If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[josephback]

I’m curious about this. According to the teaching known as the priesthood of all believers, there is no hierarchical priesthood set over the community to mediate between God and man. Why then have trained leaders who function on a practical level in much the same way only without the theological backdrop as a reason?

Also, if the Bible is the sole rule and norm of faith by which all doctrine is to be judged, how does one go about enforcing creeds and confessions as “orthodox” when a highly charismatic person decides they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand differently? I want to hear the rationale for this.

 

[ltwin]

I’m curious about this. According to the teaching known as the priesthood of all believers, there is no hierarchical priesthood set over the community to mediate between God and man. Why then have trained leaders who function on a practical level in much the same way only without the theological backdrop as a reason?

From R. C. Sproul:

Peter explains in today’s passage that we are that royal priesthood who need none but Christ to stand between us and the Father (1 Peter 2:9–10). Martin Luther pointed out in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church that “all we who are Christians are priests,” and no believer has greater access to the Creator than any other. Pastors and elders are appointed to teach the church the will of God from His Word (1 Tim. 3:1–7), but they do not represent us before the heavenly throne like the Levitical priests did under the administration of the old covenant.

Also, if the Bible is the sole rule and norm of faith by which all doctrine is to be judged, how does one go about enforcing creeds and confessions as “orthodox” when a highly charismatic person decides they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand differently? I want to hear the rationale for this.

“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22)

If someone claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to disagree with any given confession or creed, then the church can assess his or her claims according to Scripture. If the confession or creed lines up with Scripture then it should be upheld and the person regarded as being in error.

 

[esieffe]

Here is why:

catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-supremacy-in-the-bible-and-church-fathers.html

Relax, stay calm, and no matter what happens don’t feed the trolls.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m not sure I understand the question because we Catholics believe in the priesthood of all believers we just have a different understanding of it than Protestants do.

 

[psalm90]

Also, if the Bible is the sole rule and norm of faith by which all doctrine is to be judged, how does one go about enforcing creeds and confessions as “orthodox” when a highly charismatic person decides they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand differently? I want to hear the rationale for this.

That statement is true only in non-Catholic circles. It is not relevant in the Catholic Church where doctrine (teaching) is based on scripture, (sacred) Tradition, and the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

In the realm of the priesthood of all believers, yes, we are priests who offer our daily lives to God. But, there is a Biblical hierarchy of deacons, priests (presbyters), and bishops (overseers), certainly of whom St. Paul is an example.

He chides various groups for going astray of his teaching – that implies something other than every-man-for-himself Christianity.

In the early days of the Reformation, the saying was that the Reformers had a Pope on every dunghill. That is apparently still true today and Protestants are proud of it. Catholics have one central leader, the bishop of Rome.

 

[pablope]

From R. C. Sproul

:

Peter explains in today’s passage that we are that royal priesthood who need none but Christ to stand between us and the Father (1 Peter 2:9–10). Martin Luther pointed out in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church that “all we who are Christians are priests,” and no believer has greater access to the Creator than any other. Pastors and elders are appointed to teach the church the will of God from His Word (1 Tim. 3:1–7), but they do not represent us before the heavenly throne like the Levitical priests did under the administration of the old covenant.

But why is Sproul and Luther to be believed with their take on it? Where they guided by the Holy Spirit?

“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22)

 

[ltwin]

But why is Sproul and Luther to be believed with their take on it? Where they guided by the Holy Spirit?

It doesn’t matter what Sproul or Luther thinks (in so far as them having any special charism from the Holy Spirit). I only cited Sproul because he’s a prominent Protestant minister who accurately presents the Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers. The only thing that matters is that (special guidance from the Holy Spirit notwithstanding) a person’s teaching conforms to God’s written word.

The Scriptures are God’s Word written. The Holy Spirit will not contradict himself.

Okay…Who in the Church will make that assessment?

That would depend on one’s ecclesiology, and not every tradition has the same form of church polity. Some have an episcopal government, other’s a presbyterian polity, and in congregational churches the members of the church themselves have a role in church governance.

