have with this concept that I have tried to address in my posts. Let me summarize them for simplicity sake:
a) History has shown that a solitary church heirarchy does not prevent various groups from quarreling over right interpretations, nor does it prevent the development of heretical groups.
b ) History has shown that those who are placed in places of authority to interpret God's revelation for others have often been wrong and/or corrupt...leading people astray in their understanding.
c) The NT does not give any indication that offices were to be established over all the local churches that would dictate how various doctrines were to be understood. Rather, we see the Apostles address issues of doctrinal error addressed by reflecting on the person of Christ, the original teaching of the Apostles, and by encouraging local leaders (such as Timothy) to "study" the Scriptures so they could properly handle the word of truth. The Bible implies within itself that it is able to be understood by average people and all who read it are accountable for that understanding. Again, if this is not the case and we need divine interpreters of the Bible, what use is inspiration? It would seem the Holy Spirit would not have done a very good job of inspiration if only a handful of people could actually understand the true meaning of the Bible! God uses teachers to help people understand the Scriptures. We see nothing in the NT to suggest this gift is limited to a particular office. The Holy Spirit gives the gift of teaching as He wills. It seems multiple people in local congregations were given this gift to help edify and exhort their brothers and sisters with the Scriptures.
3. Authority to accept or cut people off from the fellowship of believers:
I believe local leaders (elders/overseers) have this authority, but that authority is based in the teaching of the Scriptures and was handled on a congregational level. The authority to remove someone from a local fellowship was handled by the elders of that church and they were sufficient to exercise this act of discipline alone. Paul encourages the church in Corinth to kick a man out of the fellowship, but he does so on the basis of the message of the Gospel, not an office where one person or group holds the keys of the Kingdom to decide who is in and who is out via Eucharist and anathemas. Furthermore, he guides the local leadership with principles for handling such matters and exercising such judgment. Paul does not encourage the local church to seek guidance from a hierarchy or a bishop in another city, but essentially says, "isnt there anyone wise among you to handle these matters?" Paul assumes and even encourages local leadership to handle their own flock and provide the proper judgments with regards to debates and immoral activities. There is no instruction in the NT about setting up a hierarchy beyond the congregational level (elders and deacons) to settle such matters. Moreover, people were accepted into the local fellowship based on their faith and acceptance of the "teaching" of the message of Christ (which we have in the Scriptures) and not based upon a the stamp of a particular leader that would approve their membership. In fact, when Cornelius believes and recieves the Holy Spirit, Peter says, "Who am I that I could oppose God?" Essentially he is saying, "Of course I baptized him! He accepted the message and God accepted him as a result. God decides who belongs, not me!"
So, when you look at these three areas of authority, the authority of the church was founded on the message and people's adherence to that message. Whether it is the issue of the message of the church, the understanding of the church or the membership of the church, those things were always guided by the message. The leaders of the church sought to guide the believers on the basis of that message and not the basis of who is in charge or who sits on the theological throne in Rome.
_____________________
Let me ask you a question to drive home the point. Suppose we start to determine "truth" by nominating a particular person or group of people as the divine interpreters of the Bible and authorities on all matters pertaining to the life and practices of the Church worldwide. Now imagine this group decides that the practice of the Church should be to create icons and invite people to pay money to look at those icons and if they do they will be promised less years of suffering in the afterlife in purgatory. They decide that the "right" interpretation of the inspired texts supports this practice. Based on your arguments of how ecclesiology and authority should be established, who would have the "authority" to counter this teaching (if such teaching should be countered at all!)? I mean, if they are the sole authority and the ones who determine "right" interpretation, then how could such a "wrong" be righted (which begs the question of how someone could determine such doctrine to be "wrong" in the first place if one person or one group is the sole arbiter of deciding right and wrong).
