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

[JonNC]

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

I did! Sorry about that.

 

[josephback]

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.

**

I might be generalizing to modern evangelicalism but unless I’m mistaken the power of the keys is transferred to the people in general who call their minister to service. This is the foundation of WASP democracy in that power is ultimately vested in the people who follow the constitution as a sort of scripture.

 

[JonNC]

I might be generalizing to modern evangelicalism but unless I’m mistaken the power of the keys is transferred to the people in general who call their minister to service. This is the foundation of WASP democracy in that power is ultimately vested in the people who follow the constitution as a sort of scripture.

I understand, Joseph. Baptist and American evangelical thought seems to be more known than Lutheran thought. From the Smalcald Articles

The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written in Ps. 19:13: Who can understand his errors? And in Rom. 7:25 St. Paul himself complains that with the flesh he serves the law of sin. 2] For it is not in our power, but belongs to God alone, to judge which, how great, and how many the sins are, as it is written in Ps. 143:2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. 3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified.

For a Lutheran, the keys are from Christ to the Church. For orthodox Lutherans, it is the Church that sends the pastor through ordination.

Hope that helps

 

[Tomyris]

…

Please reply to post 14.

Thank you.

 

[benhur]

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

Hi P,

took the words right out of my mouth

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi V,

Sadly true, this division. Yet takes two to tango, two to split, two to not compromise and stand by their convictions, causing separation. Hence the CC exists, and the O church exists and the P church exists and many variations of each in between. The formula for splitting is the same for all. Of course we can judge by the number of splits as being problematic, as we can judge the formula for not splitting with its own set of problems.

“Luckily”, by Divine Wisdom, we have the OT as an example of all of this. Despite no canon, many divisions, doctrines, evolving governance, and much apostasy, perfect fulfilment of their purpose occurred. The perfect Messiah was delivered to the world for it’s salvation, and Christ Himself proclaimed, “Salvation is of the Jews !”

Blessings

 

[rinnie]

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.

Because Jesus set it up that way. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. Jesus picked the 12 Apostles to go out and lay hands on those who will have authority.

God promised his Apostles I will give you the works. The RCC never hear the words differently because there is only one truth. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the leaders of the Church until he comes back again. The Holy Spirit is not a Spirit of chaos.

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi j,

Well things can run amuck not just with a highly charismatic person, but with a humdrum status quo or not organization.

I mean you have your Korah’s, and you have those Godly prophets that leaders reject.

That is the question, how to determine when the Church is to listen to someone and when not to. Either way , there is at least a remnant, from time to time, to carry God’s promises, for He is not a liar.

Blessings

 

[josephback]

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

As I said elsewhere I may be generalizing to American evangelical religion, but the practical application seems to be harder for pastors when there is no distinction between laity and clergy. The church is seen more as a gathering of the elect than an inherently heirarchically ordered community. What does the Westminster Confession say?

 

[benhur]

As I said elsewhere I may be generalizing to American evangelical religion, but the practical application seems to be harder for pastors when there is no distinction between laity and clergy. The church is seen more as a gathering of the elect than an inherently heirarchically ordered community. What does the Westminster Confession say?

Hi J,

I think you just rephrased things that leave the question still unanswered, as to what makes one think there is not distinction between a lay person and a pastor, or that inherently there is no hierarchy in some P churches .

But I would say that there are degrees of hierarchy and order amongst most all churches.

I would think we all agree the CC has the most structured church, and the broadest sense of laity/clergy dynamics.

Blessings

 

[ltwin]

As I said elsewhere I may be generalizing to American evangelical religion, but the practical application seems to be harder for pastors when there is no distinction between laity and clergy. The church is seen more as a gathering of the elect than an inherently heirarchically ordered community. What does the Westminster Confession say?

Chapter XXV

Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[14]\

Chapter XXX

Of Church Censures

I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.[1]

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[3]

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.[4]

 

[josephback]

ltwin:
So if one of the Church’s defining marks is the doctrine of the gospel would it be fair to say that a person must first know the gospel to find the Church? Is this putting the cart before the horse? The Church canonized Scripture. How do I know the true gospel if I don’t know the Church?

 

[JonNC]

So if one of the Church’s defining marks is the doctrine of the gospel would it be fair to say that a person must first know the gospel to find the Church? Is this putting the cart before the horse? The Church canonized Scripture. How do I know the true gospel if I don’t know the Church?

