Wanted: a quick, effective answer to counter the Protestant argument based on 1 Peter 2:9, “You are a royal priesthood”

[BartholomewB]

This verse is commonly quoted by certain Protestants to claim that all churches having ordained clergy – the Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopalian churches, among others – are in conflict with the teachings of the early Church. Do we have a quick, easy rejoinder that will satsfactorily silence those who make this claim?

All Christians are a “royal priesthood,” according to 1 Peter 2:9. But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises” of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (Nabre)

1 Peter, CHAPTER 2

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

 

[Maximilian75]

The ministerial priesthood vs the common priesthood.

Everyone who is baptized is baptized priest prophet and king.

However, the laying on of hands confers another indelible mark that allows for the absolution of sins and confection of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The new priesthood is a reflection of the OT priesthood.

In the OT there were regular Jews, the temple priests, and the High Priest

In Christianity, the High Priest is Christ, ordained ministers take the role of temple priests, and then there’s the rest of the laity.

Everything about the OT covenants are fulfilled in the NT, including the priesthood, so we see a similar breakdown.

 

[po18guy]

1. Royal, i.e. baptized members of Christ’s Body. Almost bet your friend is not baptized.
2. Ministerial,
   a. “Do this in memory of Me” i.e. consecrate the bread and wine;
   b. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”
   c. forgiveness of sin,; “Whatever I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the person of Christ” (2 Cor 2:10)
3. Without the ministerial priesthood, we would have no bible.
4. The structure and functioning of the early Church until this very day.

There are many more examples.

 

[LundyLund]

The other responses are good. I’d also add - when Jesus walked this Earth, there was a common priesthood. Take a look at 1 Kings (I think). Yet, there was also the ministerial priesthood. Similarly, we all exercise a common priesthood, make sacrifices, etc. But, Jesus also instituted the ministerial priesthood for his Church. He gave only certain persons the authority to forgive or retain sins. He gave only certain men the authority to consecrate the Eucharist. The fact that there is a distinct ministerial priesthood was totally uncontroversial until Luther instituted his rebellion.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I think I would point them to Jude 8-11. Jude said of Christians who “reject authority,” i.e., who reject human authorities in the Church, “Woe to them! For they … perish in Korah’s rebellion.” (Jude 11) Recall, those who perished in Korah’s rebellion had rejected the authority of Moses and Aaron, saying to Moses and Aaron, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (Numbers 16:3)

I might also point them to Hebrews 13:17, which says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.”

 

[MT1926]

In this verse St. Peter is simply contrasting believers in Christ with those who reject the Messiah in verse 8.

If you break down the verse you can see that he is calling Baptized Christians the “Royal Priesthood” just as the nation of Israel was a “Royal Priesthood” in the old covenant.

St. Peter is referencing Isaiah 43:20-21, Malachi 3:17 and Exodus 19:6 in this verse.

Like others have pointed out this is not the same as the Ministerial Priesthood set up by Moses in Exodus 24 and the New Covenant Ministerial Priesthood which Jesus set up.

Jesus made it Crystal clear that he was fulfilling and replacing the Old Covenant priesthood.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the New Moses.

The Old Moses set up the Levitical priesthood at the foot of Mt. Sinai.

Well the New Moses (Jesus) sets up the New Covenant priesthood in a similar way.

Exodus 24 Moses’ Order of Priesthood

1. Aaron was high priest
2. His inner scirle was Aaron, Nadab & Abihu
   They accompanied Moses to the top of Mt. Sinai
3. 12 young men who represent the 12 tribes offer sacrifice at the 12 pillars which Moses’ errected.
4. 70 elders of Isreal who became the prototype of the sanhedrin. The highest Judicial council in Jesus’ time.

In the New Covenant Jesus declares His fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant by mimicking Moses.

1. Jesus chooses Peteras the Head of the 12.
2. Peter, James and John are Jesus inner circle.
   a. They accompany Jeses to witness the Transfiguration
3. Jesus says the 12 Apostles shall rule over the 12 tribes
4. Jesus sends out the 70 desciples

The Sanhedrin saw clearly that Jesus was setting himself up as the new Moses, by Jesus instituting the New Priesthood.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[catholic4ever]

The pithy answer:

This argument exhibits a logical fallacy. Just because a church has ordained clergy does not mean other members of that church (laity, etc) do not share in the priesthood in a different way (i.e., via the common priesthood, as others have mentioned).

 

[ZMystiCat]

Royal, i.e. baptized members of Christ’s Body. Almost bet your friend is not baptized.

Am I missing something? It’s pretty standard for Protestants to baptize. Many baptize infants, and those who don’t tend to encourage their children to be baptized even when they’re young. Furthermore, most of these groups have valid baptisms according to the Church.

 

[po18guy]

From the OP:

This verse is commonly quoted by certain Protestants to claim that all
churches having ordained clergy – the Catholic, Lutheran, and
Episcopalian churches, among others – are in conflict with the teachings
of the early Church. Do we have a quick, easy rejoinder that will
satsfactorily silence those who make this claim?

OP is not asking about mainline Protestant groups, but about the plethora of fundamentalist and evangelical groups which claim faith alone and which reject baptism. Check such groups as C.A.R.M. et al. We call them “Protestant” but they do not consider themselves to be so.

Since they are saved by merely believing that they are saved (so they say), no baptism, no repentance, no penance, no Sacraments, no works of charity, no church attendace - nothing is needed for salvation but a breathless belief that they are “saved.” Some actually believe that they cannot sin, since Jesus took all their sins on the cross.

It is getting really bad out there.

