Apostolic Succession and Reformed Churches

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by DTK
Yes, elders were overseers,what does this prove? In an Episcopate a Bishop is an Elder,and a Priest is an Elder,one simply has been given more authority than the other. They are both overseers,so what is the point your making!!!

I am sorry that this is proving to be so difficult for you to see, but once again, I think that's an indication of how confused you are. What the example from Acts 20 proves is that all the elders at Ephesus were bishops, and the bishops were all elders. In other words, there is no basis for imagining that a bishop is a separate office, in which he presides over the other elders. Now, as I said in my post, stating it very carefully simply - this text and others in the New Testament prove that there was no Patriarchal office in the churches of the New Testament. Now, one must be very very confused indeed to miss that point which was made so carefully and clearly in my last post.

Moreover, you find no where in the New Testament any office for a priest. We are all priests before God, and as Chrysostom affirmed with other ECFs, we need no mediator with God apart from Christ.

What I find so amazing is this - You demonstrate yourself to be very unfamiliar with Holy Scripture. You give this pitch for "patristics and tradition" which you clearly haven't studied yourself. How can you in good conscience recommend a study of which you've never engaged yourself? When you understand so little of the New Testament Scriptures, why do you desire to move to a study of the patristics and traditions, the sources of which are far more difficult to ascertain and come by than the Scriptures? When over and over repeatedly, you demonstrate yourself to be uninformed on these matters, why recommend a discipline which you have yet to implement yourself? Do you not see, logically, how you have placed the cart before the horse, and how absurd such a recommendation appears?

It is clear that you do not understand the "ABCs" of the office, in which by your own testimony, you once served. Moreover, your confusion and frustration is showing when you ask me the obvious "what's your point?" Well, the points are clear. I think your responses are an indication that you don't know what to say, so you simply ask for the point to be repeated. Doesn't that give you cause to pause at your state of affairs?

Cheers,
DTK

Below is an Excerpt from Chrysostom,I am not sure why your trying to make a protestant out of him.I think He would disagree with you.

Treatise on the Priesthood (excerpt)
by St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407)


For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels. Wherefore the consecrated priest ought to be as pure as if he were standing in the heavens themselves in the midst of those powers. Fearful, indeed, and of most awful import, were the things which were used before the dispensation of grace, as the bells, the pomegranates, the stones on the breastplate and on the ephod, the girdle, the mitre, the long robe, the plate of gold, the holy of holies, the deep silence within. But if any one should examine the things which belong to the dispensation of grace, he will find that, small as they are, yet are they fearful and full of awe, and that what was spoken concerning the law is true in this case also, that "what has been made glorious hath no glory in this respect by reason of the glory which excelleth." For when thou seest the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, canst thou then think that thou art still amongst men, and standing upon the earth? Art thou not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, dost thou not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! what a marvel! what love of God to man! He who sitteth on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all, and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith! Do these things seem to you fit to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them?

Would you also learn from another miracle the exceeding sanctity of this office? Picture Elijah and the vast multitude standing around him, and the sacrifice laid upon the altar of stones, and all the rest of the people hushed into a deep silence while the prophet alone offers up prayer: then the sudden rush of fire from Heaven upon the sacrifice:--these are marvellous things, charged with terror. Now then pass from this scene to the rites which are celebrated in the present day; they are not only marvellous to behold, but transcendent in terror. There stands the priest, not bringing down fire from Heaven, but the Holy Spirit: and he makes prolonged supplication, not that some flame sent down from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace descending on the sacrifice may thereby enlighten the souls of all, and render them more refulgent than silver purified by fire. Who can despise this most awful mystery, unless he is stark mad and senseless? Or do you not know that no human soul could have endured that fire in the sacrifice, but all would have been utterly consumed, had not the assistance of God's grace been great.

For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, "Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?" What authority could be greater than this? "The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?"

But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to Heaven, and had transcended human nature, and were released from the passions to which we are liable. Moreover, if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?


You will find that He refers to this priesthood as an office.
 
Below is an Excerpt from Chrysostom,I am not sure why your trying to make a protestant out of him.I think He would disagree with you.
This is simply one more indication of your confusion...

1) I said that there is no office of "œpriest" in the New Testament Scriptures. That concept is foreign to the New Testament Church of the Bible.

2) I have never "œtried" to make a Protestant out of Chrysostom. That accusation is simply another caricature and further proof that you are not reading me with any meaningful comprehension.

3) I said that Chrysostom denied that we need any other mediator with God apart from Jesus Christ, and he did. You can read quotes from him in this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13593#pid191634

4) I don´t have to try to make a Protestant out of Chrysostom. All I have to do is to demonstrate that his view of Holy Scripture is a far cry from that of people like yourself who claim to be returning to the "œpatristics and tradition." Your charge against God´s inscripturated word that it "œis scetchy at best,by itself" is a blasphemous claim Chrysostom would never have made. For he stated repeatedly the exact opposite of your personal sentiments. Chrysostom used the word "precision" (avkri,beia) repeatedly to describe the written text of Holy Scripture. This was one of his favorite phrases, "œthe precision of Sacred Scripture." His sermons are literally littered with this description of Holy Scripture (See Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 18.3, 9, 20; 20.5; 21.8, 11; 22.5, 6; 23.4, 8; 24.5; 25.10, 20; 26.15; 27.16, 17, 23; 29.22; 30.4; 31.18; 33.4; 35.4, 8, 9; 36.12; 38.6; 39.11; 43.3 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), in which we find this phrase or its equivalent some 28 times: pp. 4, 9, 15, 38, 56, 59, 71, 90, 93, 107, 131, 139, 155, 173, 174, 179, 213, 222, 249, 278, 306, 309, 310, 334, 359, 381-382, 437; See also Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Homily 7.9-10, 13.5, 13, 15.11 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), pp. 96, 171, 175, 200; FC, Vol. 87, Homilies on Genesis 46-67, Homilies 49.3, 55..5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), pp. 43, 109; and Robert Charles Hill, St. John Chrysostom Commentary on the Psalms (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), Vol. 1, pp. 80, 132, 158, 282, 304-305, 343, e.g., "œSee the wisdom of the inspired author, who speaks of everything with precision," and "œNote the inspired author´s precision.") For Chrysostom, precision is a distinctive feature of the biblical text. Moreover, he plainly indicates that when it is the intention of Scripture to teach us something, such as it does in this instance, it "œgives its own interpretation and does not let the listener go astray":

