The claim that Christ did not establish a "church"

[CCCC]

I've come across this claim quite a bit recently, although I'm sure it's been around for a while.

Many (not all!) Evangelical Christians, when faced with the claim that the LDS Church is the restored church that Christ and his apostles established when they were alive, counter the claim by arguing that:

1) There never was an institutionalized church per se, but that the "Church" is simply anyone who believes in Christ.

2) There is no "priesthood" as Mormons use the term, but that any believer in Christ is authorized to perform baptism and other ordinances.

3) Finally, some of them also claim that baptism is simply an outward expression of one's faith in Christ, but the ordinance itself is not necessary for salvation.

(Again I should point out that not all Evangelicals believe these points, but I've met several who do... I don't want to set up a straw man here.)

My question is, how recently did these ideas start being taught? According to the Evangelical perspective, this is what the Bible means, and what the first generations of Christians believed. But it's certainly not what was taught during the Middle Ages. So I suppose it's an idea that was either re-discovered (if you believe it) or invented (if you don't) some time after the Protestant Reformation. So when did people start teaching these ideas?

[rameumptom]

In the last Gen Conference, Elder Oaks explained that there are two types of priesthood: the priesthood of the believers and the authoritative priesthood.

Two Lines of Communication

There is evidence for both in the scriptures: Moses was the authorized prophet-priest, but others prophesied down in the camp. Instead of condemning such, he wished that all could be prophets. Still, he held the authority over all of Israel, the Tabernacle, and Law.

In Samuel's day, the young Saul came across the sons of the prophets and began prophesying with them. Yet, Samuel still held the priesthood authority over sacrifices and leading all of Israel.

This pattern continues through the New Testament. We find the prophet Agabus come upon Paul and prophesy of how he will be bound and taken to Rome. We do not know of Agabus being among the Twelve apostles (nor is he called an apostle), wherein he would have the official priesthood authority. Still, his prophesy was believed and accepted by Paul and his colleagues.

For those who followed only the unofficial priesthood of believers, they would not find a Church. But for those who did follow the official priesthood chain, they would understand that wherever there is the official Priesthood of God, there is the Church. Christ called 12 apostles and 70 to go proselyting. He gave them power to baptize and heal the sick. That shows organization. Paul would later note that the foundation of the Church is made of "apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20). This demonstrates the importance of the official priesthood line that Jesus established in his mortal ministry.

Even Jesus would tell his apostles, "you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you..." (John 15:16).

The importance of this authority, and the layers of authority are shown in the Book of Acts, where Philip preaches and baptizes in Samaria. However, he must send to Jerusalem for Peter and John to lay hands on the baptized, so they can receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 8). Later, Paul would re-baptize 12 men, who had not even heard of the Holy Ghost (Acts 19). These events would have been unnecessary had there not been an official priesthood and Church structure.

[CCCC]

Thanks for the post -- when I was a missionary I had most of those references memorized. (I'd love to be as good with the scriptures as I was back then!)

And yet there still seems to be a large number of Christians today who apparently only believe in the priesthood of the believers, even to the point of denying that an authoritative priesthood ever existed. Does anyone know where and when and with whom that idea originated?

[rameumptom]

Yes, it started with Martin Luther. In his rejection of many things Catholic (he was a priest), he taught that there was no organized priesthood. He saw the problems with the Inquisition, bribes, and indulgences done by the priesthood of the Catholic Church and rejected the whole thing.

His reasoning was that if one accepted the official priesthood, it meant one had to accept the Pope and all the baggage of the RCC at the time. Instead, a priesthood of believers freed him from those issues and allowed him and his followers to begin a new Christianity apart from the Catholic church.

However, in his experience, there was no apostasy and restoration to consider. His solution fit for his day, when there was no third option: Restoration of official priesthood authority.

Many just will not accept our teaching regarding the priesthood, because they are historically suspicious of such authority held by man. All we can do is teach it and encourage them to pray about it with an open mind.

[CCCC]

So did Luther actually teach that there never was an organized priesthood, or did he believe that there had been one, but that it was no longer in the Catholic Church?

Follow-up questions:

Did Luther also believe that there never was an institutionalized Church?

Did Luther believe that baptism was just an outward expression of faith and not a required ordinance?

