# minister of the Word lawfully ordained



## Scott (Apr 10, 2007)

WCF 27.4 reads: "4. 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.a"
a. Mat 28:19-20, 19; 1 Cor 4:1; 11:20, 23; Heb 5:4.

How does the proof text 1 Cor. 4:1 support this proposition? It reads: "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." IN the context, "us" appears referr to all Christians, and not just officers.

Scott


----------



## larryjf (Apr 10, 2007)

The "us" could refer to Paul, Peter, and Apollos as they are referenced in 1 Cor 3:22

Also, in 1 Cor 4:6 Paul says that he is speaking of Apollos and himself.


----------



## CDM (Apr 10, 2007)

Scott said:


> WCF 27.4 reads: "4. 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.a"
> a. Mat 28:19-20, 19; 1 Cor 4:1; 11:20, 23; Heb 5:4.
> 
> How does the proof text 1 Cor. 4:1 support this proposition? It reads: "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." IN the context, "us" appears referr to all Christians, and not just officers.
> ...



1 Cor. 14:1


> Let a man so account of *us*, as of the *ministers of Christ*, and *stewards of the mysteries of God*.



In context, it appears the 'us' is referring to the Apostles. How do you suppose this refers to Christians in general? 

In 14:9


> For I think that God hath set forth *us the apostles* last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.



Here he returns to the subject at hand the Apostles and their ministry to the saints.


----------



## Scott (Apr 10, 2007)

Those are good points, thanks.


----------



## KMK (Apr 10, 2007)

Scott said:


> WCF 27.4 reads: "4. 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.a"
> a. Mat 28:19-20, 19; 1 Cor 4:1; 11:20, 23; Heb 5:4.
> 
> How does the proof text 1 Cor. 4:1 support this proposition? It reads: "This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." IN the context, "us" appears referr to all Christians, and not just officers.
> ...



I struggled with this chapter of the confession as well until I looked hard at the overall context of 1 Cor 4. Throughout chapters 1, 2, and 3 Paul is trying to hit home the point that there is no difference between ministers of the word. (Apollos, Peter, Cephas) Therefore, the divines believed (and I agree) that 'us' refers to ministers of the word.

This would agree with other writings of Paul that are sometimes misinterpreted like 2 Cor 5:21 where he refers to himself and other preachers as 'ambassodors'.


----------



## KMK (Apr 10, 2007)

mangum said:


> 1 Cor. 14:1
> 
> 
> In context, it appears the 'us' is referring to the Apostles. How do you suppose this refers to Christians in general?
> ...



Just clarifying that you are referring to 1 Cor 4, not 1 Cor 14.


----------



## elnwood (Apr 10, 2007)

So how do these proof texts prove that only ministers of the Word can serve the sacraments/ordinances? I can see it being good as far as church order is concerned, but I don't see it taught in Scripture.

The Hebrews 5 passage is talking about the Old Covenant priesthood, and I assume most of us would assert that there is no special "priesthood" today. That seems to me to be a more Roman Catholic understanding.

Regarding the great commission in Matthew 28, it was indeed spoken to the apostles.

[BIBLE]Matthew 28:18-20[/BIBLE]

Most Christians, though, understand "making disciples of all nations," and "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" to be commands for all Christians. Why, then, would we understand "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" to apply only to the ordained ministers of the Word?

And if baptism were primarily the role of ministers of the Word, why did Paul, being a minister of the Word, not consider baptizing one of his primary responsibilities?

[BIBLE]1 cor 1:14-17[/BIBLE]


----------



## Scott (Apr 10, 2007)

The Great Commission applies to the apostles and, by extension, to other elders. They have the special duty of public preaching and teaching. This is not something that is applied generally to all Christians. 

Lay Christians have a reposnibility to witness, which is different than preach. Also, lay Christians have duties to instruct their own household (deut. 6), but that is different than the type of public preaching and teaching function described in the Great Commission.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## elnwood (Apr 10, 2007)

Scott said:


> The Great Commission applies to the apostles and, by extension, to other elders. They have the special duty of public preaching and teaching. This is not something that is applied generally to all Christians.
> 
> Lay Christians have a reposnibility to witness, which is different than preach. Also, lay Christians have duties to instruct their own household (deut. 6), but that is different than the type of public preaching and teaching function described in the Great Commission.



What in the Great Commission would make you think that Jesus is speaking particularly about public preaching and teaching?


----------



## KMK (Apr 10, 2007)

elnwood said:


> So how do these proof texts prove that only ministers of the Word can serve the sacraments/ordinances? I can see it being good as far as church order is concerned, but I don't see it taught in Scripture.
> 
> The Hebrews 5 passage is talking about the Old Covenant priesthood, and I assume most of us would assert that there is no special "priesthood" today. That seems to me to be a more Roman Catholic understanding.
> 
> ...



