When it comes to real authority today—especially within the life of the Church—there is a profound and unshakable truth: for those who believe that Jesus lives, the only actual, undisputed authority is that of Jesus himself as Lord. This is not a matter of mere moral influence or institutional prestige, but divine lordship—an active, living rule over all creation, and particularly over his body, the Church. It is the kind of authority that demands full allegiance of heart, mind, and soul, and that speaks with finality in matters of truth, conscience, salvation, and judgment. All other forms of authority—whether ecclesiastical, pastoral, doctrinal, or prophetic—are derivative. They are only valid insofar as they are exercised in the name of Christ, in faithfulness to his Word, and in alignment with the presence and leading of his Spirit. Recognition through custom, church polity, or historical lineage is not enough; true authority in the Church must be actively delegated by Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, and oriented toward making and maturing faithful disciples.
In this light, the involvement of the Holy Spirit is often vital. The Spirit is the living agent of Christ within his people—guiding, convicting, encouraging, and empowering them to follow and obey him. Authority that genuinely comes from God will usually be marked by the evident work of the Spirit. Yet this reality has often brought tension in Church history, especially as formal structures developed to guard orthodoxy and preserve unity. A particularly instructive example is the Church’s response to Montanism—a second-century movement that emphasized new prophecy, strict morality, and direct inspiration by the Spirit. While the institutional Church aimed to curb theological error and prevent disorder, its condemnation of Montanism may also have reflected a growing suspicion of Spirit-led authority outside established hierarchy. In doing so, it likely undermined confidence in the direct, active authority of the Holy Spirit—and therefore, in the living authority of Jesus Christ himself. This episode illustrates a recurring dilemma: how to discern true spiritual authority when it does not emerge through conventional channels.
This tension leads directly into the broader and still-contested question of apostolic succession and its Protestant alternatives. In Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, ecclesial authority—particularly that of bishops and the pope—is grounded in an unbroken line of succession from the apostles, especially Peter. Yet the New Testament sets a high bar for apostleship: direct commissioning by the risen Christ, miraculous confirmation by the Spirit, perseverance in suffering, and a fruitful mission to a particular people. Paul himself was deeply cautious about accepting authority based on human appointment alone, consistently emphasizing divine commendation. He did not presume universal jurisdiction but pointed to a specific calling. If modern ecclesiastical leaders do not meet these apostolic criteria, their authority must be understood in a more limited, derivative sense. Even the apostles did not speak on their own authority but referred constantly to what they had received from Christ.
The Protestant Reformation, in rejecting apostolic succession, turned instead to Scripture as the supreme authority. Many Reformers disavowed personal or institutional authority, claiming only to teach in faithful submission to the Word of God. Later movements—especially in charismatic traditions—sometimes revived claims of apostolic leadership, though rarely with the biblical signs that marked such a calling. In practice, authority in Protestant contexts often rested on teaching skill, moral leadership, and the ability to gather and disciple others. Yet even these can be misused. Charisma can be mistaken for divine approval, and theological systems can harden into frameworks that resist correction—ironically resembling the very traditions they once opposed.
A further complexity arises from the fact that most Protestant traditions nonetheless retained the creeds of the early Church councils, particularly Nicaea and Chalcedon. These councils were crucial in establishing orthodox doctrines, especially concerning the Trinity and the person of Christ. However, in so doing, they also rejected earlier theological expressions—such as subordinationist views of the Son’s relationship to the Father—that had once been widely tolerated or even embraced. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15 portrays the Son ultimately subjecting himself to the Father “so that God may be all in all.” Early subordinationist theologians cited this as consistent with apostolic teaching. If such views were indeed part of the early deposit of faith, then their later rejection could be seen not as doctrinal refinement, but as a departure. In this light, both Catholic and Protestant traditions, insofar as they rely on post-Nicene formulations, may have deviated—at least in part—from the original apostolic witness.
This brings us to a foundational principle of Christian authority. As 2 John 9 warns, “Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God.” The authority of Scripture—so often mediated through commentaries, concordances, and creeds—has legitimacy only when it remains faithful to the teaching of Christ and his apostles. No study note, theological system, or magisterial decree holds automatic authority if it departs from the truth of the gospel. The true measure of any Christian teaching is whether it reflects the heart and mind of Christ, given him by the Father, and leads believers into deeper obedience to him.
Ultimately, whether claimed through institutional structures, charismatic movements, or widely accepted interpretations of Scripture, all authority must be tested against the living lordship of Jesus and the present work of his Spirit. A leader or tradition is not authoritative by virtue of title, history, or popularity alone. True spiritual authority is recognized where the teachings of Christ are faithfully upheld, the Spirit is clearly at work, and lives are being formed into mature disciples. Neither apostolic succession nor sola scriptura, in and of themselves, guarantee faithfulness. Both can serve the kingdom—or lead it astray—depending on their fidelity to Jesus himself. The Church fulfills its mission only when all its workings—doctrinal, pastoral, and prophetic—are submitted to Christ, who is the head. When leaders and churches point humbly and clearly to him—speaking his Word, depending on his Spirit, and forming lives in his likeness—their authority is real. Otherwise, even the most venerable lineage or the most compelling theology risks wandering from the One who alone holds all authority in heaven and on earth.
Stephen D Green, with ChatGPT, April 2025