[prisonchaplain]

I cannot speak to Luther, but to evangelicalism, you are largely getting the right description here. We do not believe there is a single, human insitutionalized church that is correct--or "restored"--vs. all others that are not. However, we do believe in church institutions. Many of the early creeds referred to the "catholic" church. Note the small-c. The word means universal. We do believe in the universal Christian church, which is indeed made up of all sincere believers in Christ. These believers likely come from most of the Christian denominations, as well as the many independent and non-denominational ones.

And yes, we do look to Jesus' many commands as being directed to all believers--the "royal priesthood" the "holy nation." And, in practice, LDS have done the same. Nearly all LDS members are priests--even the adolescents. As a movement, you seem to have indirectly endorsed the concept of the priesthood of all believers, even though you have surrounded it with rituals of ordination and high calling.

As for baptism, it is true that most evangelicals do not believe that it is a prerequisite of conversion, but rather is one of the first acts of obedience a new believer submits to. While the LDS doctrine follows Catholic and Lutheran instruction on this, in practice it is a middle position. Since LDS teach that many Christians, as well as others who are sincere, but not submitted wholey to the restored gospel, will inhereit the Terrestial kingdom (or even the telestial one). and that water baptism would not be a requirement to enter these kingdoms, then you too hold that baptism is not required to escape the fires of hell.

[CCCC]

Okay, so I'm glad that I'm basically correct in how I understand Evangelical beliefs. I'm still curious to know where these ideas came from, since they were absent from Christian (i.e., Catholic) writings from essentially the 4th through 16th centuries (at least).

Again, I'm not really concerned with whether or not early Christians shared those beliefs -- I'm more interested in understanding when these ideas began being in more modern times.

[prisonchaplain]

If the Catholic church erred in offering indulgences, and some of the other matters Luther raised, then how can we be sure what they were right about? Luther opened a floodgate of questions. In addition, there was an almost anti-ritual backlash against Catholicism. Very quickly Holy Communion went from a literal, physical consumption of Christ--the central aspect of corporate--to a symbolic appendage to church, limited to once a month or so. If the Eucharist could be reinterpreted, then why not baptism?

[CCCC]

Interesting... I see that when Luther pointed out that the Eucharist was not the literal body and blood of Christ it must have been a real "the Emperor's wearing no clothes!" moment. And then like you said, floodgates are opened.

So was it Luther himself who believed that there was no need for a Church with authority, as in, led by prophets and apostles with priesthood keys? Or did he believe that any true believer had those keys? Or did Luther believe that authority was necessary but that it just wasn't found in the Catholic Church or anywhere else, and so Christians had to do the best they could with what they had (i.e., the Bible) until authority was restored?

[prisonchaplain]

Somebody get Maureen in on this string! :-). Luther did argue for sola scriptura, meaning that the Scriptures were the final authority. Even the Catholic church did not have the office of prophet, so the thought that prophets were needed to lead it had obviously either never been primary, or had been lost many centuries earlier. The "keys" you refer to is something that is significant to LDS teaching, but is not something I have come across in my church history studies. Like baptism for the dead, it either never was a pervasive teaching, or it was lost very early on.

[CCCC]

Catholics are also pretty big on priesthood "keys", at least as far as I understand Catholicism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Catholics believe that their ordained priests have authority to perform ordinances in the name of God?

The way I think of keys is sort of like a sheriff in Western movies having authority to choose his own deputies. As in, when the bandits get too strong, the sheriff goes around and picks a few of the toughest guys in town, hands then some badges and makes them take an oath, and they're now officially recognized lawmen. Now, suppose Jesus is the sheriff. In the Catholic Church, He doesn't give out many badges. In the LDS Church, he gives out badges to every able-bodied (read: worthy) male. In various branches of Protestant and Evangelical churches, nobody actually needs a badge as long as they're on the sheriff's side (or everyone gets a badge, which means essentially the same thing).

If my analogy is accurate, then does that mean that Luther's sola scriptura argument is the basis for Evangelicals believing that you don't need a badge (ordination) to carry out baptisms and other ordinances?

Edit:

Obviously Mormons and Catholics don't believe that Jesus is directly ordaining everyone, so just suppose in my analogy that deputies also have the authority to pick new deputies.

Edited February 24, 2011 by CCCC
clarification

[Jason_J]

Catholics are also pretty big on priesthood "keys", at least as far as I understand Catholicism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Catholics believe that their ordained priests have authority to perform ordinances in the name of God?