This was precisely the issue that brought about the Reformation. The RCC saw themselves as the sole arbiter of truth and proper interpretation. Luther and others believed the authority of the Church was subject to the authority of the Word of God and that this Word was comprehensible for people outside of the hierarchy of the Church. Thus, the average person could see in the Bible that the leaders of the Church were acting inconsistently with the teaching of the Bible. So, to summarize, I believe the ultimate authority on spiritual matters is the revealed Word of God and all roles of authority within the church are subject to that authority. God will hold teachers into account and will judge them more sternly because they have the responsibility to make sure they are in accordance with the truth and share that truth properly with others. Thus they are subject to the truth of the Word, they are not the determiners of truth by virtue of their office.
Again Tom, we see that the church was not a perfect, unified group with no contention or division in the first century. The Church has always known division over various doctrinal issues (whether it be eating meat/not eating meat, holy days, Calvinism/Arminianism, or a laundry list of other issues). The solution we see in the NT for these divisions was not appointing one person to determine whether eating meat was right or wrong. Rather, the solution was to help people grow in Christ, root them in the core truths of the Gospel, and to encourage them to love one another and accept one another on debatable matters. The fact that the Church does not do a very good job of the latter is not a valid rationale for setting up a Pope to determine all things for everybody. As I have pointed out, this didnt work in the past. What makes you think it would work now?
The fact is, the Church will never be perfect on this side of eternity. She will always have struggles, debates and carnally minded people who create division. It is why we still need grace.
You can stop an argument by duct-taping everyones mouth but one person and allow only that one person's voice to be heard. But doing so does not make that one person right. It simply makes them the only one who gets to speak. This can be good if that one person speaking is right, but can be a real tragedy when that one person is crooked or errant. Sometimes it is better to have multiple voices because there is a chance that the one who is speaking truth can be heard by those willing to accept it and perhaps more people can be led toward a right understanding of things.
I dont think you are wasting my time or else I wouldnt bother writing responses :)
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
A lot of truth here. Generally speaking we have put ourselves into bondage to man made organisations which in many cases is nothing like the church of the New Testament and from what I have seen on three continents the main purpose of them is to control. Do things our way and you are approved. Don't do things our way and your not approved.brakelite said:
One denomination wanted to make me the Deputy Director of one of their organisations. If appointed I would have to be addressed as pastor. I said I would take the ministry but not the title as it was not a pastoral ministry. I was not appointed which was a pity as the Director and I were like brothers and got on so well together.
Denominations give themselves a bad name becuase they give the "pastor" the impression that because they have gone through their bible college they are somehow superior to the rest of the congregation when in fact all they know is what the denomination has told them.
The pastor may have someone in his congregation who has a B.A. an M.A. and a Ph.D. and is the head of a business employing thousands of people. He may have someone who started up his own business with $10 and now it is worth millions. He may have someone who spent the last 20 years in Africa and started one church and now there are 6,000 of them.
To suggest that they are superior is totally laughable particularly as the biblical model for leadership is servanthood like one pastor I know who would not sit down until everyone had a meal in front of them and most of the time he was serving the meals. He never demanded a seat at the top of the table. He sat wherever there was an empty seat.
The church is not the organisation, it is the people and when we stop focusing on the people we are as sure as eggs are eggs not being the church. I have just read an article that says churches that are growing are those that focus on people both inside and outside the church.
Those that are not growing are focussing on the organisation and the liturgy.
Thank you for your response and your patience with me!! I sincerely like to read other peoples thoughts/ideas/theories/research on these issues.Wormwood said:
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
In a two year study of the New Testament Church (NTC) certain things stood out to me.Wormwood said:
One was that there is not a single incident where "a pastor" was in charge and paid for the privilege.
Second, no one was addressed by a title. An example is Paul an apostle, not Apostle Paul. Recognition by his ministry, not by his title.
Third, Local leadership was carried out by Elders chosen from within the congregation and they were men who fulfilled certain requirements, one of which was not a degree in theology. One of the requirements were that they ruled their household well. That alone shows Elders were men.
Fourth leadership was plural, not one man.
The fact that the church ignores such things and usually says that the word Elders in Timothy and Titus means pastor, just shows how embedded it is in error regarding leadership of the church.
My years in the Brethren in England and later the charismatic Brethren was a lesson in biblical leadership because in both cases no one was paid to lead the church, it was always plural, it was always Elders, it was always men, and generally speaking it was very harmonious.
