Still Looking at Lutheranism - and Did the early church have priests???

[Markie Boy]

So I am still looking at Lutheranism. I am wary coming out of the Catholic church - as a lot of things "look" too similar, so moving slow.

But I like the way Jordan Cooper and Bryan Wolfmeuller teach, and the law and gospel balance. I have learned this much:

1. I am not a Dispensationalist
2. I do not believe in Once Saved Always Saved

This excludes me from most modern churches in the US it feels like - or at least in my area. And these seem to be huge, obvious errors - I don't get that.

Our local LCMS seems like mostly older people, not much life, and seems shrinking, while the local non-denom is growing and younger, and people taking their faith seriously. I talked with someone that helps with the liturgy at the LCMS and he drops the F word and it makes me pause. It just seems like the older liturgical groups are a thing many do to check the box on Sunday, but not necessarily strive to live all week. I guess that's become my view of the old liturgical faiths. Am I way wrong?

And two - any evidence that the early church did or did not have priests? I don't see a single priest ordained in the New Testament, and don't believe I need one to access God.

 

[JM]

If the LCMS is preaching and teaching the truth as you have come to understand it why not join? You can make a difference by joining, taking part in the services, maybe become a deacon and evangelize the surrounding area. Speak to the Pastor and see where they are at.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Hey, maybe I can help with a couple of things:

To swear is a sin and that is not reflective of Lutheran, or indeed, Christian piety. While we can and maybe should measure a church by its practice, we also have to be very careful of it, because there are many who may adhere to a system, but do not accurately proclaim or live according to it. This goes for anything in life.

The Bible itself gives us examples of and promotes liturgy, and the Lutheran liturgy consists nearly entirely of Biblical passages, so it's a wonderful gift, properly received! It contains God's Word that brings about repentance and comforts us with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Regarding priests — I'd be happy to elaborate on this, but the short of it is that Bishop, Priest, Pastor, Overseer, Elder, Presbyter etc. is the same thing. God instituted one teaching office, which is commonly referred to as "Pastor" in America, and "Priest" in Europe. Paul uses these words interchangeably in the Holy Bible.

The order of Bishops as something above the Pastoral office is a later (though still very early) development and not known in the New Testament time. The reason our friends the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and to some degree Anglican and some Lutherans receive Bishops as something by divine right, is that they believe in a form of Holy Tradition. This is the idea that God speaks to us not only through His Word, but also through tradition. But the Confessional Lutheran stance on this is that the office of Bishop is not by divine right, for it is not instituted in the Holy Scriptures. But we may still retain the office for good order, out of our freedom in Christ.

So, in short, the teaching office instituted by Jesus is not the same as the priestly office in the Old Testament, nor is it something lower than other supposed offices such as Bishop or Pope. Simply, Priest is the same as Pastor in Biblical terminology. So, yes, the New Testament had priests, and we still do. Only it's not according to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

As a side note, and to clarify, I can mention that it's common to distinguish between Priest and Pastor in our time to make a distinction between which church body they serve in. But this is a modern usage.

 

[Markie Boy]

Thanks Daniel. The one real distinction I think - is that a priest is a mediator between God and man, and he also makes sacrifices for man.

I think the Catholic church still teaches these things - you need the priest for confession and to offer the sacrifice of the mass, which they teach is still a propitiation.

Faith groups without a priest generally teach confession direct to God, and the sacrifice we offer would be our lives as a living sacrifice and the praise of our lips, just as general differences.

I am not sure where Lutheranism is on these two things I guess - is the Eucharist a propitiation, and is confession to the pastor or to God?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Thanks Daniel. The one real distinction I think - is that a priest is a mediator between God and man, and he also makes sacrifices for man.

I think the Catholic church still teaches these things - you need the priest for confession and to offer the sacrifice of the mass, which they teach is still a propitiation.

Faith groups without a priest generally teach confession direct to God, and the sacrifice we offer would be our lives as a living sacrifice and the praise of our lips, just as general differences.

I am not sure where Lutheranism is on these two things I guess - is the Eucharist a propitiation, and is confession to the pastor or to God?

Well, that's how we may commonly understand it in our time, but that's not how the words are used in the Bible itself. The word "priest" comes from the Greek "presbyter". And "presbyter" is the same as "episkopoi", which we translate as "bishop" or "overseer". And both of these are the same as "poimen", which we translate as "shepherd" or "pastor".