I think the Divines looked at the Heb 5 passage like this: In the OT it pleased God to have certain men set aside for the administration of sacrements and there is no reason to think that that has changed in the NT. It is still his desire to have certain men set aside for the administration of sacrements.

If you believe that the GC is directed to all individual believers, then you would also believe that all individual believer is to 'go' and each individual believer is to 'baptize'. But this is not how the Divines saw it. The GC was given to the 11 apostles as representatives as the church as a whole. The church as a whole is to 'go', 'preach' and 'baptize'. But each individual believer is only a part of the body/temple with different gifts and duties in making that GC happen. I do not see how someone can say that the GC demands that all believers 'go' and 'preach' but all believers are not also demanded to 'baptize'. I don't think you can have it both ways.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 10, 2007)

elnwood said:


> What in the Great Commission would make you think that Jesus is speaking particularly about public preaching and teaching?


 
The entire passage of Matthew 28, its commission, and who Jesus was speaking to.

This may be of help:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonWhoAdministersTheSacrament.htm


I'm unaware of a Reformed preacher or theologians circa 1900 and previous who did not think that.

Obviously the WCF divines did.


----------



## Philip A (Apr 10, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I'm unaware of a Reformed preacher or theologians circa 1900 and previous who did not think that.
> 
> Obviously the WCF divines did.



Obviously they were all a bunch of closet Roman Catholics.


----------



## KMK (Apr 10, 2007)

Philip A said:


> Obviously they were all a bunch of closet Roman Catholics.



Hey, you forgot the 'winky' emoticon!


----------



## elnwood (Apr 10, 2007)

KMK said:


> I think the Divines looked at the Heb 5 passage like this: In the OT it pleased God to have certain men set aside for the administration of sacrements and there is no reason to think that that has changed in the NT. It is still his desire to have certain men set aside for the administration of sacrements.



Sure, no reason ... other than the fact that the Levitical Priesthood was replaced by the Melchizadek Priesthood (not by elders!), and that all believers are called priests.



KMK said:


> If you believe that the GC is directed to all individual believers, then you would also believe that all individual believer is to 'go' and each individual believer is to 'baptize'. But this is not how the Divines saw it. The GC was given to the 11 apostles as representatives as the church as a whole. The church as a whole is to 'go', 'preach' and 'baptize'. But each individual believer is only a part of the body/temple with different gifts and duties in making that GC happen. I do not see how someone can say that the GC demands that all believers 'go' and 'preach' but all believers are not also demanded to 'baptize'. I don't think you can have it both ways.



First off, it says, teach, not preach. They're different words, both in English and Greek.

I do think all believers, as a whole, can and do baptize. Hence, Paul (as an Apostle) writes in 1 Corinthians 1 that it's not his responsibility to baptize, but to preach!


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 11, 2007)

It seems that the way the disciples understood the Great Commission of Matthew 28.19-20 was to preach and to baptize, according to the inspired record of their "practices" in the book of Acts. If one follows the history from beginning to end, it is clear that the Lord has made a distinction between officers ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacraments, (The mysteries of 1Corinthians 4.1) and the rest of the Church. Not in a first-class/second-class sense, nor a regular sain/super-saint class, but by diversity of callings. 

We must remember that the passage in Hebrews 5 speaks of taking up the sacraments without a calling to do so. (Remember King Uzziah!) So inviolate is this principle that not even Christ would enter the priesthood (have the ability to administer the sacraments) apart from a calling. 

Further, this distinction is made clear in Paul's writing. In Ephesians 4 he speaks of the four-fold teaching office of the Church (some ordinary, some extra-ordinary offices) and the three coordinate finctions performed by these officers. In 2 Corinthians 5.18 he makes a clear distinction between the Ambassadors of Christ (the apostles) and the "church" to whom it is proclaimed "Be ye reconciled to God". In 1 Corinthians 3.5-10 the same distinction is made--Paul and Barnabbas are builders, the Corinthian Church is the building. In 1Corinthians 9.13-14 the Apostle goes so far as to say that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. These are but a few of the passages that speak of the distinction. 

Now I am not at all against people speaking to their friends and neighbors about Christ--I'm all for it. But we must remember that the Biblical examples we have pertain to the preaching of the Gospel by way of office. Remember that in the OT it was the Levites that ministered about the holy things, but that they themselves were not priests in the sense that they were allowed to offer sacrifice according to the pristine institution of the Lord--that was reserved for a special class of Levites, the sons of Aaron. Those other Levites were responsible for the set up and take down of the tabernacle, and after the Davidic establishment, instead of carrying the tabernacle, they "carried a tune" in the worship service. Further, they were spread throughout all Israel as the teachers of the Law. 

In the same way, the Lord ahs established officers in the NT for ministering about the holy things, and for preaching His Word. There are other things to be addressed in earlier posts, such as the "kingdom of priests" (which was an appellation given to the OT Church as well as the NT) but I'll stop now and let others respond.


