Who Has Authority to Teach?

GenghisKhan44

New Member
A continuation of the discussion on this thread.

Again, lemme see if I understand you:

So you're saying whether God reaches out and grabs you first (Calvin), or whether you reach out and grab Him first (Arminius), or both, or neither, or something else, is of absolutely no import?

I disagree, because if I were told God loved me and wanted me to be with Him forever, my first question would be: "Ok. How do I do it?" Calvinism, Arminianism, and other doctrines of salvation give us the groundwork for understanding how we are saved.

If we are to be saved by God, one would at least like to know how it's going to work - whether any effort is required of me or not during any point of the process. And if so, what efforts? What will God require of me, and what will He be lenient towards? And such things.

That is why doctrine is so important. It lets you know you are doing God's will, or if you aren't, how to get back on the right track. The most important doctrine, of course, being to do all things in Love. The Greatest Commandments are to Love God and Love our neighbors. Without love, you are a noisy gong and nothing.

The rest of doctrine is just a definition of what Love is and how it is carried out. It's essential because it answers the question "What is love?".

So, then, what is salvation? How does it work? Well, we could argue all day til we are blue in the face. And if I don't stop you at the pass we probably will. We could argue every doctrine, discipline, and thought of humanity until we were long, long dead. But every single doctrine basically comes down to one question:

Why on Earth should I listen to you, or you listen to me, or anyone listen to anyone regarding doctrine, or what they define doctrine as? Prove your authority to teach me and I will follow what you say the Holy Spirit teaches you to the ends of the Earth.

And that brings us back to what I think is the sole problem with Protestantism: authority to teach. Solve that, and then we can get down to answering any other questions you have.

Wt I haam saying is that what they were arguing about didn't matter so much (I suppose some will disagree with me). One does not need to know TULIP to be saved.
That is your opinion, disagreed with by many staunch Calvinists. Prove you have the authority to say they are wrong, and I will believe it.

Again, you have swapped doctrine and Gospel.
Again, who are you to say doctrine is not part of the Gospel?

Prove your authority, if you have any.

I do not claim brothership with those mentioned. I vehemently reject their gospel as another gospel (Galations 1).

Who are you to say they are wrong? On what authority do you say they are wrong?

Anyone can say they speak for Jesus, or they speak for the Holy Spirit.

But proof. Do you have proof you speak for Him?

Let's start with history. I challenge you to show me, historically, what Christianity looked like from the time of the Apostles, through the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, to the Enlightenment and the present day. Show me what the Apostles were taught and what they taught, and show me what persisted after they died.

Show me that, Patriot. Show me history.
 
I feel we are at an impasse. I reject the authority of your pope and the infallibility that Catholics ascribe to him. You reject the individual believer's authority and their discernment granted by the Holy Spirit. As much as it pains me, we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Or... you could make a case for yourself. If you really think you are right to interpret the Bible as you do, I should know your authority and follow it, shouldn't I? If I don't read the Bible correctly and interpret it improperly, who benefits from it? No one, least of all me. I persist in error and ignorance, and in displeasing God, and you persist in selfishness for not sharing the Truth with me. Or possibly vice verse.

But if you tell me what you know, and I still disagree with you, you have done your part and God has no quarrel with you, for you have done all you can. You've informed me exhaustively. It is up to God, then, to form my soul with what I've learnt from you (and others).

So inform me. Where comes your authority?

I will tell you where mine comes from. I have none. And believe it or not, the Pope does not have exclusive authority, either. He cannot contradict the Bible. He also cannot contradict an ecumenical council, or other Popes. (An ecumenical council must sound like a dream to a Protestant. But it's been done many times.) Those are the rules we play by. If all the bishops agree on something, or if it has been Tradition since the beginning, the Pope cannot destroy it.

All that in mind, I'll borrow from this little tract for my argument.

My first question for you is: why do you have the books in the Bible that you have right now? You have 27 books in your New Testament, the same as ours. But what makes them the inspired word of God?

Here's a little history for you: for the first 300 or so years of Christianity, there was debate on the question of which books were in the Bible. Most Christians agreed with at least most of the books we have today in the canon. But some books were questioned. Like the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, to this day, we have not been able to concretely define an author for. Or the Revelation of John.

Other people considered some books Scripture that we don't have in either of our canons today. The Shepherd of Hermas, and Clement's 1st Letter to the Corinthians, for example.