First, when you speak of the Church, do you mean the institution, of the congregation of believers?

In either event, i don’t see how one can make the dichotomy, as if the two are somehow separate. For those who were baptized as infants, one is brought to the church-and the Church- and through baptism brought into the Body of Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, hearing the word.

 

[ltwin]

So if one of the Church’s defining marks is the doctrine of the gospel would it be fair to say that a person must first know the gospel to find the Church?

Where do you get that from? An evangelical would say that if one believes the gospel then they are part of the church. The normal way that a person encounters the gospel message is through the preaching of the Word in the power of the Holy Spirit. This is a ministry of the church.

Is this putting the cart before the horse?

No, because normally God uses the witness of the church to bring us to saving faith, which then unites us into Christ’s body.

The Church canonized Scripture. How do I know the true gospel if I don’t know the Church?

Yes, I agree. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word. People cannot believe if they have never heard–barring some extraordinary work of God of course. Therefore, someone must spread the Gospel. This is the church’s job–not just the ordained ministry but all Christians have a responsibility to be a witness.

 

[benhur]

So if one of the Church’s defining marks is the doctrine of the gospel would it be fair to say that a person must first know the gospel to find the Church? Is this putting the cart before the horse? The Church canonized Scripture. How do I know the true gospel if I don’t know the Church?

Hi j,

I have said some churches have an emphasis on promoting a church from which to meet Jesus , and others promote meeting Jesus from which He will place you in His church.

Jesus said at the time, “Salvation is of the Jews” and they had no institutionalized canon. They also had divisions and differing doctrines.

And one could say how do you know the true church if you do not know the true gospel ?

Being born again, regenerated , born of the Spirit is quite non sectarian.

Blessings

 

[Vonsalza]

Hi V,

Sadly true, this division. Yet takes two to tango, two to split, two to not compromise and stand by their convictions, causing separation. Hence the CC exists, and the O church exists and the P church exists and many variations of each in between. The formula for splitting is the same for all. Of course we can judge by the number of splits as being problematic, as we can judge the formula for not splitting with its own set of problems.

Sorry for being so long in reading this. “Life”, you know…

I think it is very tempting for most protestants to lump all historical division within the Church together as it provides a little “cover” for their biggest problem of continuous protestant fracturing. The Baptist congregation I grew up in was a “split” from the original Baptist congregation in town. Others have split from us…

Prior to the Reformation, virtually every “church” recognized Apostolic Succession as a keystone requirement for their own denominational validity. Ergo, it had to “go back to Christ”.

In that period, there were only a handful of competing factions. The RCC, EOC, Syriacs, Copts, Thomists, Armenians and Ethiopian Orth. just about cover it. So there were maybe 7-10 Christian groups resultant from the first 1500 years of Christianity. After the Reformation? Literally thousands… And the number grows daily, practically.

From this, I think it’s very reasonable to conclude that there is something very broken within the protestant “formula” for the “church”.

“Luckily”, by Divine Wisdom, we have the OT as an example of all of this. Despite no canon, many divisions, doctrines, evolving governance, and much apostasy, perfect fulfilment of their purpose occurred. The perfect Messiah was delivered to the world for it’s salvation, and Christ Himself proclaimed, “Salvation is of the Jews !”

There was absolutely a canon within the OT. Many of them - as history moved on and the Jewish faith added more books. The Pentateuch was likely around 1500 years before Christ, if not earlier.

As to governance, there is much history you can read on the Jewish priesthood. Christ certainly recognized their authority, despite his frequent critique of the “religiosity”.

If the authority of the Church exists, I’m sure we agree that it must exist outside ourselves. Ergo, we can most certainly be wrong. This is a direct indictment of the protestant (maybe more evangelical) notion of “personal-revelation” that provides the seed-bed of constant protestant division.

 

[josephback]

Where do you get that from?

Chapter XXV, Section IV

Particular churches are held more or less pure on account of “embracing the doctrine of the Gospel.”

 

[josephback]

Hi j,

I have said some churches have an emphasis on promoting a church from which to meet Jesus , and others promote meeting Jesus from which He will place you in His church.

Joan of Arc said of Christ and the Church that they “are one and the same thing.” To meet Jesus then is to be incorporated in His Body. The point at dispute is whether that Body is primarily invisible or has a visible, enduring, substantial quality to it such that it cannot fall away from the truth.

