# Why can't REs administer the Lord's Supper?



## Romans922 (Feb 17, 2011)

As a 2 Office guy, I like to see more similarity between TEs and REs than perhaps most.

Am I wrong to see that the only real difference IN SCRIPTURE is this one statement from 1 Timothy 5:17, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, *especially those who labor in preaching and teaching*."

So perhaps the only difference (in Scripture) is that those who are TEs labor especially in preaching/teaching. Whereas, REs don't labor like the TE in preaching/teaching.

Now the sacraments are linked to and shouldn't be separated from the Word preached (we can all agree on that), but where a RE preaches (in certain situations) why can't he administer the Lord's Supper?

He is lawfully ordained, is he not? He is a Pastor/Shepherd (in the sense that Scripture declares).


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 17, 2011)

Obviously this is a PCA-context question, but I see no scriptural reason for any Elder not to preside at the Supper.

Indeed, if there is no TE available, what happens? No Supper??


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 17, 2011)

PCA question? Yes, it may also just be a 'Presbyterian' question.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 17, 2011)

I see no scriptural command to limit it to teaching elders. I suspect the policy is one of wisdom, based on a strong desire to safeguard the supper from improper administration. Practically speaking, our teaching elders tend to be better instructed in the supper's administration and also are subject to stronger oversight and scritiny from their presbyteries. So for those reasons, the rule makes sense as a matter of policy and practice, even if not strictly ordered by the Scriptures.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 17, 2011)

This isn't merely a PCA issue. Rather, WCF 27.4 states:

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*.​


----------



## Wayne (Feb 17, 2011)

> C. ADMINISTRATION OF SACRAMENTS BY RULING ELDERS:
> 
> Of all the questions before this Committee, this one has provided the most discussion in the Church and the most division among brothers. It was the lengthy discussion of the minority report on the floor of the Second General Assembly which brought the initial formation of this special Ad-Interim Committee. Papers included in the Appendix to this report, (Majority and Minority Reports of the Ad-Interim Committee to the Second General Assembly and "Ministers of the Word," by Donald A. Dunkerley), present some of the basic issues involved. Your Committee finds that there is one overriding factor which forces us to the conclusion that we have reached that only Teaching Elders should be allowed to administer the Sacraments in the PCA. And that factor is the clear prohibition of any other performing these tasks by our Confessional Standards. The Confession of Faith, Chapter 27, Section IV, states: "There be 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." In addition, Larger Catechism Question No. 176 states: "The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and His benefits; both are seals of the same covenant; are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other." If the PCA were to make the major change of allowing Ruling Elders to administer the Sacraments, it would be necessary that major changes be made to our Confessional Standards. While the Standards must never be set above the Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, yet we have certainly given strong testimony to their lasting quality and trueness to the Scriptures, and changes should only be made when there is clear and overwhelming evidence, biblically, that they are wrong. We find no such evidence in the case of administration of the Sacraments. The administration of the Sacraments, by its very nature, is a proclamation of the Word of God by example, and as practiced consistently throughout most of Reformed Church history, should only be done in conjunction with the preaching of the Word. The continuation of this practice is necessary to continue good order in the Church.
> 
> ...



Excerpted from PCA Position Papers: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Number of Offices (1979)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2011)

Somewhat off-topic but the Westminster Directory for Church Government (which of course is not binding in American Presbyterian churches) interestingly enough lays out a 4-Office view (adding "Doctors" as an office). In the WDCG discussion on Ruling Elders they draw a parallel to 2 Chronicles 19:8-10 and the divisions within the Jewish Church with Romans 12:4-8.

Here is what the Westminster Directory says:



> 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.



For further information this is what the Directory calls for Ministers of the Word:



> The pastor is an ordinary and perpetual officer in the church, prophesying of the time of the gospel.
> 
> First, it belongs to his office,
> 
> ...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 17, 2011)

Sorry to hijack, but what would the office of Dr be?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 17, 2011)

A doctor would be approximately comparable to a seminary professor, but given our contemporary situation, 
I think it would be less anachronistic to say _an older professor of good or great accomplishment_.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 17, 2011)

Wayne said:


> A doctor would be approximately comparable to a seminary professor, but given our contemporary situation,
> I think it would be less anachronistic to say _an older professor of good or great accomplishment_.