You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn´t let the listener go astray. . . . So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture. FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, 13.13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 175.
In fact, Chrysostom went so far as to say...
It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 68, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Disc. 1.6.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), pp. 23-24.
You see, I don´t have to make Chrysostom out to be anything other than what he was; and what he was with respect to Holy Scripture is a far cry from where you are now in terms of your blasphemous claims against your Creator´s holy and infallible word. If you were not so confused, and ignorant of "œpatristics and history," my friend, you would blush with shame. Given Your present spiritual state is, without doubt, one to be pitied. It is my sincere prayer that our Lord will be pleased to grant you the grace of repentance.

Wishing you the best,
DTK
 
Just scanning this thread send chills up an down my back. In the discussions on C. S. Lewis and on ancient witnesses, I am beginning to get an eerie feeling about what people mean by Sola Scriptura. I think there may some confusion going on here.

I hope you don't get me wrong. I am thoroughly entranced with Jus Divinum. I respect the authority and objectivity with which the thesis is handled. Besides that, there are a host of issues that spring up from the arguments in this book. I am particularly taken by the use of Scripture, the meanings that are taken from them, which in another discussion would be contentious. It shows me, or rather betrays to me what was really on the minds of these Assembly members in regards to some of the issues that fight over their meanings today. In short, it puts George Gillespie et al in a whole other light. So I'm getting a lot from this book. On top of that, I think everyone should read it, so that we can all work off the same page as to what the Standards of faith are talking about when it refers to the tasks of elders, ministers, deacons, and bodies of authority, etc. This book shows what they had in mind all along.

But having said all that, remember that that is all it is. It is still not Scripture itself. This book rightly explains Scripture in respect to church government, I believe; but it is Scripture that it calls us to, not the book Jus Divinum. I myself believe that I have put Scripture first, even before my favourite expositor/minister of Scripture, but that's only my opinion of myself. There as some who disagree. There are some, even, who think I do not belong in the body of Christ. If my judgment of myself, whom I know better than anyone else, can be so subjective, how much more subjective is our judgments of others?

As right as I think Jus Divinum is in what it contends, there is an awful lot that is not found there that would help in our day. But its not addressing our day. It can be read to address our day, and it should, but it has no authority or claim upon those who do not wish to read it. Only Scripture has that claim. If we start demanding that this book be read in order to be Reformed in understanding, then we have lost the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I'm not asserting that wrong demands are being made here, its just an eerie feeling I'm getting.

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by JohnV]
 
Originally posted by DTK
Below is an Excerpt from Chrysostom,I am not sure why your trying to make a protestant out of him.I think He would disagree with you.
This is simply one more indication of your confusion...

1) I said that there is no office of "œpriest" in the New Testament Scriptures. That concept is foreign to the New Testament Church of the Bible.

2) I have never "œtried" to make a Protestant out of Chrysostom. That accusation is simply another caricature and further proof that you are not reading me with any meaningful comprehension.

3) I said that Chrysostom denied that we need any other mediator with God apart from Jesus Christ, and he did. You can read quotes from him in this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13593#pid191634

4) I don´t have to try to make a Protestant out of Chrysostom. All I have to do is to demonstrate that his view of Holy Scripture is a far cry from that of people like yourself who claim to be returning to the "œpatristics and tradition." Your charge against God´s inscripturated word that it "œis scetchy at best,by itself" is a blasphemous claim Chrysostom would never have made. For he stated repeatedly the exact opposite of your personal sentiments. Chrysostom used the word "precision" (avkri,beia) repeatedly to describe the written text of Holy Scripture. This was one of his favorite phrases, "œthe precision of Sacred Scripture." His sermons are literally littered with this description of Holy Scripture (See Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 18.3, 9, 20; 20.5; 21.8, 11; 22.5, 6; 23.4, 8; 24.5; 25.10, 20; 26.15; 27.16, 17, 23; 29.22; 30.4; 31.18; 33.4; 35.4, 8, 9; 36.12; 38.6; 39.11; 43.3 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), in which we find this phrase or its equivalent some 28 times: pp. 4, 9, 15, 38, 56, 59, 71, 90, 93, 107, 131, 139, 155, 173, 174, 179, 213, 222, 249, 278, 306, 309, 310, 334, 359, 381-382, 437; See also Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Homily 7.9-10, 13.5, 13, 15.11 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), pp. 96, 171, 175, 200; FC, Vol. 87, Homilies on Genesis 46-67, Homilies 49.3, 55..5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), pp. 43, 109; and Robert Charles Hill, St. John Chrysostom Commentary on the Psalms (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), Vol. 1, pp. 80, 132, 158, 282, 304-305, 343, e.g., "œSee the wisdom of the inspired author, who speaks of everything with precision," and "œNote the inspired author´s precision.") For Chrysostom, precision is a distinctive feature of the biblical text. Moreover, he plainly indicates that when it is the intention of Scripture to teach us something, such as it does in this instance, it "œgives its own interpretation and does not let the listener go astray":

You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn´t let the listener go astray. . . . So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture. FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, 13.13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 175.
In fact, Chrysostom went so far as to say...
It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 68, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Disc. 1.6.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), pp. 23-24.
You see, I don´t have to make Chrysostom out to be anything other than what he was; and what he was with respect to Holy Scripture is a far cry from where you are now in terms of your blasphemous claims against your Creator´s holy and infallible word. If you were not so confused, and ignorant of "œpatristics and history," my friend, you would blush with shame. Given Your present spiritual state is, without doubt, one to be pitied. It is my sincere prayer that our Lord will be pleased to grant you the grace of repentance.

