# A Questions for Baptists on Ordination



## C. Matthew McMahon

I've been reading the minutes of the Westminster Assembly. There was a very long debate around ordination that they had. It is a very interesting debate to read thorugh.

I was curious as to how Baptists think through this question (I know what I would have said as a Baptist) but I am curious as to your responses as well. (Presbyterians please hold your opinions for a while).

Here is the question(s):

Where does the right to ordain ministers come from? 
Did it transfer from Christ to the Apostles to appointed elders - or is it the right of Christian beleivers (who are not elders) to ordain others into the office as a church?

How would you answer this?


----------



## pastorway

Where does the right to ordain ministers come from?

From Christ through the elders acting on behalf of the whole congregation.

From the article on our website on [i:cc52c1b490]The Role and Duties of Pastors[/i:cc52c1b490]:

III. Scriptural Accountability for the Elder - 1Timothy 5:19-22 

1. Ephesians 4:11 - Christ as Lord of His Church gives pastor-teachers to the Church 
2. Acts 20:28-31 - the Holy Spirit leads in the appointment of elders
3. 1 Timothy 4:14; Titus 1:5 - The Elders appoint new elders in the Church
4. Hebrews 13:17 - The elders are accountable to God for his work and his flock
5. Ephesians 5:23 - Christ is head (Lord) of the Church
6. 1 Timothy 5:19-22 - The elders are accountable to each other and the church

http://users3.ev1.net/~maranathachurch/rdpastor.html 

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Point of clarification:

[quote:f3971213dd]
From Christ through the elders acting on behalf of the whole congregation. 
[/quote:f3971213dd]

Are you including &quot;Apostles&quot; in the term &quot;elders?&quot;

And is there an inherent power in the congregation to ordain elders? (i.e. if there were no elders in a given church, would the church itself be able to ordain men apart from having an ordained man do the ordaining?)



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway

Christ appointed the Apostles, and they appointed the elders in each church, who then appointed new elders, etc, etc. 

He also now appoints pastor-teachers (elders) - Eph 4:11.

Are you looking for succession?

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:1a620c5659][i:1a620c5659]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:1a620c5659]
He also now appoints pastor-teachers (elders) - Eph 4:11.
[/quote:1a620c5659]

But I think that what Matt's asking right now is whether you think that He (Christ) does that appointing solely through the decisions of men who are already elders, or if it should also be permitted to allow new elders to be completely elected by lay-people who have no current elders among them.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Not really sucession as the Roman Church woudl say.

[quote:b2a962c7aa]
Christ appointed the Apostles, and they appointed the elders in each church, who then appointed new elders, etc, etc. 
[/quote:b2a962c7aa]

The Independents at the Assembly would have a hard time saying this because of certain inevitable conclusions. (Not to be made mentioned just yet...)

I am going to write a paper for school on this subject, and just want to get the contemporary Baptist (or Independent) view of how they still think through this.

When you say, &quot;He now appoints...&quot;

Would you (or any baptist who wants to answer) say that this would be a part from the &quot;successive&quot; line of ordinations coming down from Christ through the Apsotles, or how would you see the following scenario:

There is a congregation on a desert island of 100 people. There are no ordained ministers. Christ then &quot;gifts&quot; a particular son born of family &quot;Smith&quot; with the necessary gifts and qualifications for the office. Does 

A) the church on the desert Island have the authority or power to ordain this young man to the Gospel minsitry in and of themselves (i.e. does th epower remain in the congregation to ordain), or 

B) would you need another ordained man to do this? (He would obviously have to come over by boat...)

Just this one particular question was debated in the Assembly for almost three weeks.


----------



## dswatts

I personally believe that the 'desert island' church could ordain Brother Smith.

Just my :wr50:

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pastor,
What do you base your choice upon, that which Pastor Way expressed?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:c8dd7a14e6]
I personally believe that the 'desert island' church could ordain Brother Smith. 
[/quote:c8dd7a14e6]

Where would this authority come from? Is it inherently given to a church body? How would you prove that Scripturally?

How does this view then differ from, say the Montanists, or any other sectarian group, that would want to &quot;ordain&quot; given their own belief system?

In other words, how do we know the desert Isalnd church actually does have the right to do that and the Montantists do not?

Where do the Scriptures teach us that the right to ordain is given apart from &quot;apostolic&quot; or &quot;elder&quot; sucession?

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway

Of course the desert island is an extreme example, but if there was a church there and no elder present (he had died or there just was not an ordained man available) then I do believe that the church has the authority to ordain a qualified man to the office. In doing so they are really just recognising God's calling and qualifying the man for the office, in essence, they are confirming together that Christ has given this man to the church (Eph 4:11).

Now then, if a bunch of disgruntled Christians start meeting together without a pastor, they all have just gotten upset with a church and all left to form their own little group, I do not think that they are a legitimate church, nor do I believe that they have the right to ordain a man.

In the NT, Paul sent Timothy and Titus to appoint elders and then those elders were to appoint elders, so forth and so on. I would want to follow that example unless it was just impossible.

In the first scenario though we have a group of believers united for worship who have no way to have another ordained man come and assist in setting up the work, so they recognise and affirm those among them called and qualified by God. 

[quote:311add599a][b:311add599a]LBCF - The Church[/b:311add599a]
8. A particular church gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members. The officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church are bishops or elders and deacons. These are to be appointed for the peculiar administration of ordinances and the execution of power or duty with which the Lord has entrusted them and to which He has called them. This pattern of church order is to be continued to the end of the world. 

9. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the office of bishop or elder in a church, is that he is to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church itself. Such a person should be solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with the laying on of hands of the eldership of the church (if there be any previously appoint elder or elders). The way of Christ for the calling of a deacon is that he is also to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church and set apart by prayer, with the laying on of hands. [/quote:311add599a]


In the second, you have a divisive group that will not submit to proper church authority and so strikes out on their own in rebellion. This is wrong in many ways.

