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

[Sky_River]

This answers the first part of my question, but not the second.

What does a priest mean bibically?

 

[Debbie_Kono]

---

 

[Nicea325]

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?

“The” Protestant belief? Which Protestant denomination’s view? There is no such existing singular Protestant belief across the board for all Protestants. If it were true, your Protestant belief would not be divided into thousands of sects and denominations.

Protestants were not the answer in regards to reforming Christ Church.

 

[ltwin]

“The” Protestant belief?

Yes, the Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers as opposed to what Catholics believe about the priesthood of all believers. As I’ve said before:

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.

Which Protestant denomination’s view?

Protestants in general. There are broad parameters that define Protestantism. Concepts such as sola fide and sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers being some of them.

There is no such existing singular Protestant belief across the board for all Protestants. If it were true, your Protestant belief would not be divided into thousands of sects and denominations.

We can have shared beliefs and yet be in different denominations. Take for example the Trinity. This is a doctrine we share with Catholics. That doesn’t mean we have complete unity and agreement, but we do share some things in common.

 

[JMM1957]

Yes, the Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers as opposed to what Catholics believe about the priesthood of all believers. As I’ve said before:

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.
​

In 1 Peter 2:9-10, it is using almost the exact wording of Exodus 19:6 to describe Gods people. These words which originally were used for ancient Israel, are now ascribed to the Christian people. It is true Catholic priests do not serve the same exact function today as the Levitical priesthood, but they are ministers of God, as teachers and providing the Sacraments to the people.​

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, the Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers as opposed to what Catholics believe about the priesthood of all believers.

This separation might be clear in your evangelical mind, but it would appear that many protestant groups share many Catholic views on the priesthood. Anglicans, Lutherans and many others historically affirm apostolic succession. These groups are generally referred to as “Protestant”, as you might concede. Moreover, prior to the rise of Evangelicalism in the 18th through 20th centuries, your personal understanding of at-large Protestantism dominantly holding your given view on “the priesthood of all believers” as fully in contra to classic and ancient succession isn’t even correct. If I had to venture a guess, the “vote” finally flipped in your favor around the time of Spurgeon or shortly thereafter; particularly at the start of the 20th century with the eruption of the independent Baptist, Stone-Campbell and Azusa Street movements.

As another consideration, Catholics aren’t opposed to the concept of “the priesthood of all believers” as a generically universal priesthood. It just that Catholics also believe in a sacramental and thus ministerial priesthood in order to perform the sacraments of the ancient Church with at least some concept of real unity, authority and legitimacy; problematic by-words in intra-denominational Protestant relations.

As an example, when everyone has the authority given in John 20:23, there is effectively no such thing as sin. Cheat on your wife? Had an abortion? Just pull any Protestant off the street, ask to be forgiven, and be forgiven! Under your view, they surely have that authority.

But what would happen if the first Protestant you asked refused to grant it (as being the other option in John 20:23), but the second one does? Which one holds?

There are broad parameters that define Protestantism. Concepts such as sola fide and sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers being some of them.

There are multitudes of Protestant assemblies that would reject at least one of these, as we both know.

We can have shared beliefs and yet be in different denominations. Take for example the Trinity. This is a doctrine we share with Catholics.

The Pentecostal assembly I pass on my way to the office every day is non-trinitarian.

---

One of the most fundamental issues with Protestantism, particularly the Evangelical branches of it, is the relative novelty of many of their teachings. Literally only a century or two old in many cases (like “tongues”, for example). These novel teachings juxtaposed against a supposedly incorruptible, complete and ancient Church create a conflict.

From much personal experience, when asked extensively about these conflicts, the Evangelical pastor will often smile and resolve with “Let’s just talk about Jesus. Amen?”

In other words, they demur into dismissal of the issue.

Obviously this segues into “If Protestantism is correct, then which one out the the thousands?” I’ll leave it at that for now.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, the Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers as opposed to what Catholics believe about the priesthood of all believers. As I’ve said before:

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.

Protestants in general. There are broad parameters that define Protestantism. Concepts such as sola fide and sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers being some of them.

We can have shared beliefs and yet be in different denominations. Take for example the Trinity. This is a doctrine we share with Catholics. That doesn’t mean we have complete unity and agreement, but we do share some things in common.

