Lawful calls

Status
Not open for further replies.
"This issue is specificaaly about how to include the Gentiles into the "way"....So there were no local congregations at this time."

It is not correct to say that there were no local congregations at the time. There were very clearly local congregations at the time. Let's expand the Acts 16 passage to include vs. 5: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. 5So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers."

Verse 5 expressly says that the "churches" (plural) were strengthened. This is referring to local congregations. Further, the various congregational epistles were written to the various "churches" in the area (eg. to the church at Corinth). Galatians is addressed as: "Paul, an apostle"“sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"“ 2and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia. . ." Note that it was addressed to the "churches" (plural) in the region. Revelation as letters to the seven "churches" (plural) (see Rev. 1-3). Many other examples.

So, the Jerusalem Council was expressly convened to decide the issue plaguing several congregations, as is clear from Acts 16. So, independency is precluded.

Scott
 
Here is somethign for us all to ponder..


"But when God, who from my mother's womb set me apart and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who had become apostles before me; instead I went to Arabia and came back to Damascus."


WHo said this? HMMMMMMM.... Appears to me the one who received the full Gospel revealed from Christ, did nto adhere to the "umbrella policy" of lawfull ordinations...


Joe
 
Let's also be clear where we agree. I think everybody agrees that transmission of apostolic doctrine is necessary for a church to even be a true church. A body that has succession (apostolic, ministerial, or whatever) but that does not have apostolic doctrine is not even a true church.

The issue we are discussing is whether the ministers in these churches are licit representatives of Christ or not.
 
Originally posted by Scott
"This issue is specificaaly about how to include the Gentiles into the "way"....So there were no local congregations at this time."

It is not correct to say that there were no local congregations at the time. There were very clearly local congregations at the time. Let's expand the Acts 16 passage to include vs. 5: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. 5So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers."

Verse 5 expressly says that the "churches" (plural) were strengthened. This is referring to local congregations. Further, the various congregational epistles were written to the various "churches" in the area (eg. to the church at Corinth). Galatians is addressed as: "Paul, an apostle"“sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"“ 2and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia. . ." Note that it was addressed to the "churches" (plural) in the region. Revelation as letters to the seven "churches" (plural) (see Rev. 1-3). Many other examples.

So, the Jerusalem Council was expressly convened to decide the issue plaguing several congregations, as is clear from Acts 16. So, independency is precluded.

Scott


Yes Scott, and what was the issue? The gentuiles of the land.... There is nothign in acts 15 in regards to ordination policy....

Good post though, made me think...



Joe
 
"WHo said this? HMMMMMMM.... Appears to me the one who received the full Gospel revealed from Christ, did nto adhere to the "umbrella policy" of lawfull ordinations..."

Classic Reformed understanding of the Bible distinguishes between immediate calls of God and mediate calls. An immediate call is a direct outward revelation from God. Of course anyone who has an immediate call is lawfully appointed to whatever office God chooses. Examples include Moses, the apostles, Gideon, etc.

We are addressing mediate calls. God used mediate calls in the OT too. For example, God used hereditary to appoint Levites and priests. He did not appear to each of them individually, as he did with Aaron and Moses.

In the NT, we use the electing procedures left in the scriptures. God issues mediate calls through the church now.

[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
 
"Yes Scott, and what was the issue? The gentuiles of the land.... There is nothign in acts 15 in regards to ordination policy...."

True, I cited Acts 15 solely for the point that congregations are not completely independent. Now, the Bible does teach that they do have a degree of autonomy, but this is not aboslute. They choose their own officers, for example. They do not have the officres foisted on them from without. But after they choose, these officers must be ordained. So there are checks and balances in presbyterian government.
 
BTW, here are a couple of other passages that might interest you.

[1] "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you." Titus 1:5.

Note that the power to appoint did not reside with the local congregations in the towns of Crete. Rather, another elder, Timothy, had to appoint them. This indicates that appointment to office of elder is by another elder, even at the founding of the church.

[2] 1 Tim. 4:14. "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you."

Note that Timothy's ordination was by elders.

If ordination by elders is required to found a church, then independency cannot be right. That does not mean that the church does not have any jurisdiction in anything or any rights of its own. But it does mean that there is an organizational connection.

