Needgod.net released a video listing 10 reasons not to convert to Catholicism. Joe focuses in on #6, The Catholic Priesthood, and shows that it is indeed the biblical priesthood instituted by Christ.

Transcript:

Joe: Welcome back to Shameless Popery. I’m Joe Heschmeyer and many Protestants believe that the Catholic priesthood is unbiblical, that it’s not something that is authentic to Christianity. And this was recently raised by Ryan of needgod.net as one of his 10 reasons not to convert to the Catholic Church. Now, I might at another point in time address the other nine reasons, but I wanted to focus particularly on this one. It’s his reason number six. So I’m going to give you Ryan’s argument in its entirety and then break down the particular points that I think he’s making show where we agree, where we disagree, and why he’s clearly wrong from a biblical perspective. So let’s start with Ryan’s argument so you can hear it in his words rather than in mine.
CLIP:
The Old Testament had priests who acted on behalf of the people before God, offering sacrifices to make atonement. But with the atoning work of Jesus, he became our great high priest. And then when the curtain of the temper was torn in two from top to bottom, God was showing that through Christ, we now have direct access to him. Because of Jesus, no human priest is needed to mediate between us and God. Yet the Catholic church reintroduces a mediating priesthood. When somebody commits what Rome calls a mortal sin, forgiveness is not by faith in Christ, a sinner must go to a priest, confess their sins to him, and perform an act of penance to get absolution. You see what Christ finished on the cross. The Roman system resets up. The veil was torn in two by Christ, but the Catholic priesthood quietly stitches it back together.
Joe:
Okay. So you’ve heard his argument. Let’s unpack it piece by piece. Beginning with some of the areas that we agree. For instance, both sides agree Jesus is our one mediator. The difference is what that means.
CLIP:
Because of Jesus, no human priest is needed to mediate between us and God.
Joe:
As I said, Ryan is right about that. In one Timothy chapter two, we’re told there’s one God and there’s one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Now, the logical question we should be asking is, what does that mean? What is a mediator biblically speaking? Because we don’t want to just impose our own ideas. We want to find out what the Bible has to say. And in the Bible, we see the priest Eli telling his sons in one Samuel chapter two, “If a man sends against a man, God will mediate for him. But if a man sends against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” So this might lead us to one of two conclusions. We might say, “Okay, therefore mediation is the same as intercession.” Or we might say, “Well, he switches. He switches from talking about mediation to talking about intercession, so maybe they’re distinct.” A mediator is one who brings about some kind of harmony, but as you might imagine, that can mean a bunch of different things.
So what does it mean in the particular context of one Timothy chapter two? Is it saying we can’t have intercessors? Of course not. First Himothy two begins with St. Paul telling us to make intercession for everybody. Now, if that’s not possible because the only intercessor is Jesus, then clearly he wouldn’t be telling us to do that. So what does he mean when he says that the one mediator is Jesus Christ then? Well, he tells us that Jesus is one mediator because he gives himself as a ransom for all. In other words, Jesus dies on the cross for us. That’s the unique mediation. So think about it like this. There are ways of bringing people into harmony with God. You can tell them something that changes their mind and gets them to change their life and so on, or you can die on the cross for them for the salvation of the world.
You and I don’t have the power to do that second one. The question becomes, are there any other forms of mediation besides being the ransom for all that are still available to us? In other words, are there other ways we can bring people in harmony with God, not to replace the cross, but to bring people to the cross? And the New Testament is very clear on the answer and the answer is yes. So in James five, we’re told that if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. There’s one way in which only Jesus is the savior of the world. There’s another way in which we can say truly that this person saved another person by bringing them back from the error of their ways.
Both ways are biblically accurate. It just depends in what sense are you talking about someone getting saved. If you preach the gospel and they convert, you’ve saved them biblically, but Jesus has also saved them biblically. We just mean different things when we use those two expressions. Two Corinthians chapter five is very clear about this when it talks about what St. Paul calls the ministry of reconciliation. And this is obviously very relevant for the example that Ryan raises, the forgiveness of sins. St. Paul says, all this is from God who through Christ reconciled us to himself. So notice that the first reconciliation is from Christ. There’s one sentence in which only Christ can reconcile us to God, but then he says, “And gave us the ministry of reconciliation.” So there’s another sense in which human beings, those commissioned by God can go out with this ministry of reconciliation.
