Priesthood of Believers
Oct 29, 2010
Peter Leithart
This weekend, Protestants commemorate Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door, a call to disputation that marks the symbolic starting point for the Reformation. As Luther slashed through the corruptions of late medieval Catholicism, “priesthood of all believers” rapidly became one of the great slogans of the Reformation.
Every Christian is a cleric, Luther proclaimed in one of his earliest treatises, The Freedom of a Christian, and those who “are now boastfully called popes, bishops, and lords” are in reality “ministers, servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the word”—servants of the servants of God. Whether he knew it or not, Luther was ringing the changes on a patristic teaching that had never wholly been lost during the medieval period.
Unfortunately, the priesthood of the faithful in both its Protestant and Catholic forms has been corroded by fusion with modern individualism. While no denomination sanctions this fusion, strains in popular Protestantism, especially American Protestantism, have taken “priesthood of believers” to mean that every believer has an absolute right of private judgment about morals and doctrine, the liberty to interpret the Bible with complete autonomy.
“Priesthood of believers” means that believers can do very well without attachment to any church, thank you very much. Each believer is a church unto himself. Renouncing Rome’s one Pope, Protestantism has created thousands.
This was not Luther’s view. Priestly ministry was ministry within and to the church. To be a priest means to be a priest for someone. “The fact that we are all priests and kings means that each of us Christians may go before God and intercede for the other,” he wrote in a preface to the Psalter. “If I notice that you have no faith or a weak faith, I can ask God to give you a strong faith.” Timothy George captures Luther’s viewpoint in one sentence: “Every Christian is someone else’s priest, and we are all priests to one another” (emphasis added).
But for Luther, the priesthood of believers was not an excuse to abandon the church, but rather described the shape of life in communion with the body of Christ and the family of faith. It was not a call to individualism, but summoned individuals to serve God, others, and the common good of the church. It did not free the believer from obedience to authority or leave him free to do as he thought best.
Biblical teaching about priesthood fills out the picture, because in the Bible priests are always embedded in liturgical communities and attached to a liturgical center. What they did in Israel for the whole of the people of God, Christians are all—being priests to one another—to do now, embedded like them in our liturgical communities and attached to a liturgical center.
Ordained priests first appear in Israel’s history at Sinai, when Israel constructs its first sanctuary. Israel as a whole is a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6), but within Israel Yahweh chooses Aaron and his sons as ministers in his house. They are brought near to “stand and serve” (Deuteronomy 10:8; 18:5) at Yahweh’s altar, around his courts, in his house, in particular as household servants, stewards of the royal house of King Yahweh.
All the duties of the Aaronic priests were forms of household service, which is to say, community service. They measure off and establish holy space, and then stand guard at the doorways to prevent unauthorized intruders from trespassing on sacred ground. As the late Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom showed in his Studies in Levitical Terminology, “doing guard duty” is one of the key responsibilities of Levites and priests (Numbers 1:53; 3:5-10; 18:1-7). If anything unclean entered the sanctuary, Yahweh would break out in wrath against Israel, and so priestly guards were essential to the health and safety of the nation.
Priests also cleaned house. As Milgrom pointed out many years ago, Israel’s tabernacle was like Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray. In Wilde’s story, a hidden portrait of Gray displays all the wear and tear of his dissolute lifestyle, while the man himself continues young and vibrant. Similarly, all of Israel’s sin and uncleanness “registered” on the sanctuary.
Priests cleaned house by performing the sacrificial rites, sprinkling or smearing blood on the furniture of Yahweh’s house, purging the earthly sanctuary with the blood of bulls and goats. If the house became defiled, Yahweh threatened to leave his house and his people desolate, and so again priests served Israel by serving Yahweh.
Priests were sacred butchers, butlers, and bakers. They butchered the animals, ground the grain, and baked the bread that was placed on the altars. Yahweh’s altar was his table (Ezekiel 41:22; 44:16), where priests offered his morning and evening “bread” (cf. Leviticus 3:11; 21:21-22). Priestly ministry at the altar was their “table service” before Yahweh.
In the holy place, priests kept the lampstand in working order by trimming wicks and replenishing oil (Exodus 30:8; Leviticus 24:1-4). Each morning and evening they offered incense (Exodus 30:7-8), and each Sabbath they changed the twelve loaves of bread on the golden table (Leviticus 24:5-9). Through their work, the King’s house was well lit, aromatic, and supplied with daily bread.
In each of these areas, the priests had double duty, their work involving both service to the literal “house” of the Temple and service to the metaphorical “house” of Israel. By their teaching and judging, priests served as guardians of Israel’s holiness. By teaching Torah to the people (Leviticus 24:8), they trained Israel to distinguish pure and impure forms of behavior and so helped them to be holy as Yahweh their God was holy.
When they cleansed the house, they were also restoring worshipers to fellowship with God. They led Israel to Yahweh by offering his bread on the altar, and also in leading the people to lift up the “bread” of praise and thanksgiving. When they turned incense to smoke on the golden altar, they were also offering intercessions (cf. Psalm 141:2). None of the priestly service was for the priests alone but for the Israelites whom they represented.
With the arrival of a new and better priesthood through Jesus (Hebrews 4-5, 7), Christians united to Christ who is King and Priest are priests and kings in him (Revelation 1:6; 5:10). All that the Aaronic priests did in shadowy ways at the tabernacle, believers now do in reality in the heavenly sanctuary. And, just as the Aaronic priests served Israel by serving in Yahweh’s house, so the new Christian priestly labor is corporate ministry in the church.
We are all stationed as guardians of God’s holy house, now identical to the holy people, called to distinguish between holy and unclean and to maintain the purity of God’s household. All believers offer the sacrifice of praise through Jesus, the Bread of God. Every Christian offers the incense of prayer in the holy place of God’s house, and through practices of forbearance and forgiveness we keep God’s house clean. Through using the gifts given by the Spirit, each member of Christ’s body contributes to the edification of the whole.
In the old order, priestly service was housekeeping. In the new order, all are priests, called to the ministry of bodybuilding.
In the hands of some Protestants, “priesthood of believers” became an anti-ecclesial slogan, a “get out of church free” card. Understood in its original biblical and Reformation sense, the priesthood of believers is quite the opposite. It is not a solvent of ecclesial Christianity but an affirmation of churchly piety and the foundation of a thoroughly catholic church practice. Five hundred years after the event, this Reformation slogan may be even more relevant than it was when Luther first shouted it out from Wittenberg.
Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in, Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His latest book, Defending Constantine, has just been released by InterVarsity Press. His last articles for “On the Square” were Newsweek, Caesar, and the Things of God and Fathers and Sons.
Comments:
10.29.2010 | 4:00pm
Eric Giunta says:
Thanks for showing why the "I don't need no mediator, I go straight to God" line of think that justified opposition to venerating sins and confessing to a priest are Biblically bankrupt. If those practices are opposed, it needs to be on other grounds.
10.29.2010 | 5:46pm
Eric Giunta says:
Typo: My comment above should read: "venerating SAINTS," not SINS
10.29.2010 | 8:04pm
Don Roberto says:
Very interesting. As a Catholic, I should learn more of Luther. My impression is one of a troubled man (one who claims to have had rather wild fights with Satan) who allowed pride (and he certainly had some reason to be proud) to lead him astray. He should have (easy for me to say, of course) made his point without rebellion.
The original understanding of the priesthood of believers is far, far more relevant today, because the treasury of morality saved up by our forefathers has dwindled, as has the humility of the average man. In America and throughout the world, everyone—modern individualists all—seems to think his own conscience is king. Unfortunately, most consciences are formed by Hollywood, Madison Ave., and worse. All too many live lives of complacent profanity, unaware of their need for the guidance of the Magisterium, and the refeshment of the Mass and of the Holy Sacraments.
Godspeed,
The original understanding of the priesthood of believers is far, far more relevant today, because the treasury of morality saved up by our forefathers has dwindled, as has the humility of the average man. In America and throughout the world, everyone—modern individualists all—seems to think his own conscience is king. Unfortunately, most consciences are formed by Hollywood, Madison Ave., and worse. All too many live lives of complacent profanity, unaware of their need for the guidance of the Magisterium, and the refeshment of the Mass and of the Holy Sacraments.
Godspeed,
10.29.2010 | 9:57pm
harry says:
Rev. Leithart wrote:
"All that the Aaronic priests did in shadowy ways at the tabernacle, believers now do in reality in the heavenly sanctuary. And, just as the Aaronic priests served Israel by serving in Yahweh’s house, so the new Christian priestly labor is corporate ministry in the church. ... In the old order, priestly service was housekeeping. In the new order, all are priests, called to the ministry of bodybuilding."
Yes. All Christians are members of a royal priesthood [1 Peter 2:9]. As was pointed out by Rev. Leithart, this was true also under the Old Covenant as indicated in Exodus 19:6.
Yet under both covenants there is a formal liturgy which is in essence a sacrificial offering. The early Church's interpretation of Malachi 1:11 was that it foretold the New Covenant's formal sacrificial liturgy. This is indicated by St. Justin [martyred ca. A.D. 165] in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Justin to Trypho and companions:
" ... you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem. And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God ... for delivering us from the evil in which we were ... by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.' [Malachi 1:10-12] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]."
Under both covenants there is a separate, formal priesthood, one distinct from that of the people. The New Covenant liturgy's sacrificial offering was to be presided over, as in the Old, by a member of the formal priesthood. That this was the understanding of the early Church is indicated by Pope St. Clement's letter to the Corinthians [ca. A.D. 80], who had dismissed their bishop, apparently thinking the people's priesthood was sufficient for the performance of the liturgy. Clement to the Corinthians:
"... it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times.
"He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order ... and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.”
