Posted on 01/07/2018 1:17:40 PM PST by tiredofallofit
But that chain of authority is often not so clear in the church world, especially amongst non-denominational evangelicals. If a man or woman steps up behind a pulpit and speaks to us authoritatively on matters of theology, why do we automatically accept this authority? Is it because we like what we hear? Or do we validate the authority because the pastor’s interpretation of the Bible jives with our own understanding? But who are we to even make that judgement? Why is our interpretation of the Bible any better than the person sitting next to us on the pew? And if we disagree with an aspect of the pastor’s views, do we have a right to question him? Or do we have to accept what he says because we have already consented to his authority?
(Excerpt) Read more at runningawayfrommychurch.com ...
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Hat tip to Elsie
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that, “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Not likely that the seed that was created, planted, nourished and protected (to this day) by Christ Jesus Himself "out grew" itself however branches that separate themselves from the vine wither and die.
From Yeshua on his way to Damascus.
Welcome to FreeRepublic. I hope you enjoy your association.
13After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.
14“Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.
15“With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
17SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’
18SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Acts 15:13-21 NASB
Sorry to hear your religion is so new!
If only you were Jewish, you would know your faith was founded by God +3,500 years ago!
If you were Zoroaster, your religion was started 3500 years ago.
[here we must add, your religion is failing the "old" test.
I am a member of the assembly formed in the heart of God in eternity past. You could upgrade also.
False
The NT church didn't have idols of Mary, pray to her, rely upon her for salvation, proclaim her omnipotent, etc....for starters.
It didn't conduct its business in Latin.
There was no Mass.
There was no priesthood as we see in Roman Catholicism today and none of the attire worn by the pope, bishops, etc.
God has never been impressed with longevity or numbers!
Guess if it is all you have, you brag about it.
Far better to have eternal life and know the Son!
It is not too late for anyone to upgrade to truth and eternal life.
I don’t want to debate because I’m in the hospital. I don’t have it in me. That diatribe, even if it were completely true, is no reason to trust the Roman Catholic Church, or Rome for short. It has nothing, zero, to do with whether or not you are a Berean and have carefully checked Rome’s claim for yourself. I trust the truths of Scripture, not the unsupported specious historical and spiritual claims of Rome.
I think that this description is accurate in mainline denominations but no so much in independent churches. The pastor or pastors are often not subject to any sort of outside accountability which in my opinion is dangerous.
As JESUS said, follow me! If a pastor wants to come along, he is welcome, just needs to keep up.
The Bereans didn't have the full scriptures, possibly a few NT letters, but most of the scriptures they searched were the OT and prophesies therein.
It was traditional to pass on authority by the laying on of hands. Paul was called by the Holy Spirit but eventually joined the other apostles. Much of church history isn't in the scriptures.
I am leery with all the newer churches and consider the "authority" of the pastors "self-appointed". They can claim to be called by God. And God can use them. But I don't trust their interpretation of the scriptures completely. Nor do I trust my own, and many earlier church groups flourished with no bibles because they were too expensive and were hand copied by monks. Furthermore, common people could not read and write. There were bibles chained in the churches of Rome which I suppose people could read if they were fluent in Latin. To this day many people are illiterate and either memorize certain scriptures or have to have them read to them. Just some points to consider as I have wrestled with it. Christ doesn't accept people based on whether they can read or write the scriptures although there is a blessing associated with reading the Book of Revelation.
I personally believe Peter was crucified in Rome but was never head of the Church of Rome or pope. He helped organize the Church of Antioch which has churches in America at present but he was an apostle, not a bishop.
Yeah, I don't want to argue about it either as it's pointless. I don't know what God expects us to do in these times. It's obvious from my reading of the NT that Christ founded a real church with pastors, deacons, bishops.
Where I'm stuck now is on images, statues and icons. I know the various councils started accepting them, but is it pleasing to God? Or are Christians no longer under the 10 commandments? And I love the beauty of much of the art and iconography but still doesn't mean it is pleasing to God. Or maybe He doesn't care any more? Concerning Moses raising a serpent on a pole and the cherabim on either side of the ark, those were ordered by God by an accepted spokesman for Him.
The other problem is the Sabbath. If we are to obey the Commandments, I believe sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is the true Sabbath as still practiced by believing Jews. Sunday is the Lord's Day when the early Christians met for Holy Communion or the Eucharist because they were eventually excommunicated from the synagogues. All the earliest Christians were Jews and possibly a few from other tribes like Paul who was of Benjamin.
Being a woman, I wouldn't attempt or presume myself qualified to pastori a church based on my sex alone. I'm just funny that way.
My views are subject to change if I ever get them resolved to my satisfaction. And I recognize as Christians fellow believers, no matter who they are affiliated with if sincere. and display certain fruits as love, peace, charity toward others, not condemn them to hell if they don't believe like others think they are supposed to.
LOL! You left out what Peter said. Is this the reason your thoughts about the Council of Jerusalem are in error?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.