Again, you are claiming “all” Protestants share the same view and they do not. Again, which Protestants are you referring to in your statement? Furthermore, you apparently do not know what the CC teaches on the universal priesthood.

Protestants in general? The same is used when it comes to “essentials” and yet I have to see or read the basic “essentials” Protestants in “general” share.

And unfortunately no. Christ death on Calvary was not elimination of the priesthood as so many non-Catholics tend to believe. Precisely why there is no such thing as Protestants in “general” due to fact they are not united as “one” church. Sorry, Jesus never founded the idea of denominations.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sorry, Jesus never founded the idea of denominations.

Quite right.

He founded one, under Petrine headship.

“You are “the Rock”, and on this “rock” I build my Church.”

“Simon… shepherd my sheep.”

 

[Nicea325]

Quite right.

He founded one, under Petrine headship.

“You are “the Rock”, and on this “rock” I build my Church.”

“Simon… shepherd my sheep.”

Unfortunately non-Catholics deny any such leadership was handed to Peter from Jesus. How ironic, because I am quite positive most non-Catholic denominations have a pastor who in sense is a leader; hence, he or she will pass the baton to another-right? So why can’t Catholics have the same?

Likewise, Jesus makes it very clear in John, we should all be one as He and the Father are one. No where does he make reference to denominations and all sharing the basic essentials.

 

[ltwin]

This separation might be clear in your evangelical mind, but it would appear that many protestant groups share many Catholic views on the priesthood. Anglicans, Lutherans and many others historically affirm apostolic succession.

Historically (we’re not talking about the 19th century Anglo-Catholics), they have not done so in the way Catholics affirm it. Some Lutheran churches don’t even have bishops.

These groups are generally referred to as “Protestant”, as you might concede.

Yes.

Moreover, prior to the rise of Evangelicalism in the 18th through 20th centuries, your personal understanding of at-large Protestantism dominantly holding your given view on “the priesthood of all believers” as fully in contra to classic and ancient succession isn’t even correct. If I had to venture a guess, the “vote” finally flipped in your favor around the time of Spurgeon or shortly thereafter; particularly at the start of the 20th century with the eruption of the independent Baptist, Stone-Campbell and Azusa Street movements.

Sorry, but your understanding of Evangelicalism is somewhat shortsighted. R.C. Sproul (the guy I quoted) is a Presbyterian–so directly in the Reformation tradition.

As another consideration, Catholics aren’t opposed to the concept of “the priesthood of all believers” as a generically universal priesthood. It just that Catholics also believe in a sacramental and thus ministerial priesthood in order to perform the sacraments of the ancient Church with at least some concept of real unity, authority and legitimacy; problematic by-words in intra-denominational Protestant relations.

As an example, when everyone has the authority given in John 20:23, there is effectively no such thing as sin. Cheat on your wife? Had an abortion? Just pull any Protestant off the street, ask to be forgiven, and be forgiven! Under your view, they surely have that authority.

But what would happen if the first Protestant you asked refused to grant it (as being the other option in John 20:23), but the second one does? Which one holds?

The authority you are talking about is exercised by the church as a whole. It falls under the subject of ecclesiastical or church discipline. Different Protestant churches have different ideas about how this should be handled. But there is authority put in place to address those issues.

The Pentecostal assembly I pass on my way to the office every day is non-trinitarian.

Then that makes them non-trinitarian. Protestants are Trinitarian. It’s kind of makes Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses fall into the “Other” Category as well.

One of the most fundamental issues with Protestantism, particularly the Evangelical branches of it, is the relative novelty of many of their teachings. Literally only a century or two old in many cases (like “tongues”, for example). These novel teachings juxtaposed against a supposedly incorruptible, complete and ancient Church create a conflict.

From much personal experience, when asked extensively about these conflicts, the Evangelical pastor will often smile and resolve with “Let’s just talk about Jesus. Amen?”

In other words, they demur into dismissal of the issue.

Obviously this segues into “If Protestantism is correct, then which one out the the thousands?” I’ll leave it at that for now.

Well, evangelicalism is diverse, and Protestantism more so. And there are churches (American mainline, cough cough) who seem to be devolving into something else entirely and then you fanatics who cause other problems. But there is a core belief among Protestants about the priesthood of all believers–and it doesn’t preclude ministers or sacerdotal priests.

