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

[twf]

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.

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.

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.

From a Sola Scriptura perspective I, as a former Evangelical, found the local election of elders / pastors, or even worse, self-declaration thereof, troubling. The only examples we see in Scripture itself are Church leaders being appointed by Christ Himself (the apostles) or by those Christ appointed (the apostles appointed elders in every town…).

 

[twf]

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”.

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.

Just a quick clarification…the Copts, Syriacs, Armenians, and Ethiopian Orthodox were and are in full communion with one another. So they would really count as a single “division” of Christianity.

 

[ltwin]

Chapter XXV, Section IV

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

Yes, particular churches or local churches are manifestations of the visible church. Some of these churches are “purer” in their doctrine than others. Some may even degenerate so far into heterodoxy that they can no longer be considered particular churches in any sense of the word.

But the Confession also states in this chapter the following:

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]

So, the Confession actually teaches that it is not we who find the church/gospel but the church/gospel that finds us. The elect are “gathered into one.”

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, particular churches or local churches are manifestations of the visible church. Some of these churches are “purer” in their doctrine than others. Some may even degenerate so far into heterodoxy that they can no longer be considered particular churches in any sense of the word.

But the Confession also states in this chapter the following:

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]

So, the Confession actually teaches that it is not we who find the church/gospel but the church/gospel that finds us. The elect are “gathered into one.”

Itwin, any idea how the word “catholic” used by the Confession came into being?

MJ

 

[Vonsalza]

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.

I think “top-down” in the only way to preserve truth. It’s certainly biblical. Under the rule of Moses, if you disagreed on a matter of judgement, you were simply wrong. If you disagreed with Christ or his Apostles, you were wrong. Even Christ recognized that on matters of law, the Pharisees were right. He just endlessly critiqued their religiosity.

And a matter only gets “set in concrete” in Catholicism if it’s an unquestionable tenet of the faith. Trust me, there is still a veritable ocean of debate within Catholicism. Just bring up “evolution” or “capitalism” or “was Mary dead when she ascended?”.

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. 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.

The catechism grows very, very sloooooooowly. As it should. It is the result of 2000 years of Christianity. As far as I know, nothing has been added to it for decades.

And succession carries the authority of the Spirit. If a correction needs to be made, it will work accordingly within that succession. Otherwise there is no real way to tell a false prophet from a valid one; especially if they have a really good “sales pitch”.

Many things in the CC evolved, leaving it open to its’ discussion, even in council.

No one would intelligently debate that, so I agree. The Church did develop as time moved on and other issues relevant to the faithful sprang up. You’ll notice that the last Epistles address the problems of the day. The Catholic Church was given the same authority to do the same beyond the death of the Apostles. This is development.

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.

Not a number I’ve suggested, so I won’t defend it I think we may agree that any number higher than (1) is more than Christ established.

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.

You’re right. Division from day one. Such is the result of sin. We agree that the “True Faith” has always continually persisted (at least until the Reformation, as your view may be).

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 )

I don’t think they had a body for that since, like the Catholic Church that succeeded them, they were not “book based”. They were “church based”. What I mean by that is that the authority for Judaism rested with their priesthood, not an individual’s interpretation of the Torah. The authority of God rested in a visible, living group. Not a collection of pages.

This becomes even more important when you realize that the “common man” was not functionally literate enough to intelligently read religious texts until, likely, the post-renaissance - only a few hundred years ago. Without a priesthood to orally tell them about it, they simply couldn’t know.

The closest we have would be references to the Torah going back to at least circa 1500 BC and Nehemiah founding a library of “kings and prophets” circa 400 BC.

It was only by personal revelation that any one came and comes to believe that Christ is the Messiah.

While I agree that we have had some revelation to turn us to Christ, that personal revelation was obviously not meant to provide regular teaching, as Christ would not have appointed Apostles. Nothing would need to be written down. We’d just know it. And as it came directly from God, we’d always agree.

However, it doesn’t turn out like this, does it? I have 20 different Churches within 5 miles of the county Courthouse.

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

Ah, the million dollar question: How do you know it’s wrong? “Personal Revelation”, as the Reformation has clearly taught us, isn’t revealing the same lessons to everyone.

Just a quick clarification…the Copts, Syriacs, Armenians, and Ethiopian Orthodox were and are in full communion with one another. So they would really count as a single “division” of Christianity.

Well… some of them are in communion in a very loose way. But as it supports my point of there being substantially less division in Pre-Reformation Christianity, I’ll take it.

