Priesthood of believers?

[Aymn27]

Peace and all good my dear brothers!

Could someone please explain to me (a RC) from Scripture and/or Tradition the priesthood of all believers? Does this mean that anyone can consecrate the Lord's Supper? Forgive me if I'm using incorrect terms - I am completely ignorant of Lutheran theology.

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

[SPALATIN]

Peace and all good my dear brothers!

Could someone please explain to me (a RC) from Scripture and/or Tradition the priesthood of all believers? Does this mean that anyone can consecrate the Lord's Supper? Forgive me if I'm using incorrect terms - I am completely ignorant of Lutheran theology.

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

To put it as succinctly as possible NO. That is the duty of the Office of Holy Ministry. The Priesthood of All believers is a term that Luther used quite often to reflect that the Gospel didn't belong to just the Clergy which the Pope and his minions taught (and still do to some extent), but to the laity. It is one reason why he wrote and published the New Testament in his native language so that the average common man could have access to God's word.

[Aymn27]

To put it as succinctly as possible NO. That is the duty of the Office of Holy Ministry. The Priesthood of All believers is a term that Luther used quite often to reflect that the Gospel didn't belong to just the Clergy which the Pope and his minions taught (and still do to some extent), but to the laity. It is one reason why he wrote and published the New Testament in his native language so that the average common man could have access to God's word.
So one must be ordained then?? Following along that line of questions - how is a person ordained? There is no apostolic succession (as taught in EO, RC, and Anglicanism) correct? Is the process similar to say - a Baptist minister receiving his ministry from the church? Are your ministers referred to as priests (I know they wear a collar)? Do you call them 'father' or just reverand?

Sorry to be a pest, I am just curious!!

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

[BigNorsk]

It is clearly stated in 1 Peter

you yourselves, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood and to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it says in scripture, "Look, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and priceless cornerstone, and whoever believes in him will never be put to shame." So you who believe see his value, but for those who do not believe, the stone that the builders rejected has become thecornerstone,and a stumbling-stone and a rock to trip over. They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. You once were not a people, but now you are God's people. You were shown no mercy, but now you have received mercy.
(1 Peter 2:5-10 NET)

It is also found in Revelation

and has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving his God and Father — to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen.
(Revelation 1:6 NET)

They were singing a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were killed, and at the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation. You have appointed them as a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."
(Revelation 5:9-10 NET)

Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
(Revelation 20:6 NET)

All this goes back to Exodus
And you will be my kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you will speak to the Israelites."
(Exodus 19:6 NET)

It is also tied into the truth that we have no intercessors between us and God except Jesus Christ our true high priest. There is not some other priest who enters into the sanctuary of the temple to make offerings for our sins. We enter there ourselves to make spiritual sacrifices.

No person can consecrate the Lord's Supper, it is impossible for a man to change the substance of anything. God's Word is the power in the Sacrament of Communion. Neither a priest nor a minister nor the comunicants are in any way responsible for the bread and wine being united with the body and blood of our Saviour.

Marv

[SPALATIN]

So one must be ordained then?? Following along that line of questions - how is a person ordained? There is no apostolic succession (as taught in EO, RC, and Anglicanism) correct? Is the process similar to say - a Baptist minister receiving his ministry from the church? Are your ministers referred to as priests (I know they wear a collar)? Do you call them 'father' or just reverand?

Sorry to be a pest, I am just curious!!

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

The difference in ordination is probably not different than anything you understand. A Seminarian is called by a parish and that Parish along with the Synod does a rite of Ordination and installation of the seminarian into the Office of the Holy Ministry.

Since I have never been a clergy I am not sure of the Apostolic Succession that you speak of though I have heard it mentioned. We refer to our clergy as Pastor and sometimes Reverend, but not Priest. The Collar is traditional for our Pastors.

We do not call our Pastor's "Father" unless of course you are the Pastor's kid then you might call him "Dad" as well. ;)

[revjpw]

So one must be ordained then?? Following along that line of questions - how is a person ordained? There is no apostolic succession (as taught in EO, RC, and Anglicanism) correct? Is the process similar to say - a Baptist minister receiving his ministry from the church? Are your ministers referred to as priests (I know they wear a collar)? Do you call them 'father' or just reverand?

Sorry to be a pest, I am just curious!!

