Time for new reformation re: understanding of Biblical priesthood, sainthood, & ordination [Vanity]

Colofornian | June 26, 2014 | Colofornian

[Colofornian]

Mass confusion is still extant pertaining to three key Christian words -- each related to "ministry" and those who serve God:
"priesthood"
"saints"
"ordination"

Each of these words have, unfortunately, been largely skewed by the historical Church: The first two by Roman Catholicism; the latter by Protestantism.

'Holy Priesthood...Royal Priesthood'

No New Testament-based Church can neglect 1 Peter 2:4-9 and Revelation 1:5-6 plus Revelation 5:10 in its definition of "priesthood."

In 1 Peter 2, the "holy priesthood" (verse 5) and the "royal priesthood" (verse 9) are described as a privilege presented to those who...
...come to Christ (verse 4);
...are chosen by God (verse 4);
...are precious to God (verse 4);
...make up God's "spiritual household" (verse 5);
...are God's "people" (verse 9);
...are a "holy nation" (verse 9);
...are God's "special possession" (verse 9);
..."declare the praises of" God (verse 9)

Here are the specific verses cited in context:

4 As YOU come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 YOU also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
8 and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”[d] They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9 But YOU are a chosen PEOPLE, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a HOLY NATION, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a PEOPLE, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The obvious questions then arise when reading these passages: Do only males...
...come to Christ?
...become objects of His chosen ones?
...become valued as "precious" by God?
...become His "special possession"?
...declare God's praises?

And exactly what kind of a "spiritual household" would such a "household" be if it excluded females?

Is Peter's reference to God's people in verse 9 gender-restricted? What kind of a "people" would that be?

What is a "holy nation" that is gender-homogenous?

Or what is a "kingdom" that constitutes males only? (see Revelation 1:5-6 and Revelation 5:10 for context)

Is 'Ministry' -- a word that simply means 'Service' -- best reflected within a hierarchical structure? Or, rather, as Christ Himself served, being a bond-servant of Him?

In the New American Standard Bible, which strives more toward a fairly literal translation...
...Peter referenced Himself as a "bond-servant" of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).
So did James (James 1:1).
So did Jude (Jude 1).
So did Paul (Titus 1:1; 2 Cor. 4:5, etc.), who also included Timothy in that description (Phil. 1:1).
Paul also labeled Epaphras (Col. 1:7) and Tychicus (Col. 4:7) as such.
And the apostle John uses the phrase nine times in the book of Revelation (1:1; 2:20; 7:3; 11:18; 15:3; 19:2,5; 22:3,6).
Finally, Paul even describes Jesus Himself as a "bondservant" (Phil. 2:7)!

What is a "bond-servant?" Well, the New American Standard version also highlighted its more literal usage: A bond-servant of Jesus Christ is simply a bondslave of Jesus Christ (see Col. 4:12 re Epaphras reference; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:16)

At the time the apostle Paul wrote his letter to those in Christ at Rome, about one-third of the Roman world was slaves...bond-servants.

And it's no coincidence that Peter references "bondservant" just seven verses (1 Pet. 2:16) after his "royal priesthood" reference (v. 9): Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God."

You see, the common notion of "priesthood" has been historically skewed by layers of ecclesiastical bureaucracy. The "priesthood" isn't "one-upsmanship" in terms of service. The very words "ministry" and "service" is what is provided by the Bondslaves operating from a spiritual posture on their knees; not ecclesiastical "magistrates" administratively "lording" it over others.

This is why both the feminist rebellion verses a Biblical understanding of spiritual submission within the Church at-large
-- along with the historical notions to place both "priesthood" and "ministry" as "higher levels"
... via the decidely unbiblical notion of "ordination" --
...have both run off-base courses.
NOTE: "Clergy"-"Laity" distinctions in the ways they've come to be interpreted within Protestantism and other church traditions are extrabiblical traditions; "ordination" is merely a biblical word tied to the decrees of God but has no verse-by-verse Biblical underpinnings re: "THE ministry."

Being a bond-servant -- a bondslave -- is submission; is servanthood.

Sainthood

Likewise, the vocabulary of "Sainthood" also suffered within history and unto modern times in much the same way as "priesthood" and "the ministry"...reducing these levels to the "very few" and "spiritually elite." (NOTE: Satan has always desired to reduce his battle to a mere few)

"Saints" simply literally means "holy ones" -- those set apart to serve our Lord. In other words, ALL of us who are in Christ. We are ALL set apart for holy service, bearing the Holy Spirit within each of us.

