Juan Rivera

I agree it is essential to scrutinize every post on this platform (or elsewhere), placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

For full disclosure, at your first post, I almost immediately recognized that this would be your point of view even though you hadn't revealed it yet. I think you know what I mean, and I'll have to leave it at that. But I have no problem with questioning the validity of posts in the absence of concrete evidence. This is how I think all of us should think about most posts here. It's the nature of the media.
From what I could see, there were indeed persons at Bethel at that time who appeared to choose disloyalty to God (in favor of the Organization) and I worked very closely with one of them. The brother I am referring to above was NOT one of them. He found a way to be loyal to the organization and remain loyal to Jehovah. The brother I worked more closely with tried to punish him for it, but that punishment didn't really stick, as he continued to work for the Writing Department, remotely via Bro Swingle, and continued to write many of the Watchtower study articles long after he was dismissed from Bethel and given a special pioneer stipend to live on. In fact, a large portion of the Insight book contains articles that remain untouched from the way he wrote and edited them for the Aid Book. The Aid Book was once removed from the Watchtower Library, but has since won its place back into it (although mostly redundant with Insight).

Speaking of loyalty and whether there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward teachers, the subject reminds me of the anointed position held by Moses. Moses was anointed to high position and Israel was supposed to obey him as God's spokesman.
But there was an incident at Meribah where the anointed of Jehovah overstepped. There was another person there by the name of Aaron. He observed what was going on. Aaron had a choice. He could just go along, or he could have spoken up and checked Moses for what he was saying. Because Aaron just went along, he was guilty of sin, with the result that he was removed from high office and prevented from entering the promised land. In that case, loyalty would have had Aaron recognize that obedience (whether passive or active) had an appropriate limit in relation to men (even a man known to be anointed as God's spokesman), and that his ultimate obedience belong to God.

Yes. What JW Insider points out is something known to me as well. I've had those discussion with decision-makers inside Bethel. Aside from that, there are persons who need what they think they have, even though what they have may not be what they think. At their age, I'd not bother them with something that could shake their world. But, on the other hand, we can't let those who may be weak keep us from sharing things for sake of learning and growing. Otherwise learning is stifled, which is never a good thing.
I've shared some views in this discussion. Whether others agree with them or not is of no concern to me, except to say if those views are wrong I want to know. But I'd look for logical refutation; not just statements of disagreement. I have no fear of being wrong. Again, if I'm wrong I want to know it. My faith is firmly planted, and it's not planted in trust of any men or group of men.

@George88 George, I can understand your perspective. I’m actually coming to the table with a stronger view than probably everyone here. I have said before that I do not trust the Governing Body because I think that the elders and overseers have better knowledge of doctrine and theology than other Brothers I respect in person and here on the forum. My experience has led me to believe that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have more in-depth knowledge of some topics and specifics than many elders, and perhaps even than some overseers and Governing Body members. But that is irrelevant. I trust the Governing Body because I believe its authority is God-given, not attained by human study or genius. Thus its authority is charismatic, not academic. And I believe that because it’s the only basis I’m aware of for distinguishing, in a principled way, between an authentic authoritative interpretation and human theological opinions. So I have chosen in good conscience to accept the Governing Body’s claim for itself. That means that, when a theological opinion of mine turns out to conflict with their teaching, I conclude that I’m the one who’s wrong, not the Governing Body. So they enjoy the presumption truth and my sincere efforts to assimilate their teaching
In light of your other comment:
The easy way to dismiss those who come to disagree with us is to chalk it up to something less than noble in them. The more appropriate, and charitable response is to address the reasons, evidence, arguments, etc., the other person give for *why* they think their position is true, and our position false. That's the essence of rational dialogue. But deconstruction is a kind of ad hominem (i.e. "you only believe that because you ..."), and hence it can be used both directions, with no progress forward toward mutual agreement. That's why it is better not to make use of deconstruction at all, and always assume (unless given good reason to believe otherwise) that the other person is motivated primarily by a desire for the truth.
But I understand your concern.  If I have a submissive attitude to a problematic teaching I will be willing to engage in further study of the issue with others here. Perhaps my questions are the consequence of poor education as a witness, and that is my fault not of others. If the teaching in question is in regards to matters of morality, than I should examine my conscience. This means asking myself some difficult questions regarding the nature of the difficulties I am having with a given teaching. Am I struggling with this teaching because I cannot discover in it the will of Jehovah,  or is it because this teaching, if true, would demand some real change?  Believe me that I constantly consider whether my difficulties lie not with a particular teaching but with the very idea of a teaching office.