 

[ltwin]

To Nicea325, since you seem to think I imagining things . . . Here is Luther’s thoughts on the priesthood of all believers. So, now I’ve shown you a Presbyterian source and a Lutheran source. What next? Anglican?

In summary, there is no other Word of God than that which is given all Christians to proclaim. There is no other baptism than the one which any Christian can bestow. There is no other remembrance of the Lord’s Supper than that which any Christian can observe and which Christ has instituted. There is no other kind of sin than that which any Christian can bind or loose. There is no other sacrifice than of the body of every Christian. No one but a Christian can pray. No one but a Christian may judge of doctrine. These make the priestly and royal office" (AE 40:34-35).

And yet, observed Luther, not all priests are pastors for even though “we have proved all of these things to be the common property of all Christians,[8] no one individual can arise by his own authority and arrogate to himself alone what belongs to all…[rather] the community rights demand that one, or as many as the community chooses, shall be chosen or approved who, in the name of all with these rights, shall perform these functions publicly" (AE 40:34).

[1] “…since they are the people of God it is due them that no one be set over them without their election, and the bishop ought to confirm no one whom they did not know and approve of as suitable” (AE 40:11)…so Luther offered this counsel to the Bohemian Christians in their efforts to elect pastors for ministry in their midst: “then call and come together freely, as many as have been touched in heart by God to think and judge as you do. Proceed in the name of the Lord to elect one or more whom you desire, and who appear to be worthy and able. Then let those who are leaders among you lay hands upon them, and certify and commend them to the people and the church or community. In this way let them become your bishops, ministers or pastors. Amen. The qualifications of those to be elected are fully described by Paul in Titus 1:6ff. and 1 Timothy 3:2ff.” (AE 40:40)…and “as the venture succeeds, with the help of the Lord, and many cities adopt this method of electing their bishops, then these bishops may wish to come together and elect one or more from their number to be their superiors, who would serve them and hold visitations among them” (AE 40:41).

[2] “…the command, to declare the wonderful deeds of God, is nothing else than to preach the Word of God” (AE 40:22); “…the ministry of the Word is the highest office in the church, that it is unique and belongs to all who are Christians, not only by right but by command. Indeed it is not a priesthood if it is not unique and common to all” (AE 40:23); “A Christian is born to the ministry of the Word in baptism…” (AE 40:37) and so Luther, in his interpretation of Acts 18:24ff., recounts how Apollos came to Ephesus without call or ordination, “and taught fervently, powerfully confuting the Jews. By what right, I ask, did he exercise the ministry of the Word except by the general right common to all Christians…this man was afterward even made an apostle without the formality of ordination, and not only functioned in the ministry of the Word but also proved himself useful in many ways to those who had already come to faith. In the same way any Christian should feel obligated to act, if he saw the need and was competent to fill it, even without a call from the community” (AE 40:37-38).

[3] “…all Christians, and they alone, even women, are priests, without tonsure and episcopal character. For in baptizing we proffer the life-giving Word of God, which renews souls and redeems from death and sins…so when women baptize, they exercise the function of priesthood legitimately, and do not as a private act, but as a part of the public ministry of the church which belongs only to the priesthood” (AE 40:23).

[4] “…we hold that this function, too, like the priesthood, belongs to all, and this we assert, not on our own authority, but that of Christ who at the Last Supper said, ‘do this in remembrance of Me’” (AE 40:24); “if then that which is greatest, namely, Word and baptism, is conferred on all, then it can rightly be maintained that the lesser, the power to consecrate, is also so conferred” (AE 40:25).

[5] “Christ gives both the power and the use of the keys to each Christian” (AE 40:26); “The keys belong to the whole church and to each of its members, as regards their authority and their various uses” (AE 40:27) and “to bind and to loose clearly is nothing else than to proclaim and to apply the Gospel. For what is it to loose, if not to announce the forgiveness of sins before God? What is it to bind, except to withdraw the Gospel and to declare the retention of sins?” (AE 40:27-28).

[6] “For Christ gave the Lord’s Prayer to all His Christians…[and] to pray for others is to go between and make intercessions of God, which is befitting a Christ only and all His brethren…[but since] we are commanded to pray for all, certainly all are equally commanded to function as priests” (AE 40:30).

