Nature of Exceptional Calls During the Reformation

[Scott]

This is a break-off from the apostolic succession thread. David had quoted James L. Ainslie, The Doctrines of Ministerial Order in the Reformed Churches of the 16th and 17th Centuries for this for some interesting points.

First, the quote recognizes that the authority for Reformed ministers who were not ordained in the Catholic Church [the established, existing institution] was justified due to exceptional circumstances:

Calvin believed that when religious affairs were profoundly unsettled, and properly constituted ecclesiastical procedure had not been established, and regularised ordination was not possible, then God had His own direct ordering of His servants in the true Ministry. God Himself directly effected "œthe solemn setting apart." His thought is in accordance with this when He refers to the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, mentioned in Eph. Iv. 11, "œThe Lord raised up the other three [those three offices] at the beginning of His kingdom, and still occasionally raises them up when the necessity of the times requires" (Institutes, IV.3.4). It was upon this Divine working above all that he relied for the undeniable authorisation of his own ministry and of that of his brethren who were in a like position to himself. This was a doctrine which found ready acceptance with most Reformed churchmen. It is given expression to in the French Confession of Faith of 1559, with which Calvin is supposed to have had much to do . . . "(Which exception [ in the normal procedure ] we in this matter add particularly, for it has been necessary on some occasions, and even in our times, in which the constitution of the Church has been broken up, for God to have raised up men in an extraordinary way to construct anew the church which was in ruin and desolation.)"

The part that interests me regards a question that I have been curious about for quite awhile (and I don't really have a view or answer). Namely, is the nature of a call resting on this extraordinary circumstances exception mediate (ie. it comes through God through an intermediate process or procedure and not through direct revelation), immediate (eg. the burning bush), or something else? Ainslie says this:

Such a doctrine [the extraordinary circumstances exception above] as this does not lower the conception of what is required for entrance into the Ministry, or encourage laxness and carelessness in the matter for them is that their appointment or ordination is of God, and that they have that in which to glory whether it is immediately or mediately from God.

Yet it is still to be said that Calvin himself would have been the last to approve of anything which would be in the nature of unnecessary irregularity in admission to the Ministry. Where possible he would have said that ordination had to be carried out by a regular and normal procedure. What Calvin´s doctrine leads to is this, that where special necessities demand, or when, by unavoidable circumstances, the regular procedure of the Church comes short, as it always does to some degree, God Himself is present, immediately acting, and carrying out immediately, what Himself requires, and what His Church to the best of its ability intends to do and is in need of having done.

Is this right? Wouldn't this essentially amount to a form of direct revelation if it is truly "immediate?" I suppose it depends on how one defines immediate. I will offer this definition from the Lutheran dogmatician Chemnitz in his Loci Theologici: "The immediate call is when one is called to the ministry not by men, nor through men, as ordinary means, but immediately by God himself, and through God himself... In an immediate call, God himself either appears or speaks immediately to those whom in this manner he calls. Thus without doubt the prophets and apostles were called."

I would be curious about Matt's (and, of course, others') thoughts on this. This is an issue that has been on my mind for awhile.

Thanks,
Scott



[Edited on 3-9-2005 by Scott]

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
Is this right? Wouldn't this essentially amount to a form of direct revelation if it is truly "immediate?" I suppose it depends on how one defines immediate. I will offer this definition from the Lutheran dogmatician Chemnitz in his Loci Theologici: "The immediate call is when one is called to the ministry not by men, nor through men, as ordinary means, but immediately by God himself, and through God himself... In an immediate call, God himself either appears or speaks immediately to those whom in this manner he calls. Thus without doubt the prophets and apostles were called."

I would be curious about Matt's (and, of course, others') thoughts on this. This is an issue that has been on my mind for awhile.

Thanks,
Scott

[Edited on 3-9-2005 by Scott]

Scott,

Pastoral duties are occupying me today, but since I have Chemnitz immediately at hand, he does indicate a little more about an immediate call than you posted, but he is still rather vague. Nonetheless, he does indicate that an immediate call need not be by "direct revelation"...

Martin Chemnitz: Is one, therefore, immediately to believe all fanatics when they claim that God has appeared to them, that the Lord has spoken to them, that the Father has given them this commission, and that they are thus stirred up and moved by the Spirit?
By no means. For God has forbidden this with an express warning. Jer. 14:14. But God endows those whom He calls without means either with the gift of miracles or with other testimonies of the Spirit with which to prove and confirm their call. Thus Moses established his call before Pharoah with the gifts of miracles, Ex 4:1 ff. Therefore Paul also calls signs, wonders, and mighty deeds proof of the apostolate, 2 Co 12:12. Christ speaks of these, Jn 5:36; Mt 10:8. But one should not believe false doctrine that leads away from God and conflicts with the Word, even if miracles follow it. Dt 12: ff; Mt 7:22-23; 24:23-24; 2 Th 2:9. See Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion, trans. Luther Poellot (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981), pp. 30-31.