I have lived under the one man pastor and in some cases, dictator, and in the main it is not a pretty sight. In too many cases, the pastor is afraid of anyone who may know more than what he does and that can happen regularly, so the only way he can cope with it is to keep that person well and truly under his control so that person's talents and ministry is lost to the local body.
So, to answer the OP, the church that refuses to be informed by the Word of God regarding leadership has no authority over anything because it is not HIS church, it is their church.
How exactly did you study this NTC?marksman said:
As the word 'pastor' is only used once in the NT you would be safe in stating this although I have no idea what you infer by it?
I suggest you read the gospels, where the term THE APOSTLES, is used many times. Sound like a title to me.
Well elders in the gospels was not local leadership as Peter and Paul defined in their letters, so you'll have to be a tad more specific.
Yes, elders are normally more than one, as they are NOT considered LEADERS or OVERSEERS.
I have NEVER heard a local congregation define their elders as Pastors. Sounds like you experience is ONLY in the Brethren denomination, so using it as a true barometer for the church as a whole would be flawed indeed.
Again your experience was VERY limited, which does NOT speak to the whole of Christianity. Elders and bishop are not paid in the Mormon church either, so is that your prerequisite in determining spirituality? Paul said a worker is worthy of his wages in 1 Tim 5:18, so are you disputing what Paul taught here?
I have experienced MANY types of church governments, and they ALL have their strengths and weaknesses. None of them are perfect or ideal. Sounds like you spend way to much time in one type of setting to understand or appreciate diversity in any way shape or form.
That also goes for people who refuse to accept proper instruction from their peers or elders, especially as Jesus gave those offices to HIS church.
OK...I have read and re-read (several times) your response and I think I have put it all together in my little head! I still have some questions that my little brain can't seem to find the answer to in your response. I am going to use the RCC as my example of a large church since it is the largest Christian church worldwide and I will assume local churches are limited in size to one city or a large rural area.Wormwood said:
You believe local leaders (elders/overseers) have the authority to cut people off from the fellowship of believers and this is handled on a congregational level. Who is a "local" leader in todays world? What is a congregational level? (not the world of 2000 years ago)
You say the authority to remove someone from a local fellowship was handled by the elders of that church and they were sufficient to exercise this act of discipline alone. Isn't that kind of like the RCC Church (or any other large church) today only on a much larger scale since they are scattered worldwide?
Or are you saying that since Catholics are scattered throughout the world they can't recognize Rome as their authority? The Pope can't be "the elder" of their local Church, only the churches in Rome?
I agree with you that in a solitary church, hierarchy does not prevent various groups from quarreling over right interpretations nor does it prevent the development of heretical groups. When you say "solitary church" I think you mean the RCC as an example(?). If that is what you mean, once again, isn't the local church just like the RCC church only on a smaller scale? In the local church you have the elder/overseers who have the authority to declare someone to be a heretic. In the RCC you have the Pope/bishops who have the authority to declare someone a heretic. It seems to me they are the same only on different scales by sheer numbers of people.
You said history has shown that those who are placed in places of authority to interpret God's revelation for others have often been wrong and/or corrupt, leading people astray in their understanding. No one can argue historical facts. However, how do we know if a local elder/overseers are wrong or corrupt and when they are leading their people astray in their understanding of scripture? Who decides that? Do they then do like the apostles did at the Council of Jerusalem and hold a meeting of the church leaders in the area to decide what should be taught?
And when the elder is wrong who has the authority to tell them they are wrong and call them a heretic? The congregation? The overseers?
If the overseers of a local congregation decide that the elder is not interpreting scripture properly which in turn leads the congregation astray can they fire that elder? And if so are they not making themselves the authority on scripture?
However, if the elder can fire the overseers because they don't agree with him on scripture, does that kind of make him a Pope and the only authority on scripture?
