Bible alone?

[farouk]

Yes, it does. If Paul believed that he had the authority to decide the question, he never would have left it to conscience.

Romans 14 is about matters of individual conscience, among other things.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I wasn't talking about what he wrote in Galatians.

What Paul wrote in Galatians is illustrative of typical protocol and attitude. Paul's epistle to the Galatians contracts your view that the church in Jerusalem had authority to dictate belief and practice. He tells you

Note:
1. We did not yield in subjection to them
2. What they were makes no difference to me
3. Those of reputation contributed nothing to me.

If Paul believed as you do, that the church is the ultimate authority on belief and practice, he would never write those things.

I am talking about Acts 15 . . .

I know. Paul's epistle to the Galatians informs out view of Acts 15, and answers to the question, "Why did Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem? What purpose did it serve?" I take issue with your interpretation, that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem in order to submit to the authority of the Church. You say that Paul and Barnabas couldn't answer the question on their own, when in fact they had already answered the question. So had Peter. Those who hadn't answered the question were the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

The question of Gentile circumcision wasn't a live issue for the church in Jerusalem until some Pharisees among their number "came down from Judea, teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to Moses, you cannot be saved." Peter knew this to be false and so did Paul. It wasn't Paul and Peter who needed correction. It was the Pharisees who needed to be corrected. Paul and Peter went to Jerusalem to confer with the Jerusalem church in order to give testimony in a debate between James, the elders and the Pharisees.

Paul and Peter didn't go to Jerusalem to convince James and the elders, they went to Jerusalem to convince the rest of the church, which included the Pharisees that God was granting Justification to the Gentiles apart from circumcision. Peter knew it. Paul knew it. James knew it also. Paul and Peter didn't go to Jerusalem in order to receive a ruling from the Jerusalem council; they went to testify about what God was doing. The Jerusalem church and especially the Pharisees needed to hear James say it.

The problem here is not exegesis without context. The problem here is supplying background assumptions to the text that the text itself doesn't supply. The opening of Acts 15 states the issue. "Some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'" What did Paul do? He debated them, he argued with them. He gave reasons based on scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit. If Paul had official authority, debate would not be necessary. Those in office dictate policy according to their own opinion. Paul did not enforce his opinion; rather, he argued, he pleaded, he persuaded.

Likewise, the elders and Pharisees debated amongst themselves. Peter and Paul offered testimony supporting the truth. James also offered Scripture in support of the truth. You seem to picture the Jerusalem church as an official authoritative body, convened to hear testimony and give a ruling. This is not the case.

To see what actually happened, we turn to Paul's epistle to the Galatians, where we learn that the Pharisees were banking on their reputation as those who came from James. Due to the fact that these men came from James, the expectation is that the opinion of these men carried more weight than the opinion of Paul. The Gentiles needed to be circumcised BECAUSE the men from James said so. And the opinion of those with such high regard overruled that of Paul.

So what did James write?

“Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul . . ."

Peter, Paul, and James were already of one mind before the council was convened, they just didn't know it until they met. It was the Pharisees among the church in Jerusalem that needed convincing. James tells you that such men were given no instruction on this matter. These men were acting on their own, speaking for themselves, banking on their own reputation. The Jerusalem church didn't decide the matter; the matter had already been decided by God. It was the Jerusalem church who was behind the times and needed to be brought up to speed. James' letter wasn't an edict; it was an apology.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That's why you have the confusion of tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on personal interpretations taken OUT of context.

I wish I could convince you to count the Roman Catholic church among that same splintered group. Both the Protestant churches and the Catholic churches contain true believers, dedicated to serving the Lord, devout in their practice, with a love for Jesus and all of his followers. The actual church universal contains true believers from both the Catholic Churches and the Protestant Churches and they serve Jesus and follow his teaching and they are led by the Holy Spirit.

You place the source of confusion at the feet of the sects, when the actual source of confusion rests at the feet of authoritarian based religious structures. The presence of a single voice in the world, ostensibly representing the official dogma, did not guarantee clearness and veracity as you suggest. It provided order and structure, which is best for safety and security. But even a single voice can be mistaken and in error. And it was in error, which is why a Catholic priest attempted to convince the church of false teaching.