Phillip


----------



## py3ak

What Pastorway said seems to be the position of the Westminster Assembly, according to the history of that group by William Hetherington. It's interesting that this question comes up right now as I have recently been reading about just this controversy in that volume. Here is a relevant quote, from p. 193 of the Still Waters Revival Books reprint edition (italics his):

&quot;The Presbyterians never denied that a company of true believers might be a true church, though destitute of pastors; nor that they might select the most grave and pious of their number, and set him solemnly apart to the office of the ministry, without the presence of any ordained pastor, if in circumstances where that could not be obtained. They admitted that the Church must possess in itself the power of all that is necessary to the continuation of its own existence. But they held, also, that Christ himself at first chose and appointed office-bearers, and gave to them authority to ordain others; that this was matter of precept, and to be regularly obeyed in every instance where that was possible, because it had been so commanded; while they regarded the Congregational mode as a matter of necessity, justifiable only in cases where without it the enjoyment of Christian ordinances could not be obtained. The error of the Independents consisted in adopting as the ordinary rule the [i:9f5da34aad]case of necessity[/i:9f5da34aad], instead of the [i:9f5da34aad]method of precept[/i:9f5da34aad]; and in adhering so pertinaciously to this view as to condemn and refuse to admit into their communion all who could not agree with them.&quot;

Back to observing,


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Reuben, great quote, and that was exactly what I had been reading last night.

But one cannot have it both ways. Either the inherent right is in the congregation, and they have the right to ordain no matter what (because it is inherent not in the imposition of laying of hands, but in the congregation) or it is not.

Hetherington says much more than you quoted, and the subsequent articles and papers on the Assembly itself, and the work &quot;The Great Debate&quot; is also helpful (which is an original found on the SWRB discs as well, and some other documents.).

What I am finding, though, that Hetherington is slanting the view a bit. The Assembly itself does not agree with Hetherington's paragraph there, and I think he is just being &quot;a bit too nice&quot; to the Independents.

For instance, the official statements of the WCF are as follows:

&quot;Touching the Doctrine of Ordination.
NO man ought to take upon him the office of a minister of the word without a lawful calling.&quot;

&quot;Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.&quot;

&quot;Touching the Power of Ordination.
ORDINATION is the act [b:a9a79c2b9f]of a presbytery.[/b:a9a79c2b9f]&quot;

&quot;1. Because there is no example in scripture that any single congregation, which might conveniently associate, did assume to itself all and sole power in ordination; neither is there any rule which may warrant such a practice.

2. Because there is in scripture example of an ordination in a presbytery over divers congregations; as in the church of Jerusalem, where were many congregations: these many congregations were under one presbytery , and this presbytery did ordain.&quot;

&quot;The preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighboring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.&quot;

Though Hetherington would &quot;like&quot; it to mean what he said, the actual acts and sub committees put together for this purpose are not jiving with him. I think Hetherington either missed the mark here, or was too sympathetic to Goodwin and Nye.

As for Phillip's post, the question revolves around WHERE THE SCRIPTURAL POWER is inherent - in Christ, given to the Apostles, given to Elders, OR in any given particular congregation (disgruntled or not makes no difference in congregationalism).

This is what makes this such a hot topic. You either have it one way or the other: Either:

A) Presbyterianism is right, by imposition of hands and succession of the Elders of a given church,

or

B) Independency of any kind is right, without any guidelines whatsoever, with, or without elders. (This would mean anarchy).

Goodwin, Nye and other Independents saw this as a grave issue, and from my reading thus far of the original documents, they did not fair so well in actually answering the subcommittees who were studying this topic.

I found this whole topic to be very fascinating based on the form of government one takes in any given church.

The desert island is not an extreme example at all. This is the basic tenant of pressing the thinker to decide where the power of ordination actually lies.


[quote:a9a79c2b9f]
Now then, if a bunch of disgruntled Christians start meeting together without a pastor, they all have just gotten upset with a church and all left to form their own little group, I do not think that they are a legitimate church, nor do I believe that they have the right to ordain a man
[/quote:a9a79c2b9f]

You cannot say that. Either the power lies in a group of people, or it lies in ordained elders. This was the heart of their debate.


[quote:a9a79c2b9f]
In the NT, Paul sent Timothy and Titus to appoint elders and then those elders were to appoint elders, so forth and so on. I would want to follow that example unless it was just impossible. 
[/quote:a9a79c2b9f]

Then you have ceased to be a congregationalist.


[quote:a9a79c2b9f]
The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the office of bishop or elder in a church, is that he is to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church itself. Such a person should be solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with the laying on of hands of the eldership of the church (if there be any previously appoint elder or elders). 
[/quote:a9a79c2b9f]

This is a contradictory statement(s). Either it is by the vote of the congregation (thus the power is inherent in them) or it is by the imposition of hands on behalf of the congregation by ordained men (which is the right of ordained elders and not the congregation.) If it is not the right of the ordained elder, then the congregation can act as an elder, and impose hands to ordain men, for the BIBLE says 

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands [b:a9a79c2b9f]of the eldership.[/b:a9a79c2b9f] 

noun genitive neuter singular - &quot;of the eldership&quot;

(There is no escaping this.)

If they can impose the laying on of hands, then they are taking the role of officers in the church.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco

Cunningham distinguishes as well between the ordinary and extraordinary circumstances of ordination ([i:eaaabaf576]Church of Christ[/i:eaaabaf576], 467). He states the &quot;necessity, in all ordinary circumstances, of the call of the Church, expressed through her office bearers, and by means of ordination, to complete the ministerial title. That there may be a crisis in the history of the Church, when in order to preserve the office itself it is lawful to sacrifice the outward call of the Church to the office, and to set apart men to the ministry without ordination by office bearers, cannot be doubted...Certainly such a crisis was the Reformation from Popery&quot;


----------



## Me Died Blue

I really want to say that reading this thread and thinking about this topic is fascinating. I can see why it's such a heated debate, because of the inevitable all-or-nothing nature of the ordination standards, and its implications for situations like the desert island.