Thanks


----------



## reformedminister (Feb 17, 2011)

In the Cumberland Presbyterian Church RE's can administer the Lord's Supper after receiving some training or instruction from a TE. This may only mean a session or two.


----------



## TimV (Feb 17, 2011)

Did that position paper ever become binding?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 17, 2011)

Position Papers in the PCA are not binding (like the FV one). They are mere 'pastoral advice'.


----------



## TimV (Feb 17, 2011)

I ask partly because a church I attended in the NorCal presbytery said they were going to let women administer communion, and I wondered if a presbytery could allow that like the exception to the standards that is allowed by Cumberland mentioned above.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 17, 2011)

No, that they could not because it is against the Westminster Standards and Book of Church Order.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 17, 2011)

It seems we can at least get some insight into the Westminster divines thinking and use of terminology on this matter from a couple of historical sources. 

The first is _The Form Of Presbyterian Church-Government_, which was specifically formulated for the Church of Scotland. Still, the WDs George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford had significant input in this document, which was created at the same time that the Standards were starting to be framed in the WA (1645) – in which they also had significant input. In its four-fold description of church officers, teaching elders (and doctors) are specified as being rightful administrators of the sacraments, whereas other elders are classified as “other church governors”:

*Pastors.*

The pastor is an ordinary and perpetual officer in the church, prophesying of the time of the gospel. First, it belongs to his office…

To pray for and with his flock, 

To read the Scriptures publicly…

To feed the flock, by preaching of the word, according to which he is to teach, convince, reprove, exhort, and comfort…

To catechize, which is a plain laying down the first principles of the oracles of God, or of the doctrine of Christ, and is a part of preaching…

To dispense other divine mysteries.

To administer the sacraments.

To bless the people from God…

To take care of the poor.

And he hath also a ruling power over the flock as a pastor.

*Teacher or Doctor.*

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.

The Lord having given different gifts, and divers exercises according to these gifts, in the ministry of the word; though these different gifts may meet in, and accordingly be exercised by, one and the same minister; yet, where be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments, according to the different gifts in which each of them doth most excel. And he that doth more excel in exposition of scripture, in teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than he doth in application, and is accordingly employed therein, may be called a teacher, or doctor, (the places alleged by the notation of the word do prove the proposition.) Nevertheless, where is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, as far is able, the whole work of the ministry.

A teacher, or doctor, is of most excellent use in schools and universities; as of old in the schools of the prophets, and at Jerusalem, where Gamaliel and others taught as doctors.

*Other Church-Governors.*

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 ministers in the government of the church. Which officers reformed churches commonly call Elders.

*Deacons.*

The scripture doth hold out deacons as distinct officers in the church.
Whose office is perpetual. To whose office it belongs not to preach the word, or administer the sacraments, but to take special care in distributing to the necessities of the poor.​
The terms “ministers” and “other church governors” are also distinguished in the context of the sacraments in the _Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God._

*Of the Celebration of the Communion, or Sacrament of the Lord's Supper*

THE communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge. And, when it shall be administered, we judge it convenient to be done after the morning sermon…

When the day is come for administration, the minister, having ended his sermon and prayer, shall make a short exhortation…​
Also, in his notations on the Westminster Assembly’s discussion concerning the ordination of “ministers…lawfully called,” Gillespie noted that in the course of advising Parliament as to their intentions the Assembly had used the further descriptive term “preaching presbyters”. (_Works_, 2:70f)

For what it's worth


----------



## raekwon (Feb 17, 2011)

TimV said:


> I ask partly because a church I attended in the NorCal presbytery said they were going to let women administer communion, and I wondered if a presbytery could allow that like the exception to the standards that is allowed by Cumberland mentioned above.