----------



## elnwood (Apr 11, 2007)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> It seems that the way the disciples understood the Great Commission of Matthew 28.19-20 was to preach and to baptize, according to the inspired record of their "practices" in the book of Acts. If one follows the history from beginning to end, it is clear that the Lord has made a distinction between officers ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacraments, (The mysteries of 1Corinthians 4.1) and the rest of the Church. Not in a first-class/second-class sense, nor a regular sain/super-saint class, but by diversity of callings.



How do you know the "mysteries" in 1 Corinthians 4 include the sacraments, and not just preaching the Word? And How do you reconcile it with 1 Corinthians 1?

Can you imagine that Paul, both an apostle and a missionary to unreached people groups, did NOT consider baptism a responsibility of his, and that after going to preach to the Corinthians, that he baptized but two of them after they were converted? It wouldn't make any sense if apostles and elders were specially charged to administer baptism.



Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> We must remember that the passage in Hebrews 5 speaks of taking up the sacraments without a calling to do so. (Remember King Uzziah!) So inviolate is this principle that not even Christ would enter the priesthood (have the ability to administer the sacraments) apart from a calling.



You haven't established yet that the sacraments/ordinances are analogous to the priestly duties. It seems like you're making that a basic assumption.



Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Further, this distinction is made clear in Paul's writing. In Ephesians 4 he speaks of the four-fold teaching office of the Church (some ordinary, some extra-ordinary offices) and the three coordinate finctions performed by these officers. In 2 Corinthians 5.18 he makes a clear distinction between the Ambassadors of Christ (the apostles) and the "church" to whom it is proclaimed "Be ye reconciled to God". In 1 Corinthians 3.5-10 the same distinction is made--Paul and Barnabbas are builders, the Corinthian Church is the building. In 1Corinthians 9.13-14 the Apostle goes so far as to say that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. These are but a few of the passages that speak of the distinction.
> 
> Now I am not at all against people speaking to their friends and neighbors about Christ--I'm all for it. But we must remember that the Biblical examples we have pertain to the preaching of the Gospel by way of office. Remember that in the OT it was the Levites that ministered about the holy things, but that they themselves were not priests in the sense that they were allowed to offer sacrifice according to the pristine institution of the Lord--that was reserved for a special class of Levites, the sons of Aaron. Those other Levites were responsible for the set up and take down of the tabernacle, and after the Davidic establishment, instead of carrying the tabernacle, they "carried a tune" in the worship service. Further, they were spread throughout all Israel as the teachers of the Law.
> 
> In the same way, the Lord ahs established officers in the NT for ministering about the holy things, and for preaching His Word. There are other things to be addressed in earlier posts, such as the "kingdom of priests" (which was an appellation given to the OT Church as well as the NT) but I'll stop now and let others respond.



The New Testament uses priest to describe all believers, and Jesus Christ as our high priest. The analogy of priests to elders today does not work.

In fact, there is already an analogous group to the elders in the Old Testament, and those are the elders of Israel, who were not set apart to do the priestly duties as the Levites were. Why would the "priestly" duties then fall into their laps particularly?

Nor does the analogy of the priestly duties to the administration of the sacraments/ordinances work. In all of the passages on the Lord's Supper and Baptism, the New Testament never mentions elders.

I appreciate the distinction of people being called to be pastors and elders in the church, and that God sets those people apart, but I do not think this necessarily includes the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Scott (Apr 11, 2007)

> The New Testament uses priest to describe all believers, and Jesus Christ as our high priest. The analogy of priests to elders today does not work.


The OT also describes each and every citizen of Israel as a priest. See, e.g., Ex. 19:5, which is God speaking to Israel via Moses: "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.'"

When the NT picks up this language and calls all people priests, it is just saying that the Church is the new, spiritual Israel. For example, 1 Peter: "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. . ." 

In addition to the general priesthood, there was the Aaronic priesthood. So, if in the OT ordinary believers can be priests in parallel to a special priesthood, there is no reason why in the NT ordinary believers cannot be priests in parallel to ministers of special authority.


----------



## KMK (Apr 11, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Sure, no reason ... other than the fact that the Levitical Priesthood was replaced by the Melchizadek Priesthood (not by elders!), and that all believers are called priests.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Call off the dogs! I was simply trying to answer the question in the OP. Do you agree with the WCF when it says...



> 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.



If you don't then fine, but I was trying to explain where the Divines were coming from in using the 1 Cor 4:1 passage as a proof text.


----------



## elnwood (Apr 11, 2007)

KMK said:


> Call off the dogs! I was simply trying to answer the question in the OP. Do you agree with the WCF when it says...
> 
> If you don't then fine, but I was trying to explain where the Divines were coming from in using the 1 Cor 4:1 passage as a proof text.



