The "priesthood Of Believers"

[consiglieri]

CKS has recently provided a link on another thread to a talk by Blomberg about Mormonism from an evangelical perspective.

As part of that talk, Blomberg makes the traditional Protestant claim that there is no heierarchical form of priesthood that continued after Peter, but citing to 1 Peter 2, claims a "priesthood of believers."

My questions are twofold:

1. If priesthood is not necessary to salvation, why do Protestants nevertheless claim a "priesthood of believers"?

2. Understanding that some Protestants do claim to hold a "priesthood," what is the purpose of that priesthood? If it is not necessary to salvation, what is it's purpose? And if it have no purpose, why bother claiming it in the first place?

Just a few questions from a Mormon seeking to understand better my Protestant friends . . . and maybe stir up a little trouble in the process.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Edited to add that I capitalized the "P" in Priesthood in the title to this thread, but for some reason it came out as a small-case "p" when I posted it. I note this so that nobody thinks I meant anything disrespectful.

[bluebell]

Good questions, i'm interested in learning more about this topic as well.

From the outside-it seems as if protestants recognize that the early Christian church clearly operated via 'authority' and that the church clearly recognized that this authority was necessary to officiate in certain things.

At the same time though-it seems as if protestants have little idea of WHY the early church did so.

Which makes it appear as if they have struck a counter productive balance where they acknowledge a form of the Priesthood (so as to be the same as the early christian church) but deny it has any necessary role to fulfill in the Gospel of Christ (so as to fit in with their present day beliefs about Grace and salvation).

And that is confusing to understand.

[bluebell]

Edited to add that I capitalized the "P" in Priesthood in the title to this thread, but for some reason it came out as a small-case "p" when I posted it. I note this so that nobody thinks I meant anything disrespectful.

I've learned that if you use quotes in the title-the software automatically assumes the quote mark is the first letter of the word and, true to the weird rules the software uses, it won't let you capitalize more than the first letter of any group of letters in a row.

Hence-any word you try to capitalize after a quote will not come out that way when it's posted.

[Lightbearer]

CKS has recently provided a link on another thread to a talk by Blomberg about Mormonism from an evangelical perspective.

As part of that talk, Blomberg makes the traditional Protestant claim that there is no heierarchical form of priesthood that continued after Peter, but citing to 1 Peter 2, claims a "priesthood of believers."

My questions are twofold:

1. If priesthood is not necessary to salvation, why do Protestants nevertheless claim a "priesthood of believers"?

2. Understanding that some Protestants do claim to hold a "priesthood," what is the purpose of that priesthood? If it is not necessary to salvation, what is it's purpose? And if it have no purpose, why bother claiming it in the first place?

Just a few questions from a Mormon seeking to understand better my Protestant friends . . . and maybe stir up a little trouble in the process.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Edited to add that I capitalized the "P" in Priesthood in the title to this thread, but for some reason it came out as a small-case "p" when I posted it. I note this so that nobody thinks I meant anything disrespectful.

Some interesting questions, when I was serving my Mission I would often come accross many Protestants that claimed their "authority" came by virture of the "Bible" which I always thought was totally illogical. Then others would say that Christ was the "Great High Priest" and the only one holding the priesthood. This I found not very understandable either. Then I would be told that baptism was not an essential ordinace (arguably because they really had no true claim to authority) and therefore the priesthood or authority was a "moot point." The only problem is with all of this is that there are definate references in the Bible to Christ having bestowed priesthood authority on His Apostles, so now we have the claim of a "priesthood of all believers" which sounds like a "house of confusion" to me.

[smac97]

1. If priesthood is not necessary to salvation, why do Protestants nevertheless claim a "priesthood of believers"?

Do Protestants believe that "priesthood is not necessary to salvation?"

