Why do Protestants have ministers and pastors?

[couponfit]

Assuming that you accept solo scriptura, and that you accept that once you are saved you are always saved (which may not be the belief of your particular protestant denomination or non-denomination) then why is there any acceptance of a minister or pastor. I can see the need to have a leader to focus a congregations efforts in worship and praise. I can even see the need to attend theology. But how can any protestant with such a belief (and I’m sure there are some who don’t believe this) ever give stock to anyone else’s theology except their own? As a catholic the need for a minister or pastor seems obvious from my perspective, as does a doctrine, and a worship or service organization. But when I read from protestants why Catholics are wrong to have their faith dictated or to have a group or person above them tell them how to believe I have to wonder the difference and the need for such a person in a protestant service? If I was normally told by protestants that there were differences in doctrinal faith that would seem to make more sense. But all too often I am told that catholics are wrong to have organization, wrong to have their doctrinal system, and wrong to have a priest do what it seems most pastors and ministers do.

I read a great statement from a protestant who wrote that a pastor in a church leads by bringing God’s word to man but not man’s word to God. I appreciated this an other comments but how do they do this differently than say a Catholic priest? I can understand how one denomination disagree’s with another, and how a Pentecost might disagree with a Catholic. I can see that! But how does have a central magistarium which sets specific doctrine into the bible through clear identification of each issue differ from a Pentecostal leader who receives doctrinal guidance from a leadership or theological committee?

How is a Catholic priest dictating to God in church when he explains a reading from a Gospel using a organized means of worship in congregation different than when a Pastor or Minister does this in a protestant church. I haven’t been to a protestant service or congregation that does not have doctrine or organization to it’s service of some form even if it is very informal? And unless the pastor or minister is leading only prayer and worship how can a protestant accept the pastors explanation of the reading?

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Couponfit,

The short answer as to why Protestants have pastors, or elders, or ministers if you prefer, is because scripture tells us to have them: Titus 1:5-16 for example. The elder is to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” in other words the elder is one who has a firm grip on what was taught, which we find in scripture. They seek too maintain order and shepherd their faithful, it’s a service role. As such they are worthy of double honour: 1 Timothy 5:17.

I do indeed submit to my elders, they teach me from the scriptures, and as such I honour them. But I do test what I hear of them yes, just as Paul instructed to be done for “everything”; 1 Thessolonians 5:21. In context this is referring to prophecies, with Paul instructing them to be tested against what is already known and accepted, aka; the apostles teaching, which as a Protestant I see as being sought in scripture. The same is applied to teaching, it is to be tested to what is already known, to what is sound apostolic teaching, to God Breathed Scripture.

I am sure that the above we can both probably agree on to some extent, we both see the need for teachers, scripture is abundantly clear on it. It’s all about authority in the end as you point out, where we disagree is the test to establish which is correct. So really I can’t think of much more to say, scripture is clear on their being elders in each local church. Worthy of double honour yes, most defintley, as scripture says (see above). But not as a separate category as in priest and layman, for Protestants for the most part will adhere to the priesthood of all believers.

Hope this clarifies a few things for you regarding this matter, not that I’m suggesting I have it all right, but scripture does not lie, and it is clear on the church having elders.

Lincs

 

[SaintPatrick333]

well ironically enough, Scriptures would show us irrefutably as it has done since its inception at the hands of the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit of course), that the Catholic Church has all the authority. Don’t really see why there’s division. At this point its just a matter of cultural differences, what one is “raised” in or flat out pride issues.

 

[graceandglory]

But how can any protestant with such a belief (and I’m sure there are some who don’t believe this) ever give stock to anyone else’s theology except their own??

I have an anecdote that explains how this works for Protestants. Many protestant teachers have written “systematic theologies” which basically are biblical interpretations and theological interpretations according to the author. Contrast that to the Catholic Church (Universal) that has a Magisterium that we are all supposed to believe.