Ha ha!  I don't agree with the WCF.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 11, 2007)

This is a pretty good article at analyzing the overall issue. It is from a now deceased Lutheran theologian and has that flavor to it in some spots, but he does an honest job at simply analyzing "the ordained ministry" and why. Enjoy or hate if you like but here it is -ldh:

Gerhard Forde on Ministry 
An Excerpt From Theology is for Proclamation (pp. 178-186)

. . . Ministry is first and foremost the ministry of proclamation, the concrete speaking of the Word of God, doing of the sacramental deed, in the living present. The primary paradigm for ministry is absolution-present-tense, I-to-you declaration in Word and sacrament authorized by the triune God: “I declare unto you the gracious forgiveness of all your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” That is the culmination of all we have been saying. Ministry is the actual doing of the deed.

Almost since the beginning churches in the Reformation tradition have had difficulty establishing a solid and perhaps we could say appropriately high doctrine of ministry in the shadow of more Roman Catholic understandings of holy orders. Lutheranism in particular has vacillated between a low understanding of ministry in terms of purely functional operations where ministry is necessary merely for the sake of “good order” and ostensibly “higher” views supported by episcopal and Roman claims to ontological status. In the former case, ministry is a function assigned to one called merely for the sake of order. The called and ordained minister tends to be looked on as a more or less dispensable “hired hand” of the congregation. In the latter the called and ordained minister acquires something of an ontological status necessary and “constitutive” for the church. The clergy are the “real” church, or at least church makers. The question from which discussion must start is whether it is possible to arrive at a view of ministry that avoids the pitfalls of these two alternatives.

In the terms of this study a major contributing factor to this constant vacillation is a failure to comprehend just what ministry is and what it is supposed to accomplish. The view of ministry, that is, has not been sufficiently rooted in an understanding of what proclamation is all about. The ministry of proclamation, as we have repeatedly insisted, is the concrete doing of the divine election in the living present. In the words of the text at the beginning of this chapter, to minister is “to preach . . . the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all people see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” Through the church and its ministry, that is, in the here and now, the mystery is to be made known, to be made public. What was hidden is to be revealed even to the principalities and powers in high places. All this is according to God’s eternal purpose in Jesus Christ. Ministry is doing the deed of election here and now, publicizing the mystery in and through the church. It has to do with the concrete, present-tense, public doing of the deed. Everything has been accomplished in Christ so that this is now to be done.

Ministry is obedient service to the divine deed accomplished in Jesus Christ in the living present. Ministers ought to operate in the consciousness that this is what they are supposed to be doing. Where this consciousness is absent, one of two things seems to happen. Either ministry degenerates into the mere dissemination of information about the past deed of reconciliation, explaining rather than proclaiming, in which case it is not clear what called and ordained ministry is for, since most any sufficiently intelligent and pious person can do that. Or, ministry is elevated to the status of a special ontological class endowed with the ability to complete what is supposedly lacking in the divine deed of reconciliation. The minister, that is, has to be elevated to an “order” of beings who can “re-present” the sacrifice of Christ because Christ did not quite manage to overcome the problem of time. The ministers, somehow, are elevated to a class of being able to do what Christ could not do. The mark that distinguishes them from the laity, therefore, is that they can “preside” at the eucharist.

But if ministry is the public doing of the divine deed of election in the living present, why is ordained ministry necessary? Is not every Christian obligated to do the deed? In the first place, it should be clear that ministry is the task of the church and thus of all the baptized. All are called by virtue of baptism to the ministry of making public the mystery hidden from the ages but now revealed in Christ. All are authorized and obligated to do it. This is entailed in the priesthood of all believers. Baptism, not ordination, as the Reformers insisted, is what makes priests.

