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

[JonNC]

How could someone have theological errors if they are led by the Holy Spirit. Is the pastor infallible that he is not wrong? If he is not Infallible then maybe the person who he thinks is wrong is actually right!

If the Pastor is not infallible in faith and morals how can you trust that this pastors interpretation is correct?

Being guided by the Holy Spirit doesn’t make us infallible. If it did, all baptized would be.

Jon

 

[MartinJordan]

Ignatius of Antioch (bishop) first named the church catholic in the first century.

Acts 11- the disciples were first called Christian at Antioch.

So the Confessions refer to St. Ignatius of Antioch?

MJ

 

[rcwitness]

You don’t believe the Catholic Church understandsand teaches the preisthood of the believers correctly?

No, it’s not that. What’s funny, is that I was trying to give PeterJ a hard time because he’s not typically that bold. But then, re-reading his statement, I wasn’t sure how he meant his comment.

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

 

[De_Maria]

It makes no sense because that was not and is not the intention in a number of communions. If anything, this just goes to support the point that to say “Protestants teach”, or “Protestants say” typically has no meaning.

Are you agreeing with me?

 

[ltwin]

So the Confessions refer to St. Ignatius of Antioch?

MJ

More likely its a reference to the creeds. Or the fact that by the time the Westminster Confession had been written the term “catholic church” was widely used to refer to the universality of the Christian church and it was simply the obvious term to use.

 

[MartinJordan]

More likely its a reference to the creeds. Or the fact that by the time the Westminster Confession had been written the term “catholic church” was widely used to refer to the universality of the Christian church and it was simply the obvious term to use.

That’s what I think too.

Now I’d like to know how the creeds came about and how the Confession traces it. Hopefully a Presbyterian can comment if possible. Plus how do they define "universality ( (from universalitas, from Latin universalis ) of the Christian church (small c).

MJ

 

[ltwin]

That’s what I think too.

Now I’d like to know how the creeds came about and how the Confession traces it. Hopefully a Presbyterian can comment if possible. Plus how do they define "universality of the Christian church (small c).

MJ

It’s in the confession:

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]

 

[MartinJordan]

It’s in the confession:

Quote:
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]

Fine. Thanks. Now to trace it.

Interesting it is mentioned “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible”. How is it invisible?

MJ

 

[ltwin]

Fine. Thanks. Now to trace it.

Interesting it is mentioned “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible”. How is it invisible?

MJ

This blog post from Reformation 21, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals explains it. You can read the whole thing here:

First, this church is invisible. That does not mean its members are ghosts that meet in phantom buildings. It means that the universal church is defined in ways that are spiritually discerned and not physically seen. The church is not a building, but a people who worship in spirit and truth, a temple built with living, personal stones (John 4:20-24; 1 Peter 2:5). It is not a particular denomination and cannot be defined by allegiance to any mere man such as the Pope of Rome (1 Cor. 1:12-13). At certain times and places, the true church may exist as hidden gatherings of believers fiercely persecuted by leaders of the visible church (Rev. 13:11-15).

We cannot produce a complete list of the church’s members, for some whom we thought to be saved fall away and show that they never really belonged (1 John 2:19). Not everyone who confesses Jesus as Lord is known to Him or saved by Him (Matt. 7:21-23). The church’s membership is not defined by participation in baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for some who receive the sacraments are not in Christ (Acts 8:13, 18-24; 1 Cor. 10:1-8), and some true believers do not have the opportunity to receive them (Luke 23:39-43).

The true church is defined by invisible factors. The qualifications for membership are the secret election of God and the internal work of the Holy Spirit to produce faith. We can see evidence of these divine operations in the fruit of the Spirit, but the true identity of the church is invisible. Yet it is visible or known to God: “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:19).

 

[MartinJordan]

This blog post from Reformation 21, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals explains it. You can read the whole thing here:

Really appreciate the trouble you take Itwin. I’ll have a look. First impression, it seems very negative. Why mention Pope of Rome at all makes me wonder what is the motive. If they believe they are the church then be positive and focus on the good rather than insult another:shrug:

MJ

 

[ltwin]

Really appreciate the trouble you take Itwin. I’ll have a look. First impression, it seems very negative. Why mention Pope of Rome at all makes me wonder what is the motive. If they believe they are the church then be positive and focus on the good rather than insult another:shrug:

MJ

The Papacy is the best example of the alternative ecclesiology that identifies the catholic church with a particular denomination. Why not use it for comparison and contrast?

Also, notice that the Confession states the church is both invisible and visible.

 

[MartinJordan]

The Papacy is the best example of the alternative ecclesiology that identifies the catholic church with a particular denomination. Why not use it for comparison and contrast?

