Lawful calls

[Scott]

Remember, Joe, it is not one or the other. It is both. We all agree that the absence of apostolic doctrine makes a congregation a synagogue of Satan, even if they have outward succession.

The question is whether an illicit minister is engaging in Korah's rebellion by usurping Christ's authority to himself. Remember, all authority for the ministry rests with Christ. If Christ did not call the minister, the minister is is wrongly exercising power.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott
Remember, Joe, it is not one or the other. It is both. We all agree that the absence of apostolic doctrine makes a congregation a synagogue of Satan, even if they have outward succession.

The question is whether an illicit minister is engaging in Korah's rebellion by usurping Christ's authority to himself. Remember, all authority for the ministry rests with Christ. If Christ did not call the minister, the minister is is wrongly exercising power.

The fruit of the ministering person will determine whether or not they have been called. The congregation will decide if they fit the descriptions laid down by Paul.

I just cannot connect lawful with ordination. It just seems so anti Christ to me. The Kingdom of God does not speak about this relationship, so this papist perversion keeps many from untylizing their gifts.

Again I keep seeing legalistic words in this whole thread. Those given the gift of pastor/ teacher/ elder, are not to use them as authoritarian, they are to be servants to Christ. If authority is the concern, is the root, then the whole tree is bad.

Again, this perversion goes back to another issue of laity vs clergy, which is distinct yet not seperate in the primitive church.

All truth is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who points all to Christ. Laying of the hands is used to only confirm the gift that is already present, but does nto transfer any other power with it.


The term ilicit minister is alsomissing from Scripture and the early church. This was not a concern, the concern was who was teaching Apostolic Doctrine. Take Peter for example, even Paul had to rebuke him, Christ had to give him the vision in Acts.

There has to be accountability, but that rests in accountability and responsibility to Christ. Also "lawful ordinations" does nto guarantee the person has been called of God. This is obvious with those who have this man made title that teach heresy.

Joe

Joe

 

[Ianterrell]

The bible teaches that elders must be ordained by elders. They cannot make themselves elders, nor can the laity do this. If this sounds legalistic, people advocating the other side of this issue could easily throw out the label "antinomian". Elders are meant to govern and rule. The term "illicit minister" is missing from scripture, but the definition is not. This argument is exceedingly weak to prove your position Joe, it is tantamount to rejecting the doctrine of the trinity because the term is missing from scripture and from the early church.

 

[Scott]

Joe: Why were the apostles so fastidious in ordinations and why is there so much biblical precedent for a Presbyterian model of church government? This is not legalism. All authority for the ministry dervies from Christ. The Bible teaches how Christ has delegated his authority and how calls to the ministry are issued in this age. It is through the presbyterian system of church government, as I have sketched.

Let me also point out an area of agreement. The lording tyranny is not the model for leadership. Servanthood is. Officers are called to be servant leaders. That does not mean that they don't have genuine Christly authority. They do. The laity has a consequent duty to obey. Yet, officers should exercise their authority as servants in the best interest of the laity, even stooping to wash their feet if need be.

On another point, what was the error of Korah's rebellion?

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

Ian: well said.

Joe: BTW, I understand where you are coming from. I came from a independent church background and do appreciate the hard work of these brothers and their love for the Lord. I don't write off their ministry at all. I just would hope that they would see the mistakes of government and conform to the biblical model.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
The bible teaches that elders must be ordained by elders. They cannot make themselves elders, nor can the laity do this. If this sounds legalistic, people advocating the other side of this issue could easily throw out the label "antinomian". Elders are meant to govern and rule. The term "illicit minister" is missing from scripture, but the definition is not. This argument is exceedingly weak to prove your position Joe, it is tantamount to rejecting the doctrine of the trinity because the term is missing from scripture and from the early church.

Paul sent Titus to oversee the choosing of the elders. I am attemoting to make a distinction between the process of ordination, and that specif process making the person authorative.

I believe it is a strong argument, and not one from silence. There is a prescription for leaders, but it is not specifically in the terms of illicit or lawful.

Meant to govern and rule? Ian this is not the case. Rule what? What govt? Where did this govt develop from? Was not the Kingdom of God different from the Kingdom of Ceasar?

I am not prescribing that scripture allows any tom dick or harry that decides on his own he is a teacher. And starts a new church because he cant find the perfect chuch.

I am speaking that Scripture prescribes what is necessary.
1) Chosen by God,
2) affirmed by the brethren
3) Will teach apostolic Doctrine.

Joe

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott
Joe: Why were the apostles so fastidious in ordinations and why is there so much biblical precedent for a Presbyterian model of church government? This is not legalism. All authority for the ministry dervies from Christ. The Bible teaches how Christ has delegated his authority and how calls to the ministry are issued in this age. It is through the presbyterian system of church government, as I have sketched.

