The Earnest Contender

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

The Priesthood of Every Believer

The series we are currently working through here at The Earnest Contender (and with the Adult Bible Fellowship class I teach at my church) is called "The Biblical Distinctives of Baptists". There is an acrostic that we are following. You can see it below on the "bookmark". This post will cover the letter "P" in the word BAPTIST.

I’ll not soon forget, if ever, a message entitled “How I Became a Catholic Priest,” by the thunderous preacher, Dr. Earnest Pickering. He didn't mince words over what he called “priest-craft”. It is used by many cults which esteem men to a place of such religious stratosphere it could make one’s ears pop and cause the nose to bleed. I agree with him, the importance placed on a “special class of men and/or women” is nonsense and is not supported by the New Testament! The word "Priest" is defined as "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God."

The word “priest” appears in not less than 846 verses in the Bible (AV). It appears first
In Genesis 14: 17-19; It seems that God had at least one priest before Aaron came along;

“…the king of Sodom went out to meet him [Abram] after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth…”

Later God made this conditional promise to Israel:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. (Ex. 19:5-7)

I am a Baptist priest! In fact every believer today is a priest of God, no matter what denomination or creed. But what is our basis for being priests? A better question would be, “Who is the basis for our priesthood?” It is none other than the great high priest, Jesus Christ Himself! When Jesus hung suspended between Heaven and earth on the cross, the curtain of the holy of holies was rent in two from top to bottom. He opened the access to God, and the Bible declares that all who trust in the finished work of Christ are priests. Priests may enter into God’s presence directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people. There is no other mediator! As priests, we also have the responsibility and great privilege to study God's Word, pray for others, and offer spiritual worship to God. We all have equal access to God, whether we are a preacher or not.1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 5:9, 10

There are priests in this age! Biblical Baptists (as well as many other bible believing groups) agree with the New Testament that every person who is “born again” is a priest unto God. You, my brother or sister are a priest! How are you exercising your priestly duties?

24 Comments:

Hi John, I really love this acrostic.
If I were still a Roman Catholic, I could only be a nun, but in Christ, I am a preist! He is so wonderful! Thanks for the post.

By Rose~, at 26/10/05 3:45 PM
Excellent post. Unfornately I beleieve that this is one the truths that is most forgetten or not practiced. Especially when things like "ministry" become the job of the staff of a church and very one often church memebers think that their role is to pew warm. It would be awesome if everyone exercise their priesthood with reverence to God realizing that is what they are. It would help fix the 20-80 gap as well as help people understand they are supposed to go out from the church and minister to their community...Any good stuff with "P".

I was just thinking about how I remember the Baptist distinctives and the acrostic Baptist from GARBC church I was saved in and how I am in the SBC now and we dont have the Baptist distinctives but the Baptist Faith & Message. Its cool how the Blogosphere is letting you share the Baptist Distinctives with other non GARBC Baptists. Maybe some SBC blogger can return the favor sometime and write on the Baptist Faith and Message.

By John, at 26/10/05 4:14 PM
Rose,
Thank you for your perspective and your comment. I'm glad you're not a nun!

John,
Thank you for your insight about pew warmers. Perhaps we all need to realize our priestly priviledge more and more ... to be a priest in our homes, at our churches, at work, and in our community.

brother John

By J. Wendell, at 26/10/05 8:19 PM
Thanks for the article, John, I agree whole-heartedly with your perspective here, as it seems to reflect the scriptural perspective ;) on priesthood (cf. I Pet 2:9; Rom 15:16, etc).

I'm thankful our priesthood is based on the indestructible life of our High Priest (Heb. 7:16).

How do you deal with I Pet 2:9 as quoting Ex. 19:6--this seems odd to apply a passage that historically references Yahweh's covenant people Israel; and then have it apply eschatologically to the church (us). This seems to favor the continuity approach (people of God=Israel as the Church) found in an Amil interpretation. How do you get around this implication as a dispensationalist? ;)

Sorry I didn't respond to your comment on my site, Theologia Crucis, I had the moderation mode turned on, and didn't even realize I had any comments. Well I've taken care of that problem, and the comments are working fine now, come on over :).

In Christ,

Bobby

By Anonymous, at 27/10/05 1:05 AM
I can't find anything wrong on this one!:-)
I agree with John that this is a truth that is certainly not practiced very often in Baptist churches. We are a kingdom of bench-warmers, it seems. May God revive His church and put us into His service!

