Why do you reject authority?

[Brakelite]

Thanks Backlit,

I don't see that question asked previously. Could you clarify? I thought we were talking about the authority of The Church to ex-communicate someone of which I gave multiple passages from scripture to show they can.

Mary

Indeed, and I agreed that the church has such authority. The analogy I offered was of a club who has authority to give the boot to someone not willing to follow the rules and the purpose of the club, so we are agreed on that. However, my question was a follow up....

The question I have for you, what right does the RCC have to dictate what members of other churches believe and be forced to submit to papal authority?

Yes, if one chooses to become Catholic or is born into it, but does not follow or practice or even believe in the rules canons or dictates of Catholicism, and if he refused to leave, the church has the right to excommunicate. All churches have a similar biblical concept. Some call it disfellowhip. The JWs call it something else I think. But yes, it's biblical. But a Jehovah's Witness council does not have the authority to toss out a Mormon from the LDS. A Presbyterian synod does not have the authority to give the heave-ho to a Catholic from the local Catholic parish. So, why is it that the Catholic Church had presumed throughout history to have the authority to persecute Christians who are not Catholic????

 

[Marymog]

Indeed, and I agreed that the church has such authority. The analogy I offered was of a club who has authority to give the boot to someone not willing to follow the rules and the purpose of the club, so we are agreed on that. However, my question was a follow up....

Yes, if one chooses to become Catholic or is born into it, but does not follow or practice or even believe in the rules canons or dictates of Catholicism, and if he refused to leave, the church has the right to excommunicate. All churches have a similar biblical concept. Some call it disfellowhip. The JWs call it something else I think. But yes, it's biblical. But a Jehovah's Witness council does not have the authority to toss out a Mormon from the LDS. A Presbyterian synod does not have the authority to give the heave-ho to a Catholic from the local Catholic parish. So, why is it that the Catholic Church had presumed throughout history to have the authority to persecute Christians who are not Catholic????

Thank you Backlit.

Show me in Catholic doctrine that The Church had the authority to “persecute“ Christians who are not Catholic and I will join your ferocious attacks on The Church. It seems we agree that they have the authority to ex-communicate them but persecute is a different matter.

Show me in history were some catholic men committed sins against persons who were not Catholic or Protestant men committed sins against persons who were Catholic and I will lock arms with you and say....Yes, Backlit is right....there were some men in The Church who sinned and some Protestant Reformers who sinned.

Doctrines of The Church and sins of men are not intertwined. If that were true none of the Apostles would have qualified to be leaders of The Church since they were all sinners.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,

The church does have the authority to censure and remove members. Matthew 18 states this as clearly as can be. However, removal does not constitute divine judgment. Prooftexts have been piled up for centuries to prove the most brazen heresies. The mere fact that there are 40,000 denominations in the Christian church suggests that. I think a person's view of the Bible as a whole is a better way to determine truth. I like Christ's model of the two great commandments upon which the rest of Scripture hangs. I like to start with "God is love."

Thanks B5,

You suggest that “removal does not constitute divine judgment.”

How does Luke 10:16 play into your theory?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

If you keep digging a hole in mud all you will ever find is mud.

Please leave me alone and go away trollman.

 

[Marymog]

It all depends on what basis is the authority. The type of authority that is often seen in churches is merely a form of spiritual abuse and control that has the attitude, "I am more important than you so you are to do as I say". It often comes from an arrogant person who by manipulation gets himself into leadership and seeks the pre-eminence over everyone else in order to build up his spiritual "empire".

A pastor of a church told a friend of mine who was in the process of planting a church in that town that "This is my town and I will do all I can to make sure you don't succeed". This is an example of a bullying, controlling, spiritually abusing type of pastor who is not representing Christ, but is exerting his personal authority. I have heard of pastors preventing members from sharing a word in the service, or giving prophecies, because "I am the only one here to do the preaching and prophesying". I have heard of others reprimanding members in public during services and blocking them from partaking in the Lord's Supper. Others have excommunicated members from the pulpit on Sunday morning because they have questioned the pastor on some issue in the church.

Good, sound leadership is based on the fruit of the Spirit and using Scripture as the basis for sound doctrine. A good leader seeks to build up the members in their most holy faith, to encourage them, and to exhort them to come closer to Christ. He celebrates and encourages the members' gifting and gives regular opportunity to ensure that these members bless the people with the particular gifts they have. He sees himself as a part of a ministry team rather than a "one man band" who does all the performing at the front.