It’s not either or. Yes, Christ is the one who uniquely reconciles us to God. Yes, he also sends people out with the ministry of reconciliation. These things are both true. In Paul’s words, that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. He then puts it not in terms of the ministry of reconciliation, but in terms of being ambassadors for Christ. It means the same thing. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ. Be reconciled to God. So who does the reconciling? In one sense, Jesus. And in other sense, his ministers to whom he’s entrusted the ministry of reconciliation. And a third sense, the sinner who chooses to be reconciled to God. All of those are true. They just mean different aspects of this reconciliation process.
So now with that in mind, consider Ryan’s critique of Catholic priests exercise in the ministry of reconciliation.
CLIP:
Yet the Catholic church reintroduces a mediating priesthood. When somebody commits what Rome calls a mortal sin, forgiveness is not by faith in Christ, a sinner must go to a priest, confess their sins to him and perform an act of penance to get absolution.
Joe:
There’s several problems with Ryan’s claims. The first is that he’s misrepresenting what the Catholic church actually teaches. So for instance, he says, “Forgiveness is not by faith in Christ and the Catholic system.” That’s blatantly false. You might disagree with the Catholic view, but at least honestly say what the Catholic view is. And the catechism of the Catholic church is quite clear that for you to receive the sacrament of penance, the penitent, the person going to confession, is required first to have repentance. This is paragraph 1491 of the Catechism, actually says it multiple times. And then 1492 says that repentance also called contrition must be inspired by motives that arise from faith. So it’s just not honest. It’s not accurate to say forgiveness is not by faith in Christ in the Catholic system. In the Catholic system, literally everyone who has ever validly received absolution and confession, literally everyone who has validly received the sacrament of penance, reconciliation, confession, has done so by faith in Christ.
Without exception, it is a must. So don’t claim something that is explicitly what we reject as our teaching. It would be like if I said, “Oh, the problem with Ryan is he doesn’t believe in the three persons of the Trinity.” Yes, he does. It’d be dishonest to accuse him on those grounds. So accusing Catholics on the grounds that we don’t believe forgiveness is by faith in Christ and confession is just not true. So what about the actual Catholic? Once you get the falsehoods Ryan sharing out of the way, he is right to say that when we commit mortal sins, we are told to go to confession and to confess our sins to other people. Well, is that biblical? Absolutely it is. It’s not actually true, by the way, that you have to perform the act of penance to get absolution. If you see 1491, you’ll notice you just have the intention to make the act of penance, but that’s not here nor there.That’s an easier mistake.
Whereas the not by faith in Christ is just a flagrant falsehood. But let’s talk about the actual biblical foundation. In one John five, we see there’s a distinction between mortal and non-mortal sin. This is later called venial sin. In James chapter five, we’re told to confess our sins to one another and to pray for one another that we might be healed. And then we’re told the prayer of a righteous man has great power in his effects. So notice, we are confessing our sins that we might be healed because we believe in the power of prayer. Now, so far, it doesn’t say anything about it having to be a priest. And in that sense, it doesn’t. You can go and take your sins before someone else and you can ask him to pray for you to bring about spiritual healing. All of that is completely compatible with the Catholic system.
All of that is completely compatible with Christ’s finished work of redemption on the cross. There’s nothing wrong with believing both that Christ did everything he needed to do on the cross for my sin, although he still rose from the dead. So it’s not actually completed in that sense, neither here nor there. And also believing that when I sin, I must confess my sin to somebody else, because that’s also biblical. James 5:16 is right there in the Bible. You might interpret away that verse, but it’s right there. And then we’re told in one John one: nine, “If we confess our sins, he, God, is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Now that’s significant because it shows that current Christians might still have sins that need confessing and might still have areas where we need to be cleansed from all unrighteousness.
Now I’ve talked about this before, but for instance, two Corinthians seven, where St. Paul talks about us needing to be completely purified, Christians are told of an ongoing need of forgiveness for sins. The cross does not eliminate my ongoing need to be forgiven for my sins. The cross makes possible my ongoing need to be forgiven for my sins and the fact that they can actually be forgiven. Christians pray this every day in the Lord’s prayer. We pray that we will be forgiven of our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And Jesus in Matthew six goes on to say, “If we don’t do that, we won’t be forgiven.” So Ryan’s schema where sin is only something in the past because of the work of Christ on the cross is directly contrary to scripture. So our sins need to be confessed so they can be forgiven.
