# What Church has authority, and how do we decide?



## raderag (Mar 30, 2004)

Let us assume that we desire to obey the Church in doctrine and practice. How do we know what the Church is? What standard to we measure the Church by?

I know that many Anglican churches claim succession from Antioch.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 30, 2004)

*Brett...*

I voted the last one, but really, the testimony of the Holy Spirit working within the heart of the people of God is what has determined what the Church is. The Church is the body of Christ, therefore, the Church is all who testify by their words and actions, to the same truth of God's salvation in Christ. That is very broad, but can become specific in a heartbeat. This leaves out quite a few Churches.

The authority of the Church is derived from the Scriptures so it only stands to reason that the true Church has a common testimony of the truth. The true Church lines up with the inscripturated true Church. So whatever the Church says, if it is lawful and in line with the Scriptures, is to be submitted to for all authority.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 30, 2004)

I voted by looking at what others posted first and followed them. (Just kidding).

Your last option seemed to suit me best.


----------



## raderag (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:1768fdbdf9][i:1768fdbdf9]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:1768fdbdf9]
I voted by looking at what others posted first and followed them. (Just kidding).
[/quote:1768fdbdf9]


----------



## Scott (Apr 2, 2004)

A complicated question. 

I would say that the state of the church today organizationally is analogous to Israel after its division. Israel was created to be one organizationally (although it had twelve tribes, there was still one federal organization much like the United States has one federal government and 50 state governments). All of Israel's laws were created in the context of this single organization. After the division, the Mosaic laws could not be applied as they were designed, because of the broken nature of the divided kingdom. For example, to worship God correctly at the temple would require traveling to a hostile foreign country you were sometimes at war with. Still, God treated both the Northern and Southern kingdoms as His people, even though there was supposed to be one bride, Israel. 

The church was created to be one organizationally. The division of the East and West in 1054 made a similar two-fold division. The Reformation resulted in thousands of divisions. 

I don't think there are any clear answers, although I agree that doctrinal orthodoxy is essential to any answer. 

Good resources are:

John Frame, Evangelical Reunion 
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame 

John Nevin, Catholic Unity 
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/catholic_unity.htm 

Thomas M'Crie, On the Unity of the Church and Its Divisions 
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Unity_00.htm 


Scott


----------



## dswatts (Apr 2, 2004)

I too voted for the last option, only because there wasn't a choice for the priesthood of the believer! 

Grace,
Dwayne


----------