[7] “…in the New Testament there is no sacrifice except the one which is common to all, namely the one prescribed in Romans 12:1, where Paul teaches us to present our bodies as a sacrifice, just as Christ sacrificed His body for us on the cross…Peter likewise commands in 1 Peter 2:5 that we offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, that is, ourselves, not gold or animals” (AE 40:28-29); “Now since there can be only spiritual sacrifices in the church, as Peter says, that is, such as are in spirit and in truth, they can be offered only by one who is spiritual, that is, by a Christian who has the Spirit of Christ” (AE 40:29).

 

[Vonsalza]

Historically (we’re not talking about the 19th century Anglo-Catholics), they have not done so in the way Catholics affirm it. Some Lutheran churches don’t even have bishops.

Quintessential example of Protestant chaos, imo.

But to the original point, if you’re alluding to the idea that some did/do not affirm apostolic succession, you’re incorrect.

Sorry, but your understanding of Evangelicalism is somewhat shortsighted. R.C. Sproul (the guy I quoted) is a Presbyterian–so directly in the Reformation tradition.

I read a lot of Sproul back in my reformed days. I wouldn’t be so quick to claim him as a bulwark of evangelicalism. He’s an absolute proponent that the Church must be characteristically evangelical in it’s orientation toward the world (as Catholics would agree). But concerning broader Evangelicalism, he was more than happy to turn his intellectual “guns” upon the movement from time to time.

The authority you are talking about is exercised by the church as a whole. It falls under the subject of ecclesiastical or church discipline.

Very well. So if the United Methodist congregation will forgive my sins but the Calvary Baptists across the street do not, which one holds???

Moreover, how on earth does one exercise “Church Discipline” when one can simply go across the street to another congregation that has more tolerant views?

The passage in greater context:
John 20:21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

What a novel interpretation yours is… For 1500 years, Christianity was more or less united that this indicated confession and the sacrament of penance. Turns out its just a prescription for church discipline.

Glad the Holy Spirit was finally able to get this one straight as late as 1906

(Forgive me. Couldn’t help myself.)

Different Protestant churches have different ideas about how this should be handled. But there is authority put in place to address those issues.

When one is Protestant congregation is free to rebuke or override the other, there is no authority.

Then that makes them non-trinitarian. Protestants are Trinitarian.

These Pentecostals aren’t Protestant? All Protestants have to be Trinitarian?

By what authority do you make that call? What occurs if they disagree with you?

But there is a core belief among Protestants about the priesthood of all believers–and it doesn’t preclude ministers or sacerdotal priests.

Properly interpreted, it also doesn’t preclude an authoritative priesthood legitimized and vetted via apostolic succession.

 

[ltwin]

Quintessential example of Protestant chaos, imo.

But to the original point, if you’re alluding to the idea that some did/do not affirm apostolic succession, you’re incorrect.

As I said before, not in the way Catholics do. As can be seen by how unnecessary it is for some Lutherans to even concern themselves about. Even Luther didn’t think it was indispensably necessary as can be seen from the passage I quoted.

I read a lot of Sproul back in my reformed days. I wouldn’t be so quick to claim him as a bulwark of evangelicalism. He’s an absolute proponent that the Church must be characteristically evangelical in it’s orientation toward the world (as Catholics would agree). But concerning broader Evangelicalism, he was more than happy to turn his intellectual “guns” upon the movement from time to time.

Not sure what your point is. He’s an evangelical and a Protestant. Evangelicalism isn’t confine d to Baptists and Pentecostals.

Very well. So if the United Methodist congregation will forgive my sins but the Calvary Baptists across the street do not, which one holds???

If you are a Methodist, why would you be going to a Baptist church? But to your point, if I were to leave the United Methodists for the Catholic Church would the Catholics care whether I was under Methodist discipline? I doubt it. I would be held to Catholic standards.

how on earth does one exercise “Church Discipline” when one can simply go across the street to another congregation that has more tolerant views?

Good question. I could just as easily leave Pentecostalism for Catholicism.

The passage in greater context:
John 20:21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

What a novel interpretation yours is… For 1500 years, Christianity was more or less united that this indicated confession and the sacrament of penance. Turns out its just a prescription for church discipline.

Glad the Holy Spirit was finally able to get this one straight as late as 1906

When Catholic priests give absolution and penance they are exercising a form of church discipline.

