Establishing Church Authority

[mulls]

i agree. the Holy Spirit certainly leads us, but if we err on our own accord, we need somewhere to go to clear it up, i.e., the church.


i don't really get it....are you assuming that non-denominationalists disregard everybody except themselves personally?

[mulls]

biggity bump

[jasJis]

My bad, mulls. I thought I replied.
[quote]are you assuming that non-denominationalists disregard everybody except themselves personally[/quote]Pretty close. I assume that non-denominationalists barely consider the differing opinion of others and hold private revalation in too high a regard which is why they discount all denominations as un-needed, un-wanted, and containing to much error to be of any benefit in developing a relationship with God.

[mulls]

hmm.

unless you know something that i don't, or have experienced something personally that i never have, i can honestly say that i've never seen any evidence of what you mention.

non-denominationalists recognize all believers as the church, and i'm sure would not be closed-minded enough not to seek wisdom and guidance outside of their own church.

to take what you say completely literally, members of the church would not even attend a church service or bible study, because each individual would be constantly disagreeing with each other over every little thing....right?

a person might not agree with what the pastor says, or what an elder says, and therefore would see that people in their own church are in too much error to help them grow in their relationship with God.

i don't think anybody would discount denominations as un-needed or un-wanted. non-denominationalists just don't want to be told that a certain denomination has it completely right, and have to adhere to that denomination's man-made rules (in some cases).

a non-denominationalist should seek wisdom and truth from all his brothers and sisters, and not discount anybody who doesn't run with his crew....or else he is being a hypocrite, being "denominational" in the bad sense.

[jasJis]

[quote]a non-denominationalist should seek wisdom and truth from all his brothers and sisters, and not discount anybody who doesn't run with his crew....or else he is being a hypocrite, being "denominational" in the bad sense.[/quote]Exactly. A group of non-denominationalists is an oxy-moron, there's no such thing. If you look to support, or receive support, from others with common religeious beliefs, that's a denomination. My experiences must be much different from yours because I have met many non-denominationalists that either:
1) call themselves that just to discount everyone else except those who agree with them so they do become a denomination,
or
2) discount everyone else and believe God will reveal whatever they need to them personally.
Both groups fail to recognize a Holy Spirit guided Authority outside of themselves and feel all Authority is revealed to themselves personally so if they disagree with someone, the other person is always wrong because it's not possible they could possess any Authority that hold weight over them.

[mulls]

gotcha. that stinks.


this is how i would think the non-denominationalists i know would describe themselves (myself included):


"we don't think that anybody has it completely right. we rely on God and His Holy Spirit to guide us and lead us to the things that we need to know in order to become closer to Him. we recognize all those who profess Christ as Lord as brothers and sisters, and we love them all equally, despite theological or doctrinal differences. we're just a group of believers who have come together to love each other and help each other to grow closer to the Lord together."


or something like that. you might say "where is the authority in that?" to which i would reply our ultimate authority is God (i know, standard generic answer). but we believe God has gifted people with the ability to lead and to teach, and we must recognize their authority when they speak God's Word to us.

or something like that

[jasJis]

This thread got entirely off-topic from what I intended. It was my intention to explore how much denominational Christians share in looking for guidance so that we could appreciate each other a little better. Most Catholics believe that all Protestants hold personal revealation above everything, but that isn't the case. Prots do look to the authority of their Denom, in a very similar (not identical) way that Caths do. We may disagree on somethings, but Prots aren't making it all up on the fly.

Back to your post.

If we look to an Authority outside our personal revelation, we do have to have some standards. Simply humilty tells us that. Just as Paul went to the other Apostles (consider the fact that Paul personally was contacted by Jesus, and given the Holy Spirit, after the Crucifixion), to discuss the matter openly, and share the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that Paul new the Apostles possessed [u]TOO[/u]. Paul knew he had the Holy Spirit, but recognized the fact so did others.

If a Denomination is rejected, you must consider what is being rejected. There cannot be non-denominationalists if you are open to the Holy Spirit that is gifted to others for their benefit and ours. It also makes you realize that the Holy Spirit given to you isn't just for your benefit, you must share it with others.

[mulls]

[quote]It was my intention to explore how much denominational Christians share in looking for guidance so that we could appreciate each other a little better.[/quote]


ok, in this sense, i'm going to make a clarification. for this argument, let's change the word "denomination" to "church," otherwise you imply that non-denominational Christians don't look for guidance.

in my Christian walk i've attended churces of two different denominations, first the Assemblies of God, now a local Brethren Assembly. i never have and never will consider myself a strictly AoG person or a strictly Bretheren person. i appreciate everyone. in this sense, i consider myself non-denominational.


[quote]Prots do look to the authority of their Denom, in a very similar (not identical) way that Caths do.  [/quote]


again, let's change "denom" to "local church," and i'm good. i know Catholics look beyond their local church because all Catholicism is the same, and i understand this.


[quote]We may disagree on somethings, but Prots aren't making it all up on the
fly.[/quote]


thank you.


[quote]There cannot be non-denominationalists if you are open to the Holy Spirit that is gifted to others for their benefit and ours.[/quote]


no...how do you arrive at this? being non-denominational doesn't mean discrediting everyone else, to me it means exactly the opposite. i am open to the Holy Spirit that is gifted to others for their benefit and mine. if i was a strict denominationalist, i would say that the Holy Spirit is only leading my denomination, and every other denom is screwed up.