By Jeremy Weaver, at 27/10/05 9:45 PM
Thank you brother, Bobby,
for taking the time to read my article. You asked a very good question. One may already know that God has made both unconditional and conditional covenants with His chosen people, Israel. I ask that as I attempt to answer the question, we bare that in mind. Secondly, let us keep in mind the context of each passage. In other words, we should not read the Old testament back into the New Testament. Please correct me if I am wrong. I don't think the idea of a continued covenant community is predicted in the book of Exodus, and therefore is in no need of a fulfillment in the new. The point of bringing up Melchizidek and the conditional promise in Exodus was simply to show that God had priests in the O.T. I don't know any of my Jewish friends who believe this could ever be applied to just any Jew let alone a Gentile. God has One High Priest and many believer-priests. Any Jewish friend or Gentile friend may become a priest when they trust in Christ alone as Savior ... not because of a succession, or ceremony. In dispensational thought ,God has no grandchildren, only children.

I welcome further comments because I'm not sure I am answering the question as well as I should.

Brother Jeremy,
Thank you for your comment. Let's pray for the priesthood ... that we would get off the bench and into the game! (Excuse the worldly metaphor!)

By J. Wendell, at 27/10/05 11:55 PM
Thank you for the answer, John! It does seem that God said that they "would" be a kingdom of priests; and a holy nation. The point I was trying to make is looking at the "intended meaning" of each usage. In other words, Moses, in Exodus referents God's Covenant people, Israel, as the kingdom of priests. Peter uses the same passage, with some other OT passages mixed in, referencing the church. Which referent was the intended meaning? (1) Did God intend this passage in Ex 19 to speak futuristically of the church, knowing Israel wouldn't meet His condition in the Mosaic Covenant? (2) Or maybe Jesus functions in corporate solidarity with Israel--thus fulfilling the condition of the Mosaic Covenant (where the nation of Israel failed)--and making it applicable both to the nation of Israel (remnant), yet future, in the messianic age; and currently applying it to the church, as Peter, does now.

I think the 2nd option, is the one I would go with. It sees continuity between the people of God in the OT and NT; and at the same time allows for role distinction's amongst the people of God, i.e. ethnic Israel and the Church--and has aspects of the Kingdom "Now" and "Not Yet". This would reflect my Progressive Dispensational bent--and I believe does most justice to the text of Scripture, at this point.

What do you think about this, John? Are you more of a classic (or Ryriean-Revised) Dispensationalist; or Progressive, like myself?

By Anonymous, at 28/10/05 2:46 AM
Good post. Good point. Thanks for sharing.

I'll be back to read archived stuff.

God bless.

By Curious Servant, at 29/10/05 11:20 AM
Curious Servant,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving your comment. Keep coming back as often as you wish and comment when you want.

Bobby,
Thanks for the clarifying comment. If those were the only two options, I would definately favor the second ... but I think there may be yet another, since Israel is not now a nation of priests. I think that the Exodus passage may be restricted to Israel and a future fulfillment for Israel based on the condition that Israel must accomplish. This I think will be realized in the Millennial kingdom and during the Eternal order. I will have to think this one through a bit more (good food for thought)! Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Regarding dispensationalism, Bobby, no one has ever asked me this question on my blog before. So I will tell you. I like the Dallas Cowboys and I like allot of things from Texas. I tend to follow Pentecost, Fruchtenbaum, Walvoord, and Chafer; as you know, these are all classic dispensationalists, and so am I. (I like Ryrie, too). However, I am not quick to throw off our covenant brethren as completely invalid. I have learned much from them as well, but I find some conflicting difficulties. I have much to learn. Since I am still learning and growing in Christ and in the knowledge of His Word, I would say I am "progressing". However, I don't think I am a Progressive Dispensationalist. I believe that Christ is now king, is not reigning as king from Daivid's throne now, but one day will reign as King on this earth.

By J. Wendell, at 29/10/05 11:44 AM
Thanks John, for your response, you said:

". . . I think that the Exodus passage may be restricted to Israel and a future fulfillment for Israel based on the condition that Israel must accomplish."

This is where I would part ways with you. The Mosaic Cov. was conditional, as you point out, but it was fulfilled by Christ (so Gal. 3, and other passages). Israel's future hope and priesthood are based on the same unconditional covenant (i.e. New II Cor. 3)as the churches'(Eph 2). In fact it was this reality that really brought me from being a Revised (or even Classic) dispensationalist, to being a so called Progressive.

Christ, in corporate solidarity with Israel, has already fulfilled the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant (book of Hebrews); thus anyone Jewish or Gentile can stand redeemed in Him.

I agree, the Davidic Cov. is a little more difficult to establish, given the fact that their is no explicit reference given of Jesus' current ministry in heaven as correlative to the Davidic throne--but I do think one can make a cumlative argument (cf. Ps 110, Acts 2, etc.) for this.

