• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who Claims Authority?

cardero

Citizen Mod
sojourner said:
God calls who God calls -- regardless of the acts, beliefs, lifestyle, social status, or personal grooming habits of the individual -- and certainly not according to "which church" the individual belongs. God's call is up to God -- not up to human criteria.
So what you are saying is that no one can choose GOD they have to wait to be chosen. Am I understanding this correctly?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
cardero said:
So what you are saying is that no one can choose GOD they have to wait to be chosen. Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes! God is always the impetus. We love God, because God first loved us. Jesus said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." God calls, we answer.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
cardero said:
Both very good questions.

And I would assume all the other perks that would go with it. Abilities and expertise in the fields of powers to accurately prophesy, ability to heal (physically and psychologically) and resurrect from the dead (minus the exorbitant medical fees or qualifications of medical insurance), effective speaking and teaching skills and miracle manipulation. These abilities were supposedly extended over to the humanity of the apostles. I would like to know where this knowledge has disappeared, where it exists today or why it has been forgotten. I have not encountered any religions who claim authority and have possessed and competently displayed all of these traits.

And many people are still unconvinced and suspicious of their history, actions, existences and motives. I would conclude that if authority is claimed then these abilities, qualities listed above must go along with it, they haven’t.

Spiritual gifts are not "proofs" of authority. Just because someone is given authority, it does not necessarily follow that the same person will be able to heal.

And I would argue that these gifts are present in the Church. These gifts are not knowledge that human attain. They are gifts that are given. Most people who truly display spiritual gifts do so very quietly and in an unassuming manner. They don't know where or how they received the gift. They don't think they're particularly worthy of the gift.

The manifestation of these gifts has a whole lot to do with the individual's ability to discern that they have the gift.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
sojourner said:
God calls who God calls -- regardless of the acts, beliefs, lifestyle, social status, or personal grooming habits of the individual -- and certainly not according to "which church" the individual belongs. God's call is up to God -- not up to human criteria.

God calls each of us. The question is will we reply "Here I am , Lord!"
 

lunamoth

Will to love
cardero said:
I would agree that this is exactly what we have going on today. Even the people who believe that they have been given authority cannot maintain the many viewpoints from the many messengers who offer their reasoning on what exactly GOD expects from us. Many religions just write it off as false prophets or consulting with demons because they fear that these other messengers threaten their authority.

I think this is because we repeatedly make the mistake of thinking that if we enforce unity somehow we'll get the Kingdom of God. Rather what we need to do is love and unity will follow.
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
sojourner said:
Yes! God is always the impetus. We love God, because God first loved us. Jesus said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." God calls, we answer.
I would think that if one had a question or concern, that one would and should be able to present it openly and honestly to a Supreme Deity who would claim to know. I also believe that this person could share this message with other interested like-minded individuals without explicit permission from this contacted GOD or any other religion. I also believe that this messenger should be taken seriously and respected (until proven otherwise) and should not be scrutinized or ignored because they have not utilized or established a traditional religion or a church with a designated amount of followers over a designated period of time.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
cardero said:
I would think that if one had a question or concern, that one would and should be able to present it openly and honestly to a Supreme Deity who would claim to know. I also believe that this person could share this message with other interested like-minded individuals without explicit permission from this contacted GOD or any other religion. I also believe that this messenger should be taken seriously and respected (until proven otherwise) and should not be scrutinized or ignored because they have not utilized or established a traditional religion or a church with a designated amount of followers over a designated period of time.

We seem to be miscommunicating somewhere. I agree completely with what you've said here. This post contradicts my earlier post in no way that I can see...

Let me try this:

The authority we're talking about here is not the authority to go to God. Everyone can do that. It's not the authority to share your faith. Everyoone can do that. The authority we're talking about is ecclesiastical authority -- the authority to tell others what is correct belief and praxis. And that authority only extends to the borders of the organization that recognizes such authority. My point (and I believe your point) in other threads, as well as here, is that, since it is Jesus who is head of his Church, not the Pope, or the Patriarch, or the Prophet, or the General Minister), and since there is only one Body of Christ on earth, ecclesiastical authority should be shared by all. We should all respect those whom God has called to carry authority. That does not mean that particular belief and praxis should necessarily be homogenous -- we should have variety within the Body.
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
Sorjourner writes: Spiritual gifts are not "proofs" of authority.
They certainly would be impressive credentials for any religion claiming authority.
Sorjourner writes: Spiritual gifts are not "proofs" of authority.
Neither is inspired scripture, which seems to be the only thing that some religions have to offer.
Sorjourner writes: Just because someone is given authority, it does not necessarily follow that the same person will be able to heal.
I will accept that as a possibility but in the same breath, just because one person does not conform to the Christ head does not invalidate their message or prevent them from getting through to GOD.
I also wouldn’t assume that these are spiritual gifts if (physical) humans are displaying them. If the miracle manifestations that Jesus performed were to be performed accurately, it is reasonable to speculate that they would have to be learned and developed. If they were to be taught to other humans then knowledge would have to be transferred (and possibly documented). Whether you believe only God can give out these powers or whether they are learned or practiced, these abilities would remain with Christ’s/God’s established church (at least one of them). In al my physical existence, I don’t remember ever not having a need for such "spiritual gifts" so the question remains; where did this knowledge go? Why have many of the miracles stopped? Maybe this is a thought for another thread.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Booko said:
Being omnipotent doesn't imply the need to pull everyone's strings. Compared to a toddler, I am omnipotent, and yet I stood back and let my toddlers make mistakes while they were learning things. A parent who doesn't do that at times is called "overprotetive" and ends up with a kid who cannot function in the world on his own.
But you're missing my point. You're not omnipotent whether the toddler thinks you are or not. And because you're not omniscient, you can't place the knowledge that you desire your child to have into his mind, directly. As a result, the child has to make mistakes, and learn what he needs to know on his own, and this is why you have to stand by and allow him to make mistakes that will cause him to suffer. If you were omnipotent, you could have given your child perfect knowledge, so that he wouldn't need to make painful mistakes to learn.

So are you saying that God wants us to suffer, or that God is not omnipotent?
Booko said:
Any God that is not omnipotent is not God. A non-omnipotent superior being would be no more than an advanced alien, no more worthy of our attention than our older siblings.
But if this is true, then God must either want us to suffer, or simply not care that we do suffer. Do you believe that God wants us to suffer?
Booko said:
This sounds rather like "If God had meant us to fly, we'd have wings." How does this not result in complacency?
I don't know ... it's your God, not mine. *smile*

Simple logic would tell us that if God were able to end our suffering (omnipotence), and yet we still suffer, than God must either want us to suffer, or not care that we are suffering.

To bring the analogy back to the subject at hand, if God could impart wisdom directly to us, perfectly (omnipotence), yet does not do so, then logic would dictate that either God does not want us to be wise, or God doesn't care how wise we are, or aren't. What I don't see here, is a logical reason for God to deliberately use an imperfect method of conveying wisdom (other human beings) that presumably God wants us to have.
Booko said:
You didn't really address the point about the possibility of needing a "teacher" in areas of life other than exploring the physical side of our universe.
That's because if God were omnipotent, there would be no logical need fo a "teacher". The information could be given to us directly, immediately, and perfectly.
Booko said:
Hm, except I'm going away today for the weekend, to a place where I won't have access to much of anything electronic. :( Well, Monday afternoon when I get back, perhaps.
Have a great weekend!
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
Sorjourner writes: The authority we're talking about is ecclesiastical authority -- the authority to tell others what is correct belief and praxis.
But isn’t this what people in ecclesiastical authority or doing, promoting an authority to tell you or me what is correct to believe? And what of the other religions (who also claim authority), who may share similar beliefs but differ in other ones? Doesn’t this diminish authority or at least call it into question? What church does GOD belong to?

This may or may not be an accurate example but let say that Church A has a book (we will call it the Blue Book) that they say was derived by a prophet who has encountered divine intervention. Church A says that they are going to use the Blue Book in accordance with the already established Yellow Book that most churches have testified to being inspired. Enter Church B who only utilize the Yellow Book but does not recognize The Blue Book as divinely inspired. A discrepancy has developed. Both church A and church B claim authority (ecclesiastical or otherwise). Another discrepancy has developed. Enter Joe/Josephine Schmoe, he/she says that they have compiled their own Bible (the Orange Book) from inspirations from GOD but is not affiliated with the Body of Church A or Church B. This is another discrepancy. Without any other evidence than a book of inspired beliefs (and the faith that they put behind it) who is correct? Who claims authority? Who is to be believed? (anyone may use a calculator if needed).