When one is Protestant congregation is free to rebuke or override the other, there is no authority.

This isn’t a Protestant problem. It’s a problem for any religion in a pluralistic society.

These Pentecostals aren’t Protestant? All Protestants have to be Trinitarian?

By what authority do you make that call? What occurs if they disagree with you?

Virtually everyone from theologians to religion scholars to everyday people define it that way. You can’t be the only one doing it right.

Properly interpreted, it also doesn’t preclude an authoritative priesthood legitimized and vetted via apostolic succession.

What part of sacerdotal priesthood did you not understand?

 

[Vonsalza]

As I said before, not in the way Catholics do.

And as I’ve said before, yes they do.

Perhaps you subconsciously add-in other ideas to it such as Roman primacy or errant views like being part of that succession must mean one is behaviorally perfect. But as simply the transmission of magisterial authority from apostle to bishop, then bishop to bishop unto this day, the Catholic understanding is held by many Protestant groups.

Seems we’re at a horse-and-water situation here.

If you are a Methodist, why would you be going to a Baptist church? But to your point, if I were to leave the United Methodists for the Catholic Church would the Catholics care whether I was under Methodist discipline? I doubt it. I would be held to Catholic standards.

You avoided the question. I’ll simplify.

Which new group is objectively correct on the matter? The United Methodists or the Reformed Baptists? Surely if they disagree on “retaining” or forgiving my sin per John 20, at least one of them must be wrong. So which and how do I know?

Good question. I could just as easily leave Pentecostalism for Catholicism.

If you did, the question of “So where was ‘The True Church’ before your sect historically began” gets a lot easier to answer.

This isn’t a Protestant problem. It’s a problem for any religion in a pluralistic society.

Pluralistic society didn’t exist in the first 1500 years of the Church? :ehh:

Until the 16th century, virtually all Christians fell into one of three communions with well developed episcopates. After the end of the 16th, there were already hundreds of independent groups and associations, perpetually fracturing unto this day.

The lack of authority is the quintessential Protestant problem.

Virtually everyone from theologians to religion scholars to everyday people define it that way. You can’t be the only one doing it right.

I ran around a Baptist seminary for a few years. I never heard the notion that one must be a Trinitarian to be Protestant.

There were a few Anabaptist groups that advocated non-trinitarian beliefs. So these Anabaptists weren’t Protestant either?

What part of sacerdotal priesthood did you not understand?

What part of “the gates of hell will not prevail” did you not understand?

If your faith isn’t 2000 years old, it simply cannot be the Church.

Restorationism makes a liar of Christ. If Christ’s a liar, I’m interested in none of it.

---

Oh dear, I’ve drifted…

 

[De_Maria]

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).

That’s not true. St. Peter merely iterates the teaching of the universal priesthood. But there is more than one type of priest in the universal priesthood. The common priest and the ministerial priest. The ministerial priest is also known as the elder.

1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Martin Luther pointed out in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church that “all we who are Christians are priests,”

This is true.

and no believer has greater access to the Creator than any other.

That depends upon what he meant by that. Did he mean that all men had an equal amount of faith? Here’s what Scripture says:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

Is your prayer effectual? Do you think you could stop it from raining on earth for three years?

But Elias (aka Elijah) did. And even if you could, most believers can’t. Thus, it is false to say that all men have equal 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.

Perhaps yours don’t. But ours, do:

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

“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)

Very true.

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.

Amen. I suppose you will now admit your error.

 

[ltwin]

And as I’ve said before, yes they do.

Perhaps you subconsciously add-in other ideas to it such as Roman primacy or errant views like being part of that succession must mean one is behaviorally perfect. But as simply the transmission of magisterial authority from apostle to bishop, then bishop to bishop unto this day, the Catholic understanding is held by many Protestant groups.

Seems we’re at a horse-and-water situation here.

They may believe succession existed and that an historic episcopate descended from the apostles may even be the preferred form of church government according to the Scriptures, but unless you’re an Anglo-Catholic (which is a relatively recent invention), they do not believe that such an arrangement is divine law or indispensable to the ministry of the church.

What you are doing is trying to undermine any uniform Protestant teaching on the universal priesthood by bringing up Apostolic Succession, which is a red herring.Just because some Protestants accept a notion of Apostolic Succession does not mean they disagree with what Protestants have always said about a universal priesthood.

