Other questions have covered: - [Biblical basis and our duties](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/48414/10672) of being priest - How being members of this royal priesthood of all believers is [different than specific roles in a church](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/23627/10672) My question is: What is the mature 21st century Reformed theology on: 1. WHAT our duties are TODAY as priests in the [Priesthood of all Believers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers) , and 1. Complete DOCTRINE that cover *all* relevant OT and NT verses interpreted from Reformed perspective, which needs to cover: - Specific Reformed-style typology from OT priesthood - Formal definition of New Covenant "priest" and how it is considered "exclusionary" compared to the "inclusionary" Catholic version - How this priesthood is contrasted to the roles mentioned in the New Testament (largely covered already in the 2nd question linked above) - Identifying what our duties are *now* vs. *future* (after the second coming) - *Practical priestly significance* (to others) of having direct access to God - Relationship to *spiritual gifts* - New Testament equivalent of offering *spiritual* sacrifices - Implications of the *meaning of worship*, whether individually or corporately (since worship WAS part of temple priestly function) - Prophetic and teaching roles to announce Jesus to the unconverted world - Being agents of reconciliation to the world - Relationship to our other duties to be disciples of Christ, etc. - How are we to be stewards of creation, thus recovering Adam's original calling - Etc. Resources in the first linked question (such as [this](https://web.archive.org/web/20160427191009/https://ifwe.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Priesthood-of-All-Believers_Final.pdf)) already have the kernel of an answer but it is not specific to Reformed theology. I'm also asking for a formal definition such as what one would read out of a 21st Reformed Systematic Theology book that has taken into account new Biblical research for better understanding of Second Temple Judaism. Thus, **citations** from those kinds of books (or a journal paper equivalent) would be expected in an answer. Some resources that can be consulted by an answer: - A 2021 *Christianity Today* article [5 Books that Portray the Priesthood of All Believers](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/09/5-books-priesthood-of-all-believers-cliff-warner/) (not specific to Reformed theology, though)

What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers?

The German translation for the phrase “priesthood of all believers” is “Priestertum aller Gläubigen”. According to everything I have read, Martin Luther popularized the doctrine but did not use this exact German phrase anywhere in his writing. What is the earliest known time this phrase appeared in print, either in German or English? So far, this question has stumped Google and Microsoft Copilot. To start things off, Google gets me back as far as the early 19th century: - 1860: *The Priesthood of the Church* by Newman Hall - 1857: *The Religious Condition of Christendom* by the Rev. Dr. Mallet of Bremen (from papers read at a conference in Berlin by the German branch of the Evangelical Alliance) - 1839: *The Heresy of a Human Priesthood* by R.M. Beverley - 1812: *Seventh Day Baptist Yearbook*

In Catholicism, we believe every baptized Christian participates in the common priesthood (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1547 ). A priest offers sacrifice to God. In that case what will be the sacrifice in common priesthood?

It's famously know that *Martin Luther*, rejected the idea of a *sacerdotal priesthood*. Meaning *priests* and *bishops* having a certain *special grace*, *conferred* on them at *ordination* or *installation* (in case of the *bishop*), also known as *sacerdatioalism*. Luther instead concluded that all Christians are *equal* under *Baptism* (have the same grace). Even known he did not reject the idea of the *office* of a *minister*, a person among the faithful that *administer* the *sacraments*, *preaches* and *leads* the congregation in prayer. Instead option for what Protestants call today the *Priesthood of all believers*. On what *theological* or *Biblical* grounds did Luther reach this rejection of *sacerdatioalism*?