[quote]It also makes you realize that the Holy Spirit given to you isn't just for your benefit, you must share it with others.[/quote]


good statement. that's a non-denominational statement, in my opinion. beautiful.

[mulls]

let me clear up my way of thinking...


"non-denominational" is more of an attitude than an identity.

a "non-denominatonal church" is one that is made up with a group of believers who don't consider one group of believers to be more right or wrong than another group....and they are all seeking and learning and growing in God, together, equally.

[mulls]

bumpington

[Crusader_4]

Okay i state this not trying to mean any offence in any way. Jesus gave us his written word through the holy spirit. It guided the Bishops and Pope Damascus I to deciede what books were in the Holy Bible. Now the question one must ask is when did the Holy Spirit stop guiding the Church in this form? God realized we were not infallable he realized that we screw things up sometimes so what does he do but gives us a Church that can guide us and teach uns infallably that way we need not have any worries. So he gives us the Bible his infallable word and his infallable teacher the Church. It makes sense. Now back to the earlier thing was if the Holy Spirit could guide the Church in the first 300 years against heresy (gnoticsm, ariansim) some pretty stellar heresies. When did he stop and if he hasnt stopped guiding the Church which i think you can all agree on why do so many Church's have different interperations? Since the Lord cannot be divided. So If we have all these protestant and non denoniational church's they will not claim to be infallable. Yet would something Jesus started to teach us and guide us adn he is the head of would that thing be fallable? Also how could an invisible body be infallable how can it make statements that are infallable or do things that are infallable? It needs to be visible. Would something guidied by Jesus be fallable? Only One Church will claim to be truly infallable and thus guided by the Holy Spirit.

[jasJis]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 19 2004, 11:09 AM'] a "non-denominatonal church" is one that is made up with a group of believers who don't consider one group of believers to be more right or wrong than another group....and they are all seeking and learning and growing in God, together, equally. [/quote]
mulls,
Then what about the group of believers that believed in God, Jesus the Son of God and Man, the Holy Spirit, and the circumcision of the Gentiles as an obedient act acknowledgeing God's Covenant with the Jewish people. They weren't saying that the Gentiles were excluded, they were saying the Gentiles can join the Jewish family completely and join them in the covenant with Jesus.

By your definition, that's a group of believers, following God and Jesus, but in disagreement with only some. Should they have been left alone as not being any more right than the other Christians?

[twf]

This is one great example...but there are so many more. The NT Church had established authority. Paul often spoke with authority, and expected to be obeyed. They knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what sound doctrine was...there was no room for private interpretation. There is no indication in Scriptures that this model of a hierarchical, authoritative government was to end with the death of the apostles...in fact there are verses that support the opposite. And further more, we simply have to look at the early Fathers...we can see that already by the late first century (and for sure by the early second century) the authority of the bishops was well established, and the concept of apostolic succession (the bishops succeeded the apostles in their ministry) was present. Look at St. Clement and St. Ignatius.

Christianity has never been a religion of the book...they knew that both the oral teachings of the apostles (handed down through the bishops) and their written letters were equally important...they never wrote everything down.
I’ll look at a few Scriptures here.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
Oral teachings are very important...can you demonstrate that this has changed after the end of apostolic era?

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, [b]either by word of mouth or by letter[/b]." (2 Thess. 2:15, emphasis added)
Both oral and written teachings are important, the NT gives no indication that Christianity is a religion of the book (alone).

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
If after the apostolic era, the Bible alone would suffice, why did Paul believe that the continuation of sound doctrine required special teachers entrusted with the deposit of faith?

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).
The written word was not enough, John wanted to teach them more orally.

"...and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." (Matt. 2:23, ASV).
It's interesting that this prophecy can not be found in Scripture...Matthew must have been relying upon the oral teachings of the apostles that was passed down. Also on this note...obviously the prophets spoke for God, but do you think that all the words of every prophet God sent is recorded in the OT? Were the words that are not recorded unauthoritative?

"...but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15, ASV).
The Church, not the Bible alone, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth...but how can it remain so if the church can not agree what truth is (on many issues)? Look how splintered Christendom becomes when apostolic succession is rejected. (I.e. Protestantism).

I highly recommend the audio file [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=iq_496.ra"]http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolv...afile=iq_496.ra[/url] on the issue of Church, rather than just Scripture, being the final authority (that is, no sola scriptura).
And these articles [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp[/url]

I’m going to include two quotes from the Fathers…because I think they very strongly show apostolic succession and the authority of the bishops…and at a VERY early date…these guys both knew the apostles in all likelihood. They are both taken from the Catechism.

“In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry.” (St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, late first century…quoted from paragraph 861 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

“Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles, respect the deacons as you do God’s law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in seperation from the bishop.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn, 8, as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 896. Circa AD 110, probably). St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist.

[jasJis]

bump - bump - bump - bummmmmmmmmmp

for mulls to consider ...

[mulls]

[quote name='jasJis' date='May 20 2004, 10:21 PM'] mulls,
Then what about the group of believers that believed in God, Jesus the Son of God and Man, the Holy Spirit, and the circumcision of the Gentiles as an obedient act acknowledgeing God's Covenant with the Jewish people. They weren't saying that the Gentiles were excluded, they were saying the Gentiles can join the Jewish family completely and join them in the covenant with Jesus.

By your definition, that's a group of believers, following God and Jesus, but in disagreement with only some. Should they have been left alone as not being any more right than the other Christians? [/quote]
i dont think so, if the apostles were around, i would listen to them.