Why don't (most) Protestants consider Christian ministers to be priests?

[Childoftheday]

There is no one “Protestant” position. I belong to a tradition that performs no outward signs or rituals as a “means of grace”.
My tradition has no ordained clergy, all who meet for worship has the opportunity to bring vocal ministry if so moved by the Light Within.
Quakerism has been dubbed by some as the culmination of the Reformation. While most Protestants only practice two or three of the ordinances/sacraments, Friends participate in no outward sacraments.

 

[Hodos]

Contrary to your assertion, the trinity actually is taught in the Bible. You still haven’t figured out the difference between doctrine that is taught, and doctrine that is contradictory to scripture.

 

[Hodos]

Do you think the Apostles had copies of the Book of Concord?

They didn’t need it. Their doctrinal writings demonstrate their beliefs on justification, the trinity, ecclesiastical authority, etc. As you well know, Confessional statements are not scripture, but are expositions of scripture written normally to refute false teaching or in the case of the Book of Concord, to refute lies proclaimed about their beliefs. The same goes for the ecumenical creeds (all contained within the Book of Concord by the way). Each can be demonstrated to be true expositions of scripture, and hence are valid declarations of doctrine (unless you are trying to argue against the Trinity, in which case I’m more catholic than you are). As such, it is acceptable as a doctrinal statement because it provides an exposition of scripture that is coherent with and supported by scripture. This would be different than say a council that is called to define a dogma such as the Assumption of Mary that finds no scriptural basis and is actually first supported in writings declared to be heretical by previous Church councils that recognized their gnostic influence and origin.

 

[Wannano]

AugustTherese:

Do you think the Apostles had copies of the Book of Concord?

They didn’t need it. Their doctrinal writings demonstrate their beliefs on justification, the trinity, ecclesiastical authority, etc. As you well know, Confessional statements are not scripture, but are expositions of scripture written normally to refute false teaching or in the case of the Book of Concord, to refute lies proclaimed about their beliefs. The same goes for the ecumenical creeds (all contained within the Book of Concord by the way). Each can be demonstrated to be true expositions of scripture, and hence are valid declarations of doctrine (unless you are trying to argue against the Trinity, in which case I’m more catholic than you are). As such, it is acceptable as a doctrinal statement because it provides an exposition of scripture that is coherent with and supported by scripture. This would be different than say a council that is called to define a dogma such as the Assumption of Mary that finds no scriptural basis and is actually first supported in writings declared to be heretical by previous Church councils that recognized their gnostic influence and origin.

I have never heard that the CC once considered writings about the Assumption of Mary to be declared heretical. Can you share more info?

 

[AugustTherese]

As such, it is acceptable as a doctrinal statement because it provides an exposition of scripture that is coherent with and supported by scripture.

That is a circular argument. That’s like saying the Bible is God’s written Word because it is God’s written Word. Your Confessions provide doctrines that are not in Scripture (sola sciptura) or are contradicted by Scripture (sola fide cf. James 2:24). The Lutheran traditions of interpreting Scripture and putting those interpretations into a Book of Concord, are just that, traditions of 16th-century men without Apostolic Succession and/or authority that use the authority of Scripture as a pretext to guise their false interpretations of Scripture. Our Lord founded the Catholic Church, Lutheran founded his own ecclesial community. Facts are facts.

Assumption of Mary that finds no scriptural basis and is actually first supported in writings declared to be heretical by previous Church councils that recognized their gnostic influence and origin

That is a claim. You provided no evidence. You keep touting these claims without substantiating. Do you think we are foolish? Even your community’s founder believed in the Assumption of Mary, along with the Immaculate Conception and her perpetual virginity. Take notes: I just claimed something, now I will substantiate it with historical facts.

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

“There can he no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith… It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Weimer’s The Works of Luther , English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

• Martin Luther

 

[Hodos]

That is a circular argument. That’s like saying the Bible is God’s written Word because it is God’s written Word.

And yet the Catholic Church assumes the same presuppositional position that Protestants do: namely that God is capable of revealing his will to man, and that he has done so historically and that this revelation was recorded in scripture. Your argument that scripture is scripture because the Catholic Church says it is is just as circular except that it attempts to change the nature of scripture from God’s revelation to man (which can be demonstrated scripturally) to the Church’s revelation about God. The two are very different approaches. Historically the prophets appealed to the authority of scripture because it was the Word of God come to them, and not that this was the word of the high priest, etc.

 

[Hodos]

That is a claim. You provided no evidence.

No, it is you who is providing no evidence. I am merely stating the fact. Surely you can provide an unequivocal revelation from scripture in context that demonstrates this teaching if I am I just winging it.

 

[AugustTherese]

namely that God is capable of revealing his will to man, and that he has done so historically and that this revelation was recorded in scripture.

Oh, boy. We have a problem here. What did Adam, Noah, and Abraham do without Scripture?! God reveals His will through establishing covenants, not through solely having men write His inspired Word. The new and everlasting covenant is not one with a Bible, it is with a Person. What did the Israelites do? Did they appeal to the inspired written Word as recorded by Moses, solely? Or, did they submit to the chair of Moses?