D&C 84:19-22 provides some clarity as to the role of the priesthood relative to salvation:

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Without the priesthood, man would not have access to saving knowledge of the Gospel, to the saving ordinances of the Gospel, to the "power of godliness," nor would man be able to see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Protestants are, it seems rather strongly divided as to whether ordinances (baptism) are necessary for salvation (so much for "unity in the essentials," eh?). Latter-day Saints, OTOH, believe in saving ordinances (baptism, receiving the priesthood (for men), marriage, etc.), all of which necessarily require the authority of the Priesthood.

2. Understanding that some Protestants do claim to hold a "priesthood," what is the purpose of that priesthood? If it is not necessary to salvation, what is it's purpose? And if it have no purpose, why bother claiming it in the first place?

I'll let our Protestant friends speak for themselves, of course.

-Smac

[cdowis]

I will speak for them.

Priesthood is necessary for the administration of the church, e,g, preaching. It is not essential to the salvation of an individual.

[smac97]

I will speak for them.

Priesthood is necessary for the administration of the church, e,g, preaching. It is not essential to the salvation of an individual.

But since everyone/i] has the priesthood, why are there "ordained" ministers in Protestantism?

Do they have some added measure of priesthood power/authority?

-Smac

[jwhitlock]

I will speak for them.

Priesthood is necessary for the administration of the church, e,g, preaching. It is not essential to the salvation of an individual.

But since the church is not necessary for salvation either, why is authority needed for administration of that which is unnecessary?

[cdowis]

But since the church is not necessary for salvation either, why is authority needed for administration of that which is unnecessary?

The church itself is unnecessary for salvation, but it is the vehicle by which the Good News is sent to all the world, following Christ's Admonition to go to all the world and preach His gospel.

Christ gave his disciples the authority to preach, teach and administer in His church to bring forth the saving message.

[cdowis]

Bottom line, I don't need a mortal man to stand between me and Christ. I go to Christ directly.

[mocnarf]

What are the priesthood offices of various religions and how do these offices relate: I will make a try at building this list but I am sure I will be missing some, so please help me out....

LDS ........... Catholic ........... Protestant ........... Jewish ........... Muslem

deacon ........... deacon ............. deacon ................ ? ............... ?

priest ............. priest ............... pastor ? ............... Rabbi ........... ?

elder ............. bishop .............. ? ........................ ? ................. ?

bishop ........... ?

high priest ....... ? ...................... ? ...................... ? ...................... ?

Stake President (not know if this is a priesthood office per se' or an

administrative office held by a priesthood holder ie: and Elder or high priest)

apostle ............ cardinal ...............? ...................... ? ...................... ?

prophet............. pope ...................... ? ...................... ? ...................... ?

[Uncle Dale]

CKS has recently provided a link on another thread to a talk by Blomberg about Mormonism from an evangelical perspective.

As part of that talk, Blomberg makes the traditional Protestant claim that there is no heierarchical form of priesthood that continued after Peter, but citing to 1 Peter 2, claims a "priesthood of believers."

My questions are twofold:

1. If priesthood is not necessary to salvation, why do Protestants nevertheless claim a "priesthood of believers"?

Perhaps a more illustrative way of saying it, would be "the non-priestcraft of all believers."

It is a belief system in which Jesus is the only (high) priest -- the one who has offered up himself

in the sacrifice which ends any perceived need for an earthly (high) priesthood.

But what is "high priesthood," other than a structured form of the Levitical Priesthood? In the Torah

there is no "high priest," -- only "the priest." In other words, the concept of a "high priest" is an

artificial one --- we should drop the "high" adjective and concentrate upon priesthood itself.

The word can have two meanings: (1) the divine authority to mediate among men on God's behalf,

or, (2) that class of consecrated individuals who possess such authority.

Protestant Christianity vests that authority in God (mediated through Christ) alone -- there are no

intermediate canonized "saints" nor heavenly "virgins" to perform the mediation "in heaven."