I just thought I would add to Rev. Leithart's remarks some indications of the thinking of the early Church on the formal, New Covenant priesthood which is distinct from that of the laity.
"All that the Aaronic priests did in shadowy ways at the tabernacle, believers now do in reality in the heavenly sanctuary. And, just as the Aaronic priests served Israel by serving in Yahweh’s house, so the new Christian priestly labor is corporate ministry in the church. ... In the old order, priestly service was housekeeping. In the new order, all are priests, called to the ministry of bodybuilding."
Yes. All Christians are members of a royal priesthood [1 Peter 2:9]. As was pointed out by Rev. Leithart, this was true also under the Old Covenant as indicated in Exodus 19:6.
Yet under both covenants there is a formal liturgy which is in essence a sacrificial offering. The early Church's interpretation of Malachi 1:11 was that it foretold the New Covenant's formal sacrificial liturgy. This is indicated by St. Justin [martyred ca. A.D. 165] in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Justin to Trypho and companions:
" ... you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem. And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God ... for delivering us from the evil in which we were ... by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.' [Malachi 1:10-12] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]."
Under both covenants there is a separate, formal priesthood, one distinct from that of the people. The New Covenant liturgy's sacrificial offering was to be presided over, as in the Old, by a member of the formal priesthood. That this was the understanding of the early Church is indicated by Pope St. Clement's letter to the Corinthians [ca. A.D. 80], who had dismissed their bishop, apparently thinking the people's priesthood was sufficient for the performance of the liturgy. Clement to the Corinthians:
"... it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times.
"He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order ... and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.”
I just thought I would add to Rev. Leithart's remarks some indications of the thinking of the early Church on the formal, New Covenant priesthood which is distinct from that of the laity.
10.30.2010 | 6:45am
Mark VA says:
Rev. Leithart commented that some act as if:
"Each believer is a church unto himself."
What can Protestant Christians do, as a group of independent believers in Christ, to reflect and decide whether this is correct or not? It seems to me that some sort of magisterium, complementing the authority of the Bible, would have to be widely accepted as authoritative when making such decisions. Could such an interdenominational magisterium be formed, and be acceptable to enough Protestant Christians worldwide?
On the other hand, how could such a magisterium ever decide in the affirmative on this question, without effectively dissolving itself? Realizing this, those who do firmly believe that "each believer is a church unto himself" would likely reject it from the beginning.
Yet, such a teaching authority may be of help to those who are not sure if "each believer is a church unto himself" and a seeking authoritative guidance.
"Each believer is a church unto himself."
What can Protestant Christians do, as a group of independent believers in Christ, to reflect and decide whether this is correct or not? It seems to me that some sort of magisterium, complementing the authority of the Bible, would have to be widely accepted as authoritative when making such decisions. Could such an interdenominational magisterium be formed, and be acceptable to enough Protestant Christians worldwide?
On the other hand, how could such a magisterium ever decide in the affirmative on this question, without effectively dissolving itself? Realizing this, those who do firmly believe that "each believer is a church unto himself" would likely reject it from the beginning.
Yet, such a teaching authority may be of help to those who are not sure if "each believer is a church unto himself" and a seeking authoritative guidance.
10.30.2010 | 1:32pm
pentamom says:
Mark VA -- contrary to popular belief (including popular belief among evangelicals) not all Protestants equate the lack of magisterium with the church having no teaching authority. Since Leithart in particular is both a member of and a particularly strong advocate for a tradition that firmly holds to the notion of teaching authority in the church, he's the wrong target for this kind of thing. He would simply tell the guy that who thinks that every man is a church unto himself that he is wrong, according to what the church has always believed. You're thinking of the independent fundamentalists or some strains among the Baptists.
10.30.2010 | 1:44pm
harry says:
As for Luther's "Scripture alone," the Bible itself informs us that all there is to know about the truths revealed by Christ are not explicitly mentioned within it.
“I did this to show you that this is how we must exert ourselves to support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, who himself said, 'There is more happiness in giving than in receiving.'" [Acts 20:35]
This saying of Jesus is not mentioned in the gospels. Had St. Paul not mentioned it here, we wouldn't have known about it.
“There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written.” [John 21:25 ]
All that Jesus did, "speaking" being one the things he "did," the gospels themselves testify are not within them: Are the truths revealed by those many other things Jesus said and did lost forever? The account of Peter's speech at Pentecost ends as follows:
“He spoke to them for a long time using many arguments, and he urged them, 'Save yourselves from this perverse generation'.” [Acts 2:40]
What were those "many arguments"? They are not given to us explicitly. Whatever those arguments were, they were obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit. Have we lost those arguments forever since they were not explicitly recorded in the Scriptures? Or were they handed down to us via another vehicle, one other than their being explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures themselves? The account of the risen Lord's interpretation of the Scriptures given to the disciples on the road to Emmaus:
“Then he said to them, 'You foolish men! So slow to believe the full message of the prophets! Was it not ordained that the Christ should suffer and so enter into his glory?' Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself.” [Luke 24:25-27]
Are the truths revealed by the Scriptural exegesis of Christ lost forever since they were not explicitly mentioned by Luke? The truths revealed by the life and sayings of Christ could not be, and are not, explicitly preserved in the several hundred of pages of the Bible. The Bible itself testifies to this. Yet these truths are not lost. They have been preserved by tradition. Yes, the truths of the faith ultimately can be derived from the Scriptures, but how do we know whose exegesis is correct? By knowing the *traditional* interpretation of Scripture. How do we know that? Well, had one of the crowd listening to Peter's "many arguments" from the Scriptures delivered in his speech at Pentecost spoken out and said, "No! No! No! You are misinterpreting Scripture. Here is what it really means is ...", who should be believed? Well, St. Peter, of course. But Why? Because he was an apostle. The writings of the Church Fathers make clear that the Christians of the early Church insisted on knowing the Apostolic origin of an interpretation of Scripture to be assured of its orthodoxy. Tertullian [born ca. A.D. 155/160] mentions this in his Prescription Against the Heretics:
“... if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles.”
Even so, how can we be sure what the Apostles taught was handed down correctly? We can know by the unity of the Church. Again, from Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics:
“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, [John 14:26] and for this [Christ] asked of the Father that He [the Holy Ghost] might be the teacher of truth; [John 15:26] grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ [the Holy Spirit], neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles – is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?”
Christ Himself pointed out that the unity of Christians is what would make them credible to the world:
“May they all be one. Father, may they be one in us, as you are in me and I am in you, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.” [Jn 17:21]
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, [born ca. A.D. 140] testifies that uniting around Apostolic teaching worked very well:
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith … As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Why did it work that well? It shouldn't have. To get an idea of what should have happened, remember from your grade-school days, how the teacher wrote down a short message on a piece of paper and let someone read it and then hand it back to the teacher. Then the person who read it whispered it in the ear of the student sitting next to them, and so the message was transmitted up and down the rows of students until the last student heard it, who then told the class what the message was. Then the teacher read the original message to everyone and you got a good laugh when you heard how much it had changed in its oral transmission. Remember that?
In a time before the printing press and copying machines, the world-wide unity of belief in the Church was nothing short of a miracle. The Christians insisted on knowing the Apostolic origin of a given interpretation of Scripture and believed Christ's promise to the Apostles that He would send them the Holy Spirit Who would remain with them forever and guide them to the truth. [Jn 14:16-17, 16:7, 16:13] Their faith in the promise of Christ was rewarded with a miracle of unity. It would still work if all Christians would just insist on knowing the Apostolic origin of any interpretation of Scripture they are presented with. Until that happens the Body of Christ will remain dismembered and appear to be irrational to the rest of the world.
“I did this to show you that this is how we must exert ourselves to support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, who himself said, 'There is more happiness in giving than in receiving.'" [Acts 20:35]
This saying of Jesus is not mentioned in the gospels. Had St. Paul not mentioned it here, we wouldn't have known about it.
“There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written.” [John 21:25 ]
All that Jesus did, "speaking" being one the things he "did," the gospels themselves testify are not within them: Are the truths revealed by those many other things Jesus said and did lost forever? The account of Peter's speech at Pentecost ends as follows:
“He spoke to them for a long time using many arguments, and he urged them, 'Save yourselves from this perverse generation'.” [Acts 2:40]
What were those "many arguments"? They are not given to us explicitly. Whatever those arguments were, they were obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit. Have we lost those arguments forever since they were not explicitly recorded in the Scriptures? Or were they handed down to us via another vehicle, one other than their being explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures themselves? The account of the risen Lord's interpretation of the Scriptures given to the disciples on the road to Emmaus:
“Then he said to them, 'You foolish men! So slow to believe the full message of the prophets! Was it not ordained that the Christ should suffer and so enter into his glory?' Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself.” [Luke 24:25-27]
Are the truths revealed by the Scriptural exegesis of Christ lost forever since they were not explicitly mentioned by Luke? The truths revealed by the life and sayings of Christ could not be, and are not, explicitly preserved in the several hundred of pages of the Bible. The Bible itself testifies to this. Yet these truths are not lost. They have been preserved by tradition. Yes, the truths of the faith ultimately can be derived from the Scriptures, but how do we know whose exegesis is correct? By knowing the *traditional* interpretation of Scripture. How do we know that? Well, had one of the crowd listening to Peter's "many arguments" from the Scriptures delivered in his speech at Pentecost spoken out and said, "No! No! No! You are misinterpreting Scripture. Here is what it really means is ...", who should be believed? Well, St. Peter, of course. But Why? Because he was an apostle. The writings of the Church Fathers make clear that the Christians of the early Church insisted on knowing the Apostolic origin of an interpretation of Scripture to be assured of its orthodoxy. Tertullian [born ca. A.D. 155/160] mentions this in his Prescription Against the Heretics:
“... if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles.”