[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
 
Originally posted by Scott
BTW, here are a couple of other passages that might interest you.

[1] "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you." Titus 1:5.


[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]


Scott this is exactly what i stated earlier. The more correct translation is thus:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that the things lacking thou mayest arrange, and mayest set down in every city elders, as I did appoint to thee;

"œAppoint" is preferable to the KJV rendering "ordain", as there is nothing in the context to imply a formal ecclesiastical ordination. This was to an appointment, for the recognition of the local churches, of those who had already been raised up and qualified by the Holy Spirit, and had given evidence of this in their life and service.

Luke records that "after they (Barnabas and Paul) had preached the gospel to that city (Derbe) and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." And when they had appointed (voted by raising their hands) elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." (Acts14:21 22, 23) One should not envision Barnabas and Paul arriving in Lystra and authoritatively appointing elders that the local assemblies had themselves neither approved or known. Their ultimate "fitness" of elders was determined by the criteria in the following verses, criteria that would only be well known to those in the local assembly.


Joe
 
I read in one commentary about this that "appoint" carried with it the notion of selection from the congregation, with the congregation''s input. The apostle ordained and appointed, but yet the congregation had a say in the selection of elders. I would suppose that this would be because they knew the prospective men for their leadership and maturity.
 
John said:
"What I am saying, and maybe this is Colleen's point too, at some point righteousness in theology takes precedence. Not that I am taking sides, its just that I know personally that there is a time when a person has to say to himself, "OK, this is NOT church anymore." no matter how authoritative their supposed lineage of any sort. In such a case one would prefer a real man of God, whether or not he has apostolic succession, to one who does have it but makes a mockery of Christ's church.

On the other hand, Colleen, that is not the same as recognizing ordination of office. There are all kinds of men of God who are not ordained to any office, but are just members in Christ's church. That doesn't make them ordained, even if the people decide to vote them into an office. This violates the regulation of the office, and merely opens the door for more of the same as what was left behind."

John, you hit my deliema head on! I agree with both these statements...
There HAS to be an order with things...but when it comes to "righteousness in theology" I would rather go with a dissenting group if they are holding to instead of the "by law" group.
This is actually where I got my husband chewed out by a gentleman in the mennonite church (I had told the man's wife that when it came between holding fast to scripture vs holding fast to unity...scripture will be the last thing I let go of)

Joe said:
"But when God, who from my mother's womb set me apart and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who had become apostles before me; instead I went to Arabia and came back to Damascus."
WHo said this? HMMMMMMM.... Appears to me the one who received the full Gospel revealed from Christ, did nto adhere to the "umbrella policy" of lawfull ordinations...
Scott said:
Classic Reformed understanding of the Bible distinguishes between immediate calls of God and mediate calls. An immediate call is a direct outward revelation from God. Of course anyone who has an immediate call is lawfully appointed to whatever office God chooses. Examples include Moses, the apostles, Gideon, etc.

This is also a perplexing thing to me. Again I agree to things being orderly...but how are we to determine these things? I don't believe they just quit happening, and yet too many ppl are quick to claim such. In Paul's case I know he was severely questioned. This is good...but no one insisted that he be lawfully ordained by one of them (or in today's case have a M Div and ordination)

This is where my frustration lies, gentlemen. Where, oh, where do we draw the line...I believe there is more than just Turretin's exemption. And yet, we don't want the idea to catch like wildfire (as we have and do see happening). I just don't believe that you can call a Biblical Church that is teaching truth to be unlawful due to lineage. Even in some cases...a church starts out wrong theologically and then becomes sound...and yet because of lineage, despite the change and the teaching, it is counted as outside the realm of orthodoxy.

To me there is has to be a balance. I know some of you like your security from one extreme in your own extreme...but that kind of leaves a bunch of us out in the cold by your statements.

Given example...dh has had an inward calling for years, but God has seen fit to close every door (and for good reason at this time) up to date (except in the street ministry), he will not move forward in this calling without some form of training/education/ordination or what have you...as we see a need for accountability and order. Yet, you are saying that mayhaps we should question the one who does this of his ordination lineage before accepting such? This seems overboard to me, if the man is head of a well-established church that has branched out and is orderly in and of itself and hold to true doctrine.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
John said:
"What I am saying, and maybe this is Colleen's point too, at some point righteousness in theology takes precedence. Not that I am taking sides, its just that I know personally that there is a time when a person has to say to himself, "OK, this is NOT church anymore." no matter how authoritative their supposed lineage of any sort. In such a case one would prefer a real man of God, whether or not he has apostolic succession, to one who does have it but makes a mockery of Christ's church.

