# Abuses of Priesthood of Believers



## Scott (Dec 13, 2005)

What are some practices people have seen that abuse the doctrine of the priesthood of believers?


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 13, 2005)

Celebrating the Lord's Supper with Coke and crackers in a dorm room on a Saturday night.

Vic


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 13, 2005)

Rick Warren's church allows laymen to distribute the Lord's Supper (well, they call it that at least) to people in private homes and groups, because "they're all priests".


----------



## heartoflesh (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Rick Warren's church allows laymen to distribute the Lord's Supper (well, they call it that at least) to people in private homes and groups, because "they're all priests".



What verse(s) would you use to point out the error of this line of thinking? How does one establish their case?


----------



## Casey (Dec 13, 2005)

> What verse(s) would you use to point out the error of this line of thinking? How does one establish their case?


The Reformed view the Supper as an "appendix" to the preached Word. Since only those duly ordained can preach, only those duly ordained can administer the sacraments.

From his _Purpose-Driven Church_ book: "œThe idea of two classes of Christians, clergy and laity, is the creation of Roman Catholic tradition" (p. 391). This is Warren's proof that all members of the church are ministers. The only distinction he allows is whether or not the position is paid. Obviously, merely attributing the distinction to the Roman church does little to prove his point.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 13, 2005)

Thanks for the wake-up, Scott. I've been reading Jus Divinum, going through the arguments very carefully, and have been quite preoccupied by the arguments as they apply today to office-bearers. This topic comes out of left field for me, and yet is just as pertinent. 

Yes, I'm still reading that book. You can't really say you've read it if you've read it only once. They rewrote it a few times, so the authors didn't even really write it the first time either. :bigsmile: If it took them so many years to write it, several times over, can you blame me for taking my time reading it? 

I'm beginning to be concerned about a legalism taking over on this Board. But it is good to be aware of the limits that we as believers bear as well, not just the elders and ministers. Woe to them if they misrepresent God, or place on the people more or less than what God has commanded. But we're all believing the same religion, the same truths, not different ones for each. The elders, after all, are from the same flock as the people they rule in Christ's name. But we as people under their care have an obligation to honour them as they hold the office given them by Christ. 

What I see as an abuse of the "office of believer" ( noting that there is such an office ) is the individualism, the control of one's own rudder so to speak, in independence from the Church. Yes, there is an individuality to faith, but the truths that are believed in are all the same for everyone: we all have the same univocal Bible. There are not more for the elder, but there are also not different ones for the individual, as if he may "choose from the list of preferences." The Confessions mean so much to me lately because they represent what the Church believes, not just today, but throughout history. They guide us well into understanding the lesser known doctrines, the harder-to-understand doctrines. And they tie us to the Church of all the ages, not just our own. That way we are not our own judges alone, but are subject to watchful eyes from the past as well.


----------



## Scott (Dec 13, 2005)

"What verse(s) would you use to point out the error of this line of thinking? How does one establish their case?" 

A common vers is 1 Cor. 4:1: "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." Reformed typically interpret "us" to mean apostles/church officers. "Mysteries of God" is interpreted to include the sacraments.

Also, the Great Commission entrusts the preaching and baptism to officers (addressed specifically to apostles, who in turn appointed various people, who in turn appointed people, etc - see Titus 1:5).


----------



## heartoflesh (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "What verse(s) would you use to point out the error of this line of thinking? How does one establish their case?"
> 
> A common vers is 1 Cor. 4:1: "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." Reformed typically interpret "us" to mean apostles/church officers. "Mysteries of God" is interpreted to include the sacraments.
> ...



Thanks for the Scripture. I think it's important to present people with biblical evidence. Simply saying "Well, the Reformed believe...." is going to get you nowhere fast. I remember at my first church, very seeker friendly, and at a small group retreat we passed around the bread and the grape juice.

What is meant by "administering the sacraments"? For example, at our church the pastor will read Scripture (1 Corinthians usually) and then some men at our church (might be elders, might not) will pass around the cracker and juice containers, (the same way the offering is done). I know this is probably radically different from what you're used to, or the way you believe it should be done, I admit.

I should add, the pastor does do a "hand off" to these men before they start distributing.

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 13, 2005)

The preisthood of the believer has so tied in with the work of Christ in His office as the high preist of believers that their confidence is not in themselves but in Him as the head of the church . He will conform us in the body to be more like Him and bring us in that purpose to act like we should toward one another. It is so important that we know Him as our High Preist and that we have communion with the Father through Him so that our relationship in prayer can over flow toward one another and for us to see the spiritual value in our being humble in those relationships in the church. Each of us is a high preist in this respect. This is us being believers. We come to worship the living God, we come to seek Him alone. All the other responsibilities flow out of that paridigm. This is us being believers. This is the essence of us being a high preist. When we experience forgiveness, grace through the preaching of the word, and overflow of joy, a communion of the saints, blessings of the Holy Spirit we are living in that relationship of the high preist to our families and our fellow believers in our being available to go before the Father in their behalf and standing as an advocate for them in the world. This spiritual paradigm is what should be the direction of those officers of the church in working out that high preistly paradigm. In this spiritual worship we come before Him and He shows us Himself. We see Christ as our advocate and we understand that He is our only hope of accesss to the Father and in our coming to worship our God with this attitude we understand the spiritual value of our access to Him as our High Preist. The over flow of that relationship is normal in a church where there are believers being a high preist toward one another.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Thanks for the wake-up, Scott. I've been reading Jus Divinum, going through the arguments very carefully, and have been quite preoccupied by the arguments as they apply today to office-bearers. This topic comes out of left field for me, and yet is just as pertinent.
> 
> Yes, I'm still reading that book. You can't really say you've read it if you've read it only once. They rewrote it a few times, so the authors didn't even really write it the first time either. :bigsmile: If it took them so many years to write it, several times over, can you blame me for taking my time reading it?
> ...



Excellent Post John!

I would like to discuss this in more detail sometime; mainly to answer the question of how do we get the laymen all on the same page towards submitting to our leaders and gladly supporting our church despite our own individual, biased, and uneducated views on various issues.


----------



## Scott (Dec 13, 2005)

Tom: Are you presenting those as abuses (the original question)? Not sure from your post.


----------



## Scott (Dec 13, 2005)

Rick: Administering the sacraments would involve the lawfully ordained minister consecrating the elements with the Word and prayer. It is ok for others to hand the elements out (carry them in trays or whatever). In the ancient church (post-apostolic) deacons used to carry the elements to sick and incapacitated people who could not attend for themselves.


----------



## Scott (Dec 13, 2005)

Seems to me that the priesthood of believers has devolved into what baptists refer to as "soul competency." Here are a few quotes on this doctrine. They are from an article by Al Mohler on E.Y. Mullins' influence on the growth and expansion of this doctrine:


> This notion of "soul competency" was interpreted by Mullins to mean that each individual soul is independently competent to adjudicate all matters of religious importance. "Religion," argued Mullins, "is a personal matter between the soul and God." Mullins even described the idea in terms of "self-government in religion." Such a conception ruled out all hierarchies and religious authorities, and led, Mullins argued, to congregationalism and democracy in the religious life. By means of this principle of soul competency, Mullins even claimed to have taken the principle of justification by faith "far beyond the dreams of Luther and other reformers."
> . . .
> For Bloom, who argues that Americans are prone to a Gnosticism through self-worship. Mullins is the pioneer of the Southern Baptist tradition taken up by moderates in the inerrancy controversy, "the definer of their creedless faith." According to Bloom, Mullins' doctrine of soul competency so focuses all meaning and truth in the autonomous individual--"sanctioning endless interpretive possibilities"--that all religious authority is vaporized, even the authority of Scripture
> . . .
> But soul competency also serves as an acid dissolving religious authority, congregationalism, confessionalism, and mutual theological accountability. This, too, is part of Mullins' legacy. As American Baptist church historian Winthrop S. Hudson asserted: "*The practical effect of the stress upon 'soul competency' as the cardinal doctrine of the Baptists was to make every man's hat his own church*."


I think Hudon's bolded quote sums it up nicely. A doctrine of the priesthood of believers abused by individualists leaves us with with personal interpretations and doctrine but little sense of a collective interpretations, as expressed in creeds and churchly documents.

Scott

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Scott]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 13, 2005)

> _from chRis_
> I would like to discuss this in more detail sometime; mainly to answer the question of how do we get the laymen all on the same page towards submitting to our leaders and gladly supporting our church despite our own individual, biased, and uneducated views on various issues.