Wishing you the best,
DTK


The Holy Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in content or otherwise,they still need an interpreter,and they're not to be interpreted in some post-modern evangelical vaccuum which many choose to do today.

Saint John Chrysostom (354-407)...

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further." Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2, 398-404 A.D..

Taken in context I don't think Chrysostom was an advocate for Sola Scriptura,and now where chasing another rabbit!!!

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by Denny]
 
The Holy Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in content or otherwise,they still need an interpreter,and they're not to be interpreted in some post-modern evangelical vaccuum which many choose to do today.
Well, your sentiments stand in contrast to Chrysostom´s

Saint John Chrysostom (354-407)...

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further." Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2, 398-404 A.D..

Taken in context I don't think Chrysostom was an advocate for Sola Scriptura,and now where chasing another rabbit!!!
No, taken in context, Chrysostom points out precisely what he means by "œtradition." For as Patristic scholar H. E. W. Turner points out concerning your Chrysostom pericope...
St. John Chrysostom deduces that the Apostles did not hand down everything in letters, but many matters without the use of writing; both are equally trustworthy. Let us then regard the Tradition of the Church as trustworthy. It is Tradition; let us seek no further. The absence of reserve here is almost worthy of Tertullian himself, but in a slightly later passage Chrysostom tells us more clearly what is in his mind: "˜St. Paul means traditions through actions that is what he he always means when he uses the word strictly.´ H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (New York: AMS Press, Inc., reprinted 1978), p. 321.
Turner is right, Chrysostom said: "œTradition, he [i.e., Paul] says, which is through works. And this he always calls properly tradition." NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily 5. John Chrysostom isn't referring to any doctrinal content passed down orally from the apostles, nor is he referring to any kind of mystical, mumbo-jumbo incense and nonsense. He means by tradition, "right living," not some unwritten revelatory content. So I think someone else is doing the "œrabbit chasing" here every time he is refuted. I´m don´t have to "œchase a rabbit" in order to demonstrate, and I might add easily, that Chrysostom didn´t entertain your bankrupt view of Holy Scripture. Patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly wrote...
John Chrysostom bade his congregation seek no other teacher than the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum of necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), pp. 42-43.
Plainly put, Chrysostom didn´t entertain your skepticism regarding Holy Scripture. So you can´t claim him for that mystical paradigm of "œpatristics and tradition" you have in mind. In other words, you haven´t studied Chrysostom enough to know what he means by "œtraditions." You´re simply posting a text found on many propaganda web sites on the internet, and without a clue as to what Chrysostom meant by "œtradition." He wasn´t referring to any kind of doctrinal content.

Indeed, Chrysostom preached...
Chrysostom (349-407): HOMILY IX 2 Timothy iii. 16, 17."” For this reason he writes: "œAll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, "œFrom a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures." All such, then, "œis given by inspiration of God"; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is "œprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
"œFor doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
"œThat the man of God may be perfect." For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
"œThoroughly furnished unto all good works"; not merely taking part in them, he means, but "œthoroughly furnished." NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Homily 9.
That´s not the Chrysostom paraded today by non-Protestants, including yourself.

Now then, you are the one who has changed the subject repeatedly to chase another rabbit every time you've been refuted and have no answer. What has become increasingly clear in this thread is that you are posting with an anti-evangelical agenda, and in violation of the rules of this board. You don´t have enough presence of mind to recognize how unethical your present agenda-driven posts are in direct violation of this board. But given your track record, I´m confident that you will respond with yet another rabbit pulled from the magical hat of internet non-Protestant apologetical sites, i.e., until the moderators put an end to your anti-evangelical rants (read your repeated use of "œ!!!") here.

You really need to come up with some new angle now, besides that which you're finding on the internet. I've heard all this nonsense before.

Cheers,
DTK
 
posted by DTK
I have found from personal experience (your present example included) that the people whom insist upon looking to the sources of tradition and the patristics for authority - are the very ones who have done the least amount of investigation into the same.

.......

I will repeat myself. You professed in your signature to being a Presbyterian elder. You need either to repent of your expressed repudiation of sola Scriptura, or common ethics dictates that you ought formally to resign as an elder and demit the office altogether.

.......

I understand perfectly that the PCUSA is apostate, but you appeared initially on this board with that title, even after you stated you had left that communion. You´ve simply changed your signature on the board to reflect that now ex post facto. If it didn't mean a hill of beans to you then, why did you ever bother including it in your signature at all? If you are still a member of that apostate communion, you still ought to resign and demit the office.

......

Moreover, you have yet to interact meaningfully with the arguments against your claims historically. I want to be as gracious as possible, but it is clear to me that you are woefully uninformed. What you´ve presented is the same kind of propaganda that usually passes unchallenged, but, as you´ve seen here, it doesn´t even stand the test of history.

.......

If you were not so confused, and ignorant of "œpatristics and history," my friend, you would blush with shame. Given Your present spiritual state is, without doubt, one to be pitied. It is my sincere prayer that our Lord will be pleased to grant you the grace of repentance.

.......

What has become increasingly clear in this thread is that you are posting with an anti-evangelical agenda, and in violation of the rules of this board. You don´t have enough presence of mind to recognize how unethical your present agenda-driven posts are in direct violation of this board.

Yep. Could not have said it any better myself. :banghead:

Phillip

[Edited on 10-3-05 by pastorway]
 
Denny: A thought. Using patristics (or scriptures plus patristics) as your ultimate standard leads to an unworkable metholodogy. Perhaps a sort of Sola ECF. It would be similar to sola scriptura in that it relies on documents, but would be unworkable for nearly everybody because of the volume of early church writings and their inaccessible style. Further, as David noted, there are material contradictions among patristics, whereas this is not true among the scriptures (which are perfect). Jerome's statement on the role of bishops is an excellent example.