Yes, Catholics believe in the importance of the ministerial priesthood. However, the answer is a little more complicated than that:

Catholicism has the concept of "valid" and "illicit" in relation to the sacraments (what LDS call "ordinances"). "Valid" refers to whether or not the sacrament actually did what it claims to do. "Illicit" refers to whether it is lawful to exercise that authority or partake in that sacrament.

An example of this is if a bishop ordains another bishop someone without permission from Rome. The person would be ordained, since the bishop has the power to ordain, but it was an illicit ordination, since he didn't have permission. Similarly, let's say there is a validly ordained priest that goes rogue (Catholics would say that the priest is in "schism", or out of communion with the Catholic Church). If that priest celebrates Mass, the Eucharist would be valid (meaning that, according to Catholics, the bread and wine would become the body and blood of Christ), however it was illicit for him to do so, and it would be illicit for a Catholic to knowingly participate in schismatic sacraments, whether they are valid or not.

Another issue is that of the "ordinary minister" of a sacrament. In Catholicism, just like in Mormonism, each ordinance has a specific priesthood office that can perform a specific sacrament/ordinance. However in Catholicism, in certain cases, someone else besides the ordinary minister is allowed to validly perform the sacrament. A big example of this is baptism. In Catholicism, deacons, priests and bishops are the ordinary ministers of baptism. However, if someone is dying, and there is no ordinary minister immediately available, anyone, whether Catholic, LDS, Buddhist, or atheist, can validly baptize that person, if they use water, say the right words, and do what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes. The LDS Church does not have this concept, and it is something that I personally think makes more sense in the LDS faith.

The Catholic Church also accepts as valid baptisms done in other traditional Trinitarian Christian churches, whether it regards that church as having a valid priesthood or not (The Catholic Church sees the Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, and Assyrian Church of the East, and perhaps a few others, as having valid priesthoods and thus valid sacraments).

[prisonchaplain]

I'm much better explaining evangelicalism than Catholicism...thanks Jason!

[bytebear]

If the Catholic church erred in offering indulgences, and some of the other matters Luther raised, then how can we be sure what they were right about? Luther opened a floodgate of questions. In addition, there was an almost anti-ritual backlash against Catholicism. Very quickly Holy Communion went from a literal, physical consumption of Christ--the central aspect of corporate--to a symbolic appendage to church, limited to once a month or so. If the Eucharist could be reinterpreted, then why not baptism?

Not to change the subject, but it seems this is not invoked evenly with all doctrines. The Trinity is set in stone, for example, and it has become the very definition of Christianity, and yet. "how can we be sure what they were right about?" seems not to apply.

[prisonchaplain]

Bytebear, you question is understandable. On the other hand, what was Luther questioning? He opposed indulgences. He argued that scripture must outweigh tradition. His theological aim was at the practics of church, not about doctrines related to who God was, or how we are saved.

Over time, everything was open for questioning--including the Trinity. It stands to reason that the initial controversies were over the same matters that the original schism addressed, and that more foundational teaching would not be examined until later.

[CCCC]

So then does Luther agree with the Catholic Church as far as interpretation of scripture, but differ from them only in points of tradition and ritual?

[prisonchaplain]

CCCC...largely so. Talks have been on-going between the RCC and the Lutheran Churches (especially ELCA, I believe) about re-uniting. I'm not suggesting that this will happen any time soon, just that both sides realize that they are quite close in most things. As a caveat, some synods of Lutherans are far less open to reunion. My understanding is that neither the Missouri nor Wisconsin synods have much interest at all.

Lutheran-Roman Catholic - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Edited March 4, 2011 by prisonchaplain
add link

[SteveVH]

If the Catholic church erred in offering indulgences, and some of the other matters Luther raised, then how can we be sure what they were right about? Luther opened a floodgate of questions. In addition, there was an almost anti-ritual backlash against Catholicism. Very quickly Holy Communion went from a literal, physical consumption of Christ--the central aspect of corporate--to a symbolic appendage to church, limited to once a month or so. If the Eucharist could be reinterpreted, then why not baptism?

The fact that it would take pages here to explain indulgences precludes me from offering an in depth reponse. Luther never objected to the "offering" of indulgences. It was the abuse of selling indulgences that Luther rejcted, as he should have. This had never been Church teaching and those that practiced it were in grave sin. However, this is like asking a Mormon why polygamy was reinterpreted or why the Book of Mormon was reinterpreted concerning blacks and the mark of Cain.

As for your statement concerning the Eucharist, I would really be interested in some documentation with which you back up your statement. As a person in your position on this forum, I'm sure you do not want to misrepresent an other's faith.