Thanks, Chris. 

The book does spend a little time on the terms "layman" and "clergy", denying the prelatical distinction. Both are saved sinners, and in their persons there is no difference. But you say "laymen" and "our leaders". Well said.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 14, 2005)

He argued that "Arminianism overlooked certain essential truths about God in its strong championship of human freedom. As against it, Calvinism ran to extremes in some of its conclusions in its very earnest desire to safeguard the truth of God's sovereignty. We are learning to discard both names and to adhere more closely than either system to the Scriptures, while retaining the truth in both systems."(28)

This is the central issue in this article. In discussing with people today their views, this paridigm is what they try to explain to me so that they can come off as being "accepting of other view points" and they also want to maintain their free will in the atonimous sense. This paradigm is not Calvinism and Armininism together but just plain old Armininism.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> A common verse is 1 Cor. 4:1: "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." Reformed typically interpret "us" to mean apostles/church officers. "Mysteries of God" is interpreted to include the sacraments.



Exegetically, can it be demonstrated for sure that the sacraments are in view in this passage? Or is this just a place where people have stretched, looking for some verse, any verse, to support their case?



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Also, the Great Commission entrusts the preaching and baptism to officers (addressed specifically to apostles, who in turn appointed various people, who in turn appointed people, etc - see Titus 1:5).



But does it therefore follow that *only* apostles and ordained ministers can administer the sacraments? (I want to hear straight from the Scriptures here.) Just for example, how about Philip in Acts 8? Wasn't he merely a deacon, and not an elder?

I would really like to hear some Scriptural exegesis here. I have read Matt's articles on this subject, but he seems to spend a lot more time on church history and the confessions, rather than demonstrating anything conclusive from Scripture.

I am willing to accept the idea that *only* ordained ministers can administer the sacraments . . . but *only* if someone can demonstrate it to me from Scripture. So far, people either just seem to lean on tradition, or they refer to passages like 1 Cor. 4:1 which seem to be quite vague and unconclusive on the subject.

I would like to hear some real Biblical arguments on this subject. This is one of the very few points of Presbyterianism with which I do not currently agree. Who says that baptism administered by a layman is not valid? Who says that the Lord's Supper administered by a layman is not valid? Show me from Scripture!

Thank you in advance for any Scriptural guidance you can give me on this subject.



[Edited on 12-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 14, 2005)

Joseph:

What would you consider the "mysteries" to consist of? Would that include or exclude the Sacraments? 

I think this verse is conclusive enough in itself. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. The doctrines fall under this "mystery", especially the harder ones, but also the plainer ones in their proper order and place. But why then not that much more the Sacraments, as they are also an administration of the Word? 

What more is needed than this verse? I'm not saying its not a good question to ask; but that the opposite question is just as pertinent, and perhaps more revealing: namely, why would "mystery" *not* apply here to the sacraments especially?


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 14, 2005)

I dont think the scripture holds a rule as to who gives the sacrements but frames the administration of giving within the confines of the church and its workings. I cannot recall this administering of the sacrements in the bible by any other authority than the church leaders however primitive the church was. Although because there is no set rule this falls under going outside the normal means to include missionarys in primitive circumstances and other remote areas of the world where the church is in persecution. God can use anyone at any time to have a worship service and the taking of the Lords supper in these kinds of situations.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 14, 2005)

John, let me clarify something. I also see nothing in the Bible saying that *only* an ordained minister is allowed to present Scripture to the congregation.

Is an elder a steward of doctrine? Of course. But does that mean that *only* he presents it before the congregation? Definitely not (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26). At my church, the pastor preaches a sermon. But in the second part of the service, in which we take the Lord's supper, multiple men (including myself) take turns standing up and sharing from the Scripture for a couple minutes, or praying publicly, or requesting everyone to sing, etc. (By the way, some Presbyterians follow the same practice.) In any case, we are following Scripture.

I myself stood this past Sunday and shared a 6-minute message about a connection between the Passover and the Lord's Supper. And I prayed publicly. Then I called out a song for everyone to sing together. And all of this was fully in line with 1 Corinthians 14:26.

It is one thing to say that the elders are stewards of the doctrine for the church. That is true enough. If I said anything in error, then one of the elders would promptly stand up and make a correction. They certainly are stewards, and they oversee everything.

But the message of 1 Corinthians 4:1 is NOT that non-elders are somehow *excluded* from public proclamation of the Word, or of administration of the sacraments. 

I am willing to change my mind on this point, but I have yet to see how your view of clergy/laity can square with 1 Cor. 14:26. We are ALL priests of God. Of course elders have a special position, to oversee the church and lead it. But that does not utterly exclude the rest of us from ministering to the church under the oversight of the elders.


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2005)

Joseph: Consider Larger Catechism Q. 156:

Q156: Is the word of God to be read by all? 
A156: Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation,[1] yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves,[2] and with their families:[3] to which end, the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.[4] 

1. Deut. 31:9, 11-13; Neh. 8:2-3; 9:3-5
2. Deut. 17:19; Rev. 1:3; John 5:39; Isa. 34:16
3. Deut. 6:6-9; Gen. 18:17, 19; Psa. 78:5-7
4. I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11-12, 15-16, 24, 27-28

It is important to consider the parts of public worship in determining who does what. There are essentially two parts to worship, the parts performed on behalf of God and the parts performed on behalf of man. The reading and preaching of the scriptures are God's parts and for that reason his lawfully called men perform those functions on His behalf. It is not for the laity to do this. 

Here is an excerpt explaining a reformed understanding from the OPC Book of Church Order:


> 1. As a service of public worship is in its essence a meeting of God and his people, the parts of the service are of two kinds: those which are performed on behalf of God, and those which are performed by the congregation. In the former the worshippers are receptive, in the latter they are active. It is reasonable that these two elements be made to alternate as far as possible.
> 
> 2. The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is performed by the minister as God's servant. Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation, even more directly than through the interpretation of Holy Writ in the sermon. . . [truncated]



[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Scott]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Joseph: Consider Larger Catechism Q. 156:
> 
> Q. 156 Is the word of God to be read by all?
> ...



Thank you for the good recommendation. I will be happy to look up the proof texts for the WLC Q156.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 14, 2005)

Scott,

What do you do with 1 Corinthians 14:26?


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2005)

FOund them proof texts and inserted them in the post above.


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2005)

Joseph: Seems to me that 1 Cor. 14:26 concerns forms of special revelation.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Joseph: Seems to me that 1 Cor. 14:26 concerns forms of special revelation.



Only partially. Please look again:

"When you come together, everyone has a *hymn*, or a *word of instruction*, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. "

For a moment, let's not worry about the "revelation" or the "tongue". I'm not concerned with special revelation at this moment.

Rather, focus on the "hymn" and the "word of instruction". These are not special revelations are they?


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2005)

I think so. There can be inspired songs (eg. the psalms) and inspired instruction). In the context of this portion of 1 Corinthians, it seems to me that these sorts of gifts are in view.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Joseph: Consider Larger Catechism Q. 156:
> 
> Q156: Is the word of God to be read by all?
> ...



Scott, 

I just looked up the proof texts you cited above, but they don't appear to prove anything that relates to our current discussion.

If you disagree, then please show me where in Deuteronomy or Nehemiah that people are barred from publicly reading Scripture to the congregation, or from praying publicly, or from calling out a song for the congregation to sing.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I think so. There can be inspired songs (eg. the psalms) and inspired instruction). In the context of this portion of 1 Corinthians, it seems to me that these sorts of gifts are in view.



I'm not following you . . . how can sharing a Psalm be a spiritual "gift"? And where does this passage say that the "word of instruction" is some spiritual gift? 

I think the text is pretty clear . . . any guy in the congregation is permitted to call for a hymn/psalm, or to share something from the Scriptures. What exegetically makes you think otherwise?


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2005)

God inspired David to write psalms. That was a form of special revelation. I think that the Holy Spirit may have given inspired songs to people then. That is what I am saying - people were receiving inspired songs through revelation. 

The text does not say, "if anyone wishes to call out a psalm." But rather if anyone "has" a psalm. "Psalm" is listed along with revelation and tongues. One can "have" a revelation. One can "have" a tongue. One can "have" a psalm. A rule of interpretation is that, when ambiguous, items in a list should be understood to relate together and be of the same quality and nature. 

