God does not take it kindly to those who usurp His Priesthood

[Patavium]

In Jude, it says as follows

[BIBLEDRB]Jude 1:11[/BIBLEDRB]

In the words of James Akin (ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM)

Most of us know those two examples, but who was Korah and what was his rebellion? The story is found in Numbers 16, and it concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood. Korah said it does mean that, and he gathered a rebellion against Moses and Aaron to usurp the priesthood from them. Numbers 16 says: “Now Korah . . . and Dathan and Abiram . . . took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said . . . ‘You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?’”

"When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; and he said . . . “In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy . . . Do this: take censers . . . put fire in them and put incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi! . . . Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel . . . would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?”

After this you can guess what happened. The men loaded up their censers and tried to offer incense before the Lord, but God caused the earth to open its mouth and swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, then he caused fire to come out of the Tabernacle and swallow up the two hundred and fifty men offering incense, showing that they were not to be priests, not the ones to offer incense, even though God had said that in one sense the whole congregation were priests.

Moses also had to intercede to keep God from killing those in the congregation who merely supported Korah, even though they did not themselves offer incense. Later, when the people grumbled after Korah was dead, Moses again had to intervene to stop God from killing them all, but almost 15,000 of them died anyway for being followers of Korah.

It is against this sin that the book of Jude warns us, because the same thing can happen in the New Testament age. Don’t think you can confine the warning against Korah’s rebellion to the Old Testament age. Jude tells us it was going on in his day as well.

Just as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram came along and said, “Hey, in Exodus 19 God said we are all priests, so we don’t need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!” today people come along and say, “Hey, in 1 Peter and Revelation God said we are all priests, so we don’t need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!”

It is against this erroneous conclusion that the book of Jude warns us, proclaiming that people who fall into this error perish in the rebellion of Korah. In the New Testament age there were people rising up and assuming the priesthood who had not been authorized to do so, and Jude records their judgment for us.

For this reason, we must not listen to those who spread this erroneous doctrine. People had to ignore such preaching in the day of Moses. They had to ignore it in the day of Jude. And they have to ignore it today, even if the person spreading the error is himself a former priest. We must stay faithful to the word of God and keep to our position as universal priests, not assuming a priesthood to which we have not been ordained. Failure to do this puts us in danger of perishing in the same rebellion that Numbers and the book of Jude warn us against.

Thus, is your pastor? elder? priest? ordained as instructed by God? or is he usurping the priesthood?

 

[Patavium]

In the words of James Akin (ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM)

1. The sacrament of ordination

But not only is the New Testament priesthood sacramental because it administers sacraments. It is also sacramental because one gains the priesthood by a sacrament, the sacrament of holy orders or ordination.

When I was a Protestant I did a major Bible study on the Holy Spirit and discovered that it is God’s pattern throughout the Bible, both Old Testament and New, to give the Holy Spirit to his ministers on the occasion of their ordination, to empower them for the ministry he had just elevated them to.

a. John 20:22: “Receive the Holy Spirit”

In the New Testament we find this pattern in John 20:22, for example. When Jesus commissions his ministers to forgive sins, he tells them “Receive the Holy Spirit” and then breathes on them.

b. 2 Tim 1:6

We find the same pattern in 2 Timothy 1:6, when Paul urges his protégé to fulfill his ministry and says: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.”

c. 1 Tim 4:14

He spoke of the same thing in 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul explains how he must fulfill his ministry as an evangelist and tells him: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.”

Other translators render this “which was given you . . . with the laying on of hands for the presbytery” or “in order to become a member of the presbytery.”

d. 1 Tim. 5:19-22: Pass it on!

This gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands in ordination, was something Paul instructed Timothy to pass on in the future. Part of his duty as a bishop-evangelist was to ordain elders in different congregations. He tells Timothy he must exercise this ministry carefully, lest he ordain a priest unworthy of the office. In 1 Timothy 5:19-22 he tells the young evangelist: “Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. . . . Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.”

Paul tells Timothy not to lay hands on an elder too quickly; don’t ordain him until he has been tested and shown to be of excellent character. Otherwise Timothy will share in his sins.

e. The result in history: apostolic succession

Timothy, as well as Titus and other early evangelist-bishops, carried out this ministry of ordaining priests, and the result is what we have today in the Catholic Church: a sacramental priesthood with a chain of ordinations running straight back to the first century, whose links can be clearly documented from Church history.