In my last years as a protestant evangelical, I was ready to be doing my own biblical studies, actually I already had, but I kept coming up to the question: “How is this to be understood, or interpreted?” I knew that I didn’t have the wisdom of the ages to interpret scripture all by myself. So I did what any good evangelical would, I went to my pastor for advice. I asked him, "Which of these (several) authors’ Systematic Theologies should I invest in?

My pastor’s response: LAUGHTER.

---

The story ended there. Of course he couldn’t recommend just ONE. He picks and chooses from all of them. THat is the nature of protetant evangelicalism.

 

[Lincoln7]

SaintPartick333,

well ironically enough, Scriptures would show us irrefutably as it has done since its inception at the hands of the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit of course), that the Catholic Church has all the authority. Don’t really see why there’s division. At this point its just a matter of cultural differences, what one is “raised” in or flat out pride issues.

Matthew 28:18.

graceandglory,

I think pick and choose is a tad unfair, I read from several different theological guides or from great theologians yes, I like how CS Lewis put it; to have the “breeze of centuries” flowing through me, learning from them, see here, only a few lines: max256.bearstrong.net/2010/12/20/to-keep-the-clean-sea-breeze-of-the-centuries-blowing-through-our-minds/

what do I do with them? “Test everything hold fast to what is good.” I test things to the sure rule of faith, to scripture, just as Paul instructs. (1 Thessolonians 5:21) I went to my pastor for advice, he gave me several recommendations, I enjoy reading them, but I know Jesus has all authority and scripture gets its authority from him, thus it’s above even the greatest theological guides or confessions.

Peace

Lincs

 

[CopticChristian]

Assuming that you accept solo scriptura, and that you accept that once you are saved you are always saved (which may not be the belief of your particular protestant denomination or non-denomination) then why is there any acceptance of a minister or pastor. I can see the need to have a leader to focus a congregations efforts in worship and praise. I can even see the need to attend theology. But how can any protestant with such a belief (and I’m sure there are some who don’t believe this) ever give stock to anyone else’s theology except their own? As a catholic the need for a minister or pastor seems obvious from my perspective, as does a doctrine, and a worship or service organization. But when I read from protestants why Catholics are wrong to have their faith dictated or to have a group or person above them tell them how to believe I have to wonder the difference and the need for such a person in a protestant service? If I was normally told by protestants that there were differences in doctrinal faith that would seem to make more sense. But all too often I am told that catholics are wrong to have organization, wrong to have their doctrinal system, and wrong to have a priest do what it seems most pastors and ministers do.

**I read a great statement from a protestant who wrote that a pastor in a church leads by bringing God’s word to man but not man’s word to God. ** I appreciated this an other comments but how do they do this differently than say a Catholic priest? I can understand how one denomination disagree’s with another, and how a Pentecost might disagree with a Catholic. I can see that! But how does have a central magistarium which sets specific doctrine into the bible through clear identification of each issue differ from a Pentecostal leader who receives doctrinal guidance from a leadership or theological committee?

How is a Catholic priest dictating to God in church when he explains a reading from a Gospel using a organized means of worship in congregation different than when a Pastor or Minister does this in a protestant church. I haven’t been to a protestant service or congregation that does not have doctrine or organization to it’s service of some form even if it is very informal? And unless the pastor or minister is leading only prayer and worship how can a protestant accept the pastors explanation of the reading?

Perspective is everything. I have attended Protestant bible studies and churches and took notes. The only thing the Pastor does is interpret the Bible in terms of a presumed theology. I knew it, but those taking notes did not know it, that they were being inculcated into Protestant theology using the Bible believing that they were learning the Bible…Conversation with any of these people did not go beyond what they were taught. They were encouraged not to read outside sources…it is just a matter of perspecive.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Assuming that you accept solo scriptura, and that you accept that once you are saved you are always saved (which may not be the belief of your particular protestant denomination or non-denomination) then why is there any acceptance of a minister or pastor. I can see the need to have a leader to focus a congregations efforts in worship and praise. I can even see the need to attend theology. But how can any protestant with such a belief (and I’m sure there are some who don’t believe this) ever give stock to anyone else’s theology except their own? As a catholic the need for a minister or pastor seems obvious from my perspective, as does a doctrine, and a worship or service organization. But when I read from protestants why Catholics are wrong to have their faith dictated or to have a group or person above them tell them how to believe I have to wonder the difference and the need for such a person in a protestant service? If I was normally told by protestants that there were differences in doctrinal faith that would seem to make more sense. But all too often I am told that catholics are wrong to have organization, wrong to have their doctrinal system, and wrong to have a priest do what it seems most pastors and ministers do.