Thus, while Anglicans have priests, most other Protestants have ministers (with conservative Lutherans

standing mid-way between Anglicans and true Protestants) ---- these ministers preach the gospel, but

they perform ordinances at the behest of their congregation and not priests possessed of special authority.

Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone recognized baptisms and confirmations performed by

non-ordained laypersons -- I think that Elias Smith and other early American "reformers" did also.

The key concept being, that the baptism is not "made official" by the divine authority of the baptizer,

but by the divine authortity of God Himself. The minister (lay or ordained) thus is not a priest.

But, by removing all priests, the result is that any competent member can function in ministerial roles

previously reserved for "priests." Thus all members belong to the "class" of priests (the #2 definition);

but with the "authority" reserved for God alone.

Make any sense?

UD

2. Understanding that some Protestants do claim to hold a "priesthood," what is the purpose of that priesthood? If it is not necessary to salvation, what is it's purpose? And if it have no purpose, why bother claiming it in the first place?

Just a few questions from a Mormon seeking to understand better my Protestant friends . . . and maybe stir up a little trouble in the process.

Maybe in your second question you are speaking to Episcopalians and conservative Lutherans???

UD

[Chris Smith]

All Christians have the authority and privilege that under the old covenant was reserved for priests, so that Paul says "we may approach God with freedom and confidence" where once only the priests could do so, and even then they might die (cf. Ex. 19:22, Lev. 10:1-3). But the unique duties of the priesthood have passed away, having been fulfilled finally by our great high priest Jesus. Protestants do not believe that priesthood is a thing with its own independent existence, as LDS do. Rather, it merely describes a set of privileges and duties. So when the privileges get extended to all believers, there is a sense in which those believers can legitimately be said to be priests. When the duties pass away, there is a sense in which priesthood has passed away. So Protestants affirm both the priesthood of all believers and the obsolescence of the priesthood.

[Zakuska]

Then others would say that Christ was the "Great High Priest" and the only one holding the priesthood.

This has always been confusing to me too... especially since the Lord Promised the same priesthood that supposedly only Christ has (according to Protestants), to a whole Family line.

Num 25

10

[bluebell]

All Christians have the authority and privilege that under the old covenant was reserved for priests, so that Paul says "we may approach God with freedom and confidence" where once only the priests could do so, and even then they might die (cf. Ex. 19:22, Lev. 10:1-3). But the unique duties of the priesthood have passed away, having been fulfilled finally by our great high priest Jesus. Protestants do not believe that priesthood is a thing with its own independent existence, as LDS do. Rather, it merely describes a set of privileges and duties. So when the privileges get extended to all believers, there is a sense in which those believers can legitimately be said to be priests. When the duties pass away, there is a sense in which priesthood has passed away. So Protestants affirm both the priesthood of all believers and the obsolescence of the priesthood.

so, what does the 'priesthood of all believers' allow a believer do that a non-believer can't do yet?

I mean, a non-believer can approach God just as easily and with confidence just as much as a believer can, here in mortality-This isn't just something that Christians have the authority to do but something that everyone has the authority to do as the Gospel is open to all-believer and non-believer alike-so again, what privileges have been extended to believers that are not extended to non-believers.

I'm still not understanding what this priesthood does for anyone or what it's purpose is-can you explain more.

Thanks CK.

[Chris Smith]

so, what does the 'priesthood of all believers' allow a believer do that a non-believer can't do yet?

I mean, a non-believer can approach God just as easily and with confidence just as much as a believer can, here in mortality-This isn't just something that Christians have the authority to do but something that everyone has the authority to do as the Gospel is open to all-believer and non-believer alike-so again, what privileges have been extended to believers that are not extended to non-believers.

I'm still not understanding what this priesthood does for anyone or what it's purpose is-can you explain more.

Thanks CK.

Believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, the very presence of God, and as such we become the holy of holies when we are so indwelled. This even though the holy of holies once was restricted to the high priest.

But to clarify, the priesthood-of-all-believers is intended more to contrast with the Old Testament's priesthood-of-a-select-few than with the non-priesthood-of-unbelievers.