 
By "administer," did they mean "pronounce the words of institution and pray for the sacrament," or merely "hand out the elements?"


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 17, 2011)

Just asking for clarification here, do you think that REs shouldn't/can't:

Pray for and with his flock, 
Read the Scriptures publicly
Feed the flock, by preaching of the word, according to which he is to teach, convince, reprove, exhort, and comfort…
Catechize, which is a plain laying down the first principles of the oracles of God, or of the doctrine of Christ, and is a part of preaching…
Bless the people from God
Take care of the poor.
Have ruling power over the flock as a pastor.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2011)

The Westminster Directory at least did not believe so. It makes a very sharp delineation between Ministers of the Word and Ruling Elders.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 17, 2011)

Tim: Big question: "administer" or "serve (as in help to serve or pass out the elements)? 

Also, to amplify Andrew's comment in #13, only those items incorporated into the constitution have constitutional status. 
The most that might be likely would be if some recommendation(s) at the end of a study or paper were subsequently voted 
on and incorporated into the _Book of Church Order_. [Note to self: has this ever happened?]  
Inclusion into the Westminster Standards always remains another possibility, but requires a supermajority (3/4's).

In both cases, amendment requires a first GA to approve, then the matter goes before the Presbyteries, then the next GA 
must also approve in order for the matter to be incorporated. For _BCO_ amendments, it is 51%/66%/51%.
For the Standards, 75%/75%/75%. (In either case, the vote _within_ any given Presbytery only has to be a simple majority,
unless, I suppose, they have made some statement regarding such situations in their by-laws)

By the way, that three-layer process of voting, sending matters to Presbyteries for their advice and consent and then again having
to vote still again at a subsequent Assembly is called, or derives from, the Barrier Act, a famous moment in Scottish ecclesiastical history 
(1697).


----------



## Wayne (Feb 17, 2011)

Andrew:



> Just asking for clarification here, do you think that REs shouldn't/can't:
> 
> Pray for and with his flock,
> Read the Scriptures publicly
> ...



You would seem to have a few land mines in there. Traditionally we have spoken of ruling elders _bringing an exhortation_, rather than _preaching_.
A technicality to some, perhaps, but one that has a good history.
Also, "blessing the people from God" sounds a lot like a benediction. Is that what you meant to reference? If so, then that discussion would probably
end up with most saying "No, that is the pastor's responsibility." Certainly the Westminster Standards would back up such a conclusion.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 17, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> Just asking for clarification here, do you think that REs shouldn't/can't:
> 
> Pray for and with his flock,
> Read the Scriptures publicly
> ...



As Rev. Glaser and Wayne have already alluded, I would have to say, yes, according to the intent of the DPWG these functions were ordinarily reserved for the "minister", at least insofar as they may have been done in the setting of public and ordered worship:

Reading of the word in the congregation, being part of the public worship of God, (wherein; we acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.

Howbeit, such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.

...After reading of the word, (and singing of the psalm,) the minister who is to preach, is to endeavour to get his own and his hearers hearts to be rightly affected with their sins, that they, may all mourn in sense thereof before the Lord...To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations...To pray for all in authority, especially for the King’s Majesty

...The sermon being ended, the minister is “To give thanks for the great love of God"...[and] to pray for the continuance of the gospel, and all ordinances thereof, in their purity, power, and liberty: to turn the chief and most useful heads of the sermon into some few petitions; and to pray that it may abide in the heart, and bring forth fruit.

...The prayer ended...let the minister dismiss the congregation with a solemn blessing.​


----------



## TimV (Feb 17, 2011)

Wayne and Ray I think the term was take part in administering, so I'm not sure. What do you all think about that, and where are lines crossed between being in charge and the actual ceremony?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 17, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Somewhat off-topic but the Westminster Directory for Church Government (which of course is not binding in American Presbyterian churches) interestingly enough lays out a 4-Office view (adding "Doctors" as an office). In the WDCG discussion on Ruling Elders they draw a parallel to 2 Chronicles 19:8-10 and the divisions within the Jewish Church with Romans 12:4-8.
> 
> Here is what the Westminster Directory says:
> 
> ...