I read a great statement from a protestant who wrote that a pastor in a church leads by bringing God’s word to man but not man’s word to God. I appreciated this an other comments but how do they do this differently than say a Catholic priest? I can understand how one denomination disagree’s with another, and how a Pentecost might disagree with a Catholic. I can see that! But how does have a central magistarium which sets specific doctrine into the bible through clear identification of each issue differ from a Pentecostal leader who receives doctrinal guidance from a leadership or theological committee?

How is a Catholic priest dictating to God in church when he explains a reading from a Gospel using a organized means of worship in congregation different than when a Pastor or Minister does this in a protestant church. I haven’t been to a protestant service or congregation that does not have doctrine or organization to it’s service of some form even if it is very informal? And unless the pastor or minister is leading only prayer and worship how can a protestant accept the pastors explanation of the reading?

I’m Protestant and we refer to our priest as Father, just as you do and I believe just as the Orthodox do.

 

[pablope]

I have an anecdote that explains how this works for Protestants. I went to my pastor for advice. I asked him, "Which of these (several) authors’ Systematic Theologies should I invest in?

My pastor’s response: LAUGHTER.

---

The story ended there. Of course he couldn’t recommend just ONE. He picks and chooses from all of them. THat is the nature of protetant evangelicalism.

I think this article is a good read regarding this picking and choosing…and is an eye opener…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

From which I quote:

So in my mind, everything any Church Father said had to be tested against [my own interpretation of] Scripture…He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation…The result is that Mohler identifies tradition in the same way that an archer might paint a target around an arrow he has already shot into a wall…In that case we cannot justifiably use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which traditions agree with our interpretation and which traditions do not, because we do not know which books are Scripture. Nor, for the same reason, can we use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which books of the Bible belong there, because that would be to assume at the outset precisely what we do not know, i.e., the canon.

 

[couponfit]

Perspective is everything. I have attended Protestant bible studies and churches and took notes. The only thing the Pastor does is interpret the Bible in terms of a presumed theology. I knew it, but those taking notes did not know it, that they were being inculcated into Protestant theology using the Bible believing that they were learning the Bible…Conversation with any of these people did not go beyond what they were taught. They were encouraged not to read outside sources…it is just a matter of perspecive.

Isn’t every perspective outside the bible?

 

[BrianH]

Caricatures of another person’s belief systems, while easy, lead to oversimplification and faulty presuppositions.
But let me answer:

If a person believes in Sola Scriptura, the Bible tells them to. Bottom line.
If a person believes in Sola Scriptura and Tradition, both tell them to as well.
It seems it can be boiled down to that if you prefer.

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

So I must surrender all interpretation to the church, sola ecclesia? The highest authority.

I mean this as no insult, if it comes across as much, I apologise. But it’s what’s there.

Peace.

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Shall we start a new thread or split btw? I don’t think we’re really on about why we have pastors anymore. I will leave this for a user more accustomed with CAF to either decide or do lol, I’m a bit rusty how it all works…

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

So I must surrender all interpretation to the church, sola ecclesia? The highest authority.

I mean this as no insult, if it comes across as much, I apologise. But it’s what’s there.

Peace.

Lincs.

Hi, Linc…

I would not say surrender…but I would say…“guided”…I will let others weigh in on it.

as to highest authority…as stated in 1Timothy3…the church is the "pillar and ground of truth…not the individual.