If you read these texts, all of them, it's difficult to say why they wanted to throw out Hebrews or Revelation, or why they didn't include Hermas or 1st Clement. They, admittedly, are also profitable for teaching, even if they are not Scripture.

Let's take, for example, a random chapter out of 1st Clement, shall we?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.vii.html

These things, beloved, we write unto you, not merely to admonish you of your duty, but also to remind ourselves. For we are struggling on the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both of us. Wherefore let us give up vain and fruitless cares, and approach to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites; but they, repenting of their sins, propitiated God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God.

Is there something intrinsically unchristian about Clement's writing style? No. It actually sounds a bit like Paul and a bit like James.

Feel free to have a further look, if you like, just so you can be sure I'm not peddling some Gnostic voodoo. Some of the early Christians really did consider this Scripture in the same vein as the rest.

But, good as this epistle is, it is not Scripture.

Now why isn't it? And why is Hebrews Scripture, even though we don't know who wrote it?

You accept the New Testament as Scripture because they were what was given to you when you were a Christian. It was what was given to the generation before you, and the generation before that, and so on. Until the year 382, when Pope Damasus the First held a synod to decide the canon of Scripture. This synod was upheld by three others: the council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397, and the Council of Carthage in 419.

You accept the Tradition the Catholic Church has passed on to Christians for almost 1600 years.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/church-authority.html

So where does this authority come from? Christ Himself, of course. He is the authority to end all authorities, and He is the one who leads the Church.

All Christians believe that, somehow, Christ's authority will be with us until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20), and until His enemies are under His feet. (Hebrews 10:13).

Who did Christ give this authority to? His Apostles, the Eleven. We see this in many passages - Matt 28:18-20, John 20:21, Luke 10:16, Matt 10:40, and Mt 16:18-19 are examples of Christ giving His authority to His Apostles - not EVERY CHRISTIAN, but His Apostles specifically - to act in His name, and to represent Him.

All this means, we can surely both agree, is that Jesus commissioned the Eleven, and no more or fewer, to do His work, right?

And so they did, as the Acts of the Apostles teaches us clearly. They taught people, broke bread, prayed often, and baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They did all Christ comissioned them to do - including binding and loosing.

The most explicit use of their Apostolic authority is found the Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, where the matter of circumcision was decided. Now, some Christians believed you had to be circumcised to be saved. Others did not.

But in come the Apostles into Jerusalem. They debate the issue, and once and for all they issue a proclamation on it: it is not necessary. And those who supported circumcision as mandatory could no longer teach that.

Do you realise what that means? It means the Apostles held authority to interpret Scripture above any other Christian. They were given that authority by Christ, and it is well demonstrated in the Council of Jerusalem. So no Christian can, to this day, say that circumcision is necessary for salvation.

Look at similar arguments going on these days. The question of infant baptism. The question of whether baptism is even necessary.

Where are the Apostles today? Who is the authoritative head of the Church now? Who puts and end to these arguments once and for all now?

Seriously. Think about it. Where did the Apostles' authority go, to decide whose interpretation of Scripture is right? Why did they have the one Council in Jerusalem over circumcision, and never address any other issue in such a way as to give their final word on the issue?

We could use an authority on so many issues today. A guiding, defining light to answer so many of the arguments between Christians today. It's more than you. It's all 1 billion of your Protestant brothers as well. Some believe in infant baptism. Some don't. Some believe people are predestined by God to Hell. Some don't. Some believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Most don't. Some believe in Sacraments. Some in ordinances. Some don't have either. Some believe in going to Church every week. Some only every month. Some never go to church ever.

Where is the authority of the Apostles today to gather all these together? Which of these is doing, thinking, and believing the will of God, and which are not?

Why is there so much confusion today among Protestants, when there was so much clarity among the Apostolic church?

It is because you have rejected the authority of the Apostles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

They're called bishops, now, though. As the Apostles gave authority to Paul, so they gave authority to many others to teach. And those others gave authority to others still. There are many sources for this historically, and especially for the seat of Peter, who was the first head of the Church.

Irenaus in his "Adversus Haeresies", for one, lists some of the first popes - Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement et cetera. Tertullian in his "De praescriptione" for another. Both of these were written within the second and third centuries. There's also the Catalogus Liberianus, the Carmen contra Marcionem, and the Liber Pontificalis, among other ancient and medieval catalogues and records.

Has any sect of Protestantism comparable historical or logical evidence?

Where are the successors of the Apostles in Protestantism? Where are their bishops?
 