Looks like…you are confirming that there is a sort of leadership that will make the assessment.

There is God-ordained leadership within the church. We are told in Scripture that the early church chose elders and deacons. We are also told that God has given to the church " apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Ephesians 4).

Of course, the primary role of such leaders is to “equip the saints for the work of ministry” so that we can attain to the unity of the faith and mature enough not to be deceived by false doctrine. God has not placed the church under the authority of a new priesthood. The purpose of church leaders are to empower the saints to be ministers themselves.

But is the one making the assessment guided by the Holy Spirit?

One would hope that those who have authority within the church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, but Scripture has told us and history has confirmed that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing and tares among the wheat.

That is why Protestant Reformers believed the church should not give any one man or group of men authority to teach what they think the Holy Spirit might be guiding them to teach at any given moment. That kind of authority should be rejected. Instead, all teachers within in the church should question themselves and look to Scripture for their authority.

And who will make the assessment as to which guidance from the Holy Spirit is correct?

Well, ultimately, all of us make those assessments by staying in whatever church we happen to attend. We wouldn’t attend a church whose teachings we did not believe were guided by the Holy Spirit. Whether you are Protestant or Catholic, ultimately you decided that your church was guided by the Holy Spirit.

So…how will Scripture make the determination as to which lines up with itself?

Can you cite the chapter and verse where this is stated?

Scripture is read. If a passage is unclear, you use other parts of Scripture to help interpret it. If it is still unclear, you use reason, knowledge of original languages, and even contextual knowledge of the time period to provide more clarity. Once you have determined what Scripture has to say then you can apply it to the issue at hand.

It’s common sense to me. Why would we need to be told basic rules of reading and interpretation by the Bible?

 

[mattp0625]

It doesn’t matter what Sproul or Luther thinks (in so far as them having any special charism from the Holy Spirit). I only cited Sproul because he’s a prominent Protestant minister who accurately presents the Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers. The only thing that matters is that (special guidance from the Holy Spirit notwithstanding) a person’s teaching conforms to God’s written word.

The Scriptures are God’s Word written. The Holy Spirit will not contradict himself.

That would depend on one’s ecclesiology, and not every tradition has the same form of church polity. Some have an episcopal government, other’s a presbyterian polity, and in congregational churches the members of the church themselves have a role in church governance.

There is God-ordained leadership within the church. We are told in Scripture that the early church chose elders and deacons. We are also told that God has given to the church " apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Ephesians 4).

Of course, the primary role of such leaders is to “equip the saints for the work of ministry” so that we can attain to the unity of the faith and mature enough not to be deceived by false doctrine. God has not placed the church under the authority of a new priesthood. The purpose of church leaders are to empower the saints to be ministers themselves.

One would hope that those who have authority within the church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, but Scripture has told us and history has confirmed that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing and tares among the wheat.

That is why Protestant Reformers believed the church should not give any one man or group of men authority to teach what they think the Holy Spirit might be guiding them to teach at any given moment. That kind of authority should be rejected. Instead, all teachers within in the church should question themselves and look to Scripture for their authority.

Well, ultimately, all of us make those assessments by staying in whatever church we happen to attend. We wouldn’t attend a church whose teachings we did not believe were guided by the Holy Spirit. Whether you are Protestant or Catholic, ultimately you decided that your church was guided by the Holy Spirit.



Scripture is read. If a passage is unclear, you use other parts of Scripture to help interpret it. If it is still unclear, you use reason, knowledge of original languages, and even contextual knowledge of the time period to provide more clarity. Once you have determined what Scripture has to say then you can apply it to the issue at hand.

It’s common sense to me. Why would we need to be told basic rules of reading and interpretation by the Bible?

There are several things to consider here.

There are between 9,000 and 30,000 denominations who interpret scripture differently. All claim to be led by the same Spirit. They have split over matters both large and small. It is clear, therefore, that scripture does not interpret itself. Further, the Spirit is not leading people into schism.