Let me also point out an area of agreement. The lording tyranny is not the model for leadership. Servanthood is. Officers are called to be servant leaders. That does not mean that they don't have genuine Christly authority. They do. The laity has a consequent duty to obey. Yet, officers should exercise their authority as servants in the best interest of the laity, even stooping to wash their feet if need be.

On another point, what was the error of Korah's rebellion?

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott]

Well of course it is the true way, youre a Presbyterian correct? I do not believe there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Presbyterian polity. It is there but not overwhelming. Again youre stretching the clergy laity gap much more than what was practiced in the early church. Very Rabinical understanding which is missing from the NT.

The power of the keys is preserved by Christ, He holds the Keys, not men.

What power and authority was given to the Church? Can we include Mark 16?

This issue I have is elevating ordination the creates a seperation and special power to the act. I just cannot see the difference between the Romanist Church and what you are all saying.

I just want to mention this has been very edifying for me, thank you all.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The fruit of the ministering person will determine whether or not they have been called. The congregation will decide if they fit the descriptions laid down by Paul.

Jesus chooses the 12

Act 1:21 Therefore, it is right that men being together with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when He was taken from us, one of these to become a witness of His resurrection with us.
Act 1:23 And they set out two: Joseph, he being called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And having prayed, they said, You, Lord, knower of all hearts, show which one You chose from these two,
Act 1:25 to take the share of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas fell, to go to his own place.

Act 15:2 Then dissension and not a little disputation with them having taken place by Paul and Barnabas, they appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up into Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this question.

Act 15:6 And the apostles and the elders were assembled to see about this matter.

I just cannot connect lawful with ordination. It just seems so anti Christ to me.

Christ lawfully ordained the apostles and the apostles lawfully ordained further leadership. What you suggest is that of a vote. This you see nowhere in scripture where the laypeople are called to vote in an elder.

The Kingdom of God does not speak about this relationship,

It surely does. It does not speak of what you suggest. In fact, does this seem correct to you; Scenario: John MacArthur leaves Grace Community Church in Sun Valley Ca. He decides to move to South Florida. He goes to a local Baptist church and he inquires about the pastoral opening they have. He must be reordained by the congregation there. This is silliness.

so this papist perversion keeps many from untylizing their gifts.

No, actually what we have today because of the perversion you embrace are pastors and elders whom have won popularity contests and are in positions where they shouldn't be. God is laughing. We demanded a king, and a king He has given us.

Again I keep seeing legalistic words in this whole thread. Those given the gift of pastor/ teacher/ elder, are not to use them as authoritarian,

The doctrine of church discipline requires authority. These men are called to watch over our souls; that is authority. They will answer in higher levels than you or I. Discipoline today is a joke. Because of the dilution of the hierarchy of Gods commanded way, the church is in a shambles. People do not stand for discipline any moree. They just leave and go to another church. There are no needs of transfering one's membership, none of these flaky congregations even have memberships; they are non denominational. Never mind asking what church you went to and if the pastor can be contacted to validate your transfer.

they are to be servants to Christ. If authority is the concern, is the root, then the whole tree is bad.

Nonsense! And the men of the reformed faith are not? Please, tell me whom? Give me an example. Have you ever looked over the list of the mens names whom penned the WCF? Look who you throw into this mix:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/AssemblyMembers.htm

Again, this perversion goes back to another issue of laity vs clergy, which is distinct yet not seperate in the primitive church.

You keep calling it perversion, yet you yourself state you hold to the WCF.

truth is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who points all to Christ. Laying of the hands is used to only confirm the gift that is already present, but does nto transfer any other power with it.

See my statement above.

The term ilicit minister is alsomissing from Scripture and the early church.

Provide documentation Joe. You keep saying this yet I don't see any documentation.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The power of the keys is preserved by Christ, He holds the Keys, not men.

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in Heaven.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Christ lawfully ordained the apostles and the apostles lawfully ordained further leadership. What you suggest is that of a vote. This you see nowhere in scripture where the laypeople are called to vote in an elder.

Are you suggesting that the Apostles went town to town and just cherry picked men without any input of the body there? How would they know if they met the Pauline requirements?

It surely does. It does not speak of what you suggest. In fact, does this seem correct to you; Scenario: John MacArthur leaves Grace Community Church in Sun Valley Ca. He decides to move to South Florida. He goes to a local Baptist church and he inquires about the pastoral opening they have. He must be reordained by the congregation there. This is silliness.

I agree there Scott

No, actually what we have today because of the perversion you embrace are pastors and elders whom have won popularity contests and are in positions where they shouldn't be. God is laughing. We demanded a king, and a king He has given us.

That is a result from poor teaching of the body. Believe me I know. I am part of the unbiblical practice of a pastoral search committee which has absolutely no scriptural support at all.

