# Meaning of A Lawfully ordained minister



## Romans922 (Jul 16, 2012)

WCF 28.2 states, "The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto*."

What is the meaning of the bolded?


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2012)

> LBC Chapter 26: Paragraph 11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that *others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church,* may and ought to perform it.



Lawfully ordained means gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit and approved and called by the church.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 16, 2012)

My understanding is a minister called within that process in a communion that could charitably be called a true church.


----------



## Tim (Jul 16, 2012)

KMK said:


> LBC Chapter 26: Paragraph 11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, *yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them* but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
> Lawfully ordained means gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit and approved and called by the church.



While there are many things that Baptists and Presbyterians can happily discuss in agreement, there is a distinction between the confessions on this point, so I think it would be beneficial to pursue the difference a bit, given the OP. The LBC recognizes men who are gifted and called, and yet are not considered bishops or pastors. The part I bolded (or thereabouts, I am not being exact) is not in Westminster.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 16, 2012)

The question concerns not the preaching of the Word but the sacraments, who may lawfully baptize?
The Westminster is trying to exclude baptisms by midwives and "preachers" with no fixed call from a Church.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 16, 2012)

What about Papist Priests? That's why I am asking. Are RC Priests lawfully ordained ministers?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 17, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> What about Papist Priests? That's why I am asking. Are RC Priests lawfully ordained ministers?



Wasn't that pretty much the essence of the great Hodge and Thornwell debate?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 17, 2012)

Perhaps, but that was pre-vatican 2 and I'm asking the PB.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 17, 2012)

You may find helpful the PCA report on the validity of certain baptisms:
PCA Position Papers: Baptism (1987); Validity of Certain Baptisms; Minority Report

The vote was 4-1 against receiving their validity, there was a majority report (4) and minority report (1) and both reports were received by General Assembly as guidance for due and serious consideration.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 17, 2012)

What would happen if a Jew would have been circumcised by somebody who would not have been lawfully ordain to do it? would he have been cut of from the covenant? you cannot re-circumcise him


----------



## H G Stoker (Jul 17, 2012)

I have a different view and you may perhaps not agree with me but please indulge me this.

My lay understanding of this is that originally (Pre-reformation and presently in the Orthodox church) the sacraments were only valid if administered by a lawfully ordained minister. A lawfully ordained minister of the Gospel was someone on whom the office was conveyed by another ordained minister in the presence of church eldership in an Orthodox denomination. The position was not only an ecclesiastical position but also a public office because originally Britain was a one-church state. This was accomplished to achieve ecclesiastical unity in the church, maintain doctrinal purity and to prevent sedition in the church which would eventually result in sedition in the state. Each nation had its own legal church, British - Cof E, Scots - Presbyterian, German - Lutheran, Dutch - DRC. No worship outside the autocephalus nation-church-state was permitted. This practice was understandable because the liberties granted to the Puritans eventually resulted in ecclesiastical sedition and eventually state sedition. This in turn resulted in the English Civil War and the replacement of a Calvinist Christian Monarchy with a liberal humanist secular parliament and the present decline of Christianity in the UK. Under this provision no sacrament administered by a minister of a heterodox denomination is deemed valid, thus excluding any rite administered by a baptist, RC or an Arminian. 

The Westminster confession was not drafted by the ecclesiastical nation-church-state by order of a monarch but rather by order of the secular parliament through an ecumenical body. It was very much a legal provision, but it currently is meaningless as a legal provision because of the Declaration of Religious indulgence of 1687 which superceeds it. However I believe that this clause was the reason why Bunyan was imprisoned. He was practicing ecclesiastical rites without a licence from a recognised denomination. It comparable to someone practicing medicine or law without a licence. It was seditious.

I am under the 3 forms so this principle was strictly applied here until we became a crown colony. Only Calvinists an Lutherans were permitted to worship. All other religions were banned.

Since the Westminster Confession is no longer a legal document, I would spiritualise the meaning as KMK has done or just disregard it.


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2012)

Tim said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > LBC Chapter 26: Paragraph 11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, *yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them* but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
> ...



I don't think Particular Baptists and Westminsterians were divided on this issue.



> WLC Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
> 
> A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently *gifted*, and also duly *approved* and *called* to that office.





> WLC Q. 176. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper agree?
> 
> A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant, *are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other*; and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.



The OP asks, what is meant by the words "by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto" in the WCF. The answer, according to the WCF and the LBC is, someone who is gifted and fitted by the Spirit and called and approved by the church. And, in the eyes of the Puritans it was the same for Word and Sacrament.


----------



## Tim (Jul 17, 2012)

Well, here is what I see when reading London vs. Westminster, unless I am missing something. Baptists (from LBC 26:1) allow not only officers (i.e., bishops/pastors) to preach, but also others. So, there are two categories of people who may be called to preach:

1. Bishops or pastors who are called
2. other gifted and called men

Now, if I take what you write here:



KMK said:


> And, in the eyes of the Puritans it was the same for Word and Sacrament.



it seems that there are men who are gifted and called to be ministers of the gospel who are not bishops/pastors, and these ministers may preach and baptize. Thus, a minister of the gospel is a larger category than bishop/pastor. Yet, my confusion with this is that now we have to find biblical qualifications for this larger group, that are more inclusive than the qualifications bishop/pastor given in Timothy/Titus.

To use a Seinfeldian expression, who are these people?


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2012)

> WLC Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
> 
> A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently *gifted*, and also duly *approved* and *called* to that office.





> WLC Q. 176. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper agree?
> 
> A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant, *are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other*; and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.



The above are from Westminster. A minister of the Gospel, according to Westminster, was one who was 'gifted' by the Spirit, and 'approved' and 'called' to that office. Those who should administer the sacraments, according to Westminster, were ministers of the Gospel and none other. Therefore, according to Westminster, those who are to administer the sacraments were those who were 'gifted' by the Spirit and 'called' and 'approved' by the church and none other.

That is all I was trying to say. Sorry for muddying the waters with a quote from the LBC but the Baptists were in essential agreement with Westminster on this issue but they simply worded it differently.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 17, 2012)

Wouldn't this also perchance have an application regarding the discouragement of simony?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 17, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> What about Papist Priests? That's why I am asking. Are RC Priests lawfully ordained ministers?


Indeed, one wonders, especially one like myself who was ordained in the RCC and later in the SBC. 

AMR


----------

