Apostolic Succession and Reformed Churches

[Saiph]

Why you left the presbyterian church to join the angelican Church ?

Well, this is an interesting question. First of all, I have not joined the Anglican church yet. Our PCA Church dissolved because the pastor retired and went on to focus on mission oriented ministry. I have now been convicted to find a church in my neighborhood instead of driving 35 miles to attend.

There is a great PCA church close to me that I might end up at, but here are the reasons I am inquiring on Anglicaniasm.

1. They practice paedocommunion. (I know most people on this board find that to be anathema, but I am not here to change anyones mind.)

2. I enjoy the liturgy and the idea of covenant renewal worship. (I am not saying it is the only way to worship, nor am I saying it is in line with RWP)

3. I lean towards egalitarianism, but not completely. (Women should not be ordained Elders, Priests, or Bishops, and they should not excercise church discipline, teach, consecrate the sacraments, or pronounce absolution.) But, I do not see anything unbiblical with them reading scripture, praying, or serving the eucharist.

4. Church Government was an interesting difference, but this thread is broadening that perspective for me.

Note: I do not want to get in an argument over egalitarianism or paedocomunnion. If you want to debate, do it through email with me.
As far as I know this board oposses those things. But I hope we can fellowship on the greater aspects of Reformed Doctrine and faith.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Saiph
2. I enjoy the liturgy and the idea of covenant renewal worship. (I am not saying it is the only way to worship, nor am I saying it is in line with RWP)

I do not want to get off topic. However, this point caused me to stumble a bit in what I believe. Is the idea that worship services are equivalent to a covenant renewal ceremony not accepted by the PCA? Does not Michael Horton teach such? No need to respond with details in support or against such a concept, a simple answer or referral will suffice via reply, U2U, or email ([email protected]). I didn't realize this was an Anglican concept.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Mayflower]

Originally posted by Saiph

Why you left the presbyterian church to join the angelican Church ?

Well, this is an interesting question. First of all, I have not joined the Anglican church yet. Our PCA Church dissolved because the pastor retired and went on to focus on mission oriented ministry. I have now been convicted to find a church in my neighborhood instead of driving 35 miles to attend.

There is a great PCA church close to me that I might end up at, but here are the reasons I am inquiring on Anglicaniasm.

1. They practice paedocommunion. (I know most people on this board find that to be anathema, but I am not here to change anyones mind.)

2. I enjoy the liturgy and the idea of covenant renewal worship. (I am not saying it is the only way to worship, nor am I saying it is in line with RWP)

3. I lean towards egalitarianism, but not completely. (Women should not be ordained Elders, Priests, or Bishops, and they should not excercise church discipline, teach, consecrate the sacraments, or pronounce absolution.) But, I do not see anything unbiblical with them reading scripture, praying, or serving the eucharist.

4. Church Government was an interesting difference, but this thread is broadening that perspective for me.

Note: I do not want to get in an argument over egalitarianism or paedocomunnion. If you want to debate, do it through email with me.
As far as I know this board oposses those things. But I hope we can fellowship on the greater aspects of Reformed Doctrine and faith.

Dear Mark,

Thank you very much for explain it. I was only interessed to know why you are giong to the Anglican Church, not to discuss with you.

What does egalitarianism mean ?

Is there besides the paedocommunion difference also something else that is differents with the the view on the Lord supper & baptism (sacraments).

Do you a good theological book which explains the theology of Angelicanism ?

To be honest i don't know much about Angelican Church. I only remember when i was living in Amsterdam, that i visited many times a Angelican Church, where the preaching was solid.

 

[Peter]

Thanks for standing up for Christ's crown DTK.