Of course there a numerous other reasons to not place the ECFs on par with scripture (and DTK has made many of those points), but this is a rather pragmatic one. I am sure you have read through the scriptures. But how many of the ECFs have you really read, compared for consistency, and the like? It is a Herculean task, given their sheer volume, anachronistic writing styles, and the like.
 
Taken in context I don't think Chrysostom was an advocate for Sola Scriptura,and now where chasing another rabbit!!!

I don't care if you think Chrysostom was an advocate for Sola Scriptura or not. We are.
 
Lets drop the patristic focus for good. Even as a pro-apostolic succession guy myself, I would NEVER appeal to the Church Fathers . .they were in no means monolithic on anything. . that is why the argument from Eastern Orthodox is nonsense.
 
Lets drop the patristic focus for good. Even as a pro-apostolic succession guy myself, I would NEVER appeal to the Church Fathers . .they were in no means monolithic on anything. . that is why the argument from Eastern Orthodox is nonsense.
Mark,

I disagree with you, and think this is a bad idea, but I want to tell you why I am of a different mind.

1) All too often, both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox claims against Evangelicals is that we have willfully severed ourselves from history, and particularly in the area of the Early Church. All too often, such a critique is justified. We, all of us, need to be better informed in order to be able to respond intelligibly to their claims about the Early Church, which are oftentimes false. One of the most encouraging things to me, in this area of study, is to learn what a high view of Holy Scripture they maintained, even amid all of their differences with one another. And make no mistake, there was and thus is a great deal of diversity to be found among these ancient witnesses, which helps us to understand that they were by no means uniform in their understanding of Holy Scripture.

2) I think, as well, that the example of the magisterial Reformers, in this respect, is significant. They regarded the study of the Early Church as important, and they accepted the challenged of the humanists of their day (and I don´t mean humanism as we use it today, but in the sense of the Renaissance) of ad fontes, i.e., a return to the ancient sources of Holy Scripture in its original languages, as well as the Early Church, from which they thought that much of the medieval church had departed.

3) But with the Reformers, we must maintain that Scripture alone is "œthe norm that norms but is not normed by any other standard" so that Scripture knows no equal, no peer, as it were, to its infallibility, certainty, or objectivity, and why we need to make our study of Holy Scripture our prior and necessary discipline over all other spiritually, educational pursuits. I think that the proverbial adage, "œignorance is not bliss," is one to which we do well to pay heed, and all of church history is important; because after all, believing in the God of providence as we do, history is His story.

4) Insights from the Early Church can be helpful, in that we can learn a great many things from them, not only their good insights, but their bad ones as well.

Thank you for bearing with me,
DTK
 
3) But with the Reformers, we must maintain that Scripture alone is "œthe norm that norms but is not normed by any other standard" so that Scripture knows no equal, no peer, as it were, to its infallibility, certainty, or objectivity, and why we need to make our study of Holy Scripture our prior and necessary discipline over all other spiritually, educational pursuits. I think that the proverbial adage, "œignorance is not bliss," is one to which we do well to pay heed, and all of church history is important; because after all, believing in the God of providence as we do, history is His story.

I agree.



4) Insights from the Early Church can be helpful, in that we can learn a great many things from them, not only their good insights, but their bad ones as well.

True, as insights go, they are helpful. We are to honor our father and mother spiritually as well as physically. But the patristics were not homogenous by any means. I am compiling a list of differences that I hope to post soon.

Alas, there is far too much of the radical side of Sola Scriptura that says, "me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit is enough". That type of pietism would not have been tolerated by the Reformers at all.
 
True, as insights go, they are helpful. We are to honor our father and mother spiritually as well as physically. But the patristics were not homogenous by any means. I am compiling a list of differences that I hope to post soon.
For this subject, I heartily recommend John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion, 2nd American ed., rev. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1856). I haven't found a better book on this subject, though there may very well be one with which I'm unfamiliar.

Blessings,
DTK
 
"John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion, 2nd American ed., rev. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1856)"

David: This sounds fascinating. Can you briefly describe Daillé's right uses?
 
Originally posted by Scott
"John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion, 2nd American ed., rev. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1856)"

David: This sounds fascinating. Can you briefly describe Daillé's right uses?

There was some discussion of this book here. It looks very interesting to me.

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Originally posted by Scott
"John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion, 2nd American ed., rev. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1856)"

David: This sounds fascinating. Can you briefly describe Daillé's right uses?
Scott,

Rather than "briefly describe" this work, I think it would be more helpful for you, first, for me simply to list the book and chapter divisions from Daillé himself (because these are very descriptive), and then I would be happy to entertain any follow up questions you may have, i.e., as time permits me. Know this, however, upfront, Daillé expresses himself here from an overt negative viewpoint concerning the faithfulness of the various documents and ancient witnesses themselves.

John Daillé (1594-1670)

John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion, 2nd American ed., rev. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1856), p. 372.

Contents

BOOK I.

Chapter I. On the Difficulty of ascertaining the Opinions of the Fathers in reference to the present Controversies in Religion, deduced from the fact that there is very little of their Writings extant of the first three Centuries.

Chapter II. Those Writings which we have of the Fathers of the first Centuries, treat of matters far different from the present Controversies in Religion.

Chapter III. Those Writings which bear the names of the ancient fathers, are not all really such; but a great portion of them supposititious and forged, either long since or at later periods.

Chapter IV. The Writings of the Fathers, which are considered legitimate, have been in many places corrupted by time, ignorance and fraud, pious and malicious, both in the early and later Ages.

