Baptists hold that “there are two kinds of ministers in the church, first, bishops, pastors, or presbyters, the terms being synonymous (with them), and second, deacons” (The Biblical Position, no. 14; Robert A. Baker, Baptist Biographies in History, p. 17; see also p. 31; Finley M. Graham, Systematic Theology, p. 293; Awad Semaan, Priesthood, pp. 321-325; J. M. Carroll, History of the Baptist Churches, p. 17). They categorically reject the priesthood as a sacrament. They do not refrain from demeaning it as “an old, weak, worn-out pillar,” or “a fallen human headship” (The Biblical Position, no. 5).
They claim that it was created as a result of a false interpretation of the Gospel that “completely subverted the teaching of Jesus as to the character and work of his ministers (i.e., the role of priests in the sacraments and their relationship to bishops)” (Robert A. Baker, op. cit., p. 28). There are no successors to Christ (Awad Simeon, op. cit., pp. 317-320, 325). There are no successors to the apostles (op. cit., pp. 325-329, 424-427). This is because Christ “does not die, nor does his ministry, or any part of his ministry, be interrupted for any reason, so that there is no need for anyone to assist him in performing it, or to replace him for a period” (op. cit., p. 281). Anyone who has had the opportunity to read their writings will know that they are proud to have taken from Martin Luther (1483-1546) the rediscovery of “the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers,” and that they “accepted it with absolute enthusiasm,” because it “contradicts the idea of the existence of a priestly ecclesiastical body standing between believers and God” (Al-Kalima, No. 8, November 2000, p. 7). In their opinion, “all true believers are priests of God in the literal sense” (Awad Semaan, op. cit., pp. 159-163, 166, 167, 277, 280, 282, 313), and there is no need for priests (op. cit., pp. 271-284). This requires some clarification.
Leaving aside the poor language evident in these citations, it is difficult, in fact, to respond, in one article, to all the points raised by Baptists in their discourse on the priesthood. (1)Therefore, we will limit ourselves to responding to their claims about the arrangement of responsibilities in the New Testament, and consequently the priesthood in secret. This may suffice to show the weakness and uselessness of their teachings.
It is well known that the Baptists, who recognize the existence of two types of ministers in the Church, consider that the existence of priests in the literal sense, in the first century, “has no share of truth.” This categorical position presupposes a very important clarification, namely that the terms used in the New Testament for those responsible in the community are not explained in detail in the order of the covenant itself. The apostles were, during their lifetime, the responsible ones in the community. They were also, during their lifetime, assigned to those responsible for the community who succeeded them in their absence, and subsequently after their death (see, for example: Acts 14:23, 15:22, 20:17, 28; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; Hebrews 13:17; James 5:14). But what is the meaning of the aforementioned responsibilities, and do they have a hierarchical character (i.e. the bishop first and the deacon second or third)? The answer to this question is difficult to determine based on the texts of the New Testament. If we take the deacons, for example, it is known that they were responsible for serving the tables, and at the same time they taught and baptized (Acts 6:8-7:60, 8:4-13, 26-40). What confirms the specificity of this responsibility is that the Lord described himself as a servant (Matthew 20:28). The word servant means deacon. This necessarily means that they were also leaders in the congregation. The Baptists’ belief that bishops are the first in charge and deacons are the second (or third) is something that became clear after the era of the apostles. The deacon’s work was limited to serving the tables. The bishop, or whoever he delegates (the priests), continued to administer the holy mysteries. This means that Baptists are selective, taking whatever they like from the books and their meanings that appear in the land of history, and giving them the meaning that suits them.
The aforementioned responsibilities, whose meaning was revealed after the era of the apostles, suggest that the meanings are broader than the time frames. If the Church spoke of priestly degrees, this does not mean that she added different meanings to the books of the New Testament. The Church received not only the books, but also their meanings. However, the Baptist sects, which claim that they base their teachings on the Holy Books, do not accept its understanding extended in history. We are not surprised by this position based on hostility to the Holy Church, her thought and her practice.
The question that imposes itself is: What is the scriptural significance of the secrecy of the priesthood? This presupposes, first of all, a very important clarification that the Baptists are not ignorant of, nor do they reject, even though they do not accept its reflection on the church service, namely that Christ, according to the revelation of the New Testament, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews (5:6, 7:3-21, 10:21), is the “high priest” who contains in himself all the elements of priestly mediation in their entirety, that is, perfection, eternal salvation, and the call from God according to the order of Melchizedek. There is no realistic statement about the priesthood that is not based on this revelation. This means that the Church, by affirming that the priesthood is a sacrament, came from the priesthood of Christ in essence, that is, she did not invent a contrary teaching. This is proven by her statement that “the bishop is an icon of Christ,” that is, his image. It does not see the bishops (or priests) as independent of the incarnate Lord and Redeemer. It does not consider them as other persons before Christ, or as replacing Him, but rather that He dwells in them. There are many sayings of the Lord that indicate that He placed His power in human beings. It is sufficient, as proof, to repeat His saying: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in Me, the works that I do will do also; and greater works than these will he do” (John 14:12). This saying raises a big question: Did the apostles, to whom the Lord addressed His words, feel that they were able to do God’s works independently of Him? Certainly not. Therefore, His saying has a purpose, and a clear purpose. He does the works in them. I do not believe that we need to cite examples that reveal that the group of apostles did everything in the name of Christ, that is, with their faith in Him present in them. The Book of Acts is full of examples, or all of it is an example of that. This necessarily applies, in every generation, to those whom the Lord has entrusted with leading His flock. Has this changed the meaning of the sacrament?
One of the problems of the Baptists, and those who follow their approach, is that they may accept that the Lord gave His power to His first disciples, but they deny it to others. This means, and thus, that God’s work, for them, is limited to the period of the apostles’ presence on earth! In the face of this denial, there are two options: Either the Lord is not the Savior of all history, or what He said and did is valid in all times. We leave this to their contemplation if they are capable of objective contemplation!
(1) See: Network Library and Department of Theology and Orthodox Faith