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

Ordination is a Rite of the Church which designates one who has been deemed qualified by the Church to hold the Office of the Pastoral Ministry (also known as the Office of the Keys) and to serve a congregation. There are certain duties that God has entrusted to the Church. The Church then "Calls" one to hold this office (OPM) and to perform the duties instituted by God for that office, namely the administration of the Means of Grace (Word and Sacrament).

The "priesthood of all believers" refers to the fact that all believers can and do approach God personally in prayer without any need of an intercessor. We can offer our "sacrifices" of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving to God, thus the priesthood of believers. This does not, however, mean that any believer can perform the duties of the Office of the Pastoral Ministry. This is reserved for the one whom the Church has called and ordained to perform these duties as commanded by Scripture. (Although, any Baptized believer can Baptize someone in cases of emergency.)

The Pastor most definitely works in the stead and by the command of Christ when he performs the duties of the office.

We don't normally use the term "Father" although I have been called that a number of times. It is, afterall, one of the patterns of the Pastoral Office, to be a spiritual father, shepherd, servant, teacher.

[JMRE5150]

So one must be ordained then?? Following along that line of questions - how is a person ordained? There is no apostolic succession (as taught in EO, RC, and Anglicanism) correct? Is the process similar to say - a Baptist minister receiving his ministry from the church? Are your ministers referred to as priests (I know they wear a collar)? Do you call them 'father' or just reverand?

Sorry to be a pest, I am just curious!!

Blessings and peace,
Aaron

Yes, the ELCA believes in and practices apostolic succession. Yes we wear a collar. They have Rev. in front of their names, but they are referred to more affectionately as "Pastor".

[revjpw]

Yes, the ELCA believes in and practices apostolic succession.

But only because they are in communion with the Episcopal Church.
Apostolic succession is rejected by Lutheranism. The Calling and Ordination comes from God through the Church, not through some imaginary unbroken succession of bishops.

[JMRE5150]

But only because they are in communion with the Episcopal Church.
Apostolic succession is rejected by Lutheranism. The Calling and Ordination comes from God through the Church, not through some imaginary unbroken succession of bishops.

That is incorrect...

There is an ELCA tradition that stems our apostolic succession to the Swedish Lutheran Church. While we are in communion with the Episcopal Church, that is NOT why the ELCA claims apostolic succession.

I might add that I personally believe the whole concept of apostolic succession is pointless. I'm sure others will disagree.

[SPALATIN]

That is incorrect...

There is an ELCA tradition that stems our apostolic succession to the Swedish Lutheran Church. While we are in communion with the Episcopal Church, that is NOT why the ELCA claims apostolic succession.

I might add that I personally believe the whole concept of apostolic succession is pointless. I'm sure others will disagree.

Robb,

Just because the ELCA takes Apostolic Succession from the Swedish Lutheran Church does not mean that it is a truly "LUTHERAN" teaching based on the Confessions drawn up in the 16th century. You said it yourself that it is a Swedish Lutheran tradition and therefore is outside the confines of what the German founders believed or confessed.

Scott

[AngelusSax]

You said it yourself that it is a Swedish Lutheran tradition and therefore is outside the confines of what the German founders believed or confessed.

My question is: Are we sure those German founders were 100% correct in their beliefs or confessions? I'm sure they were right a vast, vast, vast majority of the time, but I do think that they, and many of the world's churches today, fall down on the priesthood of all believers.

They really did make it "you're all part of a priesthood, but only men can hold the official office."

Either we're all part of a priesthood and can have the name too, or we're not part of the priesthood at all.

[SPALATIN]

My question is: Are we sure those German founders were 100% correct in their beliefs or confessions? I'm sure they were right a vast, vast, vast majority of the time, but I do think that they, and many of the world's churches today, fall down on the priesthood of all believers.

They really did make it "you're all part of a priesthood, but only men can hold the official office."

Either we're all part of a priesthood and can have the name too, or we're not part of the priesthood at all.

I think you are mistaken about what the Priesthood of all believers is in it's definition. I believe it is the Body of Church members such as you and me. Office of Pastoral Ministry is a called by the church members. The Body of Believers calls the OPM to be it's leader/shepherd.

This authority is based on order of creation. Man was created first and then woman. Woman is to be submissive to man as the Church to Christ. It has nothing to do with capability of the person. If it were I don't think that Paul would have been given the directive from God to say that a woman should be silent in matters of authority. I realize you don't like this rule because it limits a woman's role. I am merely saying here that I agree with Rose about this.

