Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
How to explain to Protestants Priesthood
Hi,
I had an idea that may help explain to protestants the idea of an established Church hierarchy. Protestants refuse categorically to accept that the Church is an establishment with a Patriarch, Bishops, Priests etc... and furthermore they think that they are all priests.
That is just totally incorrect.
Also, they state that no where in the Bible does it say "Catholic, Apostolic or Orthodox Church" for them to be part of our Church. That is just plain ignorance on the history of the Apostles.
But here is an idea that could help. Please tell me what you think:
In the Bible, Saul presided over the execution of Saint Steven. It clearly says in the Bible that Saint Steven is a deacon.
A deacon is an order within the Church hierarchy. A deacon is below a priest, who is, in turn, below a bishop.
No matter which translation you have, it is undeniable that each one refers to him as being a "Deacon".
That means that if Saint Steven was a deacon - then there must have been priests/bishops also in the early Church. We already know that there were 12 Apostles and many disciples, so again this is another example of hierarchy.
What do you think? Would this explanation count to refute those who deny that there is NO need in the Bible for priests, bishops, deacons, and for those who say that are our hierarchy is "man made".
The Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and upon that , they were taught how to administer and ordain others for the purpose of "preaching the Gospel, and baptising nations in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit".
Any feedback would be appreciate on this issue.
Cheers
I had an idea that may help explain to protestants the idea of an established Church hierarchy. Protestants refuse categorically to accept that the Church is an establishment with a Patriarch, Bishops, Priests etc... and furthermore they think that they are all priests.
That is just totally incorrect.
Also, they state that no where in the Bible does it say "Catholic, Apostolic or Orthodox Church" for them to be part of our Church. That is just plain ignorance on the history of the Apostles.
But here is an idea that could help. Please tell me what you think:
In the Bible, Saul presided over the execution of Saint Steven. It clearly says in the Bible that Saint Steven is a deacon.
A deacon is an order within the Church hierarchy. A deacon is below a priest, who is, in turn, below a bishop.
No matter which translation you have, it is undeniable that each one refers to him as being a "Deacon".
That means that if Saint Steven was a deacon - then there must have been priests/bishops also in the early Church. We already know that there were 12 Apostles and many disciples, so again this is another example of hierarchy.
What do you think? Would this explanation count to refute those who deny that there is NO need in the Bible for priests, bishops, deacons, and for those who say that are our hierarchy is "man made".
The Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and upon that , they were taught how to administer and ordain others for the purpose of "preaching the Gospel, and baptising nations in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit".
Any feedback would be appreciate on this issue.
Cheers
Comments
Numbers 16 shows that God takes the priesthood very seriously, Korah says the exact same thing that Luther said, and that the majority of the protestants believe, outside of some of the earlier ones like Anglican. For their theology to work, God would have to do a complete 180 in the NT. There are also a number of verses in exodus and other books of Moses on the priesthood, If you would like I can list them for you.
Mt 5:17 Christ tells us outright, He did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill it. For instance, there is no more animal sacrafice, Christ is the sacrafice. The Liturgy of the OT could not save as the Liturgy of today can. Baptism has fulfilled circumcision etc. It is a fulfillment, not a change. The old covenant had no capacity to "save" a person, the new covenant does.
Mt 23 is also very clear. Christ tells his followers to practice and observe as "they" do, the priests and pharisees, but do not do what they do. Its very obvious to the Orthodox believer that Christ is saying respect the church and do as God has commanded, but dont do things in vain as the Pharisees. He also goes on to say, "because they sit on the seat of Moses". This is referring to a succession of authority, from Moses, to them. So a type of Apostolic Succession.
Rev 8. This should be a very convincing verse as it explains a distinctly Orthodox worship service being conducted in heaven. Censers, incense, intercession of the saints, their prayers being lifted with the smoke of the incense to God, and a Golden Altar before the throne of God. If indeed the modern protestants are correct, why is there no mention of incoherant babbling? Why is there no rock band?
Of course the most famous verse in the Coptic church, Is 19:19. There is NO other church that Isaiah could be referring to. It was not until St Mark came that the Egyptians turned from paganism. for over 1500 years there was no other church in Egypt, so based on Historical evidence it is very clear. They were pagans until Christianity was introduced to them, then it was ONLY the Coptic church until after the 16th century, I am not sure when the Coptic Catholic splintered from the Coptic Orthodox but it was after the 16th century, and the protestants came much later.
Hebrews 3,4,5. Christ is referred to as "The High Priest". Now if He abolished the priesthood, why is He referred to as "The High Priest"? I feel it would be an insult to call him "The High Priest" if it didnt exist anymore. It also doesnt make sense to have a High Priest, if are no other priests serving under him in a heirarchal structured system. So If ineed there are no priests but Christ, then why the title of High Priest? Why not just priest? HIGH Priest suggests that he is above other priests, how can He be above priests that dont exist, if indeed the priesthood is abolished?