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made.  But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

@Many Miles So let me express some concerns and review the previous points you have made.  But before that, here's another concern or a great caveat:

My comments here are not addressing whatever authority the governing body holds. 
 
My comments here are addressing whether there is a limit to obedience Christians are directed to show to those taking the lead as their teachers, including the governing body (note Paul’s use of “we” in his letter to Galatia)
Though “submit” is an act in relation to an authority, I believe Paul expressed a limitation to submission expected of Christians. 

Unity in common cause is not a result of uniform beliefs. Unity in common cause is a result of people working together despite holding differing beliefs. And, to be sure, among JWs there are very consequential beliefs that individual JWs hold differently from one another. In our literature these consequential differences are classified under a term we call “personal conscience”. 
 
Back to my contribution in this discussion, of Christians and those taking the lead as their teachers, either 1) there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward those teachers or 2) there is no rightful limitation toward those teachers. 

What I wrote here is, I believe, what Paul alluded to in his second letter to Thessalonia. There, he wrote of something that served, at the time, as a restraint to what he went on to describe as what we would term “apostate” today. 
 
Paul was an apostle personally appointed by Christ. He was in addition to the earlier apostles. These men manifested supernatural abilities to corroborate that their teachings were right and should be accepted. But, as Paul said to Thessalonia, as a “restraint” though these men existed they were only temporary. One day they would all be gone in death, and their “restraint” would therefore be gone in person. 
 
But these men left something behind for future generations of Christ’s followers. They left behind written words that today we know as the Bible. We are equipped with the Bible. In their absence we have what we need for competency for examining teachings for soundness. 
 
Another apostle, John, wrote that we have intellectual capacity for the purpose of knowing the true one. Yet another apostle, Peter, reminds us we must be sure to exercise intellectual capacity with a sound mind. 
 
Hence those who initially acted as a restraint against wrong teaching left behind themselves two important things for us. 1) Written words and 2) that which can be soundly concluded from those words. Today, these serve as restraint against wrong teaching, and our obedience should rightly end where wrongness begins. This limit of obedience is, I believe, something Paul was very straightforward about in his letter to Galatia. 

@Srecko Sostar I'm really trying to understand where are you coming from and what is the point of all your post. Maybe @JW Insider or @Anna can help you on this topic because I'm speaking for myself in hopes that it might give you some help or insight.
As I see it, the gospels indicate that Jesus was intent upon choosing 12 followers in imitation of and continuity with the ethnic structure of the Hebrew nation. Hence, he is seen to be launching a new Israel. He is portrayed in the historical texts as investing these officers with his own divine power, commissioning them to teach in his name, and promising to send them divine help to carry out this task. Nowhere does he tell any of the twelve to write, nor does he write anything himself. In fact only 3 or 5 of the 12 actually do write anything (depending on scholarly debates). Instead the one and only earthly program he seems to have set in motion is the establishment of a Congregation. Following the divine teaching method of embedding revelation within a cohesive historical community (the sheltered environment of Hebrew society and culture), he reshapes ancient Israel. Instead of initiating a religion solely based on scriptures, he establishes a global community that allows divine messages to spread worldwide while preserving their essence. 
As I already mentioned to you, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. (Restorationism) So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
Here's an excerpt from a JW historian that traces the Watchtower roots, taken from his introductory chapter from Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization. I think @JW Insider disagrees with some minor points but generally agrees with the summary:
 
The Roots of Watch Tower Belief
I do not have space to fully examine the millenarian antecedents of Russell's belief system. So what follows doesn't even qualify as a survey; it is the briefest of 'tastes' - a short essay on millennial thought up to the Russell era. I will take you no further back than the 16th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in Europe, but Russell's acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them.

Before I proceed I should note that Russell's prophetic views are not the only part of his doctrinal set with roots in the colonial era. His rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy. The latter was common enough that William Lyford [c. 1598-1653], a Puritan clergyman, wrote The Plain Man's Senses Exercised to Discern Both Good and Evil primarily to refute prevalent non-Trinitarian belief.