I suppose I'm amil in my view of the Davidic Cov (at least the "Now" part of it); and dispensational premil when it comes to my view of the distinction of Israel and the Church--and a literal reign of Christ upon the earth ("Not yet")--yet future. I guess as a progressive I don't see these two theological constructs as mutually exclusive (cov amil and premil dispensationalist). Thanks for the interaction on this, John. Sorry for steering off topic a bit here ;).

P.S.
I like DTS guys too, I almost went there, and one of my best friends is doing his ThM there. Darrell Bock, is one the key proponents of Progressive Disp. and teaches there. And I do respect and read all of the DTS guys you mentioned; I just disagree with them a bit, as I noted above.

By Anonymous, at 29/10/05 5:33 PM
A great post! Lots of thought and study went into this post. I respect that. Now I see where your wife gets it from showing me that you are doing your priestly rsponsibilities in the home with her and your children. Most impressive indeed.

Malachi 2:7

By mark pierson, at 29/10/05 8:53 PM
Bluecollar~
Thank for you're gracious words. Rose and I do enjoy a mutually symbiotic relationship with one another. Neither of us feel we have arrived.

Bobby,
I must add that I do appreciate those in the Covenantal position too. Being that I am from Presbyterian stock and Scottish reform background, as you can imagine, I do feel a distant kinship to Calvin, Knox, Hodge, and as much as I do not normally care for his hermeneutic I do think Oswald Allis offers a sound defense of the single authorship of the book of Isaiah. When I am freed up from other interests I will spend some time looking at those passages you mentioned with an open mind to what God will show me about Him. BTW, this was the attitude that led me to the Classic position in the first place.

May I say, in a kind manner, that on the surface, your statement, “…I don't see these two theological constructs as mutually exclusive (cov amil and premil dispensationalist)” seems a bit confusing, but again “[I] walk with feet of clay…”

Thanks again for the food for thought.

brother John

By J. Wendell, at 29/10/05 10:26 PM
John's response to me,

"May I say, in a kind manner, that on the surface, your statement, “…I don't see these two theological constructs as mutually exclusive (cov amil and premil dispensationalist)” seems a bit confusing, but again “[I] walk with feet of clay…”

I was being a bit loosed tounged in this (or "fingured")here; let me clarify. In other words, the progressive position is an amalgamation of both amil and disp. pre-mil thought. As a progressive I believe that the kingdom is "now" and "not-yet"--that indeed Christ inaugurated the Davidic Covenant at His first coming and ascension to the right hand of the Father (this would be the amil "realized" eschatology position--except w/o seeing a future hope for Israel). But I also believe in the "Not Yet" of the Davidic kingdom, i.e. when Jesus returns with His church (2nd coming) to establish His millennial kingdom on the physical Davidic throne in Jerusalem. That's all I was saying, in a rather esoteric way ;). Hopefully that helps clarify--maybe I'll do another post on this topic (@my site) discussing the issues on this.

Progressive Dispensationalism is the product of dispensationalists and cov. amils getting together and discussing their particular constructs. I agree with it, because I think it does most justice to the whole of scripture; not flattening it out as one extreme (classic disp.), or another might (cov. amil.).

Thanks for the feedback

By Anonymous, at 30/10/05 1:46 AM
Bobby,
Thanks for that clarification. We do part ways here, but I thorougholy enjoy the dialouge. Keep coming back ... perhaps we can engage in some other controversy ;-)

brother John

By J. Wendell, at 30/10/05 2:08 PM
I am back ;), John! Out of curiosity, as a Classic Disp., how do you deal with the hard and fast distinction between Israel (as God's earthly people); and the Church (as heavenly people)--articulated by someone like Scofield? This seems a bit artificial to me, at least when trying to read this "out" of scripture.

Also how about the idea, which is a necessary conclusion of the harsh distinction between Israel and the Church made by revised/classic disp., of more than one New Covenant (i.e. one with the church and one with the nation of Israel--argued for by, no less than, Charles Ryrie? Again this seems artificial, and an imposition "upon" the text of scripture.

Just to clarify, I do see discontinuity between Israel and the Church--just not relative to the New Covenant and redemption; which seems to be a necessary conclusion of the classical disp. framework. I see a "functional role distinction" like that found in Gal. 3:28 which says,

"28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is niether slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Notice the "role distinction" (in other words male and female are still distinct, etc.) in this list--but also notice that ontologically (essence--being) speaking they are all ONE in Christ.

I'm not trying to win any arguments here, John, or even convert you to PD; just sharing with you some of the problems and issues that brought me to accept the Progressive position.

You're a brother, and I too appreciate the dialogue.

In Christ,
Bobby G.