Some care must be taken at this point, however. The fact that all are called to ministry does not mean that everything the baptized do is ministry as such. If ministry is service to the divine deed of election, one ought to avoid the current inflation of the terms that inclines to call anything and everything ministry. Where everything is ministry, specific and concrete service to the deed of God in Christ easily gets lost, on the one hand, and the quite worldly nature of God-given tasks in this world gets obscured, on the other. It is the business of priests to sacrifice-in this case to sacrifice ourselves in deeds of service and love for one another. We should, in this regard, speak of the priesthood of the baptized rather than the ministry of the baptized when referring to our daily tasks. A minister, however, is different from a priest. It is the task of a minister strictly to follow the orders of the sovereign. One should not confuse priesthood and ministry. Such confusion would be avoided if the understanding of priesthood were more clearly worked out in terms of the doctrine of vocation, and distinguished from the call to minister. We are called to be priests in our worldly tasks for one another. We are, in addition, called to do ministry, to follow the orders of the Lord. But not everything the Christian does should be called ministry lest such calling simply be lost.
Ordained ministry takes the cause of making the mystery public one last step. Here the drive to publicize the mystery culminates in a public office. In ordained ministry, the Christian vocation to minister “crosses the line,” converges upon, or coins itself in an office in this world and all that is involved in that. In the public office the age to come, the kingdom of God, makes its claim known in this age. Ordained ministry is consequently a precarious and at the same time audacious move. It is precarious because on the one hand the possibilities for abuse, pretense, perversion, high handed clericalism, and the like, are legion. The temptation to politicize the office, to usurp for it too much of this world’s power, always lies near at hand. Formerly that was done by claiming power over the state and appropriating royal forms of authority-swine rights, succession, and so forth. More recently, it seems, the urge is to involve the office in political advocacy. Such abuse of the office generally leads to its discrediting, to slighting, demeaning, disdaining, to anti-clericalism. The audacity of the move to public office must be recognized, however, because here a claim is made, an authority is asserted in the trappings of this age, so to speak, which is not of this age. The public office announces the end, the limit, the goal (telos) of all offices. The precariousness and audacity of the move to public office means that the church must take utmost care in how it orders this office.
Ordained ministry is ordered ministry. It is that in a double sense. It is a ministry one is ordered (called) to do, and it is to be done in ordered (carefully regulated) fashion. Ordained ministry is ministry incarnated, so to speak, in the orders of this age, this public. It is crucial, therefore, to look upon it not as a being elevated above this world as such but rather as an instance in which the new age invades, and stakes out its claim over and against the public order of this world. This is the view of the ministry presented in the Augsburg Confession. Articles 5 and 14 set it forth quite tersely and plainly. Article 5 says that in order to obtain the justifying faith claimed in Article 4, “God has instituted the office of ministry, that is provided the Gospel and the sacraments.” Through these concrete and external means God the Holy Spirit works faith when and where he pleases. But Article 5 does not yet explicitly speak of ordained ministry though it seems strongly to imply it. Article 14, however, provides the conclusive move to the public office: “Nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call.”

It is important to look carefully at these articles to get the point of what we are trying to say. In the first place, the office is a divine institution, not a human invention. It is not an option that churches may or may not exercise. The office is God’s idea, not ours, because God provided the gospel and the sacraments. God insisted on making the mystery public through the proclamation. The German version says it quite clearly: “Gott hat das predigtamt eingesetzt . . .” (“God established the office of preaching”). The office, that is, is instituted by virtue of the fact that God has gone public in and through Jesus Christ, the gospel and the sacraments. God has invaded the age in just this way and staked out his claim. The confession, therefore, avoids the usual impasse created by arguments about whether Jesus “ordains” a special class of followers whose “rights” are guaranteed by a line of succession, or whether Jesus envisaged or intended such. By virtue of what happened to Jesus, the gospel and the sacraments are given, and with them ministry is entailed and demanded. The gospel and the sacraments demand the office. God thereby instituted the office.

The sole difference between clergy and laity is comprehended in the fact that the clergy are called and ordered to a public exercise of the office. The move from Article 5 to Article 14 is quite consequent and natural. “Nobody,” says Article 14, “should teach or preach or administer the sacraments publicly without a regular call.” The confessors see no inconsistency between divine institution and churchly calling to the public office. All public offices, for them, are divinely instituted, even through the particular mode of filling such office is left to the needs and demands of times and places. On this score the public office of ministry is no different from other public offices. God institutes, the church orders, just as in the state God institutes the office of the head of state, magistrate, and so forth, and these are ordered according to existing political structures. Nor can there be any real cause for competition between lay and clerical exercise of the office. The whole church, all of its members, are to be involved and concerned about the public exercise of the office, the drive to make the claim of God public. Since it is the concern of all the baptized, no one can arrogate the public exercise of the office to himself or herself. It is not a private matter. It is God’s gift to the church. Therefore, the church through its quite public ordering calls and approves those appropriately qualified to exercise the public office.
This means, however, that the congregations of the church do not own the office nor do they “transfer” their authority to it. The gift of the office has been given by God to the church and demands filling in responsible fashion. The church through its structures is to do this, but the church does not give the office its authority. It is helpful to make a distinction here between the authority to fill the office and the office, but the authority of the office is rooted in the Word its holders are called to proclaim. The church in its ordering is to see that the Word may have free and public course in its midst and in the world.

But at this point it is necessary to be clear about what a public exercise of the office entails so as to complete the understanding of ordained ministry. Public exercise of the office does not simply mean that it is done “in public.” It gets its meaning rather from the fact that for the confessors Christianity was a public cult (cultis publicus). It belonged, that is, to the “republic” (republica). The ordained ministry was in that sense akin to a public official who was authorized to do the public acts of the cult in and for the people. The ordained minister was to make public proclamation of and pubic argument for the Word of God, to care for the public witness and theology of the church, to administer the sacraments as public acts, and to call the public and its magistrates to public account before divine law.
Such public exercise of the office was set in contrast to a more private exercise in family, between individuals, among Christians. In such instances one had to do with Christianity as a private cult. This may be somewhat confusing since we have spoken throughout about publicizing the mystery. The point is that the mystery is to be made known, publicized, both in more “private” ways and through the explicitly public exercise of the office. Everyone is called to a “private” exercise of the office. The public exercise of the office, however, has to be publicly ordered. Only those regularly called are so ordered.