 
I would also like to hear more about this office of Doctor of the church which I do not see in Scripture but is apparently part of being confesssional. Why the different name "doctor" versus "elder"? How does one become a doctor of the church? Can we start a new thread?


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 17, 2011)

This is actually a matter which has interested me for some time based on my own experiences as a missionary in Africa prior to being a seminary student, when I (along with the local ruling elders) administered the Lord's Supper and even baptized a baby in churches where I preached that didn't have any regular ministry. Everything was done decently and in order, under the oversight of the local Session, and it seemed to me at the time more obviously wrong to deny a church the sacraments altogether than to celebrate them irregularly. 

When I got to seminary, I realized that what I had done was unconfessional and so I researched the Biblical material on the matter for one of my classes. I couldn't find any justification for the distinction - though clearly the elders of the church must oversee the sacraments to prevent disorder and chaos. As a result, I have since regularly taken an exception to this part of the WCF, arguing that under certain circumstances an RE could rightly administer the sacraments, an exception which has been allowed by the EPCEW (in Britain), the PCA in Southern California and Western Pennsylvania and the ARP. In defense of the WCF, it ought to be pointed out that for them, no minister of the Word normally meant no preaching and I believe that their major concern was to keep the Word and the sacrament together, a concern with which I thoroughly agree. And neither in Britain nor in America have I actually encountered a situation that required an RE to administer the sacrament (we are usually tripping over TE's). But in missions contexts, it could still be necessary, and I think that this restriction may historically have been a significant factor in the rarity of administering communion in Scotland, where in the 16th century ministers were few and far between and most churches were served by readers. How else to explain the disconnect between the Westminster DPW's insistence on celebrating the sacrament as frequently as may be convenient, and the reality of annual communion?

I also personally think that we should call preaching "preaching" not "exhorting" (as the DPW does in the quote above!) whoever is bringing the Word. The authority rests in the Word, not in the person delivering it. If the man can't preach, the Session has no business letting him in the pulpit. 

Again, I'm certainly not advocating the youth Bible study celebrating the Lord's Supper at Domino's with pizza and Coke; however, I do think that rather than functionally excommunicate themselves it could be appropriate for a session to appoint an RE to administer the sacraments, provided that it is in conjunction with the preaching of the Word.

Iain Duguid


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 17, 2011)

Wayne said:


> Andrew:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Would you happen to know more about this historic terminology? I know that is how we distinguish "preaching" for elders vs. ministers, but it seems a rather artificial distinction on the surface. Would you happen to have any historic references justifying the distinction specifically? I'd especially like to see an exegetical treatment.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 18, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> I would also like to hear more about this office of Doctor of the church which I do not see in Scripture but is apparently part of being confesssional.



You don't have Ephesians 4:11 in your Bible?


----------



## JML (Feb 18, 2011)

py3ak said:


> You don't have Ephesians 4:11 in your Bible?



So it comes down to whether it is:

1. Pastors, Teachers (2 offices)
2. Pastors & Teachers (1 office)


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 18, 2011)

Pegamum wrote: "I would also like to hear more about this office of Doctor of the church which I do not see in Scripture but is apparently part of being confesssional. Why the different name "doctor" versus "elder"? How does one become a doctor of the church? Can we start a new thread?"



John Lanier said:


> So it comes down to whether it is:
> 
> 1. Pastors, Teachers (2 offices)
> 2. Pastors & Teachers (1 office)



The divines evidently took it to be two distinct offices, as the Directory states, "the scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor." In his notes on the proceedings of the assembly, Gillespie indeed cites 1 Cor. 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 as the scripture proofs for this statement.

According to etymological dictionaries, the early English use of the term "doctor" was synonymous with "teacher":

c.1300, "Church father," from Old French _doctour_, from Middle Latin _doctor_ "religious teacher, adviser, scholar," in classical Latin "teacher," agent noun from _docere_ "to show, teach, cause to know," originally "make to appear right," causative of _decere_ "be seemly, fitting".​
We also get our word "doctrine" from the Latin root.