Chapter V. The Writings of the Fathers are difficult to be understood, on account of the Languages and Idioms in which they wrote, and the manner of their Writing, which is encumbered with rhetorical flourishes, and logical subtleties, and with terms used in a sense far different from what they now bear.

Chapter VI. The Fathers frequently conceal their own private Opinions, and say what they did not believe; either in reporting the Opinion of others, without naming them, as in their Commentaries; or disputing against an Adversary, where they make use of whatever they are able; or accommodating themselves to their Auditory, as may be observed in their Homilies.

Chapter VII. The Fathers have not always held the same doctrine; but have changed some of their Opinions, according to their judgment has become matured by study or age.

Chapter VIII. It is necessary, but nevertheless difficult, to discover how the Fathers held all their several Opinions; whether as necessary, or as probable only; and in what degree of necessity or probability.

Chapter IX. We ought to know what were the opinions, not of one or more of the Fathers, but of the whole ancient Church; which is a very difficult matter to discover.

Chapter X. It is very difficult to ascertain whether the Opinions of the Fathers, as to the Controversies of the present day, were received by the Church Universal, or only by some portion of it; this being necessary to be known, before their sentiments can be adopted.

Chapter XI. It is impossible to know exactly what was the belief of the ancient Church, either Universal or Particular, as to any of those points which are at this day controverted amongst us.

BOOK II.

The Fathers Are Not of Sufficient Authority for Deciding Controversies in Religion.

Chapter I. The Testimonies given by the Fathers, on the Doctrines of the Church, are not always true and certain.

Chapter II. The Fathers testify themselves, that they are not to be believed absolutely, and upon their own bare Assertion, in what they declare in matters of Religion.

Chapter III. The Fathers have written in such a manner, as to make it clear that when they wrote they had no intention of being our authorities in matters of Religion; as evinced by examples of their mistakes and oversights.

Chapter IV. The Fathers have erred in divers points of Religion; not only singly, but also many of them together.

Chapter V. The Fathers have strongly contradicted one another, and have maintained different Opinions in matters of very great importance.

Chapter VI. Neither the Church of Rome nor the Protestants acknowledge the Fathers for their Judges in points of Religion; both of them rejecting such of their Opinions and Practices as are not suited to their taste; being an answer to two Objections that may be made against what is delivered in this Discourse.

I hope this helps.

Blessings,
DTK
 
Thanks, David. You must be an amazing typist - I did not mean to burden you with typing all that out! Anyway, I aprpeciate your indulgence on the matter.
 
Originally posted by Scott
Thanks, David. You must be an amazing typist - I did not mean to burden you with typing all that out! Anyway, I aprpeciate your indulgence on the matter.
Actually Scott, all of this is a side interest/hobby of mine, and I have already made documents of these things for fast reference. Now, I haven't consigned the contents of every book in my library to files and documents, but this one I had readily at hand for such a time as this.

At any rate, you're as welcome as rain on a hot, dusty day.
DTK
 
I read Matt's article on Lawful Ordination and found it very helpful.

However I have a question:

Turretin says, "œThe first is of those who were called and ordained in the Roman church"¦a legiti­mate 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." He then says, "œHence whoever is canonically ordained ought to use his call to propagate the doctrine of that church in which he received his call, if it was conformed to the truth; if not, he ought to oppose it."

The reformers considered their ordination by the Roman church to be lawful and they then continued to advance the church that lawfully ordained them, but in accordance with scripture alone and right doctrine (to which they were called). At Trent is where the true schism occurred when Rome became apostate while the already ordained reformers continued to advance the right church. So Rome is actually the church that caused the schism, not the reformers.

This is enlightening; however, what about the schism that already occurred around 1050 AD? So much attention is given to Rome, but nothing is addressed about the Eastern Orthodox. At the time of the reformation there existed two visible, apostolic churches who lawfully ordained ministers. Is Turretin and the reformers saying that the church in Rome was lawfully ordaining officers along with the Eastern Orthodox church? Would the EOC agree? Even if the Reformers were lawfully ordained by Rome, would the EOC consider that ordination valid and genuinely Apostolic?
 
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
This is enlightening; however, what about the schism that already occurred around 1050 AD? So much attention is given to Rome, but nothing is addressed about the Eastern Orthodox. At the time of the reformation there existed two visible, apostolic churches who lawfully ordained ministers. Is Turretin and the reformers saying that the church in Rome was lawfully ordaining officers along with the Eastern Orthodox church? Would the EOC agree? Even if the Reformers were lawfully ordained by Rome, would the EOC consider that ordination valid and genuinely Apostolic?
Actually Chris, the problem of schism and the question of lawful ordination goes back even further than 1054 when a permanent split between the east and west occurred. Chrysostom (349-407): was ordained by a bishop who was out of communion with Rome. In fact, for the better part of his ministerial life, Chrysostom was technically speaking out of communion with Rome. Clearly, he was ordained (as most Roman Catholics would argue if consistent) by someone outside the communion of Rome, also claiming to be part of the Catholic Church. Chrysostom was baptized (AD 369) and ordained to the diaconate (AD 380) by Meletius (whom Chrysostom recognized as the rightful bishop of Antioch) who at the time was out of communion with Rome, and Chrysostom was ordained to the priesthood (AD 386) by Flavian, whom Rome also refused to recognize as bishop of Antioch, and who had de facto been excommunicated some years before the ordination of Chrysostom. According to the standard of Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum (1896) both Meletius and Flavian were "outside the edifice," "separated from the fold," and "exiled from the Kingdom" inasmuch as they were not in communion with the Roman pontiff, who acknowledged only Paulinus as the rightful occupant of the Antiochene see.

By receiving baptism and ordination at their hands, Chrysostom was declaring that he recognized them (i.e., Meletius and Flavian) as the proper bishops in succession from and under the jurisdiction of the see of Antioch. While preaching at his tomb, Chrysostom referenced Meletius as a saint, and said of Flavian that he was not only the successor of Peter, but also the rightful heir of Peter to the see of Antioch. Chrysostom could not have been clearer in his repudiation of Paulinus whom Rome had declared to be the bishop of Antioch. (See his Homily II in Migne PG 52:86).