On the other hand, Colleen, that is not the same as recognizing ordination of office. There are all kinds of men of God who are not ordained to any office, but are just members in Christ's church. That doesn't make them ordained, even if the people decide to vote them into an office. This violates the regulation of the office, and merely opens the door for more of the same as what was left behind."

John, you hit my deliema head on! I agree with both these statements...
There HAS to be an order with things...but when it comes to "righteousness in theology" I would rather go with a dissenting group if they are holding to instead of the "by law" group.
This is actually where I got my husband chewed out by a gentleman in the mennonite church (I had told the man's wife that when it came between holding fast to scripture vs holding fast to unity...scripture will be the last thing I let go of)

Joe said:
"But when God, who from my mother's womb set me apart and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who had become apostles before me; instead I went to Arabia and came back to Damascus."
WHo said this? HMMMMMMM.... Appears to me the one who received the full Gospel revealed from Christ, did nto adhere to the "umbrella policy" of lawfull ordinations...
Scott said:
Classic Reformed understanding of the Bible distinguishes between immediate calls of God and mediate calls. An immediate call is a direct outward revelation from God. Of course anyone who has an immediate call is lawfully appointed to whatever office God chooses. Examples include Moses, the apostles, Gideon, etc.

This is also a perplexing thing to me. Again I agree to things being orderly...but how are we to determine these things? I don't believe they just quit happening, and yet too many ppl are quick to claim such. In Paul's case I know he was severely questioned. This is good...but no one insisted that he be lawfully ordained by one of them (or in today's case have a M Div and ordination)

This is where my frustration lies, gentlemen. Where, oh, where do we draw the line...I believe there is more than just Turretin's exemption. And yet, we don't want the idea to catch like wildfire (as we have and do see happening). I just don't believe that you can call a Biblical Church that is teaching truth to be unlawful due to lineage. Even in some cases...a church starts out wrong theologically and then becomes sound...and yet because of lineage, despite the change and the teaching, it is counted as outside the realm of orthodoxy.

To me there is has to be a balance. I know some of you like your security from one extreme in your own extreme...but that kind of leaves a bunch of us out in the cold by your statements.

Given example...dh has had an inward calling for years, but God has seen fit to close every door (and for good reason at this time) up to date (except in the street ministry), he will not move forward in this calling without some form of training/education/ordination or what have you...as we see a need for accountability and order. Yet, you are saying that mayhaps we should question the one who does this of his ordination lineage before accepting such? This seems overboard to me, if the man is head of a well-established church that has branched out and is orderly in and of itself and hold to true doctrine.



Colleen, you are correct, there needs to be a balance, but Apostolic Doctrine trumps lineage or bloodline ordination. Look at those who have been "Lawfully ordained" who have taught grave error. The Early church was full of them. We need to remember that ordination is not a Sacrament, and should not be given the focus as if it is one. The security of the "umbrella institution" results in a faith by proxy. It is easy believism for us to just parrot what those have confessed before us as truth in regards to ordination and lineage. This is papist left overs. The Spirit calls whom He will and gifts people according to His good pleasure. Let us praise God for elders, deacons, bishops, teachers, whichever you prefer to call them and know they have been taught by God and not by man. Test them according to the word. Do nto judge them because of polity and lineage.


Joe
 
Originally posted by Scott
Let's also be clear where we agree. I think everybody agrees that transmission of apostolic doctrine is necessary for a church to even be a true church. A body that has succession (apostolic, ministerial, or whatever) but that does not have apostolic doctrine is not even a true church.

The issue we are discussing is whether the ministers in these churches are licit representatives of Christ or not.


I agree, but then the quandry of what is apostolic doctrine? The road never ends.....hahahhahaha

We also have to be careful of speaking the heresey of doctrinal, credal regeneration. This should be another thread though..