Hopefully, this helps you out and I am sorry again if I have offended anyone.
1 Tim is also useful because it speaks as those who have leadership in the Church as being 'bishops' or 'episkopoi'.
When 1 Tim is read in conjuction with the letters of St Ignatius then it seems to me that there is an argument which has a force that is not easily ignored that the early Church had a leadership of overseers, and supervisors, who were bishops and elders, and that they were supported by deacons who were responsible for practical matters in the congregations. Very quickly the bishops and elders became distinct groups, with the elders/presbyters being assistants to the bishop or bishops, who continued to be supported by deacons.
It seems to me that, as in my case, there is value in showing both the rather indistinct descriptions of structure in the New Testament, and the clear and distinct working out of the structure of the Church in the generation which put into practice the teaching of the Apostles.
Father Peter
Zoxasi, I am not sure that would convince a Protestant because 'deacon' means essentially 'servant'. It is used also in 1 Tim where St Paul speaks of those who hold the office of 'Deacon'. That is a more useful passage because it speaks of an 'office' rather than just responsibilities.
1 Tim is also useful because it speaks as those who have leadership in the Church as being 'bishops' or 'episkopoi'.
When 1 Tim is read in conjuction with the letters of St Ignatius then it seems to me that there is an argument which has a force that is not easily ignored that the early Church had a leadership of overseers, and supervisors, who were bishops and elders, and that they were supported by deacons who were responsible for practical matters in the congregations. Very quickly the bishops and elders became distinct groups, with the elders/presbyters being assistants to the bishop or bishops, who continued to be supported by deacons.
It seems to me that, as in my case, there is value in showing both the rather indistinct descriptions of structure in the New Testament, and the clear and distinct working out of the structure of the Church in the generation which put into practice the teaching of the Apostles.
Father Peter
Yes, I said that to one protestant lady, and she said that deacon means "servant" also. But one thing I did say is this, and tell me what you think??
In Acts of the Apostles, the Apostles had a small dilemma: It was to do with Circumcision versus Baptism etc. Im sure you all know the story.
Anyway, it says in the Bible that all the Apostles and elders were gathered together to discuss this issue. In many Bibles, it terms this incident as the FIRST COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM.
My point is this:
Why was there a need for agreement between the elders and the Apostles? For what reason? Why did they need to agree for? If one apostle felt that circumsicion was important for salvation AND baptism, why didn't he just go off and preach a gospel of circumsicion AND baptism? Why was there a need for agreement?
Because we were all One Church. The apostles were the custodians of the sacraments of the Church and they ALL had to agree because they were part of the same establishment: The Apostolic Church.
Would you agree with that statement??
Protestants, as you all maybe aware, are VERY stubborn people with selective hearing that only want to hear what they want to hear. But i am sure they would listen to some sort of reasoning; if we could find something to draw their attention to the importance of priesthood AND the sacraments.
But I agree with you entirely that we need to be able to present a narrative which takes root in people's hearts and minds and calls them to reconsider their thinking. I have found that it is often more helpful to lend someone a booklet rather than try to persuade them there and then.
When I have had conversations with Mormons, there are many in my home town, they will always try to say that there are different points of view we can take about religious things, and I always counter by saying that the most sensible thing to do is always to go back to those who lives closest to particular times and events. I say to them that if I wanted to know what Winston Churchill meant in a particular situation I could either rely on what some random person thought 50 years after he had died, or I could try and find out what his family and friends, and those who had worked with him for many years and who had conversations with him, thought he meant in saying something. I ask them which group of people would have the greatest authority and be most likely to understand and know what he meant.
Now that doesn't convince a Mormon, although often the older and more experienced Mormon will lead his trainee away at this point, because I usualy start describing the huge number of early writings we have which tells us what the Apostles actually thought and meant, written by those who knew them, or know those who knew them.
I guess what I am saying is that it is not normally enough to make one argument. Unless the person is already thinking that way they are not likely to be convinced. But if we can lend a booklet and say, 'I am not very good at explaining things but this describes what I believe and I'd be glad if you could read it through and then have a conversation with me' then this allows many of these arguments to be presented in a systematic manner.
Of course that does not immediately provide a solution. I have wanted to write a booklet as I have described so that I could give it to the Mormon missionaries, but it would work as well for all Protestants.
Father Peter
But to say what I meant to say anyway; people treat the JWs with contempt and dismiss them (unjustifiably, in my opinion), maybe they feel put on a spot and forced to confront matters they don't wish to confront.