Are your pastors/elders/priests part of this chain of Apostolic succession? Who appointed your pastors/elders/preachers/priests?

 

[JonNC]

In the words of James Akin (ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM)

Are your pastors/elders/priests part of this chain of Apostolic succession? Who appointed your pastors/elders/preachers/priests?

Jude does not speak of Apostolic Succession. That said, yes, as was done in the very early Church, Lutheran pastors are rightly called and ordained, some within apostolic succession, and others via the historic practice of presbyter ordination.

Jon

 

[Patavium]

Jude does not speak of Apostolic Succession. That said, yes, as was done in the very early Church, Lutheran pastors are rightly called and ordained, some within apostolic succession, and others via the historic practice of presbyter ordination.

Jon

Hi Jon,

The point is simple. There are three priesthoods: the universal priesthood (you and I and others laity), the ministerial priesthood(elders, pastors, priests), and the High priesthood (only Jesus).

The Ministerial priesthood is only obtained by ordination through a chain that goes back to the Apostles, and if someone that has not been ordained as part of such chain calls himself a Priest/elder/pastor… Well… See what happened to Korah

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

The point is simple. There are three priesthoods: the universal priesthood (you and I and others laity), the ministerial priesthood(elders, pastors, priests), and the High priesthood (only Jesus).

The Ministerial priesthood is only obtained by ordination through a chain that goes back to the Apostles, and if someone that has not been ordained as part of such chain calls himself a Priest/elder/pastor… Well… See what happened to Korah

Not the case in your last paragraph. There was no chain going back to the apostles where local churches were ordaining, and the fact is that presbyter ordination has been practice by the Catholic Church in the past, an example being the Cistercian Abotts in the 1400’s, and their ordinations were valid even without the laying on of hands by a bishop.

You are right that the CC does not recognize our ordinations, and I would expect you as a Catholic to believe that to be true. I suspect you are not surprised that we, respectfully, disagree.

Jon

 

[Trebor135]

Not the case in your last paragraph.

What example are you referring to?

There was no chain going back to the apostles where local churches were ordaining,

When/where do you have in mind?

 

[JonNC]

What example are you referring to?

When/where do you have in mind?

Lacking bishops to ordain their candidates for the sacred ministry, the Lutherans appealed to the patristically attested facts that originally boshops and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain); that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65); and that when the canonical bishops refuse to impart ordination “the churches are compelled by divine law to ordain pastors and ministers, using their own pastors for this purpose (adhibitis suis pastoribus)” (ibid., 72). The succession of the ministry in the Lutheran Church may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

 

[Indifferently]

I don’t quite know why anyone by choice would ever use the hideous Douay Rheims translation. To my knowledge, I have never heard it used during an actual Roman Catholic service. Not to mention, the original DR was so unreadable that Challoner had to rewrite most of it, basing his revision on the Authorized Version, which is a Bible actually in regular public use.

 

[SonSearcher]

I don’t quite know why anyone by choice would ever use the hideous Douay Rheims translation. To my knowledge, I have never heard it used during an actual Roman Catholic service. Not to mention, the original DR was so unreadable that Challoner had to rewrite most of it, basing his revision on the Authorized Version, which is a Bible actually in regular public use.

I like it personally. Is it my study bible nope. But there ist somethingst abouts it.

 

[Tomyris]

I suggest you use a softer tone when you post. This may be coming across harder than I intend, but there it is.

Presbyterians reject the idea that elders and pastors are priests any more than anyone else. We have a Great High Priest and we are priests; no middle category is needed or justified.

Centuries ago Presbyterians specifically refrained from laying hands on new pastors to be sure that it would be clearly understood that the idea of apostolic succession was rejected.

The Great High Priest was the final priest according to the book of Hebrews, who completed the sacrifice. Any additional sacrifice for atonement for sins would be an insult to His finished work.

That is pretty much straight Presbyterian thought on this issue. I think we would say that God does indeed not take kindly to those who usurp His Priesthood, and your fierce Presbyterian would NOT be thinking of Protestant clergy here. The warning would be for Catholic and Orthodox priests.