The difficulty encountered in the modern world with this distinction is that Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is no longer accorded the status of public cult. The modern state has more or less taken over the public sphere altogether. It is concerned for the most part only with what affects the physical well-being of its citizens, the economy, defense of the realm, just distribution of goods and services, and so forth. Only such matters are considered “public affairs.” The modern state cares little about religion as long as it does not interfere with public affairs. The result is that religion is banished to the sphere of private or individual matters. Christianity, too, quickly becomes a private cult.

The general result of banishment to the sphere of the strictly private is that the rationale for ordained ministry tends to disappear altogether. When the church becomes simply a private cult it is difficult to say just why any Christian cannot perform most if not all the “functions” ordinarily assigned to the ordained. A democratic society will find it perhaps presumptuous to assume that some are raised to a different level by ecclesiastical fiat. Since religion is a private matter, what difference can ordination make? Furthermore, when clergy no longer understand the office as public doing of the deed authorized to Jesus Christ, when they no longer do what could be called public proclamation, teaching, or absolution, but rather just make public display of private emotion and experience or invest most of their time in private counseling, what does one need ordination for? Ordination per se does not automatically confer any noticeable skills or make a person “nice.” Cannot properly “sensitized” lay people do just as well? Ironically, the state itself turns out to be one of the last holdouts here. The state still clings to the vestigial remains of the public office when it refuses to allow just anyone to marry, acquire tax exemptions, perform chaplain’s duties in institutions, and the like. For more public duties, the state wants to know about ordination.

Since the idea of a public office has largely been lost, ordained ministry has to go begging for a rationale. Quite naturally it tends to take refuse in the one manifestly public act left, the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Even here there are pressures to privatize of late, to do the eucharist in cozy and private groups. The church becomes a “support group.” Even in more public celebrations the ordained are more and more marginalized by lay substitutes. Since ministry is no longer the eminently public act of doing the electing deed, it becomes more a matter of our private “sharing” with one another. So it is more meaningful, no doubt, to receive the bread and wine from someone “just like me” than from one ordained to public office. The sole function left for the ordained minister is to “preside.” Why one has to be ordained to do that remains something of a mystery. Cannot intelligent lay people read the words in the book? Since the most eminently pastoral act, that of the actual distribution, has largely been taken over, it is not strange that clerics have to fall back on the old idea that ordination somehow mysteriously imparts the power to re-present the sacrifice. Having lost its status as a public office, ministry seeks validation in the hidden agenda, behind-the-scenes theology. The public office becomes mystified. Ministry gets its rationale from a theory of the eucharist, and as such becomes constitutive for the church, and the church in turn, is understood primarily as the “eucharistic community.”

Where the public office of ministry is understood as the doing of the divine deed in the living present, however, it is possible to recover a “high” doctrine of ministry without succumbing to mere occasional functionalism on the one hand or an ontologizing view of holy orders on the other. We do indeed need to be careful about what we say of this office today. What is needed is a doctrine that comprehends its crucial importance at the same time as it avoids the ecclesiastical mythology which only provokes anticlericalism. Ordination does not mean elevation to some higher order, but rather invasion of the order of this world with the Word of the gospel to announce God’s claim upon the world. In spite of pressures to privatize, the church must not surrender this claim to public office. Here the church carries through on God’s eschatological claim.

To be called and ordained to the public office is to be called through the church to give public voice to the Word of God. ;It is not the office holder as such who transcends the congregation by elevation to a higher order, but the Word of God. The only ultimate defense against anticlericalism is the proper preaching of this Word so that the gospel is heard. To be called and ordained is to take up this public office. The ordained pastor is not a guru or a shrink or a perpetual optimist or nice person, but a public proclaimer. The ordinand, therefore, is to be properly examined and ordered to do the task. One is not called to this public office to peddle private opinions, but to serve, proclaim, care for the public witness and theology of the church in a particular time and place, to have the guts (or the Spirit, in theological terms), to say it and do it. To that end the church through the holders of this office lay on hands, prays, and invokes the Spirit on those called so to do.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 11, 2007)

Dear PB friends, 

In response to the question posed pertaining to 1Corinthians 4.1, the word "mysteries" makes its way into our sacramental language by way of the latin. This word in Latin is "sacramentum". Further, the Sacraments are means of teaching by way of an additional witness to the preaching. The Sacraments preach the Gospel by means of the words of institution as "Holy Analogies". Note Calvin on 1Corinthians 4.1:

"It is an honorable distinction that he confers upon the gospel when he terms its contents _the mysteries of God. _But as the sacraments are connected with these mysteries as appendages, it follows, that those who have the charge of administering the word are the authorized _stewards _of them also."

Paul uses this language in this passage to show the Corinthains that all Apostles, and teachers, ministers, in the Church work for the same ends. Let a man so account of *us*. It is as if he is saying, "We all are stewards of those mysteries, none of your are baptized into a new sect based upon the man."

