Without the authoritative Church, how do Protestants ever resolve scripture questions?

Question

A simple survey of Protestant beliefs, all presumably based on the Bible, will find endorsements of a broad range of serious sins. For example, the Episcopalian organization is currently in schism over whether to ordain practicing homosexuals as bishops. Many Protestant organizations think a mother has a right to kill her unborn child. Don't we need the true Church to take authority over such false doctrines?

The true Church, of course, is the only Church Jesus authorized, empowered, and appointed leaders for--see Matt 16:18, 18:18. Any organization claiming to be the true Church should have no problem demonstrating its historical continuity with the first-century Church, like this:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

CMW, I'd prefer to give best answer to a Protestant who can show us around the impasse imposed by sola scriptura. So far, that hasn't happened.

Of course we know that Peter was Jewish (like Jesus and all the disciples) and married. Did you know that Kefa is Aramaic for Peter? Did you know his real name was Simon, but that Jesus gave Simon the nickname Peter? Did you know that some married men can be Catholic priests?

Those who appeal to the Holy Spirit make a valid point, but how do we discern the Spirit? Obviously people are getting wildly different answers. Don't we need the discernment of the Church (as in Acts 15)?

Note I am asking about how to resolve scripture questions, not about whether priests or popes should marry (a matter of discipline, not doctrine) or abuses like selling indulgences. Scripture questions include defining actual marriage and establishing the legitimacy of granting indulgences. Interesting, I don't detect any substantive differences among the ancient branches of the true Church on scripture questions; Catholics and Orthodox rely on the Church Fathers of the early centuries--which suggests a remedy for Protestants.

I think we can rule out councils of man-made Bible-only religions as authoritative; the floundering of the Episcopalians shows why.

Answer 1

They don't resolve their issues, they splinter off into a whole new denomination.

The problem is, this method is NOT Biblical. How did the Apostles resolve issues? What did Jesus say about this?

He said: "If your brother sins against you, go to him and show him his fault. But do it privately, just between yourselves. If he listens to you, you have won your brother back. But if he will not listen to you, take one or two other persons with you, so that 'every accusation may be upheld by the testimony of two or more witnesses,' as the scripture says. And if he will not listen to them, then tell the whole thing to the church. Finally, if he will not listen to the church, treat him as though he were a pagan or a tax collector. " (Matt 18:15-17)

And this is precisely what the people did when presented with a serious issue of circumcision...they went to the Church.

After congregating together, the leaders of the Church (the Apostles) decided what to 'bind' and 'loose'. They said:
" The Holy Spirit and we have agreed not to put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules: eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from sexual immorality. You will do well if you take care not to do these things. With our best wishes."(Acts 15:28-29)

This decision by the leaders of the Church was binding to ALL churches of every town because we see in Acts 16 that "As they went through the towns, they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules."

The Church Christ founded has leaders, individuals that can decide what is true and binding, and what can be loosed. And these decisions were binding to ALL Christians.

God Bless
Robin

Answer 2

Important! The division was a division of powers not a division of botherhood. It was God's solution to curb corruption. The problem that created the protestants was corruption in the Catholic Church leadership. But as a protestant I am in no way looking down on my Catholic brothers and sisters. There is still only ONE Church. Us protestants you can just think of us like a seperation of powers. And if you think about it's been working, the Catholic Church has had a hard time abusing it's power now that it doesn't have all the power. However, I admit power is abused to some extent at both ends but overall it appears to be much more under control. We pull against each other and keep everything in check. From what I can observe the Church today takes on three basic forms. The Catholics, Traditional Protestants and Evangelical Protestants. All share the same core critical doctrines on the nature of Christ. Christ risen and Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. Here's an olive branch from me to you. Peace, Love and Blessings Mike BTW all authority to guard the Word belongs to God not the Church. I trust God will continue to guard His Word. And remember if not for the Protestant movement you likely would have never even read the Bible. Again it was God's work not man, not the Catholics or the Protestants that made that happen.

Answer 3

Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 33,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 33,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

Answer 4

There is only one Authoritative Church that exist on earth-It's called God's Church-It includes all Christian Churches that reject catholic/orthodox idolatry of intercession/veneration of saints.Thus God's Church include all Protestant/Evangelical Churches and Church of East-Assyrian/Chaldean Churches.
Catholic/Orthodox idolatrous heresy that leads mankind to eternal hell fire(Revelation 21:8) will be destroyed in the soon coming WW3 aka Gog Magog War.

Answer 5

The "true church" started with Peter, the first pope. Stop right there.

Do you know that Peter (who was Jewish and his real name was Kefa, not Peter) was a married man, that is wife sometimes traveled with him? He was disqualified to be even a Catholic priest.

Why do I sense a Catholic will get best answer for explaining how non-Catholics read scripture?

Edit: Yes, I did know that there are married priests - in the Eastern or Orthodox churches. Unmarried priests may not marry, however, even in the Eastern. Are you seriously trying to imply that a pope can be married?

Edit: Bruce, with all due respect (and I mean that), people (including me) are responding to your implication that Protestants follow false doctrines. That's not only offensive, it's incorrect.

You have several perfectly good answers, but you don't recognize them as true. Why? How do you think Catholic priests read scripture? Do you think they just wing it, or are led by the Spirit? Why would not a Protestant be so led?

Someone here asked recently if an intelligent person with a knowledge of ancient languages, a pen and paper were to take the Bible into a room and stay there until they had distilled it, would they come out with Calvinism? The answer is no. But amend the question to would they come out with the RC and the answer is also no.