Sorjourner writes: We should all respect those whom God has called to carry authority. That does not mean that particular belief and praxis should necessarily be homogenous -- we should have variety within the Body.
I still appreciate your statements and thoughts about sharing authority. I am not sure if I am in accord with your description of the Body but this just might be a personal misunderstanding on my part.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
cardero said:
Who Claims Authority?
Many claim authority... but no one really has it.

Galations 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

Don't draw lines in the sand that God never asked you to draw.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
NetDoc said:
Many claim authority... but no one really has it.

Galations 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

Don't draw lines in the sand that God never asked you to draw.

Wish I could frubal you twice for this one.

lunamoth
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
cardero said:
But isn’t this what people in ecclesiastical authority or doing, promoting an authority to tell you or me what is correct to believe? And what of the other religions (who also claim authority), who may share similar beliefs but differ in other ones? Doesn’t this diminish authority or at least call it into question? What church does GOD belong to?

This may or may not be an accurate example but let say that Church A has a book (we will call it the Blue Book) that they say was derived by a prophet who has encountered divine intervention. Church A says that they are going to use the Blue Book in accordance with the already established Yellow Book that most churches have testified to being inspired. Enter Church B who only utilize the Yellow Book but does not recognize The Blue Book as divinely inspired. A discrepancy has developed. Both church A and church B claim authority (ecclesiastical or otherwise). Another discrepancy has developed. Enter Joe/Josephine Schmoe, he/she says that they have compiled their own Bible (the Orange Book) from inspirations from GOD but is not affiliated with the Body of Church A or Church B. This is another discrepancy. Without any other evidence than a book of inspired beliefs (and the faith that they put behind it) who is correct? Who claims authority? Who is to be believed? (anyone may use a calculator if needed).

I still appreciate your statements and thoughts about sharing authority. I am not sure if I am in accord with your description of the Body but this just might be a personal misunderstanding on my part.
Yeah. First of all, you and I are on the same basic page here, and I have to say that I appreciate your thoughts and skepticism here.

You're right -- differences in the perception of "correctness" do, indeed, call into question the authority that is claimed. It's too bad that the parties involved see the differences as threats from the "outside" instead of opportunities for one part of the Body to hold another part accountable. One of the biggest mistakes Xy made in the beginning was seeking to silence the "other voices" that could have expanded the scope of Xian thought.

The problem extant between orthodox (small "o," not big "O," for lack of a better term) and LDS authority derives from a misconception about a) the nature of the Church and b) the nature of the authority granted to the Church.

It is Christ himself who is the unifying principle of the Church -- not doctrine, not praxis, not organization. Paul writes, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all." No one -- let me repeat that -- NO ONE has ever been granted authority to either question this unifying principle, or to change it in any way. The Church is not ours to break apart, ours to change in form or function, ours to dictate.

The Mormons rightly discerned that the Church had departed from the sense of laos in which it had been conceived, lifting the clergy above the laity to a degree of authority. But then, they turned around and reorganized Church in the same way!
Oh, sure, they call their leaders by different names and give them slightly different job descriptions, and they don't wear funny hats (yes, I know, they're mitres), but they are lifted just as high and exercise the same authority over the "flock."

Since the ecclesia has seen fit to order themselves in this way, I feel that all should recognize the called nature of these offices. But I also feel that it's incumbent upon these leaders who have been accorded ecclesiastical authority to temper their authority with an ecumenical mind, not a parochial mind. The Pope should make his decisions bearing in mind the sensibilities of his Protestant siblings. The Presiding Bishop should make decisions bearing in mind the sensibilities of his Mormon siblings. The Prophet, Seer and Revelator should temper his revelations, bearing in mind the sensibilities of his Orthodox siblings, etc. These leaders need to begin thinking more seriously about their commitment to ecumenism -- or begin to develop a sense of ecumenism. It really does the Mormons little good to go off on their own tangent, ordering the Church the way they think it "should be" ordered. That's kind of like the arm refusing to do the job of the arm, preferring to act like hair. Ditto the RC's, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Baptists.

Edit: I think that the different ordering can be a good thing (and it should be a good thing). Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity. But the branch considering differences should take into consideration the impact they will make upon the other branches of the faith, as well as the impact of the other branches upon themselves!

