Skip to main content
Because I don't feel like linking to it, (oh, fine) I'd offer just a couple sentences of critique/constructive thought on why it won't wash against the Catholic claims re: apostolic succession. First, we are essentially agreed on the priesthood of all believers in a baptismal sense. This cannot satisfy, in itself, the objection. We make the distinction between a baptismal priesthood and a ministerial 'priesthood' (I beg pardon, Reformed Protestant brethren!) all the time. I invite you to try celebrating the Eucharist in your own house (then consulting the PCA's BCO) if you doubt me! Weak sauce, Doug, weak sauce. It was our rank inability to be consistent in our priestly egalitarianism that got me thinking about this in the first place! Paging Jeff Meyers! Why ordination, if Doug is correct? And if not, are we sure our dudes are validly sent by Christ? What would prove it? Better yet, what would disprove it? If correct doctrine is the true measure, then 'correct' according to whom?

Comments

I disagree with Wilson on this, as I do other stuff.

It is clear there is a certain set of people set apart as presbyters/elders (1 Tim 3, etc.). It is also clear that not everyone should to be a teacher (Jas. 3.1). Moreover, we should recognize that people have different roles (Rom. 13-14) and that services should not be a chaotic free for all, but done decently and in order (1 Cor 14).

Moral of the story: everyone is equal in value, but everyone has different gifts. The big point being the priesthood of all believers means we do not need a mediator (e.g. a priest or saint) to intercede for us before Christ. It means when the Church violates Scripture or conscience, we can appeal over their heads, as Jerram would put it. It means nothing of the sort that anyone should do everything in the church.

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...