To demonstrate with emphasised words, Paul says in Acts 20: "Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the PRESBUTEROS / PRIESTS of the church to come to him. And when they came to him, he said to them ... Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you EPISKOPOS / BISHOPS / OVERSEERS, to POIMAINO (Poimen) / SHEPHERD (Pastor) for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."

So, Biblically speaking, using the same language as Paul, we can understand that there is only one office instituted by God to publically preach God's Word.

The Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the priesthood is different from this, and somewhat complex. It's tied to their understanding of the institution of the Church. In simple terms though, the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran understanding is that the Roman Catholics hold that the power or authority to exercise the gifts of God belongs to the minister. We, Lutherans, reject that, and instead confess that the power and authority belong to Christ alone, and that the pastor is simply an ambassador or a servant.

So to take the example of the Eucharist, in the Roman Catholic understanding, the body and blood of Christ is Jesus' own sacrifice, but offered up as an unbloody sacrifice in the mass, which is effective by the work that the priest is doing, by the authority given him by Christ. The Lutheran understanding is very different. It is God who gives us His gifts of His Word and body and blood, through the pastor, for our comfort. And if we were to talk about a sacrifice, then it would be a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise (Psalm 50:14, Hebrews 13:15, "Eucharist" means "thanksgiving").

To use simple language: Is a Lutheran Pastor or a New Testament Pastor / Priest / Bishop a middleman between people and God? No, not in the sense of what our friends the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic are teaching. But does the Bible make a distinction between laity and the pastoral office? Yes, for it says that not everyone is called to teach (James 3:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-7). Again, very simply, regarding the Eucharist and also Baptism, they are not something we do for ourselves or for God, but something God in His love and grace does for us. Just as He gives us the Gospel through people either by speaking or writing, He also gives us His gifts of Baptism and the Eucharist through people. It's no different, because they belong together and they have to do with the same thing: namely, Jesus Christ crucified for us.

 

[Valletta]

To use simple language: Is a Lutheran Pastor or a New Testament Pastor / Priest / Bishop a middleman between people and God? No, not in the sense of what our friends the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic are teaching. But does the Bible make a distinction between laity and the pastoral office? Yes, for it says that not everyone is called to teach (James 3:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-7). Again, very simply, regarding the Eucharist and also Baptism, they are not something we do for ourselves or for God, but something God in His love and grace does for us. Just as He gives us the Gospel through people either by speaking or writing, He also gives us His gifts of Baptism and the Eucharist through people. It's no different, because they belong together and they have to do with the same thing: namely, Jesus Christ crucified for us.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 3 PARAGRAPH 1

 

[Daniel9v9]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 3 PARAGRAPH 1

We agree with this, but we disagree with the Roman Catholic understanding of the priesthood (their order and function) and what is referred to as ex opere operato.

 

[Valletta]

We agree with this, but we disagree with the Roman Catholic understanding of the priesthood (their order and function) and what is referred to as ex opere operato.

We believe the sacraments come from the power of God, not from the priest. Some sacraments a priest does not even have to be present, such as marriage and Baptism.

 

[Daniel9v9]

We believe the sacraments come from the power of God, not from the priest. Some sacraments a priest does not even have to be present, such as marriage and Baptism.

I can concede that the language of "power" is maybe not accurate or at least confusing, but what I'm talking about has to do with authority and the Office of the Keys, and again, the doctrine of ex opere operato.

The Roman Catholic and the Lutheran systems are different because they assume different sources of authority. The Roman Catholic Church assumes as its authority the Church, which includes the Scriptures, Pope, councils, and Holy Tradition. This is summed up in your Catechism as "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture". The Lutheran Church assumes as its authority the Scriptures. And out of this, we have two very different systems, in which the doctrine(s) regarding the pastoral office works out differently.

 

[Diamond7]

So I am still looking at Lutheranism. I am wary coming out of the Catholic church - as a lot of things "look" too similar, so moving slow.

Episcopal, Lutheran & Methodist churches follow the book of common prayer. All three have apostolic succession. There are conservative and liberal Lutheran churches. The conservatives want to keep the Old Hymn book.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Episcopal, Lutheran & Methodist churches follow the book of common prayer. All three have apostolic succession. There are conservative and liberal Lutheran churches. The conservatives want to keep the Old Hymn book.

You are totally incorrect. Cranmar's BoCP was based on the post reformation Lutheran Practices and translated from the Lutheran services while he studied during his time in what we now would call Germany. He married the niece of one of the most prominent Lutheran Theologians of that time. Some Lutheran Churches make a big deal out of Apostolic Succession, but interestingly, the more conservative groups do not. Conservative Churches could care less about the "Old Hymn Book" or we would still be worshiping in Latin; for us, it is two much older books that we hold to: The Bible and the 1580 unaltered Book of Concord.