Even so, how can we be sure what the Apostles taught was handed down correctly? We can know by the unity of the Church. Again, from Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics:
“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, [John 14:26] and for this [Christ] asked of the Father that He [the Holy Ghost] might be the teacher of truth; [John 15:26] grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ [the Holy Spirit], neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles – is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?”
Christ Himself pointed out that the unity of Christians is what would make them credible to the world:
“May they all be one. Father, may they be one in us, as you are in me and I am in you, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.” [Jn 17:21]
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, [born ca. A.D. 140] testifies that uniting around Apostolic teaching worked very well:
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith … As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Why did it work that well? It shouldn't have. To get an idea of what should have happened, remember from your grade-school days, how the teacher wrote down a short message on a piece of paper and let someone read it and then hand it back to the teacher. Then the person who read it whispered it in the ear of the student sitting next to them, and so the message was transmitted up and down the rows of students until the last student heard it, who then told the class what the message was. Then the teacher read the original message to everyone and you got a good laugh when you heard how much it had changed in its oral transmission. Remember that?
In a time before the printing press and copying machines, the world-wide unity of belief in the Church was nothing short of a miracle. The Christians insisted on knowing the Apostolic origin of a given interpretation of Scripture and believed Christ's promise to the Apostles that He would send them the Holy Spirit Who would remain with them forever and guide them to the truth. [Jn 14:16-17, 16:7, 16:13] Their faith in the promise of Christ was rewarded with a miracle of unity. It would still work if all Christians would just insist on knowing the Apostolic origin of any interpretation of Scripture they are presented with. Until that happens the Body of Christ will remain dismembered and appear to be irrational to the rest of the world.
10.30.2010 | 5:36pm
Maria V. says:
Surprised that in these days of Scott Hahn with his popular book 'Lamb's Supper' that delineate well how the Holy Mass is participation in the Liturgy of heaven itself , the references are mostly to Old Testament .
There is even tradition that it is our Lord Himself who instruted the Apostles in the rubrics of the Liturgy , after His Resurrection - 'there are many other things that He did ..that the whole world would not contain ' ; true , the whole world would not contain the mystery that takes place at every Holy Mass !
There is even tradition that it is our Lord Himself who instruted the Apostles in the rubrics of the Liturgy , after His Resurrection - 'there are many other things that He did ..that the whole world would not contain ' ; true , the whole world would not contain the mystery that takes place at every Holy Mass !
10.30.2010 | 7:41pm
Malcolm Yarnell says:
After writing a master's thesis at Duke on the priesthood of all believers in the continental reformation and a doctoral thesis at Oxford on the same doctrine in the English reformation, I concur with Professor Leithart's partial presentation. On the one hand, the individualistic presentation of the doctrine in contemporary evangelicalism is unhelpful; however, on the other, so is the novel reservation or restriction of any universal power to the clergy.
10.30.2010 | 9:33pm
Mark VA says:
Pentamom - thank you for your reply.
As a Catholic, I do try to stay somewhat informed about the range of beliefs among my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. In this vein, please allow me to ask this question:
If we took several statistical samples in each of the, say, one hundred largest Protestant denominations in our country (including the "non-denominational" groupings, somehow), and asked a question along this line:
"What should be the proper relationship between the individual Christian believer on the one hand, and the teaching authority of the Church plus the Bible on the other? "
what do you think the scope of the responses would likely be?
As a Catholic, I do try to stay somewhat informed about the range of beliefs among my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. In this vein, please allow me to ask this question:
If we took several statistical samples in each of the, say, one hundred largest Protestant denominations in our country (including the "non-denominational" groupings, somehow), and asked a question along this line:
"What should be the proper relationship between the individual Christian believer on the one hand, and the teaching authority of the Church plus the Bible on the other? "
what do you think the scope of the responses would likely be?
10.31.2010 | 11:45am
Jack Woodward says:
Over the years, this former agnostic (now Methodist) has encountered enough instances like the one I relate below to thoroughly impugn the idea of the "teaching authority of the Church":
A Catholic friend of my mother had adopted four orphan children (two boys, two girls). She enrolled them in a parochial school. When one of the girls was ten years old, a priest told her (the little girl) that she was going to hell because she was illegitimate. The Church lost five members that day.
The world has a multitude of examples of claims to authority, from Islam to communism to the various flavors of Christianity, etc. Remember, the members of the Sanhedrin also had a claim to authority. I know that MY Redeemer liveth, and I know my responsibilities to God for the gift of life He has given me. I do not require a sacerdotal imprimatur for my beliefs. The attitudes illustrated above show we are not all that far from Giordano Bruno and the heretic's fork.
A Catholic friend of my mother had adopted four orphan children (two boys, two girls). She enrolled them in a parochial school. When one of the girls was ten years old, a priest told her (the little girl) that she was going to hell because she was illegitimate. The Church lost five members that day.
The world has a multitude of examples of claims to authority, from Islam to communism to the various flavors of Christianity, etc. Remember, the members of the Sanhedrin also had a claim to authority. I know that MY Redeemer liveth, and I know my responsibilities to God for the gift of life He has given me. I do not require a sacerdotal imprimatur for my beliefs. The attitudes illustrated above show we are not all that far from Giordano Bruno and the heretic's fork.
10.31.2010 | 1:29pm
Tom Tillman says:
you obviously prefer to remain attached to the corrupt Catholic Church and her many corrupt daughters.
according to the Word, we are not priests to another, we are kings and priests unto God! Every TRUE believer ministers unto God, and is at the business of helping other priests unto God Priest unto God.
Our mandate is to go into all the world and preach the Gospel... the TRUE Gospel... we are sinners bound forn hell and our only hope is in the blood of Jesus Christ, our only high priest unto God the Father.
Now... lets see if this 'christian' mag really believes the TRUE Gospel and prints this one.
Love, In Christ
Tom
according to the Word, we are not priests to another, we are kings and priests unto God! Every TRUE believer ministers unto God, and is at the business of helping other priests unto God Priest unto God.
Our mandate is to go into all the world and preach the Gospel... the TRUE Gospel... we are sinners bound forn hell and our only hope is in the blood of Jesus Christ, our only high priest unto God the Father.
Now... lets see if this 'christian' mag really believes the TRUE Gospel and prints this one.
Love, In Christ
Tom
10.31.2010 | 4:46pm
Chad Grissom says:
I just want to thank First Things for remaining a powerfully ecumenical presence on the web. This is ecumenism done right!
10.31.2010 | 7:56pm
David Goldman says:
Jews will find troubling the supercessionist implications of "a new and better priesthood." Sacrificial service was for Israel and remains for observant Jews a gift of divine grace which permits finite man to approach infinite God. The offering of animals is not a gift to YHWH (Prof. Leithart's spelling-out of the Divine Name involves a scholarly supposition that is not altogether sound), but rather a sublimated self-sacrifice, as Nachmanides argued: it is we who are the sacrifice. This understanding prevails in modern observant Judaism, with R. Joseph Soloveitchik as well as A. J. Heschel. It remains in the form of circumcision and the redemption of the first-born, through which every Jew relives the test of Abraham and the binding of Isaac on Mt. Moriah. To reduce the priestly function to butchers, bakers and butlers is profoundly misleading. It remains a living, breathing, and profoundly holy aspect of Jewish life today and will remain so while God keeps faith with his people Israel.
Now, it is one thing for Christians to argue that they do not need to personally undertake ritual sacrifice--and with circumcision it is quite a personal matter--because Jesus has done it for them, on the Cross. That is a transformation of Jewish sacrifice, which substitutes as it were belief for action. We Jews have never demanded that non-Jews adopt our ritual practice. But the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus makes no sense except by reference to Jewish sacrificial practice, which St. Paul--as an observant Jew--took part in.
To Jews, there are no "shadowy ways" of the Aaronic priesthood at the altar of the Temple; each morning we review in our liturgy the detail of the Temple sacrifices, just after we read Genesis 22:1-19. And three times daily we pray for the restoration of Temple sacrifice. If this is "shadowy," than Abraham is "shadowy." It is a misleading, and most unfortunate, choice of language. I rather had hoped we had gotten beyond that. For further reference, read the first two dozen pages of any Orthodox prayer book.
Now, it is one thing for Christians to argue that they do not need to personally undertake ritual sacrifice--and with circumcision it is quite a personal matter--because Jesus has done it for them, on the Cross. That is a transformation of Jewish sacrifice, which substitutes as it were belief for action. We Jews have never demanded that non-Jews adopt our ritual practice. But the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus makes no sense except by reference to Jewish sacrificial practice, which St. Paul--as an observant Jew--took part in.
To Jews, there are no "shadowy ways" of the Aaronic priesthood at the altar of the Temple; each morning we review in our liturgy the detail of the Temple sacrifices, just after we read Genesis 22:1-19. And three times daily we pray for the restoration of Temple sacrifice. If this is "shadowy," than Abraham is "shadowy." It is a misleading, and most unfortunate, choice of language. I rather had hoped we had gotten beyond that. For further reference, read the first two dozen pages of any Orthodox prayer book.
10.31.2010 | 8:31pm
Donald Todd says:
When I was reading the article, I found I was confused. The purpose of the article is to honor Luther. Anyone who has read a biography of Luther, and of the history with which Luther is associated, has to ask the question: What could anyone want to honor Luther for?
So first I went back to look at Luther in history. He appeared to be a man unable to keep faith with anyone or anything, excepting perhaps himself. His failure to keep faith with Catholicism is trumpeted. However his failure to keep faith with those people he led out of Catholicism (some of whom returned) is not so widely publicized.