 

[Saiph]

Chris, I have never read anything by Horton. And some PCA churches do have stronger liturgy of covenant renewal than others. All churches have a liturgy. But the call to worship, the reading of the law, the reading of the gospel, confession of sin, pronouncement of absolution, offering of tithes, recital of the creed, sermon, participation in the eucharist, singing of songs, and benediction are all elements I see as desirable, but not absolutely necessary. In other words, I PREFER them. The whole RWP idea to me is impossible to practice. There are many things that are lawful but not commanded. One is not offering strange fire if the principle of worship is derived from biblical example, but not explicitly commanded.

 

[Saiph]

Ralph, check out books by J.I. Packer, J.C.Ryle, and C.S. Lewis. They were all Anglicans. It is reformed theology. And, yes there are differences in some things like the sacraments, but you find that even in PCA, RPC, OPC at times.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

C.S. Lewis was not reformed.

 

[Saiph]

That is not absolutely proven, like whether or not Augustine was amil or postmil. C.S. Lewis certainly held to CT at least.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Saiph]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

There is no doubt that he was an Arminian. He believed in unlimited atonement, the possibility that one could lose their salvation and, moreover, that some non-Christians could be saved.

 

[Saiph]

Well, I have never come across the atonement issue, but you are right about the other two. How reformed does one have to be to be reformed ? ? I guess I was using the term in the sense of not RC or Orthodox. . . . He was not a five pointer by any means.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Not every Anglican is an Arminian like C.S. Lewis. J.C. Ryle is a good example of a Reformed Anglican. The 39 Articles are very Calvinistic in their soteriology. But I do not consider Arminianism to be Reformed in any sense of the word.

This article is a helpful guide to Lewis' theology. He says he got approval for his book Mere Christianity which purports to explain the gospel in concise terms from a Roman Catholic priest among others and that he where he specifically denies unlimited atonement. He also explicitly denied total depravity in The Problem of Pain.

More quotes from C.S. Lewis:

"All may be saved if they so choose" (which included people on the bus ride from hell).

Beyond the parameters of traditional Arminianism, however, Lewis expected that some non-Christians would be saved. "Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life." On the radio he announced: "We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

 

[Saiph]

But I do not consider Arminianism to be Reformed in any sense of the word.

Of course not.

However, an arminian that holds to Sola Scriptura is still more reformed than a catholic right ? ?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Saiph

But I do not consider Arminianism to be Reformed in any sense of the word.

Of course not.

However, an arminian that holds to Sola Scriptura is still more reformed than a catholic right ? ?

If you mean to employ the word Reformed in sense beyond soteriology to mean broadly Protestant, then yes, hypothetically speaking, an Arminian who holds to sola scriptura is "more reformed" than a Catholic.

I have never read anything to suggest that C.S. Lewis held to sola scriptura and many modern Anglicans do not, so as far as I know this point is academic to the discussion of whether C.S. Lewis is Reformed.

He clearly did not believe in Reformed soteriology. Arminians, by definition, are outside the Reformed camp, hence, C.S. Lewis was not Reformed in my understanding of the term.

 

[Saiph]

I do not want to argue about it. I guess the whole point was that Lewis was Anglican, which is in the reformed tradition, even though his personal views on soteriology departed from it.

I was just trying to answer the question on writings of Anglicans.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I understand. C.S. Lewis was a wonderfully gifted Anglican writer. He wrote much that can be enjoyed and that is profitable. But I would just refer to him as an Arminian Anglican rather than a Reformed Anglican.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Saiph

But I do not consider Arminianism to be Reformed in any sense of the word.

Of course not.

However, an arminian that holds to Sola Scriptura is still more reformed than a catholic right ? ?

Sola Scriptura is a Reformed doctrine... I've never met too many Arminians that even know much about Reformation history anyway, much less revere it.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

An Arminian who actually studies and understands the history behind the Reformation is actually called a Calvinist.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Saiph

But I do not consider Arminianism to be Reformed in any sense of the word.

Of course not.

However, an arminian that holds to Sola Scriptura is still more reformed than a catholic right ? ?