 

[ltwin]

Itwin, any idea how the word “catholic” used by the Confession came into being?

MJ

Not sure what you’re asking. The word catholic means universal.

 

[MartinJordan]

Not sure what you’re asking. The word catholic means universal.

Where did the word catholic (universal) church from the Confession come from? I mean Jesus never said it. So originated from where?

MJ

 

[De_Maria]

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.

Just to be clear, that’s the Protestant definition of the doctrine. The Catholic Doctrine of the same name, makes no such stipulation.

Why then have trained leaders who function on a practical level in much the same way only without the theological backdrop as a reason?

Right. That makes no sense. If Protestants actually believe in the priesthood of all believers, why do they have the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Billy Graham and others…

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.

There is none. It goes against all logic.

 

[JonNC]

Just to be clear, that’s the Protestant definition of the doctrine. The Catholic Doctrine of the same name, makes no such stipulation.

Right. That makes no sense. If Protestants actually believe in the priesthood of all believers, why do they have the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Billy Graham and others…

.

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

 

[ltwin]

Where did the word catholic (universal) church from the Confession come from? I mean Jesus never said it. So originated from where?

MJ

It came from church tradition, which Presbyterians aren’t actually opposed to. They just don’t make tradition equal to Scripture in authority. Use of old Greek words does not violate Protestant principles.

 

[benhur]

And succession carries the authority of the Spirit. If a correction needs to be made, it will work accordingly within that succession. Otherwise there is no real way to tell a false prophet from a valid one; especially if they have a really good “sales pitch”.

Hi V,

Last I heard most reformers began reforming within “that succession” . Succession was no guarantee in the OT as it is not in the NT in judging a "prophet " from within the “church”.

Blessings

 

[MartinJordan]

It came from church tradition, which Presbyterians aren’t actually opposed to. They just don’t make tradition equal to Scripture in authority. Use of old Greek words does not violate Protestant principles.

Can you give the Presybetrian teaching of this opposition but not “actually” of church tradition. Not making sense to me. I mean which church tradition? This “tradition” means passed down or what is the definition of “Tradition”?

St. Paul mentioned “passed down to you” for example. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.

1 Corinthians 15:1-9

Note: “and that he appeared to Cephas” (is what was told to him not from Scripture), passed down to him. (although scripture today mentions in this NT verse that we can read now).

MJ

 

[ltwin]

Can you give the Presybetrian teaching of this opposition but not “actually” of church tradition. Not making sense to me. I mean which church tradition? This “tradition” means passed down or what is the definition of “Tradition”?

I’m not getting drawn into this debate. I’m sure there is a Presbyterian out there who can answer your questions much better than I can.

Perhaps you don’t know that among the churches of the Magisterial Reformation (which includes the Calvinist/Presbyterian churches) church tradition, the creeds, and ancient writings continued to be referenced, respected, and engaged with in subsequent theological debates and liturgical movements.

The practice of sola scriptura placed Scripture in the position of final arbiter of theological controversy. It was never an excuse to deny that a thousand years worth of church history had already happened. Magisterial Reformers wanted to “reform” the church. It was never about throwing every thing and the kitchen sink out.

And the Reformation was certainly never designed to ban words such as “catholic” or “excommunication” or “pew” or “steeple” or “bathtub”.

St. Paul mentioned “passed down to you” for example. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.

1 Corinthians 15:1-9

Note: “and that he appeared to Cephas” (is what was told to him not from Scripture), passed down to him. (although scripture today mentions in this NT verse that we can read now).

MJ

Yes, I would be very surprised if Paul was able to spread the good news without actually talking to people. As far as I’m aware, Protestantism never said that the gospel only could be shared in written form. What Protestants have said is that Holy Scripture is inerrant and authoritative, and it is therefore appropriate that normative teaching and practice be drawn from Scripture, not private individuals.

 

[MartinJordan]

I’m not getting drawn into this debate. I’m sure there is a Presbyterian out there who can answer your questions much better than I can.

Sorry. I took it as you were a Presbyterian.

Perhaps you don’t know that among the churches of the Magisterial Reformation (which includes the Calvinist/Presbyterian churches) church tradition, the creeds, and ancient writings continued to be referenced, respected, and engaged with in subsequent theological debates and liturgical movements.

You’re right about that. I’ve never heard of the Magisterial Reformation. Sounds like a council headed by some authorities?