When Luther wrote his Exhortation to Peace, he wrote to the princes of Germany and Germany’s peasants. To the princes he wrote, “Your government consists in nothing else but fleecing and oppressing the poor common people to support your own magnificence and arrogance till they cannot or will not endure it.”
To the peasants he wrote that the princes “forbid the preaching of the gospel and oppress the people so unbearingly, then they deserve that God should cast them down from their thrones, as they sin mightily against God and man, nor have they any excuse.” Luther further notes that “tyrants seldom die in their beds; as a rule they perish by a bloody death.”
Luther felt he had justified “Christian freedom” in the minds of the German peasants, and found that he lacked the control over those peasants that he believed his due. When the peasants decided to pursue the “Christian freedom” offered by Luther by rebelling against the princes of Germany, Luther published a new tract, Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants. In this tract, Luther gives the princes justification for killing the peasants.
That is the background of the Peasants War. The peasants inflamed by Luther entitled themselves the “Christian Evangelical Army.” The battle was met on the field of Frankenhausen where the armies of the princes shot the peasant army up, causing them to flee. Munzer, the head of the Christian Evangelical Army, lay dying of wounds suffered at the battle. He accused Luther of betrayal.
There is more to Luther’s failure to keep faith than this, but for those who are interested, they can pick the biographies and histories and read it for themselves.
So what else can we credit Luther with? Luther is famous for his dictum that any man inhabited by the Spirit of God is capable of apprehending and presenting scripture. What does that dictum mean in practice? I opened the Yellow Pages to Churches and encountered the following:
Denominations (not individual churches) have 61 listings. Those listings include Churches Lutheran, Churches Lutheran Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Churches Lutheran Missouri Synod and Churches Lutheran Wisconsin Synod. Apparently there are some differences among the Lutherans about how Luther’s theology is to be seen.
Since the author of the article indicates the Reformed Church, I would note that there are literally no Reformed Churches in my Yellow Pages. However there are Calvinist churches, including Churches Presbyterian, Churches Presbyterian PCA and Churches Presbyterian (USA).
Early in the history of the Reformation, there was an attempt by participants including the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Baptists and others to determine the fundamentals necessary for salvation. That attempt was a failure. The various factions could not agree on the fundamentals necessary for salvation.
So we arrive at the position where people honor Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, the Wesleys, Joseph Smith and others because, we are told, Jesus was not able to uphold His promise to keep the gates of hell from prevailing over His Church. The multiplicity of denominations noted in the Yellow Pages occurs because it turns out that church founder by church founder the ability to regain or reinstitute the Church of Acts 2 does not occur. Under the premise that Jesus failed, it now appears that a host of people wanting to pick up the banner also failed.
The real question is not whether men sin. The real question is whether Jesus failed. When the Jews failed, God never abandoned them. Rather He called them back, He corrected them, but He never bailed on them. Yet there are those who insist that He bailed on the Church. He abandoned what He created to bring His salvation to the world because of sinful men. Good was overcome by evil. Satan overcame his Maker.
Why a Reformed minister would tout Luther, whose theology is not compatible with Calvin, is a mystery to me. Why anyone would grasp at the straw that God was unable to maintain His Church in the face of evil is also a mystery.
When I look at the history of Protestantism, I see both Pandora's box and the tower of babel. Perhaps that is worth celebrating, if the underlying premises are true. If the underlying premises are not true, then it is certainly not worthy of celebration.
So first I went back to look at Luther in history. He appeared to be a man unable to keep faith with anyone or anything, excepting perhaps himself. His failure to keep faith with Catholicism is trumpeted. However his failure to keep faith with those people he led out of Catholicism (some of whom returned) is not so widely publicized.
When Luther wrote his Exhortation to Peace, he wrote to the princes of Germany and Germany’s peasants. To the princes he wrote, “Your government consists in nothing else but fleecing and oppressing the poor common people to support your own magnificence and arrogance till they cannot or will not endure it.”
To the peasants he wrote that the princes “forbid the preaching of the gospel and oppress the people so unbearingly, then they deserve that God should cast them down from their thrones, as they sin mightily against God and man, nor have they any excuse.” Luther further notes that “tyrants seldom die in their beds; as a rule they perish by a bloody death.”
Luther felt he had justified “Christian freedom” in the minds of the German peasants, and found that he lacked the control over those peasants that he believed his due. When the peasants decided to pursue the “Christian freedom” offered by Luther by rebelling against the princes of Germany, Luther published a new tract, Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants. In this tract, Luther gives the princes justification for killing the peasants.
That is the background of the Peasants War. The peasants inflamed by Luther entitled themselves the “Christian Evangelical Army.” The battle was met on the field of Frankenhausen where the armies of the princes shot the peasant army up, causing them to flee. Munzer, the head of the Christian Evangelical Army, lay dying of wounds suffered at the battle. He accused Luther of betrayal.
There is more to Luther’s failure to keep faith than this, but for those who are interested, they can pick the biographies and histories and read it for themselves.
So what else can we credit Luther with? Luther is famous for his dictum that any man inhabited by the Spirit of God is capable of apprehending and presenting scripture. What does that dictum mean in practice? I opened the Yellow Pages to Churches and encountered the following:
Denominations (not individual churches) have 61 listings. Those listings include Churches Lutheran, Churches Lutheran Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Churches Lutheran Missouri Synod and Churches Lutheran Wisconsin Synod. Apparently there are some differences among the Lutherans about how Luther’s theology is to be seen.
Since the author of the article indicates the Reformed Church, I would note that there are literally no Reformed Churches in my Yellow Pages. However there are Calvinist churches, including Churches Presbyterian, Churches Presbyterian PCA and Churches Presbyterian (USA).
Early in the history of the Reformation, there was an attempt by participants including the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Baptists and others to determine the fundamentals necessary for salvation. That attempt was a failure. The various factions could not agree on the fundamentals necessary for salvation.
So we arrive at the position where people honor Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, the Wesleys, Joseph Smith and others because, we are told, Jesus was not able to uphold His promise to keep the gates of hell from prevailing over His Church. The multiplicity of denominations noted in the Yellow Pages occurs because it turns out that church founder by church founder the ability to regain or reinstitute the Church of Acts 2 does not occur. Under the premise that Jesus failed, it now appears that a host of people wanting to pick up the banner also failed.
The real question is not whether men sin. The real question is whether Jesus failed. When the Jews failed, God never abandoned them. Rather He called them back, He corrected them, but He never bailed on them. Yet there are those who insist that He bailed on the Church. He abandoned what He created to bring His salvation to the world because of sinful men. Good was overcome by evil. Satan overcame his Maker.
Why a Reformed minister would tout Luther, whose theology is not compatible with Calvin, is a mystery to me. Why anyone would grasp at the straw that God was unable to maintain His Church in the face of evil is also a mystery.
When I look at the history of Protestantism, I see both Pandora's box and the tower of babel. Perhaps that is worth celebrating, if the underlying premises are true. If the underlying premises are not true, then it is certainly not worthy of celebration.
10.31.2010 | 8:57pm
Good Reason says:
As a member of the LDS Church, this phrase of Luther's has special resonance. In the LDS Church, all boys 12-18 hold the lesser priesthood, and those 18 and above hold the greater priesthood. There is no need for a paid clergy, because every worthy man holds the priesthood and, when called, can officiate in a priesthood office such as bishop. Every man who belongs to the Church has his daily life intertwined with priesthood responsibilities. This may not have been Luther's original intent, but the LDS vision is a welcome one: "every man a priest."
11.1.2010 | 5:27am
elliott tepper says:
Dear Friends,
My prayers are with you all. Whatever visible communion we belong to now will one day be revealed as either part of the mystic heavenly Body of Christ or not part of His Body. I think we must all agree that every earthly body of believers is a mixture of those who truly belong to the Body of Christ and those who have not entered into the mystery--whether Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, etc. There will ultimately be a a great sorting out and revelation of who we are. We will all be very surprised and humbled.
As a converted Jew and now a Charismatic Presbyterian and a missionary pastor and president of a small denomination among the nations, I believe in the Priesthood of all Believers. Clearly Christ intended for all believers to be part of His Body in two senses. First, because Christ through redemption and regeneration translates those who are His from darkness into light into His Kingdom. Secondly, because we are commanded to willfully choose to visibly identify with His Church on the earth. There is His decision and our decision.
One thing the Bible is clear about is that the mystery of the Church is preserved in the Priesthood of Believers, not in the individual alone. That universal Priesthood may be seen in a small or a large group of believers, but though each true believer is a priest on to God, he or she alone is not the Priesthood.
Most honest Reformed Christians recognize that while Martin Luther did great good in helping the Church recover many of the ignored or distorted truths of the Faith, he also had many blind spots and blemishes of character. Honest Catholics should be humble enough to recognize that their Church's leadership also possesses a very embarrassing history where saints and sinners have presented a very mixed version of true Christianity in practice and doctrine to the world. Thank God the Catholic Church has fixed many of those distortions over the last few centuries, but there are still some glaring deviations from Apostolic Christianity that remain which, for me, call in question the judgment and Divine authority of their Magisterium. To be honest, as a modern Evangelical, I am often very embarrassed by much of the individualistic and carnal antics and doctrines that are presented as true expressions of Christianity by some Evangelicals. Now we all see through a glass dimly, but one day we the truth face to face.
Perhaps we should all rejoice like Paul and say, "Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice." Philippians 1:18
In Christ, Elliott Tepper
My prayers are with you all. Whatever visible communion we belong to now will one day be revealed as either part of the mystic heavenly Body of Christ or not part of His Body. I think we must all agree that every earthly body of believers is a mixture of those who truly belong to the Body of Christ and those who have not entered into the mystery--whether Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, etc. There will ultimately be a a great sorting out and revelation of who we are. We will all be very surprised and humbled.