 

[benhur]

I think it is very tempting for most protestants to lump all historical division within the Church together as it provides a little “cover” for their biggest problem of continuous protestant fracturing. The Baptist congregation I grew up in was a “split” from the original Baptist congregation in town. Others have split from us…

Agree. But then again you must also address the problem with a top down institutionalizing of truth. Some of our greatest theologians only flourished in theological thought when they had the freedom to do so, when thinking on a matter was not set in concrete.

So the bigger your catechism grows, you do gain uniformity, but you then also leave any future thinking to be on minor details, or go to extremes to build more catechism , to end debate, and maintain even more uniformity.

Prior to the Reformation, virtually every “church” recognized Apostolic Succession as a keystone requirement for their own denominational validity. Ergo, it had to “go back to Christ”.

Yes, just like when Jesus came to minister . His detractors constantly reminded the Lord they were sons of Abraham, or children of the Mosaic covenant. Succession can become stiff and inflexible to the corrective winds of the Spirit.

Apostolic is as apostolic does. As much as being in the physical “chain” may count, the spiritual chain, the one who "acts’’ apostolic counts equally.

For sure we all do some things very apostolic. For sure we both do things that the first church never did. Many things in the CC evolved, leaving it open to its’ discussion, even in council.

In that period, there were only a handful of competing factions. The RCC, EOC, Syriacs, Copts, Thomists, Armenians and Ethiopian Orth. just about cover it. So there were maybe 7-10 Christian groups resultant from the first 1500 years of Christianity. After the Reformation? Literally thousands… And the number grows daily, practically.

Well, there are a few more. And there was also more flexibility, freedom of conscience, belief on a matter back then. For instance you did not have to believe in transubstantiation til what 1215 , or even Trent for sure? You did not have to believe in the Immaculate Conception till 1870 etc etc.

Yes the number now is what 40,000 and growing? So goes some folks 's propaganda. That number has been debunked. However , your point is still valid, of the unfortunate use of our freedoms, and free will. Just not sure it is good to eliminate those for uniformity sake.

From this, I think it’s very reasonable to conclude that there is something very broken within the protestant “formula” for the “church”.

Hmmm… agree but…then there is something very wrong with all of God’s dispensations, for there has been division ever since the apple was eaten. Was God’s methodology of truth disbursement, or rule or formula broken ? There was division with Moses , then the twelve tribes, then amongst the first church …to this day.

Be careful , for the JW’s also say their unity (which is more than the CC) is evidence that indeed they speak for Jehovah.

There was absolutely a canon within the OT. Many of them - as history moved on and the Jewish faith added more books. The Pentateuch was likely around 1500 years before Christ, if not earlier.

Can u cite where Judaism got together to form their bible ? Did they council on it ? Did they declare a canon anywhere, institutionally ? (I mean before Christ )

As to governance, there is much history you can read on the Jewish priesthood. Christ certainly recognized their authority, despite his frequent critique of the “religiosity”.

Agree to the hiereus (greek) priest after the order of Levite. Also agree to the time when they did not have any priesthood, save the head of any household.

This is a direct indictment of the protestant (maybe more evangelical) notion of “personal-revelation” that provides the seed-bed of constant protestant division.

Yet personal revelation led to a major division, of Christianity becoming a divisive sect of Judaism, from which we then sprang. It was only by personal revelation that any one came and comes to believe that Christ is the Messiah.

We, like Peter, had a personal, divine revelation from the Father.

As far as what you might mean by personal, agree that it is a problem in P churches, many of them, when they stray from orthodoxy/tradition.(personal as apart from God’s revelation, which is then also testified by the church) I would also say many of the doctrines have been around along time and before 1500. Some of them were "ideas’’ debated in the church , the CC, that eventually were settled, dogmatized…

Any thing wrong in doctrine is “personal”, of “man”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Joan of Arc said of Christ and the Church that they “are one and the same thing.” To meet Jesus then is to be incorporated in His Body. The point at dispute is whether that Body is primarily invisible or has a visible, enduring, substantial quality to it such that it cannot fall away from the truth.

Hi j,

Well perhaps again "both’’.

I can certainly see myself and you, and my pastor and your priest and other elders and bishops, teachers, etc., etc.

I certainly can not physically see the Holy Spirit speaking truth to individuals and to a corporate body, or dealing in the affairs of men. I can only see His effect.

Blessings