Chemnitz's vagueness, at this point, is that he does not go on to explain the nature of these "other testimonies of the Spirit with which to prove and confirm their call." Chemnitz does say in the next question following the one above that since the NT era Christ promises no such call, and that there is no command in Scripture for the church to wait "until ministers are appointed by an immediate call," and thus he argues that "we therefore observe, and should observe, the form the apostles have prescribed for us by the Holy Spirit, namely that, and how, God at this time wants to call and send ministers to His church through a mediate [i.e., through means] call or regular means." (Ibid.) Thus, Chemnitz does not really address the call of the Reformers who were not ordained under their ecclesiastical circumstances to any substantial degree, i.e. that I can see.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Scott]

Right, I was just trying to get a working definition of immediate call, not really trying to bring in his entire theology of calling. I doubt he would see the calls of the first reformers as immediate calls.

[1] What exactly is the nature of the calls of the first Reformers (immediate, mediate, or something else)?

[2] How is it that one can demonstrate that, as Ainslie describes, God "immediately acts" and "carries out immediately" the calls of the Reformers? (I am thinking of this quote: "when, by unavoidable circumstances, the regular procedure of the Church comes short, as it always does to some degree, God Himself is present, immediately acting, and carrying out immediately, what Himself requires . . .")

[3] What are the similarities and differences between this kind of call (mentioned in point 2) and other immediate calls, such as the calls of the apostles, Moses, Gideon, Isaiah, etc, which ordinarily involve direct revelation?

Thanks,
Scott

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
Right, I was just trying to get a working definition of immediate call, not really trying to bring in his entire theology of calling. I doubt he would see the calls of the first reformers as immediate calls.

[1] What exactly is the nature of the calls of the first Reformers (immediate, mediate, or something else)?

[2] How is it that one can demonstrate that, as Ainslie describes, God "immediately acts" and "carries out immediately" the calls of the Reformers? (I am thinking of this quote: "when, by unavoidable circumstances, the regular procedure of the Church comes short, as it always does to some degree, God Himself is present, immediately acting, and carrying out immediately, what Himself requires . . .")

[3] What are the similarities and differences between this kind of call (mentioned in point 2) and other immediate calls, such as the calls of the apostles, Moses, Gideon, Isaiah, etc, which ordinarily involve direct revelation?

Thanks,
Scott

Scott,

Do you have Turretin's works in your personal library? He devotes a whole question under His 18th Topic (Question #25) to "The Call of the First Reformers."

Cheers,
DTK

 

[wsw201]

How would you discribe the call of Matthias as an Apostle?

 

[Scott]

Thanks, I had forgotten that it addresses this. It is very helpful.

It is interesting that Turretin describes the calls of the first Reformers as "extraordinary" - which is essentially what I meant by immediate. In summary he says that we know that the calls of the first Reformers were extraordianry (as opposed to ordinary) because of three things: (1) the corruption of the church created a state of unavoidable necessity for calling new ministers, (2) the "mark of the call" upon them - including purity of doctrine, innocence of life, their extraordinary gifts (which he says are not necessarily miraculous, but things like "profound erudtion"), a "secret impulse," and noble motives, and (3) the success God gave them.

He also notes that not all extraordinary calls require miracles to accompany them, giving John the Baptist as an example. Does this example work? Even if miracles were not present, wasn't John the Baptist's call the result of direct, or special, revelation? And at the least, it was verbally ratified directly by Christ.

At the very least it would seem to be very different than most extraordinary calls, such as Moses, Aaron, Isaiah, the apostles, etc., all of which involved direct revelation, and usually involved miracles. Turretin argues that the need for miracles (presumably including special revelation) is not needed for reformation of established ministries (as opposed to offices being established). What are people's thoughts on whether this works? Does this leave any holes by which usurpers could intrude themselves into the ministry?

The entire question is online here for those who want to look at it in detail:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincallingreformers.htm

BTW, I agree with Turretin, and just want to think through some of these issues.

Scott

 

[Scott]

"How would you discribe the call of Matthias as an Apostle?"

I have not really thought about it. I know that one Lutheran dogmatician used Matthias as an example of an extraordinary call, seeing the lot as supernatural (sort of like the use of the lot to supernaturally identify Achan).

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by wsw201
How would you discribe the call of Matthias as an Apostle?

Wayne,

The call of Matthias was both ordinary and extraordinary, not like the other apostles. It was Peter's address to the assembled disciples that immediately precipitated this choice. It was unlike the call of the other apostles in this respect, viz., it was by the wisdom of the gathered disciples and by God himself directly. In other words, the people acted on the command of Holy Scripture (as cited by Peter) and they then proposed two men from the number of those "men who had accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" (Acts 1:21) When they proposed these two men, they then prayed for God's guidance on the matter, and the lot fell to Matthias. Thus the call of this apostle, unlike the original 12, was both ordinary and extraordinary because of the decision of the assembled disciples in the two that they proposed, and what appears to be God's choice by lot.

