The debate about forgiving -- is it just priests that forgive?

Valletta · Jan 17, 2023

Darren Court said:
A person would think that God in his Wisdom would indeed leave some kind of guide.
If a person thought so they would not only be wrong but guilty of arrogance in their implied assumption they know better. Moreover, since scripture is "God breathed", "useful" to "thoroughly equip" for "every good work", God's word is clearly sufficient.

Likewise one can see the wisdom of God in confession,
I too can see the purpose and wisdom in confessing to EACH other. I can even see the rational and benefit of confessing to a Priest. What I cannot see is any scriptural support that we must confess to a Priest.

..while I have heard a lot of people say they will just confess their sins to God, confessing sins in front of another person takes some reflection on your sins and is harder than just a quick "Sorry God" going out the door.
I am saddened by anyone who takes confession to God less seriously than to a Priest. Such people cannot have a relationship with God to have such an understanding.
.
Furthermore, simply confessing to a Priest without being repentant toward God will not produce forgiveness.

Thinking what might be is hardly presumption, coming to understand God's wisdom and will is a blessing.
The priesthood is an essential part of the Bible, remember David spoke of the “order of Melchizedek.”
It is God who forgives our sins at confession, all power comes from God. So the difference is that in one case there is a man before you who can even ask you questions and give you advice, in both cases forgiveness comes from God.

Paidiske · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
It does tell us that in the Romans 7 context/definition for LAW - he thinks that marriage is legal and this is presumably the case even if one is not married under the Roman empire.

The wedding at Cana in John 2 also makes it appear that it is a formal event with public witness.

He is not specifying exactly what they did - but he does tell us that it is a legal form and that adultery is determined by that form such that it is unlawful when one is married to then be joined to someone else. Which is certainly an idea that Jews and Christians would be familiar with based on the Ten Commandments that are also quoted from in Rom 7 and Rom 13.

I'm not following what point you're trying to make. This thread of the discussion started with @Darren Court's question about how the church might develop wedding customs, to which I answered that Scripture doesn't prescribe a particular form of wedding custom. You seem to agree on that, and nobody is denying that some form of public wedding is a good thing, so I'm not sure what point you're making?

GDL said:
One example having to do with this thread: What's a priest in the NC Writings? A quick search in the NKJ translation shows 964 occurrences of priest(s) in the Bible. Switching over to the Greek word it shows 795 with only 33 instances in the NC. Glancing through these NC uses it's used to speak of the OC priests, Jesus Christ as the new Priest, and in Revelation believers as the Kingdom of Priests of God and Christ. At quick glance I see no office of priest other than the just mentioned.

So, where do we get this picture presented by our Anglican priest, the garments, the collar, the seeming confusion about authority to absolve of sins among other authorities? The RCC article I'm reading is using the word "priest" to translate the Greek word for "elders" - a word used in the LXX word for "old" people and elders in Israel. Why does RCC use "priest"?

When we start looking at the matter of elders, we have Peter talking to elders as a "fellow elder" (1Pet5:1). We have John referring to himself as 'the elder" (2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1). On the one hand the theory is that the "keys" & office of Apostle given to Peter (& John) were losing relevance as the Lord's Community was being established in many locales with elders being put in place. On the other hand, we have Rome's theory of succession and authorities from which come all this [theoretical] hierarchal structure of "The Church". And from there we have many breaks based upon many factors. We also have discussion on what exactly is "The Church"?

The word priest as we have it is a linguistic contraction of the Greek word presbyter, (elder). (In older English sources you will still often see clergy called "presbyter," or even "prester," but it's shortened over time). So you are correct that what we mean by "priest" in the church today is seen as a continuation of New Testament elders.

By the way, it's a side note, but the clerical collar was a Presbyterian invention which others later adopted. Before that, a white cravat had been a popular choice for clerical dress.

GDL · Jan 17, 2023

Paidiske said:
The word priest as we have it is a linguistic contraction of the Greek word presbyter, (elder). (In older English sources you will still often see clergy called "presbyter," or even "prester," but it's shortened over time). So you are correct that what we mean by "priest" in the church today is seen as a continuation of New Testament elders.

I'm not sure what you mean by linguistic contraction. Maybe the etymology below will help, but we're dealing with Hebrew and Greek words in our Scriptures and there is a distinct Greek word for "priest" and a distinct Greek word for "elder." To have the "church" or whatever "church" one decides is the "church" appoint someone as a "priest" does not seem to be Scriptural. The Scriptural case seems to be the priesthood of believers all under the Great High Priest - Jesus Christ. From among them are elders and deacons, etc.

I can see some etymology outside of the church, but I wouldn't let secular etymology turn a Biblical Elder into a Biblical Priest: priest | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

priest (n.)

