# 2, 2.5 or 3 office?



## Abeard

Just wondering what the consensus on the board. Also, what are the implications from holding a three office compared to two?


----------



## Gforce9

There is no "consensus" on the board regarding office number.


----------



## Abeard

Yah it will probably be spilt but thought it would be interesting to see the numbers


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I assume by "2.5" you mean to designate the view that makes a _practical distinction_ between Teaching and Ruling Elders while still maintaining that they are essentially the same office. Is that correct?


----------



## Edward

As I recollect, the OPC is 3 office and the PCA is 2.5 office in practice, although it purports to to be 2 office.


----------



## Abeard

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I assume by "2.5" you mean to designate the view that makes a _practical distinction_ between Teaching and Ruling Elders while still maintaining that they are essentially the same office. Is that correct?



Yes thats what I meant. I just heard of it a couple weeks ago listening to Dr.Pipa.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Abeard said:


> I assume by "2.5" you mean to designate the view that makes a practical distinction between Teaching and Ruling Elders while still maintaining that they are essentially the same office. Is that correct?
> Yes thats what I meant. I just heard of it a couple weeks ago listening to Dr.Pipa.



This is the view that I would align with. However, I must state, I do not believe there are "2.5" offices, but only two: Elders and Deacons. But I am comfortable acknowledging a practical distinction between men who focus more on laboring in the Word and doctrine and those who labor more in governing and ruling. So the office of elder is singular, but within that office there is a diversity of gifts. If I'm not mistaken, this is the position of the RPCNA.


----------



## Abeard

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume by "2.5" you mean to designate the view that makes a practical distinction between Teaching and Ruling Elders while still maintaining that they are essentially the same office. Is that correct?
> Yes thats what I meant. I just heard of it a couple weeks ago listening to Dr.Pipa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the view that I would align with. However, I must state, I do not believe there are "2.5" offices, but only two: Elders and Deacons. But I am comfortable acknowledging a practical distinction between men who focus more on laboring in the Word and doctrine and those who labor more in governing and ruling. So the office of elder is singular, but within that office there is a diversity of gifts. If I'm not mistaken, this is the position of the RPCNA.
Click to expand...



I guess the 2.5 is a way of distinguishing the different distinctions of the two office view? I believe in the 2 office also I think an elder should be able to teach even if that just means talking one on one with people about their understanding of the Bible.


----------



## bookslover

I'm a 2-office guy, but I'll admit I hold some sympathy for the 2.5-office view.


----------



## One Little Nail

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This is the view that I would align with. However, I must state, I do not believe there are "2.5" offices, but only two: Elders and Deacons. But I am comfortable acknowledging a practical distinction between men who focus more on laboring in the Word and doctrine and those who labor more in governing and ruling. So the office of elder is singular, but within that office there is a diversity of gifts. If I'm not mistaken, this is the position of the RPCNA.



Within the Eldership of the early church there existed the the five fold Ascencion Gift Ministries for want of a better phrase, these being Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors & Teachers. We have Peter an Apostle calling himself an Elder, Paul telling Timothy to make full use of his ministry & do the work of an Evangelist, the Church Eldership at Antioch containing
certain Prophets & Teachers, all these functioning as Elders! + gift no 6 that of Ruler, he that ruleth, this being a continuation from the Older Testament, all variations of gifts within the Office of the Elder(ship). 
plus that seperate Office of Deacon, he that sheweth mercy.
cessation of gifts belongs to another thread ie; extraordinary ministers vs ordinary ministers, though I'll give Scripture proofs for the above :

1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder,

2 Timothy 4:5 do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers;

Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,

Romans 12:6-8 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.


----------



## One Little Nail

Abeard said:


> Just wondering what are the implications from holding a three office compared to two?



well the implication can be seen in the apostate eastern & western catholic "churches" because these two show the end result of the pastorship being dislodged from the eldership then through unbridled, sinful & prideful ambition developing 
into the 2 systems that you see.
the eldership was also the bishoprick, that is Elders are Bishops & Bishops are Elders, when the pastor became the sole Bishop in the early church you developed the 3 office system, then this due to avarice, greed & prideful preeminence led to jostling in the early for sinful honour & eminence, were the city or metropolitan "bishops" or archbishops became preeminent over ordinary bishops of small towns & villages, this led eventually to the further development of various kinds like patriarchs & primates & the like, leading eventually to the man of sin, bishop of bishops, the papacy.


----------



## MW

As soon as one mentions 2.5 offices it is apparent that terms are not being applied properly. In historic Presbyterianism there are two orders of office -- elder and deacon. Within the order of elder there are two offices -- one which is plenary and includes teaching and ruling, the other which only includes ruling. Those who hold there are only two "offices" -- elder and deacon -- maintain a distinction of "function" within that office, namely, teaching and ruling. This is a misnomer because the so-called teaching elder also rules. Furthermore, the word "office means "duty," so a difference of "duty" is by definition a difference of office. Those who maintain 2.5 offices just add to the confusion.


----------



## jwithnell

What makes me nervous about a 3-office view is that I've often seen it used as a way to water down the requirement of being able to teach, and I don't know that I agree that "able to teach" includes being able to talk one-on-one. While we may have a man who is specifically called to take the time week by week to preach the word, teaching's presence in the scriptural requirement for office should not be overlooked.


----------



## MW

jwithnell said:


> What makes me nervous about a 3-office view is that I've often seen it used as a way to water down the requirement of being able to teach, and I don't know that I agree that "able to teach" includes being able to talk one-on-one. While we may have a man who is specifically called to take the time week by week to preach the word, teaching's presence in the scriptural requirement for office should not be overlooked.



Differentiating "function" does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the work and qualifications of a "ruling" elder. If his function is to rule as distinguished from teaching the qualifications will of necessity be different.

