Doug45 said:
Before There Was,
By the way, I appreaciated the 'tone' of this post. While it contends for another perspective it does not seem contentous.
Thanks, Doug. I only get cranky with other people who misrepresent my statements and position. Some have done this, so I deal with that tactic accordingly with strong dliverance of correction.
There are many other scriptures relating to authority, but these come to mind. I am sure that you are aware of them.
Mt. 28:18-20 Covers general authority in the Church
Um, I don't see the above reference giving any authority to the Church, although it is a record of Jesus stating that all power has been given to Him.
Rom 13:1-3 Covers civil authorities, and since there is no authority except from God, I would say that also includes church authority.
I don't know that I would be all that fast to thrown in the Church. It appears that you are confusing the Church, and churches. They are mutually exclusive of one another, therefore not the same thing; although churches may be somewhat to mostly populated by true believers.
Heb. 13:15-17 Is obviously a church context.
Well, I think perhaps we need to look at some key words in those verses.
* The Greek word from which "obey" was translated is defined "be persuaded", allowing one's self to be pursuaded by.
* The term from which "rule" was translated also has a similar meaning in the Greek, which is to lead, or to go before. The actual definition is not authoritarian in nature, as is made obvious by Peter's instructions in 1 Peter 5 to the elders.
* The term "submit" has a seemingly stronger connotation, in that it means to be weak, or to surrender. Again, there is no hint of surrendering to an authoritarian dictatorship of Church leadership, especially since the Church was never given that kind of authority.
It is only natural to submit to someone who is looking out for one's best interests.
Many authoritarians have taken great advantage of the seemingly authortarian language of those verses in our English translations. That is why I try to caution people against a blind acceptance of this weakness of our translations.
I also will reiterate the problem with any assumption that organized, religioous institutions are representative of the Church on this earth, and that those who run them are automatically qualified as leaders of biblical calibre, therefore qualified to re4ceive of believer's primary giving.
Yes, I accept that today's Church and the local churches whose members make it up have God given authority.
What about mormon and jehovah's witness pastors? Are they too qualified because of their postition within man-made organizations? What about all those pastors out there who are false teachers, such as those who teach the word faith doctrine, like Copeland? What about united pentacostals (oneness)? As you can see, what you have said does little more than open the Pandora's Box of difficulties in trying to defend what you have said here.
Like David, I accept the authority of Saul in spite of the fact that Saul was not principled.
This adds to the falacies of your earlier statements. Can you show me any parellel within scripture that automatically gives to leaders within man-made organizations a foothold of claim upon biblical authority. The early, local Church was people within a given city or locale, not something similar to all the multitudes of microcosms that do more to keep the local Church fractured into schismatic bits and pieces than they do to unify us all as a whole.
Just imagine the power and influence of a unified local Church. We would have at least far fewer porn shops, abortion clinics, bars, secular humanism overtaking our public schools, and on and on and on the list could go. Instead, we feel that we must have our petty distinctions by the use of four walls so that we can have our unique identity. What a tragedy.
Thanks, Doug, for your input.
BTW
. How does having things you dont need bring accountability?