Protestants often choose denominations and bible interpretations accordingly to their own will. One forms an interpretation and finds the denomination that follows suit.

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ and that His apostles appointed bishops to preserve this tradition of the early church (i.e. centuries before the bible was canonized).

Catholics don’t pick and choose interpretations. We trust in apostolic succession as the mechanism by which the deposit of faith through divine revelation from Jesus is maintained. We believe in this mechanism through objective evidence of apostolic succession and the body of bishops, from the first century onward. This is not the same thing.

Additionally, Luther is relevant here because:

1. 
   *] He initiated the reformation, authored the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide, etc., to which all Protestants subscribe, and created the 66-book canon (e.g with the apocrypha) which all Protestants use,
   *] He lamented after his reformation there were “as many interpretations as there are heads”,
   *] He fought the other reformers (such as Zwingli’s radical brand) as hard as he fought Catholics, and
   *] He did, in substance, give himself sole authority to interpret scripture despite chiding the Catholic Church and others for the same.
   
   For example, Luther indicated:
   1. 
      *]“I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels.”
      *]“Anyone who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.”
      *]“If the papist annoys you with the word “alone”, tell them Doctor Martin Luther will have it so”.
      *]“Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors.”
      
      Lastly, consider the following quotes:
      
      Luther’s confessor before Luther left the church, “Martin, don’t act like a child. God is not angry with you. It is you who are angry with God.”
      
      Luther toward the end of his life: “In light of these developments, there will be the greatest confusion, no one will allow himself to be led by another man’s doctrine or authority, everyone will be his own rabbi, hence the greatest scandals.”
      
      Much of this information on Luther is sourced from the research of Dr. Paul Thigpen, a former Pentecostal minister:
      youtu.be/ROhumu2OlgQ

 

[josephback]

From R. C. Sproul:

Peter explains in today’s passage that we are that royal priesthood who need none but Christ to stand between us and the Father (1 Peter 2:9–10). Martin Luther pointed out in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church that “all we who are Christians are priests,” and no believer has greater access to the Creator than any other. Pastors and elders are appointed to teach the church the will of God from His Word (1 Tim. 3:1–7), but they do not represent us before the heavenly throne like the Levitical priests did under the administration of the old covenant.

Who appoints the pastors and elders to their position, how is this recognized, and what happens when their office requires that they rebuke the people? Are the people obliged in faith to listen or can they fire their pastor?

“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22)

If someone claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to disagree with any given confession or creed, then the church can assess his or her claims according to Scripture. If the confession or creed lines up with Scripture then it should be upheld and the person regarded as being in error.
How does one determine if a given confession or creed lines up with Scripture? How do I know in my lowly, translation bound reality what the Bible teaches and what groups contradict this teaching and thereby err?

 

[ltwin]

Who appoints the pastors and elders to their position, how is this recognized, and what happens when their office requires that they rebuke the people?

In my tradition, pastors are generally elected by the congregation, perhaps with some oversight of a bishop or superintendent. If a pastor needs to rebuke someone or the whole church then he does it.

Are the people obliged in faith to listen or can they fire their pastor?

In my tradition, pastors are generally respected as the leaders of the congregation. Yes, ultimately, the church board or church members (or perhaps a bishop or superintendent) can remove him for immorality, incompetence, or theological errors. However, church members don’t simply vote him out because he calls them out for living in sin.

Protestant churches do recognize the concept of ecclesiastical discipline. Part of joining a church as a member is that you agree to adhere to the doctrines of the church and be bound by covenant to obey godly authority. Ultimately, if you resist and refuse to heed godly authority or persist in teaching others errors you will be removed from membership.That, however, is a last action reserved for persistent refusal to repent.

How does one determine if a given confession or creed lines up with Scripture? How do I know in my lowly, translation bound reality what the Bible teaches and what groups contradict this teaching and thereby err?

