Alright fine. It's interesting you cite Heb 13:17. I guess the next logical question to ask would be: have you ever found yourself in disagreement with any that "rule over you" and "watch for your soul"? If so, what happened? Specifically did you always submit to such authority (i.e., change your mind in accordance with their argument or will) or were there any times, when in such disagreement, you didn't do so. Be specific as possible please.
Also, to save yourself some time, you can safely ignore any questions or comments that don't apply given answers to previous questions. It'll save you from having to write pedantic statements like "Once again you are displaying your ignorance of the RF..."
I can not answer for Daniel but I have always had Bible teaching ministers so no disagreements. When I follow along and see exactly what he is reading from and it is exactly what the Bible says, I do not have a problem. My minister has his dr’s degree in ancient languages so we all trust him completely. Now, there are those feel good speakers who do not speak for me.
I can not answer for Daniel but I have always had Bible teaching ministers so no disagreements. When I follow along and see exactly what he is reading from and it is exactly what the Bible says, I do not have a problem. My minister has his dr’s degree in ancient languages so we all trust him completely. Now, there are those feel good speakers who do not speak for me.
But just what is your point? Still trying to make a case for a perpetual infallible magisterium since there is none in Scripture, either explicitly or as essential for discernment and authority? Or are you simply trying to show that i do not believe in any magisterium and convince me of what i said i affirmed?
But as for your request, i have more than once during my times in churches, but should it be doctrine or discipline? I will provide both. As part of a Fundamental church years ago, whose quality of preaching, moral standards and commitment to doctrinal purity and souls was far more than all other churches i knew, esp. Rome (i became born again while still a RC and know both sides), I became convinced - after some real honest searching - that God had not taken away the Pentecostal gifts, and that even if i did not see any operative then doctrinally i had to allow for them.
(I am in fact quite skeptical of claims of such operating, and critical of the Benny Hinn type genre.)
However, in this church one could not even disagree with the rapture teaching, and i felt i could not heartily say "Amen" when Pentecostals were denigrated without distinction along with cults. Thus this, along with some other points, led me to leave that church, though i yet continued with another Fundamental church that i was concurrently also serving in (with the knowledge of both), whose pastor was not so doctrinally intensive.
However, the Lord often led me to go into the local barrooms and offer tracts for free, though it was usually only a matter of seconds before i was forced out by the management at my back.
But the pastor thought it could be a bad testimony, and therefore i had to stop going there. Well, i think for the most part i obeyed until he later moved on.
These are not the only examples i could provide during many years, and even if i could have pushed matters higher, there was no real need to do so.
But what if there was? Suppose my reservations about some conclusions of Calvinism prevented me from ever being called upon to teach others, and so i progressively went as high as i could go in a hierarchical church in presenting my case? Upon what basis would the veracity of their decision rest and be settled? That mere fact that the Church made this decision is a guarantee that it is valid?
Or would its veracity and enduring acceptance have to rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power? Under which did the church begin, and its leadership establish their Truth claims? And decision in Acts 15? And what power enforced discipline of dissenters?
And in real life, what has happened when Rome most recently issued judgments without the threat of the power of the sword of men (and or claiming autocratic power) to enforce it? As one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Comparing this to a RC, one can be a weekly RC and disagree on quite serious matters and never have it become a problem.
And while a RC may be able to appeal to higher levels than his own pastor, which i support in principal, the question remains, where in Scripture do we see ensured infallibility essential for magisterial authority and discerning what is of God? If it was, then why did God not provide it even when dissent from the magisterium was a capital offense?
Where do we see unconditional assent of mind and will enjoined and dissent unconditionally excluded as ever being valid, since the magisterium at its highest level of exercise cannot possibly ever be wrong?
You see, it is not enough to fault Prots who dismiss the need for the magisterial office and authority, or fault it as not going high enough, but you must provide a perpetually infallible magisterium from Scripture, even due to this quality being essential in Scripture for the discernment of Truth and authority.
It'll save you from having to write pedantic statements like "Once again you are displaying your ignorance of the RF..."
Thank you. That did not apply here.