 

[ZMystiCat]

about the plethora of fundamentalist and evangelical groups are faith alone and which reject baptism

Quite a bit of my upbringing was a mixture of Fundamentalist and Evangelical. I never came across anyone who rejected baptism. Yes, their brand of sola fide prevent them from understanding fully what is going on, but that’s not a requirement for the baptism to be valid.

Now, I’d imagine that such a group does exist. After all, some fringes of the Baptist community think you need to be baptized at each local church you’re a member of. However, they’re quite a minority, certainly not common enough to say that OP’s friend(s) probably aren’t baptized.

Check such groups as C.A.R.M

CARM was actually a frequent stop of mine when looking into Catholicism, given their numerous objections to Catholicism. They certainly aren’t against baptizing people. They even defend some if its requirements from objections.

OP is not asking about mainline Protestant groups

Except this passage is cited by mainline and traditionalist Protestants, such as the Reformed Ligonier Ministries. When I was Reformed, it was an at least minor sticking point.

Since they are saved by merely believing that they are saved (so they say), no baptism, no repentance, no penance, no Sacraments, no works of charity, no church attendace - nothing is needed for salvation but a breathless belief that they are “saved.”

Maybe it was just the fact that I was an active Protestant, but I can certainly attest that a good number of Protestants, despite not believing it necessary for salvation, will still do it. Sure, they severely devalue church, sacraments, etc., but they’ll still perform them and maybe even hold them in a slightly higher-than-memorial regard.

Some actually believe that they cannot sin, since Jesus took all their sins on the cross.

The only time I came across this belief was when a friend of mine decided to chat up some protesters at Comic-Con. He was in such shock at their beliefs that he shared with his whole church. Even the pastor was in disbelief when he heard it. This was also a Southern Baptist church, so pretty Evangelical in nature.

Again, it is quite a fringe belief.

 

[po18guy]

FACT: An increasing number of groups is rejecting baptism. If you read the OP and my re-reference to it, you will see that the OP is asking about such a person.

This is not a thread to debate this or that, but to refute a false argument against the faith. And, last I checked, C.A.R.M. (rhymes with harm) and “Slick Matt” give a bottom line that baptism is not longer necessary. This, of course, is nonsensical.

I hops that’s OK, given that this is Contrary Answers Forums.

 

[BartholomewB]

@Maximilian75, @ProdglArchitect, @po18guy, @(name removed by moderator), @catholic4ever, @ZmystiCat, @LundyLund, @Todd_Easton, @MT1926

Thank you all for your contributions. I’ll do my best to test every one of your arguments in battle, and see which ones are most effective in practice.

The parallel with Exodus 19:6 looks particularly promising, I think, because no “Bible-believing Christian,” however extreme, can claim that Moses and Aaron didn’t institute a priesthood.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Effective is the Church decided what was scripture. Tell them to go make their own new Testament. I have collections of new Testament apocrypha. Much to choose from.

 

[ZMystiCat]

This is not a thread to debate this or that, but to refute a false argument against the faith.

Yes, but when we respond to false arguments, we should also bear in mind that we aren’t making false assumptions, or else we risk discrediting our entire argument. Assuming that a Protestant isn’t baptized and that they reject it entirely is a very dangerous assumption to make, unless you’re dealing with a very specific denomination who in their creed states that they don’t practice it.

And, last I checked, C.A.R.M…and [Matt Slick] give a bottom line that baptism is not longer necessary.

It is no longer necessary for salvation, but that’s been a pretty standard Protestant belief since the beginning. Slick’s own views are very much in-line with Calvin’s Covenant Theology, which maintains that baptism, while not necessary for salvation, is still the point where someone is “marked” as a member of the covenant. For that reason, many Reformed Protestants even argue that refusing baptism is a sign that someone is not saved, since they don’t appear to be moved by the Holy Spirit to receive the mark.

 

[po18guy]

1. I said I would ‘bet’ this person is not baptized. We have not heard back, have we?
2. Quick to argue.
3. Quick to accuse.
4. Life is too short.

 

[BartholomewB]

1. I said I would ‘bet’ this person is not baptized. We have not heard back, have we?

I’m sorry, I don’t know the answer to that question. It’s a discussion on a comments thread at an Anglican blog. It attracted my attention because it’s an argument I’ve seen before, quite often, and I’ve never seen an effective counterargument.

 

[Mary888]

1 Corinthians 10:32
32Do not become a stumbling block, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, 33just as I try to please everyone in all I do. For I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many, that they may be saved.…
So what is this Church in parallel to those to whom St. Paul speaks to (who is all of us)? [if not the priests]

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Peter himself gives us the answer. He tells us, Be yourselves living stones built into that spiritual house to offer sacrifices acceptable to God (I’m paraphrasing). What is the spiritual house? It is the resurrected body of Jesus. The Temple of his body (according to John) that Jesus rebuilds in three days. It is the rebuilt Temple in Ezekiel’s dream.

Remember that we are dust/stone. Jesus is the cornerstone of the rebuilt Temple. When we are built into that spiritual house through Baptism, we all partake in the royal priesthood of Jesus because we become one Mystical Body with him. What does the priest do? He offers sacrifices to God. Where does he do it? In the Temple. Because we too are partaking in his royal priesthood, we too, during Mass, offer up the perfect offering to God by uniting our selves to Jesus on the cross during the representation of Calvary. We can’t confect the Sacrament of Eucharist, but we fully participate in its offering to God.

 

[otrrl]

We are priests in the sense that we offer ourself in sacrifice. The Christian walk is one of self-sacrifice.
Paul tells us to offer ouselves as living sacrifices.

protestants deny the Catholic and Orthodox priesthoods which are special vocations to fulfill the office of priest, prophet, and king – to be represent Christ in the Church.