The practice of sola scriptura placed Scripture in the position of final arbiter of theological controversy. It was never an excuse to deny that a thousand years worth of church history had already happened. Magisterial Reformers wanted to “reform” the church. It was never about throwing every thing and the kitchen sink out.

Thanks. But I was never insinuating such a thing. Just asking definition of Tradition. You mentioned “They just don’t make tradition equal to Scripture in authority.” which I assume you are referring to Catholicism.

As far as I am aware Tradition and the experiences, were put into writing that also became Scripture but it is not Tradition equals per say but also serves Scripture and both must be given reverence. Reverence is Love after all and it is interaction and serving and speaking not just “jot” (Scripture) which can’t speak on it’s own. Faith comes from hearing.

And the Reformation was certainly never designed to ban words such as “catholic” or “excommunication” or “pew” or “steeple” or “bathtub”.

Ok. Bathtub certainly can’t cannot be used as connected with reverence.

Yes, I would be very surprised if Paul was able to spread the good news without actually talking to people. As far as I’m aware, Protestantism never said that the gospel only could be shared in written form. What Protestants have said is that Holy Scripture is inerrant and authoritative, and it is therefore appropriate that normative teaching and practice be drawn from Scripture, not private individuals.

Paul loved that’s for sure otherwise he didn’t have to speak. Did he let Scripture alone do all the loving?

MJ

 

[rcwitness]

It came from church tradition, which Presbyterians aren’t actually opposed to. They just don’t make tradition equal to Scripture in authority. Use of old Greek words does not violate Protestant principles.

The way I understand (Sacred) Tradition, is that there isn’t a whole lot of it that isn’t in the Scriptures. Some matters are not so clear in Scripture alone, and Tradition exists to be able to know what was the position of the Lord and His Apostles. One example would be Infant Baptism. We acknowledge that Scripture does not explicitly record Infant Baptism. We rely on Tradition to believe that God approves and calls us to Baptize our children. The act in itself is a practice, and one that is considered a reception of a Sacrament. But the belief that the Apostles approved and Baptized infants is what we believe as a Sacred Tradition.

The Church doesn’t “make” Tradition equal to Scripture. She recognizes that a Tradition is a Teaching, belief, or Truth that originated with the Lord and His 12 Apostles.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hi V,

Last I heard most reformers began reforming within “that succession”.

Hey Ben,

They did. But that “succession” counted many of their increasingly diverse, confusing and intra-conflicting doctrines as heresy - thus their ties to apostolic succession were voided. That’s one of the critical ways succession defends the truth. “Rogue agents” are disavowed.

Some of the ideas, though, had merit. The visible, authoritative Church made several disciplinary changes in response to these meritorious ideas during the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Succession was no guarantee in the OT as it is not in the NT in judging a "prophet " from within the “church”.

It took the passage of time for many prophets to be accepted as genuine. Similarly, there are many “prophets” that were ultimately rejected by this process - as we read in Hosea (false prophets back then, too). This is very similar to the Catholic process of dogmatic development. We’ve got to “mull it over” for awhile. And that’s a good thing. Keeps the Church from being a mere “product of the times”. It remains transcendent of the contemporary.

The history of succession delves deep into the oldest parts of the OT, and is thus susceptible to the same issues of historicity as the text itself.

But its often given that Melchizedek was the first high-priest (if you don’t count Adam). The exercise of his priesthood passed to the Levites by Divine Command after the “Golden Calf Incident”. It then passed from the Levitical Pharisees and Sadducees to the Apostles, again, by Divine Command. “By Divine Command” is the theme, here.

Because of this succession, Catholic priests are ordained into “The Order of Melchizedek”. From Abraham to today, it has always visibly existed.

 

[ProdigalSun]

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[ProdigalSun]

Wow! This is quite bold of you to say!

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

 

[mattp0625]

Where did the word catholic (universal) church from the Confession come from? I mean Jesus never said it. So originated from where?

MJ

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

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

 

[ltwin]

How could someone have theological errors if they are led by the Holy Spirit.

A pastor may or may not be led by the Spirit. That is why we judge teaching by Scripture, which is inerrant. All people are fallible, and even those we think of as spiritual can fall prey to temptation and deception. Our standard is not how spiritual we think someone is but whether or not their teaching and actions line up with what Scripture teaches.

Is the pastor infallible that he is not wrong?

No pastor is infallible.

If he is not Infallible then maybe the person who he thinks is wrong is actually right!

Maybe. Maybe neither of them is right. We would need to appeal to Scripture read in light of the creeds and confessions of the church.

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

You shouldn’t, “but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).