-CK

[bluebell]

Believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, the very presence of God, and as such we become the holy of holies when we are so indwelled. This even though the holy of holies once was restricted to the high priest.

But to clarify, the priesthood-of-all-believers is intended more to contrast with the Old Testament's priesthood-of-a-select-few than with the non-priesthood-of-unbelievers.

-CK

alright-i think i get what you are saying...

but it brings to mind a new question.

What was 'it', in protestant belief, that allowed some people in the NT to baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost and why couldn't ALL believers do such?

I think understanding that answer to that question will really help me understand the differences in protestant Priesthood and LDS Priesthood.

[consiglieri]

Good point, Bluebell.

Such as the example in Acts, where Philip goes to Samaria and baptizes people in Acts 8, but then sends to Jerusalem for Peter and John to come up and give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Or how about John the Baptist, who says that he himself has authority to baptize with water, but there is one coming after him with authority to baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost? If all believers had the authority to baptize with water, why didn't anybody else do it? Why the need to go to John the Baptist and nobody else?

Perhaps these examples can help refine our discussion?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Chris Smith]

alright-i think i get what you are saying...

but it brings to mind a new question.

What was 'it', in protestant belief, that allowed some people in the NT to baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost and why couldn't ALL believers do such?

I think understanding that answer to that question will really help me understand the differences in protestant Priesthood and LDS Priesthood.

Protestants don't believe that baptism and praying for the baptism of the Holy Spirit are limited to particular people (except maybe that one has to be baptized by the Holy Spirit in order to pray for others to receive it-- thus the problem with John the Baptist). People draw that inference from the case of Philip, but it certainly isn't explicit in the text. Protestants do believe that certain people are gifted for certain kinds of ministry, as in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, quoted below. I'd go so far as to say that for charismatics, at least, this is a keystone text.

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

What determines which kind of ministry you will be engaged in, then, is not your appointment to said ministry by men properly endowed with priesthood authority, but rather your God-given passion and aptitude for that ministry. This is a charismatic leadership model rather than a priesthood leadership model.

-CK

[Uncle Dale]

Good point, Bluebell.

Such as the example in Acts, where Philip goes to Samaria and baptizes people in Acts 8, but then sends to Jerusalem for Peter and John to come up and give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Or how about John the Baptist, who says that he himself has authority to baptize with water, but there is one coming after him with authority to baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost? If all believers had the authority to baptize with water, why didn't anybody else do it? Why the need to go to John the Baptist and nobody else?

Perhaps these examples can help refine our discussion?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

At some point along the way, the Jesus-followers began to talk about "authority" -- who had authority

to do what -- how apostolic authority differed from that of a missionary, etc. etc.

I do not see any of this as relating directly to the precept of the "priesthood of all believers." That is,

I do not see the definitions of priesthood and authority being one in the same, or as having to overlap.

I am a believer (of a sort) --- so, when I elevate the host, does it supernaturally become the body

of Christ by transubstantiation? Do I have that sort of "authority"?

Evidently not.

Does it really matter, when we get down to the very core of gospel essentials?

Evidently not.

UD

[consiglieri]

I think it pretty well settled that the Book of Acts views the gift of the Holy Ghost and its attendant gifts as God's imprimature on those who are Christians acceptable in his sight.

Acts 8 tells us that Philip sent to Jerusalem for John and Peter to come to Samaria and give the gift of the Holy Ghost to the new converts whom Philip had taught and baptized. The two apostles made the trip, laid their hands on the new converts, and they did indeed receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was made manifest by their receipt of gifts.

Simon the Sorceror observed that it was through laying on of the apostles' hands that the gift of the Holy Ghost was given.