And this is how Catholics interpret the Bible…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

from which I will quote…

let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?

It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.

And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…

…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.

Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?

Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).

God bless…

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

as to highest authority…as stated in 1Timothy3…the church is the "pillar and ground of truth…not the individual.

As for this passage, I can heartily affirm it! Albert Barnes gives a nice exposition here: “The proper meaning of the one expression would be, that truth is supported by the church. as an edifice is by a pillar; of the other, that the truth rests “on” the church, as a house does on its foundation. It is that which makes it fixed, stable, permanent; that on which it securely stands amidst storms and tempests; that which renders it firm when systems of error are swept away as a house that is built on the sand; compare notes on Matthew 7:24-27.”(1) I would encourage a reading of his whole commentary on this verse, I just dont want to paste all of it!

Thus I agree heartily, but does this therefore necesserily mean the church is infallibe? Not to me, the church is as it is described as it upholds and is upheld by the truth.

Lincs

(1) - bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm

 

[Publisher]

Each Friend is minister and priest…we minister to one another as memebers of His Body do for one another. Some Monthly and Yearly Meetings have a process by which it is discerned by an individual and his/her home meeting can sponsor him/her for “recording”…since Friends believe only God can ordain a person to service…we can only bear witness to the call and recognize and “record” it among our meetings the “Friend _________” is recognized to be called of God to His service in a different way than other Friends…we each have need of even the "most unseamly’ part of His Body.

 

[hn160]

In the Lutheran Church, the ordained clergy can be called a pastor, Father, or priest. Most commonly in the States it is Pastor for the office but in other parts of the world it is Priest.

 

[Anthony_V]

Pablope,

As for this passage, I can heartily affirm it! Albert Barnes gives a nice exposition here: “The proper meaning of the one expression would be, that truth is supported by the church. as an edifice is by a pillar; of the other, that the truth rests “on” the church, as a house does on its foundation. It is that which makes it fixed, stable, permanent; that on which it securely stands amidst storms and tempests; that which renders it firm when systems of error are swept away as a house that is built on the sand; compare notes on Matthew 7:24-27.”(1) I would encourage a reading of his whole commentary on this verse, I just dont want to paste all of it!

Wonderful!

Thus I agree heartily, but does this therefore necesserily mean the church is infallibe? Not to me, the church is as it is described as it upholds and is upheld by the truth.

Lincs

(1) - bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm

Let’s look at what you just said in light of Ephesians 2:19-22.
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 2:19-22[/BIBLEDRB]
If I’m not mistaken, the “truth” would then be Christ, not the Bible. So you are saying this:
“The church is as it is described as it upholds and is upheld by [Christ].” The truth about the Truth is the Bible, which is certainly not mentioned here. Moreover, the truth (Bible) necessitates the Truth (Christ) as being upheld by the church. Otherwise, the church would not be supporting the Bible as 2:20-21 suggests; the Bible would be supporting the church. Quite frankly, your stance doesn’t make much sense to me, as you are making Truth and truth synonymous in this context to fit your views.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I’m backwards, though.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

In the Lutheran Church, the ordained clergy can be called a pastor, Father, or priest. Most commonly in the States it is Pastor for the office but in other parts of the world it is Priest.

A priest is one who offers sacrifice. Does this describe a Lutheran clergyman?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Caricatures of another person’s belief systems, while easy, lead to oversimplification and faulty presuppositions.
But let me answer:

If a person believes in Sola Scriptura, the Bible tells them to. Bottom line.
If a person believes in Sola Scriptura and Tradition, both tell them to as well.
It seems it can be boiled down to that if you prefer.

Where does the Bible tell us to believe in Sola Scriptura?

If one believes in Sacred Tradition, one can’t believe Scripture Only – Sola Scriptura.

 

[BrianH]

Where does the Bible tell us to believe in Sola Scriptura?

If one believes in Sacred Tradition, one can’t believe Scripture Only – Sola Scriptura.

1. It doesn’t.
2. I should have said scripture and tradition.
   Sorry