Skip to main content

No Centralized Authority? Really?

Did the books of Moses say, "Israel put their faith in God, and in his servant, the book that fell out of the sky"? What happened when Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses? Did God say, "This is really complicated, and hey, nobody's perfect?" And King David totally killed that scumbag Saul, because he obviously wasn't really king, being so unworthy and all. The "protest" of Korah's family obviously led to a glorious era of power-sharing and conciliarism. Oh, wait. With due respect, that's just silly.

I don't know where you are trying to go with that, but it seems like Israel generally always had a head, someone in charge. Whether they were good is almost beside the point. Was that power constituted legitimately, even if gained illegitimately? It seems so. It would also seem that God is the only one who can legitimately revoke it. Did I miss something? I remember the circle with the 'R'. I never saw a democratic free-for-all anywhere in the OT. Even the time of the Judges makes the point.

I'm not leaning on Catholic presuppositions for early Church history; I'm leaning on patristic ones. If you see that as synonymous, then my work is done.

By the way, how many books are in the Bible, and how do you know? Even to ask this gets us back to ecclesiology and authority. Too bad.

Comments

Timothy R. Butler said…
There were no doubt times when God had appointed someone to do something. But, it was always specific. The priests and kings were at times rejected by prophets who had authority not derived from the priests and kings, but from God. And, it is clearly not the splitting off of the Northern Kingdom from the Southern, but what they do afterwards that gets them in trouble. Even then, when God appoints new lines of kings, he also ends those lines and even continuing lines are challenged by those rogue Reformers, err, prophets.

More to the point, those most clearly appointed to lead by God in, say, 30 AD were opposed by the Son of God himself. In the subsequent years, Christ's followers -- both Apostles and not (see Stephen, for example) -- boldly challenged the clearly appointed authorities with the authority of the Law and the Prophets... and ultimately, the authority of Paul's letters. Stephen didn't say, "Well, you may disagree with me, but I have the Apostles on my side." He laid out Biblical history in his challenge to the authorities.

Paul seemed to have little regard for those who followed particular apostles, but rather for those who heard the Gospel and followed it. He would freely challenge anyone, even Peter himself, over that Gospel, noting in "rather strong" terms that even the most legitimate authorities had only derivative authority with respect to the Gospel (cf. Gal 1).
3:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more