Middle English prēst, "cleric ranking below a bishop and above a deacon, a parish priest," from Old English preost, which probably was shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros "elder (of two), old, venerable," comparative of presbys "old" (see presby-).

-------------------

From what I can see this "priest" category may have come about in the early days of Rome. It seems we're dealing with another one of Rome's traditions it determined to be appropriate.

I can also see that the Anglican Diocese of Sydney may no longer be using the term "priest" but preferring "presbyter". Both this and the statement just above are from Wikipedia pages, which I don't normally use for things like this, but here they are anyway.

None of this is seemingly uncommon for Rome and organizations stemming from Rome. There are also such issues with "Saints" since this is a common English translation of a Greek word used to speak of believers and not just those designated or honored by Rome.

It seems it's just one tradition after another and making things up & splitting as things proceed.

Paidiske · Jan 17, 2023

GDL said:
I'm not sure what you mean by linguistic contraction. Maybe the etymology below will help, but we're dealing with Hebrew and Greek words in our Scriptures and there is a distinct Greek word for "priest" and a distinct Greek word for "elder." To have the "church" or whatever "church" one decides is the "church" appoint someone as a "priest" does not seem to be Scriptural. The Scriptural case seems to be the priesthood of believers all under the Great High Priest - Jesus Christ. From among them are elders and deacons, etc. ...

It seems it's just one tradition after another and making things up & splitting as things proceed.

That was exactly my point. "Priest," in contemporary Christian usage, means elder in the New Testament sense. The word itself derives from the Koine Greek word for elder. It is unfortunate that we also use the word priest for the other sense - of the one who makes sacrifices to a deity - but that is not the kind of priest I am or the Church has today.

We're not "making up" the office of elder. It's right there in the New Testament.

GDL · Jan 17, 2023

Paidiske said:
That was exactly my point. "Priest," in contemporary Christian usage, means elder in the New Testament sense. The word itself derives from the Koine Greek word for elder. It is unfortunate that we also use the word priest for the other sense - of the one who makes sacrifices to a deity - but that is not the kind of priest I am or the Church has today.

We're not "making up" the office of elder. It's right there in the New Testament.

It seems the office of priest is being made up. That's the point. Elder and deacon and overseer (sometimes translated bishop) seem to be the Biblical offices, each having their own Greek words. Priest is a 4th Greek word (hiereus not presbuteros - elders) and Biblically is not an appointed office in the Ekklesia.

Paidiske · Jan 17, 2023

GDL said:
It seems the office of priest is being made up. That's the point. Elder and deacon and overseer (sometimes translated bishop) seem to be the Biblical offices, each having their own Greek words. Priest is a 4th Greek word (hiereus not presbuteros - elders) and Biblically is not an appointed office in the Ekklesia.

Headdesk. The office of priest, as it exists in the Church today, is the NT office of elder. It's the very same word (shortened over time as English developed)! Presbyteros -> Presbyter -> Prester -> Priest. Elder. Same thing.

The church today does not have an equivalent to a hiereus. Because you are correct; that is not a Biblical office in the Church.

BobRyan · Jan 17, 2023

Paidiske said:
I'm not following what point you're trying to make. This thread of the discussion started with @Darren Court's question about how the church might develop wedding customs, to which I answered that Scripture doesn't prescribe a particular form of wedding custom. You seem to agree on that, and nobody is denying that some form of public wedding is a good thing, so I'm not sure what point you're making?

I thought I was responding to your post saying that just because something is not in the Bible it does not make it wrong - and then connecting that to the subject title of this thread - and giving as an example - the marriage ceremony.

Paidiske · Jan 17, 2023

BobRyan said:
I thought I was responding to your post saying that just because something is not in the Bible it does not make it wrong - and then connecting that to the subject title of this thread - and giving as an example - the marriage ceremony.

Well, sure. Just because something is not in the Bible doesn't make it wrong. (The Puritans tried to forbid wedding rings because they aren't in the Bible, for example, but few Christians today would say it's wrong to wear a wedding ring).

But the reason for raising marriage was a different one, and was about how we handle situations where the sincerity of the person concerned goes to the validity of what the church says.

The Liturgist · Jan 18, 2023

Paidiske said:
I'm not following what point you're trying to make. This thread of the discussion started with @Darren Court's question about how the church might develop wedding customs, to which I answered that Scripture doesn't prescribe a particular form of wedding custom. You seem to agree on that, and nobody is denying that some form of public wedding is a good thing, so I'm not sure what point you're making?

The word priest as we have it is a linguistic contraction of the Greek word presbyter, (elder). (In older English sources you will still often see clergy called "presbyter," or even "prester," but it's shortened over time). So you are correct that what we mean by "priest" in the church today is seen as a continuation of New Testament elders.