Look at Justin Martyr, who describes an early Christian service. There is a ‘president’ of the service, not a priest, and there is no indication that the bread and wine were considered a sacrifice or offering. You have to read into it that it was a Mass. If it was one, there is no language indicating that their understanding was the same as that of modern Catholics. The duties and callings of pastors and elders in the New Testament do not include anything close to the idea of them being priests. In one place, I grant you, Paul describes himself as fulfilling the duties of a priest, but there is no suggestion this was to be considered more generalized.

And we do regard our ministers to be duly called and appointed by God.

I thought I would lay out what anti-clericalism is all about, since you seem to be unaware of it.

BUT

I think God also calls men to serve as pastors and elders in the Catholic Church.

 

[Indifferently]

I suggest you use a softer tone when you post. This may be coming across harder than I intend, but there it is.

Presbyterians reject the idea that elders and pastors are priests any more than anyone else. We have a Great High Priest and we are priests; no middle category is needed or justified.

Centuries ago Presbyterians specifically refrained from laying hands on new pastors to be sure that it would be clearly understood that the idea of apostolic succession was rejected.

The Great High Priest was the final priest according to the book of Hebrews, who completed the sacrifice. Any additional sacrifice for atonement for sins would be an insult to His finished work.

That is pretty much straight Presbyterian thought on this issue. I think we would say that God does indeed not take kindly to those who usurp His Priesthood, and your fierce Presbyterian would NOT be thinking of Protestant clergy here. The warning would be for Catholic and Orthodox priests.

Look at Justin Martyr, who describes an early Christian service. There is a ‘president’ of the service, not a priest, and there is no indication that the bread and wine were considered a sacrifice or offering. You have to read into it that it was a Mass. If it was one, there is no language indicating that their understanding was the same as that of modern Catholics. The duties and callings of pastors and elders in the New Testament do not include anything close to the idea of them being priests. In one place, I grant you, Paul describes himself as fulfilling the duties of a priest, but there is no suggestion this was to be considered more generalized.

And we do regard our ministers to be duly called and appointed by God.

I thought I would lay out what anti-clericalism is all about, since you seem to be unaware of it.

BUT

I think God also calls men to serve as pastors and elders in the Catholic Church.

But isn’t the laying on of hands specifically done in Acts, and was it not also done throughout the whole two thousand year history of the Church??

 

[Tomyris]

But isn’t the laying on of hands specifically done in Acts, and was it not also done throughout the whole two thousand year history of the Church??

I think the feeling or whatever was that unbelieving men had laid hands on unbelieving men for so long that there was not point in it, except perhaps a superstitious one. I haven’t read up on it. Just because it is mentioned in the Book of Acts does not mean we are to do it today - that is what happened, not necessarily a model for what we should do. Or perhaps we should all go to Jerusalem and wait in an upper room, or sell everything and give it to the church? No. You can draw principles from the Book of Acts, but I don’t recall a commandment that ordination specifically requires the laying on of hands.

Bear in mind that the early Presbyterians were into a wholesale rejection of everything not specifically mandated in Scripture. Laying on of hands was done for 1500 years or so in the church before they stopped it, not 2000. I don’t think we lay hands on people when they are ordained today, either. Maybe we do. I can’t recall one way or the other. But I recall hearing somewhere that they specifically and emphatically broke the chain of laying on of hands for a generation or two. Laying on of hands on a candidate for ordination I think was regarded as a traditional as opposed to a Scriptural practice, and so it was rejected. Today I saw people laying hands on someone when they were praying for them, and I have seen pastors and elders lay hands on people when they pray for them. If we lay hands on someone when they are being ordained, it is most definitely NOT to pass on apostolic succession. Apostolic succession would be regarded as residing in faithfully teaching and preaching the apostolic writings, not in specific individuals.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Jude does not speak of Apostolic Succession. That said, yes, as was done in the very early Church, Lutheran pastors are rightly called and ordained, some within apostolic succession, and others via the historic practice of presbyter ordination.

Jon

I am still dying to know how you know they are “Validly” ordained. Who said that?

Also, who are the Apostolic Successors today, if any, in the Lutheran Church? Can they trace an unbroken line of succession back to the first Apostles? Or did they just magically appear around the 16th century?