When 1 Timothy 3 sets out the qualifications for a bishop it does so with the fully functioning bishop in mind, that is, the minister or teaching elder, or whatever one chooses to call him. Where it is acknowledged that one is not fulfilling all the functions of a bishop, which is provided for in 1 Tim 5:17, the qualifications must be adjusted accordingly.

Besides, the requirement to be "apt to teach" does not of itself mean an "ability to teach," but mainly refers to a disposition to teach rather than strive, as in 2 Tim. 2:24.


----------



## Romans922

jwithnell said:


> What makes me nervous about a 3-office view is that I've often seen it used as a way to water down the requirement of being able to teach, and I don't know that I agree that "able to teach" includes being able to talk one-on-one. While we may have a man who is specifically called to take the time week by week to preach the word, teaching's presence in the scriptural requirement for office should not be overlooked.



I get your concern there. I see that too with the 3 office view and an implication of that or another side of that is that when at Presbytery, for example, when the TE speaks it carries more weight than an RE and that in my opinion is just dumb. God has ordained each elder to be an elder whether they are RE or TE, and equal weight should be given to who they are and more weight should be given to the content of their words and how it lines up with Scripture. 

Even before the congregation, members look more to the wisdom of TE's compared to RE's. I think this is a problem in the 3 office leaning congregations. Even those who 'claim' 2.5 office, I see the practical said of such a view being a 3 office view.


----------



## MW

Hebrews 13:7. It would be a concern if some special regard were not given to the one who speaks the word of God to the flock. He has trained, devoted his life, and been set apart for this very thing.


----------



## Romans922

Matthew, do not all elders teach the word? Thus all elders speak the word of God to the flock...


----------



## MW

Romans922 said:


> Matthew, do not all elders teach the word?



According to the distinction in 1 Tim. 5:17, no.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> Differentiating "function" does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the work and qualifications of a "ruling" elder. If his function is to rule as distinguished from teaching the qualifications will of necessity be different.
> 
> When 1 Timothy 3 sets out the qualifications for a bishop it does so with the fully functioning bishop in mind, that is, the minister or teaching elder, or whatever one chooses to call him. Where it is acknowledged that one is not fulfilling all the functions of a bishop, which is provided for in 1 Tim 5:17, the qualifications must be adjusted accordingly.



Matthew I don't know what your trying to say in this 2nd paragraph, are you saying that only teaching elders are bishops or
are you saying that all elders are bishops, but that teaching elders or ministers are fully functioning because they both teach & rule, whereas ruling elders only primarily rule. I do hold that all elders are bishops & all bishops are elders, as the 
terms are interchangeable, as per 2 office view.
Philippians 1:1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

It is my opinion that ministers do the pulpit preaching & teaching & that ruling elders who ought to be apt to teach take care of other teaching needs like sabbath school & catechism.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> or are you saying that all elders are bishops, but that teaching elders or ministers are fully functioning because they both teach & rule, whereas ruling elders only primarily rule.



That is what I am saying. Ruling elders are bishops in the sense that they oversee by means of ruling alone. Ministers oversee both by teaching and ruling. That these are distinct offices in Presbyterian churches is obvious from the fact that ministers have their seat on Presbytery whereas elders have their seat on Session. Elders have no authority, technically speaking, to teach the Word because they have not been ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and do not exercise their office with immediate accountability to the Presbytery.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> or are you saying that all elders are bishops, but that teaching elders or ministers are fully functioning because they both teach & rule, whereas ruling elders only primarily rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I am saying. Ruling elders are bishops in the sense that they oversee by means of ruling alone. Ministers oversee both by teaching and ruling. That these are distinct offices in Presbyterian churches is obvious from the fact that ministers have their seat on Presbytery whereas elders have their seat on Session. Elders have no authority, technically speaking, to teach the Word because they have not been ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and do not exercise their office with immediate accountability to the Presbytery.
Click to expand...




Thanks Matthew, I agree with you on this one, It is the historic Presbyterian view. the 3 office view of Bishop--Minister *** ruling Elders *** Deacons = Cyprian 3 Office view


***************


Is not only not Biblical, but has led to numerous abuses; monarchical Bishops destroy the biblical pattern of the equality of elders. Eldership Session or Teaching Elders & Ruling Elders *** Deacons = Presbyterian 2 Office view


----------



## Abeard

Thanks for the responses everyone! its been very helpful


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I've been away, but here's something that I would add more lately to the conversation:Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Do you believe that a ruling elder has the right to administer the sacraments? If your answer is "no", you are implicitly adhering to the 3-office view. If there are only two offices, then it is perfectly acceptable for ruling elders to administer the sacraments. The Westminster Standards teach otherwise:

There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. WCF 27:4

Of course, the same applies to the preaching of the word (WLC 158).

I seem to recall reading something by Thomas Witherow, a two-office advocate, wherein he criticised the Westminster Confession owing to its "unbiblical" three-office position. In fact, here is the source: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_58971#page/n33/mode/2up/search/Westminster+Confession


----------



## Abeard

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Do you believe that a ruling elder has the right to administer the sacraments? If your answer is "no", you are implicitly adhering to the 3-office view. If there are only two offices, then it is perfectly acceptable for ruling elders to administer the sacraments. The Westminster Standards teach otherwise:
> 
> There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. WCF 27:4
> 
> Of course, the same applies to the preaching of the word (WLC 158).
> 
> I seem to recall reading something by Thomas Witherow, a two-office advocate, wherein he criticised the Westminster Confession owing to its "unbiblical" three-office position. In fact, here is the source: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_58971#page/n33/mode/2up/search/Westminster+Confession



Hmm interesting never thought about that. But does a minister of the Word being "lawfully" ordained go through a different ordination process than a teaching/ruling elder?