As a converted Jew and now a Charismatic Presbyterian and a missionary pastor and president of a small denomination among the nations, I believe in the Priesthood of all Believers. Clearly Christ intended for all believers to be part of His Body in two senses. First, because Christ through redemption and regeneration translates those who are His from darkness into light into His Kingdom. Secondly, because we are commanded to willfully choose to visibly identify with His Church on the earth. There is His decision and our decision.
One thing the Bible is clear about is that the mystery of the Church is preserved in the Priesthood of Believers, not in the individual alone. That universal Priesthood may be seen in a small or a large group of believers, but though each true believer is a priest on to God, he or she alone is not the Priesthood.
Most honest Reformed Christians recognize that while Martin Luther did great good in helping the Church recover many of the ignored or distorted truths of the Faith, he also had many blind spots and blemishes of character. Honest Catholics should be humble enough to recognize that their Church's leadership also possesses a very embarrassing history where saints and sinners have presented a very mixed version of true Christianity in practice and doctrine to the world. Thank God the Catholic Church has fixed many of those distortions over the last few centuries, but there are still some glaring deviations from Apostolic Christianity that remain which, for me, call in question the judgment and Divine authority of their Magisterium. To be honest, as a modern Evangelical, I am often very embarrassed by much of the individualistic and carnal antics and doctrines that are presented as true expressions of Christianity by some Evangelicals. Now we all see through a glass dimly, but one day we the truth face to face.
Perhaps we should all rejoice like Paul and say, "Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice." Philippians 1:18
In Christ, Elliott Tepper
11.1.2010 | 8:33am
patricksarsfield says:
Elliot Tepper writes:
" Honest Catholics should be humble enough to recognize that their Church's leadership also possesses a very embarrassing history where saints and sinners have presented a very mixed version of true Christianity in practice and doctrine to the world."
If this is the standard, then we shouldn't believe in any secular government or any other church either. No, the truth of the Catholic Church is not found in the perfection of its leadership but in the perfection of its Founder. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ while Lutheranism and all Protestant sects after it were founded by mere men.
So, let's see; Jesus or Martin? Jesus.
Jesus or Jean? Jesus.
Jesus or Henry? Jesus (that is a decision even his first born child made, along with the whole English Parliament in its 1554 reconciliation with Rome). In fact, three of the next seven heads of the English Church after Henry (Mary I, Charles II and James II) had the good sense to conclude, a la Groucho Marx, that they did not want to belong to any church that would have them as the Head. That is why each reconciled with the Church of Rome. It got to be such an embarrassment for the Anglicans that they forbade their head from going over to the Church of Rome!
Jesus or Thomas Muntzner? Jesus.
Jesus or Oecolampadius? Zwingli? The Brothers Wesley? Mary Baker Eddy? The 1843 adventist predictors of the End of the World? The Azusa Street Mission folks?
The local entrepreneur minister who sets up the next "non-denominational" church? No, Jesus the same yesterday, today and always.
Jesus told us to listen to the Church (Luke 18:17) not the other way around. Significantly, the first story of a dispute within the Church is the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Who was to be listened to there? Peter or Ananias? Maybe Sapphira?
The Church's authority over believers is also demonstrated by Paul's coming with his circumcision question to the Church at Jerusalem Acts 15:1-5), Peter's returning to Jerusalem even though he was on the lam from Herod (Acts 12:3-18) to pronounce the ruling for the Church (Acts 15:7-14) and the Council's then adopting and making that ruling binding on the Church as a whole (Acts 15:14-16:5). This is the real Apostolic Church, not every man for him/herself.
Luther was many things (many of them not at all attractive as Don Roberto has noted), but one thing he was for sure: a source of dissension in the Body of Christ. The way to end that dissension is to abandon the thought that if we can just find perfect leaders in a church today, we will have found the Church that Jesus should have founded if He were as good at Church founding and leadership recruitment as ________ (fill in the blank, maybe Joel Osteen or the Archbishop of Canterbury (or his boss the Queen of England, maybe??)
" Honest Catholics should be humble enough to recognize that their Church's leadership also possesses a very embarrassing history where saints and sinners have presented a very mixed version of true Christianity in practice and doctrine to the world."
If this is the standard, then we shouldn't believe in any secular government or any other church either. No, the truth of the Catholic Church is not found in the perfection of its leadership but in the perfection of its Founder. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ while Lutheranism and all Protestant sects after it were founded by mere men.
So, let's see; Jesus or Martin? Jesus.
Jesus or Jean? Jesus.
Jesus or Henry? Jesus (that is a decision even his first born child made, along with the whole English Parliament in its 1554 reconciliation with Rome). In fact, three of the next seven heads of the English Church after Henry (Mary I, Charles II and James II) had the good sense to conclude, a la Groucho Marx, that they did not want to belong to any church that would have them as the Head. That is why each reconciled with the Church of Rome. It got to be such an embarrassment for the Anglicans that they forbade their head from going over to the Church of Rome!
Jesus or Thomas Muntzner? Jesus.
Jesus or Oecolampadius? Zwingli? The Brothers Wesley? Mary Baker Eddy? The 1843 adventist predictors of the End of the World? The Azusa Street Mission folks?
The local entrepreneur minister who sets up the next "non-denominational" church? No, Jesus the same yesterday, today and always.
Jesus told us to listen to the Church (Luke 18:17) not the other way around. Significantly, the first story of a dispute within the Church is the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Who was to be listened to there? Peter or Ananias? Maybe Sapphira?
The Church's authority over believers is also demonstrated by Paul's coming with his circumcision question to the Church at Jerusalem Acts 15:1-5), Peter's returning to Jerusalem even though he was on the lam from Herod (Acts 12:3-18) to pronounce the ruling for the Church (Acts 15:7-14) and the Council's then adopting and making that ruling binding on the Church as a whole (Acts 15:14-16:5). This is the real Apostolic Church, not every man for him/herself.
Luther was many things (many of them not at all attractive as Don Roberto has noted), but one thing he was for sure: a source of dissension in the Body of Christ. The way to end that dissension is to abandon the thought that if we can just find perfect leaders in a church today, we will have found the Church that Jesus should have founded if He were as good at Church founding and leadership recruitment as ________ (fill in the blank, maybe Joel Osteen or the Archbishop of Canterbury (or his boss the Queen of England, maybe??)
11.1.2010 | 10:55am
pentamom says:
Mark VA -- no doubt the sample would come up in line with your suppositions. I'd never dispute that. The problem is, this article was by Peter Leithart, who does not share the anti-authority concepts you are criticizing, so at best your criticism was misplaced, and it is a category mistake to assume that because most modern American evangelicals can fairly be criticized for something, you are therefore automatically justified if you criticize one particular person for that thing. Generalizations are not inherently unfair, but applying generalizations to individuals without knowing the particulars of the individual is just asking to be wrong. That was my point.
11.1.2010 | 11:17am
Donald Todd says:
Elliott,
Congratulations on the gift of learning that Jesus, the Second Person of God, is the Redeemer of the human race. That is a great gift and a great grace has been given to you.
Your response does not answer my challenge. I was an evangelical Pentecostal who, through scripture, became aware of the fact that God Himself had created a Church to carry forward the salvation He purchased for us out of obedience to God the Father and of love for His creation.
I was increasingly aware of the disparity of "truths" which were contested, denied and in conflict depending on who was standing in a particular position; and I became aware that Protestantism was built on what "I" was willing to believe. Hence the 61 different competing denominations noted in my local Yellow Pages.
However it occurred to me that my will and my intellect were not the deciding factors. I was not the arbiter of truth, Luther's dictum that any man inspired by the Spirit of God was capable of understanding and presenting the scripture not withstanding.
I found Israel being prepared for the birth of the Redeemer of all of creation. Its failures not withstanding, it did not lose its place in God's heart or His design. The real Ark of the Covenant was born of Israel, of the line of David, and she gave birth to her Redeemer and ours. The Anabaptists, whose position usurped Scripture, said that "any woman would do." Scripture talks about someone unique, someone full of grace, someone greeted by one of the ranking archangels, someone whose mere presence moved the Third Person of God to honor her through the words of the mother of John the Baptist.
I found someone whose Son honored (glorified) her by working His first miracle on her behalf (and thereby displayed the real meaning of the commandment to honor one's father and mother).
I found someone who was present under the cross, suffering in a way that Abraham, who was willing to kill Isaac out of obedience, was never forced to suffer. She was the one comfort that He was not forced to give up when He hung dying between the sky and the earth.
I found that woman with the apostles on Pentecost.
I now believe, with the Church, that He brought His mother to His side and she fulfills the function of the position of queen mother - as described in Kings - in heaven, even as at the wedding feast at Cana she brought forth the needs of His people to her Son.
I found that early Church used her to define her Son, in both His divinity and His humanity, a single Person with two natures, perfectly divine and perfectly human. She is the guarantor of Who He is.
She outranks Peter, the chamberlain or major domo of the king and the associate priest to the High Priest Himself. She holds a place no one else can ever hold and as Eve led Adam into temptation, the new Eve both led and followed her Son as He undid the original evil of faithless disobedience and the subsequent sins of the world through His faithful obedience to the plan of God the Father. She did not shy away from the pain both He and she would bear, but offered Her Son inspite of it. In this she fulfilled a recognition of Paul who noted that he hoped to make up in his own body the sufferings to be undergone for the sake of the Body of Christ.
She is a sign of the Church, the means through which Jesus delivers the salvation He purchased.
I found that the failures of the sons and daughters of the Church are obvious. In this the Church is like Israel. Anyone who reads the Old Testament will recognize that similarity between Old Testament Israel and the Church which wrote the New Testament and set the canons of the entire bible. However God never abandoned His people Israel and God never abandoned His Church.
