- This topic has 371 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Authority as in God designating specific roles, like the Pope for lack of a better example, or authority in the terms of authority God gives believers over satan and his demons?
In both cases, I think the question is not necessarily “Is authority Biblical?” but rather “How far does authority extend and what is our proper response?”
I don’t think God intended for the church to be without leadership. I think we already touched on this a bit earlier in our discussion. I do think God raises up leadership, but I think there are also times when people seek the position because of the sense of control it gives them. There are a variety of scenarios, but I think even leaders God raised up can become infatuated with their status and influence, if they don’t keep their relationship with Jesus a priority before everything else.
Our response to authority is something I’ve been considering more seriously over the past few years. How do we respond when the leadership over us is going against what God has clearly said in His Word? I’ve come to the conclusion that I have a responsibility to align with what God has said, and if that leader is not aligned with God, then I do not have to submit to their authority. This applies more in the political sphere than in the church, although it could apply to some churches.
At the end of the day, I’m not going to give an account to that leader of all the things I’ve done. I’m going to give an account to Jesus, and because I love Him, I don’t want to go against what He has clearly instructed simply because someone told me to and I thought I was supposed to obey them regardless of what God already instructed. In other words, I’m responsible for my own actions and how well I was representing Jesus to the world, and they’ll be responsible for theirs.
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent, but I don’t have time to add anything else right now. I’ll be back on later.
"Real love is for your good, not for your comfort." -Justin Whitmel Earley
Authority as in God designating specific roles, like the Pope for lack of a better example, or authority in the terms of authority God gives believers over satan and his demons?
More the first, but there are roles given without authority as well. I’m thinking of Priesthood Authority, which is authority/stewardship to lead some group, but priesthood in general is the Lord’s power in an individual to bless those around them. It is the authority to baptize, to heal the sick, to give blessings of comfort or direction, preform ordinances, as well as the aspect of having authority to govern.
Regardless of what it is, what I’m asking is whether or not this authority has been preserved. In the old and new testament, it’s talked about in the light of laying hands upon heads and anointing to pass the authority from one person to the next. After Christ dies, Paul is set apart and given authority, and on other occasions were men set apart through the laying on of hands. So this authority was lost for a time, Christ restored it, and it continued for a while through the Apostles and those they gave it to. My question is whether or not this has been preserved? In my faith, we believe that this authority has been lost in what we call “The Great Apostasy”, which was talked about in the New Testament, but most other sects say he’s just referring to personal Apostasy. This is what lead to the establishment of my Church, where we didn’t simply reform the ways of Christianity, but Christ’s Church was truly restored on earth with His authority.
I hope that clarifies what I’m asking. Because some sects simply scoff at the mere mention of authority, whereas others say that authority has been preserved for the past 2000 years, then there’s everything in-between. Does that make more sense?
I liked your comments on the leadership aspect though!
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent, but I don’t have time to add anything else right now. I’ll be back on later.
Alright, sounds good. Can’t wait to hear more of your thoughts!
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
I think I understand what you’re saying. I’d say that authority is still active- I think there was a period of time where it wasn’t as commonly seen in the church, or perhaps inactive altogether (I’d have to do more of an in-depth study on church history to say for sure) but I definitely still see it around me today. Just as with the case of the roles of apostle and prophet still being active, there are a number of Christians who don’t believe that healing still happens, but I’ve seen people healed and I know a number of people personally who have been. But that’s also sort of going down a rabbit trail.
As far as the authority aspect of it, I do believe that Jesus gave authority to the twelve apostles and then also to seventy disciples, and yes, that they were able to pass that on, but I don’t necessarily think people need to have hands laid on them first to be able to have that authority. Mark 16:17-18: “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.” I think the only requirement is to be a believer. Many believers just don’t understand that they have that authority, and thus they aren’t walking in it.
Anyhow, that’s all my thoughts for now… my brain is a little scattered lol. If I’m not responding much on here this week, it’s because my schedule’s full, so bear with me.
"Real love is for your good, not for your comfort." -Justin Whitmel Earley
Great points! So that’s where our views would start to diverge. I agree that God still has preformed mighty miracles for those who don’t have the fullness of the Gospel, because of their sincere faith, but I feel like there is still a distinction between that, and those who actually bear priesthood authority to preform miracles in the name of Christ.
I would think though that if authority has been lost from the Earth at any point, it would need to be properly restored, just as Christ has restored it in His time after it was lost for a while. Many key individuals in the development of the reformation of Christianity such as Martin Luther actually felt that Christianity in its purest state was truly lost, pushing for reformation only to make a human attempt at reestablishment to be closer to what is said in scripture. Roger Williams specifically (who was the first to start a Baptist Church in America), pointed out that there is no authority left on Earth, and he awaits the time that Christ would bring it back. As I see it, this is the Restoration. (I got quotes from both of them and some more if your interested, I think they’re quite interesting.)
