That doesn’t seem to be so. They would only see it as a memorial of the Last Supper, with no sacrificial overtones.I understand that most Protestants don’t consider the Eucharist to be a sacrifice in the sense of making present the one sacrifice of Christ. But I thought at least some admitted to the Eucharist being a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving, etc.
Maybe not.
Very good question. In the context in which this phrase is used (1 Peter 2) what Peter is saying is that we have been set aside for a special task and purpose. Here is where the difference lies though. Where you are trying to make the application that this implies a sacrifice of atonement, in the context in which Peter is speaking, the priestly task that is at hand is to proclaim the gospel to those who have not yet been called out of darkness. In other words, our priestly task, has to do with proclaiming and teaching, not rendering an atoning sacrifice. Now, in the context in which Peter is speaking, we may end up being persecuted because of the hostility the world has toward the gospel of Jesus Christ; however, this is not sacrificial in the sense that it makes atonement. It only fulfills Christ’s word that if the world persecuted me, they will persecute you because of me. That being said, he is also referring to the fact that Levi did not receive an earthly inheritance of land. Rather, they received God as their inheritance and he provided for them out of his own grace and mercy by rendering the tithes and sacrifices for their use. We also receive gratefully God’s abundant mercy, relying on his grace rather than our works. Refer to the actual passage below:Given this understanding, what does the common priesthood of all believers mean to you? The question might be more generally, what does the concept of priesthood after the Ascension mean to you?
There are more evangelicals worldwide than Lutherans.Perhaps this is only the smaller Evangelical tradition?
The formal name of the Lutheran Church is the “Evangelical Lutheran Church”. So in a sense, Lutherans are evangelical, no?There are more evangelicals worldwide than Lutherans.
We don’t view it as a sacrifice either (Lutherans). In fact, of the two major issues that we have with the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, this is considered to be the bigger error. Essentially, it introduces a synergistic understanding of the Lord’s Supper.I think you answered your own question. Most of the non-Anglican/Lutheran Christian groups don’t see their versions of the Eucharist as having that sacrificial nature that Catholics, EO, Anglicans and Lutherans do.
No, you are confusing two different movements. Lanman87 is speaking of Evangelicalism, which is a form of Anglo-American revivalism that has went global. The word “evangelical” in Evangelical Lutheran Church is an Anglicization of the German evangelisch, which essentially is synonymous with “Protestant”.The formal name of the Lutheran Church is the “Evangelical Lutheran Church”. So in a sense, Lutherans are evangelical, no?
No, the word evangelical comes from the Greek word euanggelion which means the Good News or Gospel. The word evangelical was used to describe the churches of the Reformation because they were preaching the pure gospel of justification by grace through faith. There are a number of Protestant denominations which teach a works based righteousness before God, these would not be evangelical.No, you are confusing two different movements. Lanman87 is speaking of Evangelicalism, which is a form of Anglo-American revivalism that has went global. The word “evangelical” in Evangelical Lutheran Church is an Anglicization of the German evangelisch , which essentially is synonymous with “Protestant”.
Yes, I know its Greek, but American Lutherans are using “Evangelical” the way Germans use evangelisch, not in the way that Baptists use “evangelical”.No, the word evangelical comes from the Greek word euanggelion which means the Good News or Gospel. The word evangelical was used to describe the churches of the Reformation because they were preaching the pure gospel of justification by grace through faith.
But that’s just it. English speakers apply “evangelical” to religious movements that are quite different from historic Lutheran churches.Understood, but the misuse of a word should not determine the normative meaning of it.
They are members of the priesthood of all believers, but so are the laity. Luther developed this idea strongly in his early writings (which can often differ dramatically from his more conservative later writings). He wrote in To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation that “All Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and thereWhy don’t (most) Protestants consider Christian ministers to be priests?
Source : The “Early” Luther on Priesthood of All Believers, Office of the Ministry, and OrdinationBut this does not mean that anyone can just up and decide for himself that he is going to preach today since he has been baptized. Although every believer has priestly authority by virtue of his baptism, God has given such authority for the sake of the Christian community to be exercised on its behalf. Therefore, as Luther says, “Because we are all priests of equal standing, no one must push himself forward and take it upon himself, without our consent and election, to do that for which we all have equal authority. For no one dare take upon himself what is common to all without the authority and consent of the community” (129).13
Thus, in Luther’s thinking, the claims of the Christian community temper individual rights.
In To the Christian Nobility, therefore, Luther’s conclusion regarding those who actually do the preaching of the Word and administering of the sacraments in the Church is that they possess not a special status (Stand) but a special calling or work (Amt oder Werk) to exercise an authority that belongs to all for the sake of all. For Luther, ordination by a bishop cannot confer new powers upon a man (he already has them in his baptism) nor any kind of permanent status (“characteres indelebiles”), for all Christians have the same status. But rather, “when a bishop consecrates, it is nothing else than that in the place and stead of the whole community, all of whom have like power, he takes a person and charges him to exercise this power on behalf of others” (128).14 And if such a man is deposed from office, he is no longer in that office but is “a peasant or a townsman like anybody else” (129).15
Interesting that you provide a false and self-serving perspective rather than actually try to be accurate in what Protestants actually believe. We for example do ordain pastors. We just do not call ordination a sacrament because we have a more exacting standard of what constitutes a sacrament. We also call them pastors because we believe that Christ is our eternal high priest who makes intercession before the Father for us by his own body and blood for all time. Feel free to read the Lutheran Confessions or maybe the Westminister Confessions, etc.Because they lack the Sacrament of Holy Orders. To be ordained into the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, there needs to be valid Apostolic Succession. Since Protestants have neither valid Orders nor valid Apostolic Succession, they are left with no priesthood, but solely ‘pastors’ and ‘ministers’.
Another thought, part of it has to do with the fact that Protestants do not recognize the ordination rite as a sacrament. While God certainly calls people to be ministers of the Gospel and gives them the anointing and grace needed to perform that call, the act of ordination itself is not sacramental and does not leave an indelible spiritual character on the one ordained.This is not some airtight argument. But taking these points together, why do Protestant traditions usually not consider Christian ministers to be priests (different from the “priesthood of believers”)?