You shouldn’t try to determine it alone.It should be done as part of the fellowship of believers. There are many church scholars that can help us understand the Scriptures. There are gifted teachers within the church who can help us understand the Scriptures.

 

[Vonsalza]

If the protestant understanding of “the priesthood of all believers” was the correct one, Christ wouldn’t have appointed Apostles who spoke authoritatively for Christianity and also passed on their authority, as we see with the election of Mattias.

It’s not an either/or situation. It is both. There is a formal priesthood (as Christ appointed one) AND we’re to behave in a sanctified way.

In that way, the view of the ancient Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, Armenian, ect) is more correct and complete than post-16th century protestant opinion.

As Luther noted later in his life, the lack of an authoritative priesthood led to absolute chaos and perpetual division - the greatest “fruits” of the protestant reformation.

 

[Peter_J]

Forgive me if this sounds overly possessive, but the true doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is what we teach.

 

[MartinJordan]

Forgive me if this sounds overly possessive, but the true doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is what we teach.

MJ

 

[Tomyris]

What makes the OP think the priesthood of all believes rejects hierarchy?

 

[JonNC]

If the protestant understanding of “the priesthood of all believers” was the correct one, Christ wouldn’t have appointed Apostles who spoke authoritatively for Christianity and also passed on their authority, as we see with the election of Mattias.

It’s not an either/or situation. It is both. There is a formal priesthood (as Christ appointed one) AND we’re to behave in a sanctified way.

In that way, the view of the ancient Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, Armenian, ect) is more correct and complete than post-16th century protestant opinion.

As Luther noted later in his life, the lack of an authoritative priesthood led to absolute chaos and perpetual division - the greatest “fruits” of the protestant reformation.

Where did you get the idea that Luther rejected an authoritative priesthood. The priesthood of all believers does not deny the existence of and need for an ordained priesthood.
Augsburg Confession Article XIV: ** Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

**

 

[JonNC]

What makes the OP think the priesthood of all believes rejects hierarchy?

Good question

 

[JonNC]

I’m curious about this. According to the teaching known as the priesthood of all believers, there is no hierarchical priesthood set over the community to mediate between God and man. Why then have trained leaders who function on a practical level in much the same way only without the theological backdrop as a reason?

Also, if the Bible is the sole rule and norm of faith by which all doctrine is to be judged, how does one go about enforcing creeds and confessions as “orthodox” when a highly charismatic person decides they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand differently? I want to hear the rationale for this.

On the second part, you answered your own question. The Church is given teaching authority in scripture by Christ. Doctrine is determined by the Church. It is the Church that uses scripture as the final norm. So, if a communion determines that the Nicene Creed is orthodox, then those who profess to be members of that communion are bound to it.

 

[rcwitness]

Forgive me if this sounds overly possessive, but the true doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is what we teach.

Wow! This is quite bold of you to say!

 

[Vonsalza]

Good question.

The answer is that it doesn’t reject heirarchy. It is a call to sanctification for all believers - no small thing.

Christ instituted temporal priesthood with the disciples/apostles just like his father instituted the OT priesthood.

And we see that not every Christian was a member of that holy order from the NT text itself. Mattias was carefully elected to replace Judas Iscariot. It wasn’t open to every Tom, Dick and Harry who professed the God-hood of Christ - as it would be if we were all, verily, priests.

These men also raised up bishops as successors. These were specific men that had a specific authority that laity did not have. You’ve heard of a few of them, I’m sure. Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and others.

A loose “priesthood of all believers” in the sense many protestants believe in it, is non-functional. When a dispute arises between two “priests”, there is no deciding authority. They both accuse each other of interpreting scripture incorrectly and then go found their own denominations, each claiming to be the purest “truth”.

Luckily, both in the NT and today, we have the Chair of Peter and the world-wide College of Bishops.

 

[Vonsalza]

Where did you get the idea that Luther rejected an authoritative priesthood.

He didn’t. He criticized its abolition. “As many rabbis as there are heads” so on and so on…

I think you just misread. I do it too