Replies

If you’re going to have church you’re going to have heresy because you’re going to have sin. Not that that’s a good thing, but it is a reality. 1 Cor 11:19 speaks both to this inevitability and to its purpose, to showcase the approval of those who remain true.

I'm going to keep pressing for an acknowledgement of the way things actually played out. Here's a nice little article that I hope you will read that emphasizes context.

Athanasius Contra Mundum: The Courage to Act Alone

I will continue to challenge where I am seeing reasoning from conclusions such as,

This is correlated to the loose network, because the ultimate decisional authority still rests with the local congregation. As Roamer says, if some local group decides to go down a path that leads to error, the remainder of the network is free to continue in the truth.

St Paul must not have gotten the memo on that, if one is to judge from his repeated directions to the erring assemblies to straighten up and fly right. Now, if that type of authority vanished with the death of John, then we have a problem with Athanasius and all the Ecumenical Councils.

I read your link. It had a bit of a pep rally flavor to it, but I didn't mind, because I rather like Athanasius. However, if your intent was to enlist him to establish the supremacy of the authority of councils in determining Christian belief, then "Houston, you have a problem." Athanasius is the paradigm of establishing truth from Scripture as the supreme authority, even when councils, popes, and all the politicians are against you. In other words, if Athanasius had not won the fight on the basis of building consensus by exegeting the deity of Christ from the pages of Scripture, if instead it had been decided by clerics and councils still in majority numbers under the spell of the Arian deviation, both the Roman and Eastern churches would today be proponents of Arian Christology, in defiance of Scripture.

Now I read your article. I invite you to read the following articles. I know, two for one is hardly fair, but they're both so good I couldn't make up my mind:

This first one give a detailed analysis (sans all pep rally flavoring) of the deliberations at Nicaea.

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-/#christian-books-6

(BTW, please note that Arius was first condemned as a heretic by a local Alexandrian council in 321. confirming the role of regional home rule even in doctrinal deliberation in the early church. This was not in contradiction of Paul's example of correcting errant congregatons, but rather in support of it, in the Berean model of local fellowships testing new teachers against Scripture.)

This next article delves a bit deeper into the specific understanding Athanasius had of the supremacy of Scriptural authority:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/05/athanasius_on_scriptures_natur.php

As for apostolic authority, it is still with us today, in book form. It is our Bible. But no one living today is qualified to claim the office of apostle. We both agree authority is important. But tracing the lines of authority requires a certain thoroughness. Many make claims that cannot be backed up, and it is better to suspend judgment until the analysis is complete, than to submit to a false authority through impatience.

For example, in replacing Judas, not just anyone could replace the fallen apostle:

Act 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

That is stated as a requirement, not a "nice to have." Even Paul was required to have met the resurrected Jesus personally on the road to Damascus, else he would not be qualified for the apostolic office. See also Acts 22:14-15 and 1 Corinthians 9:1.

In addition, an apostle was not selected through human ordination, as presbyters might be, but by direct selection of Jesus Himself:

Mar 3:13-15 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. (14) And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (15) And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

Finally, selection to the apostolic office entailed a unique capacity for demonstration of divine power through miracles:

Luk 9:1-2 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. (2) And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Now, I have some odd people for nextdoor neighbors. They think they are apostles. Seriously. They have a church. They blow shofars. It's a latter rain cult, right on my doorstep. These same "apostles" were systematically disposing of construction garbage that was getting onto my property and damaging my tires. By the grace of God they were forced to withdraw. But needless to say these individuals, no matter how impressed they are with their own sense of apostolic entitlement, have not impressed me with their apostolic qualifications, at least not according to the three points listed above.

And I know of no one else who is qualified in that official sense of apostleship, though not as by office but as by function, all believers are "sent ones," sent into the world to share the Gospel with the lost. But the age of living apostolic authority has passed, which is exactly why the Bible has been given in their place, to serve, as it did for Athanasius, and for all reformers who would come after him, as the supreme authority in all matters of Christian life and doctrine.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer:] This is correlated to the loose network, because the ultimate decisional authority still rests with the local congregation. As Roamer says, if some local group decides to go down a path that leads to error, the remainder of the network is free to continue in the truth.

More to the point, if the network decides to go down a path that leads to error (as an instance, PresbyterianUSA) the local church (and each individual) is not only free to continue in the truth, but is almost duty bound to do so.

Don-o is exampling a top-down situation - Authority from on high. So my question would be this:

Is unity worth truth? IOW, if the authority that one has subscribed to is found to be invalid by way of teaching untruth, is that authority abrogated, AND, even in the face of that authority, what action should be taken by the local church and, in the end, the individual?

A Protestant mind would be to 'come out of her'... Enough individuals walk away, and eventually the local church also must disassociate or perish...

Don-o, I think, would not agree.

St Paul must not have gotten the memo on that, if one is to judge from his repeated directions to the erring assemblies to straighten up and fly right.

Like my FRiend Springfield Reformer has already mentioned, Paul comes with evidences of authority - conspicuously missing in those who claim authority today - In that I most certainly agree. It is one thing to submit to authority which is incontrovertibly and demonstrably established according to power granted from on high. It is quite another to follow when such evidences are not present, and the teaching put forth is wavering from truth.

Now, if that type of authority vanished with the death of John, then we have a problem with Athanasius and all the Ecumenical Councils.

I do have problems with the Ecumenical Councils - I cannot speak for others, but as for me, I am a disciple of Yeshua. I am to follow HIM, as is plainly demonstrated in Scripture. Authority of others is secondary. Ergo, while I recognize that others may have authority over me, as established by Him, that authority CANNOT negate the discipleship in the first part, that being following the Master.