earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Thank you. I asked because I think have heard of non ordained RE's (PCA) who lead studies in churches who are not pastors. Kosher?
2, 2.5 or 3 office?
- Thread starter Abeard
- Start date
- Status
Thank you. I asked because I think have heard of non ordained RE's (PCA) who lead studies in churches who are not pastors. Kosher?
All office holders are ordained. That is intrinsic to holding office. They may for a period of time not be installed in a particular congregation. In the RPCGA, which is two-office/multi-function, all officers (even deacons) are ordained at the Presbytery level. In three-office denominations such as the OPC, REs and deacons are typically ordained at the Session level. Regardless, a man is either ordained, or he is not an officer.
Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
There is no such animal in the PCA. All ruling elders are ordained. It's up to the session of the particular church as to whether a ruling elder can preach the sermon. A ruling elder may not administer the sacraments. Indeed, a session could permit a non-PCAer or even a non-NAPARC man to preach the sermon.
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
Appreciate all the info!
Just to clarify a few things.
1)With the three office view, is it always the case that the RE cannot preach or teach? Also, is it possible to ordain a TE just to preach? or is the TE specifically the Pastor?
2)With the two office, if it's possible for the elder to preach and teach, would he not be required to go through the same ordination process as a full time minister would?
Just to clarify a few things.
1)With the three office view, is it always the case that the RE cannot preach or teach? Also, is it possible to ordain a TE just to preach? or is the TE specifically the Pastor?
2)With the two office, if it's possible for the elder to preach and teach, would he not be required to go through the same ordination process as a full time minister would?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Those that have questions, particularly about the two office approach, might benefit from reading the PCA position paper from 1979 found here: PCA Position Papers: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Number of Offices (1979)
There are additional supporting materials under the "Number of Offices in the Church" section here: PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America
Unfortunately, the chart at the first link does not display very well. It shows two 'Classes' of Office, with the office of elder divided between teaching or ruling elders (shown as the "Order") and with teaching elders further divided between Pastors and Evangelists ("Family")
There are additional supporting materials under the "Number of Offices in the Church" section here: PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America
Unfortunately, the chart at the first link does not display very well. It shows two 'Classes' of Office, with the office of elder divided between teaching or ruling elders (shown as the "Order") and with teaching elders further divided between Pastors and Evangelists ("Family")
It happens, but whether it should is another question. (1) It usually goes under a different name to distinguish it from preaching, e.g., exhorting. (2) It is usually regarded as necessary in an unsettled condition of the church. (3) It would be desirable if it could be overseen by Presbytery and not contradict the basic principle that the people have a right to call those who shall serve as their minister. (4) "Reading" has been the traditional provision.
To clarify "teaching elder" is not an appropriate term. He is called to minister word and sacraments AND to exercise government. This is especially the case in the three office view. Yes, it is possible to ordain a minister without a pastoral charge. He would not be inducted.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Suffice it to say I have a headache. 2, 2.5, 3?.....For starters calling our pastors a TE who are able to administer the sacraments and preach The Word....RE's who may "extort" but not preach or administer the sacraments.....Suffice it to say I am happy you all understand this all. 
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Not sure if you were trying to make a funny or not, but for those who might stumble upon the thread, the word is 'exhort', not 'extort'.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Not.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
It isn't a 3 office view, nor 2.5 it is a 2 office view, in a church session the minister of the Word, Pastor or Teacher, is an
Elder, though he has a different gift, the ascension gift of Pastor or Teacher, so he fulfils a different role to ruling elders,
yet is still every wit an Elder a they, they are all Bishops or overseers of the flock, Bishops are Elders & Elders are Bishops,
there exists a parity amongst them, the Minister is considered first amongst equals & has more honour due to gifting,
not more because he has a higher office.
the 3 office system only exists when you make a rift in the Eldership by designating the Pastor/Minister a Bishop while
stripping the Ruling Elders of that title, this destroys the parity in the Eldership or session.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The Westminster Standards teach a 3-office view; see the Form of Presbyterial Church Government:
AS there were in the Jewish church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the church;so Christ, who hath instituted government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church, hath furnished some in his church, beside the ministers of the word, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with the minister in the government of the church. Which officers reformed churches commonly call Elders.
Note that the ruling elder is seen as having a distinct office from the minister, though they are equal at the point of government. It is also significant that most Presbyterian churches have historically ordained ruling elders by local sessions, but ordained ministers by the Presbytery.
Recognising a distinction between the offices of minister and ruling elder need not imply that ministers and ruling elders are not co-pastors over the flock of God. I do not deny that there are abuses of the 3-office view, such as when a minister tries to be a lord over God's heritage, but that should not undermine legitimate distinctions between ruling elders and ministers.