You said "suppose we start to determine "truth" by nominating a particular person or group of people as the divine interpreters of the Bible and authorities on all matters pertaining to the life and practices of the Church worldwide". It seems to me you have already taken that stance, only on a local level. The local church has the authority to nominate a particular person (elder) or group (overseers) to interpret the Bible with authority and determine the truth. And if they don't interpret it properly and they lead the local people astray they are removed from the church as heretics or if the people don't accept it they are kicked out of the church. Isn't that kind of like the RCC, only on a smaller scale? It seems you are saying each local church has the authority to interpret scripture. That would mean each church thinks they have the truth and every other church is wrong; except theirs of course. The RCC does that on a worldwide scale!!
You also said, "Now imagine this group (worldwide church) decides that the practice of the Church should be to create icons and invite people to pay money to look at those icons and if they do they will be promised less years of suffering in the afterlife in purgatory."
You will not get me to argue with you that the RCC was corrupt and probably has corruption in it now. Every church in operation right now has corruption in it and will for eternity. The RCC and other churches with corruption in them right now are doing some great things in the world also. However, once again, if a local church makes some of the same decisions the RCC did/does (purgatory, icons etc.) who is to determine if they are wrong if no one has the authority to tell them they are wrong? If all the authority lies at the feet of the local elder or the overseers of that local church no one has the authority to tell them they are heretics. They can only tell themselves they are heretics.
You said, "Sometimes it is better to have multiple voices because there is a chance that the one who is speaking truth can be heard by those willing to accept it and perhaps more people can be led toward a right understanding of things". I believe you may have just supported the RCC structure and the hierarchy that is needed in a church. The RCC (and other large churches) have "multiple voices"; they are called Cardinals , deacons and Bishops. As a group they tell the Pope (elder for a local church) what the Church will teach and he re-affirms it with his authority. According to the RCC that authority was allegedly passed down to the current Pope by Jesus thru Peter; apostolic succession.
I guess I can treat my Christian beliefs in my search for a church that has THE truth like a buffet. Just find the church that teaches what "I believe" then I will be happy. That is as long as they keep teaching what "I believe" and when they stop teaching what "I believe" I will find a different church. But in reality doesn't that make me my own authority and make me a church of one? I am my own Pope or elder.....
Holy cow...in my head it didn't seem this long. Sorry for all the words.
I look forward to your response!
Respectfully.....Tom55
The problem with having one man in charge of Christ's church, is that the heart of man is desperately wicked.
Here is an example of some of the leadership the Catholic church has enjoyed in the past:
Let's see...there was Pope Steven VI, who was Pope from 896 to 897. Fueled by his anger with Pope Formosus, his predecessor, he exhumed Formosus's rotting corpse and put "him" on trial, in the so-called "Cadaver Synod" in January, 897. From what I've read, it wasn't pretty.
Then there was Pope Benedict IX, who was Pope from 1032 to 1044, again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods, and one of the most controversial Popes of all time. He had a habit of selling the papacy, only to take it back again. He also had a reputation for homosexuality and bestiality. Ugh!
Next up we have Pope Sergius III, who was Pope from 897 to 911, and has been the only pope known to have ordered the murder of another pope and the only known to have fathered an illegitimate son who later became pope; his pontificate has been described as "dismal and disgraceful."
I think my favorite is Pope John XII, who was Pope from 955 to 964. On 963, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I summoned a council, levelling charges that John had ordained a deacon in a stable, consecrated a 10-year-old boy as bishop of Todi, converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter's, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the
sacraments. That guy knew how to party.
Seriously, don't you think we'd be better off to look to Christ to lead us?
Here is an example of some of the leadership the Catholic church has enjoyed in the past:
Let's see...there was Pope Steven VI, who was Pope from 896 to 897. Fueled by his anger with Pope Formosus, his predecessor, he exhumed Formosus's rotting corpse and put "him" on trial, in the so-called "Cadaver Synod" in January, 897. From what I've read, it wasn't pretty.
Then there was Pope Benedict IX, who was Pope from 1032 to 1044, again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods, and one of the most controversial Popes of all time. He had a habit of selling the papacy, only to take it back again. He also had a reputation for homosexuality and bestiality. Ugh!