The so-called Protestant Sects are harmless until they also become authoritarian religious bodies. They are no different than the original authoritarian body, teaching that one cannot be saved unless one affirms the official dogma, whatever it is. Those who seek the safety and security of authority based religion are attracted to them. Pick your flavor. Catholicism is but one of many.

The true Christian walk requires courage, because it sometimes runs afoul of official dogma, and it takes courage to stand your ground against the power of the institution, especially if that institution has an army or rich benefactors.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What Paul wrote in Galatians is illustrative of typical protocol and attitude. Paul's epistle to the Galatians contracts your view that the church in Jerusalem had authority to dictate belief and practice. He tells you

Note:
1. We did not yield in subjection to them
2. What they were makes no difference to me
3. Those of reputation contributed nothing to me.

If Paul believed as you do, that the church is the ultimate authority on belief and practice, he would never write those things.

I know. Paul's epistle to the Galatians informs out view of Acts 15, and answers to the question, "Why did Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem? What purpose did it serve?" I take issue with your interpretation, that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem in order to submit to the authority of the Church. You say that Paul and Barnabas couldn't answer the question on their own, when in fact they had already answered the question. So had Peter. Those who hadn't answered the question were the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

The question of Gentile circumcision wasn't a live issue for the church in Jerusalem until some Pharisees among their number "came down from Judea, teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to Moses, you cannot be saved." Peter knew this to be false and so did Paul. It wasn't Paul and Peter who needed correction. It was the Pharisees who needed to be corrected. Paul and Peter went to Jerusalem to confer with the Jerusalem church in order to give testimony in a debate between James, the elders and the Pharisees.

Paul and Peter didn't go to Jerusalem to convince James and the elders, they went to Jerusalem to convince the rest of the church, which included the Pharisees that God was granting Justification to the Gentiles apart from circumcision. Peter knew it. Paul knew it. James knew it also. Paul and Peter didn't go to Jerusalem in order to receive a ruling from the Jerusalem council; they went to testify about what God was doing. The Jerusalem church and especially the Pharisees needed to hear James say it.

The problem here is not exegesis without context. The problem here is supplying background assumptions to the text that the text itself doesn't supply. The opening of Acts 15 states the issue. "Some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'" What did Paul do? He debated them, he argued with them. He gave reasons based on scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit. If Paul had official authority, debate would not be necessary. Those in office dictate policy according to their own opinion. Paul did not enforce his opinion; rather, he argued, he pleaded, he persuaded.

Likewise, the elders and Pharisees debated amongst themselves. Peter and Paul offered testimony supporting the truth. James also offered Scripture in support of the truth. You seem to picture the Jerusalem church as an official authoritative body, convened to hear testimony and give a ruling. This is not the case.

To see what actually happened, we turn to Paul's epistle to the Galatians, where we learn that the Pharisees were banking on their reputation as those who came from James. Due to the fact that these men came from James, the expectation is that the opinion of these men carried more weight than the opinion of Paul. The Gentiles needed to be circumcised BECAUSE the men from James said so. And the opinion of those with such high regard overruled that of Paul.

So what did James write?
“Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul . . ."

Peter, Paul, and James were already of one mind before the council was convened, they just didn't know it until they met. It was the Pharisees among the church in Jerusalem that needed convincing. James tells you that such men were given no instruction on this matter. These men were acting on their own, speaking for themselves, banking on their own reputation. The Jerusalem church didn't decide the matter; the matter had already been decided by God. It was the Jerusalem church who was behind the times and needed to be brought up to speed. James' letter wasn't an edict; it was an apology.

As usual - your response is FULL of holes and falsehoods . . .

In Acts 15 - the question WASN'T answered - that that's why Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go to Jerusalem to submit to the Church's Authority on the matter. They didn't go to Jerusalem to "convince the Pharisees" or ANYBODY else of anything as YOU claim. You are adding to Scripture what is NOT there. As I've educated you several times now:
Acts 15:2
And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the APOSTLES and the ELDERS about this QUESTION.

It was an UNANSWERED QUESTION that needed answering.