Lewis may have believed in Sola Scriptura, but he certainly did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. In one of his footnotes in his "Miracles" book, he suggests that the oldest stories in the Old Testament were just the best myths through which God started revealing himself to man, but that by the time we get to king David, we can really trust the historicity of what Scripture says.

 

[Mayflower]

C.S. Lewis believed in Purgatory :

Of course I pray for the dead. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? I believe in purgatory. Our souls demand purgatory, don't they? My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn, a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be purgatory.
(Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, 107-109)

 

[Saiph]

I believe in Purgatory also . . I call it sanctification, and it occurs on this side of the grave.

Lewis may have believed in Sola Scriptura, but he certainly did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. In one of his footnotes in his "Miracles" book, he suggests that the oldest stories in the Old Testament were just the best myths through which God started revealing himself to man, but that by the time we get to king David, we can really trust the historicity of what Scripture says.

C.S. Lewis has a different definition of myth. Lewis embeds the truths of scripture in a story, not unlike God's "transposition" of truth in the scriptures. In other words, Lewis is following the example of Jesus by burying truth in story. For instance Lewis embeds his beliefs about the Bible under the auspices of a children's stories.

Here are C. S. Lewis's own words as he is faced with the story of redemption in the gospels:

If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it . . . Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all.

C. S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy, (1955) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, (p. 88).

In God in the Dock, Lewis wrote:

"Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens - at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle...Those who do not know that this great myth became Fact when the Virgin conceived are, indeed, to be pitied. But Christians also need to be...reminded that what became Fact was a Myth, that it carries with it into the world of Fact all the properties of a myth. God is more than a god, not less; Christ is more than Balder, not less. We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting in our theology."

"He sent the human race what I call good dreams. I mean those queer stories scattered all through heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men."

I take it to mean that myths somehow reflect the truth about God in the sense of Romans 1, where creation, and our conscience, bear witness to God's eternal power, law, etc. . . .

All lies require an element of the truth to make them believable.


Anyway, who really cares. He was a Christian writer with a few bad ideas. He was not a theologian.

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by DTK

This may be what drives the last nail in my Reformed Coffin!!! but I have to agree with Saiph, To say that the Presbyterian Form of Church Government is plainly laid out in Scripture is vague at best,especially when a distinction is made between ruling elders and teaching elders,those that are laity and those that are clergy. I think that an argument for an Episcopate could be made just as easily,you must do a"cut and paste" to scripture to come to that conclusion. Sola Scriptura is lacking in this regard,we can affirm qualifications for Bishops,Presbyters,and Deacons,but we are left wanting for duties,and governing roles.

We must therefore look to Patristics and Tradition to give us a greater understanding of what church government should look like. The real purpose of lawful ordination is not so much of passing down the office as it is in passing down foundational orthodox teaching.

Well, I think this pretty much confirms where I suspected you were coming from all along.

1) You claim to be a Presbyterian elder, but believe that Scripture offers no objective paradigm to resolve the issue.

2) Moreover, your assertion that "sola Scriptura is lacking in this regard" is due to the fact that you presuppose another question-begging assumption, namely, that "we are left wanting for duties,and governing roles."

3) You presuppose, in the third place, an objectivity to be found in the "Patristics and Tradition" that is lacking in Scripture in order "to give us a greater understanding of what church government should look like." But the problem with your construct here is that both the "Patristics and Tradition" are far more subjective in their formulations in that there is to be found an even greater diversity and disagreement between the witnesses of these therein. How, for example, are you able to reconcile Jerome's witness above (testifying as both a father and a witness to tradition) with the diversity of witnesses found elsewhere? Your presupposition of objectivity in these witnesses simply will not float in the wide sea of ecclesiastical history. If sola Scriptura won't work here, as you assert, still less will the derived witness of the patristics and tradition work because of the contradictions their combined testimonies yield, revealing quite clearly the fallible nature of human witnesses.