My advice to anyone who is confronted with a bullying, controlling pastor in his church is to get out of that church and find another where the leadership is sound and Scriptural and values the members and their gifts. The main reason I become disillusioned with the Charismatic movement and left it, was that I remained too long in a church where some of the leadership were controlling of people and favoured those in the "acceptable" social group while relegating most of the members to being just useless pew sitters. In that church, much gifting that could have been a blessing to others was wasted and allowed to "wither on the vine". This is the result of a controlling leadership that deals in favoritism and discrimination. A leadership that destroys a member's confidence in his or her gifting is exercising inappropriate authority, and if it won't respond to correction by those who are sound in their faith, then member's should quit that church and find a more suitable one down the road.

So, when it seems that godly people are rejecting the "authority" of their church leadership, then one must take a closer look at the leadership itself, and discern what is the motivation for the "authority" that is being exerted. The leadership may be representing a false Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Gospels.

Amen brother Paul....preach it.

I also think that people should leave those Churches that has leadership that is representing a false Jesus.

What Church do you go to Paul? Maybe we can get some people headed toward you and your church that does not represent a false teacher?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

To this end no man can dictate to another.

SCripture disagrees with you .....but thank you for your opinion Qt.

 

[Marymog]

Jesus never gave any authority to any of mens churches, the Usurped it, you know what that means, they stole it.

usurp
/jʊˈzəːp,jʊˈsəːp/
take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally; supplant.

Please do not communicate with me trollman.

 

[Brakelite]

Thank you Backlit.

Show me in Catholic doctrine that The Church had the authority to “persecute“ Christians who are not Catholic and I will join your ferocious attacks on The Church. It seems we agree that they have the authority to ex-communicate them but persecute is a different matter.

Show me in history were some catholic men committed sins against persons who were not Catholic or Protestant men committed sins against persons who were Catholic and I will lock arms with you and say....Yes, Backlit is right....there were some men in The Church who sinned and some Protestant Reformers who sinned.

Doctrines of The Church and sins of men are not intertwined. If that were true none of the Apostles would have qualified to be leaders of The Church since they were all sinners.

Mary

So the inquisitions were inquiries held only toward the faithfulness or otherwise against Catholics? The torture chambers underneath the churches throughout Europe (you can still visit many of them today if you have a mind that can handle the obscene) were there only to torture Catholics, and this process wasn't one of persecution, but excommunication? And that this practice was only at the instigation of evil individuals and not church policy?
What of the St Bartholemew massacre in France? When the Pope heard of this great "victory" against Protestants, he had a coin struck in commemoration. All the bells of the churches throughout Rome rang out in celebration. Whose authority was being exercised at that event? What individual was responsible? They weren't in the "Catholic" club Mary. They were Huguenot.
What of the centuries of persecutions against the Waldenses? They weren't in the Catholic club either, therefore couldn't be classified as heretics Mary transgressing Catholic canons. They were Christians following their own conscience. Same with the Celtic church in Britain. What inspired Augustine to incite armies against the Celtic church in Bangor Wales? They weren't in the Catholic club Mary. What authority was Augustine championing then?
What of the inquisitions in Goa, India. They were Christians descended from the apostle Thomas. They were actually called St Thomas Christians. They weren't Catholic. What of the forced conversions throughout South and Central America by priests that travelled over with the conquistadores? They were representing the Roman Pontiff were they not? Or did the Popes who oversaw all the above massacres and intrusions into the consciences of non-Catholic Christians object and remonstrance against such barbarism? No. Not once. So whose authority was being exercised in all the above? Catholic authority over their own? No Mary. Jesus authority over His own church? Far from it. No, it was an assumed authority derived from the pagan Emperor Justinian in the 6th century. An authority that came from ultimately from the same dragon (see Revelation 13:4) that stood before the child Jesus to destroy Him as a child...Rome. It is an assumed authority that is now motivating the Vatican and the current Pope to seek through whatever means available to have ultimate kingly, prophetic, and priestly authority over the whole world just as the medieval Popes had during the dark ages in Europe. With the same disastrous results for conscience and liberty.
"Come out of her My people, that ye be partakers not of her sins, and ye receive not of her plagues".

 

[Truther]

Thanks Truther!

My OP never suggested any of those things you said sooooo I don't know what to say!

What I pointed out was that Scripture makes it clear that from the time of Moses to the 12 Apostles religion had hierarchy and rulers with authority. Did that stop when the last Apostle died??