Matt, there's one question that came up in my mind. I agree with you that it is an all-or-nothing situation, and that the Scriptures you cited as well as the WCF (though not the LBCF) stand clear on the issue, and show the absolute necessity of ordination of new elders being done via current elders. Given that I agree with that principle, and thus that the group on the desert island, if they had no form of communication with, or travel to, other lands, could not in fact biblically ordain elders, my question is this: Do you think it would be a sin for them to never exercise the sacraments, since Scripture commands us to exercise them?

I'm not so sure it would be as simple as saying, &quot;Well, since both sacraments are only biblically done by an elder, and they can't obtain any elders right now, and are thus [i:ccd11a2888]unable[/i:ccd11a2888] to exercise the sacraments, they are excused from the command of performing the sacraments, and are thus not in sin for not doing so.&quot; When Arminians object that if unregenerate man is incapable of saving himself, he is not rightly held responsible for doing so. We respond to this by saying that [i:ccd11a2888]ability does not limit obligation[/i:ccd11a2888] - would that principle still equally apply in the desert island example, with regard to the believers being unable to obey the command to exercise the sacraments? 

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## py3ak

Back out from observation!

Webmaster,

I only have Hetherington --since he seems so biased against the Independents in other areas (E.g., &quot;The Presbyterians had done everything in their power to meet the scruples of the Dissenting Brethren.... But when the Dissenting Brethren could not persuade the Assembly to adopt their views in preference to its own, they renewed their intrigues with the Independents in the army....&quot;p.210 And &quot;If this conjecture be correct, the intercourse of Nye and Goodwin with Ogle may have been for the purpose of concealing their own connection with the plot....&quot; p.182) I had assumed that he would not be unfair the Presbyterians in any way. 

I understand the dichotomy you're presenting. In the volume in Goodwin's works on church government, the only thing I remember from the two letters in it that I read were his recommendations to read John Cotton on the matter (I think it was John Cotton --my Goodwin is in another state at the moment). What I am wondering, though, is if the principle Hetherington stated, of the Church necessarily possessing everything necessary for its continuance doesn't make a provision for the desert island scenario. If people are abandoned on an island, while their elders are all executed, what are they supposed to do?

Back into observation.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The next question would be the possible necessity of instituting elders by those who have the gifts of eldership.

This had direct implications on the lawful calling of the first reformers. 


[quote:bc4586081f]
Do you think it would be a sin for them to never exercise the sacraments, since Scripture commands us to exercise them?
[/quote:bc4586081f]

They shoudl exercise the sacraments, but, providentially, they must by an ordained elder called to the task. If that is not the case, then again, the power to administer the sacraments, to preach, etc., does not lay in the commission of Christ to the apostles, then to elders, but actually the church as a whole. We then should not worry about who is breaking bread, or who is batlizing who since that power is directly commissioned to the church (including women, children, etc.).

In terms of the lawful calling of the Reformers (which is the only case that I can think of in terms of the desert Isalnd principle in church history) Turretin says the following: 

&quot;Among all the questions which refer to the call of pastors, none is more fre&shy;quently agitated by Romanists or productive of greater contention than that which relates to the call of our Reformers. Their design is to prove them guilty of schism and to condemn the Reformation inaugurated by them as unlawful and begun without a call. &quot;

&quot;The question between us and the Romanists concerns doctrine, not discipline. And yet it is lawful even for any private man to act, seek and answer concerning doctrine.&quot;

&quot;The question concerning the call cannot be understood without the other, since the first parts of the call are the trial of doctrine and a proof of the truth which is to be preached.&quot;

&quot;This was the way in which the Pharisees (who inquired into his call) treated Christ. &quot;By what author&shy;ity doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?&quot; (Mt. 21:23). &quot;

&quot;To whom Christ (answering and in turn asking them concerning the origin of the baptism and the doctrine of John) sufficiently indicates that the question about doctrine ought to precede that about the call&quot;

&quot;Hence if it is inquired to which of two assemblies we ought to join ourselves, the one which is supposed to have an uninterrupted succession (but without the truth), but the other truth of doctrine (but without the succession), no one will hesitate in replying that we ought to join the latter because a call without the truth cannot save, but truth can save without the call. &quot;

&quot;V. That we may be able to vindicate our call against the most unjust prejudices with which it is usually burdened, it is to be observed that the validity or invalidity of the ministry is to be viewed principally in three aspects. (1) With respect to the functions which are to be performed and the things themselves which are taught and com&shy;manded in it, if they are true or false, just or unjust. (2) With respect to the as&shy;sembly in which it is exercised, if it has the right to call or not. (3) With respect to the persons who exercise the ministry in that assembly. In the first respect, the call and ministry of the Jews, Mohammedans and other similar unbelievers is impious and sacrilegious because the things taught in it are impious and false and the functions unlawful. In the second, the ministry of the Donatists and Luciferians (which was good in itself because nothing evil was taught in it) was vicious because it was exercised in schismatical assemblies which had no right to separate themselves from others. In the third, the ministry of simony and of an usurper, although good in itself, does not cease to be evil and unlawful on account of the defect of a personal call. Now it is easy to show under this threefold relation (schesei) that the call of our Reformers was legitimate. First, with respect to the things which are taught or commanded, because the ministry (which the call imposes upon us) consists wholly in the preaching of the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. If this is denied by our opponents, we must come to the way of discussion or the examination of doctrine and leave the way of prescription or the question concerning the call which they press so zealously. And thus it will be easy for us to demonstrate the truth of our call from the truth of the doctrine we teach. But the Romanists never will be able to prove the call or the right which they hold to teach transubstantiation, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, the worship of images, the invocation of saints and other similar dogmas which are diametrically opposed (dis dia pason) to the word of God, because there can be no call to teach errors and superstitions. Second, the assembly in which the ministry is exercised had the right to institute such a ministry: first, because that ministerial authority per&shy;tains to the true church and the right of communicating it to pastors, as was seen in the preceding question; again, because that church cannot but be true in which the true doctrine of Christ is retained and errors and false worship are condemned, such as we maintain ours to be. Third, with respect to the persons, because they were not self-called (autokietoi), who intruded themselves by their own motion into the ministry, but had a call from the church to whom that right belongs. For if they were not always called according to the rites then received, they were not on that account destitute of a lawful call in essentials. &quot;