You make a great point with Mark 16:17-18, but also remember the verse right before that, Mark 16:16:
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Then it goes on to say about what happens to those who believe. So if Baptism is an aspect of this, and Baptism should be preformed through authority, then I would say that authority as something that needs to be passed down is still in line with this. However, said scripture doesn’t say anything about said believers being given authority to do those works it mentioned, nor laying on of hands, so I would simply say that more verses are needed. To which I would point out again, the many both in the old and new testament where laying on of hands was a mentioned component, I’ll give two New Testament quotes here:
Acts 6:5-6
5 ¶ And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
And 2 Timothy 1:6
6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
So if that is unnecessary, why is it so present? It could perhaps be simple ceremonial practice, which could be one explanation I could think of, but at least I feel that’s a stretch. That being said, when Paul was given authority, it never said it was through the laying on of hands, it never said it wasn’t, but it never said it was, so I do give that much. I personally believe it was though, although I wouldn’t say as to whether or not Christ gave the Apostles authority in this manner, because He probably wouldn’t need to, but I don’t know.
Overall, you actually pose a really good point, that while I still disagree, I still recognize much truth in it.
Anyhow, that’s all my thoughts for now… my brain is a little scattered lol. If I’m not responding much on here this week, it’s because my schedule’s full, so bear with me.
That’s alright, lol! Take your time, don’t feel pressured, but I look forward to hearing more from you!
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
I do agree there is something powerful about the laying on of hands, and I won’t argue with you on that. And certainly, if someone is being ordained or brought into a role of leadership, I think the laying on of hands is important. I do think there is something powerful about a leader laying their hands on someone else and praying for them to receive gifts of the Spirit, as shown in your example from Paul and Timothy.
However, I don’t think it’s necessary in every situation, such as in healing. We see examples in Scripture of Jesus simply speaking and people receiving healing. We also see people being healed simply from being in Peter’s shadow. I don’t think God’s going to be limited by whether or not someone physically laid hands on a sick person.
In summary- yes, I agree the laying on of hands is the best practice for passing authority on to another leader. I’ll have to do some more study, but I’m not going to say it’s absolutely necessary in every situation, depending on the circumstances.
"Real love is for your good, not for your comfort." -Justin Whitmel Earley
Indeed, and I did already mention that Christ would probably be exempt from this, as well as the fact that God may work miracles of healing for the faithful, but that’s different from working a miracle through some individual. I’m glad you see my point though, and that we can find that common ground. Please do study, the Lord can always say something more to you no matter how many times you may have read even just the same verse. Good luck!
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
I debated ChatGPT, telling it to start as an Atheist, and instead of convincing it, I just backed it into a corner of Moral Relativistic Atheism, lol! What’s interesting about Moral Relativists is that they are next to impossible to debate, because they’ve accepted the idea that morality has no grounding, and therefore people like Hitler are just following entropy, and there is nothing bad or good about it.
When an atheist is not a moral relativist however (and most aren’t, they’re usually a Humanist), a really good way to debate them I think at least, is to actually convince them to be a moral relativist, because that’s the only real logically consistent worldview in Atheism when it comes to what morality is. When they feel that they can’t accept that morality is a meaningless construct, and that it has to be objective in some sense, that’s when you can start to present the only real alternative, that morality is indeed an objective reality, however it can only come from something non-physical. This doesn’t mean they have to become a Theist, but if they want morality, then they cannot be a Materialist, otherwise they have a clear gap in their worldview.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
@thearcaneaxiom you can debate an AI?
Where'd I get ya this time? The liver? The kidney? I'm runnin' outta places to put holes in ya.
Is it my understanding of earlier debate that you are bouncing back and forth the idea of Is laying the hands on the head necessary for supernatural healing?
Silvanis: But I look like a peacock!
Rosella: Whatever a peacock is, it must be very fashionable.You can do a lot of things with an AI, but it depends on the model, and how you phrase a lot of things. I had to phrase it as a “game” for ChatGPT, otherwise it would say that it doesn’t have opinions, and I had to tell it to not list different views, because the point is to pit two different views against one another. GPT is also quite stubborn, and will sometimes not really listen to logical reasoning. For example, it accepted the first two options of Lewis’s trilemma can’t work, and we had the assumption that the writing isn’t misinterpreted, but it kept saying that even while acknowledging and accepting the reasoning, it would remain within its current worldview. So GPT isn’t the best for it, but you could definitely train an AI for that particular purpose.
Not exactly. I think both me and Trail can agree that the laying on of hands isn’t necessary for supernatural healing. However, we are talking about it’s significance to what it means to have authority, and how one can use said authority to heal.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
@thearcaneaxiom ah, cool!
Where'd I get ya this time? The liver? The kidney? I'm runnin' outta places to put holes in ya.
@thearcaneaxion
Thanks for the reply
Silvanis: But I look like a peacock!
Rosella: Whatever a peacock is, it must be very fashionable.Hey Kathleen! Did you ever want to pick the conversation back up? I did say a bit much, didn’t I😅
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
@everyone
I don’t think Ontological arguments have been talked about on here at all yet, would that interest anyone?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
What are ontological arguments?
Silvanis: But I look like a peacock!
Rosella: Whatever a peacock is, it must be very fashionable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