4) If something is unclear in Holy Scripture, how exactly does the varying, and often conflicting, witnesses of the patristics and tradition do more than muddy the waters even further? Can these witnesses actually make Scripture mean more than it actually says? If our theological constructs are to be based upon revelation alone, how can anything with less authority be accorded the same status as revelation? None of this means that sola Scriptura doesn't work. After all, it has been working for various Protestants for centuries all the while Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have been at odds with one another, both taking time ever now and then to pause for a moment, and condescend to our level long enough to tell us that our paradigm isn't working. When I hear such charges, I confess it's everything I can do to keep from busting my gut in sheer laughter. As William Whitaker pointed out...

William Whitaker(1547-1595): The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The Jesuit [i.e., Bellarmine] answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of their truth, is nothing more than saying they are truer. But what sort of distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the words that the truth arises. If therefore he confesses that the scriptures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the scriptures than the in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, in Irenaeus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. "œThe words of scripture," says he, "œare more obscure than the words of the fathers." Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels in all powers of expression. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 390.

5) Furthermore, the purpose of biblical revelation is not designed under God to put an end to all controversy, but in many cases to create division, per the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11,

17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions (ai`re,seij) among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

See also Mt 10:34-39; Lk 2:34; Jn 3:19-21; 7:40-43; 9:16; 10:19-21. Truth, by nature, has this amazing ability both to unite and divide.

6) God's people are all one family, and it may come as a surprize, but family members have been known to disagree and to disagree bitterly, without making any member of said family any less a member. Thus sola Scriptura can't be said not to work, simply because members of God's family may disagree with one another. It's only when the paradigm of perfection is forced to define the state of the church this side of eternity, rather than its goal, that sola Scriptura can be said not to "work," as though complete uniformity in understanding makes for the esse of the church. Quite frankly, I have always thought that that is a ridiculous notion.

Wishing you the best,
DTK

I don't find diversity and disagreement amongnst the Fathers in regards to church government, but clarity. Why do you suppose Catholics,Orthodox,and Anglicans have an Episcopate? Why do you think there were councils? If you talk to an Orthodox ,and you ask them ,why there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council since the schism. They will tell you because the place where the Patriarch of Rome sits is empty,and not until He is there again,will there ever be another council,That is why Trent wasn't legitimate,that is why every Roman Council will continue to be illegitimate until the all the Patriarchs are Present,until we have a quorum!!!!

 

[DTK]

I don't find diversity and disagreement amongnst the Fathers in regards to church government, but clarity. Why do you suppose Catholics,Orthodox,and Anglicans have an Episcopate? Why do you think there were councils? If you talk to an Orthodox ,and you ask them ,why there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council since the schism. They will tell you because the place where the Patriarch of Rome sits is empty,and not until He is there again,will there ever be another council,That is why Trent wasn't legitimate,that is why every Roman Council will continue to be illegitimate until the all the Patriarchs are Present,until we have a quorum!!!!

1) They have an episcopate because, as Jerome observed, they have departed from the apostolic paradigm as recorded in Holy Scripture. That's one good reason why one shouldn't look to the patristics or tradition as sources of divine revelation.

2) You haven't tried to interact with anything I've said, you've simply ignored it.

3) 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. You are obviously among the ranks of such as I will demonstrate below.

4) 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.

5) I have talked to the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, both of whom appeal to tradition, and Roman Catholics insist just as enthusiastically that there have been ecumenical councils since Trent. You see, just asserting to a Roman Catholic that that councils peculiar to his communion are illegitimate until all the Patrirachs are present makes the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 illegitimate became the bishop/patriarch of Rome was de facto not present. It was, as one scholar has said, "exclusively an inter-diocesan of the eastern church." That certainly didn't keep the Eastern Churches from convening and afterward designating it as "ecumenical" without the Roman bishop, so why should it stop them now? So your "!!!" is is underwhelming.

6) What basis do the Orthodox have for repudiating other councils as ecumenical when such councils had the same representation of bishops as "ecumenical councils" that did?