Since we are on opposite sides of this issue I think it is better to not discuss it between us anymore as it can only lead to a heated argument. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I find the ELCA leadership (not the churchmembers themselves) to be Lutheran in name only.

[revjpw]

My question is: Are we sure those German founders were 100% correct in their beliefs or confessions? I'm sure they were right a vast, vast, vast majority of the time, but I do think that they, and many of the world's churches today, fall down on the priesthood of all believers.

They really did make it "you're all part of a priesthood, but only men can hold the official office."

Either we're all part of a priesthood and can have the name too, or we're not part of the priesthood at all.

They didn't make it "you're all part of a priesthood, but only men can hold the official office", God did. It is clearly stated in the Scriptures. There is a clear distinction between the "priesthood of believers" and the Office of the Public Ministry.

We've been down this road before.

...and if you don't believe that the "German founders" are correct, then why are you a Lutheran??:confused: :confused: :confused:

[revjpw]

That is incorrect...

There is an ELCA tradition that stems our apostolic succession to the Swedish Lutheran Church. While we are in communion with the Episcopal Church, that is NOT why the ELCA claims apostolic succession.

I might add that I personally believe the whole concept of apostolic succession is pointless. I'm sure others will disagree.

Yet, the ELCA did not follow "apostolic succession" (aka the Historic Episcopate) until their fellowship with the ECUSA.

[AngelusSax]

...and if you don't believe that the "German founders" are correct, then why are you a Lutheran??:confused: :confused: :confused:

Why did Luther want to remain a Catholic, viewing the Catholic Church as having wrong beliefs at the time?

The idea is reform, not separation. And no, I don't believe God made women to be viewed as inferior people who can't hold office. I think Paul did that in a holdover of his Pharisee training, as well as the fact that women of his day were so uneducated in theology (they'd only just then been allowed to even enter the temple to start learning things) that of course they shouldn't try to use their newfound freedom above their means at that time.

Deborah would not have ever been a judge over all of Israel if women weren't allowed to have authority over men in God's eyes. Yet God placed her, a woman, there to judge an entire nation that was made up of more than just women and small children.

EDIT: This is what kinds of thoughts tend to come to people's minds when they read the Bible as opposed to reading what someone else tells them the Bible says as well as the Confessions. They start seeing that it's very hard to hold to absolute inerrancy and reconcile contradictory statements, like at what point Jesus begins his ministry (either it was before the clearing of the Temple, or it was after.... depends on if you read John or just the other 3 Gospels).

[SPALATIN]

Why did Luther want to remain a Catholic, viewing the Catholic Church as having wrong beliefs at the time?

The idea is reform, not separation. And no, I don't believe God made women to be viewed as inferior people who can't hold office. I think Paul did that in a holdover of his Pharisee training, as well as the fact that women of his day were so uneducated in theology (they'd only just then been allowed to even enter the temple to start learning things) that of course they shouldn't try to use their newfound freedom above their means at that time.

Deborah would not have ever been a judge over all of Israel if women weren't allowed to have authority over men in God's eyes. Yet God placed her, a woman, there to judge an entire nation that was made up of more than just women and small children.

EDIT: This is what kinds of thoughts tend to come to people's minds when they read the Bible as opposed to reading what someone else tells them the Bible says as well as the Confessions. They start seeing that it's very hard to hold to absolute inerrancy and reconcile contradictory statements, like at what point Jesus begins his ministry (either it was before the clearing of the Temple, or it was after.... depends on if you read John or just the other 3 Gospels).

Samson was a judge as well and he married a heathen so Judges back then weren't exactly a holy lot all the time. He could have been more godly in his choice of wives and look what he got. So what Deborah was a Judge? Big deal.

Your Historical-Critical assumptions don't make it any more right.

[revjpw]

Why did Luther want to remain a Catholic, viewing the Catholic Church as having wrong beliefs at the time?

His intention was to fix the problems in the Church catholic. (Which he did, by the way.)

And no, I don't believe God made women to be viewed as inferior people who can't hold office. I think Paul did that in a holdover of his Pharisee training, as well as the fact that women of his day were so uneducated in theology (they'd only just then been allowed to even enter the temple to start learning things) that of course they shouldn't try to use their newfound freedom above their means at that time. Deborah would not have ever been a judge over all of Israel if women weren't allowed to have authority over men in God's eyes. Yet God placed her, a woman, there to judge an entire nation that was made up of more than just women and small children.