Your argument that scripture is scripture because the Catholic Church says it is is just as circular except that it attempts to change the nature of scripture from God’s revelation to man (which can be demonstrated scripturally) to the Church’s revelation about God

The Catholic Church gave you the Bible. Even your 16th-century community founder said so!

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists–that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." - Martin Luther

The Church that canonized the Bible, translated it, safeguarded it; She alone has the ecclesial and divine right to interpret it properly.

Historically the prophets appealed to the authority of scripture because it was the Word of God come to them, and not that this was the word of the high priest, etc.

But, they did not appeal to the authority of Scripture alone!

Christianity is not a religion of the book; our religion is an everlasting covenant, Bride and Groom.

 

[Hodos]

Oh, boy. We have a problem here. What did Adam, Noah, and Abraham do without Scripture?! God reveals His will through establishing covenants, not through solely having men write His inspired Word. The new and everlasting covenant is not one with a Bible, it is with a Person. What did the Israelites do? Did they appeal to the inspired written Word as recorded by Moses, solely? Or, did they submit to the chair of Moses?

I agree, we follow Christ. And the Bible is the written revelation of the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit to us. And once again, Christ frequently chastises men for following traditions rather than the word of god faithfully handed down in the scriptures. Christ however always upholds scripture and holds us accountable to it as the Word of God.

The Catholic Church gave you the Bible. Even your 16th-century community founder said so!

Nope. The Holy Spirit gave us the scriptures. Peter himself says this. And the God’s Word and the scriptures as the record of that word pre-dates the Church. Christ freely held people accountable to what the scriptures said, over and above what “you have heard that it was said.”

The Church that canonized the Bible, translated it, safeguarded it; She alone has the ecclesial and divine right to interpret it properly.

Once again you turn God’s intended order on its head, making God and his revealed word subject to the headship of the Church, rather than the Church submitting to Christ as his bride.

Christianity is not a religion of the book; our religion is an everlasting covenant, Bride and Groom.

I agree. Sola Scriptura does not assert that we are a religion of the book. It merely asserts the absolute authority of God over his Church.

 

[HeDa]

Read Acts and the letters he wrote. He was no “good guy” before he was knocked to the ground by God.

 

[AugustTherese]

@ACrosSticks @HeDa @Hodos

“And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me’?” - Acts 9:4 ESV

I’m confused…Was Saul persecuting Jesus Christ or the Church?

 

[HeDa]

The Church is also called the Body of Christ and in this context Jesus Christ and the Church are “one and the same”. When we are baptised we become members of the Body of Christ and we become His hands and feet on earth and in a way represent Him. Heard of the expression: “See Christ in your neighbour?”

Easy enough?

 

[AugustTherese]

The Church is also called the Body of Christ and in this context Jesus Christ and the Church are “one and the same”.

Ahhhhhhhhh! So when @Hodos says:

making God and his revealed word subject to the headship of the Church, rather than the Church submitting to Christ as his bride

…Are those words putting the Church and Christ into this dichotomy, removing the Head from the Body, and putting the Bible, i.e. “his revealed word”, in the place of the Body (Church)?

 

[AugustTherese]

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

God’s Word is a Divine Person, not solely a verse from Scripture. So, does Isaiah 55:11 absolve contrite sinners? How does this verse retain sins?

And he continues to forgive sins, with or without the ministry of a Roman Catholic priest.

This is not entirely inaccurate. However, the standard source and means He established to forgive and retain sins were through the Apostles and their successors, nobody else.

AugustTherese:

Which ‘church’? Who is ‘them’?

The leadership of the congregation–the presbyters or overseers.

Again, which ‘church’? You do realize you did not answer my question, yes?

their continuing in sin should be addressed by the leadership of the congregation

Which congregation? I find it very interesting how you paraphrased this quote, or at least used an obscure translation. This is how the passage reads in 95% of translations:

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” ESV

Tell it to the ‘church’; not churches, or congregations, but ‘church’, i.e. one church.

 

[ltwin]

God’s Word is a Divine Person, not solely a verse from Scripture. So, does Isaiah 55:11 absolve contrite sinners? How does this verse retain sins?

Isaiah 55:11 says that God’s words are never empty or powerless or ineffective. God’s word always accomplishes its purpose. 1 John 1:9 is God’s word, yes? All Christians have the ability and the responsibility to bring Christ’s words of forgiveness and salvation to those who are truly willing to believe and repent. All Christians have the ability and the responsibility to bring Christ’s truth in love to those who will not believe and repent—your sins are not forgiven. The Word of God brings forgiveness and freedom. It sets people free. Christ speaks through those that proclaim his Word, and all Christians can proclaim the gospel.

Again, which ‘church’? You do realize you did not answer my question, yes?

Any church where the gospel is taught.

Which congregation? I find it very interesting how you paraphrased this quote, or at least used an obscure translation. This is how the passage reads in 95% of translations:

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church . And if he refuses to listen even to the church , let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” ESV

Tell it to the ‘church’; not churches, or congregations, but ‘church’, i.e. one church.