In similar fashion, when contrary to the canons Paulinus (whom Rome had appointed to be bishop of Antioch) consecrated Evagrius to be his successor upon his death in AD 389, Chrysostom actively declined to recognize him as such, and emphatically warned the people of Antioch against joining the body which recognized Evagrius as bishop. Chrysostom makes reference to this in a sermon delivered in AD 395...
Chrysostom (349-407): I speak not of you that are present, but of those who are deserting from us. The act is adultery. And if ye bear not to hear these things of them, neither should ye of us. There must be breach of the law either on the one side or the other. If then thou hast these suspicions concerning me, I am ready to retire from my office, and resign it to whomsoever ye may choose. Only let the Church be one. But if I have been lawfully made and consecrated, entreat those who have contrary to the law mounted the episcopal throne to resign it. See NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 11, next to the last paragraph.
It wasn't until after his consecration in AD 398 to the see of Constantinople by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, that Chrysostom entered into communion with Rome.

Now, most Roman Catholic apologists are not familiar with this information regarding the circumstances of Chrysostom's baptism and ordinations, but his "orders" as such are denied as proper according to the requirements of Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum. I think this alone proves that there were in Chrysostom's day other groups claiming to be every bit as much "Catholic," but nonetheless out of communion with Rome.

Cheers,
DTK
 
DTK, that is some valuable stuff!

I am grateful for your time on this thread.

It is interesting that such "reformation" was present well before 1054 and well before 1646.

So what you are saying is we can not draw hard lines between apostates and orthodox in the early church when looking at lawful ordination? There were schisms as early as Paul's day and well before 1054. It was not until 1054 AD that a recognized, "official" division occurred. But with such a division, which church was the apostate church and which one was not? The Reformers were ordained by the church in Rome, so does that make the EOC the apostate church? I doubt that. Would anything change if they were ordained by the EOC instead of the RCC?

I guess the bottom line is the Church always had remnant of those who held to the true gospel per the scriptures. That remnant may have been part of the EOC or the RCC. The ordination is still lawful no matter which side it was from. Is this a valid conclusion?
 
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
So what you are saying is we can not draw hard lines between apostates and orthodox in the early church when looking at lawful ordination? There were schisms as early as Paul's day and well before 1054. It was not until 1054 AD that a recognized, "official" division occurred. But with such a division, which church was the apostate church and which one was not? The Reformers were ordained by the church in Rome, so does that make the EOC the apostate church? I doubt that. Would anything change if they were ordained by the EOC instead of the RCC?

I guess the bottom line is the Church always had remnant of those who held to the true gospel per the scriptures. That remnant may have been part of the EOC or the RCC. The ordination is still lawful no matter which side it was from. Is this a valid conclusion?
Chris,

What I would argue, though respecting some brethren here who may disagree with me, that you are correct, viz., that "the Church always had remnant of those who held to the true gospel per the scriptures." I would argue (and I believe I'm in agreement with Turretin here) that ordination is made lawful, not based upon a ministerial succession, but at the hands of any church which remains true to a succession of apostolic doctrine. Though Turretin argued that it is for the well-being (bene esse) of the Church that men be installed and ordained by presbyters (elders) who are orthodox, nonetheless, the authority for ordination lies not in the hands of presbyters (elders) but in the hands of the whole Church. From Turretin, I believe that I can make that case. For he argued...
II. (2) The question is not whether pastors and bishops have the right of election and calling and can exercise it (which we do not deny); but whether they have it from themselves primarily and originally or secondarily and derivatively from the church. Whether they exercise it in their own name or in the name of the church, which grants this authority to them (which we assert).
III. In the call, three things are to be principally attended: (1) the right of calling; (2) the act or exercise of the call itself; (3) the rites and ceremonies usually observed in the call as to ordination and the imposition of hands. It is not properly treated here either of the act or of the rites of the call; for no one denies that these two ought to be done by the presbytery and rulers of the church. Rather we treat of the right and power "” with whom it resides; whether with the bishop and the pope or with the whole church. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXIV.ii-iii, p. 224.
You see, Chris, if the power (authority) to ordain lies exclusively in the hands of bishops or presbyters and in an unbroken succession from them, then we would be compelled, I think, to acknowlegde that the Arian bishops who, by and large controlled the visible church of the 4th century for some fifty or so years, had a valid apostolic succession. Jerome recognized this when he wrote...
Jerome (347-420): The Church does not consist in walls, but in the truths of her teachings. The Church is there where there is true faith. As a matter of fact, fifteen and twenty years ago, all the church buildings belonged to heretics, for heretics twenty years ago were in possession of them; but the true Church was there where the true faith was. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 46 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 344.
Latin text: Ecclesia non parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate. Ecclesia ibi est ubi fides vera est. Caeterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti, parietes omnes hic Ecclesiarum haeretici possidebant. Ante viginti enim annos, omnes Ecclesias has haeretici possidebant. Ecclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi vera fides erat. Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXXXIII, PL 26:1223.
For he also stated elsewhere...
Jerome (347-420): After these proceedings the Council [i.e. the Synod of Ariminum] was dissolved. All returned in gladness to their own provinces. For the Emperor and all good men had one and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hid, and the sore that is healed superficially before the bad humor has been worked off breaks out again. Valens and Ursacius and others associated with them in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, §19.
I think there are both biblical and historical reasons for arguing against the position which contends that ordinations are made lawful only at the hands of orthodox presbyters/bishops. I think that the power (authority) to ordain and install pastors ultimately resides in the authority of churches who hold to an apostolic succession of doctrinal truth. For I believe that it makes for the bene esse of the church for pastors/elders/bishops to do this in the name of the Church, because that authority lies with the esse of the Church.

