Dr. White is at it again. Yesterday on the Dividing Line he talked about the development of the Catholic Priesthood. The important part of the above video is at about 19 minutes. He mentions that in the 300’s during the Donatist controversy the question was ex opere operato vs ex opera operantis. He said that no one believed at that time that priestly ordination left an eternal mark on the soul and that this is a later development. I will admit that the theology of the Priesthood developed over time. I have no problem believing that Christians in later centuries knew more about the Priesthood than they did in the fourth Century.
Dr. White likes to take shots at Catholic doctrines that have developed. The Priesthood is one example. I have to ask Dr. White: What is so bad about development? Dr. White believes in the two natures of Christ, the Hypostatic Union, and the two wills of Christ. Were they talking about these things in the fourth Century? Absolutely not! They developed over time. Dr. White has acknowledged in the past his firm belief in the Hypostatic Union and the two wills of Christ even though there is no Biblical evidence for either.
The Chalcedonian Hypostatic Union was defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD with the reading of the Tome of Leo the bishops cried out: “Peter has spoken thus through Leo.” The two wills of Christ was defined at the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 AD by Pope Agatho and the response was: “Peter spoke through Agatho.” James White believes in the highly developed Christology that he speaks of not because of Sola Scriptura but because of the Papacy and the Catholic Church. Without Pope Leo or Pope Agatho he wouldn’t believe in either of these doctrines. These doctrines developed over time; but it’s a development which James White allows for Christology and not for the Catholic Priesthood. Why the double standard?
My theory would be that Dr. White doesn’t like development because the doctrines he believes in didn’t develop but were simply fabricated whole cloth. Doctrines like perseverance of the saints was invented by Calvin in the 16th century. No development at all. Justification by faith alone was a novelty invented by Luther in the 16th century. No development in the slightest, just the pure invention of a doctrine out of thin air. In fact this doctrine goes against scripture word for word in the book of James.
I have a final question for Dr. White. There are four apostolic Churches today that claim their succession back to Christ. They are the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. All of these churches believe in the priesthood. Dr. White, you’ve claimed in the past that several of the early church fathers taught sola scriptura. You normally mention St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. If that’s true, why didn’t they denounce the Priesthood like you do? Let me rephrase the question: Why didn’t these Priests denounce the Priesthood like you do? There is no anti-Priesthood movement within the Church in the first millennium of the Church. There are anti-Trinitarian movements, anti-Chalcedonian movements, anti-Grace movements and many other esoteric heretical movements but none of them saw fit to develop an anti-Priesthood movement. The Priesthood developed in every region of the Christian world whether it be Rome, Gaul, Hippo, Alexandria, Constantinople, Armenia or Syria. I should also point out that this development happened very early and not a single soul protested this development.
All of these people read the same scriptures that James White does. They all read the book of Hebrews. In fact, all of these Christian areas had monastic movements where cloistered monks would dedicate their whole life to the study of scripture. There is no repudiation of the Priesthood. Why was there no anti-Priesthood movement until the Reformation? That is the question that Dr. White needs to answer.
Any form of present day priesthood is just the unauthorized restoration of the Levitical priesthood rendered obsolete by the Lord Jesus Christ’s ascension into heaven, where he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and by God’s act of terminating the Levitical priesthood with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.:
“Consequently, he (our Lord Jesus Christ) is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 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.” – Hebrews 7:25-27. Verse 27 explicitly says that as our great high priest has “no need to offer sacrifices daily” since he did this “once for all”.
God himself terminated the Levitical priesthood in the year 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Our Lord Jesus himself prophesied this destruction: Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:5-6, Luke 5:20. The Levitical priesthood was no longer necessary and no other form of priesthood is necessary now because our Lord Jesus Christ, our great high priest, himself declared on the cross: “It is finished”. – John 19:30
Thanks for your input but this post was not meant to give a defence of the Priesthood. It was to show that James White has no problem with development of doctrine unless its a doctrine he doesn’t believe in. Perhaps in the future, I will do a Biblical and historical defence of the Priesthood.
Thank you for taking an interest in this blog.
Well put! why can’t Roman Catholics see this?
Why don’t you quote from the writings of the first three centuries to show that the priesthood was something accepted universally by all Christians. That would be helpful don’t you think?
If you go to newadvent.org and look under Cyprian of Carthage you’ll find a bio of him by Pontius the Deacon. Read it and he refers to him as priest numerous times and in paragraph three differentiates between presbyterate and priesthood so he knows the difference by saying that Cyprian was both.
