A Question for Matt re: Lawful Ordination

Status
Not open for further replies.

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Matt,

I have been re-reading your articles dealing with ordination and the visible church and I had a question. I am not intending to debate this or challenge your views, I am just looking for a little clarification in my own understanding of your position.

Here is my first question:

Can an unlawfully ordained elder (according to your view of lawful ordination) rightly administer the sacraments?

Thanks!

Phillip
 
second question, though unrelated, just a curiousity -

since you had formerly renounced your Baptist ordination and have now been re-ordained, I know that you had also renounced your Baptist baptism as invalid. Have you been re-baptized?

I do understand that since you have renounced the former then you would not say it was a "re" anything, but being done rightly the first time now.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Phillip

[Edited on 9-27-05 by pastorway]
 
Can an unlawfully ordained elder (according to your view of lawful ordination) rightly administer the sacraments?

Let me say it this way - an unlawfully ordained minister cannot lawfully administer anything. That would be a contradiction.

since you had formerly renounced your Baptist ordination and have now been re-ordained, I know that you had also renounced your Baptist baptism as invalid. Have you been re-baptized?

Though an unlawfully ordained minister administers the sacraments, though it is sinful, we would accept that if they are set under the marks of a true church and there was enough of the Gospel preached to be a true church.

So even though I reject Baptistic thought on government, I (and the RPCGA) would accept the baptism of someone previously baptized unless the church they came out of was apostate (Roman Catholic, PCUSA, etc).

So no, there would be no baptism again from someone that emerges out of a true church. Unlawful or invalid administration will not sever the lawful reception if the Gospel attends the sacraments (the sacrament being a visible manifestation of the Gospel).
 
Thanks for that answer. Now, here is my confusion.

Originally posted by webmaster
Can an unlawfully ordained elder (according to your view of lawful ordination) rightly administer the sacraments?

Let me say it this way - an unlawfully ordained minister cannot lawfully administer anything. That would be a contradiction.

On one hand you have written that a church, in order to be a true church, must have the sacraments rightly administered. That, for you, means that the elders must be lawfully ordained, and that children of church members must be baptized. But Baptist churches would not meet either requirement and therefore could not be rightly administering the sacraments. Can a church be a true church having only met 2 out of 3 marks of a true church, or are all 3 necessary?

From The Three Marks of a True Church (emphasis added)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonThreeMarksTrueChurch.htm

The correct administration of the sacraments must accompany the sacraments themselves for them to be used as a means of grace. The sacraments, in this case, can never be divorced from the Word of God and must be dispensed accordingly. They should be administered by lawful ministers, in accordance with the divine institution, and only to believers and their seed.

So how do you say that a Baptist church is a true church? Because on the other hand, you do admit that "unlawful", or "schismatic" churches (as you label independent or Baptist churches) can still be a true church. Consider:

From Lawful Ordination (emphasis added)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonLawfulOrdination.htm

I reject all forms of Independency as schismatic, and as dissenting from Christ´s Church. This does not mean that I believe all Christians who are part of a Baptist congregation or Independent congregation are not saved, or heretical, or totally apostate. Rather, it does mean that I believe them to be in grave error as to church government, rejecting the lawful authority of Christ and His governmental rule over His Church.

Churches that function outside the prescribed governmental structure (the jure divino of Christ) are sectaries and schismatic from the Church of Christ.

From Lawful Ordination (emphasis added)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonLawfulOrdination.htm

Independent Churches do not function as properly governed churches and subsequently are schismatic congregations of the visible church...

So we have a church that is schismatic, rejects Christ's authority, is not lawfully governed, cannot rightly administer the sacraments, and yet is still part of the visible church.

Here are further quotes from your articles on this topic:

From Who administers the sacraments? (emphasis added)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonWhoAdministersTheSacrament.htm

It is my desire in this short paper to demonstrate that only an ordained minister of the Gospel has the divine right and prerogative of administering the sacraments. Only an Elder is able and lawfully authorized to exercise the duties of an Elder.

From Lawful Ordination (emphasis added)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonLawfulOrdination.htm

I reject Independency and Independent ordination as invalid, and unlawful...