Edit: Sorry, one of the quotations I showed that I was addressing was misplaced. Duly corrected now.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 18, 2011)

Phil answered very well. On any showing "pastors and teachers" are distinguished from the preceding offices by the grammar of the sentence. From contemporaries I have heard it suggested that the reason of the distinction is that it is one office: pastor-teacher. If I recall correctly, John Owen takes it as two offices, and the reason of the distinction is that the first set is extraordinary, whereas pastors and teachers are both ordinary callings.


----------



## JML (Feb 18, 2011)

Phil & Ruben. Thanks for the info. I don't agree with the two office view of pastor & teacher but your responses were helpful in explaining your viewpoint. Sorry for taking the thread off track. My point was to show that yes we all do have Ephesians 4:11 in our Bibles but some of us interpret it differently. Carry on.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I would also like to hear more about this office of Doctor of the church which I do not see in Scripture but is apparently part of being confesssional.
> ...


 
There is no mention of a doctor of the church there.

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------




Phil D. said:


> Pegamum wrote: "I would also like to hear more about this office of Doctor of the church which I do not see in Scripture but is apparently part of being confesssional. Why the different name "doctor" versus "elder"? How does one become a doctor of the church? Can we start a new thread?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thanks. So all teachers of the church are doctors? Or only the teachers at a certain level in the church? Is the term even helpful anymore? Is a Sunday school teacher who is not a pastor, but is usually less trained than a pastor thus called a doctor because he is a teacher whereas the seminary trained pastor is not? 

And are they elders? So we have TEs, RE's and then teachers? Or do we still only have TEs and REs, which are all still elders (who are under one set of qualification by Paul)?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 18, 2011)

According to the WDCG there are 4 distinct offices in the Church. 1) Doctor, 2) Minister, 3) Ruling Elder, 4) Deacon. All with different responsibilities. There is no "Teaching Elder"/"Ruling Elder" according to the WDCG. It is just Minister and Ruling Elder.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 18, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> There is no mention of a doctor of the church there.



If you understand that the word "doctor" means "teacher" then there most certainly is. You might debate the relationship of teacher to pastor, but you can't deny that "teaching" is set out as a part of the work of the ministry.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 18, 2011)

Pergamum, just to expand a bit on what Rev. Glaser and Ruben have already said -

The point I tried to make in post #29 is that the divines used the term "doctor" and "teacher" synonymously. I believe that is precisely why they worded the associated heading the way that they did - "Teacher *or *Doctor." In addition, the divines evidently took the two words used in Ephesians 4:11 (_poimenas_ - "shepherd" or "pastor", and _didaskalous_ - "teacher") to be talking about distinct offices. As I noted before, the Directory even so states: "the scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, *as well as* of the pastor." So from our perspective one could apparently simply use the term "teacher" instead of "doctor," and not miss anything they intended. 

As for your questions about the distinct traits the Directory attached to the title "teacher or doctor," go back and read their own description of it. (I cited it in post #16.) It seems pretty self explanatory.

It seems to me that the real question, as John has pointed out, is whether _poimenas kai didaskalous_ in Ephesians 4:11 is better understood as "pastor-teachers" or "pastors and teachers." Certainly, good and capable men may and have indeed disagreed on this. 

However, my purpose in discussing all of this in the first place, per the OP, was to try and shed light on what the divines meant by the phrase "a minister of the Word lawfully ordained" as it relates to an administrator of the sacraments. In light of all the information that we have explored here, it is pretty plain to me that the divines intended to indicate those whom they also called "preaching presbyters", and whom modern Presbyterians would commonly call "teaching elders." (It is also interesting that while the Directory ended up using the term "other church-governors" for non-preaching presbyters, in Gillespie's work he specifically gives an alternate heading of "ruling elders".)

