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

[AugustTherese]

Oh, you mean when I was referring to two of the confessions which demonstrate Protestant teaching of the relevant topic, which is ecclesiastical order and why we don’t refer to pastors as priests, and you then careened off course on an ill-informed quip about Sola Scriptura…Got it.

How can a Bible-alone Christian adhere to anything other than the Bible when defining doctrine?..As it relates to why your confessions attempted to undo the ministerial priesthood.

 

[AugustTherese]

And ordained ministers are not ministerial priests.

If you want to be a ‘pastor’ of ‘God’s written Word’ and call yourself an ‘ordained minister’, that’s your affair. But don’t attempt to make an objective statement claiming that ordained ministers are not ministerial priests. That claim was unfounded for the first 1,500 years of Christendom. Just because Protestants lack the Rite of Ordination to the Sacred Priesthood, please don’t project that void onto those who are validly ordained to the ministerial priesthood.

 

[AugustTherese]

First, that’s your term not mine, because Sola Scriptura does not mean Bible Alone.

Yes, it does, when it comes to promulgating your doctrine. If you want to equivocate linguistics to dodge the issue, that’s your affair.

 

[Hodos]

Yes, it does, when it comes to promulgating your doctrine. If you want to equivocate linguistics to dodge the issue, that’s your affair.

The only person equivocating linguistics is you. I have explained to you ad nauseum in numerous threads what Sola Scriptura means and how it is applied. You just refuse to accept any explanation that forces you to have to engage in honest dialogue.

 

[AugustTherese]

I have explained to you ad nauseum in numerous threads what Sola Scriptura means and how it is applied.

No you haven’t! Where and when?!

 

[Hodos]

Pretty much in every thread we have discussed since your default position is to attack scripture every time some doctrinal point you are defending comes up short under exegetical examination of scripture.

But, just as a demonstration of the concept, when you read the Book of Concord you will find that there are constant references to scripture in regard to key doctrines, as well as references from tradition such as quotes from Augustine, Ambrose, etc. We appeal to both sources of authority. The difference between us is that scripture, which is the record of God’s revelation handed down to us, is the sole infallible source of authority for matters of faith and doctrine. So, when there is a conflict between the two, scripture holds primacy.

 

[ltwin]

May I ask where you get this from?

We are commanded as a royal priesthood to “proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). In Acts 2, those in the upper room, now filled with the Spirit “declare the mighty works of God” in fulfillment of Old Testament hopes that Israel would be a nation of prophets.

Our audiences may be different. The ordained minister may preach to congregations and the father and mother may teach their families, but we are all to proclaim the excellencies and mighty works of God. And what is the greatest work of God that we can imagine? Is it not what Christ did for us? Laying down his life so that we might live in him? Is this not the gospel we are called to proclaim?

Have you done this before?

Never in the way that Catholics do it. What I’ve done before is counsel people I know from the Word of God. And sometimes that means you have to tell people that what they are doing or planning on doing is a sin and that they are going to bring judgment on their life.

I’ve also received words of comfort at times when I would struggle in prayer with a sense of conviction that I could not shake, where a minister or just a godly lay person would tell me that I didn’t have to strive for forgiveness. That God had forgiven me.

 

[mch4970]

I heard a Baptist preacher say, in addressing this very question, “because it sounds too Catholic.”

 

[ltwin]

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.

This may or may not answer your question, but it’s from a Lutheran perspective so may be interesting. VOCATION: FRUIT OF THE LITURGY :

The liturgy is not about our cultic activity; it is about God giving his gifts in sermon and
sacrament to the people that he has gathered together in his name. Oswald Bayer
notes, “Worship is first and last God’s service to us, his sacrifice which took place for us,
which he bestows in specific worship—‘Take and eat! I am here for you’ (cf. 1 Cor
11:24 with Gn 2:16). This feature of worship is lost if we want to do as a work what we
may receive as a gift.”³ Here Bayer reflects Article IV of the Apology as it confesses,
“Faith is that worship which receives the benefits that God offers; the righteousness of
the law is that worship which offers to God our own merits. God wants to be honored by
faith so that we receive from him those things that he promises and offers” (AP IV, 49;
Kolb-Wengert, 128). In Lutheran liturgical theology God is the subject rather than the
object. Christ is the donor and benefactor. He gives his gifts to be received by faith
alone.

Rome had reversed the flow, making the Supper into a sacrifice to be offered, a work to
be performed, rather than a gift to be received. Lutheran theology distinguishes
between God’s beneficium and man’s sacrificium. To confuse the two is to muddle law
and gospel. This is at the heart of the critique of the Roman Mass in the Augsburg
Confession and the Apology. Luther and the Confessions understood liturgy not as the
work of the priest or the people, but the very work of God himself as he comes to serve
his church with the gifts of redemption won on the cross and now distributed in word
and sacrament.