When the apostle Paul referenced the church in greetings and other references, he highlighted ALL of them as "saints":
"but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints." (Romans 15:25)
"For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem." (Romans 15:26)
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:1)
"To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father." (Col. 1:2)
"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;" (Eph. 5:3)

'Ordained' or 'Ordination' for Ministry

In the New Testament, you'll find the Greek word for "ordained" twice...and both are applied to the Law of God...not to special leadership capacities. "Ordination" as a word isn't otherwise in the New Testament.

Landing Point: The Reformation and 'Priesthood of All Believers'

Allow me to quote from Wikipedia: Universal Priesthood (doctrine):

"While Martin Luther did not use the exact phrase 'priesthood of all believers", he adduces a general priesthood in Christendom in his 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in order to dismiss the medieval view that Christians in the present life were to be divided into two classes: 'spiritual' and 'secular'. He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are 'priests' and 'spiritual' in the sight of God:

"That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings.'"

Two months later Luther would write in his On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520):

How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry (ministerium Predigtamt) and consented to by us (nostro consensu)? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (ius imperii, in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom.' In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: 'No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God.'"

Other Notable Biblical Considerations

1 The apostle Paul listed spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14, Romans 12, and Ephesians 4. They are not gender-specific. Thus, ministry is carried on by the Holy Spirit operating thru both men and women operating as the Laos (Greek for laity) -- the "people" of God.

2 In the New Testament, we find female prophetesses in Luke 2:36 (Anna) & Acts 21:8-9 (evangelist Philip's four daughters). In some current religious cultures -- like the Mormon Church -- Philip and his four daughters might frankly be ex-communicated in a such a sub-culture! Faith investigators may want to be careful in "faulting" the Holy Spirit for giving this gift to females in those circumstances, or other spiritual gifts that the apostle Paul highlighted in numerous New Testament passages.

3 Israel was quite comfortable with Deborah serving as a Judge-leader; and an entire Old Testament book (and ensuing Purim recognition amongst Jewish believers) is devoted to Esther serving as an intercessor where no man had the inroad (or seeming courage) to proceed?

[BlueDragon]

Well, Come on down.

You have been chosen as a contestant, for you did draw sufficient attention by your own comments.

That t-shirt and hat (which you still are wearing?) proclaims Elsie was awarded a "dodge"? correct?

how so then?

First, there must have been an actual question, then further understanding as to how answers may best apply.

What did Elsie mean in #16, coming as that did in context including his long habit of mocking "Mormonism"?

The question here is was he speaking tongue-in-cheek, in 'Mormon Dude', put-on persona? I will suggest that he was, which serves to render your own comments to him indicating to me that you likely did not understand what he meant, for he was not himself declaring a position, expressing that to be in total covered by the scripture passage he referenced.

Which is how the Ford turned into a Chevy. You won that only slightly mis-used and abused 'new car', fair and square.

Congratulations.

But don't forget, one must pay the taxes before such can be registered and driven away from the t.v. show lot.

Are you going to make this same comment to the non-Catholic women on these threads?

That does not follow, for unless they themselves made the same comments in the same context(s) including what can be seen spoken of in #25.

Consider that one carefully.

[verga]

Ask you question or make your statement in 5 sentences or less if you actually expect a response.

[BlueDragon]

Ask you question or make your statement in 5 sentences or less if you actually expect a response.

Questions?

Whatever makes you think I posed any questions which I sought answer for from you?

Nevermind...that's another one of those rhetorical sort of "questions" which I do tell you truly, I am not interested in the very least in much any answer which you may provide for that one.

Enjoy the new-old confused badges car. Or don't pay the tax and walk away from it.

It just flew over yur' head anyway, and out the window already -- too late I do think you missed it.

It could have been a helicopter, if one would have just taken-hold lightly of the three-axis control, twisted on a bit of "throttle", lifting the collective, putting one foot lightly pressing on the proper rudder pedal -- you could have truly flown, demonstrating to all to be a sky-pilot in reality instead of petulant theoretical schoolboy/professor.