In my humble opinion then, and with all respect, the practical point of this whole exercise is that elders who subscribe to the Westminster Standards should be aware that when WCF 27.4 states that the sacraments should be administered only by "a minister of the Word lawfully ordained," the divines were almost certainly talking about "teaching elders" as distinct from "ruling elders." 

As such I certainly appreciated Ian's post about his taking a conscientious exception to this particular point. In other words, if an elder genuinely believes that this statement in the Confession is overreaching when compared to their own reading of scripture, they should inform their Presbytery. Then the final decision is left to the brethren in that Presbytery (at least in the PCA) as to whether or not such an exception violates a critical doctrine as taught by our Standards, or is in fact an admissible exception to take. Obviously, as Ian noted, some have in fact deemed it acceptable (and as such, it might be pointed out, have chosen to disregard the non-binding pastoral advice that was put forth in the relevant PCA position paper mentioned by Wayne in post #6).


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> According to the WDCG there are 4 distinct offices in the Church. 1) Doctor, 2) Minister, 3) Ruling Elder, 4) Deacon. All with different responsibilities. There is no "Teaching Elder"/"Ruling Elder" according to the WDCG. It is just Minister and Ruling Elder.


 
So is that the confesssional answer? There are 4-offices? Do confesssional Presbyterians agree on this number? Who differs?

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------

If there are more offices than just elder and deacon, why does Paul only give qualifications for those two and not also for teachers and RE's?


----------



## JML (Feb 18, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If there are more offices than just elder and deacon, why does Paul only give qualifications for those two and not also for teachers and RE's?



Exactly. That is why I believe that those are the only two current offices and why I believe that pastor & teacher are synonymous in Ephesians 4:11. The only other alternative you have since there are no qualifications listed for this office of teacher is that it was an office that has now been done away with just like the office of apostle. Why would God give us an office of the church yet fail to tell us what the qualifications are?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2011)

John: 

Yes, you have just summed up exactly what I have always thought.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 18, 2011)

Pergamum and John,

If you read the Directory's descriptions carefully (especially as enlightened by the secondary sources), it is reasonable to say that the divines saw the three denominated offices of (1) ministers/pastors/teaching elders (2) doctors/teachers (3) and other church governors/ruling elders, as all falling under the purview, or being sub-sets of what scripture calls elders/presbyters. Historically, the idea that elders are rightly distinguished between those performing different tasks and duties is based on the distinction made in 1 Timothy 5:17. So while one may disagree with how such divisions should ultimately shake out, the principle is clearly biblically based.

Also keep in mind that most modern Presbyterian churches do not belabor or exercise the distinct office of "teacher or doctor". (Nor is this a refusal of what they have adopted as their binding standards, since the DPWG is not part of their constitutional makeup - which rather is usually the WCF WLC and WSC - none of which specify that office.)


----------



## JML (Feb 18, 2011)

Phil,

I see what you are saying but according to the quote from Mr. Glaser (see post #36) there are "4 *distinct offices* of the church." You are saying there are "three denominated offices" (plus deacon). The Scripture gives qualifications for 2 offices. You seem to understand this because you say:



Phil D. said:


> as all falling under the purview, or being sub-sets of what scripture calls elders/presbyters



Therefore, if they are under the heading of elder, they are an elder and not a separate office. I do know the separate viewpoints in regards to 1 Timothy 5:17, however it gives me no indication that it was a separate office. It just says that those who rule well are worthy of double honor. As to the OP, if one were to believe in "ruling elders" as distinguished from "teaching elders", they would still be the same office but with different duties. However, even though they have different duties they should be proficient in all of the duties. For example, a ruling elder should be apt to teach and a teaching elder should be able to rule. So, I don't think any duties that one could do the other could not, including administering the Lord's Supper. But that's just me and I don't believe in a distinction between ruling and teaching elders.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 18, 2011)