&quot;VI. But that we may more specially demonstrate the truth of the call of the Reformers, they are to be regarded in a twofold order. The first is of those who were called and ordained in the Roman church. The second of those who were called by assemblies of believers without pastors. And as to the former, a legiti&shy;mate call cannot be denied to them, unless the Romanists wish to confess that they are destitute of a lawful call. For their call is either legitimate or it is not. If it is lawful, they cannot blame it on our men. If it is not lawful, they badly object to us the want of it. &quot;

&quot;VII. Nor can it be objected that they lost their call by impugning the doctrine received in the Roman church. So far from their being able to be said on that ac&shy;count to have lost their call, on the contrary they brought it back to its true and legitimate end and the one intended by Christ. I confess that this was not the in&shy;tention of those who ordained them-that they should oppose themselves to the received doctrine; but it was their duty to attend to the command of Christ and to the primeval obligation and nature of their office. Two ends occurring here must be accurately distinguished. One is the primary end of God, the author of the calling and of the office itself; the other, the secondary and less principal end of the men calling. It is certain that they did not regard the end of the men, which was to defend and propagate the papal doctrine, because it was unjust. But they had respect to the primary end of the office itself and of God calling, which was to teach the truth and to win souls to Christ. Nor can the oath given to the pope stand in the way, because they were bound before to God. Therefore when they found out that they could not in good faith fulfill their oath given to the pope, except by violating their oath to God, they were bound to break the faith pledged to the pope rather than the faith pledged to God. As in a camp the soldiers promise allegiance to their king and general, but first to the king, then to the general on account of the king. And yet if they learn that the general has deserted the king and is plotting treason, they are bound by that same oath not only to desert the general, but also to oppose him as far as they can, unless they wish to incur the crime of treason. &quot;

&quot;IX. Now although the Reformers were excommunicated from the church of Rome, they cannot on that account be said to have been deprived of the call which they had received. It was unjust and could not deprive them of their right, as the apostles did not lose their call because they were excommunicated by the Jewish synod; nor the orthodox bishops who were excommunicated by the Arians, especially since (on the hypothesis of the Romanists) ordination im&shy;presses an indelible mark. This very thing is sanctioned according to Gratian. (Pope) Celestine says, &quot;If anyone was either excommunicated or divested of office or clerical dignity by the Nestorian bishop or by the others who follow him, from whom they began to preach such things, it is manifest that this one both continued and continues in our communion; nor do we consider him removed, because he could not by his sentence remove anyone, who had already shown that he himself ought to be removed&quot; (&quot;Decreti,&quot; Pt. II, Causa XXIV, Q. 1.35 Corpus luris Canonici [1959], 1:980). This is confirmed in chapter 36 (ibid., 1.36, pp. 980-81). &quot;

&quot;X. Although we maintain that a true call was in the church of Rome, we do not on this account recognize her as a true church, because these things do not equally answer each other in turn. Where a true church is, there indeed un&shy;doubtedly is a true call.&quot;

&quot;XI. The second order is of those Reformers who, although they had not been called by the church of Rome, undertook this office. Concerning their call, it is inquired. But here ought to recur what we stated before-that we must distinguish between a church constituted and to be constituted or reformed; and the ordinary way from a case of extreme necessity. In a constituted church, we think the sanc&shy;tioned order ought to be retained, so that all things may be done decently in the church and disorder (atasaa) and confusion avoided. But in a church to be restored, we are not always to wait for the ordinary call, but any private person can, in a case of extreme and unavoidable necessity, enter upon the work of reformation.&quot;

&quot;XIII. We gather from various sources that the call of God did truly belong to this ministry of the Reformers. First, from necessity because since God wishes men to be thrown into that state that they will miserably perish unless in this way they provide for their own salvation and that of their neighbors, he also (who suffers them to be reduced to this necessity) determines to give them the power on that account the more of performing their office than to permit the truth to be taken from the world and their own and others' salvation to be en&shy;dangered. Now it is evident that the Reformers were constituted in that state of unavoidable necessity. They saw the church of Rome laboring under innumerable deadly corruptions, which they could not profess without immediate danger to salvation. No reformation was to be expected from the rulers of the church, from whom the errors flowed and who contended fiercely for them; and so far from wishing to think about a reformation, they persecuted with fire and the sword those who undertook to seek it and dared to oppose themselves to the encroaching errors. The voice of God himself who imposed this necessity was also annexing: 

both by the general command to follow and confess the truth and rebuke false&shy;hood in every time and place and in every class of men; and by the special com&shy;mand to come out of Babylon (Rev. 18:4) and withdraw from the communion of the erring (2 Cor. 6:16, 17). &quot;

&quot;XIV. Second, from the mark of the call impressed upon them, which consists not only in purity of doctrine and innocence of life, but also in the remarkable and extraordinary gifts with which he adorned his servants and by the secret im&shy;pulse and noble motives by which he excited them to undertake so great a work. For if God confers illustrious gifts upon no one except when he calls him to a great and arduous undertaking, it cannot be denied that God imposed such a call upon the first Reformers (since it is evident that they were endowed with extra&shy;ordinary gifts). &quot;