Simply put, there is no conflict here. Since I’ve posted from the Presbyterians and Lutherans already, might as well quote an Anglican. This is what Richard Hooker, considered by many to be a founding father of Anglican theology, says in his Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity Book VII.5.8 which supports the idea of Apostolic Succession:

*The ruling superiority of one Bishop over many Presbyters in each Church, is an order descended from Christ to the Apostles, who were themselves Bishops at large, and from the Apostles to those whom they in their steads appointed Bishops over particular Countries and Cities; and even from those antient times, universally established, thus many years it hath continued throughout the World; for which cause Presbyters must not grudge to continue subject unto their Bishops, unless they will proudly oppose themselves against that which God himself ordained by his Apostles, and the whole Church of Christ approveth and judgeth most convenient. *

Clearly, Hooker approved of Apostolic Succession. However, his view (and historic Anglicanism’s view) is nuanced much more so than the Catholic Church’s. Hooker goes on to say in the same place that while it is ancient it is not part of divine law and there is no biblical support for the view that Succession is a divine establishment of the bishop’s office:

*On the other side Bishops albeit they may avouch with conformity of truth, that their Authority hath thus descended even from the very Apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it, they cannot say that any Commandment of the Lord doth injoyn; And therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away. . . . (VII. 5.8)
*

Get that. The church can get rid of Apostolic Succession (and had in several places by the time Hooker was writing) if it felt the need to. Stanley Archer explains in his article “Hooker on Apostolic Succession: The Two Voices” in the The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 24, No. 1, page 72:

*The office is upheld by custom and tradition, he continues, rather than any divine appointment, and as such is alterable for urgent cause. In this, he is consistent with his previously expressed view that the New Testament does not prescribe the details of polity (Pref. 4.4). By appointing the Apostles, Christ in the New Testament appointed men; he did not establish a rank or office. While upholding the historical origins of Apostolic Succession, Hooker nevertheless rejects the inference that episcopacy enjoys divine sanction or unalterable status.

His conclusion befits Hooker’s double vision of the Church, a dichotomy that runs throughout his work. There is the mystical church that is universal and single, uniting all believers. But the visible church as a polity or society is either national or limited to a defined locale. Though quite aware that some national churches eliminated the episcopacy, he offers no detailed opposition. He rejects the puritan views that bishops are illegitimate and that the New Testament supports a presbyterian order. Ultimately the episcopal authority is derived from the monarchical power of the Erastian nation, yet Hooker acknowledges that not even monarchs have a divine command for the continuance of their office. He is willing to go so far as to acknowledge that under limited circumstances valid ordination may occur without a bishop (VII.14.11).*

Notice the last line. Even Hooker, acknowledges that ordination could take place without a bishop and be valid.The church has both universal and national dimensions. Hooker doesn’t go out of his way to de-church those national churches in Europe who got rid of their episcopal polities, even though he thinks Apostolic Succession is a sound basis on which to organize and govern the Church of England.

 

[ltwin]

You avoided the question. I’ll simplify.

Which new group is objectively correct on the matter? The United Methodists or the Reformed Baptists? Surely if they disagree on “retaining” or forgiving my sin per John 20, at least one of them must be wrong. So which and how do I know?

Go to God in prayer and speak to your pastor about it. Maybe you will come to the conclusion that your church is doing it right.Maybe both churches handled it wrong.

Look, you’re trying to make this a Protestant problem. It isn’t “our problem” but the problem every church/denomination will face in some way, shape or form. How Methodists and Baptists relate to one another is a problem they have to sort out. The same goes for the Catholic Church and other Christian churches.

It is unfortunate if someone left one church in rebellion and unrepentance and joins another church with such issues at their former church unresolved. People have a tendency to run from accountability. That is something the people of that church need to pray about and discern what is appropriate. Just as the Catholic Church discerns what is appropriate for it to do when troublemakers leave other churches to be confirmed in their church. Do Catholics care what the United Methodists or Reformed Baptists think about baptizing/confirming such a person?

If the Catholic Church doesn’t take other church’s viewpoints into account when it accepts new members, why would you think any other church would care what another ecclesiastical body believed about its new member?