When, in the entire history of the Catholic Church, has the Eucharist ever been considered "a symbolic appendage to church, limited to once a month or so"? It is the center and purpose of the Mass, the source and summit of our faith, which has been on going since Pentecost. It has never changed in practice or in meaning. If you would like quotes, from the first century on, confirming this, I will be happy to provide them.

[prisonchaplain]

The fact that it would take pages here to explain indulgences precludes me from offering an in depth reponse. Luther never objected to the "offering" of indulgences. It was the abuse of selling indulgences that Luther rejcted, as he should have.

I've stated previously that I am not an expert on the nuances of Catholic history, so I accept your fine tuning my explanation. Also, most here realize that I am an evangelical pastor, and understand that I am offering my best second-hand understanding.

As for your statement concerning the Eucharist, I would really be interested in some documentation with which you back up your statement. As a person in your position on this forum, I'm sure you do not want to misrepresent an other's faith.

When, in the entire history of the Catholic Church, has the Eucharist ever been considered "a symbolic appendage to church, limited to once a month or so"? It is the center and purpose of the Mass, the source and summit of our faith, which has been on going since Pentecost. It has never changed in practice or in meaning. If you would like quotes, from the first century on, confirming this, I will be happy to provide them.

I may not have written as clearly as I intended to. My post was meant to show what happened to various Catholic doctrines as they were questioned and changed in Protestantism. The part you italicized is sometimes a problem in evangelical churches, not in Catholic ones. If I gave the impression that I was referring to current or recent Catholic practice, I do apologize. The Eucharist remains central to the Catholic mass.

Again, my point was that once Luther questioned Catholic practices, and a schism developed, all doctrines and practices became open to examination. My example was that the central element of Catholic worship has become rather peripheral in modern evangelical worship.

I hope that clarifies.

[SteveVH]

I've stated previously that I am not an expert on the nuances of Catholic history, so I accept your fine tuning my explanation. Also, most here realize that I am an evangelical pastor, and understand that I am offering my best second-hand understanding.

I may not have written as clearly as I intended to. My post was meant to show what happened to various Catholic doctrines as they were questioned and changed in Protestantism. The part you italicized is sometimes a problem in evangelical churches, not in Catholic ones. If I gave the impression that I was referring to current or recent Catholic practice, I do apologize. The Eucharist remains central to the Catholic mass.

Again, my point was that once Luther questioned Catholic practices, and a schism developed, all doctrines and practices became open to examination. My example was that the central element of Catholic worship has become rather peripheral in modern evangelical worship.

I hope that clarifies.

Thank you very much. I must admit that the roman collar kind of threw me for a loop. I didn't realize that an Evangelical Pastor would be allowed to be a moderator on Mormon forum so I was a bit confused. lol. Very cool!

Edited March 9, 2011 by SteveVH

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you very much. I must admit that the roman collar kind of threw me for a loop. I didn't realize that an Evangelical Pastor would be allowed to be a moderator on Mormon forum so I was a bit confused. lol. Very cool!

You are welcome, and my position is rather unusual. I was invited to moderate, and after prayerful consideration, consented. As to the collar, I consider it a clerical collar, and started wearing it in Miami. Since I minister in jail, it was an easy way to distinguish myself from psychologists, social workers, etc. with the inmates. Some of them might think I was Catholic because of it, but I could quickly correct that. If they thought I was just another administrator, they would never ask.

Also, there are some Protestant clergy who wear clericals--and not only the "high church" folk. I understand they are very common in African-American pentecostal churches, for example. For a rational, see the following: Why Clergy Should Wear Clericals

[SteveVH]

You are welcome, and my position is rather unusual. I was invited to moderate, and after prayerful consideration, consented. As to the collar, I consider it a clerical collar, and started wearing it in Miami. Since I minister in jail, it was an easy way to distinguish myself from psychologists, social workers, etc. with the inmates. Some of them might think I was Catholic because of it, but I could quickly correct that. If they thought I was just another administrator, they would never ask.

Also, there are some Protestant clergy who wear clericals--and not only the "high church" folk. I understand they are very common in African-American pentecostal churches, for example. For a rational, see the following: Why Clergy Should Wear Clericals

I personally love to see men of God in a clerical position distinguish themselves in this way. Wherever you go it is sign of God's presence, a reminder to all that there are people like you who have dedicated their lives to God's work. You will even see people's behavior change when you walk into a room. Awesome.