Anti-Trinitarian thought persisted despite attempts to quell it. Watchtower writers suggest that, among others, Thomas Emlyn stands in the history of their faith. Emlyn was republished in America. There is no proof that Russell read any of his work, though he may have come to Emlyn through reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall.  Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America and extracts from it and his catechism were summarized in tracts and the catechism was published entire in 1810. William Jones The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity, written to counter anti-Trinitarian agitation in Britain, was republished in 1816. In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sabellianism or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine [a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism] from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a far larger trend.
The belief, characteristic of Watch Tower adherents, that Bible reading was obligatory and that it was meant to be understood by the average reader extends backward to 17 Century Separatist and Puritan England. So too does Russell-era Watch Tower belief that the proper form of church governance is congregationalism. Conditional Immortality doctrine, the belief that immortality is a gift from God not an inherent right, finds its origins in an ancient past, and, as it came Russell, in the reformation era. The belief that God directly intervenes in the life of Christians came to Russell, in America with the earliest European settlers. It was as strongly-held in Russell's as it was among the Jamestown colonists (1607), the Pilgrim Separatists (1620) and the Puritans who followed. We see it in Russell's supposition that his meeting with Wendell was only seemingly an accident. We see it in the pages of Zion's Watch Tower when new adherents believe Watch Tower tract or an issue of the paper falling into their hands was an act of divine providence.
Both in Britain and in the American colonies that 'marvels' portended divine messages was a strongly held belief. In the pre-scientific era, a strayed horse, a comet, a cloud's shape, were all messages from God. Tall tales of marvels were persuasive political and religious arguments. The Gospels say that Jesus predicted a proliferation of earthquakes as a peculiar sign of the last days. In the pre-scientific era this Biblical statement was combined with lack of knowledge, resulting in all earthquakes being seen as the impending apocalyptic judgment or as God's warning to a wayward people. Charles and John Wesley saw the London, Lisbon and Boston, Massachusetts, earthquakes of the 1750s in this light, writing hymns and preaching sermons to that effect. Rationalism started to prevail in the last third of the Seventeenth Century, but the belief in divine providence persisted and persists still. We see it in the pages of modern Watchtower publications when an adherent is convinced that God guided them into the light of truth. (And in fact, we cannot gainsay God's guidance or his answers to prayers without repudiating the New Testament.) In Russell's experience we see this in his narration of a fall on the snow which he attached to a moral lesson, and we see it in his belief that all Christians received guidance through divinely inspired dreams.
Colonial era almanacs were willing to credit astrology even while promoting religion. These found their counterpart in A. D. Jones and Russell's willingness to credit astrology even while - in Russell's case - seeing it as a tool of Satan. The tension between Separatist and Puritan seeking holiness and the Church of England's expectation that all submit to its ritual dedicated to Christ or not, spilled into the 19 Century. Puritan insistence that the church was for the holy only -committed, obedient Christians- is the background to Russell's criticism of morally compromised churches. Ultimately this derived from New Testament doctrine. Christians are to be holy as God is holy. (I Peter 1:16) There is, Paul writes, no room within Christian ecclesias for unrepentant, unregenerate sinners. This tension expressed itself in Watch Tower and Plymouth Brethren belief and in that of conservative American churches and non-conformist chapels in the United Kingdom. While Russell's connection to his Anglo-American heritage is largely ignored by writers, these connections are as important as the millennial heritage from which his belief system truly came.

Russell-era meeting format derives from colonial-era structure, sometimes modified to accommodate groups who lacked leadership. The Russellite Prayer, Praise and Testimony meetings come from non-conformist belief systems. Opportunities, sometimes rare and occasionally more frequent, to testify to one's faith and to an incident of Divine Providence, gave colonial-era believers a sense of unity, of belonging to the Body of Christ. Russell's persistent condemnation of creeds and sectarianism derives from the same source. It can be traced to the Reformation Era and its aftermath. Writers and surviving sermons from that era often condemn divisions and false teachings, frequently focusing on the identity of the prophetic Babylon the Great and identifying her daughters as sects infected with false belief and false practice. For instance Benjamin Keach [1687] identified Babylon the Great as the Catholic Church and her harlot daughters as in a "spiritual sense ... unclean Communities". In America after the French and Indian War [Seven Years' War], sectarian divisions were seen as harmful to the cause of Christ. This did not lead to unity or suspension of creedal belief but to a semblance of peace between denominations. Post-Revolution commentators continued this. The Catholic Church retained its status as mystic Babylon; denominational Protestant churches were Babylon's harlot-daughters.

Radical Pietists immigrated to America from Britain, Germany and Switzerland, settling in Pennsylvania, New England and South Carolina. They were distinguished by a rejection of sectarianism. In Britain the Village Itinerancy Society was founded in 1796 by laymen who believed that the Millennium impended and that "what the nation needed was an undenominational, and by implication, unordained army of itinerants charged with the awesome responsibility of bringing God's pure word, undefiled by party or sect to a 'perishing multitude." Closer to Russell's day Philip Schaff and John Williamson Nevin, then both instructors at the German Reformed seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, developed a 'manifesto that included "the evil of sectarianism, and the imperative of unity within the church." They saw "rationalism and sectarianism" as the greatest dangers to the church. Claude Welch suggested that the movement derived from Nevin and Schaff's manifesto died out after the Civil War. It did not, and we find it expressed in various ways. Russellite rejection of sectarianism with its dependence on creeds derives from this long heritage. This is true of other small fellowships who described themselves as nonsectarian and of those independent congregations who fellowshipped on the basis of faith alone and not on the basis of creedal doctrine."
 

