When there is not a single binding authority for interpreting scripture, and everybody is allowed the right of personal interpretation, “I think” this inevitably leads to division, conflict and heresy. That is why having scripture as the only true and infallible rule of faith and Practice doesn’t work. This binding authority must come from the church.
I agree that we should have confidence in our leaders who have proven themselves. But the difficulty of honoring leaders as a binding authority is that scripture doesn't say that. Correct or incorrect, it is extrabiblical. But the scripture does say that it is itself useful for doctrine, correction, reproof, etc. And it does say that division comes from our devotion to and elevation of human leaders. So, while I do believe that we should honor our leaders, and that they should speak with authority as their faith allows, it is by the scriptures that we measure their teachings as worthy or unworthy, right or wrong. And so they are not above the scripture, but under it. I'm honored that you listen to my teachings, and I'm open to your challenge of my response.
But I was speaking of the church as having binding authority not individual leaders. In establishing the church, Jesus said this: And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven." Matt 16:18-19 Perhaps the confusion comes in what you see as the church. If you see it as any collection of believers, be it a denomination, individual congregation, home gathering or even individual, I think this is wrong. I think Jesus intended for there to be one church, the representation of his body on earth, empowered with his authority. In John chapter 17 he prais: So may they all be one. Just as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, so also may they be one in us: so that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, Relying on scripture as the soul binding authority leads to a multiplicity of interpretations. Even the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses validate their beliefs by quoting scripture. In fact, that applies to all heresies throughout the ages. Jesus conveyed or delegated his authority first to the 11 apostles . Note Therefore, he said to them again: "Peace to you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." When he had said this, he breathed on them. And he said to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Those whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and those whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." And the authority that was given to the apostles was passed on to their successors by the laying on of hands. But evil men and deceivers will advance in evil, erring and sending into error. Yet truly, you should remain in those things which you have learned and which have been entrusted to you. For you know from whom you have learned them. 2 Tim 3:13-14 Do not be willing to neglect the grace that is within you, which was given to you through prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood. 1 Tim 4:14 This speaks to apostolic succession within the church. I am by no means a. theologian. I have never attended a seminary or Bible school. As a child, I was baptized, catechize and confirmed in the Lutheran Church. In my 20s, I became a “ born again” Christian. Around the same time I joined a charismatic assembly where I met my wife. For years we were convinced of the churches teachings. It could have been described as a Baptist combined with Pentecostal conflation congregation. Of course, we thought we were the only true sect of Christianity. Following a move to Florida, we wound up in what I later realized was a Jesus only congregation. We moved on later to a more standard evangelical church. Each and every one of these assemblies was able to justify their beliefs by pointing to scripture. So, on whom could I, an average, work-a-day individual, entrust my faith? my prayer was that there be unity and clarity in the church. Eureka I think I have found it.
Thanks for the conversation. My thoughts... That interpretation of Matt 16:18, that Jesus was declaring Peter himself to be the rock, and thereby the first pope in what would kick off apostolic succession up to the current pope, is ironically not a catholic (universal) interpretation. Most read it that the "rock" Jesus was speaking of was the good confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. What do we do with that difference? There are churches who say one thing and churches who say another. Who's right? Can we say that Popes are right, and the reason we know they're right is because Popes are right? Isn't that circular reasoning? However, with the latter interpretation, the "binding" and "loosing" and "forgiving" and "laying on of hands" and everything else that Roman Catholics apply to apostolic succession and authority, has a different, and, I believe, more systematically consistent meaning. The Church is empowered. The traditions handed down still carry weight, but there are no Popes whose opinions are binding on the masses. In fact, without Popes, we see common people being filled with the Holy Spirit where the scriptures come alive to them, even through teachings of common people equipped by the Holy Spirit. It may be messy, but it's beautiful. As for a distinction between the church and individual leaders, I have difficulty not seeing church decisions as individuals making church decisions. Even traditions handed down are decisions once made by individual leaders.
@@simplerfaith I am familiar with that interpretation of the rock“ from Matthew 16:18. It seems to me to be a semantic sleight-of-hand in order to deny the obvious. Until this point, Peter was called Simon. Then Jesus changes his name to Peter. Peter means rock in Greek. Then Jesus says: Upon This Rock I will build my church. Now people who believe in sola scriptura claim that any believer with the aid of the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture on his own. There is no need of a teaching authority. Then I would think the most obvious explanation would be the correct one. Well, thankfully believers, the vast majority of whom did not have access to the scriptures nor could they even read if they did, could rely on the church to give them the proper interpretation. This is where church tradition and the magisterium come in to play. “And so, brothers, stand firm, and hold to the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” 2 Tim 2:14. The pope is the head of the church, the Vicar of Christ on earth, but he is not a dictator. The authority of the church rests upon three legs: holy scripture, church tradition, and the magisterium. The magisterium consists of the pope and a council of bishops. You might think of them as Peter and the other apostles. When real thorny questions come up, the church convenes an ecumenical council. We see the first example of this in acts chapter 15 when Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem to resolve the issue of circumcision among the gentiles. While other congregations may practice the laying on of hands, unless it is done by two bishops who’s succession through the laying on of hands traces back to the apostles and ultimately Jesus himself, the authority they presume to impart is not legitimate. For From where do they derive their legitimacy?
