The Office of the Keys

[david01]

Just a bit of background. I am enjoyed the thread on apostolic succession and have been having an interesting exchange of PM's with a conservative Lutheran pastor on the biblical basis of the office of pastor. Having determined that scripture alone (sola scriptura) does not support this office, he has gone to the fallback postion that it is really not pastors that Lutherans have (although that is what they are called) but holders of the Office of the Keys. To me, this is closely aligned with the concept of Apostolic Succession and is just as fraught with difficulties. I do not believe in it and would like some feedback. Any takers?

 

[IowaLutheran]

Just a bit of background. I am enjoyed the thread on apostolic succession and have been having an interesting exchange of PM's with a conservative Lutheran pastor on the biblical basis of the office of pastor. Having determined that scripture alone (sola scriptura) does not support this office, he has gone to the fallback postion that it is really not pastors that Lutherans have (although that is what they are called) but holders of the Office of the Keys. To me, this is closely aligned with the concept of Apostolic Succession and is just as fraught with difficulties. I do not believe in it and would like some feedback. Any takers?

I think your premise is faulty on at least two grounds:

The Bible seems to be pretty clear that some people are set apart to be be leaders in the Christian community. Ephesians 4:11 mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. 1 Timothy 3 mentions bishops and deacons (the Lutheran church has merged the threefold ministry of bishop/presbyter/deacon into the one office of ordained pastor). So, you're going to have to explain why those passages in the Bible do not mean what they say.

Second, the Lutheran concept of "sola scriptura" does not mean that "if its not in the Bible, we can't have it." That is the result of the radical reformation, not the Lutheran reformation. The Lutheran concept of sola scriptura means that traditions that are contrary to scripture should be eliminated. Traditions that may not have an explicit basis in scripture but are not contrary to scripture are allowed. So, assuming you are correct in that there is not an explicit basis for the office of pastor in the Bible, that does not mean it is contrary to sola scriptura. It would your burden of proof to show that it is actually contrary to scripture. And, given the aforementioned passages, you've got a pretty tough burden.

 

[david01]

I think your premise is faulty on at least two grounds:

The Bible seems to be pretty clear that some people are set apart to be be leaders in the Christian community. Ephesians 4:11 mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. 1 Timothy 3 mentions bishops and deacons (the Lutheran church has merged the threefold ministry of bishop/presbyter/deacon into the one office of ordained pastor). So, you're going to have to explain why those passages in the Bible do not mean what they say.

Second, the Lutheran concept of "sola scriptura" does not mean that "if its not in the Bible, we can't have it." That is the result of the radical reformation, not the Lutheran reformation. The Lutheran concept of sola scriptura means that traditions that are contrary to scripture should be eliminated. Traditions that may not have an explicit basis in scripture but are not contrary to scripture are allowed. So, assuming you are correct in that there is not an explicit basis for the office of pastor in the Bible, that does not mean it is contrary to sola scriptura. It would your burden of proof to show that it is actually contrary to scripture. And, given the aforementioned passages, you've got a pretty tough burden.

I certainly believe that the Bible teaches much concerning leadership of the people of God (Old and New Testaments) and I did not intend to be understood to deny any leadership. I am merely curious about the Office of the Keys and its connection with Apostolic Succession.

However, now that you have mentioned that the Lutheran church has merged elders and deacons (presbyturos and episkopos are used interchangeably in scripture to describe what are commonly called elders or overseers in other churches) into the office of pastor, I will step up to the plate and briefly mention the contradiction between the teaching of scripture and Lutheran tradition. The Bible in I Timothy 3 gives qualifications for two offices - elders (overseers) and deacons (transliterated from diakonos, also translated as servant or minister). To merge two distinct offices into one is no more laudable than inventing an office (say, cardinal) that is not in contradiction to scripture, because it is never mentioned. Either approach sets aside scriptural teaching in favor of a tradition. Thus, a tradition was invented which, indeed, is contrary to scripture, thus abrogating the Lutheran view of sola scripture.

 

[IowaLutheran]

However, now that you have mentioned that the Lutheran church has merged elders and deacons (presbyturos and episkopos are used interchangeably in scripture to describe what are commonly called elders or overseers in other churches) into the office of pastor, I will step up to the plate and briefly mention the contradiction between the teaching of scripture and Lutheran tradition.

I should explain further.

Lutherans have bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and there are different qualifications for each office, just as you mentioned.

What I meant by saying they have been "merged" is that we do not do is reordain them if they move from one office to the other. For example, if a pastor is elected as a bishop, he is not reordained. In the RC tradition, they are reordained.

So, there is no contradiction between scripture and Lutheran tradition as we have maintained the different roles.

 

[BigNorsk]

Just a bit of background. I am enjoyed the thread on apostolic succession and have been having an interesting exchange of PM's with a conservative Lutheran pastor on the biblical basis of the office of pastor. Having determined that scripture alone (sola scriptura) does not support this office, he has gone to the fallback postion that it is really not pastors that Lutherans have (although that is what they are called) but holders of the Office of the Keys. To me, this is closely aligned with the concept of Apostolic Succession and is just as fraught with difficulties. I do not believe in it and would like some feedback. Any takers?

