The Bible itself commands submission to authority.
Hebrews 13:17 is not optional or merely descriptive—it’s prescriptive. It assumes a structure of authority in the Church.
Calvinism logically requires disobedience to that command.
Scripture First
“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority, for they keep watch over your souls as those who must give an account” (Hebrews 13:17).
Paul appointing elders in Titus 1:5.
Timothy receiving authority to appoint presbyters (1 Timothy 3).
The Apostles making binding decisions in Acts 15:28—”It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Not “it seemed good to the apostles’ individual interpretations of Scripture,” but to the apostles together, exercising office.
These passages don’t describe a system where each believer interprets Scripture privately and then submits to… nobody. They describe a chain of authority. Christ to the Apostles, the Apostles to appointed successors (bishops and presbyters), and the faithful to those leaders.
The Calvinist Contradiction
Calvinism claims “sola scriptura”—Scripture alone decides. But Scripture itself commands obedience to authority structures. So either Calvinists obey Scripture (which means submitting to apostolic authority and the succession), or they disobey Scripture by rejecting that authority and claiming private judgment is sufficient.
They can’t have both. They choose private judgment and call it fidelity to Scripture. That’s the incoherence.
The voice of the Fathers: Authority as Apostolic
Clement of Rome (first century, writing to the Corinthians): “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the title of bishop. For this reason, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed those mentioned earlier, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.”
This is crucial: Clement shows that apostolic succession—the handing down of authority—is deliberate and binding. Not optional. Not left to private interpretation.
Ignatius of Antioch (early second century): “Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the bishop… Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius is hammering on submission to the bishop. He’s not saying “read Scripture and decide for yourself.” He’s saying the bishop is where Christ’s authority is present. That’s the structure.
Irenaeus (late second century): “Since, therefore, the tradition of the apostles has been made manifest in the whole world, all who wish to see the truth can contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles made manifest throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops by the apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times.”
Here’s the kicker: Irenaeus is arguing that you can trace apostolic authority through succession. It’s verifiable. It’s not hidden in private judgment.
Here is where Christ’s authority flows. The Calvinist system has no such mechanism. Every pastor thinks he’s right. Every congregation interprets differently.
Augustine on Obedience and Authority
Augustine (whom Calvinists love to misquote) actually says clearly: “I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so.”
Think about that in the Calvinist context: Augustine is saying authority matters. The Church’s authority is what validates Scripture, not the other way around. He’s not saying “private judgment of Scripture is enough.” He’s saying the Church—with her authority and succession—is how we know we have the true Scripture and the true interpretation.
Calvinists want Augustine’s thoughts on predestination without his submission to the Church’s authority. They can’t have both.
Thomas Aquinas on Binding Authority
Aquinas teaches that the Church, through her bishops and ultimately the Pope, has the living authority to bind and loose—to settle disputes that Scripture alone cannot settle because Scripture admits of multiple interpretations. This is why Christ gave Peter the keys. This is why the Apostles made binding decisions at Jerusalem.
Without that authority, you’re left with what Aquinas would call chaos—each person reading Scripture through his own lens, claiming the Spirit confirms his interpretation, and having no way to resolve disputes except by force or schism.
Bringing It Home: The Practical Incoherence
If Calvinists truly believed “the Bible decides,” they would accept what the Bible says about authority. But they don’t. They accept the parts of Scripture that fit their theology and rationalize away the parts that don’t—like Hebrews 13:17, like apostolic succession, like Christ giving Peter binding authority.
That’s not following Scripture. That’s editing Scripture to fit a preconceived system. And calling it “faithfulness to the Bible alone” is sophistry.
The Fathers knew this problem 2,000 years ago. That’s why they emphasized succession, why they emphasized obedience to bishops, why they treated authority as structural, not optional. They understood: without binding authority, the Church fragments into opinion.
The Closing
If the Bible truly decides everything, and the Bible commands obedience to apostolic authority and succession, why don’t Calvinists obey that command? Why do they claim fidelity to Scripture while rejecting the authority structure Scripture itself establishes?
The answer is uncomfortable: because accepting that authority means accepting the Catholic Church. And Calvinism was built on rejecting her. So instead of admitting the conflict, Calvinists paper over it with “sola scriptura” and private judgment—which directly violates Hebrews 13:17.
Leave a Reply