- June 25, 2006 at 10:25 pm #1306
:” title=”Question” /> Just wondering if the Lutherans and Protestant have a central figure that makes the final say as to how there sect is run(Like the Pope).June 26, 2006 at 2:14 am #6611
Some do and some don’t. Many traditional Prots will have national boards that are comprised of many different high ranking leaders, but no central authority figure over the whole denomination.June 26, 2006 at 3:12 am #6613
Most Protestant Churches have tried their hardest to follow the early church examples. Many denominations have leaders that are responsible for important decisions (like the Pope). But, of course, no, there is no central authority (like the Pope). That is precisely one of the biggest reasons Protestants cannot follow the RC. Presbyterians have the presbyters, or ‘deacon/elders’ office. Anglicans still have bishops and run much like the RC but again reject the office of one supreme ruler. Anabaptists have a board of eldars that are elected (most leaders in any Protestant church are elected by the church members) as well as others. To be honest, I think these systems have worked very well. The only problem is the Episcopalian independence (somewhat) from the Church of England. There they may choose to follow the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury or split (very sad situation indeed in regards to the gay issues).
Even Luther was not the sole authority of the early Reformers, nor Calvin, or Zwingli. Their search to organize and develope from the early church model has been followed as much as possible to this day in Protestant denominations. They preferred the bishop/presbyter model of the NT and early church and saught as democratically as possible a system of authority in which none might have the authority of God, this was believed to be given to the Holy Spirit in its inspiration of the Church. The term “sect” in reference to Protestant believers would be taken quite offensively by any Protestant. What makes a body a sect is dependent on the view. Many Protestants hold that the RC strayed from the Early Church and that the Reformation was an essential step to get away from the ‘sect’ that the RC had brought believers into. This was a very common and highly electric issue for the early Reformers. Some (especially Southern States conservative Protestants) hold this view still.June 26, 2006 at 11:06 am #6614
Anglicans are the Church of England and the Episcopalians are the American branch of the Anglican Church. ” title=”Wink” />June 27, 2006 at 4:10 pm #6618
Yes, I was pointing out the problems they are having and the actual split that has occured amongst some of them already. The Church of England does not tolerate homosexual promotion, not to mention gay bishops and the Episcopal church is taking their independence of the Church of England to a new level.
sigh, American people even in the Church can’t swallow leadership from England. Yah Canada! Eh?…June 27, 2006 at 6:45 pm #6619
[color=darkblue:11l3uaex]I think the best you’ll get is an equivalent to Eastern Orthodoxy. Where it’s an assemblage of churches. Each province headed by a Patriarch who if for whatever reason decides to deviate from the faith is much more difficult for the common folk to know which group continues as the true Church and whether that specific Bishop is in heresy.
Councils were actually not how the Church usually settled matters in the first 300 years (aside from the Council of Jerusalem). Councils had some political connotation to it from the getgo and it eventually became the norm. Most issues were settled locally and if need be the See of Rome jumped in to help settle the issue.[/color:11l3uaex]
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.