As to instruction, the Holy Spirit could inspire instruction. For example, God told Paul to go to Macedonia. That is a specially revealed instruction and the kind of thing people would present to the congregation. It was not just "I think the Bible means X." Few people had their own Bibles at the time anyway.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2005)

Deut. 31 - note that the Law was given to Moses, the priests and the elders. Those are the proper people to hold it. At the time when it is read to the congregation, the "you" is Moses, an officer in God's church. This serves as precedent for who is to read the Word publicly. 

Neh. 8, 9 - Similarly, we have precedent for who is to read the Word. It is Nehemiah, an officer of God and related officers.

Seems to me that the issue is complicated by the fact that the New Testament's writing on the church and her worship are written in the context of a church that is already up and operating. We do not have a manual on how to start a church or order its worship from scratch. We have epistles that address specific issues going on.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 14, 2005)

Abuses I've seen:

1. Men thinking they are called, not studied and approved, not able to rightly divide the word - perpetuating false doctrine and damage.

2. The American religion of looking down upon true calling and vocation in all of the lay persons life (our jobs in how we truly serve and love neighbor).

3. Atomizing of Scripture.

4. Arrogance of fresh interpretations of Scripture.

5. Rebellion and splitting of churches rather than submission to appropriate and legitimate authority as long as it declares the Gospel.

6. Confusion of "my thinking/feelings" interpreting Scripture with the "Holy Spirit" "revealing". 

7. The "My" ministry syndrome.

8. The shattering of the family and rising of individualism.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> John, let me clarify something. I also see nothing in the Bible saying that *only* an ordained minister is allowed to present Scripture to the congregation.
> 
> Is an elder a steward of doctrine? Of course. But does that mean that *only* he presents it before the congregation? Definitely not (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26). At my church, the pastor preaches a sermon. But in the second part of the service, in which we take the Lord's supper, multiple men (including myself) take turns standing up and sharing from the Scripture for a couple minutes, or praying publicly, or requesting everyone to sing, etc. (By the way, some Presbyterians follow the same practice.) In any case, we are following Scripture.
> ...



Sorry for the delay, Joseph. Like I said, this is a good question. If we are elevating the offices to reinstate a kind of sacerdotalism, then we need to examine ourselves. 

I'm going to look up the passage in question in the book Jus Divinum; it deals with it as a proof of office appointed by God for a certain cause, as I recall. That will help me answer your question. 

I'll be back. Off to


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 15, 2005)

In 1 Cor 14:26 there are the gifts of the apostles and then the other gifts of the Spirit. Doesnt Paul place these different gifts in the same verse side by side in his other books?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> Sorry for the delay, Joseph. Like I said, this is a good question. If we are elevating the offices to reinstate a kind of sacerdotalism, then we need to examine ourselves.





The error you have mentioned is _precisely_ the one I am trying to combat. I believe the standard Presbyterian/Lutheran/Anglican view of the clergy/laity *does* borrow from Rome a certain watered-down version of sacerdotalism (i.e. the sacraments only get their "power" via an ordained minister). Of course I do not think this is necessarily _intentional_ sacerdotalism, so I do not want to hurl any epithets. I am not angry. I just want everyone to take a careful biblical look at this tradition that goes largely unquestioned, a view which I do not believe is founded on Scripture.




> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> I'm going to look up the passage in question in the book Jus Divinum; it deals with it as a proof of office appointed by God for a certain cause, as I recall. That will help me answer your question.
> 
> I'll be back. Off to



Thank you very much for looking into this, John! I look forward to hearing what you find out from your reading. If there is solid biblical support for the "clergy only" view regarding administration of the sacraments, then I will be glad to learn of it, and happy to submit to it.

But if the current Presbyterian practice is *merely* based on centuries of tradition, then my conscience will constrain me to *not* accept it.


----------



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

> The error you have mentioned is precisely the one I am trying to combat. I believe the standard Presbyterian/Lutheran/Anglican view of the clergy/laity *does* borrow from Rome a certain watered-down version of sacerdotalism (i.e. the sacraments only get their "power" via an ordained minister). Of course I do not think this is necessarily intentional sacerdotalism, so I do not want to hurl any epithets. I am not angry. I just want everyone to take a careful biblical look at this tradition that goes largely unquestioned, a view which I do not believe is founded on Scripture.



I think the typical argument is not that the sacraments get their power from ministers, only that ministers are the ones lawfulyl ordained to dispense them. There is a distinction between power and lawfulness. Someone may have the power to use them, but such use is unlawful. Someone may have the power to steal Christ's goods but only Christ's lawfully appointed men have the authority to rightfully use them.

Also, this is not an unquestioned tradition. I think most would agree with the positions you are suggesting actually. The reformed world in America is largely indistiguishable from bible churches in terms of seeing pastor as someone with real authority (neither do). The people who affirm the older views (such s Matt) are rare. You may have read it for seminary already but if not, see Nathan Hatch's Democratization of American Christianity. He documents how ministers have lost their authority and influence in America. It was largely through abuses of ideas along the lines of a distorted versions of the priesthood of the believer doctrine.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I think the typical argument is not that the sacraments get their power from ministers, only that ministers are the ones lawfulyl ordained to dispense them. There is a distinction between power and lawfulness. Someone may have the power to use them, but such use is unlawful. Someone may have the power to steal Christ's goods but only Christ's lawfully appointed men have the authority to rightfully use them.



So if a layman administers a baptism, is the baptism valid, or not?

If you say that the administrator sinned, but that the baptism is nevertheless valid, then you and I are in much closer agreement than I currently assume. I realize that the "lawfullness" and the "validity" of things are two different questions. So I will be happy if you just grant the *validity* of lay-baptisms, and of lay-administration of the Lord's Supper. At least then you would not be suggesting that the *power* of the sacrament is via the ordained minister.

However, if you say that a lay-baptism is invalid, and must therefore be repeated by an ordained minister, then you have contradicted your position above. Because if a lay-baptism is no baptism at all, then the power of the baptism *does* come via the ordained minister. And in that case, we *would* be talking about a form of sacerdotalism.





> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Also, this is not an unquestioned tradition. I think most would agree with the positions you are suggesting actually.



Well, I am specifically addressing the type of people who hang out here on the Puritanboard. And I think most people on this forum currently agree with the Reformed/Puritan tradition regarding the clergy/laity relationships regarding the sacraments. But I could be wrong.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> The reformed world in America is largely indistiguishable from bible churches in terms of seeing pastor as someone with real authority (neither do).



Just for the record, this statement does *not* describe the Bible church I attend. Of all churches I have been to, I have never been to a church where the pastor is so highly respected & honored. And I have never seen a church exercise Matthew 18 church discipline as well as McKinney Bible church. We take the authority of the elders very seriously, and we take church discipline very seriously.

We just do not believe that administration of the word & sacraments is for the pastor only, and that the laity are utterly excluded. Make no mistake, the elders oversee everything in the church. But we are aware of no Scripture that invalidates lay-baptisms, lay-administration of the Lord's Supper, or lay-presentation of the Word.




[Edited on 12-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## DTK (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> In 1 Cor 14:26 there are the gifts of the apostles and then the other gifts of the Spirit. Doesnt Paul place these different gifts in the same verse side by side in his other books?


The four major passages in the NT dealing with spiritual gifts are 1 Cor 12 and 14, Romans 12, Ephesians 2, and 1 Peter 4. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Charles Hodge notes the difficulty somewhat in distinguishing those gifts peculiar to the office of an apostle from those distributed sovereignly by God to all precisely because of your point, _viz.,_ that Paul places these different gifts (i.e., both ordinary and extraordinary gifts) side by side in his epistles.

One of the things to remember, at least I think, is that Paul is not offering an exhaustive catalogue of spiritual gifts. I'm personally convinced that there are other _ordinary_ gifts of the Spirit that are not listed.

If I may simply offer a few side comments, we learn the following about spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12...

1. Spiritual gifts are sovereignly given by the Lord Jesus Christ, vs. 7 & 11.

2. Spiritual gifts are given for the profit (or common good) of all, v. 7. The same point is also made in 1 Peter 4:10.

3. Spiritual gifts are many and different, but all of them have the same source, in vs. 4-6.

4. Spiritual gifts are complementary - The gifts of all members are necessary, vs. 20-25, even those who appear to be weaker.