7) Look to the "patristics and tradition?" One of us has, and the other obviously hasn't.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by DTK

I don't find diversity and disagreement amongnst the Fathers in regards to church government, but clarity. Why do you suppose Catholics,Orthodox,and Anglicans have an Episcopate? Why do you think there were councils? If you talk to an Orthodox ,and you ask them ,why there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council since the schism. They will tell you because the place where the Patriarch of Rome sits is empty,and not until He is there again,will there ever be another council,That is why Trent wasn't legitimate,that is why every Roman Council will continue to be illegitimate until the all the Patriarchs are Present,until we have a quorum!!!!

1) They have an episcopate because, as Jerome observed, they have departed from the apostolic paradigm as recorded in Holy Scripture. That's one good reason why one shouldn't look to the patristics or tradition as sources of divine revelation.

2) You haven't tried to interact with anything I've said, you've simply ignored it.

3) 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. You are obviously among the ranks of such as I will demonstrate below.

4) 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.

5) I have talked to the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, both of whom appeal to tradition, and Roman Catholics insist just as enthusiastically that there have been ecumenical councils since Trent. You see, just asserting to a Roman Catholic that that councils peculiar to his communion are illegitimate until all the Patrirachs are present makes the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 illegitimate became the bishop/patriarch of Rome was de facto not present. It was, as one scholar has said, "exclusively an inter-diocesan of the eastern church." That certainly didn't keep the Eastern Churches from convening and afterward designating it as "ecumenical" without the Roman bishop, so why should it stop them now? So your "!!!" is is underwhelming.

6) What basis do the Orthodox have for repudiating other councils as ecumenical when such councils had the same representation of bishops as "ecumenical councils" that did?

7) Look to the "patristics and tradition?" One of us has, and the other obviously hasn't.

Cheers,
DTK

Although you've quoted Jerome I've read the quote,and I still don't see where you get the idea,that there is a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders,one being a laymen and the other clergy?

I've left this church for which I am elder,as far as my ordination is concerned it doesn't amount to a hill of beans,for if the PCUSA is apostate as many say then my ordination was not lawful.

 

[DTK]

Although you've quoted Jerome I've read the quote,and I still don't see where you get the idea,that there is a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders,one being a laymen and the other clergy?

1 Timothy 5:17 makes the distinction: Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. The word "œespecially" distinguishes between those who rule and those who teach and rule by their "œlabor in the word and doctrine." This is basic Presbyterian polity with scriptural support. I can´t be blamed for your having been insufficiently instructed when you became an elder.

I've left this church for which I am elder,as far as my ordination is concerned it doesn't amount to a hill of beans,for if the PCUSA is apostate as many say then my ordination was not lawful.

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.

Cheers,
DTK

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by DTK]

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by DTK

Although you've quoted Jerome I've read the quote,and I still don't see where you get the idea,that there is a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders,one being a laymen and the other clergy?

1 Timothy 5:17 makes the distinction: Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. The word "œespecially" distinguishes between those who rule and those who teach and rule by their "œlabor in the word and doctrine." This is basic Presbyterian polity with scriptural support. I can´t be blamed for your having been insufficiently instructed when you became an elder.

I've left this church for which I am elder,as far as my ordination is concerned it doesn't amount to a hill of beans,for if the PCUSA is apostate as many say then my ordination was not lawful.

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.

Cheers,
DTK

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by DTK]

The 1 Timothy passage can be interpreted another way: that ALL elders, ruling or otherwise, are to recieve honor not only of their position but to be financially compensated. Indicating that ruling elders ,as you would define them,were clergy as well. The passage would indicate that there were elders who's duties were Rabbinical in nature, even those who were just READERS and those who's duties were priestly( administering the sacraments). The only time I was compensated was for the Pulpit. But as far as I know Ruling Elders don't recieve any other financial compensation in the Presbyterian Tradition.