But I (we all) must maintain charitable relations with our Reformed brethren who differ with us.

Blessings,
DTK
 
:up:Good summation of the historic Presbyterian/Reformed view.
Originally posted by DTK
I think there are both biblical and historical reasons for arguing against the position which contends that ordinations are made lawful only at the hands of orthodox presbyters/bishops. I think that the power (authority) to ordain and install pastors ultimately resides in the authority of churches who hold to an apostolic succession of doctrinal truth. For I believe that it makes for the bene esse of the church for pastors/elders/bishops to do this in the name of the Church, because that authority lies with the esse of the Church.

But I (we all) must maintain charitable relations with our Reformed brethren who differ with us.

Blessings,
DTK
 
David,

Would you say this:

"I think that the power (authority) to ordain and install pastors ultimately resides in the authority of churches who hold to an apostolic succession of doctrinal truth."

- is the norm or in extreme necessity, as Turretin went to length in discussing?

In other words, to say this is the norm, would exclude ministerial succession altogether. I don't think Turretin was doing that, and I don't think that is where you are completely going. For example, "take him to the church" (i.e. the session) is the church, but not the church in the same way an Independent would see it.

If laying on hands is of consequecne, then it cannot be "by the church (i.e. of the actual laymen of the church)" that one is lawfully ordained (except in times of extreme durress whent here are no elders and God raises one up in the midst of a congregation with no other means, anywhere in the world (i.e. the Reformation).

Am I hearing you right? (We are talking about well-being.)
 
Originally posted by webmaster
David,

Would you say this:

"I think that the power (authority) to ordain and install pastors ultimately resides in the authority of churches who hold to an apostolic succession of doctrinal truth."

- is the norm or in extreme necessity, as Turretin went to length in discussing?

In other words, to say this is the norm, would exclude ministerial succession altogether. I don't think Turretin was doing that, and I don't think that is where you are completely going. For example, "take him to the church" (i.e. the session) is the church, but not the church in the same way an Independent would see it.

If laying on hands is of consequecne, then it cannot be "by the church (i.e. of the actual laymen of the church)" that one is lawfully ordained (except in times of extreme durress whent here are no elders and God raises one up in the midst of a congregation with no other means, anywhere in the world (i.e. the Reformation).

Am I hearing you right? (We are talking about well-being.)
Matthew,

I think Turretin argued that only by way of "extreme necessity" *should* the Church ordain and install pastors/presbyters/bishops, without the use of the same. But I think that his overall point was that this authority lies in the power of the whole Church, rather than in the hands of its lawfully ordained officers. But that is the sticky point (isn't it?), who decides when a situation makes for extreme necessity?

On the other hand, the moment we begin to limit the authority to ordain and install pastors/presbyters/bishops to the presence and actions of the same, and declare all others unlawful because no "extreme necessity" was in view, then I think we run the risk of usurping the authority of the whole church, which was the argument Turretin made against the contentions of Rome, who surely contended no such "extreme necessity" was in view. Because, after all, who decides when and where "extreme necessity" has occurred? Now, although Turretin was cautious to restrict ordinations otherwise than normally performed to cases/situations of "extreme necessity," he was just as guarded in making clear that they (namely, the above referenced officers) acted only in the *name* of the Church with whom that authority resides.

Thus, I think we too must be guarded in our judgments about who is and who is not lawfully ordained as an officer in Christ's Church. Now, you mentioned above (I haven't looked to be precise here) something to the effect that such circumstances of "extreme necessity" today could or (perhaps you said) would never occur. I would be more cautious than to make that assessment. I suspect that is where and how we differ on this question.

You tend to think (if I understand you correctly) that Turretin was arguing for some kind of ministerial succession. I, on the other hand, don't understand him to be arguing for that so much as he's arguing for an apostolic succession of doctrinal truth according to the scriptures, because ultimately the power (authority) to ordain and install pastors, as he does argue quite persistently and repeatedly, lies with the whole Church, and not with its ministers who act only in the name of the Church.

Now, again, it makes for the bene esse of the Church for its duly ordained ministers to act in the name of the Church in the ordaining and installing of its pastors/presbyters/bishops. But the moment we begin to argue for some kind of ministerial succession, I think that *begins* to usurp the authority of the whole church.

I hope that clarifies the position from where I'm coming. But, it's really not my desire to debate this matter endlessly, so to speak, or create any kind of ill will stemming from any differences that we brethren may entertain on this issue, especially we brethren who are represented on this board. But I am most happy, as I'm sure you are, to express myself (and I trust charitably) on these matters.

Blessings,
DTK
 
In other words, to say this is the norm, would exclude ministerial succession altogether. I don't think Turretin was doing that, and I don't think that is where you are completely going. For example, "take him to the church" (i.e. the session) is the church, but not the church in the same way an Independent would see it.

I think you are right. Seems to me that issues are clarified by distinguishing between (1) true churches (which may exist with unlawful ministers) and (2) lawful ordination (which is not required for the esse of a true church). I think this is consistent with Turretin. All sides agree that doctrinal succession is essential and a fundamental part of what makes a true church (along with administartion of sacraments - lawful ordination is not part of this picture). Question is whether ordination is "lawful."
 