Hi John,

Rev, Glaser can obviously answer for himself here, but I suppose we have perhaps been a little confusing with how we have used various terms among us. Maybe the best way to look at it is that the divines saw "multiple roles fulfilled within the two biblically defined offices" - or something like that. In defense of this understanding, I would draw attention to the part of 1 Tim. 5:17 that you seem to have left out of your notation - "especially those [_presbyteroi_] who labor in preaching and teaching." The plain implication here is that there were elders who did not "labor in preaching and teaching", no?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2011)

> "multiple roles fulfilled within the two biblically defined offices"



Is that an adequate summation of what the divines believed? If so, I am on board.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Feb 18, 2011)

> Yet, finally, These elders, vested with rule in the Church, and divinely approved in their rule, are distinct from all them that labor in the word and doctrine. This may thus be evidenced from the text, as some have well observed. For:
> 
> 1. Here is a general, under which the several kinds of officers here spoken of are comprehended, elders; all here mentioned are elders.
> 
> ...



This is just a tidbit of the consideration given to this question in this magnificent work.


----------



## JML (Feb 18, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Is that an adequate summation of what the divines believed? If so, I am on board.



I'm good with that definition as well.



Phil D. said:


> In defense of this understanding, I would draw attention to the part of 1 Tim. 5:17 that you seem to have left out of your notation - "especially those [presbyteroi] who labor in preaching and teaching." The plain implication here is that there were elders who did not "labor in preaching and teaching", no?



I don't think the rest of that verse changes anything that I have said. I'm perfectly ok with the fact that in a multiple eldership there may be one elder who is better gifted in preaching and teaching and may do so more often than the other(s). We all have different levels of ability. However, the ability must be there and I don't think it is good practice for an elder to never preach & teach. All elders must be apt to teach. All elders must be able to rule. An elder who rules well is worthy of double honor especially if he is also the main teacher. That is my view of the verse.


----------



## interalia (Feb 19, 2011)

In the EPC, RE's "serve", but not "administer." We do, however, provide for the "commissioned pastor", who is an RE, but upon finding themselves in a particular area of minsitry where a TE is not available, recieves this title after training and examination from the local session and presbytery in order to preach and administer the sacraments in limited situations.


----------



## sdesocio (Feb 19, 2011)

Even more pointed Question I knew an RE who was licensed to preach so that he help plant a church, but needed a TE to administer the supper. Id see that as the most obvious point of inconsistency. He is an Elder (one of the Two offices in the church) and he has been granted the power to preach.

It seems like there might have been an assumption that RE's never preached (which is not really true anymore). It would be interesting to hear of an RE argue that he is an minister of the word at the congregation he is called to (at least on a semi regular basis.)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 19, 2011)

I would agree with Sam that a consistent 2-Office view would seem to say that the TE and RE distinctions are really just a matter of dividing up responsibilities among the Elders of the local church and therefore should not restrict the administration to the TE. 

This is why it seems to this three-office guy that even professing two-office advocates in practice act like the Church has three-offices.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 19, 2011)

To the OP Q. 169 of the Larger Catechism limits the administration of the Lord's Supper to "Ministers of the Word".



> *Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?*
> 
> A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.


----------



## TimV (Feb 19, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants:



Wouldn't that answer the question as to whether women may help distribute communion?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 19, 2011)

Yes


----------



## raekwon (Feb 22, 2011)

Guess that answers the question as to whether or not a woman can pass the communion plate to the next person in the pew, too.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 22, 2011)

raekwon said:


> Guess that answers the question as to whether or not a woman can pass the communion plate to the next person in the pew, too.


 
No. Because the distribution of the elements implies an admission to the Table (since we no longer use an actual Table). It is not the job of a congregant to keep the elements from the "unworthy and scandalous." It is the job of the Session.


----------



## raekwon (Feb 22, 2011)

Is it the job of the Session or only of "ministers of the Word"? (Not trying to be contentious here -- just trying to find some consistency. It seems to me that the physical distribution of the elements can be related to, but not necessarily tied to, admission to/barring from the Table. Is WLC 169 speaking to both or only one? If both, then it looks like only the Teaching Elders admit to/bar from the table as well.)


----------