The only qualifiers to continuing Apostolic leadership is exact teaching as the scripture teaches us with no commentary added.

The RCC fails at both of these qualifications.

 

[Mosheli]

Thank you Mosheli.
Do you believe that authority died when they died?

If you mean authority of (the) apostles as it seems you do, I am not sure without doing a major study of the New Testament, but I would say that the bible does not give us much help on this subject as it doesn't say what will happen between the time of the apostles who saw Jesus and modern times, and it doesn't anything about successors to the apostles. It does talk of elders and bishops and pastors but there is no indication that the bishops are successors of apostles. Apostle means "sent out", which maybe means it can only apply to those sent out by Jesus. Acts of the Apostles 1:25 & Romans 1:5 & Ephesians 2:20 & Jude 1:17 & Revelation/Apocalypse 21:14 also seem to suggest apostleship was unique to those who saw Jesus. Some think that the 24 elders includes the 12 apostles, and it would be complicated if there were successors of the 12 for the last 2000 years. Even if the NT might possibly suggest other future apostles in Romans 16:7 & ... 12:28 & Ephesians 4:11 & Philippians 2:25 it doesn't say they are successors of the 12.
The authority of the original 12 apostles is still here in their writings that they left even though they are dead.

If you mean authority of other christian church leaders (bishops, elders, pastors, etc), I don't dispute that if they are genuine christians/messianics that they have authority (though maybe not such authority in every area/thing). But the problem is the church was infiltrated/hijacked and so not all churches & church(es) leaders are genuine. Just like christmas was mixed. People wouldn't say yes we accept christmas has authority, because we know it is not genuinely purely christian. So just because someone claims to be an apostle or bishop doesn't mean they are truly area. "For such men are false apostles" 2 Corinthians 11:13. "Truly the signs of an apostle were worked among you...." Galatians 1:1 "an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)". "I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth in Christ, not lying)" 1 Timothy 2:7. Revelation 2:2 "and have tested those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and found them false".

"For neither were we at any time found using words of flattery, as you know, nor a cloak of covetousness (God is witness), nor seeking glory from men (neither from you nor from others), when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ."

If you keep digging a hole in mud all you will ever find is mud.

I hope you didn't mean I'm mud.

 

[mjrhealth]

Please do not communicate with me trollman.

I thought you where after the truth, I guess like the pharisees you would rather your religion.

Rather believe the lie than the truth. Just remember it was your choice.

 

[mjrhealth]

I hope you didn't mean I'm mud.

 

[David H.]

My OP laid out from Scripture how from Moses to the 12 Apostles there has always been a church and church leaders with authority over all it's member's. And your response to that is to encourage me to stop looking for men to teach me..... when Scripture teaches opposite of that??? I think I will follow Scripture and not follow your advise.

Do you believe that the Apostles had the authority to tell all the living Christians at that time what they can or can't believe?

Curious Mary

To encourage one to learn from the Holy Ghost is known in scripture as Unction. The following being an example:

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (1 John 2:20-21)

John wrote this to "little children" of the faith, warning them of the Antichrist(s). That same Word Unction is also translated as anointing, as in the following from the same passage:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. ( 1 John 2:27)

You see, the mindset you have is contrary to scripture, Men will and have led many astray and into error, whether they are a pope or a Martin Luther, Or John Calvin, it does not matter their stripe. The Only One that can guide you out of error is the Holy Ghost who is our anointing and our unction and teaches us all things. Has the Holy Ghost taught you?

 

[tabletalk]

All three are lies....What has happened here is that you can't kill the message so you try to kill the messenger......Classy!!

Admit it.....you just wanted to be a *troll

Merry Christmas...Mary

*a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, either for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities

Hi Marymog.

I'm not usually a troll, but my response to your question is trollish, for sure.
I don't think I lied, though.
Your church does worship the object in the image.
So, your church 'walks by sight, not by faith' because the object of that faith is a physical object. And "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Regarding your question; I reject the authority of your church.

Bob

 

[Marymog]

Hi Marymog.

I'm not usually a troll, but my response to your question is trollish, for sure.
I don't think I lied, though.
Your church does worship the object in the image.
So, your church 'walks by sight, not by faith' because the object of that faith is a physical object. And "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Regarding your question; I reject the authority of your church.

Bob

I never asked if you reject the authority of my church. I asked.....in general...why do you reject authority!