If the Church did not fail because Her Master and Head would not let her, what does that say for those who believed that Jesus failed and that the church needed to be reformed (from the outside) or reinstituted?
When I was an evangelical Pentecostal, we gave other denominations credit for sincerity. However Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. The word sincerity does not appear in that description. The issue then and now is about Truth. The related issue is about truth and those 61 (or tens of thousands) of denominations claiming to be Bible-based, Spirit led, or whatever term that is used. Conflicting truths mean that someone is wrong. Sincerity means that someone can be sincerely wrong. Sincerely wrong is still wrong.
The position that there are believers everywhere may be right but unless it is defined under what considerations they are saved, it is patronizing. When I was coming into the Catholic Church I had no desire to be patronizing. Jesus is not patronizing. So Vatican II told me that anyone baptised with water and the trinitarian formula who wants the same thing that the Church wants (salvation) is now attached to Jesus by that sacrament. The Church sees them as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. I put on the mind of Christ as given to me by the Church and it was a relief because I know that Jesus came to save the world, not to condemn it.
No patronizing, just a good justification that goes back at least as far as St Augustine. St Augustine confronted the Donatists who demanded the re-baptism of fallen away Christians by noting that they did not need re-baptism, what they needed was forgiveness. Jesus came to bring forgiveness. God knows that I need forgiveness and use the confessional regularly. Thank you Lord. For those who think forgiveness is between God and me, I would suggest John 20:23.
Did the Church fail? Nope. Did men and women in the Church fail. Yes. Did their failure overcome the Second Person of God's decision to maintain His Church in the face of evil? Nope.
I once believed I was the arbiter of Truth, and in this I was like a lot of people busy interpreting Scripture to support my own position. When I came to believe that such a level of authority was beyond me, it was a question of who (or Who) handles interpretation. The 61? The tens of thousands throughout the world? The Church founded by Jesus on Peter? It became an easy decision. I resigned my position as the arbiter of truth and became a son of the Church founded by Jesus. Thanks be to God.
When I left evangelical Pentecostalism, it had a cost. It cost me friends and the comfort of familiarity. I assume the same for you Elliott. Jews don't seem to mind atheism, Buddhism, or even Islam, but being associated with Jesus does not seem to be a career building event. Here I am, a spiritual Semite who worships a Jew, who venerates His mother, but I never had the difficulty that I suspect you had. Should you depart your current position, I believe you'll find that same issue coming into play. In that you have my sympathy should you find I am telling you the truth.
I became a Catholic 38 years ago. I know a lot more today than I did then. I did not depart for Catholicism solely because I understood, rather I believed. Understanding was borne of faith. Gnosticism was one of the early heresies. My faith is no longer dependent on understanding, my faith is dependent on the Head and Founder of the Church on Whom I rely for salvation. We walk by faith, not by sight.
Thank you Lord. Thank you Mary.
I wish everyone who reads this success in their lives as Christians.
dt
Congratulations on the gift of learning that Jesus, the Second Person of God, is the Redeemer of the human race. That is a great gift and a great grace has been given to you.
Your response does not answer my challenge. I was an evangelical Pentecostal who, through scripture, became aware of the fact that God Himself had created a Church to carry forward the salvation He purchased for us out of obedience to God the Father and of love for His creation.
I was increasingly aware of the disparity of "truths" which were contested, denied and in conflict depending on who was standing in a particular position; and I became aware that Protestantism was built on what "I" was willing to believe. Hence the 61 different competing denominations noted in my local Yellow Pages.
However it occurred to me that my will and my intellect were not the deciding factors. I was not the arbiter of truth, Luther's dictum that any man inspired by the Spirit of God was capable of understanding and presenting the scripture not withstanding.
I found Israel being prepared for the birth of the Redeemer of all of creation. Its failures not withstanding, it did not lose its place in God's heart or His design. The real Ark of the Covenant was born of Israel, of the line of David, and she gave birth to her Redeemer and ours. The Anabaptists, whose position usurped Scripture, said that "any woman would do." Scripture talks about someone unique, someone full of grace, someone greeted by one of the ranking archangels, someone whose mere presence moved the Third Person of God to honor her through the words of the mother of John the Baptist.
I found someone whose Son honored (glorified) her by working His first miracle on her behalf (and thereby displayed the real meaning of the commandment to honor one's father and mother).
I found someone who was present under the cross, suffering in a way that Abraham, who was willing to kill Isaac out of obedience, was never forced to suffer. She was the one comfort that He was not forced to give up when He hung dying between the sky and the earth.
I found that woman with the apostles on Pentecost.
I now believe, with the Church, that He brought His mother to His side and she fulfills the function of the position of queen mother - as described in Kings - in heaven, even as at the wedding feast at Cana she brought forth the needs of His people to her Son.
I found that early Church used her to define her Son, in both His divinity and His humanity, a single Person with two natures, perfectly divine and perfectly human. She is the guarantor of Who He is.
She outranks Peter, the chamberlain or major domo of the king and the associate priest to the High Priest Himself. She holds a place no one else can ever hold and as Eve led Adam into temptation, the new Eve both led and followed her Son as He undid the original evil of faithless disobedience and the subsequent sins of the world through His faithful obedience to the plan of God the Father. She did not shy away from the pain both He and she would bear, but offered Her Son inspite of it. In this she fulfilled a recognition of Paul who noted that he hoped to make up in his own body the sufferings to be undergone for the sake of the Body of Christ.
She is a sign of the Church, the means through which Jesus delivers the salvation He purchased.
I found that the failures of the sons and daughters of the Church are obvious. In this the Church is like Israel. Anyone who reads the Old Testament will recognize that similarity between Old Testament Israel and the Church which wrote the New Testament and set the canons of the entire bible. However God never abandoned His people Israel and God never abandoned His Church.
If the Church did not fail because Her Master and Head would not let her, what does that say for those who believed that Jesus failed and that the church needed to be reformed (from the outside) or reinstituted?
When I was an evangelical Pentecostal, we gave other denominations credit for sincerity. However Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. The word sincerity does not appear in that description. The issue then and now is about Truth. The related issue is about truth and those 61 (or tens of thousands) of denominations claiming to be Bible-based, Spirit led, or whatever term that is used. Conflicting truths mean that someone is wrong. Sincerity means that someone can be sincerely wrong. Sincerely wrong is still wrong.
The position that there are believers everywhere may be right but unless it is defined under what considerations they are saved, it is patronizing. When I was coming into the Catholic Church I had no desire to be patronizing. Jesus is not patronizing. So Vatican II told me that anyone baptised with water and the trinitarian formula who wants the same thing that the Church wants (salvation) is now attached to Jesus by that sacrament. The Church sees them as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. I put on the mind of Christ as given to me by the Church and it was a relief because I know that Jesus came to save the world, not to condemn it.
No patronizing, just a good justification that goes back at least as far as St Augustine. St Augustine confronted the Donatists who demanded the re-baptism of fallen away Christians by noting that they did not need re-baptism, what they needed was forgiveness. Jesus came to bring forgiveness. God knows that I need forgiveness and use the confessional regularly. Thank you Lord. For those who think forgiveness is between God and me, I would suggest John 20:23.
Did the Church fail? Nope. Did men and women in the Church fail. Yes. Did their failure overcome the Second Person of God's decision to maintain His Church in the face of evil? Nope.
I once believed I was the arbiter of Truth, and in this I was like a lot of people busy interpreting Scripture to support my own position. When I came to believe that such a level of authority was beyond me, it was a question of who (or Who) handles interpretation. The 61? The tens of thousands throughout the world? The Church founded by Jesus on Peter? It became an easy decision. I resigned my position as the arbiter of truth and became a son of the Church founded by Jesus. Thanks be to God.
When I left evangelical Pentecostalism, it had a cost. It cost me friends and the comfort of familiarity. I assume the same for you Elliott. Jews don't seem to mind atheism, Buddhism, or even Islam, but being associated with Jesus does not seem to be a career building event. Here I am, a spiritual Semite who worships a Jew, who venerates His mother, but I never had the difficulty that I suspect you had. Should you depart your current position, I believe you'll find that same issue coming into play. In that you have my sympathy should you find I am telling you the truth.
I became a Catholic 38 years ago. I know a lot more today than I did then. I did not depart for Catholicism solely because I understood, rather I believed. Understanding was borne of faith. Gnosticism was one of the early heresies. My faith is no longer dependent on understanding, my faith is dependent on the Head and Founder of the Church on Whom I rely for salvation. We walk by faith, not by sight.
Thank you Lord. Thank you Mary.
I wish everyone who reads this success in their lives as Christians.
dt
11.1.2010 | 8:08pm
elliott tepper says:
True, in the Church truth 'is not found in the perfection of its leadership. but in the perfection of its founder". I believe that Jesus Christ is the founder of not just the Roman Catholic Church, but of the whole Church Catholic.
Jesus is the head and founder of our Church, not Knox, not Calvin, nor Luther. All of us, whether popes, bishops (episcopos), or elders (presbyteros) are mere men and servants of Christ and His Church. We have been placed by God and recognized by men in our generation within that particular local and trans-local expression of the Body of Christ we serve.
If there is sufficient grace to overlook the frailties and failures of the human vessels who served and serve in the Roman Catholic Church, certainly there must also be sufficient grace to cover the frailties of the vessels who serve in other Christian communions.
My faith, also, is not dependent merely on my understanding or the words and opinions of men, but on Christ who chose to reveal Himself to me through the Holy Spirit and His Word. We look to Christ and the Apostles, the Scriptures and the Early Fathers of the Church for truth. Those sources of truth are the heritage and common possession of the Church Catholic, and they all existed before the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern or Coptic Churches rose to prominence.