If memory serves me correctly, Calvin says essentially the same.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
Thanks, I had forgotten that it addresses this. It is very helpful.

It is interesting that Turretin describes the calls of the first Reformers as "extraordinary" - which is essentially what I meant by immediate. In summary he says that we know that the calls of the first Reformers were extraordianry (as opposed to ordinary) because of three things: (1) the corruption of the church created a state of unavoidable necessity for calling new ministers, (2) the "mark of the call" upon them - including purity of doctrine, innocence of life, their extraordinary gifts (which he says are not necessarily miraculous, but things like "profound erudtion"), a "secret impulse," and noble motives, and (3) the success God gave them.

He also notes that not all extraordinary calls require miracles to accompany them, giving John the Baptist as an example. Does this example work? Even if miracles were not present, wasn't John the Baptist's call the result of direct, or special, revelation? And at the least, it was verbally ratified directly by Christ.

At the very least it would seem to be very different than most extraordinary calls, such as Moses, Aaron, Isaiah, the apostles, etc., all of which involved direct revelation, and usually involved miracles. Turretin argues that the need for miracles (presumably including special revelation) is not needed for reformation of established ministries (as opposed to offices being established). What are people's thoughts on whether this works? Does this leave any holes by which usurpers could intrude themselves into the ministry?

The entire question is online here for those who want to look at it in detail:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincallingreformers.htm

BTW, I agree with Turretin, and just want to think through some of these issues.

Scott

Scott,

Once again, I would like to offer a contribution to your album of Turretin...

Francis Turretin (1623-1687): The second order is of those Reformers who, although they had not been called by the church of Rome, undertook this office. Concerning their call, it is inquired. But here ought to recur what we stated before "” that we must distinguish between a church constituted and to be constituted or reformed; and the ordinary way from a case of extreme necessity. In a constituted church, we think the sanctioned order ought to be retained, so that all things may be done decently in the church and disorder (ataxia) and confusion avoided. But in a church to be restored, we are not always to wait for the ordinary call, but any private person can, in a case of extreme and unavoidable necessity, enter upon the work of reformation. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1997), p. 239. (XVIII.xxv.11).

Francis Turretin (1623-1687): Now we suppose that such was the case and we are prepared to demonstrate it from the state of the church of Rome, which was the most depraved with respect to faith as well as with regard to worship and tyranny; and that errors were found in the very ones who ought to rule the church, who being turned into wolves laid waste the Lord´s flock and endeavored to draw the church with them to the same precipice of error. Who then could expect a reformation from them? Each believer therefore had a sufficient call to undertake the work; for although they could receive no authority from the church of Rome to preach the gospel, still the reason of those most disturbed times, the indispensable necessity which rested upon each one of promoting his own salvation and the law of charity (which orders us to promote the salvation of neighbors) gave them the authority to preach the gospel purely, to reject papal errors, to call men out from them, to gather them together when called out, to institute sacred assemblies and elect others to be their successors, the power being granted to them for that purpose by the converted people. This is true as it is lawful for good citizens, although in private life, to rise against a traitorous ruler and to shut the gates against an approaching enemy. And on this account the more (as has already been proved), the right to call pastors belongs properly to the church, in whose name it is exercised by the pastors when there are any. But where there are none, it can use the same in another way; for neither if it has lost its pastors, has it at once lost its right; nor if she cannot exercise it by ministers, can she not by herself or by some other one to whom she has committed it. Not only is it her right, but also her duty that the ministry fail not (which was instituted by Christ) "” not for a certain time, but for ever until the end of the world as a means of faith and salvation (Mt 28:20; Eph 4:11, 12). Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1997), p. 239. (XVIII.xxv.12).

I think that the ancient father Ambrose addressed this unusual situation as well...

Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on "˜And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide.´ (Lk. 9:4): So the faith of the Church must be sought first and foremost; if Christ is to dwell therein, it is undoubtedly to be chosen. But lest an unbelieving people or heretical teacher disfigure its habitation, it is enjoined that the fellowship of heretics be avoided and the synagogue shunned. The dust is to be shaken off your feet [cf. St. Luke 9:5], lest when the drynesses of barren unbelief crumble the sole of your mind it is stained as if by a dry and sandy soil. For a preacher of the Gospel must take upon himself the bodily weaknesses of a faithful people, so to speak, and lift up and remove from his own soles the worthless actions like to dust, according as it is written: "œWho is weak, and I am not weak?" [II Corinthians 11:29]. Thus, any Church which rejects faith and does not possess the foundations of Apostolic preaching is to be abandoned, lest it be able to bespatter some stain of unbelief. This the Apostle also clearly affirmed, saying, "œA man that is an heretic after the first admonition reject" [Titus 3:10]. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book VI, §68, pp. 216-217.

Now, then, while Ambrose does not address a private call to ministry as such, his exhortation implies the private duty to abandon a church overcome by heresy.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Scott]

Matt: Do you have any comments? I would be curious about your take on things.