Also, if you go to Eusebius Church history book 10, he has a letter the author writes: “Friends and priests of God who are clothed….” According to the footnote of my book the word for priests is hierus. This is in 324-325 AD so technically not in the first three centuries but its hard to believe that they didn’t have this 30 years earlier. This letter was addressed to the Bishop of Tyre.
There’s the evidence for East and West. Also, you are free to respond to the challenge I gave James White. Why did it arise everywhere and was accepted everywhere? Why is there no anti-priesthood movement until the reformation? According to James White, William Webster and David King there were several church fathers who believed in Sola Scriptura. I even name some of the ones in the post. Where is the backlash against the priesthood if its unbiblical like Dr. White says?
Is it possible 1 Peter 2 is informing the usage of priesthood in these early uses?
Well, that is what I am asking for, namely, evidence that a distinct office of priest was early and universal. You gave me what a deacon said about Cyprian, which would be third century, and Eusebius which would be 4th century. Anything from Polycarp, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr etc.? I would really be interested in seeing those quotes.
No, I can’t provide that. They referred to them as presbyteroi. They didn’t refer to them as priest just yet but shortly after that they did. However, I will say this. Their view of the presbyters was a priestly view since they believed the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. This can be found in the Didache Chapter 14. In a few of the epistles of St. Ignatius, he refers to an altar. What goes on an altar…sacrifice. Who offers a sacrifice…the priest/presbyter.
If you want to limit these fathers as the only authority then you could not prove the two natures of Christ, the relationship between those two natures aka the hypostatic union as opposed to apollinarianism, the two wills of Christ and possibly even the deity of the Holy Ghost. The hypostatic union and the two wills of Christ aren’t in scripture. It is non-Biblical but not against the Bible.
Now, I don’t know if you believe in the hypostatic union or the two wills of Christ. I’ve heard you say that you’re a Nestorian in previous interviews so if you want, you can say those two doctrines aren’t true. Regardless, this post is about Dr. White. Dr. White has stated in the past that he believes the hypostatic union and the two wills of Christ is orthodox Christian theology. These two doctrines are not found in scripture. These two doctrines come from the authority of the Papacy and the Catholic Church. That is the only reason why Dr. White believes in them.
To be honest with you brother you just ended up vindicating Dr. White by doing what he said Catholics do, namely, taking the term presbyter and transforming it into an office of priesthood. You further beg the question by presupposing that sources like the didache must have assumed the priestly understanding of the presbytery solely because of its understanding that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Could you be so kind as to show me where the didache says that the eucharist is a sacrifice that is to be offered by a distinct group of priests. Here is chapter 14:
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. But every Lord’s day gather YOURSELVES together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that YOUR sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that YOUR sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
You will notice that the didache is saying everyone present is actually offering a sacrifice, not just the presbyters or elders, which comports with the belief of the priesthood of all believers. Now unless you are assuming that every member of the Body of Christ is a presbyter, this text does nothing to support you case.
Moreover, I have to again honestly say you are failing to understand White’s point as your constant example of the hypostatic union shows. The Holy Bible explicitly testifies that Jesus is both God and Man. There are tons of verses which confirm the two natures of Christ, whereas there is absolutely zero verses pointing to an office of priest in the NT church which is different and distinct from the priesthood of all believers. So it is only natural that Christians would convene in councils to try to understand how these two natures of Christ relate to each other, or argue over what does it exactly mean for him to be truly human, seeing that the God-breathed Scriptures affirm the two natures of Christ. Yet the God-breathed Scriptures do not confirm a distinct priestly office which is different from the priesthood held in common by all believers.
So when you say that everyone believed in the priesthood this is a red herring and a straw man argument since even White admits that the priesthood of all believers is a Biblical teaching supported in such passages as 1 Peter 2:5, 9-10, Revelation 1:5-6, 5:9-10, 20:4-6. What you need to prove is that EVERYONE believed in a distinct office of priest from the common one shared by all true believers from the very get go.
I hope my comments clarify White’s arguments. Besides, White himself stated he will be addressing your post sometime next week on his DL show.
You accuse me of making the leap from Presbyter to Priest. I didn’t do that, the early church did because they saw that office in a priestly manner with priestly functions. If you want to prove me wrong, show me where they people protested when the Church started calling presbyters priests. I would like someone to respond to my challenge at the end of the post. When people made this change in name, why didn’t they protest, especially since Dr. White believes that many early church fathers believed in Sola Scriptura and I name them in the post. Where was the protest? Show me.