By the way, it's a side note, but the clerical collar was a Presbyterian invention which others later adopted. Before that, a white cravat had been a popular choice for clerical dress.

And as an intermediate some Anglican bishops and many reformed clergy especially in the Continental tradition use teaching bands. Some continental reformed priests wear elegant liturgical green teaching bands. Then, in the Lutheran Church of Denmark, bishops still wear a very 16th century looking ruffled collar, making them look like episcopal iterations of Sir Francis Drake, but its a good look.

GDL · Jan 18, 2023

Paidiske said:
Headdesk. The office of priest, as it exists in the Church today, is the NT office of elder. It's the very same word (shortened over time as English developed)! Presbyteros -> Presbyter -> Prester -> Priest. Elder. Same thing.

The church today does not have an equivalent to a hiereus. Because you are correct; that is not a Biblical office in the Church.

I don't know what Headdesk is.

Same thing according to some tradition maybe. But obviously not the Biblical language since all 4 words are in still in use in Scripture and Jesus is a Priest and Peter in 1Pet2 and John in Revelation both speak of believers as priests - a Kingdom of Priests.

As I said, some secular or religious tradition of etymology, but obviously in conflict with Scripture.

Paidiske · Jan 18, 2023

GDL said:
I don't know what Headdesk is.

It's an expression of frustration.

GDL said:
As I said, some secular or religious tradition of etymology, but obviously in conflict with Scripture.

It's in conflict with Scripture that we use (a contraction of) the Greek word for elder for the people who hold the office of elder?

The Liturgist · Jan 18, 2023

Paidiske said:
It's an expression of frustration.

Oh, like facepalm. That’s rather a good one. Is that Australian slang or am I just spectacularly out of touch?

GDL · Jan 18, 2023

Paidiske said:
It's an expression of frustration.ot

It's in conflict with Scripture that we use (a contraction of) the Greek word for elder for the people who hold the office of elder?

Thought so. Well, in presenting yourself in Greek as a "young lady" even "young servant girl" ironically simultaneously presenting herself as a collared "elder" with the confused title of "priest" your frustration meme & lack of patience in explaining your religious tradition speaks about you, not me or others you're communicating with. This is a general theology thread, not an Anglican safehouse.

Why would someone in your position get frustrated when being presented with Scripture? Tradition trumps Gods Word? Etymology and change and even transliteration of human language trumps accurate Biblical terminology? You do realize this is a prime example of why those who value God's Word view many religious traditions with great caution, don't you? But I recall you previously saying something about not having to answer ignorance. So, along with childish frustration we can add a little youthful arrogance into the picture.

As a believer priest submitted to the Great High Priest and Head of His Ekklesia - His Body, I proactively forgive you.

Yes, priest and elder being used as the same thing is a conflict with Scripture. In the NC Scripture, they are not the same thing. I'm not even sure they were equivalents in the OC but I'm not at this point going to analyze 700+ verses. This is probably why the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is or has seemingly changed "priest" to "presbyter" and probably having to do with a Protestant vs. Roman leaning. BTW an etymology or a transliteration from one language to another is not a "linguistic contraction".

The Liturgist · Jan 18, 2023

GDL said:
As I said, some secular or religious tradition of etymology, but obviously in conflict with Scripture.

Nonsense. If you read the Greek there is no conflict at all, since unlike certain English translations the word heiros or sacerdos is used for priests in the sense of Kohanim, and presbyteros in the sense of elders, which is to say, Christian priests or presbyters.

As an aside, I would note with some amusement that Presbyterian churches could have alternatively called themselves Presterian or Priesterian or even Elderian and these usages would be accurate. Likewise I suppose the Episcopal church could call itself the Superintendental Church.

GDL · Jan 18, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Oh, like facepalm. That’s rather a good one. Is that Australian slang or am I just spectacularly out of touch?

You're out of touch. I had to look it up and ask to make certain. Encouraging youthful arrogance is also out of touch. I forgive you too but won't use "absolve" as it may contain too much traditional baggage and unbiblical authority.

The Liturgist · Jan 18, 2023

GDL said:
Why would someone in your position get frustrated when being presented with Scripture?

You haven’t presented her with any scripture which contradicts any statement she has made. I would expect the frustration comes from the fact that things have been explained repeatedly and in accordance with scripture, tradition and reason.

The Anglican tradition is a Sola Scriptura tradition.

Lastly, according to the Bible, the Word of God is literally Jesus Christ (John 1:1-17) and not the Scriptures, which merely describe Him.

GDL · Jan 18, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Nonsense. If you read the Greek there is no conflict at all, since unlike certain English translations the word heiros or sacerdos is used for priests in the sense of Kohanim, and presbyteros in the sense of elders, which is to say, Christian priests or presbyters.