&quot;XVI. The call of the Reformers can be called ordinary and extraordinary in different respects. It was ordinary (1) by reason of the office because it was not a new and extraordinary ministry, such as the apostleship was. Rather it was that same ordinary office which was instituted by Christ and the apostles and which ought to continue to the end of the world. (2) With regard to doctrine because they were not to set forth a new doctrine, but the same which had already been preached by the apostles; nor to raise up a new church, but to reform one corrupted and to correct a depraved worship, and to restore it to the primeval institution of Christ and the apostles. (3) With regard to the perpetual and indispensable right which belongs to believers professing the truth and rejecting errors and with regard to the duty devolving upon both pastors and believers themselves of following Christ and withdrawing from false teachers according to his command. (4) With regard to the material and as to the ordinary functions of the word and the administration of sacraments. But it may well be called extraor&shy;dinary with regard to the mode and rites which were usually observed because it was not made in the ordinary manner and the one used in the church of Rome, but beyond the order and received rites on account of the case of extreme neces&shy;sity. (5) With regard to exercise because although reformation was the ordinary function of their office, for which they had no need of any new right or new min&shy;istry (since each pastor is bound to reform his own flock as often as there is need), still because this is not accustomed to be done every day, in this work there was something extraordinary inasmuch as the people needed extraordinary and unusual help in purging the doctrine and worship from the adhering errors. Since therefore according to various relations (5cheseis), this call can rightly be said to be both ordinary and extraordinary, it ought not on this account to seem strange if our divines speak in different ways according to those various relations: 

some calling it ordinary; others extraordinary in different respects (kat' ailo kai olio), the truth of the thing always remaining the same. If ordinary is understood properly as that which is consistent with the order primarily and divinely in&shy;stituted, the call of the Reformers is well said to be ordinary; but if it is taken equivocally for what has been received publicly by inveterate custom (whatever that may have been), it can be said to be extraordinary because it differed widely from that custom and manner which had grown up in the church of Rome. But we deny that this custom was a lawful order, since it is pure disorder (ataxia) which prevailed in that church under the appearance of order. &quot;

&quot;XXII. While the ministry flourishes in a church, she ought indeed to use it for the calling of pastors; nor can she ordinarily institute pastors, except by the min&shy;istry already constituted. But the ministry failing (being miserably corrupted), she can elect ministers to herself for her edification, even without the interven&shy;tion of a ministry; both because she has this right from God and because in every time and place she is bound to preserve a ministry for the instruction of believ&shy;ers. Nor can it be said without the greatest absurdity that it is better in a case of necessity (all pastors failing) for a church to remain without pastors and to be without external and public worship and the exercise of religion, waiting for God to raise up others out of the ranks, than to call pastors without the interven&shy;tion of other pastors. The necessity of a ministry to give a call is a necessity only of order (which ought to be observed in an instituted state), but which is not ab&shy;solutely and simply necessary to salvation. But the necessity of the preaching of the gospel and of the call of pastors to it is a necessity of salvation which cannot be obtained without the word and faith in it. Again, since the end is to be preferred to the means, the institution of pastors, which is the end, should be considered more necessary than the observance of the received order, so that it may not be done except by pastors, which is only a means to secure that end. And since primary obligations ought to take precedence over later obligations, who doubts that the law which places the necessity of a ministry in the church binds much more strongly than that which wishes no one to be ordained except by the min&shy;istry of other pastors? The latter is particular, holding good only in a constituted order and while its use is possible, but which has its exceptions; but the former is universal, which in every time and place without any exception ought to obtain. Hence when it is impossible for both laws to be observed, regard should be paid altogether to the first (which is the more ancient and universal) and the cause and foundation of the second.&quot;

&quot;XXVI. Nor ought it to be said that a secession from the public ministry can&shy;not be made by private persons without a violation of the obedience which God himself has frequently commanded should be rendered to it. For although no one denies that we ought to hold in great esteem the pastors and faithful ministers of God who watch for our souls and that we ought to obey them according to the direction of Paul (Heb. 13:17); still it is certain that that obedience and depend&shy;ency is not absolute and unlimited (which belongs to God and Christ alone), but circumscribed within certain limits (i.e., as far as it promotes the glory of God and our safety and as far as it can consist with the fidelity and obedience due to Christ). For since the public ministry is nothing else than the external means for bringing men to salvation by a profession of the true faith and the practice of a pure worship; this, however, is the relation of external means-that when they recede from the destination of the user and not only do not bring us to the faith, but remove us from it, the love of the end ought to prevail over the love of the means because the means are not sought except on account of the end. If it ap&shy;pears that the public ministry not only does not lead us to salvation and does not point out to us the way to heaven, but thrusts us by its pestiferous errors on to most certain destruction, who doubts that we ought to secede from it in order to secure our salvation? Nor can the example of the civil magistrate (who is not to be deserted although he executes his office wrongly) prove the contrary. Only a temporal good is here involved which brings no damage to salvation; but the ministry is concerned with a spiritual good and the salvation of our souls, than which nothing ought to be dearer to us. Nor, moreover, ought it to be said that this is to resist God himself, who placed us under pastors. In the ministry, we must carefully distinguish that which is of divine institution and that which is of human disposition. That there should be a ministry in the church is of divine in&shy;stitution, but that the ministry should be exercised by this or that person (if you except the apostles and evangelists, the first teachers of the church) is of human disposition. The order of the ministry is inviolable because it is from God; but it is not the same with the ministers. For they are called by men, so the call can often be corrupted by various faults, either of the givers or of the receivers. In this case, it is not only lawful, but necessary to secede from false pastors who en&shy;danger salvation. Nor is the scandal which can spring from such a separation (if any does arise from it) to be compared with the peril of salvation and the injury to religion. &quot;

&quot;XXXI. If in some churches the Reformation was instituted by laymen, besides the fact that (in that most deplorable state and in a case of unavoidable neces&shy;sity) there was a sufficient call for individuals to resist the abuse (as we have already proved and confirmed by various examples), the old canon in Clement of Rome pertains, in which it is enacted: &quot;That he who teaches, although he may be a layman, yet skilled in speaking and sober in morals, may teach because they will all easily learn of God&quot; (cf. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 8.32* [ANF 7:495; PG 1:1134]). If anything could be desired here, it would be supplied both by a subsequent ordination and by the public authority of the magistrate and the consent of the people. &quot;