By Anonymous, at 30/10/05 6:19 PM
This is very enjoyable to me Bobby. You are a good reader and a quick wit. It’s nice to know Christians that love the lord even when we differ in some areas, and I do hope to do a post on the subject in the future if God permits. I am known to go off on rabbit trails to the point that one of the men’s groups I had the privilege of being a part of affectionately dubbed me “Tangent Boy”. I feel we have strayed from the topic of the priesthood of every believer.
Yet to address some of your questions to me, and that without feeling that I am being backed into a corner, I think you have entered an area where there is a key to this discussion … that of the ontological oneness … you said, “Notice the ‘role distinction’ (in other words male and female are still distinct, etc.) in this list--but also notice that ontologically (essence--being) speaking they are all ONE in Christ.”
Brother, you placed emphasis on the word “ONE” that’s good! For it is true, and Scripture can not be broken, yet the ontological unity does not occur until we are “in Christ”. I love those two Words. They are perhaps my favorite in the entire Bible (I feel a tangent coming on). Being “in Christ” is the key, for there is a stark difference between those “in Christ” and those who are not. Those who are not have various distinctions and similarities too. For example there is no unity between unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles. No unity between believers and unbelievers.

For now I will leave our discussion in the hands of Him who illuminates and trust that He will, for both of us.

Bye for now,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 31/10/05 7:31 AM
Yeah, sorry for going off point, John--BUT ;), one more point of clarification, on the ontology thing.

I was couching, maybe not clearly, the Gal. passage in the context of my prior questions. i.e. the harsh distinction between Israel (earthly people); and Heavenly people (the Church)--this implies two ontological categories of people; relative to the salvation history evinced between Israel and the Church. This dichotomy seems to "go against" the "ontological unity" reflected in the Gal. passage. I'm trying to subtlely point out a definciency in the classic/revised disp. understanding :).

Anyway I'll leave it at that, and in the future, when I comment, I'll stay on point with your intended discussion.

Bobby G.

By Anonymous, at 31/10/05 1:49 PM
I am straining under the weight of this heavy discussion!

But it is fun.

Thanks for the bookmarks. They will be a great help in my class.

By Joe, at 31/10/05 5:31 PM
Bobby,
God bless you, and thanks again for the healthy dialogue! We will have to get to it again some time.

brother John

Joe,
I think I pulled something. Learning growing and stretching is good exercise and even fun for me, too.

I'm glad you recieved the book marks, that's what it's all about. Rose can now feel she's a part of your vital ministry and that is her delight.

cheerfully in Christ,
brother JOhn

By J. Wendell, at 31/10/05 5:52 PM
John, your article is true. What will it take for us in America to live as priests ? We are all ministers .
And Rose, I confess that I still have a Catholic heart, yes one that is transformed, but still warm towards that branch of rich liturgy and awe of God. I take my boys to mass at least once a year, with a discaimer- They are about 82% on, my church maybe 91%. - They need to learn more about true faith and get there heirarchy doctrine
back on track.

By maildad, at 6/11/05 10:01 PM
John the Baptist,
that drawing of you with the cross .... you have changed from that graphic, your beard is darker now , and I haven't seen you with that cross,
your zeal is still strong

By maildad, at 6/11/05 10:04 PM
Great post - this old one about the priesthood of the believer. It's wonderful that we all have access to God without having to go through the special person to receive his love and forgiveness.

I call this the 'spiritual awareness' of the priesthood of all beleivers.

What about the 'practical awareness' of the same truth?

How come all baptists aren't equally accepted behind the pulpit?

Why doesn't the sermon get rotated among all the "laymen"?

I'm really becoming your 'special friend' by now, aren't I? :)

By Bill Heroman, at 16/3/06 12:59 PM
Bill,
You want to know...

What about the 'practical awareness' of the same truth?

For the practical application of the priest hood of the saint see this post.

How come all [Baptists] aren't equally accepted behind the pulpit?

Not all Baptists are saved, not all Baptists are mature enough in the faith, not all Baptists want to preach, not all Baptists have a pulpit etc. etc. etc.
Why can’t everyone drive a car? Why everyone with a driver’s license drive a bus? How come Greyhound doesn’t let the passengers to take turns driving? How come? How come? How come?

Oh bother.

Why doesn't the sermon get rotated among all the "laymen"?

The church I belong to is not Laodicean we do not make a distinction between laity and clergy

I'm really becoming your 'special friend' by now, aren't I? :)

Everyone is special Bill,

By J. Wendell, at 17/3/06 6:58 AM
"Everyone is special."
Indeed! :)

I read the ISL post.
What did that have to do with who gets to speak in a meeting?

By Bill Heroman, at 20/3/06 4:09 PM