DTK


----------



## JohnV (Dec 15, 2005)

Well thanks, Joseph. Keep in mind, though, that I can only answer from a certain limitation. I won't exegete the text, but only call on the common sense of what is in the text, that which is common to all of us, office-bearer and non-office-bearer alike. I'm not a Bible interpreter beyond that which is given to every believer. So I'll only be taking into account what the authors of Jus Divinum say on the matter, and trying to work out the common sense of it from that point. 

Two things, then: first, though the authors of Jus Divinum were respected leaders at the Westminster Assembly, the book itself has not been accepted as a Church standard. We have to be very careful about that point. The men were gifted by God to do the work that was done, but it was the Spirit's work, not theirs. So we should not elevate these men beyond what is reasonable or acceptable. No writings of men, no matter how holy they may be, can be placed alongside the Bible to be normative to doctrine or life: only the Bible is authoritative. However, as these things reveal to us that authoritative Bible more clearly, we should willingly submit to the wisdom to which they direct us. In other words, if it brings us ever closer to the Word, we should not reject it. To see it as helpful is not, even to a serious degree, the same a seeing it as authoritative. As it points us to the authoritative Word, we should attend to its leading. 

Second, these men were concerned about the affairs of the offices especially commissioned to the ones Christ appointed to the task, personally at first, and then through them to others. They were arguing against three errors, namely that of the authority of Christ resting in the congregation as a whole; that of the authority of Christ resting in the hands of secular rulers; and finally that of the authority of Christ resting in offices added by men on top of the ones especially named in Scripture, men taking liberties with the texts to put in place additional commissions. 

This is going to limit what the book has to say in this context. But that's just up my alley. I always look for those things that are taken for granted in discussions, taken as true and as grounds for propositions; and then delving into why these things are taken so. 

The question I have in mind to answer is whether and how, if it is, the text you cited is sufficient as proof.

I've found some references already, but need a bit more time to look for the one I seem to have nagging in the back of my mind; and also to colate the information. Brings up an interesting question, though: why is the back of the mind not up in front more often?

Initial thoughts:

So far it seems that the text is used as a description of a task especially of a minister of the Word. So it would appear that if you are taking the bread and wine, and serving it to people in the congregation, that you are doing so under his authority, under his office to adminster and to appoint for adminstering. The question, then, is whether such a thing is to be delegated from the office, or if it belongs specifically to the office to adminster only. The former would seem to lean more to sacerdotalism than seems, instead of the latter doing so. The authority to appoint seems to place more in the hands of the minister than just the office to administer.

You yourself have admitted to taking part in the practice of administering; you wouldn't claim, then, that you also hold the office of minister of the Word, would you? Of course not. It has been delegated to you by him to do this. Does that mean that you automatically have the power to delegate what has been commissioned to you, or part of it? No, it doesn't. But yet when we say that ministers have the commission to administer the sacraments, we seem to think that this commission includes the right to delegate that administration, or parts of it, to others to whom it is not given to do so. That is adding to the commision, just as you would be adding to what the minister gave you to do if you then took it upon yourself to delegate part of that delegation to some of your friends or family at your own discretion. That discretion is not defined into the the administration from the text. 

Anyway, these are just a few thoughts. Don't want to put too much into one post.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## gwine (Dec 15, 2005)

Read the word of the Lord:



> 1Sa 13:8 He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him.
> 1Sa 13:9 So Saul said, "Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings." And he offered the burnt offering.
> 1Sa 13:10 As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him.
> 1Sa 13:11 Samuel said, "What have you done?" And Saul said, "When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash,
> ...



Just curious whether this passage has anything to say about who is able to administer the sacraments. Or would you say that offering sacrifices was an OT practice that is not applicable now and thus has no bearing on the subject?


----------



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

Joseph: Baptism by lay people is valid but is ordinarily unlawful apart from exigent circumstances (eg. classic example of the midwife with a dying baby). I expect the same is true for the Lord's Supper, but I would be interested to see the opinions of people like Matt who have looked at this issue more closely than I have. 

Glad your bible church honors the ministers. I have seen allot of top-down teaching in Bible churches in which ministers expressly say there is no difference between them and the members (assuming membership) except that the minister is paid. Very egalitarian.

BTW, I don't think sacerdotal is the right term. That term typically carries with it a notion of the performance of a sacrifice, which reformed of course reject.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> Just curious whether this passage has anything to say about who is able to administer the sacraments. Or would you say that offering sacrifices was an OT practice that is not applicable now and thus has no bearing on the subject?



Of course only the priests were allowed to make these sacrifices before the Lord. But how do you draw the connection from the sacrifices to the sacraments, in order to make your point? After all, OT circumcision did not have to be done by a priest in order to be valid (cf. Exodus 4:25-26).


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Baptism by lay people is valid but is ordinarily unlawful apart from exigent circumstances (eg. classic example of the midwife with a dying baby). I expect the same is true for the Lord's Supper,



I am very happy to hear you say this. 



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> but I would be interested to see the opinions of people like Matt who have looked at this issue more closely than I have.



Matt says that baptism is not even *valid* if performed by a layman.


----------



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

"Matt says that baptism is not even *valid* if performed by a layman."

I would be curious to hear his reasoning. I thought he said that people who were not lawfully ordained could administer the Lord's Supper. I thought that was how he acocunted for the practices of independent ministers (not lawfully ordained) as being valid but unlawful. Maybe I am not remembering right. 

I have always viewed the Words of institution, not the person speaking them, as a key. Sort of like a layman, a woman, or someone else not lawfully ordained, getting into the pulpit to preach a sermon. Even if the sermon is accurate in everything it contains, that person's activity is unlawful, but the message can still affect people for the good. Sort of like someone taking something that does not belong to them (even by mistake) and distributing to others to help them.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 15, 2005)

So there is a Robin Hood in Reformed ecclesiology, Scott? Is that what you're saying? :bigsmile:


----------



## gwine (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by gwine_
> ...



You need to reread my question. I did not draw any connection. I am asking you (and others) whether you see any connection.

And do we know that Zipporah's act was acceptable? I see nothing that states either way. And, BTW, I am asking, not stating, so please don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 15, 2005)

Not sure if this fits, 

but the assumption some people get that because the Bible teaches we are all born in sin, that sex is therefore dirty of sinful and it's only for Procreation. And therefore, if we are not considering pro-creating we should never have sex, because it's some how sinful and dirty.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 15, 2005)

> BTW, I don't think sacerdotal is the right term. That term typically carries with it a notion of the performance of a sacrifice, which reformed of course reject.



The word relates to the priesthood in general. Usually, in Reformed circles, its a derogatory term, referring to specifics about that pertain to that office that do not carry into the offices of the NT church, namely elders and ministers. The idea is that of casting aspersions on the prelacy in general. It has to do with the specific way that the sacraments are administered by Roman Catholic priests, as Joseph uses the term; but it is also more general to the way that the Roman Catholic church has taken the Bible out of the hands of the people and placed it solely in the hands of the priests. It suggests, in both cases, a dictatorial type of office, where we as believers have no office to either approve or disapprove of what is being done in the church. That's the point that we're getting to here. I think its the right term, and that it does have to do with sacrifices too, but not just sacrifices; it has to do with the way the office is practiced. 

At least, that was what I had in mind in using the term. If the minister takes to commission of rightly handling the mysteries of God as including delegating the handling of it to others, or parts of it, then that sends up a red flag in my mind of adding to the office what is not in the text, as opposed to the idea of adding into the text that "only" ministers may administer the sacraments. That was my intent.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Matt says that baptism is not even *valid* if performed by a layman."
> 
> I would be curious to hear his reasoning. I thought he said that people who were not lawfully ordained could administer the Lord's Supper. I thought that was how he acocunted for the practices of independent ministers (not lawfully ordained) as being valid but unlawful. Maybe I am not remembering right.



I may be mistaken. If Matt believes that lay-baptisms and lay-communion are valid, then I am glad to hear that. Maybe we aren't as much in disagreement as I thought.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I have always viewed the Words of institution, not the person speaking them, as a key. Sort of like a layman, a woman, or someone else not lawfully ordained, getting into the pulpit to preach a sermon. Even if the sermon is accurate in everything it contains, that person's activity is unlawful, but the message can still affect people for the good. Sort of like someone taking something that does not belong to them (even by mistake) and distributing to others to help them.