There is nothing sacred about the English word “church”, which comes from the Greek word for “Of the Lord,” as in the Lord’s House. Of course translators would use it because it is well established as the English translation for the Greek word ekklēsia , which is the word the writer of Matthew actually used. Ekklēsia , means “assembly, a congregation.” The church is the congregation or assembly of those who have been called out and separated from the world for God’s own purposes and glory.

Yes, there is one church, of which all who are united in Christ are members. But there are also many local churches, local congregations of saints who gather together to worship and serve God and strengthen one another in the faith. Paul begins his letter to the Corinthians with “To the church of God that is in Corinth” and Galatians with “To the churches of Galatia.”

Christ was not telling people to walk to Jerusalem or Rome or wherever to “tell it to the church” because the church is not something separate from the people of God. The church is the people of God.

Christ was telling us to go to the local church—which is made up of people, a congregation, under the leadership of elders/overseers. Tell it to them.

 

[AugustTherese]

All Christians have the ability and the responsibility to bring Christ’s words of forgiveness and salvation to those who are truly willing to believe and repent. All Christians have the ability and the responsibility to bring Christ’s truth in love to those who will not believe and repent—your sins are not forgiven. The Word of God brings forgiveness and freedom. It sets people free. Christ speaks through those that proclaim his Word, and all Christians can proclaim the gospel.

So, Jesus mandated that people’s sins should be forgiven by any baptized Christian bringing Bibles to those in need of forgiveness? Or, if I need my sins forgiven, I should read the Bible or hear any Christian preach, and then I am absolved?

AugustTherese:

Again, which ‘church’? You do realize you did not answer my question, yes?

Any church where the gospel is taught.

Do you realize that that is not an answer? For example, if I were to ask you where I can specifically go, as in precise directions of longitude and latitude, to buy groceries, and you were to answer, “Any grocery store where groceries are sold,” not only would that be ambiguous and circular, you would actually be doing a disservice to your neighbor (me) who is in need of food. Likewise, if an unbelieving sinner is hungering for the source of salvation and asks you, “Where can I find this ‘church’,” and you answer, “Any church were the gospel is taught”, that person could end up at a Mormon temple or a ‘church’ in some guy’s basement claiming to be sent by Christ solely because he Has a Bible that he preaches from; thus, you would, inadvertently, be leading him not to the Church Christ built, but most likely any ‘church’ that broke away from that Church . So, again, which ‘church’? Pretend I am an atheist looking for the Church Christ founded; where would you point me to?

The church is the congregation or assembly of those who have been called out and separated from the world for God’s own purposes and glory.

Which ‘congregation’? Where can I find this ‘assembly’? How can I determine if they ‘have been called out and separated’?

Yes, there is one church, of which all who are united in Christ are members

Agreed. Where can I find this ‘one church’?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Sorry, I meant in the sense that it’s not inherent to the Protestant tradition, or even “traditional” Protestant. As any good Protestant will tell his Catholic friend, majority doesn’t guarantee the Truth [since Catholics are largest single communion, etc…]

 

[catholic1seeks]

Unfortunately, I haven’t kept up with this thread in the past few days, so I can’t really go back to see all the paths the discussion has taken.

I would only like to share something, and maybe others can reply to this.

The thought is this: The ordained priesthood and its theology was intimately connected with the understanding of the Eucharist. If the term “priest” is found wanting in the first century, we should at least admit that the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is not. In fact, it’s a favorite motif by the earliest writers, even without an elaborate theology.

For 1st and 2nd century Christians, the Eucharist was the “sacrifice of the new covenant,” which had been foreshadowed by the Old Testament sacrifices. They loved to reference a prophecy from Malachi, which speaks of a coming age when Gentiles will offer a “pure” sacrifice to God. According to Justin Martyr, the predicted Gentiles are Christians “who in every place offer sacrifices” through the “bread” and “cup” of the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of “one common Eucharist” offered on “one single altar of sacrifice.” Writings from the previous century depict the same understanding. Like Ignatius, Clement of Rome connects the office of bishop with the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice. An earlier document known as the Didache says that Christians are to gather on the Lord’s Day and “offer the Eucharist”—but only after confessing one’s sins, so that one’s sacrifice “may be a pure one.”

By the third century, the theology is quite explicit. You have, just as one example, Cyprian of Carthage talking about priests explicitly in connection to the Eucharist:

• “If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ” (Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Cecil 63:14).

 

[Hodos]

Did Saul (Paul) persecute the Church? Yes or no?

Absolutely he did. However, so has the Catholic Church persecuted Christ the head (remember the Inquisition?), killing and arresting those who preached justification by grace through faith. Coincidentally, so have Protestant Churches who did the same in retaliation. I would say repentance is due for all parties involved. Still doesn’t address the doctrinal error you continue to make in this thread. Nice non-sequitur though.

 

[AugustTherese]

Still doesn’t address the doctrinal error you continue to make in this thread.

Which is what?