Replies

James say that the elders of the church should pray over one who is ill And annoint them, requiring physical presence. It points to a distinct function, the members ofthe household could not do themselves. Justin Martyr's Apology, written in the 2nd century shows that priests and deacons had distinct roles as well.

All the members of the church could pray for a sick person.

The elders of the church were called in because they were men of God who were well schooled in prayer being 'elders' of the church.

This is an issue of maturity not office per se

The point about "house churches" is not that they were someone's house,-- they were at times, -- but that they functioned as a Church, to the point that St. Paul asks people to not eat there, but rather eat in theor own homes.

He is talking about the 'love' feast that followed the Lord's supper.

It seemed that some had more then others and it was not a true case of fellowship (1Cor.11:20-22)

'priest' has a far different modern connotation then does elder or even presbyterian. When you read priests annointing the sick or giving communion or teaching the gospel, that is exactly the connotation that is also modern. "Elder" has a connotation of old age. Where is any reference to age about the Priests in the New Testament? Would you translate "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the old men of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"?

See, you are making a theological application based on the word 'Priest' which has the connotation of a special 'clergy' class.

That clergy class does not exist in the New Testament.

Various offices exist such as Pastor (elder) and teachers, but they are not Priests in that they have any special access to God based on their office.

Here is a footnote in the Roman Catholic NAS.

In case of sickness a Christian should ask for the presbyters of the church, i.e. those who have authority in the church. They are to pray over the person and annoint with oil. oil was used for medicinal purposes in the ancient world.

So far, we have no disagreement.

However in a following footnote, it states, The results of prayer and annointing are physical health and forgiveness of sins. The Roman Catholic Church (Council of Trent, Session 14) declared that this annointing of the sick is a sacrament, instituted by Christ and promulgated by blessed James the apostle'

Ryrie writes that from this came the Roman Catholic of unction or last rites.

Yet, the purpose of the calling of the elders is healing, not dying.

Reading 1 Peter as referring to all believers is nowhere in 1 Peter. In particular, "Royal priesthood" cannot be squared with this Protestant notion. If all believers are royal priestshood, who are their subjects?

There are no subjects!

A royal priesthood is referring to the fact that we are related by the new birth to the King of Kings, the Lord Jesus Christ.(Eph.5:30)

Now, as a priest is someone who has access to God.

No Christian needs anyone to go to God for him, he has direct access to God through Christ Himself (Jn.16:23-24)

Now 1Pet 2:5 is talking about all believers, who are 'holy priesthood'.

Our great High Priest is Christ Himself who makes intercession for us (Heb.4:14-15), hence all believers can come 'boldly to the throne of grace to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Heb.4:16).

Christ is the only mediator necessary (1Tim.2:5).

I do find it interesting that you just ignore what the passage says in 1Pet.2:5,9 about the 'priesthood' of every believer.

While thre are different spiritual gifts in the body of Christ (Eph.4) every Christian is a priest, one who has access to the throne of God through Christ.

The elders of the church were called in because they were men of God who were well schooled in prayer being 'elders' of the church [...] This is an issue of maturity not office per se [...] the purpose of the calling of the elders is healing, not dying.

This is your spin. The scriptural fact is that St. James urges to call in the priests so that the sick could be annointed; from this it is evident that the members of the household could not do so themselves.

He is talking about the 'love' feast that followed the Lord's supper. [...] It seemed that some had more then others and it was not a true case of fellowship (1Cor.11:20-22)

Again, this is your spin. St. Paul clearly distinguishes between eating for physical nutrition, done in homes ("What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God", 1 Corinthians 11:22), and the Eucharist done "to shew the death of the Lord, until he come" (v 26). S.t Paul states what the problem is, and it is not that some had more than others but rather that some eat and drink unworthily, " not discerning the body of the Lord".

That clergy class does not exist in the New Testament. [...] There are no subjects!

I showed you the clergy class in the example with the annointing; there is nothing in 1 Peter 2:5-9 to indicate he is talking of priesthood of every believer. Once more, you spin it that way because of the Protestant traditions of men that spinned the Gospel for you in order to obfuscate its meaning.

It is interesting that you bring up Hebrews 4, because having usrged the believes to go in confidence before the throne of grace it goes on to describe a priestly class (which you say does not exist) thusly:

"every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was"
(Hebrews 5)