Joe
 
Joe: In terms of ordination, I also want to make clear that I am not saying that the apostles came in and appointed rulers without the congregation's consent. The presbyterian view of the installation of officers has two phases. The first is congregational selection by popular election. The second is ordination by the established church officers. We see this model in Acts 6. In this way presbyterians differ from Roman Catholics, who foist officers on congregations without congregational consent or approval. The biblical / presbyterian form of government has checks and balances. A candidate for office must first receive approval of the people. This hinders ecclesiastical tyrany. Second, the candidate must receive approval of the established eldership. This hinders the lack of discretion of the laity.

On a different issue, "appointment" in the ecclesiastical context means ordain. It involved a "laying on of hands." You see this also in Acts 6 and several other places. So, I am not sure what your criticism of ordination is. Presbyterians don't see ordination as sacramental, as do the Catholics. We just see it as a lawful conveyance of authority.

The laying on of hands traces back to an Old Testament practice. We see, for example, that moses lays his hand on Joshua in order to convey some of his authority to Joshua.

Num. 27:18-20: "So the LORD said to Moses, 'Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him.'"

So, that is what we mean by appoint / ordain.

Scott
 
"Colleen, you are correct, there needs to be a balance, but Apostolic Doctrine trumps lineage or bloodline ordination."

Ah but, Joe, it is important to have both apostolic doctrine and officers who are genuinely called by Christ.

BTW, I am not sure who argues for "bloodline succession" - that sounds like God's mediate call of Levites and priests in the Old Testament. Even Catholics would not argue for a bloodline.
 
Colleen:

You said:
This is where my frustration lies, gentlemen. Where, oh, where do we draw the line...I believe there is more than just Turretin's exemption. And yet, we don't want the idea to catch like wildfire (as we have and do see happening). I just don't believe that you can call a Biblical Church that is teaching truth to be unlawful due to lineage. Even in some cases...a church starts out wrong theologically and then becomes sound...and yet because of lineage, despite the change and the teaching, it is counted as outside the realm of orthodoxy.

To me there is has to be a balance. I know some of you like your security from one extreme in your own extreme...but that kind of leaves a bunch of us out in the cold by your statements.

One of the really big problems I see in our time is not so much the churches whose doctrines go south, but the people in the pew who go south instead of standing up to be counted. When a church starts to go sour the people leave for sweeter things. Where then is their obligation to their vows? Are we afraid of the monolithic legal structure of the church? Shame on us, then! Are we afraid that at Presbytery level it becomes a "good ol' boys' club"? Double shame on us! Are we afraid to get booted out of the church because of our faith? A hundred-fold shame on us! Where is our own commitment? By running out on our obligations, aren't we making out of the elders just what we fear them to be, namely sacerdotalists? It is our doing, not theirs'. It seems the only ones who try their rights at that level are the ones pushing for change to orthodoxy; and Presbytery and GA get the bad rap for it.

Sure, it often happens that the sag in faithfulness honestly reflects the leadership in the church, that the leaders are to blame for a lax congregation's attitudes to their faith and their vows. These things need to be taught and encouraged, not ignored. But yet each one of us is responsible for the vows we've taken, and that cannot be pushed off on someone else.

So, in a sense, your critiques of a church whose doctrines have slipped fall in on themselves. Its like a democratic country complaining about the leaders they themselves have voted in, claiming to be powerless against the status quo. Of course they are; and they themselves are to blame, not the leaders. The same with a church. It just isn't right to stand on apostolic succession alone, for there must be an inward call to the gospel in every minister and elder. And righteous theology is most important in a church. So is an orthodox communion of the saints. One without the other is still not orthodoxy, no matter how solid or Biblical. But this communion goes two ways. And you have to be ready to challenge your elders when you see them abrogating their offices. You cannot claim powerlessness; it was never yours to begin with.

It is for reasons of righteous doctrine, to be sure, but also for reasons of communion in unity, truth, and love. If you just leave to go to a better church, then you shirk your responsibility to your elders and your church. Even if it gets you kicked out. As far as I'm concerned, that is just about the only way that you can leave a church, by getting kicked out. At any rate, you can't just pick up and leave over dissent.
 