Good point. Even if unlawful, it's still valid and useful.

Nevertheless, I don't even think a person has to be ordained to get into the pulpit and preach a sermon. (I realize we disagree here.) Of course the pastor/elders should be good stewards of their charge, and should oversee the service, to make sure error is not propagated. But if my pastor asked me to preach a sermon, I would do it. In fact, at our church, we follow 1 Cor. 14:26, and *every* man in the church is encouraged to publicly share from the Word, pray, etc. Last Sunday I shared a little 6-minute message regarding the Passover and the roasting of the lamb.


----------



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

The PCA does make allowances for non-ordained men, such as men seeking ordination. As you are seeking ordination you should be allowed to preach occasionally wherever you are interning. Not sure if this is classic reformed position. Still, should open up pulpit to all. 

Do you see worship as having essentially two parts, parts performed on behalf of God and parts performed by the congregation? This aspect of worship goes a long way toward defining one's understanding of who should do what.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> You need to reread my question. I did not draw any connection. I am asking you (and others) whether you see any connection.



Please accept my apologies. I did not intend to put words in your mouth.



> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> And do we know that Zipporah's act was acceptable? I see nothing that states either way.



I think it was acceptable. Laymen could perform the sacrament of circumcision.

However, many of my betters would disagree. John Calvin, for example, believed that Zipporah's act was sinful. Nevertheless, Calvin still agreed that Zipporah's act was *valid*.

After all, there is no way that the son of Moses could be re-circumcized! (ouch!) I think we should learn a lesson from this fact. No matter how "unlawful" a circumcision could supposedly be, it still could never be repeated! Thus, it was still valid.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> The PCA does make allowances for non-ordained men, such as men seeking ordination. As you are seeking ordination you should be allowed to preach occasionally wherever you are interning. Not sure if this is classic reformed position. Still, should open up pulpit to all.



I am very happy about this fact, and I appreciate the reminder. However, there is a flip-side to this coin that really bothers me:

The PCA allows a non-ordained man to preach the Word of God from the pulpit. But the PCA does NOT allow a non-ordained man to administer the sacraments! A person seeking ordination can preach, but he cannot baptize or administer the Lord's Supper!

This just floors me. This position implicitly teaches that the *sacraments* can only be administered by an ordained minister, but that the exposition of *Scripture* can be relegated to some *lower* standard! This view really seems upside down. If it were turned around, it would make a lot more sense. After all, a person might preach the Word poorly, so we might have reason to be wary of anyone preaching other than the pastor. But how can you administer communion poorly, or baptize poorly? It is a LOT harder to mess those up, than it is to mess up a sermon!

Why is it that the PCA can trust a non-ordained person with Scripture, but not with the Lord's Supper & baptism?




> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Do you see worship as having essentially two parts, parts performed on behalf of God and parts performed by the congregation? This aspect of worship goes a long way toward defining one's understanding of who should do what.



I haven't thought about it in those terms, but if there are any articles/books you want to recommend that focus on that dichotomy in worship, I would be more than happy to take a look. 

I do not claim to be a worship expert. I'm just seeking the truth, and I'm trying to understand the Bible as best as I can. I'm sure that there is a whole lot that I have yet to learn.


----------



## gwine (Dec 15, 2005)

> Why is it that the PCA can trust a non-ordained person with Scripture, but not with the Lord's Supper & baptism?



Would it be in the answer you yourself gave, that the non-ordained person was seeking ordination and therefore under the care of the leaders? Even when we have someone who is not ordained speak (seminary student), an elder leads in prayer, so it's not just the sacraments we're talking about.

After all, I did not become a journeyman electrician in a vacuum. I apprenticed under journeymen and worked with them. Until near the very end of the apprenticeship I was not allowed to do anything by myself. Even then they were responsible if I made a mistake.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

Gerry,

With respect, I have to admit that I don't follow your argument at all.

Please tell me why you think it's ok for a non-ordained person to preach, but why it is NOT ok for that SAME person to administer the sacraments? 

Isn't it MUCH more difficult to mess up the administration of the sacraments, compared to the ease with which a person can mess up the preaching of the Word?


To follow your "electrician" analogy, it would be like a master electrician allowing his understudy to wire a house and work on live wire atop telephone poles, but to *not* let the same person change light bulbs. Something about that kind of logic just sounds upside down to me.



[Edited on 12-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## py3ak (Dec 15, 2005)

Here are a couple of questions.

What do we make of Paul baptizing so few at Corinth? Were there not a lot of baptisms? If there were, who was doing them? Is there any evidence?

Why did Peter not baptize the household of Cornelius? The "brethren" who went with him did --we are not told that they were elders or deacons. Is that in any way significant?


----------



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

Joseph: A good start is The Beauty of Reformed Liturgy and the books referred to therein. Scott


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Joseph: A good start is The Beauty of Reformed Liturgy and the books referred to therein. Scott



 Thank you for the reference! I look forward to checking out this book.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Here are a couple of questions.
> 
> What do we make of Paul baptizing so few at Corinth? Were there not a lot of baptisms? If there were, who was doing them? Is there any evidence?
> ...


----------



## gwine (Dec 15, 2005)

Joseph,

You can't follow the argument because it wasn't an argument. I never *said* that it is ok for a non-ordained person to preach and not ok for same to administer the sacraments. I merely asked if the fact that the person was seeking ordination made it acceptable for him to preach because he was under the care of his Presbytery (or whatever the Baptists would call it.)

And I was going to add that I really don't have an answer for the reason why he could not administer the sacraments, because I couldn't come up with a good analogy _viz_ electrician. Changing light bulbs is not a good one, because it is possible to do it incorrectly. Trust me, they can blow up while you are screwing them in.

You will find that most of my comments are just that - comments. I am not normally arguing for or against. I am merely asking questions for clarity.


----------



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

In terms of preaching the Word, one reason we limit to ordained people is because Christ speaks in and through his lawfully called ministers. Luke 10:16 is relevant to this point, in which Christ described 70 preachers/evangelists he called: "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Note that the preacher is speaking with Christ's voice. This is only true people lawfully called by Christ. Uncalled people can give great, true, and solidly edifying expositions. Yet, they do not possess the authority Christ gives to his called people. The pulpit is for the exercise of this authority.

Let me give an analogy. A child has a duty to listen to, obey, and receive the teaching of his parents. There is a special authority there. Now, a child can seek advice from other adults who are not the child's parents (say a scout master or something). And the child can benefit from the non-parent's advice. But there is still a special relationship and authority with the parent. That is something of an analogy of the authority Christ gives to lawfully called ministers. Does not mean he is always prophetically right or even giving the best exposition. But he has authority others do not. The pulpit is for those authoritative pronouncements.

Scott

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

> What do we make of Paul baptizing so few at Corinth? Were there not a lot of baptisms? If there were, who was doing them? Is there any evidence?
> 
> Why did Peter not baptize the household of Cornelius? The "brethren" who went with him did --we are not told that they were elders or deacons. Is that in any way significant?



Those are good questions. With respect to Paul, it does not say who baptized (we know it was not him for the most part). The Cornelius passage does not specifcy whether the baptizers were officers or not. So, it is sort of a what is your presumption in cases like that. Those with egalitarian assumptions (most Americans) will move in that direction. Those without will not. 

As I mentioned, earlier, this is generally not apparent on the face, as the epistles were written in the context of a living and existing church. They are not manuals for starting a church from scratch. They address issues raised by the congregation. It does not appear that anyone raised issues related to whether uncalled people should baptize/administer sacraments/preach. 

I don't have any handy articles I can link to. But to me, it seems that the scripture teaches that the sacraments are given to the elders. I think we see this in the great commission and elsewhere. Christ is investing the apostles their call and duties. I don't have time for a longer exposition. Perhaps Andrew or Matt or someone has a handy link.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> You will find that most of my comments are just that - comments. I am not normally arguing for or against. I am merely asking questions for clarity.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> Note that the preacher is speaking with Christ's voice. This is only true people lawfully called by Christ. Uncalled people can give great, true, and solidly edifying expositions. Yet, they do not possess the authority Christ gives to his called people. The pulpit is for the exercise of this authority.
> 
> ...




If so, then what about people training for the ministry, who are _not yet ordained_? Why are they permitted to preach from the pulpit?

Or are you suggesting that a non-ordained person can lawfully preach, but that his preaching is just "non authoritative"?