The doctrine of church discipline requires authority. These men are called to watch over our souls; that is authority. They will answer in higher levels than you or I. Discipoline today is a joke. Because of the dilution of the hierarchy of Gods commanded way, the church is in a shambles. People do not stand for discipline any moree. They just leave and go to another church. There are no needs of transfering one's membership, none of these flaky congregations even have memberships; they are non denominational. Never mind asking what church you went to and if the pastor can be contacted to validate your transfer.

I agree again Scott, but this is not the result of a flattenned system, it is the result of poor teaching again.

they are to be servants to Christ. If authority is the concern, is the root, then the whole tree is bad.

Nonsense! And the men of the reformed faith are not? Please, tell me whom? Give me an example. Have you ever looked over the list of the mens names whom penned the WCF? Look who you throw into this mix:

My point was that any man who goes into the ministry to exercise power and authority as his main concern is nto called of God. I am not saying these men are bad fruit. They are called of God and precious to our faith.

Again, this perversion goes back to another issue of laity vs clergy, which is distinct yet not seperate in the primitive church.
You keep calling it perversion, yet you yourself state you hold to the WCF.

I am not promoting this seperate nature that has evloved with any confession that does Scott. This did not start with the divines who penned the WCF. This is rolled over from the papist church.

Do we need discipline, of course we do. Do we need those with gifts to be part of the ministry of the church? of course. But I believe this will all result if the person is truley called by God and empowered by His Spirit, not because of ordination.


This can and does happen in independant churches. The Presbyterian Church is not the only disciplined church of today Scott. Again, you're thinking that I would like a free for all church. That is not the case at all. We need rules, we need authority, we need to be sheparded(sp), I just do not see a biblical madate that this has to be considered valid leadership if not "lawfully ordained''



Grace and Peace

Joe

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The power of the keys is preserved by Christ, He holds the Keys, not men.

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in Heaven.

Excellent verse Scott, what troubles me is I wish it was much clearer for my feeble limited mind. hahahaha


Joe

 

[Scott Bushey]

My point was that any man who goes into the ministry to exercise power and authority as his main concern is nto called of God. I am not saying these men are bad fruit.

Who are these men Joe. I have never met a man............

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

My point was that any man who goes into the ministry to exercise power and authority as his main concern is nto called of God. I am not saying these men are bad fruit.

Who are these men Joe. I have never met a man............

Men that rule, set themselves up as king, have no care for the souls and edification of their congregation. Men that think the church cannot survive without them. Men that do not follow the servant model of Christ. Men who twist scripture.

I am not including the divines of the reformation Scott if that is what you thought I meant. Authority is not the primary concern for a leader Scott. It is His Love for Christ!!!!

What did Christ ask Peter after His resurrection? Did He ask him what he felt about this or that doctrine? Did He ask Peter what He thought about church government? Did he ask him what he believed about the supper? He only asked Peter one question. Do YOU LOVE ME? 3 times. This is where the heart of the minister has to begin. His love for Christ, not lording authority over a flock.

It just seems to be this whole idea of lawful ordinations has been elevated to where Scripture does not warrant.


Joe

 

[Ianterrell]

Joe,

You might want to try approaching this topic at a time when you aren't compelled to pyschologize. You aren't appealing to scripture at all here, just emotion. Please take my suggestion into consideration, such as it is.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
Joe,

You might want to try approaching this topic at a time when you aren't compelled to pyschologize. You aren't appealing to scripture at all here, just emotion. Please take my suggestion into consideration, such as it is.

I am not Ian? Then let us start. WOuld you like to start with titus 1:5? I am very emotionless today. So I do not understand your response. The idea that a Godly called Pastor of a church who was not ordained properly according to some standard, leading to this church being apostate is nto a correct assumption.

Joe


Joe

 

[Scott]

Christ lawfully ordained the apostles and the apostles lawfully ordained further leadership. What you suggest is that of a vote. This you see nowhere in scripture where the laypeople are called to vote in an elder.

Scott B: I am not sure I follow you here. If you are simply saying that the laity do not ordain, I agree.

The models for church officers incolve congregational election and consent. After that, there is ordination by the presbytery. All presbyterians practice this. We see models of congregational input into even the choice of a replacement apostle in Acts 1, when the group selected two and could not decide between them and so submitted to a lot. Acts 6 provides an example of congregational input as well. The "appointment" mentioned in Acts 14:23, according to normal Protestant interpretation, involves the meaning of concurrence after a vote of the congregation.

Calvin, for example, translates Acts 14:23 as this: "And when by voices [suffrages] they had ordained them elders through all churches, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they had believed."