Even more importantly, are you aware that Luther, the founder of Protestantism, who was a priest, does not qualify as an Apostolic Successor since both Orthodox and Catholic agree that only Bishops are Apostolic Successors?

Is it not problematic that the founder of the Protestant faith was not an Apostolic Successor to begin with?

 

[Eufrosnia]

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

So who exactly decided that the Lutheran claim was valid? I mean I understand what they are saying. But why accept it?

Both Catholics and Orthodox reject such a position. What makes you think that Lutheran’s then have a valid position?
**
Also, where does this leave the Lutheran Church considering they reject those who are valid Apostolic Successors according to Lutheran standards themselves in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?**

 

[Eufrosnia]

The Great High Priest was the final priest according to the book of Hebrews, who completed the sacrifice. Any additional sacrifice for atonement for sins would be an insult to His finished work.

You do realize that the priests do not re-sacrifice for atonement? At the moment of transubstantiation, Calvary itself becomes present to the faithful at that moment. The priest acts in person of Christ in transforming the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ.

The priest does not perform a new sacrifice.

About Apostolic Succession, the rejection of Apostolic Succession means that you would have almost nothing to call Christianity. Why? The Bible itself was never put together by the first Apostles. Some of the gospel writers themselves were not first Apostles. There is also the issue that even if one considers the Biblical text good historical accounts written using the first Apostles accounts, that still would not not mean that every single book is divinely inspired. So the Bible goes off the picture.

But let us assume the Bible is still salvageable somehow. Then one is left with the problem of who has the ability interpret the Bible. Usually people will now quote biblical text to perhaps suggest that all believers can interpret the Bible. But that is problematic because it requires one to interpret the Bible in the first place to arrive at that conclusion. So an interpretation issue starts to take place.

Still let us assume that one gets around it by denying personal authority to interpret and saying instead that we will try to interpret it in the way one knows that it was historically interpreted (a kind of pseudo Tradition). But then there is a problem with new issues that arise. Example, how does one address cloning, in-vitro fertilization, birth control pill, etc. So now one has to go back to try and apply Biblical teaching to these issues. But since there is no precedent in history on how to address these issues from the time of the first Apostles, one is left in limbo as to how to decide.

So it would seem that Apostolic Succession is certainly necessary for the Christian faith. If it is non-existence, then so is Christianity.

 

[pablope]

Not the case in your last paragraph. There was no chain going back to the apostles where local churches were ordaining,

and the fact is that presbyter ordination has been practice by the Catholic Church in the past, an example being the Cistercian Abotts in the 1400’s, and their ordinations were valid even without the laying on of hands by a bishop.

Jon

Jon…could you provide more info on this. I believe this may be the same one I had encountered before…that this is a special case…where there was no bishop…so the Pope gave a presbyter special permission…for a special circumstance…and it is not the norm.

In this is the same case, if Lutherans practice this…what then is the special circumstance and where did you get the permission to practice this?

And once the special circumstance has ceased…why continue to practice it?

 

[pablope]

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain); that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65);

So…there was papal permission because of a special circumstance. It is not the norm.

The succession of the ministry in the Lutheran Church may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one.

So the LC presumed it only…where is the papal permission then? Isn’t this subordination and disobedience?

It looks to me like rationalizing the Lutheran position by presuming the authority to ordain…but what is the presumption is wrong?

 

[Trebor135]

Bear in mind that the early Presbyterians were into a wholesale rejection of everything not specifically mandated in Scripture.

And here the fundamental problem raises its head: sola scriptura. The Calvinist must demonstrate not only that this doctrine is correct but also that Calvin was doing something biblical when he founded his own denomination and is reliable when he propounded his new doctrines in, e.g., the Institues.

This matter is, of course, entirely different to the topic of the thread. But the point had to be made.

 

[pablope]

But isn’t the laying on of hands specifically done in Acts, and was it not also done throughout the whole two thousand year history of the Church??

Yes…in Acts 13…where Paul is ordained before he goes on his first missionary journey…he is sent.

Laying of hands actually has its roots in the OT:

Numbers 27…18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. 21 He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the Lord. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.”

22 Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses.

 

[pablope]

I think t

No. You can draw principles from the Book of Acts, but I don’t recall a commandment that ordination specifically requires the laying on of hands.