Yes, the two natures of God are explicit in scripture but two natures does not equal hypostatic union. There were several heretical views that believed in two natures but not the hypostatic union. You’re actually doing what you accuse me of doing with presbyter and priest. The only difference is that I believe in tradition and the magisterium so its perfectly fine with what I believe. You believe in Sola Scriptura so you don’t have that option. Why aren’t you a Eutychian or an Apollinarian? They both believed in two natures of Christ but the difference is the relationship amongst them. That’s nowhere in the Bible. You need Pope Leo the Great and the orthodox bishops of the 5th Century Catholic Church. Same goes with the two wills of Christ. Dr. White has said that its heretical to believe in one will. Dr. Norman Geisler has said the same thing. That’s not from scripture either. I’ll say it again, Dr. White believes in the hypostatic union and the two wills of Christ because of the Papacy and the Catholic Church.
I’ll say this again, you’re free to answer the challenge that I gave to Dr. White at the end of the post. Any protestant can answer this if they want, not just Dr. White. I just hope one will.
Thanks for virtually ignoring everything I wrote. Let’s try this again, since YOU claimed that the office of priesthood distinct from the priesthood of all believers was something affirmed from THE VERY BEGINNING, then YOU need to substantiate that by showing that such a thing was believed on and understood from the very beginning.
And contrary to your assertion, the Hypostatic Union IS FOUND AND SUPPORTED in Scripture since the Scriptures teach that Jesus is BOTH God and Man simultaneously, and therefore means that he UNITED within himself two distinct natures. The question then becomes how do these natures relate to each other, and what does it mean for him to be fully and truly human, i.e., does he have to possess a human soul, will etc. to be truly human? These are the issues that the Church debated.
Finally, you need to stop arguing from silence since, just because you do not find any one objecting to the later transformation or collapsing of the presbytery into a priesthood, thereby creating a distinct priestly office from the one shared by all believers, doesn’t mean that there was no one that objected. You simply do not have enough information, documentation etc., to make such a bold assertion. Therefore, instead of trying to shift the burden of proof on your detractors, it is YOUR responsibility to prove from the Holy Bible and the early church writings that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles ordained a distinct office of priesthood from that shared by all believers.
So hopefully you will now provide the evidence that I am looking for since I am open to the truth wherever it may lead me by the grace of the Triune God.
First of all, the point of my post is to show the inconsistency of James White, not to prove the priesthood from scriptures. I might do this later though. You accuse me of ignoring what you said but you ignored everything that I said on the hypostatic union and you didn’t even try to touch the two wills of Christ. Just because Christ is both God and man, doesn’t mean the hypostatic union is true. You could be a Eutycian, and Apollinarian or a miaphysite. When you take two natures and try to extrapolate, you’re going beyond scripture only to where the Church can define. It could have defined Apollinarianism as orthodoxy but the Holy Spirit revealed the truth to the Church.
“Finally, you need to stop arguing from silence since, just because you do not find any one objecting to the later transformation or collapsing of the presbytery into a priesthood, thereby creating a distinct priestly office from the one shared by all believers, doesn’t mean that there was no one that objected.”
Well, how much writings do we have from the time of Cyprian to Luther? That’s over 1200 years. We have libraries of teachings from the Nicene fathers to the early medieval fathers, to the scholastic era in all regions of the Christian world. Surprise surprise, we have no objecting documents. Also, in all of my readings on the early Church fathers they don’t seem to produce any apologetics against an anti-priesthood movement. We don’t have Arian writings but we have a huge amount of Catholic writings against Arianism. That’s how we know Arians existed, because Catholics wrote about and against them.
So your position is this. For almost 1300 years, some people may have objected but we don’t have any of their writings or any evidence that such writings or people ever existed. Okay, thats fine. You’re entitled to this view and these standards of evidence. I’m curious if Dr. White would have this same answer. Thanks for answering my challenge.
It seems we are going to be arguing in circles. To begin with, I didn’t ignore anything since my point was that your appeal to the hypostatic union is a false analogy since the Bible is filled with verses affirming that Christ is both God and man simultaneously, whereas THERE IS NOT A SINGLE NT VERSE, NOT ONE, which affirms a distinct office of priesthood from the common priesthood of all believers. So you are comparing apples and pineapples at this point.
Secondly, the Bible does AFFIRM the hypostatic union in that it speaks of Christ possessing two distinct natures simultaneously. Therefore, your claim that it doesn’t by appealing to certain views such as miaphysitism, Eutychianism etc., shows a confusion on your part, since these were attempts of explaining HOW the two natures related to each other. In other words, these were not affirmations of Christ possessing two natures, since those who came up with those explanations saw from Scripture that Jesus was both God and Man. Rather, these were attempts of explaining how these two natures worked together, or what did it mean for Jesus to be fully God and fully human, i.e., does this mean that he possesses two wills, two minds, two spirits etc.?