He then comments:

Had ordained by election. The Greek word ceirotonein doth signify to decree, or ordain a thing, by lifting up the hands, as they used to do in the assemblies of the people. Notwithstanding, the ecclesiastical writers do often use the word ceirotoneia, in another sense; to wit, for their [the] solemn rite of ordaining, which is called in Scripture laying on of hands. Furthermore, by this manner of speech is very excellently expressed the right way to ordain pastors. Paul and Barnabas are said to choose 2 elders. Do they this alone by their private office? 3 Nay, rather they suffer the matter to be decided by the consent of them all. 4 Therefore, in ordaining pastors the people had their free election, but lest there should any tumult arise, Paul and Barnabas sit as chief moderators. Thus must the decree of the council of Laodicea be understood, which forbiddeth that the people have liberty granted them to elect. 5

This is a standard Reformed and Lutheran interpretation of Acts 14:23.

Scott

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott B: I am not sure I follow you here. If you are simply saying that the laity do not ordain, I agree.

Yes. That is what I am saying.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Scott B: I am not sure I follow you here. If you are simply saying that the laity do not ordain, I agree.

Yes. That is what I am saying.

Who ordained Paul and Barnabas? The names mentioned in Acts were definately not apostles...

 

[Ianterrell]

Joe,

This small sampling is what I meant about appealing to emotion:

"Men that rule, set themselves up as king, have no care for the souls and edification of their congregation. Men that think the church cannot survive without them. Men that do not follow the servant model of Christ. Men who twist scripture."

This is nonsense. Men that rule...have no care for the souls of their congregation? Says who? This is an unfounded assertion. You then equate ruling elders with "men that think the church can't survive without them" This is what I mean about psychologizing.

"Authority is not the primary concern for a leader Scott. It is His Love for Christ!!!!"

Who is arguing for making authority THE primary concern of a leader?

"What did Christ ask Peter after His resurrection? Did He ask him what he felt about this or that doctrine? Did He ask Peter what He thought about church government? Did he ask him what he believed about the supper? He only asked Peter one question. Do YOU LOVE ME? 3 times. This is where the heart of the minister has to begin. His love for Christ, not lording authority over a flock.

It just seems to be this whole idea of lawful ordinations has been elevated to where Scripture does not warrant."

This passage referred to does not add anything to your argument except to paint an unwholesome picture of people in the other position.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
Joe,

This small sampling is what I meant about appealing to emotion:

"Men that rule, set themselves up as king, have no care for the souls and edification of their congregation. Men that think the church cannot survive without them. Men that do not follow the servant model of Christ. Men who twist scripture."

This is nonsense. Men that rule...have no care for the souls of their congregation? Says who? This is an unfounded assertion. You then equate ruling elders with "men that think the church can't survive without them" This is what I mean about psychologizing.

"Authority is not the primary concern for a leader Scott. It is His Love for Christ!!!!"

Who is arguing for making authority THE primary concern of a leader?

"What did Christ ask Peter after His resurrection? Did He ask him what he felt about this or that doctrine? Did He ask Peter what He thought about church government? Did he ask him what he believed about the supper? He only asked Peter one question. Do YOU LOVE ME? 3 times. This is where the heart of the minister has to begin. His love for Christ, not lording authority over a flock.

It just seems to be this whole idea of lawful ordinations has been elevated to where Scripture does not warrant."

This passage referred to does not add anything to your argument except to paint an unwholesome picture of people in the other position.

Ian, What I have stated is truth. I am not equating aNYTHING with anyone in particular. I do not even know what a ruling elder is.

What I am stating is there is no doubt that the process of ordination prescribed by some here is not clear in my reading of the NT account.

Again who ordained Paul and Barnabas? The names mentioned in acts were not apostles were they?

Some are quick to claim an independant church has illicit ministers, and I disagree. One does nto have to be part of an institutionalized system to be a minister. I will also admit that all independant churches are not correct either. Neither possess the NT prescription perfectly. Christ did not give His church to have men have ruling authority by themsaelves.

Joe

Joe

 

[Scott]

"Who ordained Paul and Barnabas? The names mentioned in Acts were definately not apostles..."

That was ordination to a special missionary service. It was by the elders.

Paul was ordained as an apostle not by men or through men, but directly by Christ. Gal. 1:1-2: "1Paul, 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 . . ."

 

[Scott]

"Some are quick to claim an independant church has illicit ministers, and I disagree."

No quickness on my part. This has been through long study. The biblical model is clear enough to serve as precedent.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I believe the example of Paul is extraordinary; much like the theocratic anointings of the OT.

 

[Scott]

Scott B: I think Joe is referring to the ordinary commission of Paul to missionary work, which involved an ordinary, mediate (not immediate) call.

 

[Scott Bushey]

In that case, is it an example drawn from silence?

 

[Scott]

It does not say who they were. Where it is vague, we interpret in light of clearer scriptures, such as Acts 1, Acts 6, and 1 Tim 4:14, all of which involve appointment/laying on of hand by elders or apostles. (Of course, even the apostles were elders, as Peter describes himself as an elder in his letters).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Exactly