Getting Ministerial Succession & Lawful Ordination Right

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I have tweaked my view of Presbyterian Church Government, Lawful Ordination and Ministerial Succession. I believe I have tweaked it for the better, and have solidified a few things that seemed to me, out of place. That is why I had been so uneasy with the topic overall, though trying to make sense of everything in a manner consistent with the Scriptures, and for the glory of Christ's church, as well as His Divine Right over His Church.

I know we have had some lively debates on this topic, and lots of people have questioned my ideas in one way or another, and yet, at the same time, the topic has caused many to think through new ideas or things that are often neglected but vitally important. However, after going over various angles on this issue, and talking with others about how it ultimately affects the church and its peace, I believe I have come to find a majority consensus in the Reformed tradition on these things. I have written an article that should clear misconceptions up, and strengthen the bond we all have in Christ. At the same time, it still holds to certain important principles that the Reformers, Puritans, Westminster and the Scottish Presbyterians held to as well, without destroying the "doctrine of the church" overall.

Presbyterian Church Government NOT of the Esse of the Church
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

I hope this helps.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I look forward to reading this article in-depth. Thanks, Matt!

 

[JonathanHunt]

I appreciate the distinction between the esse and the bene esse that you have made. Obviously I disagree with a lot of Presbyterian Church Government, though!

It is one of those subjects on a list that I have to study through. Long, long list.

JH

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by JonathanHunt]

 

[Scott]

Matt: This is a very good article. I look forward to the dissertation.

 

[Arch2k]

Nicely done.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Thanks all - I hope it helps clarify some impoartant asepcts, and then at the same time allows us to remain bonded together as brothers in Christ who have varying denomination churches that adhere to "the true religion."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

 

[LawrenceU]

Matt, I appreciate your article and look forward to a more in-depth reading later.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Any feedback will be great.

 

[Bladestunner316]

oh my ...

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by webmaster
Any feedback will be great.

Matt,

Just a brief comment then. Your present article looks to me like more of a shift from your former thesis than something you've simply "tweaked." Admittedly, it doesn't constitute a major change, but it does denote to me a definite shift.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Yes, without "shifting" the category, the thesis is theologically impossible. A shift in category - yes.

 

[Peter]

I have some questions:
1.) Where in scripture do we find the 3 traditional marks as essential to the being of the church?
2.) What degree of faithfulness must a church have to the marks to be a true church?
3.) Is ministerial succession of the esse of lawful ordination?

 

[pastorway]

thanks for the article, Matt, and the new distinction in your thoughts!!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Peter
I have some questions:
1.) Where in scripture do we find the 3 traditional marks as essential to the being of the church?
2.) What degree of faithfulness must a church have to the marks to be a true church?
3.) Is ministerial succession of the esse of lawful ordination?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by Peter
I have some questions:
1.) Where in scripture do we find the 3 traditional marks as essential to the being of the church?
2.) What degree of faithfulness must a church have to the marks to be a true church?
3.) Is ministerial succession of the esse of lawful ordination?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
I have some questions:
1.) Where in scripture do we find the 3 traditional marks as essential to the being of the church?

In the various passages which describe the purpose of the Church - to administer Word and sacrament, and discipline as a means of determining membership

2.) What degree of faithfulness must a church have to the marks to be a true church?

An ecclesiastical determination, that varies.

3.) Is ministerial succession of the esse of lawful ordination?

No, else there is no lawful ordination.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,

An ecclesiastical determination, that varies.

If it's an ecclesiastical determination, doesn't this have to occur at the local level? If so, how can this be an accurate assessment? Every church will say they meet this requirement. If the determination varies, isn't this grey area means for the benefit of the doubt, period?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

What are the Scripture references for the purposes of the Church?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,

An ecclesiastical determination, that varies.

If it's an ecclesiastical determination, doesn't this have to occur at the local level? If so, how can this be an accurate assessment? Every church will say they meet this requirement. If the determination varies, isn't this grey area means for the benefit of the doubt, period?

I believe that historically, there has been some sort of common denominator, which I believe would start from Theology proper, ie; the True Religion, of which everything else would flow including Christology and ecclisiology (which would include the marks of the true church).

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
What are the Scripture references for the purposes of the Church?

Originally posted by Fred
In the various passages which describe the purpose of the Church - to administer Word and sacrament, and discipline as a means of determining membership

I don't see these as the purpose of the Church, I see them as means to effect the purpose of the Church. Which brings up a corollary question, what is the purpose (end) of the Church? Ulimately, of course, the glorification of God but there's got to be something more immediate then that?

An ecclesiastical determination, that varies.

I don't get it. How could the church determine what God sees as a true assembly of believers? That not what you're saying right?

No, else there is no lawful ordination.