Also - Acts 15 says NOTHING about James having written the letter. It says that "They" (collectively) wrote the letter.

Your own KJV makes the Apostles' statement about Authority even clearer:
Acts 14:24
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such COMMANDMENT.

This statement shows that the Authority of the Church cannot be ANY clearer - regardless of YOUR constant denials.

Finally - it wasn't the "Jerusalem Church" that made the decision. It was a COUNCIL held IN Jerusalem. The FIRST of many such Church Councils. And YES - the Letter WAS an edict - not an "apology".
Acts 15:28-29
"For it has seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT AND TO US to lay on you no greater burden than these REQUIREMENTS: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."

REQUIREMENTS - not "suggestions" and not "apologies".
Get your head OUT of the sand, already . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I wish I could convince you to count the Roman Catholic church among that same splintered group. Both the Protestant churches and the Catholic churches contain true believers, dedicated to serving the Lord, devout in their practice, with a love for Jesus and all of his followers. The actual church universal contains true believers from both the Catholic Churches and the Protestant Churches and they serve Jesus and follow his teaching and they are led by the Holy Spirit.

You place the source of confusion at the feet of the sects, when the actual source of confusion rests at the feet of authoritarian based religious structures. The presence of a single voice in the world, ostensibly representing the official dogma, did not guarantee clearness and veracity as you suggest. It provided order and structure, which is best for safety and security. But even a single voice can be mistaken and in error. And it was in error, which is why a Catholic priest attempted to convince the church of false teaching.

The so-called Protestant Sects are harmless until they also become authoritarian religious bodies. They are no different than the original authoritarian body, teaching that one cannot be saved unless one affirms the official dogma, whatever it is. Those who seek the safety and security of authority based religion are attracted to them. Pick your flavor. Catholicism is but one of many.

The true Christian walk requires courage, because it sometimes runs afoul of official dogma, and it takes courage to stand your ground against the power of the institution, especially if that institution has an army or rich benefactors.

And there you go again with your ignorant moniker of "Roman Catholic Church".
I already explained to you that there s NO such entity. It is simply "The Catholic Church". I explained to you that "Roman" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite.

The Catholic Church is not a "denomination". It is the original tree from which Protestantism splintered. This is attested to by history and Protestant scholarship. Eminent Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelley lists all of the Popes from Peter to the present day in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes.

CRI's historian, Kenneth Samples, in his treatise, What Think Ye of Rome? makes the claim I made above when comparing Protestantism with the Catholic Church:
"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two‐thousand‐year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."

Finally - we have the testimony of the Early Church itself. Ignatius of Antioch was a first century Bishop - and a student of the Apostle John. He wrote the following letter on the way to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the second century

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

YOUR turn . . .

 

[CadyandZoe]

And there you go again with your ignorant moniker of "Roman Catholic Church".
I already explained to you that there s NO such entity. It is simply "The Catholic Church".

I know what you said. No need to repeat yourself. Repetition is not the path to truth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It was an UNANSWERED QUESTION that needed answering.

Negative. God already revealed it to Peter, which is why his testimony was valid. Jesus already revealed it to Paul, which is why his testimony was valid.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Negative. God already revealed it to Peter, which is why his testimony was valid. Jesus already revealed it to Paul, which is why his testimony was valid.

And Peter and Paul were LEADERS in the Church with God-given Authority. The ones who DIDN'T know were the Judaizers themselves and those who were being manipulated by them.
In other words - the congregation.

God revealed it THROUGH the leaders of His Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I know what you said. No need to repeat yourself. Repetition is not the path to truth.

Yet YOU repeat the same error . . .

 

[CadyandZoe]

And Peter and Paul were LEADERS in the Church with God-given Authority. The ones who DIDN'T know were the Judaizers themselves and those who were being manipulated by them.
In other words - the congregation.

God revealed it THROUGH the leaders of His Church.

Negative. Peter and Paul were not exercising authority. These men were NOT enforcing obedience. They were, in fact, obeying God just as we all should. Only God the Father and his son Jesus Christ has the right to tell me what to believe and how to live.

