Thank you for referring me to your blog. I appreciate your interaction with Brapsiss. Just a few thoughts:
First, the instruction on the priesthood of the believer that is given in Baptist Heritage class is much broader than the few lines penned in that Sunesis article. The phrase, borrowed as you noted from 2 Cor. 5, that believers carry out a “ministry of reconciliation” expressed in brief form a section of the priesthood lecture that emphasizes the idea you brought forward in your critique. I certainly agree that our priesthood has significant horizontal implications and is tied in key NT texts to evangelism.
Second, however, the idea behind our priesthood is present in various NT texts (such as Heb. 10:19-20) that have vertical significance. I don’t think the one obligation of personal priesthood (evangelism) should be set against the other opportunity of personal priesthood (access). This is not an either/or, but a both/and.
Third, the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, as enunciated by Luther and all of the other Protestant reformers placed primary focus on the individual before God (and not before a Catholic priest, an authoritative church, etc.) as a corrective to medieval doctrine and practice. The horizontal implications were not omitted, but the vertical relationship was emphasized. (Note also that a quick check of Erickson’s Christian Theology [1085-1086] also emphasized the vertical rather than the horizontal dimension of this teaching.)
In short, I think your conclusion that “BRAPSISS needs to be amended … to better reflect the Bible’s teaching” may be a bit hasty. Both dimensions of the priesthood of the believer are biblically valid and useful, and I try to reflect both in my teaching, and I even tried—albeit briefly—to reflect both in the Sunesis article.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention and for the respectful way in which you expressed your view.
Lord bless you,