That’s biblical and part of that includes confessing them to one another. That’s also biblical.
Why a priest though? Because to the clergy, not to everybody, but to the 12, Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit upon them in John 20 and tells them, receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they’re forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained. So put these pieces together and I think a very clear picture emerges that the priests are living out this ministry of reconciliation, which is very clearly biblical and that this includes the ability to forgive sins. You might disagree with that, but it shouldn’t be on the grounds that it’s not in the Bible because it clearly is. Let’s go to another point where we actually have a good deal of agreement. Jesus is our great high priest. So here’s how Ryan puts it.
CLIP:
The Old Testament had priests who acted on behalf of the people before God, offering sacrifices to make atonement, but with the atoning work of Jesus, he became our great high priest.
Joe:
So it’s true. Jesus does become our great high priest and Hebrews five talks about, although Christ was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered and being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, which this is significant, Ryan, because he’s denied the need for obedience for salvation. He’s a source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God, a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. We’re going to find out later why that matters. And it’s after the order of Melchizedek and what that has to do with the Eucharist. But for now, I want you to notice that the fact that Jesus is a high priest doesn’t mean there aren’t other priests. In fact, the term high priest suggests that there are other priests. So for instance, in Nehemiah three mentions the high priest who rises up with his brethren and the priests or two Kings 23 mentions the high priest and what it calls the priest of the second order.
It’s like if you say the lead singer, the implication there isn’t that there are no other singers. The implication there is that there are and that one is the leader. So when calling Christ our high priest, it’s pointing to the fact that there are in fact other priests. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which Christ isn’t just our high priest. We would actually go further and say, in a certain sense is as if Christ is the only priest because the only true priesthood is the Christian priesthood, the priesthood of Jesus Christ. That’s not a rebuttal of the Catholic view. That is explicitly the Catholic view. The Catechism paragraph 15:45 says, “The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all, yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the church.” That’s going to get back to the Melchizedek nature of the priesthood of Christ.
We’re going to return to that theme. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ. It is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ priesthood. And then St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted, “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.” Again, notice how biblical this idea is. Christ is the one who makes reconciliation, yet he sends out ambassadors ministers of reconciliation. Not to be another bridge to God, but to be people to lead others to the bridge that is Christ. That’s the idea that all these other priests are just the ministers sharing in the priesthood of the one true priest, the high priest, Jesus Christ. It’s not an either or. It’s not Christ can do his thing over here, but I’m going to do some totally other thing over here. Just as when we talk about someone being good, in the fullest sense, only God is good.
But you can nevertheless say someone is a good person and scripture even uses that kind of language, as long as you understand it to be a sharing and the one goodness of God. Similarly, any true priesthood, whether we’re talking about the priest of the Catholic church or whether we’re talking about the way all the baptized share in the priesthood of Christ, this is only true as a sharing in the one true priesthood, which is out of Jesus. So let’s turn to that because I think this is a third area where we actually have a substantial amount of agreement. We, the baptized, all faithful Christians are a royal priesthood. This is biblical, but it’s biblical in a way that many Protestants have misunderstood, I think, the meaning of it. In one Peter chapter two, Peter says, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Aha, you might say, “Well, look, I guess the issue isn’t that there’s just one priest.
I guess the issue is we are all priests, and so we don’t need a priesthood. We don’t need some subset of Christians calling themselves Catholic clergy and declaring themselves to be bishops and priests.” Well, here’s the first problem with that. From a biblical literacy perspective, this is not some break between the old covenant and the new covenant. Peter is quoting almost verbatim from Exodus 19 and which God says to Israel, “Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” So those are the words that were spoken to Israel about being a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. And then St. Peter says, almost the exact same thing in one Peter two, verse nine, to the new Israel, the church.
So the question should be, do these words deny the existence of a distinct priesthood within the people of God? Or to put it another way, did Israel have a priesthood? They did. The fact that all the people are priestly in one sense doesn’t mean there might be some second sense in which only the Iranic priesthood shares in the priesthood of Israel. It doesn’t mean there’s not a special sense in which only the Melchizedek priests share in the priesthood of Christ. In fact, there’s a notorious example in Numbers chapter 16. In number 16, one of the Levites, a man named Cora, uses this argument that, “Hey, we’re all a holy people. ” In other words, he’s looking to this promise made in Exodus 19 as an explanation that they don’t need a special priesthood. This is almost exactly the charge that Martin Luther and many Protestants made against the Catholic priesthood.