And as far as accepting what later Christians said about how these two natures worked together, or what it means for Christ to possess two distinct natures, as hammered out in Chalcedon, I personally don’t subscribe to this particular council’s conclusions and creed, and don’t share your presupposition that the proclamations made by these men at this council were guided by the Holy Spirit. This is why I do not look upon those who feel that Jesus has one will, not two, or that his human nature has been deified, and therefore subsumed by his Deity, as heretics or false Christians. The reason being is that these are metaphysical questions not addressed in God’s revelation, and therefore are issues that will not be settled on this side of eternity. You choose to believe in the infallibility of these councils and there decisions, but that is because of your ecclesialogy, not because of the sound exegesis of the Scriptures, or the unanimous teaching of the early church fathers.
Anyway, I will await your post on your biblical and historical evidence for a NT office of priesthood distinct from the common priesthood shared by all believers.
You keep saying that they hypostatic union is in the Bible, yet I haven’t seen one Bible verse in support of it. You claim that I didn’t provide Biblical evidence for the priesthood(even though that was never the goal of the post) yet you say the hypostatic union is biblical and can be pointed out without Papal definition. I know the traditional verses that are used and they can’t make a concrete(or a non-concrete) case, whereas the doctrinal definition can.
I’m glad that you’re being consistent in saying that Christians can go either way on the amount of wills of Christ. I do have quotes from James White and Norman Geisler saying that one will is a heresy. We can extrapolate from this that those who believe it are heretics since anyone who believes in heresy is by definition a heretic.
Regardless, I respect your position since it is consistent with Sola Scriptura in regards to the two wills. My post was specifically against James White who has made these claims which I believe(and with your answer I’d think you’d agree) is inconsistent with his belief in Sola Scriptura and the development of Christology.
James While has called you out publicly today to debate what you put forth on this article.
You messaged him stating that you never said that he relies on the Catholic Church for doctrine, specifically the hypostatic Union of Christ yet you do in this post.
He has challenged you publicly as a response to a article you posted publicly.
So are you going to back up your assertions and schedule a debate?
Dr. White really nuked and grilled and demolished your arguments today on the Dividing Line.
I’m well aware that Dr. White responded. If you would have paid closer attention, I was answering him on twitter on the DL when he “nuked and grilled and demolished” my arguments in my post. My next post will be on that DL.
Please accept the debate challenge Dr. White gave you today on the DL. There is edification for the believers and glory for God in the presentation of the truth. I live in western Canada too and would be very interested in attending a debate on the reason why Protestants believe in orthodox Christology.
Yes, I noticed you were interacting with him and he reported on your Twitter comments. I look forward to hearing your responses.
I hope you will debate him. Roman Catholics have been scared to debate him anymore.
Yeah, the conditions that made the Donatist controversy even possible should never have been there if White’s theology were sound: by forsaking the “Gospel”, the bride of Christ must’ve got a divorce. But, this goes back to the Protestant idea that we are to derive our doctrine primarily by exegeting Scripture, and not by checking our interpretations against what God has providentially allowed his bride to practice and believe, as if the infinite source of all being didn’t give a sensus plenior to the Scriptures.
I listened to his reply, and unfortunately it seems he’s still using the same old arguments he has for years. Fom fallaciously holding Catholics to the formal sufficiency of Scripture and utterly failing to answer Pacwa’s explanation for why presbyters were not initially called “priests”, to demonstrating a profound ignorance of the 7 criteria Newman gave for doctrinal development, White is desperately in need of a new repertoire of apologetic arguments.
His appeal to Hebrews is particularly puzzling, not only in light of Chrysostom’s commentary on Hebrews 10 in his 17th homily on Hebrews, but because it is unintelligible on his position why the sacrifice of Christ is not just temporarily present to the Father until it is actually applied to all the elect, but rather eternally present to the Father. Catholics and Orthodox can at least say it’s because union with and worship of the sacrificial lamb is the central act of the Church.
“utterly failing to answer Pacwa’s explanation for why presbyters were not initially called “priests””
There is no “failure” when answering unsubstantiated twaddle. For example, you don’t need to answer me on my hypothesis that priests from the time of the apostles wore black because they had to go undetected at night during persecution. You haven’t “failed” to answer my completely made up hypothesis, because it’s unsubstantiated twaddle. See?
The day Catholics can learn to think in categories will be a joyous one.