If a person renounces their membership in one church and joins another church, what logically can the former church do besides excommunicate or disfellowship them–which is pretty pointless since the person already left. The new church may or may not be aware of such a person’s background. If they are, they may not consider it sinful or they provide pastoral support as they see fit for someone who is now a member of their church. In any case, that is a problem every church encounters, not just Protestant ones.

If you did, the question of “So where was ‘The True Church’ before your sect historically began” gets a lot easier to answer.

Oh, there was a true church before the 20th century. Pentecostalism didn’t just drop out of the sky. The Methodists, Baptists, and other evangelical churches were certainly true churches. The Church of England from which Methodism and by extension Pentecostalism sprang was (and large parts of it still is) a true church.

Pluralistic society didn’t exist in the first 1500 years of the Church? :ehh:

Those societies had what we now lack–legal enforcement of religious uniformity. Of course, there have always been religious minorities, but ultimately state power could be relied on to enforce at least uniformity on the surface. Alternative churches were not legally allowed and could be suppressed. You didn’t have the problem of denominationalism because the state effectively subsidized one national church and outlawed any competitors.

Until the 16th century, virtually all Christians fell into one of three communions with well developed episcopates. After the end of the 16th, there were already hundreds of independent groups and associations, perpetually fracturing unto this day.

The lack of authority is the quintessential Protestant problem.

A Protestant problem? I’ve searched on the internet, and I still have not found a definitive answer to whether Amoris Laetitia allows the divorced and remarried to commune or not, and apparently many Catholic bishops are confused themselves.

I ran around a Baptist seminary for a few years. I never heard the notion that one must be a Trinitarian to be Protestant.

There were a few Anabaptist groups that advocated non-trinitarian beliefs. So these Anabaptists weren’t Protestant either?

Correct. They were heretics.

What part of “the gates of hell will not prevail” did you not understand?

If your faith isn’t 2000 years old, it simply cannot be the Church.

Restorationism makes a liar of Christ. If Christ’s a liar, I’m interested in none of it.

Alrightly then. Since it seems we are now talking past each other, and you seem to be interpreting my comments (even the ones in which I agree with you) as challenges, perhaps it’s time we charitably end this line of discussion.

 

[ltwin]

That’s not true. St. Peter merely iterates the teaching of the universal priesthood. But there is more than one type of priest in the universal priesthood. The common priest and the ministerial priest. The ministerial priest is also known as the elder.

1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Yes, there are offices of elder and deacon and the ministry gifts of apostles and prophets and pastors and teachers in the church to equip the saints for the work of their ministry. That does not deny that all saints are priests and that if priests then we serve under Christ who is our High Priest and if he be our High Priest, then “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16). We as priests can approach the throne of grace boldly with no need for an intermediary for Christ is our intermediary.

That depends upon what he meant by that. Did he mean that all men had an equal amount of faith? Here’s what Scripture says:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

Is your prayer effectual? Do you think you could stop it from raining on earth for three years?

But Elias (aka Elijah) did. And even if you could, most believers can’t. Thus, it is false to say that all men have equal access to the Creator than any other.

Well, it is certainly true that some people are given the extraordinary gift of faith-the faith that moves mountains (1 Corinthians 12:8). Yet, this is a spiritual gift that some people have and others do not; just like some people have the gift of miracles or gifts of healings and others don’t; nevertheless, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7). Every Christian by definition has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and is in communion with Christ and His body.

I do not think James was speaking of only those with the extraordinary gift of faith in this passage. His point is clearly that all Christians should confess their faults to their brothers and sisters in Christ and to pray for one another. This is a universal ministry in the church, and when the people of God (who should be righteous as a way of life) pray He will answer their prayers.

Perhaps yours don’t. But ours, do:

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

2 Corinthians 5:20 speaks of Paul’s ministry as an apostle, not a priest. Hebrews 13:17 is referring to church leadership, clearly. But there is nothing that implies mediation here.

We will all give an account before God, but those who are called to preach the gospel and shepherd the people of God have a greater responsibility because they will be accountable for what they teach others in the name of God and how they treated those placed in their care.

They cannot go to God for us, except in the capacity that any saint can intercede on behalf of another and which James talks about. Ultimately, we must approach the throne of grace ourselves and receive God’s grace through Christ and no other.

Amen. I suppose you will now admit your error.

Maybe if I hang around CAF long enough I’ll be convinced.