----------



## py3ak

[quote:1fdce93623]
&quot;XXII. While the ministry flourishes in a church, she ought indeed to use it for the calling of pastors; nor can she ordinarily institute pastors, except by the min&shy;istry already constituted. But the ministry failing (being miserably corrupted), she can elect ministers to herself for her edification, even without the interven&shy;tion of a ministry; both because she has this right from God and because in every time and place she is bound to preserve a ministry for the instruction of believ&shy;ers. Nor can it be said without the greatest absurdity that it is better in a case of necessity (all pastors failing) for a church to remain without pastors and to be without external and public worship and the exercise of religion, waiting for God to raise up others out of the ranks, than to call pastors without the interven&shy;tion of other pastors. The necessity of a ministry to give a call is a necessity only of order (which ought to be observed in an instituted state), but which is not ab&shy;solutely and simply necessary to salvation. But the necessity of the preaching of the gospel and of the call of pastors to it is a necessity of salvation which cannot be obtained without the word and faith in it. Again, since the end is to be preferred to the means, the institution of pastors, which is the end, should be considered more necessary than the observance of the received order, so that it may not be done except by pastors, which is only a means to secure that end. And since primary obligations ought to take precedence over later obligations, who doubts that the law which places the necessity of a ministry in the church binds much more strongly than that which wishes no one to be ordained except by the min&shy;istry of other pastors? The latter is particular, holding good only in a constituted order and while its use is possible, but which has its exceptions; but the former is universal, which in every time and place without any exception ought to obtain. Hence when it is impossible for both laws to be observed, regard should be paid altogether to the first (which is the more ancient and universal) and the cause and foundation of the second.&quot;
[/quote:1fdce93623]

What Turrettin says sounds good to me.


----------



## fredtgreco

I agree with the quote from Turretin above. I'm guessing that Phillip would too.


----------



## dswatts

[quote:8766e80974][i:8766e80974]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:8766e80974]
I agree with the quote from Turretin above. I'm guessing that Phillip would too. [/quote:8766e80974]



Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The question then arises - was the Presbyterian Church at the time and the Westminster Assembly &quot;miserably corrupted&quot;? If they were, then Independents have a case to revive an entirely new church apart from the Presbyterians. Which is Turretin's argument against the Roman Church and the necessity of raising up the Reformers.

If they were not &quot;miserably corrupted&quot; then the Independents, as Goodwin, Burroughs, Nye and others noted being Independents, are wrong for inducing and holding congregationalism.

That would mean every Independent pastor would be unlawfully called, and seen, rather, as a schismatic based on the Scriptural mandate for the imposition of hands by lawfully called elders.

Maybe a better question would be this: How can, governmentally, an Independent, justify breaking away from the orthodox church without the imposition of hands?

The Independents at the time of the Westminster Assembly could not have possibly thought the WA as corrupt (five of their greatest theologians sat on that Assembly!) So how in the world do they justify the break?


----------



## Me Died Blue

This makes sense, for the most part. I completely agree with sections V-IX, and sections XI-XXXI, in the main point that the means is to be desired above the end (as Jesus demonstrated with doctrine and calling in Matthew 21), and if we cannot exercise both of two commands given us (the command to preach the word and administer the sacraments, and that to ordain ministers only by the ordinary means), the more important command should take precedence, just as God's own election of us does over His &quot;love&quot; for all, in the principle of His two wills.

However, in section X, it is stated, &quot;Although we maintain that a true call was in the church of Rome, we do not on this account recognize her as a true church.&quot; Turretin is essentially saying, all true churches have true callings, but not all true callings come from true churches. How is the calling from a false church to be considered valid as an ordinary, elder-commissioned calling? I would grant that all the Reformers were indeed biblically justified in their calling [i:206125c6e7]because[/i:206125c6e7] of the ends-over-means principle of obeying commands (which I summarized above). But I do not see how they can be understood to be biblically justified in their calling [i:206125c6e7]because of the calling of a false church[/i:206125c6e7]. I know I'm probably missing something, so where is this rooted in Scripture?

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Scott Bushey

&lt;hearing a pin drop&gt;


----------



## py3ak

Webmaster,

Would your question (about the Independents being schismatics) be affected in any way by what Hetherington says about there really being NO church government in England at the time? It's p. 115
&quot;There was a Christian Church in England, but not organized.&quot;

This might correspond to what you quoted from Turrettin &quot;we must distinguish between a church constituted and to be constituted or reformed&quot;

If the Church in England was &quot;to be constituted&quot; then were the Independents actually seceding? Can you secede from a non-constituted ecclesiastical body? 

I'm not defending them, just wondering how the specific situation comes into play.


----------



## fredtgreco

Chris,

I think the key is in the phrase &quot;a true call was.&quot; What Turretin is saying is that there were those that had a true calling in an untrue church because a true church was not constituted, and the Roman church was true when it issued the calls.

I may be wrong however. Because even today it is claimed that an untrue church, that Christians are forbidden from joining with can have true sacraments. Well, one at least.


[quote:d8ecf6465d][i:d8ecf6465d]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:d8ecf6465d]
However, in section X, it is stated, &quot;Although we maintain that a true call was in the church of Rome, we do not on this account recognize her as a true church.&quot; Turretin is essentially saying, all true churches have true callings, but not all true callings come from true churches. How is the calling from a false church to be considered valid as an ordinary, elder-commissioned calling? I would grant that all the Reformers were indeed biblically justified in their calling [i:d8ecf6465d]because[/i:d8ecf6465d] of the ends-over-means principle of obeying commands (which I summarized above). But I do not see how they can be understood to be biblically justified in their calling [i:d8ecf6465d]because of the calling of a false church[/i:d8ecf6465d]. I know I'm probably missing something, so where is this rooted in Scripture?

In Christ,

Chris [/quote:d8ecf6465d]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Awesome question.

The reason all this came up for the Long Parliament was the obvious persecution of the puritan ministers, and the issues surrounding non-conformity.

So, Long Parliament dictates to the Assembly now convened, we need to establish the biblical necessities surrounding Form of Government. things are getting out of hand, and we need to uphold the SL&amp;C.

At this point the Assembly basically &quot;dropped&quot; what they were doing, saw this need, and took the next few months to hash all this out. (I think at this point they were working through the decrees of God, I can't remember offhand.)

Who was right? Independents? Presbyterians? This needed to be set in stone. (It is also interesting that the Erastians did not even want to partake of this debate).

There was a presence for both these groups in the Assembly, but now that things would get down to brass tacks, one group would win, and the other would lose.

After hashing out this information, and the biblical warrants for practice, the arguments for Independency crumbled (and I think the Independents knew it by the framing of their arguments in post-printed documentation about the assembly.) 

In any case, the Independents, at the point the decision was made by the Assembly (or the Presbytery), should have realigned themselves with a Presbyterian form of government, rather than a schismatic approach, which was to break away from the Solemn League and Covenant ALREADY established towards the beginning of their meetings with the Scottish Church. In other words, the Scottish Church has already &quot;covenanted&quot; with the Assembly and churches of England through the SL&amp;C. As a result, church order would be big on their list. Rutherford and Gillespie were key in aiding the English to form their church government. And all these men upheld the Covenant - so to break it would be to be schismatic anyway.

So the Independents not only broke the SL&amp;C, but they became schismatics to the order set by the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:3f6dccc750][i:3f6dccc750]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:3f6dccc750]
Chris,

I think the key is in the phrase &quot;a true call was.&quot; What Turretin is saying is that there were those that had a true calling in an untrue church because a true church was not constituted, and the Roman church was true when it issued the calls.[/quote:3f6dccc750]

I don't want to come off as being difficult, but I'm not quite following you here. What do you mean by &quot;the Roman church was true when it issued the calls&quot;? Do you mean that they (the Roman Church) intended the calls as true when they issued them? Or do you mean that they were a true church when they issued them (I don't think you mean this)?

[quote:3f6dccc750][i:3f6dccc750]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:3f6dccc750]
Because even today it is claimed that an untrue church, that Christians are forbidden from joining with can have true sacraments. Well, one at least.[/quote:3f6dccc750]

That's a good point, since we typically hold that the grace God attaches to baptism, he attaches to the sacrament itself, and not to its administrators (which could possibly parallel the ordination of elders). But that just now got me to thinking, if that were totally the case, then an infant being baptized by his or her lay-parent in the hospital would have to be considered valid as well - and that certainly seems unscriptural. Hmm...


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:916f67f734][i:916f67f734]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:916f67f734]
[quote:916f67f734][i:916f67f734]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:916f67f734]
Chris,

I think the key is in the phrase &quot;a true call was.&quot; What Turretin is saying is that there were those that had a true calling in an untrue church because a true church was not constituted, and the Roman church was true when it issued the calls.[/quote:916f67f734]

I don't want to come off as being difficult, but I'm not quite following you here. What do you mean by &quot;the Roman church was true when it issued the calls&quot;? Do you mean that they (the Roman Church) intended the calls as true when they issued them? Or do you mean that they were a true church when they issued them (I don't think you mean this)?
[/quote:916f67f734]

You're not being difficult. What I meant was this. The Roman Church had not yet become an untrue church before the Reformation. It was not until the Reformers understood that the Roman Church was unreformable and not a true church any longer (lacking the marks) that they departed. Contrary to much of the thought on the current scene, they did not depart immediately. That would mean that the ordination that the Reformers had (and carried with them to the Protestant Church) was valid, and hence their successors', valid.

Make sense?


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:acfdbd1ee3][i:acfdbd1ee3]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:acfdbd1ee3]
The Roman Church had not yet become an untrue church before the Reformation. It was not until the Reformers understood that the Roman Church was unreformable and not a true church any longer (lacking the marks) that they departed. Contrary to much of the thought on the current scene, they did not depart immediately. That would mean that the ordination that the Reformers had (and carried with them to the Protestant Church) was valid, and hence their successors', valid.

Make sense? [/quote:acfdbd1ee3]

I totally understand what you mean by that, and in fact that was what I had thought you meant in your previous post. But the reason I originally thought I must have been misunderstanding you is that I'm of the mindset that the Roman Church [i:acfdbd1ee3]had[/i:acfdbd1ee3] already been a false church centuries before the Reformation. I say this because they were already preaching a false Word and administering the sacraments wrongly long before men like Wycliffe, Luther and Calvin realized it. So are you saying that Rome's being a false church was conditional upon saints realizing it?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Chris - 

What if I ask this: When Lefevere or Luther began preaching justification by faith alone, did that make them false teachers? I would imagine you would say of course not. Well, remember, they taught that as part of the ordained priesthood of Rome.

Or, in another case, there were Augustinian monks who really did understand salvation by grace long before Luther was even born.

A false church would have to be categorized as one which denies the major tenants of the Gospel, or of Christian doctrine (Trinity, deity of Christ, justification, etc.)

Would the Catholic Church have been false in Luther's day while Luther, as a monk and priest, was teaching Justification by faith? it could not have been unless you beg the question. Rather, as Fred pointed out, it was not until AFTER they left the church to itself, and Gospel teaching was removed from its midst, that it remained in error, and rejected the truth.


----------



## fredtgreco

I think to that for many, it was at Trent, when Rome anathamatized the gospel, that it became clear that Rome was not a true church.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

That would be a good time frame, though we would not ignore anything said &quot;ex cathedra&quot; as equally absurd.