[Edited on 12-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

> If so, then what about people training for the ministry, who are not yet ordained? Why are they permitted to preach from the pulpit?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that a non-ordained person can lawfully preach, but that his preaching is just "non authoritative"?



That is a good question and I am not sure of the answer. Seems to be the ministerial candidate is in a sort of in-between stage and this is an accomodation recognizing his unique position. Procedures and approvals must still be followed (I believe there is a form of licensure, although not sure of the details), yet is is obviously less than an actual call and ordination.


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> > What verse(s) would you use to point out the error of this line of thinking? How does one establish their case?
> ...



So have I erred in the times I have administered communion at home with my wife? 

We, too, have a small home group and have been administered the Sacrament in that setting. Is this wrong?

Where's the "Eye-Opener" smilie?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D. Paul_
> 
> So have I erred in the times I have administered communion at home with my wife?
> 
> We, too, have a small home group and have been administered the Sacrament in that setting. Is this wrong?



Until someone shows you a Scripture that restricts administration of the sacraments to ordained ministers, and that utterly withholds that administration from laymen, I would not change what you are doing. 

95% of the time, I agree with the Reformed tradition, and with the WCF. But when it comes to the clergy/laity sacerdotalism in regard to the sacraments, I think Presbyterian practice is based on the traditions of men, rather than on the Scriptures.


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

Why would you think that it is ok for everybody to administer the sacraments? You claim that the reformed view is based on the traditions of men. I would suggest that your view is. It is based on assuming egalitarianism. The assumption that everybody can do it unless prohibited is not a biblical teaching. 

I am going to start a new thred in worship on this topic. Maybe we can get some more input. I do not have the time to pull together resources.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Why would you think that it is ok for everybody to administer the sacraments?



For example:

1 Peter 2:5,9 --

"you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy *priesthood*"

"you are a chosen people, a royal *priesthood*"


Every Christian is a priest before God.


Also consider Philip in Acts 8. He may have been a deacon (cf. Acts 6), but I don't see any evidence that he was an ordained pastor or elder. Nevertheless, he baptized the Ethiopian eunuch.


Also, as far as I can tell from the Old Testament, anyone could administer the sacrament of circumcision. I don't see any Scriptural requirements for priests only to do it. And when Zipporah administered circumcision (Exodus 4:25), we don't see any record of God being upset about it. So the burden of proof is on anyone who would *restrict* the administration of the sacraments to ordained ministers alone.




[Edited on 12-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 16, 2005)

One analogy might be that of the authority delegated by the parent to a school teacher. Its a general delegation, going automatically from any parent to any bonafide teacher. But it can be withdrawn for certain reasons. That authority is not original in the teacher, but goes automatically with the position, a trust of office. That's the important part here, it seems to me: the trust of office. What authority the minister or elder has is a trust on behalf of Christ, not original in the person in office himself. He does not represent any personal authority of his own. As a matter of fact, if he represent his own authority instead of that which was entrusted to him by the laying on of hands, it would break that trust, or be in grave danger of doing so. There are matters of discretion, where the light of nature and gifts of leadership do play a role; but there are some things pertaining to these offices that cannot fall under that category. Doctrine, for example. And I would include in that then the sacraments as well, since these are specific obligations of that trust of office. 

Does this make sense?


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

I don't see the priesthood of believers (1 Pet. 2) as relevant. Each member of Israel was also a priest before God, yet there was also a special clerical body, the Levites and priests of Aaron. Peter is just saying that the church is the new Israel. Exodus 19:5-6 reads: "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." 

The context is God telling Moses what to say to the people of Israel. So, just like Christians, the people of Israel were priests and kings. You might think of it as a general and special priesthood. All members of Israel were part of this general priesthood. Few were part of the ordained priesthood (the ones that could actually perform the religious rituals lawfully). 

John repeats the priesthood of believers doctrine in Revelation 1:6: "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

Now I expect that you do not believe that when he says we are all kings that there are no special kings and that there should be no special civil government (because everyone has the authority of a king). That would seem a logical extension of you application of 1 Peter, though (assuming you see 1 Peter and Revelation 1 as connected, which seems clear enough to me). Some of a more egalitarian bent have made that case (think Brother Andreas Carlstadt in the Luther movie). 

Scott

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by Scott]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I don't see the priesthood of believers (1 Pet. 2) as relevant. Each member of Israel was also a priest before God, yet there was also a special clerical body, the Levites and priests of Aaron. Peter is just saying that the church is the new Israel. Exodus 19:5-6 reads: "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."




Didn't Exodus 19:5-6 come *before* there were any Levitical priests? And furthermore, was not God's statement *conditional*?

My understanding is that God intended them ALL to be priests, in the fullest sense of the word, IF they would "obey [God] fully and keep [His] covenant". But they didn't do this. They failed to obey Him fully and keep His covenant. So He separated out only one tribe (the Levites) to be His priests. Thus, by setting up the Levitical priesthood, God was revoking the promise of Exodus 19:5-6, because Israel had already failed the condition of the promise.

But in 1 Peter 2, all believers are called priests, and that never gets revoked.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 16, 2005)

> Until someone shows you a Scripture that restricts administration of the sacraments to ordained ministers...



Joseph,

It would be helpful if you stipulated what you would accept as proof. 

Your approach raises a number of hermeneutical issues. How do we relate narrative passages to discursive passages etc? What of Apostolic charismatic practice is normative for the post-Apostolic church? 

Generally Reformed folk have used the discursive passages in the Epistles to give us some sort of objective basis on which to understand and apply the narratives of Acts and 1 Cor.

In 2 Tim 4:2 Paul commands Timothy to preach   kh,ruxon  (Aor. Act. Impv) the word. 

Timothy was a minister, set apart/ordained (2 Tim 1:6), equipped (3:17) for a particular office. 

I realize that this is an argument from silence, but Paul does not command every believer to preach authoritatively. He commands Timothy, whom he had ordained, who was called, to preach.

In the Great Commission our Lord commissioned the Apostles to make disciples and to baptize. I take it that they were representing the visible church. They were acting in a public capacity. 

Every single human being is not so ordained to "go and make disciples, baptizing..." The visibile, institutional, church is called to do this. For this purpose the Apostles delegated special offices (Eph 4). 

On the three offices see Derke Bergmsa's essay in the Armstrong, ed., The Compromised Church.

You appeal to narratives in 1 Cor 14 to validate lay administration of Word and sacrament. Your deductions are possible but not necessary. They are suppositions. Even if your supposition, that In 14:26 Paul speaks of both charismatic and non-charismatic phenomena, are true, those phenomena are not necessarily normative for the post-apostolic church, i.e., we are not called to replicate apostolic era phenomena without regard to the fact that we are not charismatically gifted and without regard to the fact that we live in the post-apostolic age. We're not part of the apostlic company. 

In that regard, anyway, according to the Reformed, it is less important what the Apostolic church DID than what it SAID and what the Apostles clearly intended for us to do.

Appeals to the Apostolic charismata can be dicey. That administration of grace was unique to the Apostolic period. We don't put folk to death and we don't raise them from the dead. We don't speak in foreign languages by the inspiration of the Spirit and we aren't given words of immediate revelation any longer. Women don't stand up to pray and prophesy any longer. 

Were there more ordinary things going on too, sure. In v. 26, however, Paul is not commanding us to practice the things listed. He is rebuking them for doing these things disorderly and without love for the church. It's true that he doesn't say "stop doing that." He merely regulates the spirit with which it was done. 

It is also true, however that he does not say "in the post-Apostolic period, you folks can do the same thing...".

It is not entirely clear to me that, in fact, v. 26 envisions non-charismatic phenomena. The   yalmo.n  is ambiguous. It probably refers to a canonical Psalm, but it may not. Why is the   didach,vvvn  there not charismatic? Certainly the   apokaluysin is charismatic. The   glw/ssa  (language) is charismatic. That much is evident from the context. The   e`rmhnei,an  is charismatic. 

The rest of the context confirms this as he certainly goes on to focus on the extraordinary, apostolic phenomena of speaking in foreign languages by the inspiration of the Spirit. 

So it seems arbitrary to pluck the   didach,vvvn  out of this list of apostlic era charismatic phenomena and use it as a grounds for lay ministry of Word and sacrament. 

There's no clear, indisputable evidence in 1 Cor than there was lay ministry of Word and sacrament. 

