Mr Rogers:
The Apostles were Apostles, so by that the very term, they were Leaders in terms of function and what they did, even if the word Bishop was never specifically attached to them. They functioned as Bishops in that they laid hands on those to they ordained for ministry. That in practice and function is an act of a Bishop. I will not go into all the NT places were the act of “laying of hands” was done by Apostles because it is numerous.
Yes, I am aware that Presbyters and Bishop were used interchangeably at times which is because a Bishop is in fact a Presbyter, and does all of the ministries that a Presbyter does. However, there were some things a only a Bishop [overseer] could do. Saint Paul communicated that to Timothy and Titus in his letters that only they could appoint presbyters, giving them an exclusive ministry that other presbyters did not have.
And again, the presbyters is describing priests, just not in the writers that you read. Protestantism has to shoot down the Ministerial priesthood because Luther and Calvin were never Bishops, one was a Catholic Priest and one a Catholic Deacon, so they read back into the scriptures apart from what every Church Father starting with Clement in the late 1st century, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus in the 2nd, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd, Ambrose, Hillary, Basil the Great, Augustine, etc, in the 4th century, the Canons of Nicea 325, Constantinopile 381, Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451 had read from those same scriptures.
Again, I will not stand with Luther and Calvin and their protégés on this question. I will stand with the constant witness of orthodox Apostolic tradition and the Catholic Church on this question which of course is the same understanding that the Eastern Orthodox have.
“And again, the presbyters is describing priests, just not in the writers that you read.”
No. This is simply not an accurate statement. Had the New Testament writers WANTED priests, they had the Greek word for priests to use. Instead, they used a different word for discussing an office in the Christian church - and they NEVER used the word for priest to describe a Christian office held by men.
The reason is obvious. “Priests” became needed to offer a blood sacrifice - which Catholic theology strayed to describe the Eucharist.
“Canon I. If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or, that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel; or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all: let him be anathema.”
But scripture is clear: the sacrifice of Jesus was once and for all time, not a repeated event:
” The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever...
...For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
There is no need for a human priest offering a sacrifice, for Jesus did so once for all, not to be repeated.
And thus it is not surprising that no human priests served in the Christian church, except in the sense of a universal priesthood offering sacrifices of praise & good deeds.
Meanwhile, Titus says:
“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
That did not give Titus some exclusive church position, but merely sets him to do a job.
Timothy says:
“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Qualifications for Deacons
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus...
...11 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. 15 Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers...
...17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.”
That is no basis for making a second office out of one - Elders. Elders oversee. That is what they do.
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city...For a bishop must be blameless”
No distinction. The KJV inserts bishop, not because that is the correct translation, but because King James required the translators to do so, saying, “No Bishop, No King”. That was part of the price of getting an “Authorized Version”, and part of the reason why Tyndale’s translation nearly 100 years earlier was more accurate.
“Bishops” and “Priests” were sinful errors brought in by the heathen, and part of the warnings both Paul and Peter gave about what would follow, if they did not adhere to the word of God.
“I will stand with the constant witness of orthodox Apostolic tradition and the Catholic Church on this question”
And you may do so. I prefer to adhere to the teachings of the Apostles revealed in God’s Word instead of clinging to traditions invented after a large influx of heathens.