----------



## Abeard

Abeard said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that a ruling elder has the right to administer the sacraments? If your answer is "no", you are implicitly adhering to the 3-office view. If there are only two offices, then it is perfectly acceptable for ruling elders to administer the sacraments. The Westminster Standards teach otherwise:
> 
> There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. WCF 27:4
> 
> Of course, the same applies to the preaching of the word (WLC 158).
> 
> I seem to recall reading something by Thomas Witherow, a two-office advocate, wherein he criticised the Westminster Confession owing to its "unbiblical" three-office position. In fact, here is the source: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_58971#page/n33/mode/2up/search/Westminster+Confession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm interesting never thought about that. But does a minister of the Word being "lawfully" ordained go through a different ordination process than a teaching/ruling elder?
Click to expand...



Another question... would holding a three office view mean that the TE has more authority than a ruling elder?


----------



## MW

Abeard said:


> Another question... would holding a three office view mean that the TE has more authority than a ruling elder?



All who rule do so in parity and in assembly. The minister of word and sacraments has been given authority to administer word and sacraments. The ruling elder has not. Even the two office distinction between teaching and ruling elder, if it means anything, must mean that authority has been given to fulfil different "functions." But as noted above, the terminology is misleading because the "teaching elder" also "rules."


----------



## earl40

Here is a stupid question. Is there such thing as a teaching elder that is not a pastor? In other words, can a non ordained TE administer the sacraments and preach the Sunday sermon?


----------



## Abeard

earl40 said:


> Here is a stupid question. Is there such thing as a teaching elder that is not a pastor? In other words, can a non ordained TE administer the sacraments and preach the Sunday sermon?



Thats my question too about the 3 office view


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Earl:

I assume that you mean a TE (minister) who is not _installed_ into a particular pastorate (he's ordained, of course). The answer is that an ordained minister serving in some capacity other than a pastorate may preach and administer the sacrament: a missionary may do so, a chaplain may do so, a theological seminary professor may do so, etc. There are other expressions of the ministerial office than the local pastorate and any lawfully ordained minister serving in other such capacities is fully qualified to preach and administer the sacraments.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40

Alan D. Strange said:


> Earl:
> 
> I assume that you mean a TE (minister) who is not _installed_ into a particular pastorate (he's ordained, of course). The answer is that an ordained minister serving in some capacity other than a pastorate may preach and administer the sacrament: a missionary may do so, a chaplain may do so, a theological seminary professor may do so, etc. There are other expressions of the ministerial office than the local pastorate and any lawfully ordained minister serving in other such capacities is fully qualified to preach and administer the sacraments.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Thank you. I asked because I think have heard of non ordained RE's (PCA) who lead studies in churches who are not pastors. Kosher?


----------



## au5t1n

All office holders are ordained. That is intrinsic to holding office. They may for a period of time not be installed in a particular congregation. In the RPCGA, which is two-office/multi-function, all officers (even deacons) are ordained at the Presbytery level. In three-office denominations such as the OPC, REs and deacons are typically ordained at the Session level. Regardless, a man is either ordained, or he is not an officer.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> I think have heard of non ordained RE's (PCA)



There is no such animal in the PCA. All ruling elders are ordained. It's up to the session of the particular church as to whether a ruling elder can preach the sermon. A ruling elder may not administer the sacraments. Indeed, a session could permit a non-PCAer or even a non-NAPARC man to preach the sermon.


----------



## Abeard

Appreciate all the info!

Just to clarify a few things. 

1)With the three office view, is it always the case that the RE cannot preach or teach? Also, is it possible to ordain a TE just to preach? or is the TE specifically the Pastor?

2)With the two office, if it's possible for the elder to preach and teach, would he not be required to go through the same ordination process as a full time minister would?


----------



## Edward

Those that have questions, particularly about the two office approach, might benefit from reading the PCA position paper from 1979 found here: PCA Position Papers: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Number of Offices (1979)

There are additional supporting materials under the "Number of Offices in the Church" section here: PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America

Unfortunately, the chart at the first link does not display very well. It shows two 'Classes' of Office, with the office of elder divided between teaching or ruling elders (shown as the "Order") and with teaching elders further divided between Pastors and Evangelists ("Family")


----------



## MW

Abeard said:


> With the three office view, is it always the case that the RE cannot preach or teach? Also, is it possible to ordain a TE just to preach? or is the TE specifically the Pastor?



It happens, but whether it should is another question. (1) It usually goes under a different name to distinguish it from preaching, e.g., exhorting. (2) It is usually regarded as necessary in an unsettled condition of the church. (3) It would be desirable if it could be overseen by Presbytery and not contradict the basic principle that the people have a right to call those who shall serve as their minister. (4) "Reading" has been the traditional provision.

To clarify "teaching elder" is not an appropriate term. He is called to minister word and sacraments AND to exercise government. This is especially the case in the three office view. Yes, it is possible to ordain a minister without a pastoral charge. He would not be inducted.


----------



## earl40

Suffice it to say I have a headache. 2, 2.5, 3?.....For starters calling our pastors a TE who are able to administer the sacraments and preach The Word....RE's who may "extort" but not preach or administer the sacraments.....Suffice it to say I am happy you all understand this all.


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> RE's who may "extort" but not preach



Not sure if you were trying to make a funny or not, but for those who might stumble upon the thread, the word is 'exhort', not 'extort'.


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE's who may "extort" but not preach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you were trying to make a funny or not, but for those who might stumble upon the thread, the word is 'exhort', not 'extort'.
Click to expand...


Not.


----------



## One Little Nail

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Do you believe that a ruling elder has the right to administer the sacraments? If your answer is "no", you are implicitly adhering to the 3-office view. If there are only two offices, then it is perfectly acceptable for ruling elders to administer the sacraments. The Westminster Standards teach otherwise:
> 
> There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. WCF 27:4
> 
> Of course, the same applies to the preaching of the word (WLC 158).
> 
> I seem to recall reading something by Thomas Witherow, a two-office advocate, wherein he criticised the Westminster Confession owing to its "unbiblical" three-office position. In fact, here is the source: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_58971#page/n33/mode/2up/search/Westminster+Confession



It isn't a 3 office view, nor 2.5 it is a 2 office view, in a church session the minister of the Word, Pastor or Teacher, is an
Elder, though he has a different gift, the ascension gift of Pastor or Teacher, so he fulfils a different role to ruling elders,
yet is still every wit an Elder a they, they are all Bishops or overseers of the flock, Bishops are Elders & Elders are Bishops,
there exists a parity amongst them, the Minister is considered first amongst equals & has more honour due to gifting,
not more because he has a higher office.

the 3 office system only exists when you make a rift in the Eldership by designating the Pastor/Minister a Bishop while
stripping the Ruling Elders of that title, this destroys the parity in the Eldership or session.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

One Little Nail said:


> It isn't a 3 office view, nor 2.5 it is a 2 office view



The Westminster Standards teach a 3-office view; see the Form of Presbyterial Church Government:

AS there were in the Jewish church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the church;so Christ, who hath instituted government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church, hath furnished some in his church, *beside the ministers of the word*, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to *join with the minister in the government of the church*. *Which officers reformed churches commonly call Elders*.

Note that the ruling elder is seen as having a distinct office from the minister, though they are equal at the point of government. It is also significant that most Presbyterian churches have historically ordained ruling elders by local sessions, but ordained ministers by the Presbytery. 



One Little Nail said:


> the 3 office system only exists when you make a rift in the Eldership by designating the Pastor/Minister a Bishop while
> stripping the Ruling Elders of that title, this destroys the parity in the Eldership or session.



Recognising a distinction between the offices of minister and ruling elder need not imply that ministers and ruling elders are not co-pastors over the flock of God. I do not deny that there are abuses of the 3-office view, such as when a minister tries to be a lord over God's heritage, but that should not undermine legitimate distinctions between ruling elders and ministers.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> All who rule do so in parity and in assembly. The minister of word and sacraments has been given authority to administer word and sacraments. The ruling elder has not. Even the two office distinction between teaching and ruling elder, if it means anything, must mean that authority has been given to fulfil different "functions." But as noted above, the terminology is misleading because the "teaching elder" also "rules."



Also I wonder if some confusion comes in by having other elders (or laymen or laywomen) besides a pastor teach?


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Also I wonder if some confusion comes in by having other elders (or laymen or laywomen) besides a pastor teach?



That is inevitable and there are many different issues which arise as a result. Occam's Razor generally prevails and the ministerial office (or function) is treated as if it is redundant, and so the church's fundamental commission as a teaching ministry to the world is either left undone or done with less conviction.

Whether folk like to admit it or not, the great commission requires ministers of the word and sacraments to fulfil it. This unique commission is the underlying basis for an unique office; and as long as ministers enter upon their office with this unique charge it forms a distinct office.


----------



## au5t1n

While the subject is under discussion, here's a question to which I've had trouble finding an answer from a three-office perspective: what scriptural justification is given for ordination of ruling elders and deacons by sessions rather than by presbyteries?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

AustinW said:


> While the subject is under discussion, here's a question to which I've had trouble finding an answer from a three-office perspective: what scriptural justification is given for ordination of ruling elders and deacons by sessions rather than by presbyteries?



The ruling eldership is a different office. It is congregational.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> AustinW said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the subject is under discussion, here's a question to which I've had trouble finding an answer from a three-office perspective: what scriptural justification is given for ordination of ruling elders and deacons by sessions rather than by presbyteries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling eldership is a different office. It is congregational.
Click to expand...


I understand this, but are there any Scriptural examples of ordination by church courts besides presbytery? Or is it judged appropriate by some other scriptural argument? If different offices necessarily required ordination in different courts, then deacons and ruling elders could not be ordained by the same court as they universally are. 

Also, aren't there practical dangers in giving a man authority beyond his court of examination, i.e., a ruling elder voting at presbytery? 

Added: either you added "It is congregational" after I read the post, or I just missed it. That helps a little. I'd find it helpful if you fleshed it out a bit. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ZackF

earl40 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All who rule do so in parity and in assembly. The minister of word and sacraments has been given authority to administer word and sacraments. The ruling elder has not. Even the two office distinction between teaching and ruling elder, if it means anything, must mean that authority has been given to fulfil different "functions." But as noted above, the terminology is misleading because the "teaching elder" also "rules."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I wonder if some confusion comes in by having other elders (or laymen or laywomen) besides a pastor teach?
Click to expand...


Well, how much can be delegated lawfully? I teach my wife and daughter albeit not nearly as well as I should. I don't do this to usurp the TEs nor confuse the laity but because I believed I am called to do so.

We also meet in a small groups bi-weekly at an elder's(usually an RE) home for singing, prayer, instruction and discussions. I know the sr. pastor usually takes the morning and evening Sunday worship. Soon we will probably be going to two morning services. He also takes a Sunday school class and maintains a steady visitation load. The associate pastor takes a Sunday School class, two small groups(one of them that is 45 minute drive one way). He also is meeting with two other groups of family(inquirers) regularly to review outlines of Covenant Theology (previous Sunday School material). As far as teaching, why can they not delegate others to help out? These guys are kind of tapped out. I don't find myself confused about their mission but just want to help them out as God sees fit. 

The reason several of us men are working our way through Doriani's "Getting the Message" is the associate pastor wants more competent handlers of Scripture in the Church. One of our elders is a world traveler as part of his work. I pinch hit for his high school SS class on occasion when he is out of town. I also just want to handle the Word better for many other reason as this increase of knowledge and biblical competence trickles down our children, families and simple discussions about God's Word as we fellowship. It's the stuff that makes the elders and deacons of the future. This is all done under the leadership of our teaching elders. Protestantism is not a religion where ruling elders and laymen cannot instruct their brethren under the care of the teaching elders in the Church.


----------



## MW

AustinW said:


> but are there any Scriptural examples of ordination by church courts besides presbytery?



Christ ordained the apostles and the apostles ordained elders, and evangelists had the power of ordination for a time. The principle is that the higher office holds the power of ordination. The Presbytery has the power of oversight concerning the ministry of word and sacraments; hence ministers are ordained by Presbytery. Likewise the Session has the oversight of the congregation, so the Session has the power to ordain elders. The same principle applies to the continued oversight and function of these distinct offices, and so they have their "seats" in the different courts. Even if office is reinterpreted to mean there are two "functions," prudence would dictate they should be ordained by and sit in different courts. Otherwise the Session would cease to exercise authority over ruling elders, which would be absurd.



AustinW said:


> Also, aren't there practical dangers in giving a man authority beyond his court of examination, i.e., a ruling elder voting at presbytery?



He functions as a representative of the Session/congregation, which is a practical application of the principle that Session is under Presbytery. The danger in giving all ruling elders this "authority" would be that Presbytery would essentially be turned into a representative assembly and cease to function as the radical court of the church.


----------



## earl40

KS_Presby said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All who rule do so in parity and in assembly. The minister of word and sacraments has been given authority to administer word and sacraments. The ruling elder has not. Even the two office distinction between teaching and ruling elder, if it means anything, must mean that authority has been given to fulfil different "functions." But as noted above, the terminology is misleading because the "teaching elder" also "rules."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I wonder if some confusion comes in by having other elders (or laymen or laywomen) besides a pastor teach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, how much can be delegated lawfully? I teach my wife and daughter albeit not nearly as well as I should. I don't do this to usurp the TEs nor confuse the laity but because I believed I am called to do so.
> 
> We also meet in a small groups bi-weekly at an elder's(usually an RE) home for singing, prayer, instruction and discussions. I know the sr. pastor usually takes the morning and evening Sunday worship. Soon we will probably be going to two morning services. He also takes a Sunday school class and maintains a steady visitation load. The associate pastor takes a Sunday School class, two small groups(one of them that is 45 minute drive one way). He also is meeting with two other groups of family(inquirers) regularly to review outlines of Covenant Theology (previous Sunday School material). As far as teaching, why can they not delegate others to help out? These guys are kind of tapped out. I don't find myself confused about their mission but just want to help them out as God sees fit.
> 
> The reason several of us men are working our way through Doriani's "Getting the Message" is the associate pastor wants more competent handlers of Scripture in the Church. One of our elders is a world traveler as part of his work. I pinch hit for his high school SS class on occasion when he is out of town. I also just want to handle the Word better for many other reason as this increase of knowledge and biblical competence trickles down our children, families and simple discussions about God's Word as we fellowship. It's the stuff that makes the elders and deacons of the future. This is all done under the leadership of our teaching elders. Protestantism is not a religion where ruling elders and laymen cannot instruct their brethren under the care of the teaching elders in the Church.
Click to expand...


I understand though having been around the PB for some time with the numerous pastors here, and also under my pastor's teaching at our church, I have come to the realization of the huge advantages of a well educated professional. It is humbling to see such men of God discuss The Word and I feel privileged to witness such.


----------



## Grafted In

Let me ask this; what happens when a ruling elder aspires to and prepares for the ministry of word and sacrament in a 2/2.5 office view? Is the man ordained again to the office of minister of word and sacrament? 

I believe the answer is 'yes, he is.' But why, if it is the same office, with merely a different function?


----------



## Abeard

Grafted In said:


> Let me ask this; what happens when a ruling elder aspires to and prepares for the ministry of word and sacrament in a 2/2.5 office view? Is the man ordained again to the office of minister of word and sacrament?
> 
> I believe the answer is 'yes, he is.' But why, if it is the same office, with merely a different function?



I think with the two office view the RE normally only preaches for relief of the Pastor(correct me if i'm wrong) and if he aspires to be preaching/teaching full time his theology and doctrines need to be examined by the Presbytery.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> Otherwise the Session would cease to exercise authority over ruling elders, which would be absurd.



Why is that absurd if the Presbytery is diligent in its oversight of church governors just as with ministers and doctors?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

AustinW said:


> Why is that absurd if the Presbytery is diligent in its oversight of church governors just as with ministers and doctors?



To be a distinct court it must have its own basic membership to constitute it. If the ruing elders were ordained by Presbytery they would be members of Presbytery and would have to be "commissioned" in some way to sit on the Session, which means the Session would serve as an administrative arm of the Presbytery rather than a distinct court of the church. At that point the congregation would cease to have its own distinctive government.


----------



## Abeard

Thanks for responses everyone 

I have one other question if this thread has not run its course. This question is for those who hold the three office position: does a teaching elder who does not rule go through a different examination/ordination process than a ruling elder? Also, can a teaching elder who does not rule be ordained by the session?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Ruling elders are members of the Session and are only members of Presbytery as they are commissioned by the Session to serve in Presbytery (or judicatories higher/broader than Presbytery). The Presbytery consists of its "natural" members (all the ministers in the regional church) and those ruling elders commissioned to it for any of its particular meetings. 

All ministers, whether installed in a local congregation as a pastor (Sr., Associate, etc.) or not, are members of Presbytery. As such they are governors of the regional church. So there is no such thing as a minister who does not rule, at least at the level of the regional church.

If a teaching elder (minister) is called by a local congregation to serve as pastor (or associate pastor; though not assistant--in the PCA--who is merely hired by the Session, not called by the congregation), upon installation he is a member of the Session. If a minister, say, one who is a teacher at a seminary, is only a member of Presbytery and not installed somewhere in a pastoral position, he is not a member of a Session, unless he is somehow made to serve on the Session (through, say, Presbytery augmentation and congregational/sessional approval). But a minister would never be "ordained by the Session" because he is already ordained to the office of minister.

In the Presbyterian schema, the higher offices enfold the lower, so that a minister is also a ruling elder and a deacon, even as a ruling elder is also a deacon (seen by the fact that they serve as such particularly in the absence of deacons). Thus if a man is a minister, he needs no further ordination to serve on a Session--only a pastoral call and installation or Presbytery augmentation/congregational approbation. 

At the risk of self-promotion, I point out again my article on this (linked earlier in this thread), which deals with a number of things that Matthew and Daniel have pointed out, particularly that the central task of the church is to be an instrument used of the Spirit to "gather and perfect the saints" as called to do in the Great Commission. The ministerial office is given especially for that purpose of ministering the Word and Sacraments to which our Lord called His church in Matthew 28: 18-20. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## au5t1n

What ever happened to the office of doctor/teacher? In the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, four offices are listed: pastors, doctors/teachers, church-governors, and deacons, the first three being within the order of elder. This is very similar to the two-office view's division of the eldership into three functions. We can scruple about terminology (order, office, function), and that's fine and may be valid, but why isn't the three-office view a four-office view?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Because what is often referred to as the "four-office view" regards both the pastor and the doctor/teacher as a minister.

Here is Westminster in its _Form of Presbyterial Church Government _: "THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor,
Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments." Calvin and others who teach such are to the same effect.

The OPC _Form of Government _sets forth the broader office of minister in chapter 6 and in the following chapters sets forth the various expressions of such: Evangelists (missionaries, chaplains, etc., Chapter 7), Pastors (Chapter 8) and Teachers (in the local congregation, seminary, etc., Chapter 9). These are all ministers, however. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40

d.


----------



## au5t1n

Alan D. Strange said:


> Because what is often referred to as the "four-office view" regards both the pastor and the doctor/teacher as a minister.



Thank you for answering, Dr. Strange. And a belated thanks to Rev. Winzer for answering my previous questions. I believe I've exhausted my own questions for the present. This is certainly an interesting subject.


----------



## One Little Nail

One Little Nail said:


> It isn't a 3 office view, nor 2.5 it is a 2 office view





Reformed Covenanter said:


> The Westminster Standards teach a 3-office view; see the Form of Presbyterial Church Government:
> 
> AS there were in the Jewish church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the church;so Christ, who hath instituted government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church, hath furnished some in his church, *beside the ministers of the word*, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to *join with the minister in the government of the church*. *Which officers reformed churches commonly call Elders*.
> 
> Note that the ruling elder is seen as having a distinct office from the minister, though they are equal at the point of government. It is also significant that most Presbyterian churches have historically ordained ruling elders by local sessions, but ordained ministers by the Presbytery.



Daniel you're right on this matter, I'm willing to concede the point. I was under the impression that Samuel Miller taught a 2 Office view, having read the book a while back, so having a look at his Ruling Elder, he advocates the 3 office view,
in his Introductory chapter he writes 

" In every Church completely organized, that is, furnished with all the officers which Christ has instituted, and which are necessary for carrying into full effect
the laws of his kingdom, there ought to be three classes of officers, viz: at least one Teaching Elder, Bishop, or Pastor-a bench of Ruling Elders-and Deacons." 
"The following Essay will be devoted to the consideration of the SECOND CLASS of these officers, namely, RULING ELDERS;"

Likewise found that Gillespie in his An assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland says in Ch 2 speaks even of 4 Offices;

" But they differ, in that the pastor laboureth in the word of exhortation, that is, by the gift of wisdom applieth the word to the manners of his flock, and that in season and out of season, as he knoweth their particular cases to require. The doctor laboureth in the word of doctrine, that is, without such applications as the pastor useth; by simple teaching he preserveth the truth and sound interpretation of the Scriptures, against all heresy and error. The ruling elder doth neither of these, but laboureth in the government and policy of the church only. The Apostle hath distinguished these three sorts of elders, 1 Tim. 5.17, "Let elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." Where, as Beza noteth, he distinguished the word, which is the pastor's part, from doctrine, which is the doctor's part. Even as Rom. 12.7,8, he distinguisheth teaching from exhortation; and 1 Cor. 12.8, putteth "the word of wisdom," and "the word of knowledge," for two different things. Now, besides those elders which labour in the word, and those which labour in doctrine, Paul speaketh to Timothy of a third sort of elders, which labour neither in the word nor doctrine, but in ruling well. Hence it appeareth how truly the Book of Policy, cap. 2, saith, That there are four ordinary, perpetual, and necessary offices in the church, the office of the pastor, the doctor, the elder, and the deacon; and that no other office, which is not one of these four, ought to be received, or suffered in the church." 



One Little Nail said:


> the 3 office system only exists when you make a rift in the Eldership by designating the Pastor/Minister a Bishop while
> stripping the Ruling Elders of that title, this destroys the parity in the Eldership or session.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> Recognising a distinction between the offices of minister and ruling elder need not imply that ministers and ruling elders are not co-pastors over the flock of God. I do not deny that there are abuses of the 3-office view, such as when a minister tries to be a lord over God's heritage, but that should not undermine legitimate distinctions between ruling elders and ministers.



Gillespie quotes Peter Lombard [Lib. 4. dist. 4.] in the 2nd Chap of his Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland who says: "treading the vestiges of the primitive simplicity, did observe that the apostles left only two sacred orders to be perpetual in the church, the order of deacons and the order of elders." so I've muddled up my terminology, this is what I should have said that their are 2 Orders in the Church, the 1st being that of Elders or Bishops used interchangeably, & the 2nd that of Deacons, so within the Eldership are different offices 2 or 3 depending on whether or not you see Pastor & Teacher as a separate office. 