As an aside, I would note with some amusement that Presbyterian churches could have alternatively called themselves Presterian or Priesterian or even Elderian and these usages would be accurate. Likewise I suppose the Episcopal church could call itself the Superintendental Church.

Nonsense to you and your friend, but not nonsense in NC Scripture unless you can show me the Scripture and I agree with you and in that case will stand corrected. I am looking at the Greek. If I've missed some exegetical point, please present the actual Scripture. As I recall you've attempted to negate my read before by simply telling me you're an expert or something with Greek and I should therefore trust you. If that was you and me, I answered you then, so no need to do so this time.

The way I see the NC priesthood of believers, a believer priest can also be an elder, but not all priests are elders. They are not equivalent terms.

I suppose the same amusement at confusion can be applied to the Anglicans changing from priest to presbyter, but I'm not amused by confusion.

GDL · Jan 18, 2023

The Liturgist said:
You haven’t presented her with any scripture which contradicts any statement she has made. I would expect the frustration comes from the fact that things have been explained repeatedly and in accordance with scripture, tradition and reason.

The Anglican tradition is a Sola Scriptura tradition.

Lastly, according to the Bible, the Word of God is literally Jesus Christ (John 1:1-17) and not the Se purely Scriptures, which merely describe Him.

Are you stepping in for yourself, or as a self-appointed protector? Am I dealing with you now, or am I to use your oversight to discuss with her?

The Anglican tradition from what I read is a blend of Romanism and Protestantism. To be purely SS, they'd have to let go of a lot of Roman tradition.

I'm familiar with the historical Word that shows up throughout Scripture. I'm also familiar with the "Word of God" in Scripture referring to Scripture. I'll leave it to you to review the 50+/- times the phrase shows up in Scripture to see if it ever refers to His written Word or His people passing on His message. This is a bit of a distraction, don't you think?

Paidiske · Jan 18, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Is that Australian slang or am I just spectacularly out of touch?

I'm sure I couldn't say.

GDL said:
Why would someone in your position get frustrated when being presented with Scripture?

Because, as @The Liturgist points out, explaining repeatedly and having that explanation dismissed without any real refutation (or apparent understanding) is very frustrating.

GDL said:
Tradition trumps Gods Word? Etymology and change and even transliteration of human language trumps accurate Biblical terminology? You do realize this is a prime example of why those who value God's Word view many religious traditions with great caution, don't you?

If there's a problem with the word usage here, it's that English has no separate word for what Greek means by a hiereus. So we have inappropriately applied the word for elder to that as well, including in our New Testament translations, thus confusing the situation.

GDL said:
Yes, priest and elder being used as the same thing is a conflict with Scripture. In the NC Scripture, they are not the same thing.

I can agree that it would be a good thing to distinguish between hiereus and presbyteros. Since presbyteros is the word lying behind what we call a priest, though, my preferred solution would be to use a distinct word for hiereus, as @The Liturgist did above when using the Hebrew word Kohanim. It's not a bad thing for our church usage to reflect NT Greek language roots (rather than defaulting to a Germanic alternative, elder).

GDL said:
This is probably why the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is or has seemingly changed "priest" to "presbyter" and probably having to do with a Protestant vs. Roman leaning.

It's not even a change. Even in the Anglican prayer book used in the rest of Australia the relevant ordination service is listed as "The ordination of priests also called presbyters." They are, in our usage, interchangeable terms.

GDL · Jan 19, 2023

Paidiske said:
They are, in our usage, interchangeable terms.

And this is the problem. It's interesting how we can be talking past one another on this matter. You seem to think the etymology proves your case. I'm presenting it to show the problem.

If I simply translate from Greek to English heireus means priest & presbuteros means elder. Their Hebrew counterparts mean the same. The Greek Lexicons show these meanings.

Then we look at etymology involving the Vulgar Latin, and presby which means old magically becomes prester and the beginning of the route to priest. It's like dog becoming cat through Roman street language when Classical Latin retained the concept of old from the Greek.

If we look at old translations into English, Tyndale translates presbuteros as elder. Douay-Rheims which as I understand is a translation commissioned by the Pope at the time, translates it as priest from Jerome who used the presby wording and not prester.

This is real simple. If we just stick with the Biblical Text and translate from Greek to English, this language issue is settled. As soon as we let the Vulgar Latin start ruling, in comes changes and confusion stemming from Roman street language in the early centuries and carrying on through organizations based in Romanism who so badly desire to retain their traditions.

In regard to the Sydney Diocese alteration. As soon as the terminology regains the presby form, we're dealing with the tie back into Classical Latin and Greek which brings us back to elder, not priest.

The debate about forgiving -- is it just priests that forgive?

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Junior Member

Clara bonam audax

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency