I would like to make a short response in regard to a YouTube Short posted by Baptist Theologian Dr. Gavin Ortlund, addressing some issues that pertain to Church Authority insofar as its binding authority upon a believer. Ortlund attempts to answer the common Catholic and Orthodox objection concerning Church Authority. Which can be formulated in this manner; In Protestantism, there is a lack of a Binding Normative Authority—allowing the individual to disagree with Church Creeds and Confessionals, thus making the Individual the final authority.
Ortlund proceeds to comment on someone rejecting the teachings such as the Deity of Christ as stated in the First Ecumenical Council. Claiming that this Creed has binding authority upon the Protestant, and that it would result in an individual being barred from the Lords Supper and get an individual Excommunicated. He answers the criticism which can be stated as the following; you could just leave that specific sect of Protestantism if you disagree with their interpretation on Nicea, replying with “this critique can be applied to any church, since anyone can just leave on their own authority.”
RESPONSE
Gavin Ortlund’s response misses the key element of Apostolic Ecclesial Structure. After all, in Ortlunds epistemology (theory of Knowledge), there is no epistemic criteria for what constitutes Church Teaching and because he believes the Church is fallible. In his epistemology, the Church can be wrong on the Deity of Christ. He’s just assuming that Nicea’s teaching is true without the necessary preconditions for True Church Teachings (which is being connected to an Apostolic Church that is preserved with the Teaching of Apostles that was passed down orally and written via Apostolic Succession).
Another element of Church Teaching that Ortlund does not understand is that you can not reject the Churches Ecclesial Teachings without becoming a Heretic. Or in other words, if you reject the Apostolic Church on doctrine, you are not apart of the Body of Christ. However in contrast to Protestantism, someone can reject the Churches Ecclesial Teaching and still be considered as apart of the “Invisible Protestant Church” via changing denominations. There is always dialectical contradiction/tension between the Physical Body of Christ on Earth and the Spiritual Body of Christ in the Protestant world.
“The possibility of departure does not mean that it is not a real authority, that is like saying the laws of America are not real authorities because you can move to Canada.” This is not the argument that Apostolic Churches testify, we are not saying because you can leave a sect of Protestantism based on personal disagreement this means the Creeds are not real authorities. We are saying that #1 these Creeds are arbitrarily interpreted with Protestant presuppositions about Church Authority. For example, the Nicene Creed on baptismal regeneration is interpreted by Low-Church Protestants as “contradicting the “Scriptural” teaching of Believers Baptism, i.e. their own interpretation. Or anachronistic reading of the Church Fathers as if they did not believe the Church was a Normative Authority but men that believed the Church was fallible and individuals ought to follow the Textual Criticism of Luther. And #2 the Creeds in Protestantism does not actually function as preconditions for being apart of the Church. Or in other words, someone can either disagree or agree with specific Councils and still be considered apart of the Protestant Body of Christ.
Im conclusion, Protestants are not bound by anything. In the sense that a specific physical entity of people have the authority to bind believers consciousness to a set criteria of what Church Teaching is. In Protestantism, Creeds are subject to anachronistic interpretation and if they are rejected one can still be considered the Body of Christ. Creeds do not define anything, insofar as an individual Protestants understanding and interpretation.
Home 