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
 
Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it. 
 
Of course, back then there were supernatural evidences available to corroborate whose teaching had merit, and departure from those teachings was the litmus test. 
 
Today, to our knowledge, there are no supernatural evidences corroborating whose teaching to accept. What we have is something that was only building amongst early Christians. We have the Bible. So today the litmus test should be 1) what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion)
To be blunt, 1) if a teaching is found to be not expressly stated in biblical text, or 2) if a teaching is not a demonstrably sound conclusion (or, worse, a refuted conclusion), then no Christian should be bound to obey that teaching. Such teachings should be left to accept or ignore based on personal conscience.

I’m all for gaining insight. We should learn from one another. The primary issue I’ve raised regarding the letter to Galatia is that the then “governing body” (to borrow a term) was willing to tell the body of Christ when they should be held as accursed, and that doing so was fine as depicted. 

As things stand, right now and for decades there is misleading and patently false information plied by the society to prop up religious positions that, daily, have life and death consequences. This is all demonstrable. Only it’s not revealed by the society.
 
These things have to be found out otherwise, often from letters of correspondence from the society stating things that are never published for broader review and edification. In other cases it’s found in academic peer reviewed professional articles, which when questioned directly the content is confirmed privately by the society but with no broad publication. If it’s good for the goose it should be good for the gander.
 
When I learn of some of these things it is very disturbing, which is only exacerbated knowing if you question what you see happening you are subject to being branded. And, for what? Asking out loud about things that are demonstrably valid? Paul offered that the then “governing body” was subject to making sure they were being faithful in teaching and dealings with the brotherhood, and that it was fine to point to wrongness. Paul offered a litmus test to use of the then governing body. I’ve never read where our contemporary governing body could even possibly be held accursed for reason. It’s treated as a ridiculous notion. 

For whatever small contribution it might make toward informing about the governing body as it has represented in the last century up until today, I would engage such a discussion in a public forum. 
It tends to be a touchy subject because, as you cited Rotherham, there tends to be sentiment that it’s ridiculous to even think what we look to as a governing body could knowingly present false teaching (what Rotherham depicts as apostasy).
Not to be overlooked is the writer to Galatia (Paul) was himself a newer convert to the Christ, Jesus. He was an ex-Judaic with firsthand experience with an religion/organization run amuck, which organization had, the old fashioned way, disfellowshipped one among themselves named Jesus. Paul himself had been drawn into this wholly wrongheaded way even to the point of persecuting followers of Jesus. Hence the man had passion for holding leaders accountable, which comes across loud and clear in the letters opening statements.
Nonetheless, I’d engage the topic. 
 

in the original context, the difference was that Angus Stewart asked "do you see yourself as modern-day disciples?" A lot of people use the term "Jesus' disciples" as synonymous with his original direct "twelve disciples." Of course, Bro Jackson could answer that the GB definitely see themselves as modern-day disciples. [Those taught by Jesus.] The GB also definitely see themselves as modern-day "sent-forth ones" which is the meaning of the word "apostles." And they do speak of themselves in several ways as a modern-day parallel to the apostles, or even as a kind of parallel to the small number of men who ended up writing all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But Bro Jackson knew the danger of trying to explain these "parallels" to a non-JW so he steered clear of it by even pointing out that they, the GB, do not consider themselves to be the sole channel (mouthpiece) of truth today. Mr. Stewart had clearly been prepped with the knowledge that the Watchtower has many times pointed to the Watchtower publications and/or the Watchtower Society as the sole channel for dispensing truth today. This idea has been repeated very directly during the time of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz, but much more subtly in recent publications. 

I would participate gladly in an open-forum Biblical discussion about what we can learn from Paul's letter to the Galatians. If it can inform our modern day view of the GB that's fine, but I think the view of an ex-JW vs the view of a JW is going to be rather predictable on that count. Nevertheless, I'd say 'go for it.'