Originally posted by Scott
Joe: In terms of ordination, I also want to make clear that I am not saying that the apostles came in and appointed rulers without the congregation's consent. The presbyterian view of the installation of officers has two phases. The first is congregational selection by popular election. The second is ordination by the established church officers. We see this model in Acts 6. In this way presbyterians differ from Roman Catholics, who foist officers on congregations without congregational consent or approval. The biblical / presbyterian form of government has checks and balances. A candidate for office must first receive approval of the people. This hinders ecclesiastical tyrany. Second, the candidate must receive approval of the established eldership. This hinders the lack of discretion of the laity.

On a different issue, "appointment" in the ecclesiastical context means ordain. It involved a "laying on of hands." You see this also in Acts 6 and several other places. So, I am not sure what your criticism of ordination is. Presbyterians don't see ordination as sacramental, as do the Catholics. We just see it as a lawful conveyance of authority.

The laying on of hands traces back to an Old Testament practice. We see, for example, that moses lays his hand on Joshua in order to convey some of his authority to Joshua.

Num. 27:18-20: "So the LORD said to Moses, 'Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him.'"

So, that is what we mean by appoint / ordain.

Scott


Very good points Scott, thank you.
 
Originally posted by Scott
BTW, I am not sure who argues for "bloodline succession" - that sounds like God's mediate call of Levites and priests in the Old Testament. Even Catholics would not argue for a bloodline.

Scott, we are using this term symbolically...to respresent the "ordination lineage" we have been discussing.
 
This is where my frustration lies, gentlemen. Where, oh, where do we draw the line...I believe there is more than just Turretin's exemption. And yet, we don't want the idea to catch like wildfire (as we have and do see happening). I just don't believe that you can call a Biblical Church that is teaching truth to be unlawful due to lineage. Even in some cases...a church starts out wrong theologically and then becomes sound...and yet because of lineage, despite the change and the teaching, it is counted as outside the realm of orthodoxy.

Let me clarify. I believe that the test for identifying whether a church is a "true church" is by whether the church administers the Word and sacarament. It is not by looking to the lawfulness of their ordinations. In other words, there can be true churches (such as independent congregations) that do not have lawful ordinations. The best remedy for churches without lawful ordinations is simply for these churches to attach to a body that has legitimate ordinations, such as the PCA, OPC, or a number of other denominations. So, Colleen, just get your congregation to join the PCA and everything will be ok! :bigsmile:
 
Scott,
Not to run us again in the same circle, but on one hand you say to Colleen that the independants are true churches, yet if they ajoin to a church that is properly ordained, "it will be alright (or ok).
What are some of the practical implications to NOT being lawfully ordained?

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
the Prctical implications...if elders are not selected or the eldership are nothing than "yes men" to the pastor, then we could be open to tyrancy. We just left what was becoming such...at our current there are elders willing to confront eachother, are all on equal standing as elders, the pastors are considered elders and at the same time are willing to make themselves accountable to other men in the congregation.

The thing that did draw us first to the PCA after leaving our last church was that there WAS a "higher authority" over the pastors and elders that could be appealed to in the case of a misuse of church authority.

In case you are wondering, we left an Independdant Bible Church (with varied ppl from armenian and calvinistic viewpoints and dispensationalist), went to a PCA nearly an hour away, and are at a different Independant Bible Church (WCF, Calvinistic to the Core, and Covenanted...though they didn't start out this way).
 
Colleen: Let me expand the discussion of presbyterian church government. The pastor is a "teaching elder." He is not a member of the local congregation but is rather a member of the presbytery. A "presbytery" is the regional body of all elders (ruling and teaching) from all congregations in the specified region). The pastor's ordination must be adminstered by and approved of by the presbytery as a whole, not just by the local congregation's elders. Anyway, that surprises allot of people. Also, a congregation cannot fire a pastor unilaterally. The congregation must recommend discolving the pastoral relationship to the presbytery and the presbytery makes the final decision. This structure further insulates the pastor from undue influence.

And, you are right, the right of appeal to the presbytery and even after that to the general assembly is a valuable right.

You don't see church splits in presbyterian churches in the same way that you see them in independent churches. The structure prevents it. When people leave, they typically go to another church, as opposed to starting one up on their own.

I have been involved in independent churches before and know how easy it is for people to get mad an just break off and start up something new. It is sad but the structure facilitates that.
 