 

[Hodos]

And again you have demonstrated that you lack either the intellectual honesty or the ability to engage in honest dialogue.

The better description would be Christ as the head, Church as the bride.

 

[AugustTherese]

The better description would be Christ as the head, Church as the bride

Christ is the Head, the Church is the Mystical Body. There is one Christ, head and body. But, it is saddening when you have a lot of different ecclesial communities all claiming to be this One Body.

 

[Hodos]

But, it is saddening when you have a lot of different ecclesial communities all claiming to be this One Body.

I agree, but we are sinners and saints unfortunately. The bottom line though, is Christ is still our savior.

 

[AugustTherese]

We are commanded as a royal priesthood to “proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). In Acts 2, those in the upper room, now filled with the Spirit “declare the mighty works of God” in fulfillment of Old Testament hopes that Israel would be a nation of prophets.

I just do not see where you get the idea that any baptized Christian can legitimately forgive and even retain sins from what you just stated. I mean, the context of the authority to forgive sins is not in those passages of Scripture.

And what is the greatest work of God that we can imagine? Is it not what Christ did for us? Laying down his life so that we might live in him? Is this not the gospel we are called to proclaim?

The greatest work of God is what Christ did for us and continues to do for us. The Gospel is not a mere message of ideology. The Gospel is a communion with a Divine Person in which I believe you beautifully said with, “o that we might live in him”. We proclaim this by living in communion with others by loving them with our deeds. As Christ laid down His life for us, we lay our lives down for others.

I’ve also received words of comfort at times when I would struggle in prayer with a sense of conviction that I could not shake, where a minister or just a godly lay person would tell me that I didn’t have to strive for forgiveness

That’s great, and no that is not a pretext for false ecumenism. However, do you really believe that that ‘minister’ or ‘godly lay person’ was actually absolving your sins?

 

[ltwin]

I just do not see where you get the idea that any baptized Christian can legitimately forgive and even retain sins from what you just stated. I mean, the context of the authority to forgive sins is not in those passages of Scripture.

Ok, I misunderstood what you were asking. I think the best way to explain it is to link to part of a sermon preached by Martin Luther. I can’t copy and paste, but in this sermon Luther preaches on how all people who are Christians and baptized have this authority: Luther on the Forgiveness of Sins on Earth.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Another (name removed by moderator)ut:

Something to think about: Indeed all Christians are baptized “priests, prophets, and kings.” This might be more typical Catholic language, but the point will become clear.

If every Christian is called to have a prophetic and kingly role in the Body of Christ, and yet that does not stop there from being ordained “Prophets” (preachers, ministers of the word, etc.) and ordained “Kings” (pastors, leadership in the Church), then why is it, in principle, incorrect for there to be ordained “Priests” (the Presbyters who preside at the Eucharist)?

Protestants will readily agree that there are specific “prophetic” (preaching) and “kingly” (leadership/pastor) roles in the Church. Yet these are different from the common lay person.

So why, out of principle, could there not also be a more specified “priestly” role in the Church — one that is bound to ministry and not the common lay person?

 

[ltwin]

If every Christian is called to have a prophetic and kingly role in the Body of Christ, and yet that does not stop there from being ordained “Prophets” (preachers, ministers of the word, etc.) and ordained “Kings” (pastors, leadership in the Church), then why is it, in principle, incorrect for there to be ordained “Priests” (the Presbyters who preside at the Eucharist)?

Because Protestants do not see the Eucharist as a sacrifice. It is a channel of God’s love in which God does all the work. Through the Word and the sacrament, he gives us his gifts. All we do is receive them by faith.

Since the Eucharist is not a work on our part, it is not a sacrifice. Since it is not a sacrifice, there is no need for a priest. Christ’s death on the cross was the only sacrifice; Christ the high priest. The Eucharist is not a sacrifice, every Christian is a priest, so clergy who administer Holy Communion are not placed in a special spiritual category.

Any Christian can preach or teach the Word (prophesy as you say), and the only difference between laity and clergy is that clergy have a public preaching/teaching role whereas laity have a private preaching/teaching role. The distinction is not between priests and non-priests , prophets and non-prophets but between public and private ministry.

By public, I mean ordained ministry in and for the church. By private, I mean ministering to family, friends, coworkers, etc. outside of an ordained ministry.

The public ministry’s job is to "equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God " (Ephesians 4:12).