When I get something I don’t understand, I print it out on paper, then read it once fot the overall idea. I have ADD and tricky vision.
Then I read it again for detail, underlining and highlighting points, and making arrows over to the margins for notes. 
All during this I try to build a mental picture that makes sense. Visualizing a portrait with a smushed bug makes the problem obvious, so to speak.
Problematic syntax sentences can be diagrammed (which nobody teaches anymore) to determine exactly what is being actually said. Usually this is not what the author meant.
Sometimes I meditate and let the whole thing sit overnight, and read the text the next day.
I PAID to see “2001  -  A Space Odyssey“ nine times, because I didn’t “get it”. It wasn’t until I bought the Screenplay (book) and read it that I understood the movie.
Many times you can wrestle the secrets out of the Universe if you are willing to do the work, and never submit to not understanding.

@Many Miles @Srecko Sostar@George88 @JW Insider Let me know if you guys want to create a new post with this topic in mind (Galatians) here in the open forum or closed.
Here’s two comments. One made by a Jehovah’s Witness and another by a Catholic Philosopher that may shed some light:
Rotherham:
“The Watchtower has never addressed the idea as to what would happen if they apostatized because the notion is considered ridiculous. From what I know of them, I would agree. Going astray is a far cry from apostasy. The organization has been “astray” a number of times. That’s the very reason they change a certain view or teaching or policy, they were astray and they corrected it.
From their standpoint, the notion that they as the GB would apostatize is considered ridiculous. I am not sure why that seems to be such a problem to understand. They are dedicated to the pursuit of Biblical truth and are willing to change their views regardless of the consequences that the change may bring. 
Of course I never stated that such a thing would be impossible, I said it was considered ridiculous. The WT is a self-correcting organization with the Bible as the guideline. All JWs are admonished to let the scriptures be their main guide. The combination of the two would stand as a bulwark against the organization as a whole to fall into apostasy.
As I tried to get you to appreciate, the Bible is the first and foremost guide in a JWs life. Everything else is secondary to the Bible. Within the scriptures there are absolute statements and non-absolute statements. A clear apostate position would be to take a stand against an absolute statement offered in the Bible. I am sure you would agree that there are many. 
Ambiguity or non-absolutes naturally present a difficulty with a clear interpretation, such as prophecy and/or the understanding of certain parabolic features. But if a defined stand were to be made against absolute statements in the Bible, then the result is apostasy as I stated before. 
For instance, if the WT came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so.
Independent thinking is not prohibited in a some wholesale fashion as you seem to want to establish. The entire admonition against independent thinking is within the context of one entertaining and promoting teachings which are not accepted by the GB, who adhere strictly to the scriptures. As I stated, we certainly know that independent thinking is entirely necessary even for a person to live their life meaningfully and with a certain a natural, balanced autonomy. 
And yes, just as the teachings of the Apostles were adhered to in the first century, according to Eph 4:11-17, that same process of gifts of men would be followed until full understanding would be achieved. Teachers, prophets and evangelizers would continue the work of the Apostles that would be responsible for “perfecting/readjusting” the holy ones until that full-grown stature of the church is recognized.
The Bible takes precedent in any teaching within the JW congregations. If there were clear and unquestionable deviation from an established Biblical teaching, if that were maintained and not expeditiously corrected, they would lose God’s favor and be rejected as his earthly organization and God would establish another. Those who appreciate the Bible as the final word would follow as it would naturally result in a schism..
The WT is considered to be like the eyeglass that helps one understand the true teachings from God’s word. It is however, recognized as fallible. The scriptures, as far as they are translated properly, reflect the perfect word of God and the Bible is well known to be our primary textbook. It is infallible and takes full precedent in any understanding, teaching or practice. Therefore, with the Bible at the helm, your above contrived scenario is not an issue.
Although the organization is considered God’s arrangement, that would only be as long as they were devoted to the teachings of the Bible. Just as Israel was rejected for corruption, so could the WT. Israel was God’s nation but became corrupt to the point that God rejected them as a nation. Not individually but as a nation. Jesus told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to nation producing its fruits.
Those who adhere first to God’s Word would clearly see the reason for their rejection, but as I said, the notion is a purposeful contrivance on your part. The WT has proven faithful in changing as they discern error, as they should. They are lovers of truth and will change as the revelation and clarification of truth continues.This would be in harmony with the idea presented in the parable of the wheat and the weeds.
Besides, one can question what they will. The problem is not questions or doubts, it is the promoting of teachings against what has been accepted by the governing body. In the first century, that was the Apostles as all congregation adhered to the teachings of the Apostles. In the harvest it would be the FDS as mentioned in Matthew or the wheat as mentioned in the prophecy about the wheat and the weeds. Ephesians 4:11-17 would be in full support of that type of arrangement.
 