 

[Vonsalza]

They may believe succession existed and that an historic episcopate descended from the apostles may even be the preferred form of church government according to the Scriptures, but unless you’re an Anglo-Catholic (which is a relatively recent invention), they do not believe that such an arrangement is divine law or indispensable to the ministry of the church.

It would be worth noting that this particular movement predates the Azusa street movement that you claim.

What you are doing is trying to undermine any uniform Protestant teaching on the universal priesthood by bringing up Apostolic Succession, which is a red herring.Just because some Protestants accept a notion of Apostolic Succession does not mean they disagree with what Protestants have always said about a universal priesthood.

What you’re trying to do is present the indefensible notion that there is any sort of “uniform ‘Protestant’ teaching” beyond a stubbornly posited “it ain’t Catholic”.

Upon the lightest of inquiry, the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago published a nice webpage on the Ordination Process. It’s almost a perfect description of the Catholic process. The last step?
“The Bishop ordains and guides into placement.”

There’s even a quote at the top of the flow chart: “God calls everyone to ministry - but the church calls to Holy Orders.” All the Catholics of the world say “amen”.

The Episcopal Church also publishes this is their glossary for the term:
The belief that bishops are the successors to the apostles and that episcopal authority is derived from the apostles by an unbroken succession in the ministry. This authority is specifically derived through the laying on of hands for the ordination of bishops in lineal sequence from the apostles, through their performing the ministry of the apostles, and through their succession in episcopal sees traced back to the apostles.

Naturally, they also include this:
The apostolic succession is said to be a “sign, though not a guarantee” of the church’s basic continuity with the apostles and their time. The meaning of the apostolic succession relative to the historic episcopate has been a significant issue in Lutheran-Episcopal dialogues.

They, like Hooker, obviously have to explain why they’re not Catholic if they believe in succession.

But a challenge:

Can you identify any living bishop in those groups that were not either ordained by another bishop or confirmed by another bishop (as Peter confirmed Paul)?

I don’t think so. It’s an exception that has no example. It exists only to serve as prima facie justification for their separations.

---

Go to God in prayer and speak to your pastor about it.

Shortened, “I have no idea”. Such was expected as a matter of routine course.

Look, you’re trying to make this a Protestant problem. It isn’t “our problem”…

Oh yes it is. Significant Christian communions pre-1500? 3. Non-apostolic? 0.

Today? Thousands. As Christ only established one Church with him as the one source of truth, I fully and sympathetically understand why your blinders are fully extended on this matter. I did the same as a Baptist. Exposed myself to the seminary environment to make myself even better at reinforcing my now-discarded blinders. Obviously failed at that.

It is unfortunate if someone left one church in rebellion and unrepentance and joins another church with such issues at their former church unresolved.

Sounds like the origin story of most every Protestant group.
The reformed Baptist congregation in my town formed in schism with the older First Baptist congregation. I was in the midst of it.

Oh, there was a true church before the 20th century. Pentecostalism didn’t just drop out of the sky. The Methodists, Baptists, and other evangelical churches were certainly true churches. The Church of England from which Methodism and by extension Pentecostalism sprang was (and large parts of it still is) a true church.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (NIV)

Those societies had what we now lack–legal enforcement of religious uniformity.

Bull manure. Thomism vs Molinism vs Scotism? Ever heard of the Latin-Greek schism? These odd people called European Jews?

Conflicts arising from a lack of uniformity began roughly the day after Christ established the Church and continue unto this day. As history clearly shows, the ancient hierarchical Churches were just better at solving these conflicts and preserving real unity as they had some semblance of authority. But a lack of plurality? Total revisionist non-sense, deaf to the cries of history.

Correct. They were heretics.

I remember back when I confidently labelled other groups as “heretics” when I was a Baptist. The fact that they labelled me a heretic didn’t really cross my mind at the time. However, the absolute fact that my basis for accusation was no better than theirs (as we both had “bibles open”) led me to a Church that is actually capable of exercising some semblance of authentic authority on the matter.

…perhaps it’s time we charitably end this line of discussion.

Then thanks for the last word. Keep looking.

 

[De_Maria]

To Nicea325, since you seem to think I imagining things . . . Here is Luther’s thoughts on the priesthood of all believers. So, now I’ve shown you a Presbyterian source and a Lutheran source. What next? Anglican?

Interesting. Which one do you follow?