The Holy people is holy. Cora says, “You have gone too far for all the congregation are holy, every one of them and the Lord is among them. Why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” That sounds like a very familiar charge. How does it work out in number 16? Well, when Cora and the others go to offer sacrifice, they’re committing an act of schism. They’re breaking from the congregation, from the people of God. And so the earth beneath them breaks. There’s a schism in the earth. The ground under them splits as under, the earth swallows them up and they die. Moses had pointed to this as evidence that if they go down alive into shael like this, that you shall know that these men have despised the Lord. So that’s what happens. Their death is being buried alive in the earth because they’re schismatics and because in doing this, even though Cora and his followers would say this is a sign of their holiness as part of this congregation, they were in fact despising the Lord by rejecting the order that he had established.
Now, I think that’s something that we should take very seriously today. I think the fact that Exodus 19 was misinterpreted in this deadly schismatic way and that one Peter sounds very similar to Exodus 19 and is in being interpreted in this similarly schismatic way, he’s dangerous and something we should watch out for. But I’m aware. Someone might say, “Well, no, this is different in the New Covenant. That’s no longer true. So even though Exodus 19 and one Peter two looks similar, we no longer have to be worried about Korah’s rebellion. We may be doing something that looks a lot like what Korah is doing, but don’t worry. It’s not wrong when we do it. ” Now, Ryan hasn’t said that. I’m not trying to put those words in his mouth. I’m trying to anticipate how someone might hear about Korah and not immediately repent and return to the Catholic church.
They would say, “It’s not sinful this time.” To that, I would point to the epistle of Jude. In Jude one, it’s only one chapter, verse three, Jude explains that he’s writing to appeal to contend for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints. And he’s explaining why. He says, “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our Lord into licensiousness and deny our only master in Lord Jesus Christ.” So notice two things. Number one, there is this new threat of people perverting the grace of God into life sensiousness saying, “You can do whatever you want, you don’t have to obey.” And number two, that one of the responses is to contend to the old time faith, the faith delivered once for all. That you should watch out for someone who reinterprets grace into licensiousness.
You should watch out for someone with a new interpretation of what scripture allegedly says that you should instead contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. That if someone’s coming along with a new teaching, that’s a red flag. Even if they say they got it from their plain reading of scripture, if that’s not the plain reading delivered once for all to the saints, don’t listen to it. That’s the first thing I’d say there. That’s verses three to four. But let’s talk about these revilers of Christ, those who pervert the grace of God into licensiousness. We’re told that they defile the flesh, reject authority and revile the glorious ones. So there’s a hatred for the saints and a rejection of authority. This is going to be an important dimension because a few verses later in verse 11, he says, “Woe to them and he accuses them of perishing in Cora’s rebellion.” In other words, there will be groups that come along and their teaching on grace is going to be very similar to what Korah did and this will be rebellion, breaking away from the church and woe to them because they’re abandoning the true faith That’s the warning.
They are rejecting Christianity. This is what Jude is teaching. This isn’t what I’m telling you. Jude is telling you this. And then the question is, “Well, who do we find doing this? ” And I would point to an actual interaction I had with Ryan and which I asked him if he could point to anyone in the centuries, I think I said the thousand years after the time of the apostles, who he would recognize as saved, and he had to admit he could not name a single person he would recognize as a brother Christian who he saw as saved. Okay. Was there someone in the first thousand years after the apostles who was saved you could point to and you say, “I think that person is going to heaven?”
CLIP:
Well, I know that there was because God will-
Joe:
Right. I know that they … Obviously there must be- But it does seem like kind of a strike against your position if you can’t find anyone, right?
CLIP:
Well, there are … I would say because it wasn’t this major position in during different time periods, I would say that those who held a different position would have been suppressed.
Joe:
So Ryan says there must be somebody out there, but he admits for a thousand years he can’t find anybody. And just suggest maybe this was all a big coverup. They were suppressed and persecuted. But of course, even those who were opponents of the church, we often find the writings written to respond to them. So this is what I mean where it appears he is engaging in Cora’s rebellion, using these passages to say, “We don’t need the priests in the exact same way Cora did, using this same kind of authority and reasoning that Cora u... Read more on Catholic.com