When there is not a single binding authority for interpreting scripture, and everybody is allowed the right of personal interpretation, “I think” this inevitably leads to division, conflict and heresy. That is why having scripture as the only true and infallible rule of faith and Practice doesn’t work. This binding authority must come from the church.
I agree that we should have confidence in our leaders who have proven themselves. But the difficulty of honoring leaders as a binding authority is that scripture doesn't say that. Correct or incorrect, it is extrabiblical.
But the scripture does say that it is itself useful for doctrine, correction, reproof, etc. And it does say that division comes from our devotion to and elevation of human leaders. So, while I do believe that we should honor our leaders, and that they should speak with authority as their faith allows, it is by the scriptures that we measure their teachings as worthy or unworthy, right or wrong. And so they are not above the scripture, but under it.
I'm honored that you listen to my teachings, and I'm open to your challenge of my response.
But I was speaking of the church as having binding authority not individual leaders. In establishing the church, Jesus said this: And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven." Matt 16:18-19
Perhaps the confusion comes in what you see as the church. If you see it as any collection of believers, be it a denomination, individual congregation, home gathering or even individual, I think this is wrong. I think Jesus intended for there to be one church, the representation of his body on earth, empowered with his authority. In John chapter 17 he prais: So may they all be one. Just as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, so also may they be one in us: so that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them,
Relying on scripture as the soul binding authority leads to a multiplicity of interpretations. Even the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses validate their beliefs by quoting scripture. In fact, that applies to all heresies throughout the ages.
Jesus conveyed or delegated his authority first to the 11 apostles . Note Therefore, he said to them again: "Peace to you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." When he had said this, he breathed on them. And he said to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Those whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and those whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
And the authority that was given to the apostles was passed on to their successors by the laying on of hands.
But evil men and deceivers will advance in evil, erring and sending into error. Yet truly, you should remain in those things which you have learned and which have been entrusted to you. For you know from whom you have learned them. 2 Tim 3:13-14
Do not be willing to neglect the grace that is within you, which was given to you through prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood. 1 Tim 4:14
This speaks to apostolic succession within the church.
I am by no means a. theologian. I have never attended a seminary or Bible school. As a child, I was baptized, catechize and confirmed in the Lutheran Church. In my 20s, I became a “ born again” Christian. Around the same time I joined a charismatic assembly where I met my wife. For years we were convinced of the churches teachings. It could have been described as a Baptist combined with Pentecostal conflation congregation. Of course, we thought we were the only true sect of Christianity. Following a move to Florida, we wound up in what I later realized was a Jesus only congregation. We moved on later to a more standard evangelical church. Each and every one of these assemblies was able to justify their beliefs by pointing to scripture. So, on whom could I, an average, work-a-day individual, entrust my faith? my prayer was that there be unity and clarity in the church. Eureka I think I have found it.
Thanks for the conversation. My thoughts...
That interpretation of Matt 16:18, that Jesus was declaring Peter himself to be the rock, and thereby the first pope in what would kick off apostolic succession up to the current pope, is ironically not a catholic (universal) interpretation. Most read it that the "rock" Jesus was speaking of was the good confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. What do we do with that difference? There are churches who say one thing and churches who say another. Who's right? Can we say that Popes are right, and the reason we know they're right is because Popes are right? Isn't that circular reasoning?
However, with the latter interpretation, the "binding" and "loosing" and "forgiving" and "laying on of hands" and everything else that Roman Catholics apply to apostolic succession and authority, has a different, and, I believe, more systematically consistent meaning. The Church is empowered. The traditions handed down still carry weight, but there are no Popes whose opinions are binding on the masses. In fact, without Popes, we see common people being filled with the Holy Spirit where the scriptures come alive to them, even through teachings of common people equipped by the Holy Spirit. It may be messy, but it's beautiful.
As for a distinction between the church and individual leaders, I have difficulty not seeing church decisions as individuals making church decisions. Even traditions handed down are decisions once made by individual leaders.
@@simplerfaith I am familiar with that interpretation of the rock“ from Matthew 16:18. It seems to me to be a semantic sleight-of-hand in order to deny the obvious. Until this point, Peter was called Simon. Then Jesus changes his name to Peter. Peter means rock in Greek. Then Jesus says: Upon This Rock I will build my church. Now people who believe in sola scriptura claim that any believer with the aid of the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture on his own. There is no need of a teaching authority. Then I would think the most obvious explanation would be the correct one. Well, thankfully believers, the vast majority of whom did not have access to the scriptures nor could they even read if they did, could rely on the church to give them the proper interpretation. This is where church tradition and the magisterium come in to play.
“And so, brothers, stand firm, and hold to the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” 2 Tim 2:14. The pope is the head of the church, the Vicar of Christ on earth, but he is not a dictator. The authority of the church rests upon three legs: holy scripture, church tradition, and the magisterium. The magisterium consists of the pope and a council of bishops. You might think of them as Peter and the other apostles. When real thorny questions come up, the church convenes an ecumenical council. We see the first example of this in acts chapter 15 when Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem to resolve the issue of circumcision among the gentiles.
While other congregations may practice the laying on of hands, unless it is done by two bishops who’s succession through the laying on of hands traces back to the apostles and ultimately Jesus himself, the authority they presume to impart is not legitimate. For From where do they derive their legitimacy?