As to why the Apostle seemed to minimize baptism in Chapter 1, I believe he dos so because the Corinthians had made it a wedge in their schismatic ways. He refuses to let them have this as an excuse. Note again Calvin on 1Corinthians 1:14

"In these words he reproves very sharply the perversity of the Corinthians, which made it necessary for him to avoid, in a manner, a thing so sacred and honorable as that of the administration of baptism. Paul, indeed, would have acted with propriety, and in accordance with the nature of his office, though he had baptized ever so many. He rejoices, however, that it had happened otherwise, and acknowledges it as having been so ordered, in the providence of God, that they might not take occasion from that to glory in him, or that he might not bear any resemblance to those ambitious men who endeavored in this way to catch followers."​ 
I believe this is true because of the practice of the Apostle Paul, which was indeed to baptize. Acts 16.13-15; 30-34; 18.8; 19.1-7. In fact, after the baptism of Cornelius in Acts 10, baptisms that Paul either performed himself or was the leader in the group of ministers that performed them is all we have. Certainly, he believed it a part of his office to baptize. His statements in 1Cor. 1.14 must be seen in the context of the Corinthians' schismatic ways.​ 
As to the comment that I have assumed that sacramental functions fall upon the ministers of the NT, I plead guilty. I do believe that, as it was the duty of ministers in the OT Church to administer the Sacraments, so also in the NT. There were ruling elders, lay-elders in the OT Church, and there are as well in the NT Church, and these elders join together with the ministers, those who dispense the Word and Sacraments, for the purposes of ruling, guiding, and leading Christ's flock. But, as in the OT Church the ministers had the charge of the Preaching and Sacraments, so in the NT. I believe it would take some clear command from Christ or His Apostles to bring another method into play. There was a kingdom of priests in the OT Church as well as the NT, and that "Kingdom of Priests" did not handle the Word and Sacraments in the official way that the Ministers did. Why wold we expect it to be any different now?​ 
Finally, it was said that Melchizedek's priesthood had replaced Aaron's and by that, since were are all priests under Him to Whom it was said, "Thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" we ought to handle the Word and sacraments. In response, I would like to say that it is more proper to speak of Melchizedek's priesthood as prior to Aaron's, and superior, because it was prior, is eternal, and it never ceased to exist. We wold be right to assert that Aaron's priesthood witnessed to Melchizedek's priesthood, and when the substance of Melchizedek's priesthood came, Aaron's priesthood went away, having exhausted the purpose for which it was instituted. But let us remember that Melchizedek's priesthood had its sacraments, that they were handled only by the priest, and that Abraham, the officer of the Church in his day, under Melchizedek paid tithes tio him, signifying his greater authority, and was the sole circumcizer of his day. 

Well, I've gone on long enough, and have not much time to respond beyond what I've said here for perhaps the rest of the week. Sermon preparation calls...

Thanks to all for bringing up these most important questions.


----------



## KMK (Apr 11, 2007)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> As to the comment that I have assumed that sacramental functions fall upon the ministers of the NT, I plead guilty. I do believe that, as it was the duty of ministers in the OT Church to administer the Sacraments, so also in the NT. There were ruling elders, lay-elders in the OT Church, and there are as well in the NT Church, and these elders join together with the ministers, those who dispense the Word and Sacraments, for the purposes of ruling, guiding, and leading Christ's flock. But, as in the OT Church the ministers had the charge of the Preaching and Sacraments, so in the NT. I believe it would take some clear command from Christ or His Apostles to bring another method into play. There was a kingdom of priests in the OT Church as well as the NT, and that "Kingdom of Priests" did not handle the Word and Sacraments in the official way that the Ministers did. Why wold we expect it to be any different now?​
> Finally, it was said that Melchizedek's priesthood had replaced Aaron's and by that, since were are all priests under Him to Whom it was said, "Thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" we ought to handle the Word and sacraments. In response, I would like to say that it is more proper to speak of Melchizedek's priesthood as prior to Aaron's, and superior, because it was prior, is eternal, and it never ceased to exist. We wold be right to assert that Aaron's priesthood witnessed to Melchizedek's priesthood, and when the substance of Melchizedek's priesthood came, Aaron's priesthood went away, having exhausted the purpose for which it was instituted. But let us remember that Melchizedek's priesthood had its sacraments, that they were handled only by the priest, and that Abraham, the officer of the Church in his day, under Melchizedek paid tithes tio him, signifying his greater authority, and was the sole circumcizer of his day.



Well stated, brother!


----------



## elnwood (Apr 12, 2007)

Todd,

Thank you for taking the time for such a good and lengthy reply, and God be with you as you prepare your sermon.

