A living Apostle answers the question...

[sojourner]

I can accept that you believe it. I don't believe they do have authority though. That's the beauty of it - Christians can have different beliefs about just about everything. The only thing I don't believe they can differ in is their belief in the supremacy of Christ.

BTW - I see no reason why you should believe that my leaders have any authority. They do, but you don't have to believe they do.

That's my point. Whether they have authority is not your call to make!

In your next sentence, you contradict what Polaris is saying. You call contradiction a beauty. Polaris calls it proof of no authority. Come on, you guys! Which is it?

I don't deny your leaders authority, because it's not my place to do that.

 

[sojourner]

You are speaking in relative terms. I believe doctrinal truth to be absolute and cannot contradict itself. Either true Apostolic succession occurred after the death of the Apostles or it didn't. Our relative perspectives have no bearing on the truth of the matter.

I don't think God is based on an either-or human proposition. Theology demands that God is what God is. That's the absolute with which we're dealing. Everything else is human speculation about that absolute.

 

[SoyLeche]

Are you saying that God isn't big enough to be what God needs to be for everyone? That's a contradiction of God's omipotence.

I'm saying that God can't be what He isn't.

 

[doppelganger]

That's my point. Whether they have authority is not your call to make!

Isn't it though? Authority is subjective. To recognize an authority is to delegate one's decision making to someone else. Even though the person doing so imagines otherwise, it doesn't mean anything vis a vis someone else's decision about whether to delegate the decision making process or to whom, does it? Unless of course, enough people do so that the "authority" in question can enforce thoughts, ideas and its decisions by physical coercion . . .

. . . and that is probably far more common than most people think.

 

[sojourner]

And the NT isn't in the OT - your point?

We have different documents and traditions that we hold authoritative too. Amazing what Christians can believe - isn't it?

The point is that you have Tradtion in addition to the NT that you hold just as dear and authoritative as the NT. So do other Christians. James does not have to be named as a "bishop" in the NT for our tradition (which holds that James was a bishop -- again, there are extra-Biblical records to show this) to be as authoritative for us. To say, "Show me where in the NT it says that..." is a sola scriptura argument. Neither of us can go there.

 

[doppelganger]

I'm saying that God can't be what He isn't.

Actually, he has to be . . . otherwise, "faith" claims about "God" would be invalid.

 

[SoyLeche]

That's my point. Whether they have authority is not your call to make!

But whether or not I BELIEVE they have authority IS my call to make!

In your next sentence, you contradict what Polaris is saying. You call contradiction a beauty. Polaris calls it proof of no authority. Come on, you guys! Which is it?

I don't deny your leaders authority, because it's not my place to do that.

Where did I contradict him? And if I did - so what - Mormons can disagree among themselves too. It probably doesn't help that we are arguing about different things.

 

[sojourner]

My if-then assertion is not describing how the spirit acts. It is asserting the fact that the Holy Spirit comes from God and will not teach doctrines that are contradictory.

Teaching is not an act???

 

[sojourner]

I'm saying that God can't be what He isn't.

OK...What isn't God? (Remember that God is omnipresent and omnipotent)

 

[sojourner]

Isn't it though? Authority is subjective. To recognize an authority is to delegate one's decision making to someone else. Even though the person doing so imagines otherwise, it doesn't mean anything vis a vis someone else's decision about whether to delegate the decision making process or to whom, does it? Unless of course, enough people do so that the "authority" in question can enforce thoughts, ideas and its decisions by physical coercion . . .

. . . and that is probably far more common than most people think.

No. It isn't. We all carry the same authority as all other Christians. No one has any more or any less than another. I don't get to say "who has it and who doesn't" because my authority is not greater than anyone else's. We all make decisions. The farce is that we seem to be unable to think that one family can operate in different rooms by slightly different rules and still be one family. If my sister wants to wear make-up, does that mean I have to, as well? And if I don't, then I'm not really a member of the family?