There is a rule here that non members can not teach in a congregational forum; but may post in agreement. This is the confessional forum, and seeing what you posted, you are not a Confessional Lutheran. Please keep this in mind when posting here.

Community Rules
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

yea the LCMS is a good denomination. Lutherans don't hold to apostolic succession, and have unique view of priests. However, this is something not really talked or written much about; and a criticism I have of them and many other protestants, they write lots of theology books but I haven't seen any on this topic.

 

[Shane R]

yea the LCMS is a good denomination. Lutherans don't hold to apostolic succession, and have unique view of priests. However, this is something not really talked or written much about; and a criticism I have of them and many other protestants, they write lots of theology books but I haven't seen any on this topic.

 

[Markie Boy]

That book looks interesting - is it an ELCA book or more conservative?

I guess my real question is, did the early church have a priesthood offering sacrifice of the Eucharist or Mass like Catholic and Orthodox today?

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

that is questionable. we just don't know because most of the churches in Persia, Central Asia, and China didn't leave any books behind, even though we know there were a lot of churches, in fact most churches were non-European for the first 600 years before Islam took over those regions. Either the books were not preserved because of climate or they were burned.... see Jenkins (the Lost History of Christianity); Lutheranism is very much a Western church in that it assumes the answer to your question is yes whereas the Reformed are willing to go out on a limb and have a view of the sacraments that would seem to most to be incongruous with most of Christian history. For example, was Augustine unique or merely saying what any hierarch from modern day Turkmenistan would say; were there Calvin's in modern day Persia(the Sassanian Empire)--- it's possible. Remember, the book of Daniel was written in Aramaic, the language spoken in Characene, (AD 222 - 141 BC); One thing I've often wondered is how important baptism was in these desert regions where water is scarce.

 

[Markie Boy]

Yes - I don't see anyone in the New Testament being ordained a priest. The word priest is only used for Jesus as the high priest, and people as the priesthood of all believers. I don't see a ministerial priesthood anywhere in the New Testament, which makes me skeptical. One of the biggest problems of the early church were Jewish traditions constantly pushing back into Christianity - so I could see the idea of priesthood creeping back in.

But when there is not a single usage of the word priest for a minister in the NT, other than what I said above, I'm skeptical. We have episkopos and presbuteros which seem to be interchangeable, not heirarchy of one over the other.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes - I don't see anyone in the New Testament being ordained a priest. The word priest is only used for Jesus as the high priest, and people as the priesthood of all believers. I don't see a ministerial priesthood anywhere in the New Testament, which makes me skeptical. One of the biggest problems of the early church were Jewish traditions constantly pushing back into Christianity - so I could see the idea of priesthood creeping back in.

But when there is not a single usage of the word priest for a minister in the NT, other than what I said above, I'm skeptical. We have episkopos and presbuteros which seem to be interchangeable, not heirarchy of one over the other.

Presbyter is Priest.

 

[Markie Boy]

Presbyter is Priest.

I see how the words both start with P, but from what I understand episkapos and presbyter are interchangeable, and more literally translate to "elder" or "overseer" - not the same word that is translated to priest. Hiereus in the Greek translates to priest, and is only used for Jesus the high priest, and the priesthood of all believers. There is never a reference to Hiereus as a New Testament church pastor.

 

[Valletta]

I see how the words both start with P, but from what I understand episkapos and presbyter are interchangeable, and more literally translate to "elder" or "overseer" - not the same word that is translated to priest. Hiereus in the Greek translates to priest, and is only used for Jesus the high priest, and the priesthood of all believers. There is never a reference to Hiereus as a New Testament church pastor.

Presbyter | Christianity

presbyter, (from Greek presbyteros, “elder”), an officer or minister in the early Christian Church intermediate between bishop and deacon or, in modern Presbyterianism, an alternative name for elder. The word presbyter is etymologically the original form of “priest.” The history of...

www.britannica.com

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I see how the words both start with P, but from what I understand episkapos and presbyter are interchangeable, and more literally translate to "elder" or "overseer" - not the same word that is translated to priest. Hiereus in the Greek translates to priest, and is only used for Jesus the high priest, and the priesthood of all believers. There is never a reference to Hiereus as a New Testament church pas

Oops.