Edward Feser: 
Fathers have the authority to teach and discipline their children, but this authority is not absolute.  They may not teach their children to do evil, and they may not discipline them with unjust harshness.  Everyone knows this, though everyone also knows that there are fathers who do in fact abuse their children or teach them to do evil.  Everyone also knows that it is right for children under these unhappy circumstances to disobey and reprove their fathers, while still acknowledging their fathers’ authority in general and submitting to his lawful instructions.
All the same, probably no father ever says to his children: “Children, here’s what to do if I ever start to abuse you or teach you to do evil.”  The reason for this is surely that the default assumption is that children will never need to know what to do under such circumstances, and that explicitly addressing it in this way would give them a false and disturbing impression.  Children might start to wonder whether abuse or evil teaching is a likely prospect, and for that reason come to doubt their father’s wisdom and good will. 
Hence, in the typical case, what to do in such a situation is left implicit and vague.  The nature of paternal authority is such that this is the way things should be.  Because the presumption that fathers will not abuse their authority is so strong, and because children need to believe viscerally that this is extremely unlikely to happen, the matter almost never comes up in most families.  There is a downside, of course, which is that on those rare occasions when a father does abuse his authority, children are bound to be confused about how to deal with the situation.  What do you do when the man appointed by nature to be your primary teacher and guardian starts to mislead or harm you?
Now, the papacy is like this.  The Church has no official and explicitly stated policy about how to deal with a pope who teaches error or otherwise abuses his office.  That is not because such error and abuse are not possible.  On the contrary, not only has the Church always allowed for the possibility that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra and that he can make policy decisions that do grave harm to the faithful, but both of these things have in fact happened on a handful of occasions – for example, the doctrinal errors of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII, the ambiguous doctrinal formula temporarily accepted by Pope Liberius, the Cadaver Synod of Pope Stephen VI and its aftermath, and the mistakes of Pope Urban VI that contributed to the Great Western Schism.  (I have discussed these cases here, here, and here.)  
But there is in Catholic theology so strong a presumption against a pope making grave doctrinal and disciplinary errors that, as with a father in relation to his children, it would be potentially misleading and destabilizing explicitly to formulate a policy concerning what to in such a situation.  Hence you won’t find in the Catechism a section on what to do about a bad pope.  The very existence and expression of such a policy might give the false impression that bad popes are bound to arise with some regularity.  
The downside is that on those rare occasions when a bad pope does come along, the Church is bound to be flummoxed.  Many Catholics without theological expertise will wrongly suppose that a Catholic must absolutely always support any policy that a pope implements, or assent to any doctrinal statement that a pope issues – even when such a statement seems manifestly contrary to traditional teaching (as in the cases of Honorius I and John XXII).  This will lead to one of two outcomes, depending on the capacity of such ill-informed Catholics for cognitive dissonance. 
Those who are more prone to react emotionally and less capable of clear and logical reasoning – and thus who are comfortable with embracing contradictions – will tend to go along with the doctrinal or policy errors of such a pope.  Their own understanding and practice of the Faith is going to be impaired as a result.  They are also bound to sow discord in the Church, since they will likely accuse those Catholics who do not embrace the errors of disloyalty and dissent.  By contrast, those who cannot bear such cognitive dissonance are liable to have their faith shaken.  They will wrongly suppose that they are obliged to assent to the errors, but find that they are unable to do so given the manifest conflict with traditional teaching.  They will needlessly worry that this conflict between current and past teaching falsifies the Church’s claim to indefectibility. 
It is important, then, for Catholics to realize that the traditional teaching of the Church has always allowed for the possibility of criticism of a pope who teaches error.  Indeed, such an acknowledgment is there in the New Testament, in St. Paul’s famous public rebuke of St. Peter for conduct that “seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law” (as the Catholic Encyclopedia characterizes Peter’s scandalous action).  
 

@Pudgy I wish that was true. Believe me, I really do, it would of made my life so much easier growing up and I would of avoid so much heartache and suffering and could of used that time energy and efforts and investing it in the ministry helping others.
But If that were true, disagreement regarding which doctrines are essential could be due only to illiteracy or malice. But when we engage in on-the-ground dialogue with Christians in other interpretive traditions, we find that the people with whom we disagree on such matters are generally neither unintelligent nor malicious. That implies that resolving the disagreements regarding which doctrines are essential is not as simple as pointing to Bible verses. Otherwise, after the last five centuries of reading and studying Scripture, then even if there was not an initial agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture, there should be at least a convergence of biblical interpretations among all students of Scripture. Instead there has been a continual multiplication of doctrinal disagreements among the various traditions. For these reasons, Scripture alone is not capable of answering the "essentials" question.
We have a five-hundred-year experiment called Protestantism. Protestant history is a history of fragmentation upon fragmentation, dividing not over what was believed to be secondary issues by those separating, but over what was believed to be orthodoxy and heresy. People do not break unity over issues they themselves believe to be secondary, indifferent adiaphora. Someone could claim that in each such case someone was failing to engage in honest exegesis, but it seems to me that such a claim would be ad hoc. There is no good reason to believe that in each case of  fragmentation, one or both sides were being dishonest in their exegesis of Scripture. The evidence is to the contrary. Likewise, someone could claim that in each case of fragmentation one or both sides did not have the spirit. But again, that would be ad hoc. Moreover, honest exegesis in the present is not bringing denominations back together. Given all the exegetical work published in academic journals and books over the last few centuries, which denominations have reconciled because of it? None if any. And again, it would be ad hoc to claim that they are not doing so only because of dishonesty or exegetical ignorance. Do we see all New Testament scholars moving toward one denomination’s theological position, over the past 500 years? No. All this shows that personal interpretation of Scripture is not a reliable way of distinguishing fully and accurately between orthodoxy and heresy.