That is why scripture is scetchy at best,by itself. As for my being an elder you can think whatever you want to think,I came out of the Reformed tradition,I am simply stating my previous position,and were the Lord is leading me now. I am sorry if I mislead you in any way. If I am in error,then may the Lord show me.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Denny]

 

[DTK]

The 1 Timothy passage can be interpreted another way: that ALL elders, ruling or otherwise, are to recieve honor not only of their position but to be financially compensated. Indicating that ruling elders ,as you would define them,were clergy as well. The passage would indicate that there were elders who's duties were Rabbinical in nature, even those who were just READERS and those who's duties were priestly( administering the sacraments). The only time I was compensated was for the Pulpit. But as far as I know Ruling Elders don't recieve any other financial compensation in the Presbyterian Tradition.

I´m sorry you´re upset that no one paid you for being a ruling elder. They should have told you there was no money in it. As for your own private interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:17, it is just as misinformed as your claims for the patristics and tradition.

That is why scripture is scetchy at best,by itself. As for my being an elder you can think whatever you want to think,I came out of the Reformed tradition,I am simply stating my previous position,and were the Lord is leading me now. I am sorry if I mislead you in any way. If I am in error,then may the Lord show me.

Well, what I know is what you stated when you began posting here. You said you were a ruling elder, and then within just a few days of being here you changed your signature. That´s not simply something that I think, but what I know.

What is clear is that you are a very confused individual, and you're being confused doesn't make Holy Scripture "sketchy at best." I think your view of Holy Scripture is part of the reason for your confusion. Moreover, you haven´t "œsimply stat[ed your] previous position,and w[h]ere the Lord is leading [you] now." You made truth claims about "œpatristics and tradition." You´ve made some rants against sola Scriptura, and continue to do so, declaring what God has declared to be qeo,pneustoj "scetchy at best,by itself." You must be confused to make such charges against the word of your Creator. Furthermore, you've posted some very common errors that have been shown to be historically inept, and you have ignored direct questions intended to help you make an effort to think through what you´re saying. But your response has only been to make more misinformed assertions. You invoke the Lord to show you if you're wrong, but it's like the man on the house surrounded with water, waving off the helicopter that God has, in His providence, sent to rescue him. I think you do need help, because wherever you're getting it from presently isn't working.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by DTK

The 1 Timothy passage can be interpreted another way: that ALL elders, ruling or otherwise, are to recieve honor not only of their position but to be financially compensated. Indicating that ruling elders ,as you would define them,were clergy as well. The passage would indicate that there were elders who's duties were Rabbinical in nature, even those who were just READERS and those who's duties were priestly( administering the sacraments). The only time I was compensated was for the Pulpit. But as far as I know Ruling Elders don't recieve any other financial compensation in the Presbyterian Tradition.

I´m sorry you´re upset that no one paid you for being a ruling elder. They should have told you there was no money in it. As for your own private interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:17, it is just as misinformed as your claims for the patristics and tradition.

That is why scripture is scetchy at best,by itself. As for my being an elder you can think whatever you want to think,I came out of the Reformed tradition,I am simply stating my previous position,and were the Lord is leading me now. I am sorry if I mislead you in any way. If I am in error,then may the Lord show me.

Well, what I know is what you stated when you began posting here. You said you were a ruling elder, and then within just a few days of being here you changed your signature. That´s not simply something that I think, but what I know.

What is clear is that you are a very confused individual, and you're being confused doesn't make Holy Scripture "sketchy at best." I think your view of Holy Scripture is part of the reason for your confusion. Moreover, you haven´t "œsimply stat[ed your] previous position,and w[h]ere the Lord is leading [you] now." You made truth claims about "œpatristics and tradition." You´ve made some rants against sola Scriptura, and continue to do so, declaring what God has declared to be qeo,pneustoj "scetchy at best,by itself." You must be confused to make such charges against the word of your Creator. Furthermore, you've posted some very common errors that have been shown to be historically inept, and you have ignored direct questions intended to help you make an effort to think through what you´re saying. But your response has only been to make more misinformed assertions. You invoke the Lord to show you if you're wrong, but it's like the man on the house surrounded with water, waving off the helicopter that God has, in His providence, sent to rescue him. I think you do need help, because wherever you're getting it from presently isn't working.