 

[SoyLeche]

The point is that you have Tradtion in addition to the NT that you hold just as dear and authoritative as the NT. So do other Christians. James does not have to be named as a "bishop" in the NT for our tradition (which holds that James was a bishop -- again, there are extra-Biblical records to show this) to be as authoritative for us. To say, "Show me where in the NT it says that..." is a sola scriptura argument. Neither of us can go there.

Again - I don't care about the divisions among the subsets. Your tradition can believe whatever the heck it wants. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I am a Christian.

I'm never going to try to use the BoM to prove anything to you. I know that it is outside of what you hold authoritative - and will therefore be irrlelevant. Whatever it is you go to to find out that James was a "bishop" is outside of what Polaris holds authoritative, and is therefore irrelevant. If we are going to have disucssions using scripture we're going to have to limit it to those areas where our cannon intersect - the OT and NT.

 

[SoyLeche]

Actually, he has to be . . . otherwise, "faith" claims about "God" would be invalid.

I would be willing to say that just about every "faith" claim about God is false in one way or another - including my own. I'd be willing to give away the "just about" too.

 

[sojourner]

But whether or not I BELIEVE they have authority IS my call to make!

No, because, as a Christian, you don't have any more authority than any other Christian.

 

[doppelganger]

No. It isn't. We all carry the same authority as all other Christians.

Yes and no. Some delegate and place that delegation in the "sacrosanct" box.

I don't get to say "who has it and who doesn't" because my authority is not greater than anyone else's.

Of course you do. You just did. You're telling me right now who does and doesn't have authority.

We all make decisions.

But some make decisions that others will make future decisions for them. Sure, they could take back that capacity at any time. But while they have delegated it and mentally perceive themselves as under an authority, they are subject to whatever authority to which they consider themselves subject.

 

[doppelganger]

I would be willing to say that just about every "faith" claim about God is false in one way or another - including my own. I'd be willing to give away the "just about" too.

Good answer. Very intellectually honest, I think. Have a round of frubals on the house.

 

[sojourner]

Again - I don't care about the divisions among the subsets. Your tradition can believe whatever the heck it wants. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I am a Christian.

Neither does it have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not any other Christian has authority to be called by God to a specific ministry.

If we are going to have disucssions using scripture we're going to have to limit it to those areas where our cannon intersect - the OT and NT.

I didn't begin the discussion using scripture. I didn't intend to use scripture. I'm not a sola scripturalist.

 

[SoyLeche]

No, because, as a Christian, you don't have any more authority than any other Christian.

According to your belief structure. I happen to have a different belief structure.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[sojourner]

Yes and no. Some delegate and place that delegation in the "sacrosanct" box.

You're a little skewed here. We do not assign authority to people. We believe that the authority comes from God, and that that authority is transmitted through human agency, whether individual or systemic. We say that the Church carries the authority of God, and that God calls some people to specially represent the Church. But those people really have no more authority than the rest of us. We do not submit to anyone but God.

If one believes, for example, that what one particular body "says" rings true for him or her, then that person will adhere to that particular body and follow its particular tenets. But that does not mean that that particular body "right" and others "wrong." It's a gross misplacement of just where the authority lies to do differently.

Of course you do. You just did. You're telling me right now who does and doesn't have authority.

No. I said that every Christian carries the same authority. I didn't differentiate, as you seem to indicate I did.

But some make decisions that others will make future decisions for them. Sure, they could take back that capacity at any time. But while they have delegated it and mentally perceive themselves as under an authority, they are subject to whatever authority to which they consider themselves subject.

See my explanation above. The only authority Christians subject themselves to is God's authority.

 

[sojourner]

According to your belief structure. I happen to have a different belief structure.

Why is this so hard to understand?

What I'm having a hard time with is discovering just where authority comes from, in your opinion. Where does it come from? To whom is it given?

 

[SoyLeche]

Neither does it have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not any other Christian has authority to be called by God to a specific ministry.

Nope, but it has a bearing on whether or not I believe they have authority. We are still going around in circles.