Mormons would typically call the power of the apostles to give the gift of the Holy Ghost "priesthood." But whatever you call this power, (whether "priesthood" or "authority"), Acts seems to place it here at the core of gospel principles.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

Protestants don't believe that baptism and praying for the baptism of the Holy Spirit are limited to particular people (except maybe that one has to be baptized by the Holy Spirit in order to pray for others to receive it-- thus the problem with John the Baptist). People draw that inference from the case of Philip, but it certainly isn't explicit in the text. Protestants do believe that certain people are gifted for certain kinds of ministry, as in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, quoted below. I'd go so far as to say that for charismatics, at least, this is a keystone text.

What determines which kind of ministry you will be engaged in, then, is not your appointment to said ministry by men properly endowed with priesthood authority, but rather your God-given passion and aptitude for that ministry. This is a charismatic leadership model rather than a priesthood leadership model.

-CK

so, if i'm understanding correctly-protestants dismiss the accounts in the NT that show that only certain people could baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost as exceptions rather than the 'rule' as to the need for some kind of authority given from God to officiate in the ordinances of the Gospel of Christ.

Why do they believe they are the exception?

[bluebell]

Mormons would typically call the power of the apostles to give the gift of the Holy Ghost "priesthood." But whatever you call this power, (whether "priesthood" or "authority"), Acts seems to place it here at the core of gospel principles.

I agree and this is where my question to CK comes from.

What in the bible shows that what philip did here was an exception rather than the norm? Where does the ability to dismiss this example of how the early Christian Church operated as being 'unnecessary' come from?

[Chris Smith]

Bluebell,

Here is a recent reply to Pacman:

How does the Holy Spirit impart authority? The methodology is clear, via the laying on of hands and I don't think he has tangible hands.

I seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit is limited to a single methodology. Yes, it is common in the New Testament and in modern Christianity for people to lay hands on someone when praying for an impartation of the Holy Spirit (just as when praying for healing). That, however, scarcely means that this is some sort of necessary ordinance before the Holy Spirit can indwell someone. John was indwelled from birth (Lk. 1:15). Zechariah was filled spontaneously (Luke 1:67). See also Lk. 2:25, 3:22, Jn 20:22 (Jesus breathes on his disciples and the receive the Holy Spirit), Acts 2:4 (Holy Spirit comes to disciples as wind and tongues of fire), Acts 2:38 (people are told to repent and be baptized and they will receive the HS), Acts 4:32 (a group of believers is spontaneously filled), etc. I'd say there are plenty of examples of the Holy Spirit indwelling people without any laying on of hands.

Moreover, why could Philip baptize but not lay on of hands?

That is an inference some people have drawn, but I do not think it is particularly warranted.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208219427

You said,

so, if i'm understanding correctly-protestants dismiss the accounts in the NT that show that only certain people could baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost as exceptions rather than the 'rule'

No, you are not understanding. Rather, we deny that any such accounts exist. Philip might have acted as he did for any number of possible reasons. Perhaps he just didn't feel these people were ready. Or perhaps his spiritual function/passion was as an evangelist, and he didn't feel particularly passionate or comfortable praying for them to receive the Holy Spirit. This happens very frequently in modern times. Someone like Billy Graham will go in and get people saved, and then other groups come in and build churches and do spiritual discipleship. Reading your own system back into the passage only proves that it can accommodate your reading; it doesn't prove that your reading is correct.

In any case, I don't think it's even clear that Philip is intentionally deferring to the Apostles in this passage. Consider:

Acts 8

12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

It's clear that by converting a large number of Samaritans, Philip had accomplished something monumental. It was not Philip who called for Peter and John, but the Jerusalem apostles (who had apparently heard through the grapevine). When they arrive on the scene they find that the Holy Ghost "as yet...was fallen upon none of them." What is this expectation that the Holy Spirit might "fall" on them, if in fact it has to be done by proper priesthood authority? The apostles came and backed Philip up, completed his work, not because only they had the authority to do so but rather because that is their calling and their function.

You might also be interested in this post:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208219875

-CK