I think you are right. Seems to me that issues are clarified by distinguishing between (1) true churches (which may exist with unlawful ministers) and (2) lawful ordination (which is not required for the esse of a true church). I think this is consistent with Turretin. All sides agree that doctrinal succession is essential and a fundamental part of what makes a true church (along with administartion of sacraments - lawful ordination is not part of this picture). Question is whether ordination is "lawful."
It seems to me that if the question thus begins a priori with the determination of what is a true church, then to go the next step, in arguing for "œlawful ordination" only in terms of a ministerial succession, places the authority de facto in the ministers themselves to act as the whole church rather than in the name of the whole Church. And it seems to me that that is the very thing which Turretin was cautious enough to avoid. For instance (not by way of argument, but rather by way of illustration), with respect to how a session brings an indictment against a party to be disciplined, the BCO of the PCA reads:
31-4. Every indictment shall begin: "In the name of the Presbyterian Church in America," and shall conclude, "against the peace, unity and purity of the Church, and the honor and majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the King and Head thereof." In every case the Church is the injured and accusing party, against the accused.
In other words, Church courts have the authority to act in the *name* of the whole Church, not because that authority resides with themselves per se, but because their authority so to act is lodged in the whole church, which has appointed them to adjudicate such matters. I would argue that ultimately the same principle of authority holds true with respect to the examination, ordination, and installation of pastors/elders/bishops. Thus, if their authority as ministers to act comes a priori from the church as a whole, I don´t think one can be consistent in contending for a ministerial succession, as such, because in an ultimate sense (from Turretin´s perspective), that authority resides within the whole church, and because it resides with the whole church and not its ministers, the church can so act otherwise, as Turretin put it, in cases of "œextreme necessity."

In other words, if one desires to argue against independency (a real issue in our day), one should approach it from the angle so described above rather than from the position of ministerial succession. I think the real problem with independency is, at its root, one of an autonomous disconnect from the church as a whole. In other words, the great problem with independency (as I believe Turretin argued indirectly and Ainslie more directly) is not its severance from a "œministerial succession," but rather a severance from the authority of the Church as a whole. In 1 Corinthians 1, the problem wasn´t so much that there was a ministerial succession lacking in every alleged leader (whether it be Paul, Apollos, or Cephas), for each one was a divinely sanctioned leader. The problem was one of division within Christ´s body. For Paul argues...
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe´s household, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "œI am of Paul," or "œI am of Apollos," or "œI am of Cephas," or "œI am of Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
It is clear with respect to his authority as an Apostle, that Paul saw his authority as a derived authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. His authority to administer the sacrament of baptism came to him from Christ to act with the authority of another. Thus ministers act on the authority of a higher authority than their own, namely, the whole Church of Jesus Christ.

Scott, I would ask that you bear with me a bit further. Back in a post on 5-11-2005, you made the following observation...
This is a related point. I am rereading a section on the validity of Reformed ordinations in James L. Ainslie's The Doctrines of Ministerial Order in the Reformed Churches of the 16th and 17th Centuries. He makes the interesting point that the Reformed viewed the power to ordain as a power of the whole Church (the universal Church) and not just a power of a single congregation, which obviously contrasted with independents. Ordination by a presbytery in an expression of this principle, as the presbytery is broader than a single congregation and is seen as a better representative of the universal visible Church.
Here is where I think you accurately understood Ainslie, and correctly identified the inherent problem with independency. But note further what Ainslie went on to argue...
James L. Ainslie: The Reformed churchmen were convinced that they knew what constitutes that Church. All their Confessions testify to that, and they were persuaded that their Church undoubtedly and indisputably was of it. Granting here that they were right, surely, at the least, a Ministry authorized by the true Church would be as much "œfrom above," as one merely authorized by bishops supposed to be in a "œtransmission succession," if not more so. If connection with Christ in the past by means of a "œsuccession" is demanded in order to make the authorization to be "œfrom above," then most certainly the true Church has that connection. It goes back continuously from the present to the time when it was called into being by Christ Himself. There is far more certainty in that continuous going back of the Church as a living organism to Christ, than there is with regard to any of the supposed formal "œsuccessions" or "œseries" of a special line of clergy, while in reality it has consisted in the continuous organic succession of the body of professed believers. A Ministry which is authorized by that continuous true Church, has its authorization by that which undoubtedly in succession goes back to the Apostles and to Christ. James L. Ainslie, The Doctrines of Ministerial Order in the Reformed Churches of the 16th and 17th Centuries (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1940), pp. 235-236.
Thus, the thrust of my point is that ordination is to be authorized by the whole church, and not by some "œspecial line of clergy." And it is this (and I believe that this was the point of the Westminster divines as well) that is the great problem of independency, for the simple reason that it lacks the authorization of the Church as a whole.

Now, what further complicates the problem today (and I think Fred Greco made this observation as well) is that there are any number of Reformed Churches today, that are disconnected (even among paedobaptist congregations), and because of this problem, it is difficult to say that any ordination within our Reformed Churches, thus severed, has the authorization of the Church as a whole. Now, it is not that we do not maintain good relations with one another, for this is obviously true. But is it really fair to insist that any of our ordinations are performed on behalf of the church as a whole? Because it was the authority of the Church as a whole with which Turretin was concerned, with which the Westminster Assembly was concerned contra independency, and which Ainslie observed as the historical position of Reformed churchmen.

Now, as I said before, I don't want to argue endlessly about this, but I did think that I needed to clarify further the position from which I'm coming. Thanks for your forbearance with me on this matter. I know this is a long post, but the subject we´re addressing is, to be sure, a complicated one.

Blessings,
DTK
 
David: Those are interesting and good thoughts. Do you have any articles or the like you would recommend on the topic?

It seems to me that this may come down to in part defining the relationship between the authority of the whole church to issue calls and what, if any, fixed forms the church operates through to issue its calls. A secondary question would be what is the the legal effect of using alternate forms?

Seems to me that the authority does reside in the whole church and that the whole church expresses its call through the fixed form of approval of a congregation and presbytery. Chemnitz, a Lutheran theologian, stated it this way: "the election or call belongs to the whole Church in a fixed manner, so that in the election or call, both presbyters and people may have their own parts." Chemnitz also affirmed that succession in ministry did not depend on outward succession. In addition, he could also affirm: "Yet always in the time of the Apostles the consent of the church, and the judgment and approval of the presbytery accompanied and were necessary to a lawful call."

Sound right?

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top