Calls of the First Reformers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
The Puritan's Mind has an interesting excerpt from Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology in which Turretin defends the calls of the first Reformed ministers:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincallingreformers.htm

There is another portion of the work that is not online but addresses the issue of independency more directly.

In summary, the calls of the first Reformers were valid for one of two reasons: (1) ordination in the Roman Catholic church or (2) extraordinary ordination through unavoidable necessity. It is interesting the Turretin noted that Catholicism retained a legitimate call (although corrupted). More interesting to me is that in ordinary conditions Turretin denies the lawfulness of a minister who is not called through the established church. In other words, the minister must be ordained by someone else who has already been ordained and otherwise follow the rights and procedures of the church. The only time this is not the right way to handle the matter is in "unavoidable necessity," such as during the time of the Reformation when the Church hid the gospel and led men to hell.

This requirement leads to a form of apostolic succession modified by the unavoidable necessity exception. What is interesting to me is that most modern evangelical criticisms of apostolic succession that I see simply deny its concept outright, not relying on the narrow exception Turretin maintains. In my area we have so many churches where people just get together and start up. These would be most any kind of congregational church.

Please note also that Turretin does not state that self-formed congregations don't have the saving gospel, just that their ministers are unlawful. He distinguishes between the two.

Note also that his conditions were much different than ours. He faced largely established churches, whether state churches or otherwise. We face enormous division, with rampant denominationsalism and independency (I see independents as denominations of one).

Scott
 
You are correct! Its an issue that has not been thought about much but is of critical necessity to the constitution of a church that Christ builds.
 
Here is a related quote from calvin on Hebrews 5:4 ("And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.")

[quote:5f0c460cc4]But though this has been said with reference to what is here handled, yet we may hence draw a general truth, - that no government is to be set up in the Church by the will of men, but that we are to wait for the command of God, and also that we ought to follow a certain rule in electing ministers, so that no one may intrude according to his own humor. Both these things ought to be distinctly noticed for the Apostle here speaks not of persons only, but also of the office itself; nay, he denies that the office which men appoint without God's command is lawful and divine. For as it appertains to God only to rule his Church, so he claims this right as his own, that is, to prescribe the way and manner of administration. [/quote:5f0c460cc4]
 
Sadly, I know someone who just started attending a community church. The background to the church talks about it forming just because some people got together and thought it would be a good idea. Basically self-appointed. :-(
 
Scott,

That is not nearly as bad as when a church splits because of different views in the emphasis of small groups, youth, etc. But I do hear you. The American ecclesiastical landscape is filled with landmines.
 
Yes, church splits are much worse (sadder) and fairly common among congregational churches. It is so easy to do in contrast from going throught denominational process for creating a church.
 
Back to the original discussion, I found this quote from Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition (ca. 215 AD) interesting and relevant.

[quote:284e4b38ed]
If a confessor has been placed in chains for the Name of the Lord, hands are not laid upon him for the office of deacon or presbyter. He has the honor of the office of an presbyter through his confession. If he is instituted as a bishop, then hands will be laid upon him.
[/quote:284e4b38ed]
Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus 10.1


Anyway, it seems to be early partial support for an emergency exception. While the existing institutional Church still seems to be the one who enrolls someone as a presbyter (unlike the calls of the first reformers), ordinary procedures are avoided due to emergency (being wrongly imprisoned and unable to receive a laying on of the hands).

Scott
 
Tertullian

By way of contrast, we do have a witness from Tertullian that churches were being founded "daily" in his time, as it seems apart from any visible succession other than that of doctrine, and that churches were to be considered no less apostolic on account of doctrine...

[b:cafe202f89]Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220):[/b:cafe202f89] Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. [b:cafe202f89]To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.[/b:cafe202f89] Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. [i:cafe202f89]ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics[/i:cafe202f89], Chapter 32.

Cheers,
DTK
 
Mr. King,

I believe that Tertullian in that excerpt is arguing for the need for apostolic doctrines not for the validity of any one gov in particular.
 
Tertullian

[quote:fcbbcc5f11="Ianterrell"]Mr. King,

I believe that Tertullian in that excerpt is arguing for the need for apostolic doctrines not for the validity of any one gov in particular.[/quote:fcbbcc5f11]

Mr. Brown,

I was not suggesting that Tertullian was arguing "the validity of any one gov in particular." What he was saying is that the test of a valid church is its agreement with Apostolic doctrine. That was and is the only point of Tertullian I sought to underscore.

Cheers,
DTK
 
David: That is a good quote. Was it before or after Tertullian left the church? I understand that he started developing some indepency doctrines (such as an individualistic notion of the priesthood of the believer) after he was excommunicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top