Paul was not addressing our context directly. What we're to learn from such a narrative and discussion is how to treat one another (v. 39). 

rsc

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

Thank you for your helpful post, Dr. Clark.

Let me give your words some time and some thought.

And let me do a little more study on this very important subject.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 17, 2005)

But if you go to far in that authority you could get into areas where that could extend to other God give authorities such as those given to the family,govern, and the preist hood of individual believers. You also have the question of the visible church and the Spirits work in believers in the universal church. 

Where is the balance between gifts being exercised and the work of the Spirit in a particular person in a particular church at a particular time for the edification of the whole church and the latergical system of authority. History does not paint a picture of agreement as to these areas of authority being worked out in one particular paridigm.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 17, 2005)

The way I see it, the minister is to be regarded as authoritative in God's Word. We expect not only learnedness and expertise, but giftedness as well. If a butcher gives you wrong cuts of meat because he can't tell the difference, then he's not a real butcher. If a mailman delivers to wrong addresses, he doesn't know the basics of his job. 

On the other hand, both you and I have also the right of judgment, as to whether he is teaching truly or not. And its not that hard to tell, otherwise that office would not be given to every believer. There is a giftedness there too. At least that's what I expect. Its like our governmental systems, a balance of power; and that's because the real original authority is in no man's hands: it is bestowed.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 18, 2005)

But do not all of us men have a responsibility to be butchers in our own families? Its just like the command to go out and disciple the nations. Some how there needs to be a positive affirmation of that sheeps commitment as a teacher of his particular family on the days when all the butchers meet for worship with the head butchers. If the Spirit is given gifts to the high preist of a particular family i do not see a diference of sharing those gifts with the church family. Its just like coporate prayer. I think men will take prayer and teaching seriously if it is rewarded in the congregation in a public display.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 18, 2005)

So much the more is it important for each of us to know the cuts of meat in our section, according to what we are called to. Each of knows at least this much, that sound theology does not consist of or depend on speculative theories, nor is the office an excuse to elevate one's own opinions, or to protect them from normal disputation through the abuse of office. What we were first taught, which brought us into the covenant of the salvation of God, is to built on, not negated.


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > Until someone shows you a Scripture that restricts administration of the sacraments to ordained ministers...
> ...



So, Dr. Clark, how would you suggest I approach this in the setting of our small home group? Our "leader" is not a Pastor altho he is "ordained" (whatever significance that has in today's world of church). 

Still, to think that I am not allowed to observe this sacrament in my home is troubling. How many other ways, then, do I dishonor God---and sin and sin and sin...never repenting because I "think" it's OK?


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

Tom: There are different levels of jurisdiction. A pastor has jurisdiction over his congregation. A father has jurisdiction over his family. The father should be the chief theologian of the household and he should ensure daily family worship. 

As an analogy, think of the right to punish. The government has jurisdiction to punish wrongdoers (including a father's children) through warnings, the removal of privileges, fines, imprisonments, etc. A father also has authority to punish his children through a variety of means, such spanking, taking away privileges, etc. These two areas of jurisdiction overlap.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 19, 2005)

Hi Scott, I also was thinking about church history. There are some men who had a profound impact on the church that we not "formally trained" and yet would put some of us to shame. I can name names but i think you know them of whom i have great respect. I belonged to a church in the past that was reformed baptist that had elders who were not formally trained in handling the scriptures as is described on this thread who taught. I would put that church experience as an example to other churches.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 19, 2005)

> So, Dr. Clark, how would you suggest I approach this in the setting of our small home group? Our "leader" is not a Pastor altho [sic] he is "ordained" (whatever significance that has in today's world of church).



I use the categories of _Belgic Confession_ (1561) Art 29. There is a true church, a false church, and sects. Those churches that preach the gospel of justification _sola gratia, sola fide _, that administer the sacraments purely and administer church discipline are true churches. Rome is the false church and everything else is a sect. To be sure, many in my own federation would take issue with my use of the Confession this way. They would say, and I agree, that things have changed since 1561 and that there were no such thing as "confessional" Baptists, for example. I guess that's true, but even so, in my view, they still don't meet the second test, even if they meet the other two. Thus, using the BC this way means that most of American evangelicalism is really sectarian, i.e., folks just making up things as they go along.

Do house churches meet the criteria of BC 29, even if they are paedobaptist, confessionally Protestant and exercise discipline? Can a house church meet the criteria? Can unordained people preach the gospel officially, administer the sacraments purely and exercise discipline? 

No. To those meeting as house churches with unordained leadership I say, "find a true church" or start one, i.e., become a core group for an established confessional, Reformed denomination/federation and become a church plant and call a minister and ordain elders etc.

If you want to be paedobaptist, email me off-list and I'll try to put you in contact with the nearest URC or OPC or PCA or RPCNA (or whatever the nearest NAPARC group is) congregation. 

If it is impossible to become paedobaptist, then at least contact a group such as ARBCA and let them help you establish a regular confessional Baptist congregation. 



> Still, to think that I am not allowed to observe this sacrament in my home is troubling. How many other ways, then, do I dishonor God---and sin and sin and sin...never repenting because I "think" it's OK?



I am disturbed at the prospect of folk taking the work of the ordained ministry into their own hands! I think I understand why you're doing it, but American evangelicals seem to think they can do in religion what they would not do in state government -- set up their own courts, police departments etc. It's the same thing. God has ordained the church to be the church just as he's ordained the state to be the state. He has not ordained private persons to usurp the functions of either kingdom, even though we live in both kingdoms simultaneously.

I'm sure I can't answer the question about what else you're doing improperly -- except to direct you to see the Belgic Confession Articles 28-29. I'm sure you mean well, but if you came to me for advice I would say, "Dear Friend, you are misguided." 

Frankly, what you're doing is not "the Lord's Supper." It's folk in a house meeting and sharing fellowship. The Lord's Supper is something observed by the true church in public. The same is true for preaching and for discipline.

Again, if it were up to a Reformed church to examine your group we would say, "What you are doing is at best highly irregular" and at worst sectarian.

Please understand that I come from the tradition of the _Westminster Directory for Publick Worship _(1647/8) which takes a dim view of "cell groups" or "small groups." 

Home Bible studies led by pastors or elders or someone appointed by them are one order of meeting, but a house group meeting by itself, with no oversight by a duly constituted consistory/session (elders and ministers) holding services and administering sacraments is not, by my lights, a church. 

Even when the Reformed were being slaughtered by Phillip II in the 16th century, they waited for ministers to preach and administer the holy sacraments. 

It was one thing to meet in secret when there were troops in the streets, but surely there are no troops in your city preventing you from assembling in public with the people of God in a true church?

Well, this is perhaps more than you wanted but I do urge you to find a church or at least something approximating a church.

Blessings,

rsc

[Edited on 12-19-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

> Hi Scott, I also was thinking about church history. There are some men who had a profound impact on the church that we not "formally trained" and yet would put some of us to shame. I can name names but i think you know them of whom i have great respect. I belonged to a church in the past that was reformed baptist that had elders who were not formally trained in handling the scriptures as is described on this thread who taught. I would put that church experience as an example to other churches.



Agreed. Let me use another example. A child has a special duty to listen to his parents and receive parental instruction. (See, e.g., Prov. 1:8-9). Now the child might have other adults provide advice (eg. scout master, coach, grandfather, etc.). This non-parental advice might be wonderful and much better than the parent's advice. While it can be extremely valuable and should be sought and used, that non-parental advice does not carry with it the same "authority" of the parent. Of course the parent can be wrong, teach the wrong things, and abuse the authority. That abuse of authority does not invalidate the special relationship or authority of the parent.

Anyway, seems to me pastoral authority is analogous. In a healthy setting, the quality of the advice will be consistent with the authority. But when it is not, the authority does not disappear.


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

"but American evangelicals seem to think they can do in religion what they would not do in state government -- set up their own courts, police departments etc. It's the same thing."

Great analogy.


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

Dr. Clark: Article 29 of the BC is interesting. Are you aware of any commentary on it?

So, you would say that the numerous reformed denominations are not sects? Would all baptists, even confessional baptists (say John Piper or John MacArthur), be sectarian? That is how I read your post.

Thanks


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Dr. Clark: Article 29 of the BC is interesting. Are you aware of any commentary on it?
> 
> So, you would say that the numerous reformed denominations are not sects? Would all baptists, even confessional baptists (say John Piper or John MacArthur), be sectarian? That is how I read your post.
> ...