Cheers,
DTK

I am sorry if you were offended in anyway,I am simply seeking fellowship with other believers and some answers,if I am guilty of an unpardonable sin,pkease let me know,does it really bother me that I wasn't paid more as an elder,if I was one to begin with ? Not in the least!!,I am simply stating what the text says,you can agree with it,or not.

I am just not seeing a clearly laid out prescription for Presbyterianism in the text you gave,does that mean that various aspects of Presbyterianism can't exist within an Episcopate,sure! Isn't that what the early church councils were all about???

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Denny]

 

[DTK]

I am sorry if you were offended in anyway,I am simply seeking fellowship with other believers and some answers,

I am not offended. I´m pointing out the inconsistencies of your claims. Again, you are not here "œsimply seeking fellowship with other believers and some answers," you are here expressing your objections to Reformed theology and making uninformed assertions. You see, just because you´re confused doesn´t mean that I am.

if I am guilty of an unpardonable sin,pkease let me know,does it really bother me that I wasn't paid more as an elder,if I was one to begin with ? Not in the least!!,I am simply stating what the text says,you can agree with it,or not.

No, you´re not simply stating what the text says. You´re offering your uninformed interpretation of the text, which once again shows that you´re not here "œsimply seeking fellowship with other believers and some answers." You´re making truth claims, and not responding to questions intended to help you think through such claims.

I am just not seeing a clearly laid out prescription for Presbyterianism in the text you gave,does that mean that various aspects of Presbyterianism can't exist within an Episcopate,sure! Isn't that what the early church councils were all about???

At this point, given your expressed errors already, and your confusion, I don´t think you ought to be asking questions which assume an answer. If you are really seeking answers, then you need to interact with the questions directed to you, instead of ignoring them and going on to make more uninformed claims. Holy Scripture equates the office of a bishop with that of a presbyter (e.g., Compare Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28 - There Paul equates elders with bishops, calling for the "elders" presbute,prous of Ephesus in v. 17, and then addressing them as "bishops " evpisko,pouj in v. 28) There were no patriarchal offices in the churches of the New Testament.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by DTK

I am sorry if you were offended in anyway,I am simply seeking fellowship with other believers and some answers,

I am not offended. I´m pointing out the inconsistencies of your claims. Again, you are not here "œsimply seeking fellowship with other believers and some answers," you are here expressing your objections to Reformed theology and making uninformed assertions. You see, just because you´re confused doesn´t mean that I am.

if I am guilty of an unpardonable sin,pkease let me know,does it really bother me that I wasn't paid more as an elder,if I was one to begin with ? Not in the least!!,I am simply stating what the text says,you can agree with it,or not.

No, you´re not simply stating what the text says. You´re offering your uninformed interpretation of the text, which once again shows that you´re not here "œsimply seeking fellowship with other believers and some answers." You´re making truth claims, and not responding to questions intended to help you think through such claims.

I am just not seeing a clearly laid out prescription for Presbyterianism in the text you gave,does that mean that various aspects of Presbyterianism can't exist within an Episcopate,sure! Isn't that what the early church councils were all about???

At this point, given your expressed errors already, and your confusion, I don´t think you ought to be asking questions which assume an answer. If you are really seeking answers, then you need to interact with the questions directed to you, instead of ignoring them and going on to make more uninformed claims. Holy Scripture equates the office of a bishop with that of a presbyter (e.g., Compare Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28 - There Paul equates elders with bishops, calling for the "elders" presbute,prous of Ephesus in v. 17, and then addressing them as "bishops " evpisko,pouj in v. 28) There were no patriarchal offices in the churches of the New Testament.

Cheers,
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!!!

 

[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