Edit #2: The leaders would do well to figure out how to reconcile the inequalities inherent in this type of hierarchical church government, remembering that, in the beginning, there was no distinct set-apart clerical order.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Such a monolithic topic that I couldn't do justice in a couple pages.

But to answer the question of the OP: Many claim authority.
Who actually has that authority? I believe that to be the Catholic Church.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
NetDoc said:
Many claim authority... but no one really has it.

Galations 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

Don't draw lines in the sand that God never asked you to draw.
That says that NOBODY should preach the wrong gospel and say it's God's. It doesn't say who DOES have the authority to act in God's name.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Aqualung said:
That says that NOBODY should preach the wrong gospel and say it's God's. It doesn't say who DOES have the authority to act in God's name.

Are we all not part of the Body of Christ? Do not all who confess his Name have authority to act as the arms and hands and feet of Christ? Is Christ's gospel not inclusive?
 

Aqualung

Tasty
sojourner said:
Are we all not part of the Body of Christ? Do not all who confess his Name have authority to act as the arms and hands and feet of Christ? Is Christ's gospel not inclusive?
Where do you get that? And how do you connect those two? Because, again I say, the verses in question say NOBODY should preach the WRONG gospel and say it is Christ's. It says nothing about authority, or about ACTING in God's name at all. The verse in question is essentially a non-issue. It does not address authority to do things FOR God, but only says that is somebody is preaching a different gospel then he and the gospel is not of God.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Aqualung said:
Where do you get that? And how do you connect those two? Because, again I say, the verses in question say NOBODY should preach the WRONG gospel and say it is Christ's. It says nothing about authority, or about ACTING in God's name at all. The verse in question is essentially a non-issue. It does not address authority to do things FOR God, but only says that is somebody is preaching a different gospel then he and the gospel is not of God.

I think his claim here is that everyone is preaching the wrong gospel (correct me if I'm wrong.) Yet, don't we all proclaim to the world to repent and believe, because the kingdom is at hand? Isn't that the gospel Christ preached?
 

Evandr2

Member
sojourner said:
I think his claim here is that everyone is preaching the wrong gospel (correct me if I'm wrong.) Yet, don't we all proclaim to the world to repent and believe, because the kingdom is at hand? Isn't that the gospel Christ preached?

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the connection between the Gospel and Religion.

The Lord has given a lot of commandments that anyone can follow and be thusly blessed because every commandment comes with an associated blessing attached. Please do not read more into that statement than is intended, it is simply cause and effect, the Lords effect.

Gordon B Hinckley, president of the LDS Church and a living prophet was once asked, concerning a man who taught a non spiritual philosophy, "What is your stance with regard to this individual and his teachings?" and Bro. Hinckley's vigorous and positive response was profoundly simple. He said "If any man teaches others to do good, then let him teach it!"

This is the stance that I take as do the vast majority of LDS people. I find a great deal of that which is good, moral, descent, uplifting, and right on track with my own beliefs in just about every philosophy, Christian or not, that exists on earth. I condemn no man who honestly seeks to do well by the human family.

There is no right or wrong Gospel, there is only THE Gospel and you either understand it correctly or you understand it incorrectly. It is either the Gospel of Jesus Christ or it is not. A person either has the power and authority to bind in Heaven that which is bound on earth or they do not! There can be no middle ground. Any religious organization that cannot trace it's beginnings and authority in an UNBROKEN line, authority to authority, back to the hands of Jesus Christ has no authority to bind in Heaven any ordinance performed on earth.


The great apostasy of the dark ages quickly severed any and all authority of Christ on the earth necessitating the literal presence and re-dispensing of that authority by Christ Himself or those in His realm sent to do so. I know that that event has taken already taken place.

Christ was, and still is, very specific about the structure and authority of His Church. His church is open to all and a person who seeks all the blessings associated with it will embrace it with the humility of a little child or they will fall short of the mark.

Haughty indignant attitudes and stubborn posturing is pointless and will never, worlds without end, validate an invalid belief. Deciding for yourself what the Lord wants of you is foolish. And, sadly, the vast majority of the world who supposed their self fashioned doctrine to be of value to God will have to hear those stinging words which the Lord will speak to them when He says "I never knew you".

Vandr
 
Top