Please forgive me if I do not take issue with you over Mary's role in the Church and in salvation. I deeply respect Mary. She is the greatest of all women and the mother of Christ in the Flesh. However, I think I am in good company when I say that there is only 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' I Tim 2:5
We all need to be humble, especially the older Church communions. Nominal Christians are not Christians in any communion. It is telling that on any given Sunday in the world there are now more Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians attending public worship than Roman Catholic Christians and mainline Prostestants combined. This is a first. In addition, many serious surveys have confirmed that Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians are much more Biblically literate than Roman Catholics. No matter how wise or inerrant a Mageisterium or Presbytry or Episcopate might think they are, if the sheep have little faith and light, the future of that Church is in jeopardy.
In Romans 11 Paul warned the Gentile Church, the wild olive, not to boast against the Jewish Nation, the natural olive. The Jews lost their place and were cut off because of unbelief and the Gentiles were grafted into the trunk of the natural olive because of faith. He warned the Gentile Church to fear lest they, too, be cut off because of unbelief and the Jews restored if they return in faith. We all should take this as a very present admonition for our own communions.
As Paul also said, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2: 8, 9
In Him, Elliott Tepper
Jesus is the head and founder of our Church, not Knox, not Calvin, nor Luther. All of us, whether popes, bishops (episcopos), or elders (presbyteros) are mere men and servants of Christ and His Church. We have been placed by God and recognized by men in our generation within that particular local and trans-local expression of the Body of Christ we serve.
If there is sufficient grace to overlook the frailties and failures of the human vessels who served and serve in the Roman Catholic Church, certainly there must also be sufficient grace to cover the frailties of the vessels who serve in other Christian communions.
My faith, also, is not dependent merely on my understanding or the words and opinions of men, but on Christ who chose to reveal Himself to me through the Holy Spirit and His Word. We look to Christ and the Apostles, the Scriptures and the Early Fathers of the Church for truth. Those sources of truth are the heritage and common possession of the Church Catholic, and they all existed before the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern or Coptic Churches rose to prominence.
Please forgive me if I do not take issue with you over Mary's role in the Church and in salvation. I deeply respect Mary. She is the greatest of all women and the mother of Christ in the Flesh. However, I think I am in good company when I say that there is only 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' I Tim 2:5
We all need to be humble, especially the older Church communions. Nominal Christians are not Christians in any communion. It is telling that on any given Sunday in the world there are now more Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians attending public worship than Roman Catholic Christians and mainline Prostestants combined. This is a first. In addition, many serious surveys have confirmed that Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians are much more Biblically literate than Roman Catholics. No matter how wise or inerrant a Mageisterium or Presbytry or Episcopate might think they are, if the sheep have little faith and light, the future of that Church is in jeopardy.
In Romans 11 Paul warned the Gentile Church, the wild olive, not to boast against the Jewish Nation, the natural olive. The Jews lost their place and were cut off because of unbelief and the Gentiles were grafted into the trunk of the natural olive because of faith. He warned the Gentile Church to fear lest they, too, be cut off because of unbelief and the Jews restored if they return in faith. We all should take this as a very present admonition for our own communions.
As Paul also said, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2: 8, 9
In Him, Elliott Tepper
11.2.2010 | 12:54am
patricksarsfield says:
Elliot Tepper writes:
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the founder of not just the Roman Catholic Church, but of the whole Church Catholic. Jesus is the head and founder of our Church, not Knox, not Calvin, nor Luther. All of us, whether popes, bishops (episcopos), or elders (presbyteros) are mere men and servants of Christ and His Church. We have been placed by God and recognized by men in our generation within that particular local and trans-local expression of the Body of Christ we serve. "
Huh?? I thought Protestants believed in Sola Scriptura. If Sola Scriptura means anything, it means that there is NO scriptural warrant for God's placement of men in particular local and trans-local expressions of the Body of Christ outside of the Church He founded in the First Century at some later point a millennium and a half or more later. To say that "the Church" is some invisible amorphous agglomeration that speaks with no authoritative voice (or as many authoritative voices as there are denominations and autonomous sub-groups within some denominations) is to render meaningless Christ's Great Commission to the Church to teach all that He commanded.
Nothing proves the falsity of Protestantism as an authoritative teacher of what Christ commanded better than the Protestant position(ssssss) on Divorce/Remarriage. Clearly, Christ commanded that Remarriage after Divorce while the spouses both lived was ADULTERY. As Mark wrote: ""Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12)"
Protestantism at one time caviled about that relying on a questionable reading of the except porneia clause found only in Matthew, so as to allow Divorce/Remarriage where a spouse has committed Adultery. Now, though, Protestantism almost universally just punts on the whole question and wholesale just allows Divorce/Remarriage in practically any circumstance with a hurried (and mumbled) explanation if someone raises the Scriptural points.
If, as Mr. Tepper claims, Christ founded the whole flock of denominations that now constitute Protestantism and authorized them to teach such different things from the Catholic Church on Divorce/Remarriage, then He is a rather double-minded Church Founder. But, of course, He isn't. This Protestant Doctrine of the Invisible Church cannot withstand reasoned analysis unless one suspends both disbelief and any belief in a Teaching Function for the Church.
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the founder of not just the Roman Catholic Church, but of the whole Church Catholic. Jesus is the head and founder of our Church, not Knox, not Calvin, nor Luther. All of us, whether popes, bishops (episcopos), or elders (presbyteros) are mere men and servants of Christ and His Church. We have been placed by God and recognized by men in our generation within that particular local and trans-local expression of the Body of Christ we serve. "
Huh?? I thought Protestants believed in Sola Scriptura. If Sola Scriptura means anything, it means that there is NO scriptural warrant for God's placement of men in particular local and trans-local expressions of the Body of Christ outside of the Church He founded in the First Century at some later point a millennium and a half or more later. To say that "the Church" is some invisible amorphous agglomeration that speaks with no authoritative voice (or as many authoritative voices as there are denominations and autonomous sub-groups within some denominations) is to render meaningless Christ's Great Commission to the Church to teach all that He commanded.
Nothing proves the falsity of Protestantism as an authoritative teacher of what Christ commanded better than the Protestant position(ssssss) on Divorce/Remarriage. Clearly, Christ commanded that Remarriage after Divorce while the spouses both lived was ADULTERY. As Mark wrote: ""Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12)"
Protestantism at one time caviled about that relying on a questionable reading of the except porneia clause found only in Matthew, so as to allow Divorce/Remarriage where a spouse has committed Adultery. Now, though, Protestantism almost universally just punts on the whole question and wholesale just allows Divorce/Remarriage in practically any circumstance with a hurried (and mumbled) explanation if someone raises the Scriptural points.
If, as Mr. Tepper claims, Christ founded the whole flock of denominations that now constitute Protestantism and authorized them to teach such different things from the Catholic Church on Divorce/Remarriage, then He is a rather double-minded Church Founder. But, of course, He isn't. This Protestant Doctrine of the Invisible Church cannot withstand reasoned analysis unless one suspends both disbelief and any belief in a Teaching Function for the Church.
11.2.2010 | 8:12pm
Donald Todd says:
Patrick,
Thank you and very well done. While sola scriptura (and not so widely expressed but identical, solo scriptura) is claimed, the real Protestant position is “I.” Literally, what do “I” believe? How do “I” want to interpret scripture. There are currently tens of thousands of competing and conflicting Protestant churches and sects. Pentecostal / non-Pentecostal? Millenial / premillenial / amillenial? High church? Low church?
Dogmatic decisions have devolved to what “I” want to believe, and this is much more so on the evangelical side than on the mainline Protestant side, but…
As I noted my local Yellow Pages have four flavors of Lutherans and three of Presbyterians. None of the Presbyterian Churches display the “charismatic” flavor indicated by Elliott. Elliott notes that he is both a missionary and the president (president?) of a small charismatic Presbyterian denomination. Solo scriptura appears again. Don’t like what Calvin or the Presbyterian Church you attend has to say about the use of charismata? Leave and start your own. Justification? God told me to do it. God made me a pastor / missionary / president of a new church.
This position makes God the author of confusion. He is responsible for competing, conflicting and anti-thetical positions. Think of Luther and Calvin times 40,000.
However for you a caution: Evangelicals are not always like mainline Protestants. There are significant differences between the various forms of Protestantism. It should be noted, as I have personally witnessed, that some forms of Protestantism shun other forms of Protestantism.
I was graced to become Catholic because I read my 66-book Bible and saw Catholic things in evidence, and did not see Protestant things in evidence. I now have the 73-book Bible (much better and complete). I also have a Catechism of the Catholic Church and a lot of other very good Catholic literature. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins come to mind as faithful Catholics who bring the goods home.
Go with God.
dt
Thank you and very well done. While sola scriptura (and not so widely expressed but identical, solo scriptura) is claimed, the real Protestant position is “I.” Literally, what do “I” believe? How do “I” want to interpret scripture. There are currently tens of thousands of competing and conflicting Protestant churches and sects. Pentecostal / non-Pentecostal? Millenial / premillenial / amillenial? High church? Low church?
Dogmatic decisions have devolved to what “I” want to believe, and this is much more so on the evangelical side than on the mainline Protestant side, but…
As I noted my local Yellow Pages have four flavors of Lutherans and three of Presbyterians. None of the Presbyterian Churches display the “charismatic” flavor indicated by Elliott. Elliott notes that he is both a missionary and the president (president?) of a small charismatic Presbyterian denomination. Solo scriptura appears again. Don’t like what Calvin or the Presbyterian Church you attend has to say about the use of charismata? Leave and start your own. Justification? God told me to do it. God made me a pastor / missionary / president of a new church.