Speaking for myself, any confessional Protestant denomination that has the marks is a true church. Historically that has included Lutherans, confessing Anglicans, confessing Presbyterians, confessing Reformed churches etc.

No one has all the marks, in practice, perfectly all the time, so the confession is central. If the denomination holds a confession that we recognize and attempts to live consistent with that confession, then it's a part of the true church.

I don't know of any ecclesiastical judgments from the Reformed churches delineating a list of denominations belonging to the true church. I'm told that some of the older Reformed church orders excluded anyone who was not a member of a Reformed or Presbyterian church. I have not seen those orders myself and do not know this for a fact. 

The folks you mention more or less predestinarian evangelicals. I don't know that Dr MacArthur subscribes any of the historic Protestant confessions. I know he is a favorite of lots of Reformed folk. He is a gifted preacher and predestinarian, but does he hold our Christology, our doctrine of the Supper, our doctrine of justification, our doctrine of the Trinity, our hermeneutic? He isn't terribly covenantal in his theology and he denies paedobaptism. [When I say, "our" I mean "as defined by the Reformed confessions" -rsc]

Some of the same things could be said of and questions put to Dr Piper. I suspect he is closer to most Reformed folk on some of these issues. He has been very clear on justification in his recent book, for which I am most thankful. His congregation does recognize paedobaptism, even if they don't practice it. That is certainly a generous step from a Baptist congregation. 

As I said above, even if one finds two of the three marks, one of them is virtually always missing from most "evangelical" (as distinct from confessional Protestant) congregations.

The point is that there is much more to the definition of the word _Reformed_ than predestination.
As I say, my view is fairly narrow on this and lots of folk in my own federation would say I'm all wet. Perhaps. Wouldn't be the first time, but I want to know what is the point of having three objective marks if we're going to look the other way when it becomes problematic? If our marks are wrong or unbiblical then we should change rather than ignore them. 

This doesn't mean that I don't have friendly relations with sectarians or that I can't talk with them. I do it all the time. That is the proper function of organizations such as ETS. It is, as Mike Horton puts it, a "village green." The problem with the evangelicals is that they can't tell the difference between ETS and the church and they want to "discipline" folks. It's just an academic society. Funny, they have horribly undisciplined churches but they want a disciplined academic society. They want a Christian America but churches that have more in common with the local mall than with historic Christianity.

Calling them sectarians just means that I don't recognize their congregations as churches. I wouldn't and don't commune them when they come to worship (they are welcomed warmly) and we don't open our pulpits to them, but I'll talk to anyone.

If they want to confess the Belgic or the Westminster with a NAPARC denomination, great! Welcome to the historic, confessional, Protestant churches.

rsc


----------



## Scott (Dec 20, 2005)

Dr. Clark: Thanks. Which marks would MacArthur's church be missing - all three? In terms of doctrine, his church does not appear to subscribe to any historic confession, but they have one they created here. Is denial of infant baptism enought to make a church miss the mark of "pure administration of the sacraments?" 

Also, wouldn't the divisions between reformed denominations (eg. OPC and PCA) essentially make our reformed denomination sectarian? I had never thought of sect as being defined as a Christian group that misses one or more of the marks. I will give that more thought. It had always seemed to me that the jurisdictional divisions and failure to recognize the judicial decisions of competing denominations was a form of sectarianism.

Thanks


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Dr. Clark: Thanks. Which marks would MacArthur's church be missing - all three? In terms of doctrine, his church does not appear to subscribe to any historic confession, but they have one they created here. Is denial of infant baptism enought to make a church miss the mark of "pure administration of the sacraments?"
> 
> Also, wouldn't the divisions between reformed denominations (eg. OPC and PCA) essentially make our reformed denomination sectarian? I had never thought of sect as being defined as a Christian group that misses one or more of the marks. I will give that more thought. It had always seemed to me that the jurisdictional divisions and failure to recognize the judicial decisions of competing denominations was a form of sectarianism.
> ...



Scott,

I'm not a church and it's not my place to be declaring this or that congregation a "sect." That said, the Belgic says 



> The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening [1] of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.



How is the gospel preached at GCC? Are the doctrines of _ sola gratia_ and _sola fide_ preached unequivocally there? I've been jumped before for raising questions about this, but see Paul Schaefer's essay on Dr M. in Michael Horton ed., _Christ the Lord..._.

I do think they practice some sort of discipline. 

Thanks for the link to their confession of faith. It is an interesting document. It is reasonably clear on justification, but inferior to the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms. As a matter of emphasis it is striking that the thing spends as much time on premiliennial eschatology as it does on justification. I don't think anyone will mistake it for the WCF or the Heidelberger. 

So, let's say they have two out of three. 

Does one find there, the "pure administration of the sacraments" as defined by the Belgic? I guess not. 

Again, what is the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a "Reformed" church? Predestination and justification are necessary but they are not sufficient.

The lack of visible unity among NAPARC churches is to be lamented, but we recognize each other to be true churches. We commune one anothers members, we exchange pulpits, we (are supposed to) practice comity (recognizing that there is a NAPARC church in an area and we don't plant "on top" of them. Comity does not seem to be respected now the way it was when NAPARC was first formed.

We do use "sectarian" sometimes the way you do, so it's merely a matter of definition. How is one using the word at the moment? One might be broader and the other narrower.

According to the Belgic, the marks are objective and empirically verifiable. They are not always easy to apply in the post-16th century world. Things were relatively simpler then, since there were only three groups: Protestants, Papists, and Fanatics. Today there are congregations that have some of the marks (the Anabaptists had none) but not all. Further, since that time, under the influence of Modernity, the confessional Protestants have become corrupted and have subsequently fragmented into ever smaller groups.

Bob Godfrey proposed a first step toward NAPARC unity several years ago and _Modern Reformation_ reprinted it recently. 

Most of what separates us is culture (language, background, history) rather than cult (i.e., worship, theology etc). 

There are may be some insuperable problems, however. E.g., the RP's will probably never unite with groups that do not observe the 
RPW strictly. If we adopted Godfrey's "super synod" idea, however, they would be one synod among several. That would be a step forward.

rsc


----------



## JohnV (Dec 20, 2005)

> _from Scott_
> Also, wouldn't the divisions between reformed denominations (eg. OPC and PCA) essentially make our reformed denomination sectarian? I had never thought of sect as being defined as a Christian group that misses one or more of the marks. I will give that more thought. It had always seemed to me that the jurisdictional divisions and failure to recognize the judicial decisions of competing denominations was a form of sectarianism.


I think that there is a difference here. Yes, it can be said that sects do not have the mark of the pure preaching of the Word, but what defines a sect, according to the BC, is that it puts human teaching over the Word of God, making the Word man's emphasis, not God's. And so it also falls out that their administration of the sacraments and that their discipline are skewed. But it can be as true for a time of a non-sectarian church. The marks deal with individual churches, and do not necessarily mark them as a write-off, while sectarianism does mark, not only individual churches, but the whole organized body under that flag as a sect. 

Thus you have a difference between MacArthur and and Jehovah's Witnesses. Perish the thought that we even compare them. 

The BC, art. XXIX, says, 


> As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
> 
> These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.



There are churches within our own circles that can fit under the description of a sect, according to this. But that does not mean that they belong to a sectarian denomination; it just means that we're not seeing to the marks like we ought to amongst ourselves. When it comes to that, then we call it schismatic, not sectarian. But its all the same, men pulling followers after themselves by their own teachings, their own slant on the Word of God. Belonging to a federation of churches that upholds the orthodox standards of faith, they yet introduce speculative teachings as normative to the Word of God. They may be considered sectarian all by themselves, but they do it under an orthodox banner, bending words and meanings in order to justify themselves. For such we need to uphold the marks of a true church, in order to hold them accountable. 

You would not need to do so for a sect, because they are already under a false banner, following after men instead of God. The difference is, you can hold up a church belonging to an orthodox banner to the marks, while you can't very well call other groups to your standard without clear marks of differentiation. And it would not be our doctrinally founded "marks of the church", but rather the Bible itself. That is, we won't say, "The three marks of the church!" to them, but rather show them where they don't hold to Scripture's definition of church. Same thing, but different language. An individual sectarian church amonst a Reformed group would be chastised by calling to account under the three marks, but not a sect. So we don't ordinarily apply the marks of the church to those who do not confess those marks.


----------