I think they bother me when I am feeling tired and vulnerable and because their beliefs are so far yet so near to our own Also they have doctrines, such as soul sleep, which are actually quite hard to refute. I know their whole belief system looks as though it was made up by a store clerk reading the bible, who knew nothing of church history and had no inkling that anyone could be more informed or wiser than himself.But it needs intelligent refutation.
So although they are strictly speaking not protestants, they have taken over many protestant themes and I would I would love some material to offer them.
That's true of some, but all converts to Orthodoxy have been something else, so it is not an absolute. And there are plenty of laid back Orthodox who think it is enough to attend church. If we begin by offering some spiritual gift from the treasure house of our Orthodox Faith that seeking protestants can use and benefit from then it seems to me that they have begun a journey. Of course there are folk in all communities who are sure that they are right and do not need to change or move on from where they are.
Hidden in every Protestant church are thinking, caring, seeking people.They are not fulfilled where they are, and often are not happy where they are. We need to seek them out, and provide ways and means for them to begin to experience Orthodoxy where they are. This means, as far as I can see, books and booklets, magazines and leaflets, English language prayer services (not liturgies for evangelism at first), English language Bible studies, audio materials, video materials, open days, social events, community events.
While we remain hidden, while we continue to use languages that folk outside cannot understand, we will not be reaching out to these folk, and therefore, it seems to me, we can hardly judge them for not seeking out our Orthodox Faith.
Aidan, that's a good point about Jehovah's Witnesses. It makes me think how we might appear, especially if we push too quickly for immediate responses to our Orthodox Faith. We do need to pray a lot, and look for natural openings to share our faith.
Father Peter
about Jehovah's witnesses, the best book is here:
http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/jehovwit/index.html
it's particularly useful for showing how the Bible clearly explains that Jesus is God.
can i repeat my plea to all orthodox Christians; please say 'hi' to any visitors to yr church and make an effort to welcome them and show them the light that is in u.
i also had that feeling of 'how come i didn't know this was here?' so, shine yr light, there may well be many people who will laugh at u but there are also plenty of people genuinely seeking, so everyone should take the chance to talk to others about their faith.
if u think the other person is preaching more to u than u are to them, then tell yr priest about it and take advice on whether it's wise to continue the friendship. otherwise, get in touch with the people around u and ask God to show u opportunities to share yr faith.
I love Fr Peter!
Actually, I know the feeling.
You need to control yourself because he gets even more lovable.
He's a very humble and kind man.
i. A first awareness of Orthodoxy.
ii. An awareness of some aspects of Orthodox spirituality
iii. The personal experience of some aspects of Orthodox spirituality
iv. First contact with Orthodox christians
v. More detailed questions need to be asked and answered - apologetic phase
vi. Choices and commitments need to be made.
Now for most of these phases what is required is a positive explanation of the Orthodox faith, and a positive description of Orthodox history, traditions and spirituality. It is not until phase v. that there is any need to be frank about the errors of protestantism. What is required in the earlier phases is such a positive description of the benefits of Orthodoxy that the defects of protestantism are expressed with regret and not in terms of argument.
For instance, I could say,
"Protestants do not have a proper prayer life because they make prayers up as they go along, and only pray in the morning for a few minutes when they read a short portion of the Bible. They lack any real relationship with God in prayer"
..but I know that this would offend and annoy most protestants, and far from being agreed with would cause most to defend their protestant viewpoint as a natural reaction.
Now I could say,
"Prayer is the life-blood of the Christian's relationship with God. Most Christians will seek to begin each day with a moment of prayer, turning their anxieties and daily activities over to God. Orthodox Christians have found by experience that it is both possible and necessary to seek to 'pray at all times', and they use a variety of useful methods to do just that. ..... "
This second approach could go on to describe both the prayer of the Agpeya and the Jesus Prayer.
Now simply considering these approaches from a human point of view, it seems to me that the second one, which is critical of the usual protestant habit of prayer but does not express it negatively, actually engages with the desire that many protestants have to enjoy a closer relationship with God. The first approach, though it expresses a truth, will tend to produce resistance, just as when someone criticises our town, or our favourite football team, or our country.
Yet it is possible to be critical and to lead a person to reflect on their situation without even raising it directly. This first bad (in my opinion) approach says 'you are wrong'. The second approach I am suggesting is more fruitful, is to say, 'I think I know what you are really looking for and this is how you can get there'. This helps the person think to themselves, just praying for a couple of minutes in the morning isn't enough, but it isn't the same as saying, 'you are wrong for just praying for a couple of minutes in the morning'.
Father Peter
The True Light by Fr. Michael Harper
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article7005133.ece
or this:
The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Orthodox-Way-Kallistos-Ware/dp/0913836583
i have flicked through one of Bishop Kallitos' books (can't remember which one), it was great, and i plan to buy some of his books after my next house move (gets heavy moving house with lots of books!)