I don't get it. I know Matt said something like this in the article about succession being the esse of the church. (I kind of missed that though too)

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I do not think the question "purpose of the church?" is a good question as it relates to this discussion. I think it would be more helpful to determine the marks of true religion, which would in fact give us the basic ideas of the marks of the true church.

Here is a recapitulation of Reformed Thought:
The Three Marks of a True Church
by me.

Matt said something like this in the article about succession being the esse of the church.

No, I said it belongs to the bene esse of the chruch.

Quote: "In this way, Ministerial Succession cannot be linked to esse of the Church. However, this does not discount lawful ordination, Presbyterian government, and Ministerial Succession as Christ gives us the ability to implement them for the bene esse of the Church. They remain important, even critically important, but not fundamentally important as that which dictates "œtrue religion.""

What are the Scripture references for the purposes of the Church?

See article above. I quote some of them and reference others.

I don't get it. How could the church determine what God sees as a true assembly of believers?

The church doesn't. God determines this by the marks of true religion, or the pattern of sound doctrine. (See 3 marks)

 

[Peter]

Thanks Matt. Will read the article. My comments were in reference to Fred's post.

By, "I know Matt said something like this in the article about succession being the esse of the church." I meant succession being the requisite of a true church would mean there is no lawful church is what you said, in response to what Fred said about succession and ordination. Which was my 3rd question, though succession is not the esse of the church is it of the esse of ordination? Which was previously asked here: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12852&page=1

[Edited on 8-28-2005 by Peter]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

though succession is not the esse of the church is it of the esse of ordination.

If it is, then there is no one ordained today, anywhere, or for that matter, since the 5th century.

Ministerial Succession is of the esse of Presbyterian Church Government, for example, but PCG is not the esse of ordination. Nor is PCG the esse of the church. Otherwise we have no ministers today anywhere. We do have lawfully ordained men in Presbyterian churches though. But Christ, in whatever time the church is revived, should continue to have the well ordering of the church in lawful ordination. But then we have to take into account when extreme duress come into play, and how that ordination is lawfully administered because it is not based on whims.

 

[Peter]

"Ministerial Succession is of the esse of Presbyterian Church Government, for example, but PCG is not the esse of ordination. "

I agree, however, is ministerial Succession the esse of ordination. It's my understanding that the Presbyterians thought ordination preformed by a single bishop, though not normative, was still valid. The bishop acting as the presbytery, ie, a presbytery of a single presbyter.

 

[cultureshock]

Thanks, Matt! This article is extremely helpful! I appreciate your clarity of writing. I have just recently begun to attend an OPC mission work that is in the process of organizing, thus I am beginning to run into these sorts of polity issues for the first time.

Brian

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,

An ecclesiastical determination, that varies.

If it's an ecclesiastical determination, doesn't this have to occur at the local level? If so, how can this be an accurate assessment? Every church will say they meet this requirement. If the determination varies, isn't this grey area means for the benefit of the doubt, period?

The ecclesiastical determination is not local, but the Church - i.e. for the PCA, its General Assembly.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
"Ministerial Succession is of the esse of Presbyterian Church Government, for example, but PCG is not the esse of ordination. "

I agree, however, is ministerial Succession the esse of ordination. It's my understanding that the Presbyterians thought ordination preformed by a single bishop, though not normative, was still valid. The bishop acting as the presbytery, ie, a presbytery of a single presbyter.

The problem with this is the line of Anti-Popes and those they ordained. Another problem is those bishops that were ordained in England by Papist sympathizers, who were later defrocked, but those that they had ordained were not.

Again, if it is of the esse of ordination, then we wind up in the same place - no Church. If the Church has no ministers she has no proper preaching, no proper sacraments, she becomes no Church. All making succession of the esse of ordination does for you is give you one more step to obliterating the Church and going against the uniform witness of the Church.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,

An ecclesiastical determination, that varies.

If it's an ecclesiastical determination, doesn't this have to occur at the local level? If so, how can this be an accurate assessment? Every church will say they meet this requirement. If the determination varies, isn't this grey area means for the benefit of the doubt, period?

The ecclesiastical determination is not local, but the Church - i.e. for the PCA, its General Assembly.

Fred,
What about independant churches? They don;t have anything like a GA to look to for this type of accountability. Please think smaller for the sake of my question........if it is not local, how can this be accomplished with the independants?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Fred,
What about independant churches? They don;t have anything like a GA to look to for this type of accountability. Please think smaller for the sake of my question........if it is not local, how can this be accomplished with the independants?

That is why the issue is messy, Scott. And the mess is not due to the Independents, but schism. Why? Because if there were one Church, even one Presbyterian Church, we could simply go by pronouncements. Instead we are left to apply the marks.

What does that mean? For my part (and the historical pattern) it is that if a church proclaims the gospel, and it has not been declared apostate, it is a true (albeit flawed) church. An Independent local body cannot "de-church" a church.

The key, as always, is the gospel and the marks of the Church, not any visible, tangible line of succession.