There is a BIG difference between Deborah being a judge and a woman being a pastor. BIG difference. It has to do with roles in the household. The Pastor is the head of the household of God on earth. That role is NOT given to women. Period. Scripture has several examples of women holding other leadership positions, but this does not at all dismiss the Scriptural support that the role of pastor is given to men only.

EDIT: This is what kinds of thoughts tend to come to people's minds when they read the Bible as opposed to reading what someone else tells them the Bible says as well as the Confessions. They start seeing that it's very hard to hold to absolute inerrancy and reconcile contradictory statements, like at what point Jesus begins his ministry (either it was before the clearing of the Temple, or it was after.... depends on if you read John or just the other 3 Gospels).

The only way you can support your arguments is to tear down the word of God. Unbelievable!:doh:

BTW, Lutherans do not read what someone else tells them the Bible says. Scripture interprets Scripture. Scripture is inerrant and inspired and the only source and norm of all teaching in the Church. You are very quick to throw out God's word by deeming it old and outdated because of your personal objections to it. But the words of Jesus trump yours everytime. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away."

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

why does anything posted come to this arguement?
"ecclesia semper reformanda est" Luther

[revjpw]

Samson was a judge as well and he married a heathen so Judges back then weren't exactly a holy lot all the time. He could have been more godly in his choice of wives and look what he got. So what Deborah was a Judge? Big deal.

Let us not forget the differences between the Kingdom of the Left and the Kingdom of the Right.

[AngelusSax]

So what Deborah was a Judge?

I figure God put her there for a reason. Or at the VERY least, He allowed her to be there. If God allows a woman to be a judge over an entire nation, who am I to say a woman can't tell me to tie my shoes better now and again?


The only way you can support your arguments is to tear down the word of God. Unbelievable!:doh:

Not even most Lutherans say that the Confessions are the Word of God. If they do, then I'm afraid they hold a man's word at the same level as God himself... which is dangerous. I haven't torn down the Word of God... you just said I have to try and justify attacking me. I forgive you, but try not to do that again.

Now, if you'll re-read my statement, you'll realize that I didn't tear down anything. Read the Gospels themselves, independently. Then see where there are differences. It is impossible to ignore. However, all our life, we hear all 4 Gospels told as one lump Gospel, and we think Peter walking on water to meet Jesus is in all of them.... it isn't though.

Stuff like that is all I'm saying. Don't read more into it than what's there (referring to my own words)

[SPALATIN]

I figure God put her there for a reason. Or at the VERY least, He allowed her to be there. If God allows a woman to be a judge over an entire nation, who am I to say a woman can't tell me to tie my shoes better now and again?



Not even most Lutherans say that the Confessions are the Word of God. If they do, then I'm afraid they hold a man's word at the same level as God himself... which is dangerous. I haven't torn down the Word of God... you just said I have to try and justify attacking me. I forgive you, but try not to do that again.

Now, if you'll re-read my statement, you'll realize that I didn't tear down anything. Read the Gospels themselves, independently. Then see where there are differences. It is impossible to ignore. However, all our life, we hear all 4 Gospels told as one lump Gospel, and we think Peter walking on water to meet Jesus is in all of them.... it isn't though.

Stuff like that is all I'm saying. Don't read more into it than what's there (referring to my own words)

I think if you will read the post just above yours you will see that Rev made a reference to the left kingdom. That kingdom is what the Judges were in charge of when they ruled Israel. The Judges were not held to religious rule though they did in many cases follow God's will in how they dealt with their own people or the enemies of their people. Gideon was a good example of God using the weakest of the weak to fulfill his will, but the Levites were still the religious family and women were not meant to serve in the same capacity as the men.

Authority is vested in man due to created order and not because of a bias against women.

[ByzantineDixie]

I think if you will read the post just above yours you will see that Rev made a reference to the left kingdom. That kingdom is what the Judges were in charge of when they ruled Israel. The Judges were not held to religious rule though they did in many cases follow God's will in how they dealt with their own people or the enemies of their people. Gideon was a good example of God using the weakest of the weak to fulfill his will, but the Levites were still the religious family and women were not meant to serve in the same capacity as the men.

Authority is vested in man due to created order and not because of a bias against women.

I am a little confused by this. I suppose if I would be reading next week's OT assignment instead of typing here the confusion would pass but...I thought Israel was a theocracy? Can there be a left and right kingdom in a theocracy? If Israel was not a theocracy...was it ever one? When did it stop being one?