In Protestant denominations where the practice of the Lord's Supper / Holy Communion is considered a means of grace (instead of 100% remembrance / memorial), can a head of family celebrate the Lord's Supper with his family at home, following as closely as possible how it is celebrated at church by the pastor? More importantly, **is it a valid sacrament that becomes the same means of grace as when it's performed by the church pastor**? I am asking specifically for Protestant denominations that - **do not** have special rules to restrict performing the Lord's Supper / Holy Communion to certain roles (like an ordained priest), which opens the possibility for a head of family to perform the service at home - take the view of the Lord's Supper / Communion as a **means of grace** rather than 100% memorial only Theologically I cannot find any issues, since: - Unlike in Catholicism and possibly in Anglicanism, there is no special ordination required for performing the rite so that the bread and wine becomes the means of grace - There is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers I'm asking this in the context of Covid-19 gathering restrictions. But even when Covid-19 pandemic is over, if families are really serious in obtaining grace through the Lord's Supper, can they **supplement** the Lord's Supper service at their churches (usually monthly) by doing it weekly at home as well? According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#Protestantism) : > Presbyterian and Reformed Churches have been considering whether to restore more frequent communion, including weekly communion in more churches, considering that infrequent communion was derived from a memorialist view of the Lord's Supper, rather than Calvin's view of the sacrament as a means of grace. A related point to consider (not part of this question): in the early church period before there were special church buildings and when a congregation was possibly no larger than an extended household, who officiated over the Lord's Supper? Was an ordained pastor necessary to perform it? The answer should **name** the denomination(s) which see the Lord's Supper as conferring grace to the partakers (instead of a memorial / remembrance) and then **state one of these possibilities**: 1. They explicitly *disallow* home-based communion service. If they disallow, what's the theological reason, since Protestants in general subscribes to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Also, the motivation is not to be schismatic since the confession of faith is preserved and the home-based communion service partakers are still full members of the church. 2. They *allow* home-based communion service with some prescriptions on how to conduct it. If they allow, whether the home-based service is as valid as a sacrament that becomes the means of grace when it's performed by the church pastor at church. 3. They are *silent* on this

In the LDS Church, all men and older boys are encouraged to obtain the priesthood. Women are also encouraged to receive ordinances in the temple, which Joseph Smith described as entering into an "order of the priesthood" (see [1] ). Lay men and women have duties similar to ministers in other churches. This seems quite similar to the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" or "universal priesthood" practiced in other churches, in which it is believed that all believers have the priesthood. Its organization seems to be more informal than the priesthood in the LDS Church. What are the similarities and differences between these two concepts?

In the process of answering a question on the Sacraments , I discovered that Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers" . This rather surprised me since the Church has separate, ordained priests who, among other things, perform the Sacraments. From my point of view (as an Evangelical Protestant), passages such as: > But you are a chosen race, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a people to be a personal possession to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.—1st Peter 2:9 (NJB ) ...suggest that everyone in the church has a duty to stand before God. Practically the entire book of Hebrews makes the case that the Old Testament model of priests as holy (literally, "set apart") men has been replaced by a new model in which we all function as priests. At a very simple level, it seems impossible to hold both of the following statements as true: 1. The entire Church is set apart by God to be priests. 2. Individuals are set apart from the rest of the Church by God to be priests. Am I equivocating on the word "priest"? (Or to put it another way, are there two different classes of priests in the Catholic Church?)

Catholic doctrines of Penance teach that if a priest forgives the sin of a parishioner, then that sin is forgiven by God as well- the sacrament of Penance is _effective_, and not just ceremonial. Likewise, the doctrines on excommunication from the church say that if a person is damned by the church, the anathema is _effective_. A common phrase in the Gopels (cf. John 20, Mark 18) is _What is loosed is loosed, and what is bound is bound_. What denominations or Christian groups other than the Roman Catholic Church teach specifically that a Christian can or cannot forgive the sins of another person? If a particular denomination teaches that they _can_ do, do the doctrines of the denomination distinguish between the members of the Church that are able to perform this ministry and those that are not?

I might be making some naive assumptions here, but I have a hard time seeing what the purpose of congregations are in the context of priesthood of all believers. As I understand it, priesthood of all believers basically says that all people have direct and equal access to God, as well as equal privilege and authority to minister. What then is the purpose of congregating? Why are those congregations well organized?