Agreed...and sadly (this should show the doctrinal "unity" of that church) the church we left along with others...the others have split between our current Bible Church, Lutheran Churches, and Methodist Churches, even a few tried Baptist Churches. Fortunately our current church is (PTL) united on this front.

I believe we do have a good form of church government within our church. We just don't have a presbytery as we are independant. But like I said, that is because the church started out on a totally different foot (this is my understanding). (I know, I know...this is where all the PCA suggestions come in...sorry, gentlemen, that is not my call!...if the church remains independant I am supportive of that...if it chooses to join the PCA or OPC, that is something I could also support) This is why the discussion. Why, the issue of ordination lineage for lawfulness...which I believe we have all made good points.
 
"Scott, Not to run us again in the same circle, but on one hand you say to Colleen that the independants are true churches, yet if they ajoin to a church that is properly ordained, "it will be alright (or ok). What are some of the practical implications to NOT being lawfully ordained?"

It is engaging in error. I think that ultimately there is a duty to go to groups which have lawfully ordained ministers, as they are the true representatives of Christ. Now if one chooses to stay in another congreation, that is error.

If you want a more hardline view, see Luther:

If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers.

:eek:

I suppose that someone who is not lawfully ordained is technically a layman.
 
Originally posted by Scott
Let's also be clear where we agree. I think everybody agrees that transmission of apostolic doctrine is necessary for a church to even be a true church. A body that has succession (apostolic, ministerial, or whatever) but that does not have apostolic doctrine is not even a true church.

The issue we are discussing is whether the ministers in these churches are licit representatives of Christ or not.


Apostolic Doctrine is the key to preaching and teaching the Word.

Can a church that has done this in the past, that starts preching a false gospel stop being a true church then?
 
Originally posted by Scott
"Scott, Not to run us again in the same circle, but on one hand you say to Colleen that the independants are true churches, yet if they ajoin to a church that is properly ordained, "it will be alright (or ok). What are some of the practical implications to NOT being lawfully ordained?"

It is engaging in error. I think that ultimately there is a duty to go to groups which have lawfully ordained ministers, as they are the true representatives of Christ. Now if one chooses to stay in another congreation, that is error.

If you want a more hardline view, see Luther:

If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers.

:eek:

I suppose that someone who is not lawfully ordained is technically a layman.


Luther just could not shake all of Romanism....

Let us look at the early Fathers, they were ordained to teach, then they fell into serious error. Origen taught a reincarnation, tertullian became a montanist. So using this phrase "lawful ordination" does nto ensure proper teaching. Justyn was big on freewiilyism, augustine recanted many erroneous positions. I will take a pastor "unlawfully ordained" over one who has the scent of Peter on his shoulders and teachings a flase Gospel any day.


Joe
 
Originally posted by lionovjudah
Originally posted by Scott
Let's also be clear where we agree. I think everybody agrees that transmission of apostolic doctrine is necessary for a church to even be a true church. A body that has succession (apostolic, ministerial, or whatever) but that does not have apostolic doctrine is not even a true church.

The issue we are discussing is whether the ministers in these churches are licit representatives of Christ or not.


Apostolic Doctrine is the key to preaching and teaching the Word.

Can a church that has done this in the past, that starts preching a false gospel stop being a true church then?

Yes. I assume you are laying the trap. Rome is an excellent example. However, upon Romes demise, the keys to the church were recaptured under Luthers reformation and Rome remaines to this day as apostate.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by lionovjudah
Originally posted by Scott
Let's also be clear where we agree. I think everybody agrees that transmission of apostolic doctrine is necessary for a church to even be a true church. A body that has succession (apostolic, ministerial, or whatever) but that does not have apostolic doctrine is not even a true church.

The issue we are discussing is whether the ministers in these churches are licit representatives of Christ or not.





Apostolic Doctrine is the key to preaching and teaching the Word.

Can a church that has done this in the past, that starts preching a false gospel stop being a true church then?

Yes. I assume you are laying the trap. Rome is an excellent example. However, upon Romes demise, the keys to the church were recaptured under Luthers reformation and Rome remaines to this day as apostate.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]

No trap, I was nto even thinking of ROme, whom I believe was never orthodox anyway. All I know is God has kept a remnant that will never bow down to baal. He will keep His church and present it spotless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top