There...maybe I can get y'all to do my homework too! ;)

:D Rose

[AngelusSax]

Authority is vested in man due to created order and not because of a bias against women.

Then why don't fish rule us? They were created, in order, before Adam. So was everything else not a human.

[SPALATIN]

I am a little confused by this. I suppose if I would be reading next week's OT assignment instead of typing here the confusion would pass but...I thought Israel was a theocracy? Can there be a left and right kingdom in a theocracy? If Israel was not a theocracy...was it ever one? When did it stop being one?

There...maybe I can get y'all to do my homework too! ;)

:D Rose

Is the Left and Right Kingdom only in cases of Democracy? I don't think so. If we consider Luther's left kingdom situation he lived in what was ruled by the HRE. They had states and electors or Princes to do their bidding to Charles V. I think the two kingdoms stand no matter what government system you are living in. Besides I am not so sure that they were living in a true theocracy. If that were true would they have been abiding by God's law and there would have been no need for an earthly ruler which is what the Judges were to them. At the end of the Judges they wanted a King to rule over them so God gave them Saul and then David and then Solomon and after that the kings seemed to lead them more away from God than to evil.

The left kingdom that Luther speaks of is the only place that we have a "free will" to think and act for ourselves. If I am wrong I will be happy to admit it. But prove it to me.

[Jim47]

Then why don't fish rule us? They were created, in order, before Adam. So was everything else not a human.



Lets see what God had to say,

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%201&version=31;#fen-NIV-26b)] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

[SPALATIN]

Then why don't fish rule us? They were created, in order, before Adam. So was everything else not a human.

Not chronlogical order of course but order of who had dominion over what and whom. Man had dominion over the animals, birds and oh yeah women.

(Just for clarification and answering this stupid question) There is of course more to it than that, but I am tiring of the absurdness of his questions here.

[AngelusSax]

(Just for clarification and answering this stupid question) There is of course more to it than that, but I am tiring of the absurdness of his questions here.

No offense, but I tire of the absurdness of your answers. Woman was made from man's rib, not his foot. Apparently, though... you think ought to have been the pinky toenail....

Sorry if that sounds harsh or hateful.... but one of my best friends is contemplating suicide, so I can't really tell if I've stepped over a line yet.... and yeah, she's a woman. There's no man in her life (as in father or brother or husband), so I guess I have to tell her what to do and not decide for herself.... and this is one instance I hope that is the case, right now...

[revjpw]

Woman was made from man's rib, not his foot.

From his side, to be equal. But something happened some period of time after that. Namely, the Fall.

Genesis 3:16, "To the woman he said, 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'"

[SPALATIN]

No offense, but I tire of the absurdness of your answers. Woman was made from man's rib, not his foot. Apparently, though... you think ought to have been the pinky toenail....

Sorry if that sounds harsh or hateful.... but one of my best friends is contemplating suicide, so I can't really tell if I've stepped over a line yet.... and yeah, she's a woman. There's no man in her life (as in father or brother or husband), so I guess I have to tell her what to do and not decide for herself.... and this is one instance I hope that is the case, right now...

The truth is this. Man was created first and then woman from his rib, so I don't disagree with you here, but the woman was deceived first and ate of the fruit that was forbidden. Then she gave it to man and he ate. Both are guilty.

In Genesis 3:16-19 God speaks to both man and woman after they have sinned.





16To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=genesis%203&version1=47#fen-ESV-72e)] your husband,
and he shall rule over you."

17And to Adam he said,

"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return."







Now cross-referencing it to 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35



As in all the churches of the saints, 34the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.



Does this not correspond to the Genesis passage where I emboldened the type? and then 1 Timothy 2



11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.








I don't see where it says in these passages that women are given authority over man. It just isn't there. The Historical-Critical method is bogus if it says that we should forsake the word of God just because it doesn't pertain to today's worldly ways.



As for your friend, I am sorry that she is going through these agonies in her life. Suicide is not the answer though you don't say why she is contemplating this at this time is it because of this issue that you bring it up? She should seek counseling to help her get through these hurts that she is experiencing. If you are a true friend you will help her find this help no matter what.



We disagree here and I am sorry to say that we will always disagree on this point. I can't dismiss what the bible says by applying it only to where it is pertinent to today's issues as I fear God's judgement on society and the church if it is to go in that direction.



I don't want to continue this argument any longer as it is pointless to do so.