Next up we have Pope Sergius III, who was Pope from 897 to 911, and has been the only pope known to have ordered the murder of another pope and the only known to have fathered an illegitimate son who later became pope; his pontificate has been described as "dismal and disgraceful."
I think my favorite is Pope John XII, who was Pope from 955 to 964. On 963, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I summoned a council, levelling charges that John had ordained a deacon in a stable, consecrated a 10-year-old boy as bishop of Todi, converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter's, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the
sacraments. That guy knew how to party.
Seriously, don't you think we'd be better off to look to Christ to lead us?
So what is a church? Where two are three are gathered in my name(?). That is a church to you?The Barrd said:
According to your theory if the "three" that are gathered in His name disagree with "one" of those three (two against one) the two are right and the one is wrong? The two are the church and the "one" is the heretic? The two have the authority to bind an loosen and the gates of hell will not prevail against those "two" that decide what scripture means? What if FOUR gather in his name and disagree with those "two"? Are the four right and the two wrong? Is Christ leading the "two" or the "four" in truth? How do we know who has right in the interpretation of scripture? At the council of Jerusalem when they decided what all Christians would believe on the matter at hand, who was right? The majority or the one or two or three who disagreed with them?
In post #116 you pointed out individual men (Popes) who were corrupt or did bad things. All churches have corrupt leaders and many people in the movement that Martin Luther started disagreed with him. All churches have corrupt men. Does that make the entire Catholic Church or Baptist or Lutheran Churches wrong? The pope doesn't' decide dogma for the Catholic Church. They teach that he just re-affirms, with his authority, what the church (Cardinals) decide on matters. Kind of like at the Council of Jerusalem.
If you, TheBarrd, decide to interpret scripture on your own and you decide YOU have the truth, that makes you a church of one and that makes you the Pope of your church.
Who am I to say that Christ isn't leading YOU to the truth and who are you to say that Christ isn't leading the Catholic Church to the truth since none of us have authority?
There is One Who has that authority. It isn't me. It isn't you.tom55 said:
And it isn't the guy in Rome.
Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
As a general rule, when a leader in any organization begins to abuse his authority, it does not bode well for the organization. And we see that there has been a great many problems in the RCC.
For a starter, there have been too many cases of sex-starved priests taking their frustrations out on the children in their charge. It got quite messy before the church decided to do something about it.
It is to their credit that the church took some drastic steps to correct this problem.
But that doesn't change the fact that literally thousands of kids suffered before they did...
For a starter, there have been too many cases of sex-starved priests taking their frustrations out on the children in their charge. It got quite messy before the church decided to do something about it.
It is to their credit that the church took some drastic steps to correct this problem.
But that doesn't change the fact that literally thousands of kids suffered before they did...
I have never said the guy in Rome or I have that authority. If you are suggesting I have then please quote me.The Barrd said:
Your quoting of John 12:48 makes my point. Someone has to have authority to decide if I, Tom55, has rejected His words or if I rejected Him. I do accept Jesus words when he said, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." I believe communion is his flesh and blood, just like He said. Some churches teach that it is only a symbol of his flesh and blood. So who gets to decide if I am right or they are right?? Who has that authority?
What I have been saying to you is that, in my opinion, you have articulated in your writings that you have your own authority to decide what the truth is in scripture is to YOU. You are your own authority. You read the bible and you decide what it means to you. But now in your above statement, "There is One Who has that authority. It isn't me. It isn't you." It seems to me you are now saying you don't have authority to interpret scripture and decide what the truth is. So now I am confused.
God has given man the truth in scripture but man needs to interpret that truth. Man has interpreted that (singular) truth into 30,000 different truths.
Catholics have Rome (not ONE guy in Rome) as their authority. Other Churches have their hierarchal structure as their authority.
You have you as your own authority because you read the bible and decide what it means to YOU. You have decided what you are going to believe and practice and interpret from the bible on your own. That is NOT what scripture says to do; that is not what the early church practiced.
Catholics and other churches have a hierarchal structure and the decision on what they believe is decided within this structure. Like what happened at the Council of Jerusalem.
Similar threads