You are assigning authority where none exists.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Negative. Peter and Paul were not exercising authority. These men were NOT enforcing obedience. They were, in fact, obeying God just as we all should. Only God the Father and his son Jesus Christ has the right to tell me what to believe and how to live.
You are assigning authority where none exists.

No - JESUS did.
I don't have the authority to assign any to anybody . . .

Matt 16:18-19
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:18
Amen, I say to you, whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[CadyandZoe]

No - JESUS did.
I don't have the authority to assign any to anybody . . .

Matt 16:18-19
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:18
Amen, I say to you, whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

You are repeating yourself again. We already went over these verses. They don't imply what you claim they imply.

For instance, Jesus' statements in Matthew 16 and 18 are not concerned with "declaration" but rather "identification." Peter and the other apostles don't get to decide what behaviors are sinful and what are not. They are given to know which behaviors God has already decided were sinful and which were not.

What Jesus tells the disciples in John chapters 16 and 20 are unique to the 12 apostles and not applicable to anyone else.

Jesus' statement in Luke 10 is not assigning authority to the disciples; it specifies the function of an apostle, which is similar to an ambassador. Luke 10:16 is only true when the Apostle is speaking what Jesus had already taught him. The Apostle has no authority to make stuff up.

 

[jaybird]

i think we put to much faith in the bible and not the Father. if we were stuck on an island with no bible would the Father and Son cease to exist?

Peter and Andrew were called by Jesus. when it happened they were not studying scripture, they were just out in a boat fishing.
the Most High is everywhere.

 

[CadyandZoe]

i think we put to much faith in the bible and not the Father. if we were stuck on an island with no bible would the Father and Son cease to exist?

Peter and Andrew were called by Jesus. when it happened they were not studying scripture, they were just out in a boat fishing.
the Most High is everywhere.

Peter and Andrew put their faith in Jesus Christ because they recognized the "coming one" as described in the Hebrew scriptures.

Granted, if an islander lived without a Bible and never heard about Jesus Christ, God could still save him or her. God responds to the smallest faith as Paul says in Hebrews 11:6.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are repeating yourself again. We already went over these verses. They don't imply what you claim they imply.

For instance, Jesus' statements in Matthew 16 and 18 are not concerned with "declaration" but rather "identification." Peter and the other apostles don't get to decide what behaviors are sinful and what are not. They are given to know which behaviors God has already decided were sinful and which were not.

What Jesus tells the disciples in John chapters 16 and 20 are unique to the 12 apostles and not applicable to anyone else.

Jesus' statement in Luke 10 is not assigning authority to the disciples; it specifies the function of an apostle, which is similar to an ambassador. Luke 10:16 is only true when the Apostle is speaking what Jesus had already taught him. The Apostle has no authority to make stuff up.

WRONG.

First of all - the Authority that Jesus gave the Apostles was that whatever they declared was to be guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. It's not them making the judgements and decisions on their own - but the Holy spirit working THROUGH them. Jesus was VERY clear that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven - and WHOEVER'S sins they forgave or retained on earth would ALSO be forgiven or retained in Heaven. This is by the power and the Authority of the Holy Spirit (John 12:15).

Secondly - this promise was to the Apostles - AND their successors.
If this were NOT the case, there would NOT have been any reason for the Eleven to choose a successor for Judas. Matthias, whom they chose was not a "replacement" for Judas - but a SUCCESSOR. In acts 1:20, Peter quotes the OT by stating, "Let another take his office."

The Greek word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" - or "BISHORIC".
This verse shows that this office was successive.

 

[CadyandZoe]

WRONG.

First of all - the Authority that Jesus gave the Apostles was that whatever they declared was to be guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. It's not them making the judgements and decisions on their own - but the Holy spirit working THROUGH them. Jesus was VERY clear that WHATEVER they bound or loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven - and WHOEVER'S sins they forgave or retained on earth would ALSO be forgiven or retained in Heaven. This is by the power and the Authority of the Holy Spirit (John 12:15).

Secondly - this promise was to the Apostles - AND their successors.
If this were NOT the case, there would NOT have been any reason for the Eleven to choose a successor for Judas. Matthias, whom they chose was not a "replacement" for Judas - but a SUCCESSOR. In acts 1:20, Peter quotes the OT by stating, "Let another take his office."