Also, notice that the Confession states the church is both invisible and visible.

I went through it. Not impressed at all. They specifically bash the Catholic church and that’s just a low blow.

Thanks anyway for letting me satisfy my curiosity.

MJ

 

[ltwin]

I went through it. Not impressed at all. They specifically bash the Catholic church and that’s just a low blow.

Thanks anyway for letting me satisfy my curiosity.

MJ

You mean when he writes, “It is not a particular denomination and cannot be defined by allegiance to any mere man such as the Pope of Rome (1 Cor. 1:12-13)”? You may disagree with his characterization of Catholicism, but I don’t think he’s “bashing” Catholics. He’s making a theological argument about what makes someone a member of the church in a rather respectful tone. It is true that to be a Catholic you must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, correct? Also, Catholics do not consider Protestant churches to be considered true churches but “ecclesial communities” specifically because we do not have apostolic succession and are not in communion with Rome. All he’s doing is saying that Reformed Christians disagree with this ecclessiological understanding of what constitutes the universal church.

If that is bashing Catholicism, then all Protestants are bashing Catholicism simply by existing.

 

[MartinJordan]

You mean when he writes, “It is not a particular denomination and cannot be defined **by allegiance to any mere man such as the Pope of Rome **(1 Cor. 1:12-13)”? You may disagree with his characterization of Catholicism, but I don’t think he’s “bashing” Catholics.

He’s making a theological argument about what makes someone a member of the church in a rather respectful tone.

It is true that to be a Catholic you must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, correct?

Also, Catholics do not consider Protestant churches to be considered true churches but “ecclesial communities” specifically because we do not have apostolic succession and are not in communion with Rome.

If that is bashing Catholicism, then all Protestants are bashing Catholicism simply by existing.

All he’s doing is saying that Reformed Christians disagree with this ecclessiological understanding of what constitutes the universal church.

To me a silly and irresponsible characterization of who the Pope is.

Of course he’s a man. What is mere man supposed to mean anyway? Does the Confession assume that Catholicism does not know that even Peter himself says he’s a mere man? Come now.

Blind allegiance (that’s what its sound like to me) is hardly an ecclesiological understanding. This is straight insult.

MJ

 

[Vonsalza]

I think there’s quite a bit of personal appeal in Protestantism.

If the local “priesthood” teaches something I don’t like, but defends it eagerly with scripture and conviction:

I just go to another Protestant “priesthood” that teaches what I do like, and defends it eagerly with scripture and conviction.

When the Church is invisible and everyone’s a “priest”, virtually no one has to be wrong. Just change where you give your tithe

 

[mattp0625]

So the Confessions refer to St. Ignatius of Antioch?

MJ

I am not certain, but Ignatius’s writings are very Catholic with a capital C.

At best it’s a vague reference.

 

[josephback]

It makes no sense because that was not and is not the intention in a number of communions. If anything, this just goes to support the point that to say “Protestants teach”, or “Protestants say” typically has no meaning.

Jon

Is this due to lack of Protestant unity in matters of faith or due to misunderstandings of the Reformation? Would it be more accurate and specific to say “Thirty Nine Articles teach,” “John and Charles Wesley taught,” “the Augsburg Confession teaches,” “Baptists teach” and the like? Are the Reformation derived churches one in faith or not?

 

[ltwin]

To me a silly and irresponsible characterization of who the Pope is.

Of course he’s a man. What is mere man supposed to mean anyway? Does the Confession assume that Catholicism does not know that even Peter himself says he’s a mere man? Come now.

Blind allegiance (that’s what its sound like to me) is hardly an ecclesiological understanding. This is straight insult.

MJ

The point is very important: one man–whether bishop or something else–does not determine the boundaries of the true church. The true church is not the same thing as a denomination or a church hierarchy.

 

[Vonsalza]

Are the Reformation derived churches one in faith or not?

As a kid that grew up in a Baptist congregation, we were absolutely bet-your-soul positive that the homosexual and women-clergy affirming DoC congregation on the corner of Main Street was destined for hell.

In the town I live in now there are two Pentecostal congregations that are continually at each others throats over little things like letting the women wear pants. Both assure the other is headed for an eternity screaming in hell.

So no. No they are not “one in faith”.

 

[JonNC]

Is this due to lack of Protestant unity in matters of faith or due to misunderstandings of the Reformation? Would it be more accurate and specific to say “Thirty Nine Articles teach,” “John and Charles Wesley taught,” “the Augsburg Confession teaches,” “Baptists teach” and the like? Are the Reformation derived churches one in faith or not?

Well, there never was a such thing as “Protestant” unity, since there never was a "Protestant church ". So, yes, one has to refer to different traditions within the western Church, and how they view this.