What Thomas Smyth believes in his "The Name, Nature and Functions of Ruling Elders, wherein it is shown from the testimony of Scripture, the Fathers and the Reformers that Ruling Elders are not Presbyters or Bishops and that as Representatives of the People, their Office ought to be temporary;" I see as an error and was what I was contending against but confused the issue, as the scriptures say that Elders are Bishops & Bishops are Elders. Thomas Smyth held that the qualifications for the Eldership
in 1 Timothy Chaps 3 & 5 weren't for Ruling Elders but given for Ministers, as he held that only they are true Presbyters or Bishops & that the qualification for ruling elders was given in the Old Testament. 

So I would say then that there are 2 Orders in the Church not 2 Offices, this clears up the confusion for me, if Ministers of the Word are a separate & distinct Office from the Ruling Elder, then the Eldership cannot be an Office, but must be an order.
If there is an Order called both Elders or Bishops interchangeably, within which all Ruling Offices operate ie; Pastors, Teachers & Ruling Elders then this maintains a parity within the Eldership or Bishopric as to an Order, not Office.

so what Matthew says over in post 20 rings true;


armourbearer said:


> Ruling elders are bishops in the sense that they oversee by means of ruling alone. Ministers oversee both by teaching and ruling.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Thanks, Robert. What is your general view of Thomas Smyth's work on church government? I have encountered Smyth when he was visiting Belfast during the 1840s (though I was not literally there at the time), but would like to do a bit more work on him.


----------



## Scott1

Grafted In said:


> Let me ask this; what happens when a ruling elder aspires to and prepares for the ministry of word and sacrament in a 2/2.5 office view? Is the man ordained again to the office of minister of word and sacrament?
> 
> I believe the answer is 'yes, he is.' But why, if it is the same office, with merely a different function?



This may have been answered already, but from the PCA perspective:

Elders, though one "class," they are of two "types"- ruling and teaching. (I think this is what is referred to as a "2.5" view, for this poll anyway).

But, in the PCA, all Pastors must be teaching elders. Teaching elders are ordained and installed by the Presbytery, not the Session of the church they serve. The ordination and installation ceremonies, these are two separate things, may be held at the local church they serve, but this is actually only as a venue for the Presbytery meeting.

Interestingly, Teaching elders are not members of their local church, they are members of their Presbytery. Whereas ruling elders are ordained and installed by the Session of their local church, and are members of their church. So there is a distinction between these two types of elders. Though not "permanent" members of the Presbytery, ruling elders are "temporary" members of the Presbytery, often serving rotating terms there.

In a sense, the Teaching Elder represents the Presbytery to the local church.

The Ruling Elder represents the local church to the Presbytery.

It's a wise system, providing a spiritual jury of peers for those who labor most in word and doctrine, but not the only biblical one.


----------



## One Little Nail

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Thanks, Robert. What is your general view of Thomas Smyth's work on church government? I have encountered Smyth when he was visiting Belfast during the 1840s (though I was not literally there at the time), but would like to do a bit more work on him.



Hi Daniel, I've only read through his ecclesiastical catechism in its entirety, which I found to be quite helpful, it was full of Scripture quotations, It seems from the quote above by Samuel Miller that he & Smyth see the Ministerial Office as being the Bishop, likewise Charles Hodge, which I take umbridge with as it would make Ruling "elders" a second class type of Elder or non-elder, one in name only, even a separate Order of Government, 1 Bishops, 2 Ruling "elders" & 3 Deacons.
whereas when Paul address' the Phillipians he mentions only 2 orders of Government, Bishops & Deacons, omitting any mention of Ruling Elders or Elders for that matter in that text.It would make it very strange to omit mention of Ruling Elders as they are a higher Office than Deacons, that is if Millers, Hodges & Smyths view of the Bishopric are correct.


as a side note, We know from a study of New Testament Scriptures that Bishops are Elders, & Elders are Bishops, this has been conceded even by Prelates, like the 19th Century J.B.Lightfoot, so if this be the case then, & additionally Ruling Elders be a distinct Office of Government in the New Testament Church, then they would have to be genuine Bishops & Elders as much as Ministers of the Gospel are, for we know that these Offices are distinct, yet Paul in Phil 1:1 only makes provision for 2 Orders of Government, thus these 2 separate & distinct Offices of the Church are compounded together in 1 Order of Government, the Eldership or Bishopric.


----------



## Abeard

Alan D. Strange said:


> Ruling elders are members of the Session and are only members of Presbytery as they are commissioned by the Session to serve in Presbytery (or judicatories higher/broader than Presbytery). The Presbytery consists of its "natural" members (all the ministers in the regional church) and those ruling elders commissioned to it for any of its particular meetings.
> 
> All ministers, whether installed in a local congregation as a pastor (Sr., Associate, etc.) or not, are members of Presbytery. As such they are governors of the regional church. So there is no such thing as a minister who does not rule, at least at the level of the regional church.
> 
> If a teaching elder (minister) is called by a local congregation to serve as pastor (or associate pastor; though not assistant--in the PCA--who is merely hired by the Session, not called by the congregation), upon installation he is a member of the Session. If a minister, say, one who is a teacher at a seminary, is only a member of Presbytery and not installed somewhere in a pastoral position, he is not a member of a Session, unless he is somehow made to serve on the Session (through, say, Presbytery augmentation and congregational/sessional approval). But a minister would never be "ordained by the Session" because he is already ordained to the office of minister
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Thanks for all your input Dr. Strange!

So not all ruling elders are members of the Presbytery? I assumed that they are automatically members of the Presbytery when they become ordained by the session. Which begs the question: does not the Presbytery have a say over who becomes a member via ruling elders?

Also, why is a minister not technically a member of the local church? Is it because conflict of interest?

Lastly, with the ruling elder not having the authority to teach/preach, does that mean he cannot lead the worship service? Does he have the authority to extend the "call to worship" and to give the benediction?