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:2a3dbd54aa][i:2a3dbd54aa]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:2a3dbd54aa]
Would the Catholic Church have been false in Luther's day while Luther, as a monk and priest, was teaching Justification by faith? it could not have been unless you beg the question. Rather, as Fred pointed out, it was not until AFTER they left the church to itself, and Gospel teaching was removed from its midst, that it remained in error, and rejected the truth. [/quote:2a3dbd54aa]

OK, I guess it was historical ignorance on my part, because even though I knew there were other teachers of the true Gospel before Luther and during Luther's time, I just didn't think they made up [i:2a3dbd54aa]nearly[/i:2a3dbd54aa] a great enough portion of the Roman Church to constitute it as a true church. I was basically thinking of it as analogous to calling a modern church like the Church of Christ (which often denies Sola Fide and Christ's divinity while on earth) a true church just because there are a few good teachers in it. But now I realize that the difference is that the Roman Church had not [i:2a3dbd54aa]officially[/i:2a3dbd54aa] denied those essential tenets until [i:2a3dbd54aa]after[/i:2a3dbd54aa] the Reformation, even though there were individual priests who denied them. Thanks for clearing that up, Fred and Matt.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## Ianterrell

Chris,

I was suprised to learn not long ago that Luther's teaching was not exactly unpopular with many of the Catholic Clergy but the hostility was much personally directed towards him! This is not too different from the Puritan's break with the Church of England. Both the Puritans and the Church of England were Calvinistic theologically.


----------



## pastorway

[quote:29ac064fb5][i:29ac064fb5]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:29ac064fb5]
I agree with the quote from Turretin above. I'm guessing that Phillip would too. [/quote:29ac064fb5]

Yep...sounds good to me!

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue

That surprises me too, Ian. I had always thought that Wycliffe, Luther, etc. were just a few needles in the haystack of Rome.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:a04a8189d0]Yep...sounds good to me! [/quote:a04a8189d0]


So would you then say that the Westminster Assembly was &quot;miserably corrupted&quot; and find warrant for Independency?


----------



## pastorway

The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself. 

When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other &quot;branch&quot; or &quot;member&quot; of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the &quot;divines&quot; speak for the whole body.

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:c757db153b][i:c757db153b]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:c757db153b]
The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself. 

When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other &quot;branch&quot; or &quot;member&quot; of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the &quot;divines&quot; speak for the whole body.

Phillip [/quote:c757db153b]

Of course the WA was not the whole church by itself - but at that time it [i:c757db153b]did[/i:c757db153b] reasonably (though not perfectly, of course) [i:c757db153b]represent[/i:c757db153b] the entire Presbyterian church. And that's actually how Matt had worded the question earlier in the thread: &quot;The question then arises - was the Presbyterian Church at the time and the Westminster Assembly &quot;miserably corrupted&quot;?&quot;

Furthermore, the issue of to what extent one considers the WCF to be a reasonable summary of orthodoxy itself is another issue altogether.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## py3ak

Webmaster,

Well, that does seem to settle it. Since the Solemn League &amp; Covenant says that they will preserve Scotland's church government, and seek to reform England's and Ireland's, while at the same time bringing them into as much uniformity and conjunction as possible, once the debate as to what government was according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches was decided, that should have been the end of it.

As a follow-up question, does Independency contain a similar safeguard against secession as Presbyterianism? Or does strict Independency necessarily lead to a free-for-all? For instance, if the Westminster debate had been settled in favor of Independency, would it have been schismatic for the losing party to form another church? Obviously it would have been with regard to the Solemn League and Covenant --but under Independency's paradigm is schism possible?


----------



## Me Died Blue

This is just my :wr50:, but I don't see why not. I mean hey, if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable even when the Church is [i:34e2366252]not[/i:34e2366252] miserably corrupted, they no longer really have any grounds for preventing free-for-all schism of any kind.


----------



## py3ak

[quote:055ab258eb]
I mean hey, if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable 
[/quote:055ab258eb]

That is exactly what I am asking. Is leaving the church (when not miserably corrupted) acceptable under the Independent model?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:dc1ed48a11]
but under Independency's paradigm is schism possible? 
[/quote:dc1ed48a11]

In one respect, this is EXACTLY the point of the whole thing. The answer would be &quot;no&quot; and that brings into question the idea of intention and polity according to Christ and His apostles for the church in general - is it a free for all, or is He a God of order? The appointment of elders in this regard is also the &quot;cruciality&quot; of the issue too. Free for all, or order?

In terms of history, to say that the WA was not &quot;the church&quot; is really to side step the whole issue brother.

Even if we were to trace the historical church during this time, you have the:

Roman Catholic Chruch

Division into Lutherans and Reformed

Division of the Reformed into Reformed and Church of England (combination of Catholic and sundry other ministers at the time).

Then that covers about the time period until the puritans, OUT OF WHICH you have the Independents, and the Presbyterians.

I've over simplified it a bit, but even the splinter groups right before the Reformation (Lollards, Moravians, etc) are part of the RCC of the day. The only exception to that would be the Anabaptists, which demonstrated a blatant schismatism, of which defines the very point at hand.

If we look at the Assembly itself, it houses Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Erastians, Independets, etc. It was by the state (Long Parliment) that this &quot;assembly&quot; came together on behalf of the Reformation Church, the Lutherans excluded as following Melancthon at the time and still holding to much of Rome.


[quote:dc1ed48a11]
if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable even when the Church is not miserably corrupted, they no longer really have any grounds for preventing free-for-all schism of any kind.
[/quote:dc1ed48a11]

Correct. Which is the danger of the position, and I think on that grounds alone demosntrates it error. You would have to say that God is up for a free for all, and wanted it that way. That is a far cry from the OT!


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:ba5db8eae6][i:ba5db8eae6]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:ba5db8eae6]
The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself. 

When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other &quot;branch&quot; or &quot;member&quot; of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the &quot;divines&quot; speak for the whole body.

Phillip [/quote:ba5db8eae6]

Phillip,
They did speak for the majority of Romans opposers -no?

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Good thread. Tis Done.


----------