The Greek word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" - or "BISHORIC".
This verse shows that this office was successive.

If the apostles had authority as you suggest, they would baptize in their own name. They don't have authority, which is why they baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If the apostles had authority as you suggest, they would baptize in their own name. They don't have authority, which is why they baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This is a ridiculous argument - and it shows that you don't know a THING about Scripture OR history.

The Apostles Baptized by the Authority of Christ. HE gave THEM the Authority to do that (Matt. 28:19).
When a judge sentences a person to prison or marries a couple - he does so by the Authority of the STATE - not his "own" Authority.

The Apostles had the Authority of CHRIST. How do you think their writings were considered "Scripture" - the inerrant Word of almighty GOD??
By the Authority given them by CHRIST.

I have explained this to you ad nauseam and you still don't understand because your mind and heart are CLOSED to the Holy Spirit . . .

 

[jaybird]

Peter and Andrew put their faith in Jesus Christ because they recognized the "coming one" as described in the Hebrew scriptures.

Granted, if an islander lived without a Bible and never heard about Jesus Christ, God could still save him or her. God responds to the smallest faith as Paul says in Hebrews 11:6.

the coming one was prophesied. John was a prophet, thats what he was doing out in the desert. there were many prophets in those days.
if a bible is all we need than Peter and Andrew could have ignored Jesus, if they had bibles why would they need Him?

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is a ridiculous argument - and it shows that you don't know a THING about Scripture OR history.

The Apostles Baptized by the Authority of Christ. HE gave THEM the Authority to do that (Matt. 28:19).
When a judge sentences a person to prison or marries a couple - he does so by the Authority of the STATE - not his "own" Authority.

The Apostles had the Authority of CHRIST. How do you think their writings were considered "Scripture" - the inerrant Word of almighty GOD??
By the Authority given them by CHRIST.

I have explained this to you ad nauseam and you still don't understand because your mind and heart are CLOSED to the Holy Spirit . . .

You have proven to me that you don't know anything about authority. You don't know what it is or how it works. This is why your explanations remain unconvincing. In addition, your own arguments often disprove your point of view.

From what I have heard, you are the one who has repeated this conversation so often that it has become annoying. What compels you to repeat yourself so often escapes me. For my part, I am using the opportunity to increase my understanding of the scriptures and sharpen my arguments.

What you need to answer is this. What kind of authority allows pedophile priests, bishops, and cardinals to go unpunished? Why would you follow such leaders? Think about it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have proven to me that you don't know anything about authority. You don't know what it is or how it works. This is why your explanations remain unconvincing. In addition, your own arguments often disprove your point of view.

From what I have heard, you are the one who has repeated this conversation so often that it has become annoying. What compels you to repeat yourself so often escapes me. For my part, I am using the opportunity to increase my understanding of the scriptures and sharpen my arguments.

What you need to answer is this. What kind of authority allows pedophile priests, bishops, and cardinals to go unpunished? Why would you follow such leaders? Think about it.

As I stated before - your grasp of "Authority" is childish and ignorant.
Let's look at some Biblical examples of transferred Authority, shall we??

Gen. 41:40-41
YOU shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as YOU command; only with regard to the throne will I be greater than YOU.’ And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See, I have set YOU over all the land of Egypt.’

Isaiah 22:20-22
“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; WHAT HE OPENS no one can shut, and WHAT HE SHUTS no one can open.

Matt. 16:18-19
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth will be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

In ALL 3 of these cases the servant is given Authority OF the Master - and BY the Master.
They are mouthpieces in service OF the Master - NOT themselves.

As to your last question - NOBODY gets away with ANYTHING.
GOD has the final say - even when it comes to your Protestant pedophile leaders . . .
Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor

Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches

Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups

U.S. Protestants’ Views Mixed about Extent of Clergy Sexual Abuse

Churchgoers Split on Existence of More Sexual Abuse by Pastors

Confronting Evangelical Enabling of Sexual Abuse

Child abuse a Calvinist problem, podcast says