@Pudgy I hear you, but here’s  what worries me about that simplicity principle you mention and then I’ll leave you alone. Either you are using simplicity as a criterion for truth, or not. If you are, that's using a human-derived criterion (i.e. human philosophy) to judge what content gets to count as divine revelation. That's making 'divine revelation' in your own image. On the other hand, if you're not using simplicity as a criterion for truth, then there is no reason (other than rhetorical) to appeal to simplicity as a reason to adopt your own view rather than the JW perspective.
The working philosophical assumption that theology and ecclesiology must all be simple it’s an assumption which the person is presupposing that it all must be simple, and that because what I'm saying includes digging deeper into things, therefore it cannot be true, because it is not simple, or at least as simple as your position. But that’s just making theology conform to your own philosophical presuppositions, rather than being open as a child to whatever level of complexity, sophistication or simplicity is to be found in Jehovah’s self revelation. It is  his revelation, not our creation. So if we are to be open in faith, we have to be open to whatever God reveals, rather than try to force it into our preconceived notions concerning what it must be like. So if Jesus established a congregation with a Governing body, and entrusted to her the scriptures, then persons of faith should embrace it rather than reject it and replace it with something simpler. Given your simplicity principle, any person could reject your theology as too complex, and replace it with simpler theology still. There is always someone with a position simpler than one’s own.
So let me leave you with one last thought to think about and perhaps you can see where I would like to focus my efforts and attention in the closed forum or elsewhere. I believe once you and other current and former Witnesses start seeing this distinction, it would be the equivalent of "taking the red pill” or leaving the set of "The Truman Show".
It seems to me that if we are not going to worry with distinguishing false teachings from true teachings , then while we might possibly continue to argue that there are grounds for thinking that Jehovah has communicated something to mankind, somewhere at some time (i.e. given a revelation), a stance of ambivalence with respect to the need to distinguishing which current explanatory or descriptive accounts of that revelation match what Jehovah intended men to know (true teachings), over against errant disfigurements of what Jehovah intended men to know (false beliefs), has the practical effect of undermining the very notion or purpose of any divine revelation at all. 
Such a stance explicitly, and in principle, shrouds the content which Jehovah intended to reveal within a cloak of human opinion from which it cannot escape to reach the mind of any modern seeker as a revelation from Jehovah distinct from some other fellow human’s opinion. And this would mean that the purported answers concerning human meaning and destiny which Christianity claims to provide are just opinions and can, therefore, command our assent no more than the thousands of other competing truth claims about human purpose and destiny which are all around us in a pluralistic society. The Good News reduces to an opinion column and so becomes old news. If all Christianity has to offer modern man is yet another wacky set of notions about Jehovah, afterlife, morality, etc. – then to hell with it. The whole point of a “revealed” religion is to offer truth claims which ostensibly stand in contrast to what man can know, or guess at, on his own. Hence, a revealed religion which simultaneously, and in principle, claims that what God intended to communicate to men via revelation is no longer decipherable beyond the level of that same human opinion to which we all had access before ever exploring revealed religion, simply defeats the very purpose of revealed religion. 
What is special about the Good News, or the deliverances of Christianity regarding human meaning and destiny, if we give up on the distinction between True beliefs and false ones? I, for one, cannot say.
Regards,
 
 
 

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.
 
 

I don’t understand what you mean Pudgy😔 … sigh….