Why if you are talking to a conservative Lutheran Minister, do you post this question in the subforum for the more liberal branches of Lutheranism?

Anyway, are you arguing with him about the specific office of pastor or the office of public ministry?

Lutherans talk about the office of public ministry, not pastor as being divinely appointed. Reason being is that the distinctions in that office such as Bishop, Pastor, Elder, are of human invention, they are in the Bible speaking of the same office.

So yes the office of public ministry is divinely appointed, the office of pastor or minster as such a subdivision is not. See: Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet 5:3; 1 Tim 3; Titus 1;

I'm wondering if maybe the two of you are confusing the call to the office with the office itself or something.

Now as for the Office of the Keys, I'm not sure what he is trying to argue there. Lutherans recognize that all believers hold the keys, that God gave the keys to the church, not to a segment of the church. The Pastor has not special power to forgive sins he is simply chosen as a servant to publicly use the keys given to the church. If the pastor is saying that only pastors are in some special office of the keys then I would say he is wrong. It sounds like a Roman understanding of a special priesthood, not the universal priesthood of believers that Lutherans accept.

Marv

 

[BigNorsk]

I certainly believe that the Bible teaches much concerning leadership of the people of God (Old and New Testaments) and I did not intend to be understood to deny any leadership. I am merely curious about the Office of the Keys and its connection with Apostolic Succession.

However, now that you have mentioned that the Lutheran church has merged elders and deacons (presbyturos and episkopos are used interchangeably in scripture to describe what are commonly called elders or overseers in other churches) into the office of pastor, I will step up to the plate and briefly mention the contradiction between the teaching of scripture and Lutheran tradition. The Bible in I Timothy 3 gives qualifications for two offices - elders (overseers) and deacons (transliterated from diakonos, also translated as servant or minister). To merge two distinct offices into one is no more laudable than inventing an office (say, cardinal) that is not in contradiction to scripture, because it is never mentioned. Either approach sets aside scriptural teaching in favor of a tradition. Thus, a tradition was invented which, indeed, is contrary to scripture, thus abrogating the Lutheran view of sola scripture.

My Lutheran congregation is governed by a plurality of elders of which the pastor is one. And below them is a board of deacons who take care of the worldly problems so that the elders are freed to work on the spritual.

One thing I would suggest is not to get too hung up on what English words are used for things, often the best way to determine what something really is is by it's function.

Take of instance the common church government in many Baptist congregations, a minister with a deacon board. Though the Baptist call it a deacon board, many of them clearly function as elders. Some have only the minister function as an elder and the deacons as deacons and so on. One can get hung up on the words but it's really the function that determines what it really is.

It seems that you have a very rigid idea of how Lutherans have local congregational government. That's really not the case. Many congregations have a minister and a church board with elected offices. Often with that there are also deacon boards trustee boards and so on.

The bible was not really specific on the set up of local church government. We see examples of appointments by one person, we also see votes taken, while we see offices such as overseer and deacon we really don't see how they interacted as such. And so there is indeed quite a variation.

In general though in Lutheranism, the minister or pastor is functioning in the office of public ministry, that would be the office of overseer or elder. Don't get too hung up that the word minister shows up in some common dictionaries under deacon, the minister is not a deacon.

Marv

 

[david01]

Thanks, Marv, for the clarifications. My view really isn't as rigid as it seems, but became that way as the discussion went along. I agree entirely with you that words really mean very little - it is function that matters. It sounds like you have a great church. I now understand that Lutheranism is not as monolithic as I was led to understand. This other fellow seemed to think that the keys were held by pastors only which, as you noted, leads to a lot of the errors of Roman Catholicism.

Thanks again.

David

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

The office of Keys and the pastoral office are not one in the same.
The office of Keys are not the pastor's but the church's. Matthew 18 testifies to this as ultimately discipline goes through the church before the "binding" key can be used.
All "powers and authority" a pastor has technically any Christian has, this is part of the theology of the priesthood of all believers. To assume that the pastor holds the keys and not the whole church is to assume the pastor is something "special" and only by becoming one appropriately can one possess this. The reasons certain things are reserved to pastors only (office of word and sacrament) is because as Luther put it, the church is to have an established order. That is why Paul points out that people are assigned to be teachers, preachers, etc. This is why being called by a congregation is so important. Because by the calling the congregation is entrusting these duties to the pastor. This is different from apostolic succession because apostolic succession suggests that these rights are passed down by bishops through the ages, and the laying of hands makes them something significant or unique. So while pastors preside, and elders make many decisions, ultimately the power rests on the laity. We are the body of Christ, and only by that do we possess the office of keys. A Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 will assume that Jesus passed the Keys to Peter and he "passed the torch" if I may (apostolic succession) whereas Lutherans see Jesus ackowledging Peter's faith in his confession, an acknowledgment that he is a part of that one body.
Peace be with you

 

[david01]

Thanks again for the further clarification.

Just a quick anecdote. I served as an organist for a small Lutheran congregation one which was just being formed. During the year they held regular services with a seminary student presiding. However, the summer in which I was organist, they were without pastoral leadership. As a result, their meetings lacked the usual liturgy and were rather straightforward and simple. Each Sunday a man in the congregation gave a sermon, which I found quite interesting in revealing much about that man's character and faith.