Church Office necessarily disqualifies and Nicene canon 9 (325 AD)

[Gwallard]

Hello, all!

There have been many threads about eldership qualification, but I hope to ask a historical question with a bit of modern day application.

Canon 9 of the first Nicene Counsel says this:
"If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless"

This canon seems to say that if a man is found to be a criminal or a heretic (or ordained by heretics), he cannot be an elder. This is incredible to me, because it is regardless of whether the crime happened before or after faith; AND regardless of their confession of the crime (and I assume by confession also repentance of that crime).

Do we still think this way?

For example, given a registered sex offender who publicly repented and over time showed the truth of his repentance with a life lived in the Holy Spirit, could this man be up for office? Does it matter if the offense was done before or after faith?

Another way if asking - does odious crime* necessarily disqualify one from office, regardless of when it was done? This is my understanding of Nicene canon 9.

Also, was there any change in this view from Nicea onward?

Edit: "sin" replaced with "crime*"

 

[Ploutos]

I imagine that this canon was translated from Latin or Greek and I'd have a lot of questions about the context. What types of crimes - ecclesiastical, spiritual, civil? Were they unrepented of or unaddressed? Is it the "crime" of having and maintaining theologically aberrant views?

I would need to know a lot more before concluding that I knew what was being said. That said, if someone is ordained by heretics, I don't think it's a valid ordination. It doesn't mean someone can't be an elder; but I think it does mean the prior ordination to such office doesn't count. If you were an elder or equivalent rank in the Roman Catholic or Mormon "churches", that would not count in a PCA church, I don't think.

 

[Edward]

if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach.

For example, given a registered sex offender who publicly repented and over time showed the truth of his repentance with a life lived in the Holy Spirit, could this man be up for office? Does it matter if the offense was done before or after faith?

I'd say such a person cannot meet the scriptural standard to be ordained. He's certainly not above reproach. The Lord shall judge whether he's of the elect. I'll judge that he's not fit for office.

 

[EvanF]

Canon 2 also seems to disqualify elders found to have committed certain sins prior to ordination.

 

[Gwallard]

The original text was Greek (below)
θ′. Εἴ τινες ἀνεξετάστως προσήχθησαν πρεσβύτεροι, ἢ ἀνακρινόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὰ ἡμαρτημένα αὐτοῖς, καὶ ὁμολογησάντων αὐτὼν, παρὰ κανόνα κινούμενοι οἱ ἄνθρωποι τοῖς τοιούτοις χεῖρα ἐπιτεθείκασι, τούτους ὁ κανὼν οὐ προσίεται· Τὸ γὰρ ἀνεπίληπτον ἐκδικεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

And here is the Latin translation:
IX. Si qui sine examinatione presbyteri promoti sint, vel cum discuterentur, peccata sua confessi sint, eisque confessis, homines contra canonem moti, manus imposuerint, tales canon non admittit: quod enim reprehensibile est, catholica Ecclesia non defendit.

The word used for "blameless" is predictably the word used in 1 Timothy 3:2 "ἀνεπίληπτον"

Canon 2 also seems to disqualify elders found to have committed certain sins prior to ordination.

Great find! That's the thing - is this absolute, or is this only only for sins committed in office? I'll have to check the Greek for both later.

Canon 2

Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual laver, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, “Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil.” But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod

 

[Gwallard]

if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach.



I'd say such a person cannot meet the scriptural standard to be ordained. He's certainly not above reproach. The Lord shall judge whether he's of the elect. I'll judge that he's not fit for office.

Being above reproach I'd say is actually secondary to 1 Timothy 3:7 in this case - "Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders,"

But I don't think either of these Biblical requirements can be absolute, that is, if anyone can be criticized, then they're out, because Christians are reproachful to the world. If this qualification was absolute in this way, then Christian eldership is impossible for everyone.

Does "and such WERE some of you" apply in these cases?

Everyone can be criticized, and everyone has a past. Paul certainly did, and he certainly was criticized; so did Peter the blasphemer. Now, can we use them as examples, if they were apostles?

 

[Ploutos]

The first order of business is finding out what was meant by these canons. Second order is finding out whether we should consider them binding, recommended, or historically interesting.

 

[yeutter]

That said, if someone is ordained by heretics, I don't think it's a valid ordination. It doesn't mean someone can't be an elder; but I think it does mean the prior ordination to such office doesn't count. If you were an elder or equivalent rank in the Roman Catholic or Mormon "churches", that would not count in a PCA church, I don't think.

I believe that there is an essential difference between clerics in the Church of Rome, and clerics in Mormonism and other LDS cults. The Church of Rome is a Church that has apostatized.
The Latter Day Saints are cults that were never part of the church catholic. They have been cultists since their founding.
The Church of Rome still says that it believes in, and uses liturgically the Nicene Creed.
Many Reformed Churches recognize the baptisms conducted by Roman Catholic priests and deacons. None would recognize a baptism conducted by a Latter Day Saints cultist.
Should a Roman Catholic Priest be required to be ordained if he comes into a Reformed Church? Most Anglican jurisdictions do not require that former clerics in the Church of Rome be re-ordained. Should a former Roman Catholic priest be re-ordained or should he only be required to formally and publicly renounce the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome?

Pastor Kevin Guillory, the founding pastor of Redeemer Christian Congregation in Baltimore, MD used to post here on Puritan Board under the name Staphlobob.
Pastor Guillory had been a Roman Catholic priest who left and was a pastor on an ELCA Lutheran Church. I do not believe he was re-ordained by the ELCA when he left the Church of Rome.
He was too conservative too be an ELCA Lutheran. He was too Reformed to be a Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran. When he finally left the ELCA it was to pastor Redeemer Christian Congregation which he had founded.

I Resigned

Well, it finally happened. After 10 years of my praying, preaching and writing against them, the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) finally got rid of me. I read my Letter of Resignation to the church council on Sunday, March 4th (lots of anger at me), and then to the congregation...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[Gwallard]

The first order of business is finding out what was meant by these canons. Second order is finding out whether we should consider them binding, recommended, or historically interesting.

Quite right! Sorry, I am eager to share my individual thoughts, but that gets us off track. I'm unable to translate directly right now, but I'll get to it as soon as possible.

On how they were used - I'm not sure about that, which is the puzzling part. I'm half of a mind to ask the Eastern Orthodox about these canons, who consider the counsels as equal to Scripture.

At the very least, canon 2 only speaks of sexual sins disqualifying current officers after conviction " If, as time goes on, the man is discovered to have committed some sensual (psychikos) sin, and is convicted by two or three witnesses, let him leave the clergy."

 

[Gwallard]

The word used for "confess" (ὁμολογέω) is in aorist (so, simple past), and is the same word used in Romans 10:6. So, not sure about timing on the confession.

The word used for "crime" is actually "sin" (ἁμάρτημα), although I don't know why they would uses this specific word: it is used in Scripture only 4 times. Two of the four are in Mark 3:28-29 "I tell you the truth, all things will be forgiven the sons of men, all sinful (ἁμαρτήματα) behavior and whatever blasphemies whatever they may utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin (ἁμαρτήματος)"

I don't know why they would use such a specific word - it doesn't seem to mean civil crime, but just any sin. Why not use the more regular hamartia, then? I'll check my dictionaries in the morning.

 

[Phil D.]

William Bright has some notes on the Nicene Canons that may be helpful. Also, Canon 9 of the near contemporaneous Council of Neocaesarea is contextually relevant.

Second order is finding out whether we should consider them binding, recommended, or historically interesting.

I'm not aware of any Protestant that would see anything produced by early church councils, other than the Nicene creed, as binding.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not aware of any Protestant that would see anything produced by early church councils, other than the Nicene creed, as binding.

Many times EOs won't even consider them binding. Think of the canons as a "damage limitation committee meeting." The canons address how to deal with specific pastoral problems. In Nicea the main problem was roving bishops who weren't accountable to anyone.

This canon is tricky, though, since I see it playing out today. I know of many godly and competent men who will not be elders because of a specific sexual sin years ago.

 

[Ploutos]

This canon is tricky, though, since I see it playing out today. I know of many godly and competent men who will not be elders because of a specific sexual sin years ago.

I can speak to this personally.

1) I never heard of the canon before this thread, so to the extent it's "playing out" in my life or the lives of those I know, I'm not sure it has anything whatosever to do with that canon and more to do with an attempt at basing convictions on Biblical teaching.

2) Sexual sin is not just an isolated act but a pattern of behavior that affects one's mind and impulses. For someone who has been engaged in illicit and sinful behaviors, stopping the behavior is just the first part. Undoing the damage / re-wiring one's thought patterns and mental impulses is the second and far longer step that gets less air time. Then comes the recognition that sometimes these sins leave permanent marks on one's constitution, or permanent areas of vulnerability and susceptibility that one has to be aware of.

Those who are familiar with Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and novels may remember Watson's comment about Holmes' drug habit - that it was a beast that never died, only slept, and that when Holmes was bored or inactive, that beast would stir. I believe this is true of sexual sin. It would be fallacious to universalize solely from my experience, but I've read enough to believe that my own experience is not unique and in fact somewhat standard. I've been a Christian for almost 11 years, and a great deal of that time has been occupied recognizing and combating the second-order effects of past sexual sins - this long after God delivered me from the actual sins themselves. It makes perfect sense to me to view sexual sins as a disqualifying factor for church office long after the actual practice ceases.

I don't have the same in-depth experience with other types of sin but it's easy to imagine that a similar principle applies to a life severely marked by gambling or alcohol addictions, petty crime, pathological deceitfulness, excessive anger or violence, etc.

 

[Edward]

The first order of business is finding out what was meant by these canons. Second order is finding out whether we should consider them binding, recommended, or historically interesting.

Second order should be testing them against Scripture. That should determine how we consider them. Which may be what you are saying.

 

[Ploutos]

Second order should be testing them against Scripture. That should determine how we consider them. Which may be what you are saying.

It was implied, but the way you stated it is better.

 

[arapahoepark]

Canon 2 also seems to disqualify elders found to have committed certain sins prior to ordination.

This canon is tricky, though, since I see it playing out today. I know of many godly and competent men who will not be elders because of a specific sexual sin years ago.

Just revisiting this. While I do see now that sexual sins are mentioned (when I was wanting to revisit this I thought any or all grevious sins were mentioned), would you think that sins of ones youth (pre convert), perhaps young adult (not necessarily sexual) disqualify someone? I was particularly thinking of the whole Kavanaugh thing (if true) for instance, while he surely isn't running for eldership.

Was the bar too high in Nicaea (especially considering their stance on post baptismal sins in the laity) or was merely about keeping bishops and presbyters accountable?

 

[RamistThomist]

Just revisiting this. While I do see now that sexual sins are mentioned (when I was wanting to revisit this I thought any or all grevious sins were mentioned), would you think that sins of ones youth (pre convert), perhaps young adult (not necessarily sexual) disqualify someone? I was particularly thinking of the whole Kavanaugh thing (if true) for instance, while he surely isn't running for eldership.

Was the bar too high in Nicaea (especially considering their stance on post baptismal sins in the laity) or was merely about keeping bishops and presbyters accountable?

Nicea didn't really set the bar too high if we keep several things in mind. Not all canons are meant to be perpetually binding. Even the ones that are, have to be applied "by means of economy," or day to day life. It comes down to this: would the previous sin, even if repented of, cause a public scandal if they man were made a bishop?

 

[Charles Johnson]

The word used for "crime" is actually "sin" (ἁμάρτημα), although I don't know why they would uses this specific word

Not exactly. The text doesn't use the noun αμάρτημα, but the verb αμαρτάνω, in its perfect passive participle form.
τὰ ἡμαρτημένα αὐτοῖς