I am familiar with sacramentum meaning mysteries, but I'm still unconvinced that this term is rightly connected to baptism and the Lord's Supper rather than just being the declaration of the gospel.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 1, I think Calvin errs when he says "Paul baptized ever so many" because Paul clearly says he baptized very few in Corinth -- just two, plus Stephanas' household. It seems strange that he would baptize so few if baptism were part of his apostolic duty. You're right that Paul's statement is in reaction to the Corinthian's schismatic ways, but that ought not make us ignore what Paul is saying -- that he is called especially to be a preacher, and not to be a baptizer. If anything, the context makes this speak more clearly. After all, if Paul was specially called to baptize, why would the context make him deny what Christ has called him to do?

Regarding the priesthood, I don't know how it could be made any clearer that a special priesthood is done away with. We can forget what a "priest" is. It means an intercessor, or someone who goes in between. After the Levitical Priesthood went away, it means that there is now only one intercessor between God and man -- Jesus! Jesus is the only member of the Melchizadek priesthood. HE is the one from whom we receive baptism and the Lord's Supper. That's what's so much better about the New Covenant. We don't need a human priest to go between us and God. If we recognize the Melchizadek priesthood, then we don't need another "priest." If you were to do so, you would have to make a case for the establishment of ANOTHER priesthood (that of apostles/elders) to take the place of the Levites, and I don't see any justification for that.

Thank you again Todd for your reply. God bless.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 12, 2007)

Dear Don, (and others who have contributed) thanks for your posts. Thanks also for the well wishes and kudos. They are humbling...

I would have more to say, but I would be repeating myself, and as my father taught me, when you're repeating yourself in a conversation, it's time to go home. 

So, I'll just bring a couple of brief points and let others have the last word. 

First, no Reformed Theologian I know of posits another priesthood in the New Testament, especially not in the office of minister of Word and Sacraments. We support the priesthood of all believers, in both testaments, as was before said. The fact that Ministers have the exclusive duty of the administration of the sacraments in no way detracts from the the ability of every Blood bought son or daughter of God to go directly to his or her Heavenly Father in prayer, worship, etc. 

However, Don, there may be other reasons for placing these sacraments in the hands of an ordained clergy rather than to create a priesthood. I believe, from your posts, (and these are admittedly not the best means by which to get to know the theological positions of one another) that you believe placing the sacraments exclusively in the hands of the clergy is constitutive of a NT priesthood. I deny this, and assert that the book of Hebrews speaks against this, teaching as it does in the 13th chapter (vs 15-16) that we, as the people of God, offer sacrifices still--the fruit of the lips, making mention of His Name, and in doing good and communicating. (See also Philippians 4.18) Note that these offerings are not mediated by a human priest, just as you have so well pointed out. 

But there are other reasons for having the sacraments in the hands of an ordained clergy. Just as in the book of Acts, we don't want false churches with a heretical message springing up and calling themselves Christian, there must be a way to regulate the spread of the Gospel in an orthodox way--that was by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, for receiving of the Holy Spirit. This is why Simon Magus was denied his request--he was in a gall of bitterness, he was greedy. If there were no regulated means of dispensing the Holy Ghost, he might have gone off and claimed he was another apostle, just as many today arrogate to themselves the office or minister, and begin their ministry, without a calling, or training, etc. In the same way, in these days which are past the extraordinary days of the Apostles, there still is a need to prevent heretical sects from arising, and assuming to themselves, under the "priesthood of all believers" the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, apart from God's ordained means of administration. 

Further, these are public institutions, and not private. we have historically observed the sacraments as elements of public worship, not private. If every family member is baptized at home in the tub, or over the sink, the covenantal nature of the sacraments is lost, for the ones with whom you are in covenant, and share a common profession are excluded from this covenantal ceremony. This leads to schism--not absolutely, but it very often does, and when it doesn't go that far it certainly leads to independent-mindedness. There are other reasons as well, but I'll leave that for another time, or another writer. 

Finally, I cannot see your point as valid with Paul, and his practice in Corinth. Paul *did* baptize. In Acts 16, in Philippi, (Pre-Corinth) and in Corinth in Acts 18, and the disciples of John (Acts 19, post-Corinth). That these are recorded at all is more than any other individual Apostle save the Jerusalem baptisms on the day of Pentecost or shortly thereafter. This practice seems contrary to his words to the Corinthians (this I admit) but when seen in the context of the Corinthian Schism it is understandable. (I know you disagree, dear brother)

I'll end here. I wish we had unlimited time and audience with one another to discuss these very important principles--they are far reaching beyond a particular practice, to be sure!

May the Lord bless us all with understanding.


----------



## KMK (Apr 12, 2007)

I struggled with this issue as well for a while. I was able to understand the wisdom of the Divines when I saw this: Israel was a nation of priests and yet it pleased God to set some men for the teaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments. The NT church is also a nation of priests, so why couldn't it still be his good pleasure to set some men for the teaching of the word and administration of the sacrements?

Over the years I have learned never to say, "The Divines were wrong!" They have proven to me time and time again that it is better to say, "I don't yet understand the Divines." And the point is that even if you think the Divines were wrong, you have to admit they have good arguments. They did not writte this chapter of the confession just to pump themselves up and make themselves more important than they were.


----------