@Pudgy Let me try one last time. To boil it down for convenience, my central argument has been that, without an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, we would have no way of distinguishing between what's objectively divine revelation and what's only human opinion about the scope and interpretation of the sources. That distinction is not primarily about how we attain certainty. Rather, my argument is about how we identify the primary subject matter of theology, i.e. divine revelation itself. Now if the subject matter of theology were primarily a set of texts and practices, make that set as broad or narrow as you please, then theology would be just like other disciplines such as philosophy, history, and sociology. Accordingly, it would not require positing inerrancy or infallibility. We would study the texts and practices, come to reasonable but provisional conclusions about their truth and/or value, and call some of our conclusions our theology. That's the methodology in departments of "religious studies."
I spent some time in that methodology when I was younger, and I learned things thereby. But as Christians we know that such a merely human discipline does not suffice for the purpose at hand. Thus, even though it often utilizes methods of inquiry like those of other disciplines, theology itself is not like other disciplines. What we're after in theology strictly speaking, as distinct from natural theology, which is a branch of metaphysics, is identifying the content of something we could never know or identify just by human inquiry, i.e. what Jehovah has revealed. And we take for granted that Jehovah is "infallible," in the sense that he knows whatever can be known, and can neither deceive nor be deceived. So, we want to know how to identify what Jehovah himself has revealed, as distinct from, but not always as opposed to, what mere man has said or done about him. The latter is not protected from error, and hence cannot be relied on for knowledge of what Jehovah has revealed.
In the nature of the case, knowledge of something as divine revelation can only be attained by recognizing certain sources of information as produced or authorized by God and thus protected by him from error. My argument is not over that point, but over the scope of those sources. 
Given as much, another way of putting my central argument is this: Without a living body that is divinely authorized to speak with divine and thus infallible authority, we would have no way of distinguishing reliably between theology and religious studies. That's because we would not even have a way of definitively settling the question what the relevant sources of transmission are, much less what they mean. You might personally choose to regard a certain set of texts, i.e. “Scripture," as the inerrant "Word of God," which is what you do; you might regard certain early interpreters of those texts as pretty reliable guides to interpreting them, which you also seem to do; you might even recognize certain traditions and concrete practices as relevant sources of information, which you could do consistently with your position. But your grounds for doing so would be human reasoning and opinion alone, not the teaching of any living body whose leadership we recognize as authorized by God to speak definitively in his name. Hence, all your conclusions would remain fallible and provisional. But you don't seem any more content with that than I am, nor should you be. That is why I've said to you before that your only alternatives to such an infallible interpretive authority are "rationalism" or "enthusiasm," whose concrete correlates would be an academic governing body. There is no third alternative that does not reduce to one of those two, or to some ramshackle combination thereof, such as (JW insider)  (if I’m not mistaken) idea that the scope and meaning of the biblical canon can be recognized with certainty by a combination of literary/historical analysis and the inner promptings of the holy spirit.
 
Hopefully that clears up what I’ve been meaning to say. Thank you for you time, I’m bowing out.

@Srecko Sostar “Inspiration”is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. It refers to the written or verbal revelation that Jehovah gave. Guidance(spirit led) refers to the holy spirit prompting to truth. In Acts 15 the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ, and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. The reason they can do that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration. Claiming they were inspired in Acts 15 when the passage nowhere mentions they were inspired its an unfounded deduction. This is similar to the Apostles in the first ten to fifteen years of the Congregation (before any Scripture was written), when exercising their authority over the Christian congregation as their appointed representatives, and yet not speaking inspired Scripture.
I think you are equating inspiration, with the assistance of the holy spirit. The holy spirit works in and through the fallible Christian congregation not apart from it nor does it dispense with the human factor.  With respect to the notion of the holy spirit’s  guidance of the Governing Body, the events of the Jerusalem council in Acts can again be helpful. It is important to understand that the spirits guidance of the Governing Body  is not to be thought of as magical or mystical, or in any manifest way noticeable in the concrete reality of the Governing body’s activity. The spirits guidance is more subtle, powerful, and comprehensive than that. In reading the account of the gathering and conducting of the Jerusalem council, there does not appear to be anything especially divine about how the proceedings develop. There is heated argumentation and debate, and finally, after various opinions and objections had been placed on the table, those taking the lead (James and Peter)speak and make something like an executive decision with respect to the question of circumcision. From a purely human point of view, it does not appear to be much different from what one might encounter in a Fortune 500 board room. And yet, when the decision or decrees of the council are drawn up for promulgation to the various congregations, it includes a rather extraordinary claim regarding the identity of one of the parties involved in the process. For it begins: “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”. This correspondence between the activity of the Governing Body and the spirit in promulgating definitive teaching is the prototype for all their activity going forward.
 

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.
 
 

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so  I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error.
@Pudgy When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture.
Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society.
The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience,  or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club).
Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership.
Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men.
@Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.
Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you.
One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or  Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s  not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds.
On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide.
A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.