Last edited:
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Also I wonder if some confusion comes in by having other elders (or laymen or laywomen) besides a pastor teach?
That is inevitable and there are many different issues which arise as a result. Occam's Razor generally prevails and the ministerial office (or function) is treated as if it is redundant, and so the church's fundamental commission as a teaching ministry to the world is either left undone or done with less conviction.
Whether folk like to admit it or not, the great commission requires ministers of the word and sacraments to fulfil it. This unique commission is the underlying basis for an unique office; and as long as ministers enter upon their office with this unique charge it forms a distinct office.
While the subject is under discussion, here's a question to which I've had trouble finding an answer from a three-office perspective: what scriptural justification is given for ordination of ruling elders and deacons by sessions rather than by presbyteries?
Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
The ruling eldership is a different office. It is congregational.
I understand this, but are there any Scriptural examples of ordination by church courts besides presbytery? Or is it judged appropriate by some other scriptural argument? If different offices necessarily required ordination in different courts, then deacons and ruling elders could not be ordained by the same court as they universally are.
Also, aren't there practical dangers in giving a man authority beyond his court of examination, i.e., a ruling elder voting at presbytery?
Added: either you added "It is congregational" after I read the post, or I just missed it. That helps a little. I'd find it helpful if you fleshed it out a bit.
Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Well, how much can be delegated lawfully? I teach my wife and daughter albeit not nearly as well as I should. I don't do this to usurp the TEs nor confuse the laity but because I believed I am called to do so.
We also meet in a small groups bi-weekly at an elder's(usually an RE) home for singing, prayer, instruction and discussions. I know the sr. pastor usually takes the morning and evening Sunday worship. Soon we will probably be going to two morning services. He also takes a Sunday school class and maintains a steady visitation load. The associate pastor takes a Sunday School class, two small groups(one of them that is 45 minute drive one way). He also is meeting with two other groups of family(inquirers) regularly to review outlines of Covenant Theology (previous Sunday School material). As far as teaching, why can they not delegate others to help out? These guys are kind of tapped out. I don't find myself confused about their mission but just want to help them out as God sees fit.
The reason several of us men are working our way through Doriani's "Getting the Message" is the associate pastor wants more competent handlers of Scripture in the Church. One of our elders is a world traveler as part of his work. I pinch hit for his high school SS class on occasion when he is out of town. I also just want to handle the Word better for many other reason as this increase of knowledge and biblical competence trickles down our children, families and simple discussions about God's Word as we fellowship. It's the stuff that makes the elders and deacons of the future. This is all done under the leadership of our teaching elders. Protestantism is not a religion where ruling elders and laymen cannot instruct their brethren under the care of the teaching elders in the Church.
Christ ordained the apostles and the apostles ordained elders, and evangelists had the power of ordination for a time. The principle is that the higher office holds the power of ordination. The Presbytery has the power of oversight concerning the ministry of word and sacraments; hence ministers are ordained by Presbytery. Likewise the Session has the oversight of the congregation, so the Session has the power to ordain elders. The same principle applies to the continued oversight and function of these distinct offices, and so they have their "seats" in the different courts. Even if office is reinterpreted to mean there are two "functions," prudence would dictate they should be ordained by and sit in different courts. Otherwise the Session would cease to exercise authority over ruling elders, which would be absurd.
He functions as a representative of the Session/congregation, which is a practical application of the principle that Session is under Presbytery. The danger in giving all ruling elders this "authority" would be that Presbytery would essentially be turned into a representative assembly and cease to function as the radical court of the church.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I understand though having been around the PB for some time with the numerous pastors here, and also under my pastor's teaching at our church, I have come to the realization of the huge advantages of a well educated professional. It is humbling to see such men of God discuss The Word and I feel privileged to witness such.
Grafted In
Puritan Board Freshman
Let me ask this; what happens when a ruling elder aspires to and prepares for the ministry of word and sacrament in a 2/2.5 office view? Is the man ordained again to the office of minister of word and sacrament?
I believe the answer is 'yes, he is.' But why, if it is the same office, with merely a different function?
I believe the answer is 'yes, he is.' But why, if it is the same office, with merely a different function?
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
I think with the two office view the RE normally only preaches for relief of the Pastor(correct me if i'm wrong) and if he aspires to be preaching/teaching full time his theology and doctrines need to be examined by the Presbytery.
Why is that absurd if the Presbytery is diligent in its oversight of church governors just as with ministers and doctors?
Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
To be a distinct court it must have its own basic membership to constitute it. If the ruing elders were ordained by Presbytery they would be members of Presbytery and would have to be "commissioned" in some way to sit on the Session, which means the Session would serve as an administrative arm of the Presbytery rather than a distinct court of the church. At that point the congregation would cease to have its own distinctive government.
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for responses everyone
I have one other question if this thread has not run its course. This question is for those who hold the three office position: does a teaching elder who does not rule go through a different examination/ordination process than a ruling elder? Also, can a teaching elder who does not rule be ordained by the session?
I have one other question if this thread has not run its course. This question is for those who hold the three office position: does a teaching elder who does not rule go through a different examination/ordination process than a ruling elder? Also, can a teaching elder who does not rule be ordained by the session?
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Ruling elders are members of the Session and are only members of Presbytery as they are commissioned by the Session to serve in Presbytery (or judicatories higher/broader than Presbytery). The Presbytery consists of its "natural" members (all the ministers in the regional church) and those ruling elders commissioned to it for any of its particular meetings.
All ministers, whether installed in a local congregation as a pastor (Sr., Associate, etc.) or not, are members of Presbytery. As such they are governors of the regional church. So there is no such thing as a minister who does not rule, at least at the level of the regional church.
If a teaching elder (minister) is called by a local congregation to serve as pastor (or associate pastor; though not assistant--in the PCA--who is merely hired by the Session, not called by the congregation), upon installation he is a member of the Session. If a minister, say, one who is a teacher at a seminary, is only a member of Presbytery and not installed somewhere in a pastoral position, he is not a member of a Session, unless he is somehow made to serve on the Session (through, say, Presbytery augmentation and congregational/sessional approval). But a minister would never be "ordained by the Session" because he is already ordained to the office of minister.
In the Presbyterian schema, the higher offices enfold the lower, so that a minister is also a ruling elder and a deacon, even as a ruling elder is also a deacon (seen by the fact that they serve as such particularly in the absence of deacons). Thus if a man is a minister, he needs no further ordination to serve on a Session--only a pastoral call and installation or Presbytery augmentation/congregational approbation.
At the risk of self-promotion, I point out again my article on this (linked earlier in this thread), which deals with a number of things that Matthew and Daniel have pointed out, particularly that the central task of the church is to be an instrument used of the Spirit to "gather and perfect the saints" as called to do in the Great Commission. The ministerial office is given especially for that purpose of ministering the Word and Sacraments to which our Lord called His church in Matthew 28: 18-20.
Peace,
Alan
All ministers, whether installed in a local congregation as a pastor (Sr., Associate, etc.) or not, are members of Presbytery. As such they are governors of the regional church. So there is no such thing as a minister who does not rule, at least at the level of the regional church.
If a teaching elder (minister) is called by a local congregation to serve as pastor (or associate pastor; though not assistant--in the PCA--who is merely hired by the Session, not called by the congregation), upon installation he is a member of the Session. If a minister, say, one who is a teacher at a seminary, is only a member of Presbytery and not installed somewhere in a pastoral position, he is not a member of a Session, unless he is somehow made to serve on the Session (through, say, Presbytery augmentation and congregational/sessional approval). But a minister would never be "ordained by the Session" because he is already ordained to the office of minister.
In the Presbyterian schema, the higher offices enfold the lower, so that a minister is also a ruling elder and a deacon, even as a ruling elder is also a deacon (seen by the fact that they serve as such particularly in the absence of deacons). Thus if a man is a minister, he needs no further ordination to serve on a Session--only a pastoral call and installation or Presbytery augmentation/congregational approbation.
At the risk of self-promotion, I point out again my article on this (linked earlier in this thread), which deals with a number of things that Matthew and Daniel have pointed out, particularly that the central task of the church is to be an instrument used of the Spirit to "gather and perfect the saints" as called to do in the Great Commission. The ministerial office is given especially for that purpose of ministering the Word and Sacraments to which our Lord called His church in Matthew 28: 18-20.
Peace,
Alan
What ever happened to the office of doctor/teacher? In the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, four offices are listed: pastors, doctors/teachers, church-governors, and deacons, the first three being within the order of elder. This is very similar to the two-office view's division of the eldership into three functions. We can scruple about terminology (order, office, function), and that's fine and may be valid, but why isn't the three-office view a four-office view?
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Because what is often referred to as the "four-office view" regards both the pastor and the doctor/teacher as a minister.
Here is Westminster in its Form of Presbyterial Church Government : "THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor,
Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments." Calvin and others who teach such are to the same effect.