Thank you for your apology.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

To encourage one to learn from the Holy Ghost is known in scripture as Unction. The following being an example:

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (1 John 2:20-21)

John wrote this to "little children" of the faith, warning them of the Antichrist(s). That same Word Unction is also translated as anointing, as in the following from the same passage:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. ( 1 John 2:27)

You see, the mindset you have is contrary to scripture, Men will and have led many astray and into error, whether they are a pope or a Martin Luther, Or John Calvin, it does not matter their stripe. The Only One that can guide you out of error is the Holy Ghost who is our anointing and our unction and teaches us all things. Has the Holy Ghost taught you?

Thank you DH,

I agree with you that "Men will and have led many astray and into error". That does not negate the fact of what I pointed out in my OP. From the time of Moses to the Apostles men have bee given authority by God to rule over us. As Jesus said: Do as they say not as they do....If they reject you they reject me.

How do you determine which men you should do as they and not reject? Or did that authority end when the last Apostle died?

I believe the Holy Ghost led me to the authoritative Church that Jesus started so yes...The Holy Ghost taught me.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I thought you where after the truth, I guess like the pharisees you would rather your religion.

Rather believe the lie than the truth. Just remember it was your choice.

My choice is to ask you again not to troll me.

 

[Marymog]

If you mean authority of (the) apostles as it seems you do, I am not sure without doing a major study of the New Testament, but I would say that the bible does not give us much help on this subject as it doesn't say what will happen between the time of the apostles who saw Jesus and modern times, and it doesn't anything about successors to the apostles. It does talk of elders and bishops and pastors but there is no indication that the bishops are successors of apostles. Apostle means "sent out", which maybe means it can only apply to those sent out by Jesus. Acts of the Apostles 1:25 & Romans 1:5 & Ephesians 2:20 & Jude 1:17 & Revelation/Apocalypse 21:14 also seem to suggest apostleship was unique to those who saw Jesus. Some think that the 24 elders includes the 12 apostles, and it would be complicated if there were successors of the 12 for the last 2000 years. Even if the NT might possibly suggest other future apostles in Romans 16:7 & ... 12:28 & Ephesians 4:11 & Philippians 2:25 it doesn't say they are successors of the 12.
The authority of the original 12 apostles is still here in their writings that they left even though they are dead.

If you mean authority of other christian church leaders (bishops, elders, pastors, etc), I don't dispute that if they are genuine christians/messianics that they have authority (though maybe not such authority in every area/thing). But the problem is the church was infiltrated/hijacked and so not all churches & church(es) leaders are genuine. Just like christmas was mixed. People wouldn't say yes we accept christmas has authority, because we know it is not genuinely purely christian. So just because someone claims to be an apostle or bishop doesn't mean they are truly area. "For such men are false apostles" 2 Corinthians 11:13. "Truly the signs of an apostle were worked among you...." Galatians 1:1 "an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)". "I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth in Christ, not lying)" 1 Timothy 2:7. Revelation 2:2 "and have tested those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and found them false".

"For neither were we at any time found using words of flattery, as you know, nor a cloak of covetousness (God is witness), nor seeking glory from men (neither from you nor from others), when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ."



I hope you didn't mean I'm mud.

Thank you Mosheli.

Mathias was a successor to the Apostles. So were the bishops and elders. Letters to Timothy from Paul were pastoral instructions to Timothy. Do you not believe Timothy was a successor of Paul?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

The only qualifiers to continuing Apostolic leadership is exact teaching as the scripture teaches us with no commentary added.

The RCC fails at both of these qualifications.

Right...and YOU never add commentary to Scripture and your commentary is "exact teaching"?? I can find many posts on this forum where you have added commentary sooooooo do you fail also??

Why do you reject the authority of The Church to add commentary but accept your own commentary? Did that authority to add commentary end when the Apostles died?

Curious Mary

 

[Truther]

Right...and YOU never add commentary to Scripture and your commentary is "exact teaching"?? I can find many posts on this forum where you have added commentary sooooooo do you fail also??

Why do you reject the authority of The Church to add commentary but accept your own commentary? Did that authority to add commentary end when the Apostles died?

Curious Mary

I point folks back to scripture as their source.(sola scriptura)

The RCC points folks to doctrinal commentary.

I simply post the scripture and say "look".

The RCC posts commentary and says "look".


When I was 20, I debated an RCC priest in his office.

3 friends set it up.

I brought in my Bible and he carried in an armful of books to set on the desk.

By the end of about 10 minutes of the debate, he yelled "shut up and sit down"...LOL