If Presbyterianism is correct in its ecclesiology, then Independency is not correct, and thus, it is schismatic and dividing Christ´s Church. It promotes a structure that is foreign to the Bible, and thus, those who are "œordained" in those churches are in fact not ordained lawfully, and not lawfully called to partake and exercise those privileges.

Independent Churches do not function as properly governed churches and subsequently are schismatic congregations of the visible church, and 2) the leadership in such churches are not following the government of biblically ordained ministers jure divino (and so are taking up the duties of an elder without having the authority to do so). Such an illicit office, as the Westminster Assembly concluded, is not to be tolerated.

The reader should note that I am not stating that those in ministerial situations outside proper church government and the Church are not gifted or graced with the proper non-negotiable qualifications for such an office. However, I am saying they should not be active in that role unless they are properly ordained by the Form of Presbyterian Church Government as outlined in the Westminster Standards in order to function under the governmental rule of Christ, and not a self-created role, or a congregational role that holds no power to ordain. They should be properly set apart by the Presbytery, not a local autonomous congregation, and lawfully called and ordained.

If what you have written is true, then how can any non-Presbyterian church and any non-Presbyterian minister be part of the true church.

Do you see the root of the confusion here for me? To make it personal (not to pick a fight, but just to make it clear) it seems as though your position as posted in your articles is that Maranatha Community Church, where I serve as pastor, is not a true church, and in fact, cannot be part of the visible church unless we accept that the sacraments can be unlawfully administered within a true church.

Simply put, I am having a hard time understanding how one can view a church as "schismatic, and as dissenting from Christ´s Church", "rejecting the lawful authority of Christ", "schismatic from the Church of Christ", and say that the pastors of such churches have been unlawfully ordained, which "as the Westminster Assembly concluded, is not to be tolerated", and at the same time say that these churches are true churches of Jesus Christ.

Can you elaborate on your view in any area where I may be misunderstanding you?

Thanks again,
Phillip
 
Phillip, I completely understand your misunderstanding on this.

I want to be very clear because you are equating some things as coextensive with others that ought not to be.

First, Maranatha Community Church is a true church. There are three marks of a true church. I know you know them, but you are extrapolating them out further than the marks require.

The WCF says that neglecting the baptism of some people is a great sin. I said it that way in particular. In other words, the neglect of baptizing children or infants is a great sin. It is not a damning sin, nor does it discount the idea behind the formulary of the three marks.

Baptism itself (i.e. the administration of the SACRAMENT in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and with water) is part of the threefold designation of a true church. Maranatha has baptized people that should not have been baptized. So have churches I have been in. Ultimately they become God-haters and leave the church. But that does not make the baptism itself invalid. (It actually, for them, seals their condemnation.) In the same way, the infant itself, or whether you have or not have baptized an infant, does not make the sacrament ITSELF invalid, or deter us from deeming your church a true church.

This is an important point. So don't confuse that.

On the second point, unlawfully ordained men can unlawfully administer the sacrament. But that does not make the sacrament invalid in the same way Calvin argued for accepting RC baptism in HIS DAY. Until a church is deemed "apostate", we would accept their baptism as it stand under the three marks of a true church.

When we say that baptism is rightly administered as under the three marks, we are talking about formulary, and water. We are not talking about subjects (unless of course you wanted to baptize your dog, then there would be problems).

A Baptist church could be schismatic (bene-esse problem) while being a true church (esse).

You can't confuse government (which also includes lawful ordination) with the marks of a true church - all those who profess true religion.

If what you have written is true, then how can any non-Presbyterian church and any non-Presbyterian minister be part of the true church.

The church may be a true church, though the minister is not a lawfully ordained minister. He may be part and parcel of the church, but is engaging in a sinful practice.

Does that help clarify?

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by webmaster]
 
that does help me in understanding your view. It seemed to me that you were being illogical in the conclusions you were making about the marks of a church and which churches are true.

I appreciate the clarification and may have more questions later.

Closing for now.....

Phillip

[Edited on 9-27-05 by pastorway]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top