The OPC Form of Government sets forth the broader office of minister in chapter 6 and in the following chapters sets forth the various expressions of such: Evangelists (missionaries, chaplains, etc., Chapter 7), Pastors (Chapter 8) and Teachers (in the local congregation, seminary, etc., Chapter 9). These are all ministers, however.
Peace,
Alan
Here is Westminster in its Form of Presbyterial Church Government : "THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor,
Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments." Calvin and others who teach such are to the same effect.
The OPC Form of Government sets forth the broader office of minister in chapter 6 and in the following chapters sets forth the various expressions of such: Evangelists (missionaries, chaplains, etc., Chapter 7), Pastors (Chapter 8) and Teachers (in the local congregation, seminary, etc., Chapter 9). These are all ministers, however.
Peace,
Alan
Thank you for answering, Dr. Strange. And a belated thanks to Rev. Winzer for answering my previous questions. I believe I've exhausted my own questions for the present. This is certainly an interesting subject.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
Daniel you're right on this matter, I'm willing to concede the point. I was under the impression that Samuel Miller taught a 2 Office view, having read the book a while back, so having a look at his Ruling Elder, he advocates the 3 office view,
in his Introductory chapter he writes
" In every Church completely organized, that is, furnished with all the officers which Christ has instituted, and which are necessary for carrying into full effect
the laws of his kingdom, there ought to be three classes of officers, viz: at least one Teaching Elder, Bishop, or Pastor-a bench of Ruling Elders-and Deacons."
"The following Essay will be devoted to the consideration of the SECOND CLASS of these officers, namely, RULING ELDERS;"
Likewise found that Gillespie in his An assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland says in Ch 2 speaks even of 4 Offices;
" But they differ, in that the pastor laboureth in the word of exhortation, that is, by the gift of wisdom applieth the word to the manners of his flock, and that in season and out of season, as he knoweth their particular cases to require. The doctor laboureth in the word of doctrine, that is, without such applications as the pastor useth; by simple teaching he preserveth the truth and sound interpretation of the Scriptures, against all heresy and error. The ruling elder doth neither of these, but laboureth in the government and policy of the church only. The Apostle hath distinguished these three sorts of elders, 1 Tim. 5.17, "Let elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." Where, as Beza noteth, he distinguished the word, which is the pastor's part, from doctrine, which is the doctor's part. Even as Rom. 12.7,8, he distinguisheth teaching from exhortation; and 1 Cor. 12.8, putteth "the word of wisdom," and "the word of knowledge," for two different things. Now, besides those elders which labour in the word, and those which labour in doctrine, Paul speaketh to Timothy of a third sort of elders, which labour neither in the word nor doctrine, but in ruling well. Hence it appeareth how truly the Book of Policy, cap. 2, saith, That there are four ordinary, perpetual, and necessary offices in the church, the office of the pastor, the doctor, the elder, and the deacon; and that no other office, which is not one of these four, ought to be received, or suffered in the church."
Gillespie quotes Peter Lombard [Lib. 4. dist. 4.] in the 2nd Chap of his Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland who says: "treading the vestiges of the primitive simplicity, did observe that the apostles left only two sacred orders to be perpetual in the church, the order of deacons and the order of elders." so I've muddled up my terminology, this is what I should have said that their are 2 Orders in the Church, the 1st being that of Elders or Bishops used interchangeably, & the 2nd that of Deacons, so within the Eldership are different offices 2 or 3 depending on whether or not you see Pastor & Teacher as a separate office.
What Thomas Smyth believes in his "The Name, Nature and Functions of Ruling Elders, wherein it is shown from the testimony of Scripture, the Fathers and the Reformers that Ruling Elders are not Presbyters or Bishops and that as Representatives of the People, their Office ought to be temporary;" I see as an error and was what I was contending against but confused the issue, as the scriptures say that Elders are Bishops & Bishops are Elders. Thomas Smyth held that the qualifications for the Eldership
in 1 Timothy Chaps 3 & 5 weren't for Ruling Elders but given for Ministers, as he held that only they are true Presbyters or Bishops & that the qualification for ruling elders was given in the Old Testament.
So I would say then that there are 2 Orders in the Church not 2 Offices, this clears up the confusion for me, if Ministers of the Word are a separate & distinct Office from the Ruling Elder, then the Eldership cannot be an Office, but must be an order.
If there is an Order called both Elders or Bishops interchangeably, within which all Ruling Offices operate ie; Pastors, Teachers & Ruling Elders then this maintains a parity within the Eldership or Bishopric as to an Order, not Office.
so what Matthew says over in post 20 rings true;
- Status