This position makes God the author of confusion. He is responsible for competing, conflicting and anti-thetical positions. Think of Luther and Calvin times 40,000.
However for you a caution: Evangelicals are not always like mainline Protestants. There are significant differences between the various forms of Protestantism. It should be noted, as I have personally witnessed, that some forms of Protestantism shun other forms of Protestantism.
I was graced to become Catholic because I read my 66-book Bible and saw Catholic things in evidence, and did not see Protestant things in evidence. I now have the 73-book Bible (much better and complete). I also have a Catechism of the Catholic Church and a lot of other very good Catholic literature. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins come to mind as faithful Catholics who bring the goods home.
Go with God.
dt
11.2.2010 | 8:29pm
Mark VA says:
Pentamom:
Thank you for your replies. I actually agree with the main thrust of the article, and am not criticizing its author. On the contrary, I though I was expanding on his criticism of the "every believer a pope unto himself" mentality. Somewhere along the line a wrong impression was made - mea culpa.
A survey of the Protestant attitudes toward Church's magisterium may show surprising levels of support for it among some strata- that is my gut feeling. It would also be interesting to see if opposition to it correlates with certain other attitudes. Seek and ye shall find.
Thank you for your replies. I actually agree with the main thrust of the article, and am not criticizing its author. On the contrary, I though I was expanding on his criticism of the "every believer a pope unto himself" mentality. Somewhere along the line a wrong impression was made - mea culpa.
A survey of the Protestant attitudes toward Church's magisterium may show surprising levels of support for it among some strata- that is my gut feeling. It would also be interesting to see if opposition to it correlates with certain other attitudes. Seek and ye shall find.
11.3.2010 | 10:30am
Donald Todd says:
Elliott,
I read your bit about the early Church not being Roman Catholic and citing the fathers and the councils. It is a common practice among Calvinists to claim parts of the councils and some of the writings of the fathers as justifying their positions.
When I read these people and the councils, I found Roman Catholicity. For instance with Augustine, I found a Catholic, a bishop, and one of the driving forces to get Athenasius' position justified against the Arian heresy. Augustine went to Peter's successor pressing for the review and the decision. It was beyond that Saint's position of bishop to correct the heresy, so he went to Peter's successor who had that authority.
It was Augustine who wrote: "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
It was also Augustine who coined the phrase, "Ubi Petri, ibi ecclesium" which translated to English says "where Peter is, there is the Church."
The fathers described practices limited the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. We see the sacraments described as the RCC and OC see them. Their understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the fathers, and is certainly in conflict with the Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican/Episcopal and evangelical way of seeing the Eucharist.
We see bishops descending from the apostles and have lists of people going back to those same apostles.
The idea that there was a Catholic Church before there was a Roman Catholic Church fails to see that the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same. Novelties starting in the fifteenth century are novelties, as in new. They are trying to prove their right to exist by denying the reality of the Church constituted by Christ to carry forward His work in the world.
The avoidance and outright denial of 15 centuries of practice in favor of new (novel) positions, and the claim that the novelties are based on the practice of the early Church, is dishonest.
We would be surprised if a newborn child did not develop, but express surprise that the Church which is to be led into all truth did not remain a newborn. The Church of Acts 2 is the same Church where Benedict is now the vicar of Christ. The novelties are outside of that Church.
You'll have to do better.
dt
I read your bit about the early Church not being Roman Catholic and citing the fathers and the councils. It is a common practice among Calvinists to claim parts of the councils and some of the writings of the fathers as justifying their positions.
When I read these people and the councils, I found Roman Catholicity. For instance with Augustine, I found a Catholic, a bishop, and one of the driving forces to get Athenasius' position justified against the Arian heresy. Augustine went to Peter's successor pressing for the review and the decision. It was beyond that Saint's position of bishop to correct the heresy, so he went to Peter's successor who had that authority.
It was Augustine who wrote: "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
It was also Augustine who coined the phrase, "Ubi Petri, ibi ecclesium" which translated to English says "where Peter is, there is the Church."
The fathers described practices limited the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. We see the sacraments described as the RCC and OC see them. Their understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the fathers, and is certainly in conflict with the Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican/Episcopal and evangelical way of seeing the Eucharist.
We see bishops descending from the apostles and have lists of people going back to those same apostles.
The idea that there was a Catholic Church before there was a Roman Catholic Church fails to see that the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same. Novelties starting in the fifteenth century are novelties, as in new. They are trying to prove their right to exist by denying the reality of the Church constituted by Christ to carry forward His work in the world.
The avoidance and outright denial of 15 centuries of practice in favor of new (novel) positions, and the claim that the novelties are based on the practice of the early Church, is dishonest.
We would be surprised if a newborn child did not develop, but express surprise that the Church which is to be led into all truth did not remain a newborn. The Church of Acts 2 is the same Church where Benedict is now the vicar of Christ. The novelties are outside of that Church.
You'll have to do better.
dt
11.3.2010 | 3:06pm
patricksarsfield says:
Donald Todd's correction of Elliot Teppers's claim that the Roman Catholic Church came along long after Christ is entirely correct. Calvinist E. Tepper had written:
"We look to Christ and the Apostles, the Scriptures and the Early Fathers of the Church for truth. Those sources of truth are the heritage and common possession of the Church Catholic, and they all existed before the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern or Coptic Churches rose to prominence. "
This is the usual "Invisible Church" subterfuge that Protestants engage in whenever Catholics raise the reality of History. Let's play along with it for a minute. Let's assume arguendo that there was some Church that existed before the Roman Catholic Church (the Church from which Calvin broke away) came along. The putative "REAL CHURCH OF CHRIST," perhaps. Then why didn't Calvin simply join that church instead of setting up his own Theocracy in Geneva? Obviously because that putative "real church" didn't have any corporate existence; it was just a theoretical construct that Protestants use to talk past Catholic arguments from History.
Yet that theoretical construct is an act of non-Faith in Jesus Christ, Visible Church Founder. Christ may have been the Savior of the World but, per Invisible Church proponents, He was an incompetent when it comes to founding a Visible Church. Clearly, the Church He founded in the First Century AD had a corporate existence, as the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council demonstrates. Yet per the Invisible Church apologists, Christ's Visible Church had disappeared and shucked its corporate existence by 1535, so Jean Calvin, a man with no scripturally recorded warrant from God, founded his own visible church. That makes no sense at all.
As Donald Todd said, Augustine, whom Calvin claimed to follow, clearly saw the Roman Bishop as Peter's Successor some 1150 years before Calvin made his break from the Roman Church. Yet, Augustine was not announcing some new dogma. The Roman Bishop's central role in the Catholic Church was recognized in Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses 200 years before Augustine was writing and only 150 or so years after Christ was crucified:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. "
What happened to the Church Christ founded? It grew and expanded throughout the Roman World and Peter had to go on the lam after busting out of Herod's Jail (Acts 12:3-18). He settled in Rome and the bishops of Rome were his successors.
That is a lot more consistent with the Scriptural Evidence than the theory Calvinists advance: that Christ founded a Visible Church that disappeared off the Face of the Earth and existed only as an Invisible agglomeration of true believers who hid out throughout History until a man never mentioned in Scripture came along and did what Jesus could not do. What silliness.
"We look to Christ and the Apostles, the Scriptures and the Early Fathers of the Church for truth. Those sources of truth are the heritage and common possession of the Church Catholic, and they all existed before the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern or Coptic Churches rose to prominence. "
This is the usual "Invisible Church" subterfuge that Protestants engage in whenever Catholics raise the reality of History. Let's play along with it for a minute. Let's assume arguendo that there was some Church that existed before the Roman Catholic Church (the Church from which Calvin broke away) came along. The putative "REAL CHURCH OF CHRIST," perhaps. Then why didn't Calvin simply join that church instead of setting up his own Theocracy in Geneva? Obviously because that putative "real church" didn't have any corporate existence; it was just a theoretical construct that Protestants use to talk past Catholic arguments from History.
Yet that theoretical construct is an act of non-Faith in Jesus Christ, Visible Church Founder. Christ may have been the Savior of the World but, per Invisible Church proponents, He was an incompetent when it comes to founding a Visible Church. Clearly, the Church He founded in the First Century AD had a corporate existence, as the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council demonstrates. Yet per the Invisible Church apologists, Christ's Visible Church had disappeared and shucked its corporate existence by 1535, so Jean Calvin, a man with no scripturally recorded warrant from God, founded his own visible church. That makes no sense at all.
As Donald Todd said, Augustine, whom Calvin claimed to follow, clearly saw the Roman Bishop as Peter's Successor some 1150 years before Calvin made his break from the Roman Church. Yet, Augustine was not announcing some new dogma. The Roman Bishop's central role in the Catholic Church was recognized in Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses 200 years before Augustine was writing and only 150 or so years after Christ was crucified:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. "
What happened to the Church Christ founded? It grew and expanded throughout the Roman World and Peter had to go on the lam after busting out of Herod's Jail (Acts 12:3-18). He settled in Rome and the bishops of Rome were his successors.
That is a lot more consistent with the Scriptural Evidence than the theory Calvinists advance: that Christ founded a Visible Church that disappeared off the Face of the Earth and existed only as an Invisible agglomeration of true believers who hid out throughout History until a man never mentioned in Scripture came along and did what Jesus could not do. What silliness.
11.25.2010 | 3:39am
Georgiana Agent says:
When I was reading the article, I found I was confused. The purpose of the article is to honor Luther. Anyone who has read a biography of Luther, and of the history with which Luther is associated, has to ask the question: What could anyone want to honor Luther for? All that Jesus did, "speaking" being one the things he "did," the gospels themselves testify are not within them: Are the truths revealed by those many other things Jesus said and did lost forever? The account of Peter's speech at Pentecost ends as follows:
