Is 'Priest' biblical?

Christ says "If you Love Me KEEP my Commandments" and Paul argues in Romans 7 that it is our sinful nature to war against the Commandments of God.

So if the RCC says anything about obeying them or says anything about the Bible being God's Word, or says anything about the Trinity being the right view of the Godhead -- does that make these doctrines "wrong" simply because they are mentioned by the RCC?

I don't think so.

 

Bob, did you read the link? FYI, it wasn't a Catholic website but an Anglican one - and one of a rather evangelical bent too.

 

I was responding to a post by DHK listing the problems with the teachings of the RCC. I agree that they do have a lot of errors - but just because they do that does not mean all that they teach must be in error.

I would also agree that the Anglican church has some error taught there as well - but that does not make all their doctrines wrong.

As for priests - I think it is instructive that even the RCC admits that HISTORICALLY the Bible leaders among the NT saints "REFUSED to be called priests".

This means that the error had to have EVOLVED over time "historically" speaking.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt - from your link above --

"I gladly make it clear that I use the word in the New Testament sense of presbyters or elders rather than the Old Testament sense of sacrificing priests."

By choosing to make this term synonamous with "elder" instead of distinct with "sacred powers" they are NOT using the term the way the RCC uses it and by negating the "Sacrifice" aspect they are not using it the way the Bible writers used it for literal priests in Israel.

 

...which, taking us back to Nate's OP, was the point he was trying to make: as far as his tradition - Anglicanism - is concerned, the term 'priest' has more to do with the NT concept of presbyter than it does with the OT concept of priesthood.

 

Even a broken clock is right a couple of times a day.