[verga]

listen I am really busy with another matter if you have something of significance/ importance to say let me know.

[BlueDragon]

listen I am really busy with another matter if you have something of significance/ importance to say let me know.

I've already told you more than once, where things here went wrong, even breaking it down, providing a couple of links to other comments, in way of sketched outline of map to make things easier to find.

All the rest of the technicalities, and the time spent in your own efforts explaining those, was all but wasted in misguided effort, even though some of the technical specifications were correct enough, and can indeed be found in the manual.

I have copies of that manual myself.

But as to you very much not understanding Elsie (as far as I can tell), and which my first note to you was all about, then responding as if you had all along properly understood him and my own words to you as 'nothing' --- in the future do less of that, and the "really busy" may not bite down so hard.

[verga]

Is English your first language?

[Elsie]

So; the NUNs can be married if THEY wish; too?

[Elsie]

Because I believe that I know more about Catholicism than some men.

And I believe I have more cats than 'some' veterenarians.

[Elsie]

Silent Nuns.

What a concept!

[Elsie]

Ask you question or make your statement in 5 sentences or less if you actually expect a response.

BEcause YOUR time is so, SO! precious...

[Elsie]

Is English your first language?

What model year is my Chrysler?

[BlueDragon]

Is English your first language?

Well, harrumph. Are we now to the personal questions?

As you requested--- if I had any questions to ask, to put those in five lines or less, then I ask you to ask yourself these;

1) are you an illegitimate child

2) are you, or are you not one of those whom repeatedly killed Kenny

"

3) what grounds would I have for believing any answers which you may supply to the above questions -- but which I am not in the least seeking from you requesting reply -- just ask yourself instead, this third question, most of all.

[BlueDragon]

I said I may know more about Catholicism....that’s it.

That is "it"?

Would it be fair to say that this assessment of yours as to extent of your own knowledge, is chiefly your own assessment?

Being that there is a great deal of material possibly including in "Catholicism", with many various things ancillary to and also tangent to "Catholicism", with these additional conditions of relation to the subject themselves, at times and places being themselves subject to some amount of discussion and disagreement within Catholicism itself, then by what authority other than your own opinion of your own level of expertise do you tell others much of ANYTHING in regards to Catholicism?

Have you been appointed spokesperson for this organization?

You "may know" more...about "Catholicism"(?), you say and/or say "you believe" that you know more than "some".

So tell me, would those whom 'may know', or as you did previously also say of your own self, "believe" that they knew more [than some others] of Christianity --- would not those persons have every right in the world to "teach" people, including 'Catholics' about what they knew or believed they knew about Christianity?

If not -- then why not?

I ask this question, for more than a few times I have witnessed you ask others to the effect "who they thought they were", or "what gave them authority", etc., to "tell Catholics" about "Catholicism" (which religion as it were, should not to be entirely confused with Christianity for reason there is overlap in *some* areas).

I have noticed too yourself often speaking about what those other than [Roman] Catholics are alleged to believe or not -- that put in your own words, with those words presented as if they were actually truth.

By what authority do you speak? Is there anything whatsoever beyond your own opinions?

If not in actuality, then again;

Are some special flowers more equal than others?

And now

Do some of these more special flowers have born-in capability for playing "victim card" which others lack?

Next question, which you here put to another, himself a man as it were;

Why don’t you believe Christ and follow him?

Since you did not much explain what it is which you meant -- we must assume you "believed" that person (a man) to "not believe in Christ", since you asked him why he did not, then it also begs question as to just who "you" think this Christ is, and which direction He may be moving in or towards, if a person is follow this Christ.

In preface of your own statement to this man, whom it does seem you believe in some mysterious unexplained fashion "does not believe" with your question being also two-part in asking him "why" he presumably does not, I will ask also what in the world would be so LOL funny about that (if it were indeed true this man was not "believing in and following Christ") unless it be laughingly humorous for some small devil, laughing at yet one more whom they may prey upon?

Another gentler possibility, is this man I speak of, may be following Christ well enough to suit (or please) Christ, even if appearing for whichever reason not doing so well enough to suit your own self and your own assessments of what in your own opinions following Him would entail.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Because I believe that I know more about Catholicism than some men.”

What do you know about being Christian?

[Salvation]

Catholics are Christians. In fact, they were the first Christians.

[verga]

I will pray for you.