----------



## Edward

Abeard said:


> So not all ruling elders are members of the Presbytery?



In the PCA: 
" The Presbytery consists of all the teaching elders and churches within its bounds that have been accepted by the Presbytery. When the Presbytery meets as a court it shall comprise all teaching elders and ruling elders as elected by their Session. Each congregation is entitled to two (2) ruling elder representatives for the first 350 communing members or fraction thereof, and one additional ruling elder for each additional 500 communing members or fraction thereof." 
BCO 13-1.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Alex:

No, ruling elders have original membership in the local congregation. They are "rulers among the people" (sorry to cite my article again!). They are members of higher judicatories as they are commissioned by the session to serve on such. Hodge argued that if ruling elders hold the same office as ministers, then you have clericalism, with only clergy being involved in the governance of the church (in a scheme in which both ruling and teaching elders are considered as clergy). But, if the ruling elder is understood to be among the laity, selected by them to govern them, then both orders (lay and clergy) are involved in the rule of the church. 

I assume that you mean "raises the question" when you ask why ought not the presbytery approve ruling elders? Because they are approved by those over whom they naturally govern: the congregation, together with the rest of the session. The genius of presbyterianism in these respects is that both clergy and laity are represented in the two offices and no one is asked to sumbit locally to those to whom they've not agreed to have as governors and that those who come on the session must not only have congregational approval but must be placed there by the extant elders on the session. This provides all the checks needed: the congregation and session together agreeing that a man is fit to be a ruling elder does not need the overlordship of presbytery, though the presbytery can be asked to step in in disputed cases. 

As for ministerial membership in the local congregation, ministerial membership is in the regional church and its presbytery, just like a ruling elder's membership is in his congregation and its session. This is the body to which he is directly accountable and which would try him if needed. He is a minister (servant) to the congregation, not a member of that body. That is the body he is called to serve and he's not a member of it himself, though there is provision in the OPC _Form of Government _ allowing a session, with the conurrence of the presbytery, to grant the right to vote to a ministerial member of the regional church (FG 6.4). 

Similarly, according to the OPC _Directory for the Public Worship of God_, "When the session deems it fitting, ruling elders may lead the congregation in prayer, read the Scriptures to the congregation, lead unison or antiphonal readings of Scripture by the congregation, lead congregational singing, or, on occasion, exhort the congregation as part of public worship. They may not, however, pronounce the salutation or the benediction or administer the sacraments" (DPW I.D.2.d). 

Are either of these positions (allowing ministers to vote in a congregation or ruling elders to do what's described here) consistent with a three-office view? Arguably not. I personally don't think so but this demonstrates that we in the OPC are not as fully three-office as some assume, even as the PCA is not as two-office as many assume (since they require ruling elders to be ordained again in order to be teaching elders, for instance). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Abeard

Alan D. Strange said:


> Similarly, according to the OPC Directory for the Public Worship of God, "When the session deems it fitting, ruling elders may lead the congregation in prayer, read the Scriptures to the congregation, lead unison or antiphonal readings of Scripture by the congregation, lead congregational singing, or, on occasion, exhort the congregation as part of public worship. They may not, however, pronounce the salutation or the benediction or administer the sacraments" (DPW I.D.2.d).



Does this vary throughout Presbyterian denominations? even with those who are three office?





Alan D. Strange said:


> No, ruling elders have original membership in the local congregation. They are "rulers among the people" (sorry to cite my article again!). They are members of higher judicatories as they are commissioned by the session to serve on such. Hodge argued that if ruling elders hold the same office as ministers, then you have clericalism, with only clergy being involved in the governance of the church (in a scheme in which both ruling and teaching elders are considered as clergy). But, if the ruling elder is understood to be among the laity, selected by them to govern them, then both orders (lay and clergy) are involved in the rule of the church.



So it's only the minister's who have membership in the Presbytery? Is this exclusive to the three office view?

When I attended an ARP Presbytery I am quite certain the elder's voted. Would that mean they are members of the Presbytery? (I wonder if the ARP i'm apart of is two office)

Sorry for all the questions! Feel free to ignore me if you have little time.

I plan to print your article and read finish reading it.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Alex:

Yes, the cited practice (elders leading in worship) would vary. A strict three-office church, which the OPC is not, would not permit it.

As to ministerial membership in the Presbytery, this is true even of a "two-office" church like the PCA. Only ministers have regular on-going membership. See Edward's post (#65). Even as the OPC is not consistenly three-office, the PCA is not consistently two-office. This reflects the historic tensions about the question, which is not an easy one (despite what anyone might say, and I admit this as a three-office man).

Of course, elders were voting at the Presbytery that you attended (just as they would at the GA), being commissioned or elected by their sessions to do so. Ruling elders vote in the higher/broader judicatories of which they are intermittently members, needing to be commissioned or elected to do so, as opposed to ministers, all of whom have the vote in every meeting of Presbytery. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## fredtgreco

Functionally, the PCA is not two office. I have been ordained twice: once as a Ruling Elder (in 1998) and once again as a Teaching Elder (in 2006). If there truly were only one office of elder, I would not have had to be ordained again.


----------



## Abeard

Alan D. Strange said:


> Of course, elders were voting at the Presbytery that you attended (just as they would at the GA), being commissioned or elected by their sessions to do so. Ruling elders vote in the higher/broader judicatories of which they are intermittently members, needing to be commissioned or elected to do so, as opposed to ministers, all of whom have the vote in every meeting of Presbytery.



Ok, I assumed they would need to be members of the Presbytery to vote. Thanks for the info. 

When I was reading your article you mentioned that the two-office view came into effect in the 19th century through Scottish/American innovations. Who were the big propagators of this view?

Also, what reading would you recommend for learning the three-office view?

This is a fascinating topic for me! It's so important in the life of church leadership to know our roles.


----------

