A
AugustTherese
Guest
Christ’s Priesthood is eternal, hence those who share in His ministerial priesthood are priests forever.
Why don't (most) Protestants consider Christian ministers to be priests?
- Status
H
Hodos
Guest
This is perfectly in line with Sola Scriptura. The issue is that you don’t know what Sola Scriptura is and would prefer dealing with a straw man argument. This seems to be a repetitive tactic (second time this thread).What happened to ‘sola scriptura’?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
As a former Confessional Lutheran, it’s not a hard doctrine to understand.
L
ltwin
Guest
All Christians share in the priesthood. The only difference between Christians are the offices one holds. Some are called to be apostles, others evangelists, others prophets, others shepherds, others teachers, and others are called to exercise the many other gifts that the Spirit works through the body of Christ. But all are priests.
H
Hodos
Guest
You have demonstrated otherwise on numerous occasions. Declaring yourself to be confessional, while demonstrating you don’t understand the confessions is kind of a pointless exercise.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Not all Christians were given the sacerdotal power and efficacy to forgive and retain sins and/or confect the Eucharist. Hence the ministerial priesthood.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Does it have a single normative meaning? I notice you use the expression “works based righteousness”, which sounds Calvinist to me. Is that correct?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Such conviction with so much evidence!AugustTherese:
You have demonstrated otherwise on numerous occasions. Declaring yourself to be confessional, while demonstrating you don’t understand the confessions is kind of a pointless exercise.
H
Hodos
Guest
Matthew 18 demonstrates otherwise. The ministerial office was established as a preaching and teaching office, not as a sacrificial office. 1 Timothy for example outlines the duties of the office of overseer, note that offering sacrifice is not mentioned.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Do you think the Apostles had copies of the Book of Concord?AugustTherese:
Matthew 18 demonstrates otherwise. The ministerial office was established as a preaching and teaching office, not as a sacrificial office. 1 Timothy for example outlines the duties of the office of overseer, note that offering sacrifice is not mentioned.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Right next to where the Trinity is not mentioned.
T
Thom18
Guest
Well, evangelical is just an expression of faith rather than a distinct denomination, isn’t it?catholic1seeks:
There are more evangelicals worldwide than Lutherans.
L
ltwin
Guest
To forgive and retain sins is nothing more or less than to proclaim and apply the Gospel, so yes, all Christians have power to forgive and retain sins for all Christians can proclaim this message to all people in all situations: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9) All Christians can announce forgiveness of sins before God, and all Christians can declare that unrepented sins are retained.
Now, when it comes to applying this, if a person will not listen, then you take it to the church and allow them to intervene (Matthew 18).
Last edited:
L
ltwin
Guest
Evangelicalism is a worldwide transdenominational movement within Christianity. There isn’t a single evangelical denomination, but there are many evangelical denominations. In so many words.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
What?! Where do you get that from? Which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven, or to say pick up your mat and walk? Our Lord did not just preach forgiveness, He actually forgave sins, hence the Pharisees’ grumbling. He gave this sacerdotal power to the Apostles and their successors.
Which ‘church’? Who is ‘them’? Why take it to any ‘church’ when I can take it to any Christian who can forgive my sins by his or her preaching the gospel to me?
Last edited:
L
ltwin
Guest
When God’s Word says a person is forgiven, they are forgiven: “so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11
And he continues to forgive sins, with or without the ministry of a Roman Catholic priest.
The leadership of the congregation–the presbyters or overseers.
If a person refuses to repent, then their sins are not forgiven. And if they are a Christian who refuses to heed the counsel of other Christians then their continuing in sin should be addressed by the leadership of the congregation. If the brother or sister still refuses to listen, then they are to be treated as a gentile and a tax collector.
Last edited:
So are Catholics, if you broaden the term that way. At the least , the term Evangelical Catholic rightly and historically describes Lutherans. I suspect the American Evangelical movement would balk at that combination.ltwin:
The formal name of the Lutheran Church is the “Evangelical Lutheran Church”. So in a sense, Lutherans are evangelical, no?
It’s actually described in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.Hodos:
What happened to ‘sola scriptura’?
D
Diaconia
Guest
Principally, because Protestants don’t believe that Holy Orders is a sacrament.
All Churches who possess valid orders (Orthodox and Catholic) do so because they know that one of the sacraments is that of Holy Orders. [It’s imprecise to call it “priesthood,” because Holy Orders includes the diaconate, as well.]
By the way, Anglicans used to have valid orders, but there was a time when they greatly changed the words used during the conferral of the sacrament. After that time, when those bishops died, Anglican/Episcopalian ministers could no longer transmit orders to the new generation of deacons and priests and bishops.
You may be interested to know that then Cardinal Ratzinger is the one who studied this very issue to determine when the Anglican orders ceased to be valid.
All Churches who possess valid orders (Orthodox and Catholic) do so because they know that one of the sacraments is that of Holy Orders. [It’s imprecise to call it “priesthood,” because Holy Orders includes the diaconate, as well.]
By the way, Anglicans used to have valid orders, but there was a time when they greatly changed the words used during the conferral of the sacrament. After that time, when those bishops died, Anglican/Episcopalian ministers could no longer transmit orders to the new generation of deacons and priests and bishops.
You may be interested to know that then Cardinal Ratzinger is the one who studied this very issue to determine when the Anglican orders ceased to be valid.
G
GKMotley
Guest
_Apostolicae curae_is what you are thinking of, here. Which judgement involved not only the form used, in the Edwardine Ordinal, for consecration/ordination but the intertwined question of the sacramental intent of those who used it. Lots of history, personalities, theology and politics involved in that sad story.
Which history also shows that Cardinal Ratzinger was quite a late comer to the question. The definitive decision, from the RCC’s standpoint, with regard to Anglican orders (absolutely null and utterly void, were the words), occurred back in 1896. Lots of history involved, yep. Hobby of mine for many years.
And Anglicans, as you might expect. have their own opinion on the matter (and, as I always say, the intent and the form). But for the RCs in the audience, you got it right.
Which history also shows that Cardinal Ratzinger was quite a late comer to the question. The definitive decision, from the RCC’s standpoint, with regard to Anglican orders (absolutely null and utterly void, were the words), occurred back in 1896. Lots of history involved, yep. Hobby of mine for many years.
And Anglicans, as you might expect. have their own opinion on the matter (and, as I always say, the intent and the form). But for the RCs in the audience, you got it right.
- Status