Sorry, you do not own the truth any more than we do. We're all seeking what God wants for us and we're seeking it through his owner's manual.

Answer 6

First, it's not exactly reasonable to group all Protestant sects into a single category when asking this question. That's the same as grouping all churches arising from the original Christian Church (i.e. the Eastern Orthodox churches, the gnostics, the Nestorians, the Assyrian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, etc.) into one group and asking how *they* "resolve scripture questions". Many of the answers provided here for the protestants would be applicable to those sects as well - schism being the primary result of strongly-held incompatible differences..

Naturally, as with those ancient churches mentioned above, different Protestant sects "resolve scriptural questions" in different ways. Many are led by a single leader and so look to him (or her) to resolve such issues. Many others are led by a council (usually with a chief counselor of sorts), and issues are resolved in committee. This is true of the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and several other sects as well. Some, like the Anglican Communion to which you refer, are largely "confederacies", in which individual "bishops" have primacy over their respective "sees". Like the early Christian Church, schism is the only possibility for those "bishops" who strongly disagree with the consensus of bishops. Some, like the Southern Baptist Convention, vote on policy in committee but leave nearly all interpretation to the individual (indeed, a central belief of baptists is the necessity for personal interpretation). Some sects are truly democratic and adult congregations members actually vote to resolve disputes.

Does this mean that the Roman Catholic Church is the only sect resolving disputes in the *single* manner approved by God? Well (obviously) if it were, it and all the sects that use a similar system would not have had so many schisms. There is little doubt that the selling of indulgences - a policy introduced by a Roman Catholic pope - was the single most important impetus of the Protestant Reformation. It is *very* unlikely that Luther would have sought change outside the church hierarchy if such a blatantly sinful doctrine were never initiated, as this was not only a "serious sin" itself, but also made plain that the pope and the Roman Catholic Church were capable of perpetrating "serious sin" such as this.

Thus, it is plain that "the true Church", as you call it, is not *necessarily* the best authority to rely upon when seeking the resolution of doctrinal disputes. How many died believing that they had purchased their salvation, or the salvation of a beloved but lost departed? And though this is (perhaps) the most extreme example, it is hardly the only one.

Conclusion: On the face of it, your question "Don't we need the true Church to take authority over such false doctrines?" has appeal. However, when we look at history, we see that this has not always been the *proper* choice for a true Christian! (Nearly?) every other sect with any significant history (most of which consider themselves the "true church") have similar, if less blatant, examples of explicitly permitting (if not "endorsing") "serious sins". It took 50 years for the Roman Catholic Church to reverse its policy of selling indulgences - inarguably a lifetime in those days. Putting one's faith in a sect (rather than sound doctrine) is *clearly* fraught with peril for the true Christian.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 7

I belong to the true church but I'm sure your view is differant than mine.

All they have to do is ask me and I'll straighten them all out.

I am guessing by your inference that you are referring the the Roman Catholic Church as the true church It is neither the true church nor has the truth. In fact for many of us She is the great whore.

What day would you tell the protestants to worship on. Sunday? This is in itself a false doctrine and the Catholic Church itself acknowledges that they of their own accord changed the day and they had no authority to do so other than self proclaimed. And yet you want to claim to be the true church to clear up Protestant's sins? How delicious is that. What a hypocrite.

Protestants, they laugh at you because even though you claim Sola Scripture you accept their ruling on the day of worship which shows just how independent you are. Many of us consider you to be the great whores daughter. If you truly believed in the scripture and only the scripture you would have to admit you have no authority to worship on Sunday and not Sabbath.

Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand!

Edit

Geri, Yeah sort of but never in a good way.

Answer 8

It is simple........ they can't. The only thing they can say in defense of their beliefs is that it is their interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit. But you know, if everyone is guided by the Holy Spirit, then why are their 33,000+ different Protestant denominations with more being started every week? Why do Protestants disagree on interpretation of Scripture? That would be like the Holy Spirit thumb restling himself! It's ridiculous!

By their own theology, the most they can do with anyone in a debate, whether another Protestant or a Catholic, is tie. Because just as they back their interpretation of Scripture by saying, "That's my interpretation." then anyone else can also because according to them, everyone has their own right to interpret the Bible on their own with the help of the Holy Spirit. They can never prove anything they say as right or anything anyone else says as wrong. Great theology!...........NOT!!! The truth is the truth. It is NOT different for every person. God bless.

EDIT: In response to Danny H: Thanks! Your answer is great too! Thanks for the link!

Answer 9

"Way back in 1916", Michael? With all due respect ... how about way back in the first century? Seriously, by whose authority were those 16 statements of belief authored, and is that authority still extant? If not, then sooner or later there will be dissention and schism from it when (not if) arguments over Scriptural interpretation arise. Less than 100 years is not exactly a time-tested structure of authority.

Answer 10

They split into different denominations. All claiming the Holy Spirit guides them.

They do not see that the True Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not by one man's interpretation. The Holy Spirit working within the authority given by Christ to the Church, preserves it from error in matters of faith and morals. This is a promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. This does not protect people from personal error, but it protects the Church and the office of the Pope. Christ gave Peter the responsibility and the authority to "feed his sheep." This was not given to each of us individually, but to Peter the Rock on which the Church is built. Peter's authority (represented by the "keys" given by Christ) has been passed down to each leader in succession. This will continue until the return of Christ.

Individuals cannot be certain of their ability to be unbiased, and infallible in their interpretations.