Last edited:
This is a great discussion, but I agree with Patriot. With matters regards the authority of either the conscience or the magisterium there will always be a divide between Catholic and Orthodox and common Protestantism.

I would suggest however GhengisKhan (fun username) that you could concede the Magisterium has steered the Catholic church away from Christ's holy teaching from time to time (see Luther) and that authority in the hands of man is often abused and twisted for selfish gain.

Thankfully God knows us. He knows men's hearts and yet and yet... He sees fit to put His Holy Spirit into these weak vessels. He entrusts them and seals them for redemption. I would venture that His grace and trust and use of both Catholic and Protestant believers throughout history should enlighten our souls into a joy that can be at peace knowing He will work all things out for His glory and our good.
 
Or... you could make a case for yourself. If you really think you are right to interpret the Bible as you do, I should know your authority and follow it, shouldn't I? If I don't read the Bible correctly and interpret it improperly, who benefits from it? No one, least of all me. I persist in error and ignorance, and in displeasing God, and you persist in selfishness for not sharing the Truth with me. Or possibly vice verse.
Quite frankly, sir, you are required, by the authority you to which you adhere, to reject any authority I might put forth. My argument is null and void in your eyes before I have presented it. The only reason for me to continue the discussion would be for me to have some reason to think that you might be questioning your authority even in the smallest amount. I do not have that indication. Therefore, I say again we must agree to disagree.
 
Quite frankly, sir, you are required, by the authority you to which you adhere, to reject any authority I might put forth.

Not at all. First and foremost my authority is Truth. What is true?

The only reason for me to continue the discussion would be for me to have some reason to think that you might be questioning your authority even in the smallest amount. I do not have that indication. Therefore, I say again we must agree to disagree.

Hm. I think that might be said for both of us.

Alright. If you like, we'll call it a draw.

I would suggest however GhengisKhan (fun username) that you could concede the Magisterium has steered the Catholic church away from Christ's holy teaching from time to time (see Luther) and that authority in the hands of man is often abused and twisted for selfish gain.

I concede the Pope, the bishops, and all Catholics - indeed, all people - are sinners, if that's what you mean. But, if to be an infallible teacher you must also be impeccable (free from sin), then no one would be in the position to teach authoritatively.

The Catholic Church does not claim the bishops, nor the Pope, are free from sin. What we claim is that they are our legitimate teachers. And we do so because every previous generation of Christians has done so since Jesus commissioned them in the Gospels, on through the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.

We reject sola scriptura not because "the Pope said so", but because we hold "that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all". The Pope is not some dictator who declares this or that to be true on a whim. If anything, the Pope is bound by the democracy of the dead to keep the Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin, icons, statues, and the bishops, because that is what has been followed for all of history. The Pope and bishops are bound by their office to never change them. That is what we mean when we say "Sacred Tradition" is authoritative, and it's therefore what we mean when we say "the Catholic Church teaches".

And we can't accept Sola Scriptura because, while one might debate the question of whether the Bible says it's so, or one might doubt the bishops and their own authority, we Catholics look at history and say, "No one has held this view before Martin Luther. Therefore, even if it seems the Bible says it is the sole rule of faith, and even if it seems the bishops are not a competent authority, it simply cannot be."

We do not have the luxury of ignoring history.

As for indulgences: it has never been authoritatively taught by any bishop, in any time or place, that indulgences do any more than lessen your time in purgatory. (They do not even guarantee that you'll get into purgatory. There are many misconceptions about this. The fellows who were teaching these erroneous claims were priests and monks, like John Tetzel. They, not anyone with authority, were the ones teaching these erroneous notions. And they were not even teaching them as truths, but were doing it to fatten their purses.

Not that they were right in doing so. Luther's anger was very justified. But his anger should not have been with the Church. (Truth be told, I don't think it ever was.) It should have been with the lying, debauched clergymen. The Church never endorsed the clergymen's views, nor their sins.

The Church has never held anything heretical to be true. Some of its members may have from time to time. And all her members are sinners. But when it comes to the Church's teaching authority, she is bound by Scripture and Tradition not to teach heresy.

Thankfully God knows us. He knows men's hearts and yet and yet... He sees fit to put His Holy Spirit into these weak vessels. He entrusts them and seals them for redemption. I would venture that His grace and trust and use of both Catholic and Protestant believers throughout history should enlighten our souls into a joy that can be at peace knowing He will work all things out for His glory and our good.

I agree. :) I agree very much on all counts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top