Ordination in Free Presbyterian Church Valid?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, then if FPC is a valid church...which I believe it is, haven't found any descrepency there...then what would make there pastors/elders ordination invalid?

PS...speak in plain English...

[Edited on 4-21-2006 by LadyFlynt]
 
I realize that this issue has come up in the past. And now its being batted back and forth here like a shuttlecock. But how qualified are we, really, to be putting the FPC, or anybody else, under the microscope?

The question of apostolic succession is a moot point. No one on the planet can prove theirs (if they assert it), not even the papists with their make-believe list.

Church continuity? Well, its helpful, yes, but is it so essential that the true church would be lost without it? No. In extraordinary circumstances, the ministry could be "refreshed" without an "ordination" by men already office-holders if this was a dire necessity, because it is the church that upholds the ministry, and it is the Scriptures (the prophets and the apostles) that uphold the church. According to presbyterian ecclesiology, irregularities of separation ought to be rectified as soon as and wherever possible. And these can be fixed because the church (and its ministry) will never utterly disappear on this planet before the end of time, according to Christ's own promise.

But I know I'm not qualified to judge the "validity" of ordination of someone in another GOSPEL-fellowship, someone who has been called to office, and set apart. I do take exception to a church (that has no reason beside a defective doctrine of the ministry entirely) "ordaining" a minister--pure congregationalism, the bestowal of office (and laying-on of hands) by those without that authority. {let me explain... this view sees executive authority as flowing from Jesus Christ into the congregation and from them to the office holders}

Most RBCs, by the way, get ordained ministers together to ordain another RBC minister; their practice (and presumably their doctrine) is not purely congregational in this department.

And no one should accept a "self-ordained" individual (what is that!). But otherwise, I will not sit in judgment of an office holder, unless I am being asked as a presbyter to judge a specific instance of someone who wants to join my own church, my own presbytery.

P.S. Shall we ask the question, "Does ROME have "validity"? Any view of "validity" that doesn't exclude Rome, right off the bat, exclude them FIRST, exclude them ahead of the radical anabaptists is starting in the wrong place, In my humble opinion. Doctrine has to come ahead of formal structure, continuity, or any other criteria, every single time.
 
Well said, Bruce. Question would be, what good is valid ordination if doctrine is off. And what harm is invalid ordination if doctrine and the rest of ecclesiastical structure is in place? I guess I'm curious due to missions issues, etc...I see this tied into the missions thread.
 
JCol,
The problem (harm) with ordinations that are "unlawful" is that they are products of a defective view of the ministry, which is a fundamental component of the doctrine of the church. Ultimately, everything is related to doctrine, because it is the thinking behind everything that brings anyting into existence.

Think of the Christian faith as a car. There are certain vital aspects to a car being a car and functioning properly. A defective view of ministry is like a broken steering mechanism, or a malfunctioning fuel pump. Without maintenance the car is going to break down, or be unreliable, or get in an accident (and break more things in the process). But that problem alone doesn't mean its not a car.

The problem with ME questioning the "lawfulness" of this guy's ordination, or that church's lawful behavior, is that I lack jurisdiction, I lack studied familiarity with that "car". No one asked me to be a mechanic onthat vehicle. Now, if you try to put a "volvo" fuel pump in one of my "bmws" I'm going to have to take a look at that thing, to see if it's compatible. Never mind whether I think volvos or any other brand ought to be on the road for any other reason. Different question.

Yes, there are questions related to missions issues, due mainly to the fact that these are both ecclesiology, doctrine of the church. But you'd have to be more specific in your question...

[Edited on 4-21-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Originally posted by Scott
Whether a particular congregation is a true church is a separate issue from whether that congregation's ministers' are lawfully ordained. You can have a true church with unlawful ministers. And whether the simple fact of being a true church allows that church to ordain ministers is what is in question. Indepedents would typically say yes. Everybody else would typically say no.

Scott,
Just to clarify; What I meant was if the church was not a true church, the subsequent ministers ordained would be illicit.
 
Chime.... ;)


The office of elder, pastor, presbytery, bishop, (whatever term you like), is of grave importance. It would be better to have less ministers and churches that are rightfully called and ordained, than the happy go lucky "hey let's plant a church because we want to" mentality that pervasively informs most of American culture for the last 200 years.

In the church, Christ, the head of the church, has deposited in it three "grand repositories of truth." 1) in the Scriptures, 2) In the hearts of Christians by the Spirit, and 3) in the Christian ministry.

The primary use of the Christian Ministry (ministers ordained and sent by Christ to minister) is the channel of communication from the Head to the several members of the body. This is, then, a MOST relevant and important question for the well-being of the church.

The concept of government in general presupposes coercion. Coercion is the use of power to force someone to do something they do not want to do. A basic dictionary demonstrates the idea: "œgovernment" is defined as "œthe organization, machinery, or agency through which a unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it." Government is force. No matter what government we are talking about, government means that someone is being governed. Government never rules by suggestion. The government does not say "œWe think this would be a good idea," and allow the people to decide. Rather, Governments say, "œThis is what shall be done and what shall be law." Governments do not suggest, they enforce. This would obviously be true for church government as well.

Christ´s authority is exercised over His church in the capacity of establishing men for the ministry. Christ governs his church through ordained elders. This has a direct bearing on one´s view of church government, and one´s view of how Christ exercises His authority in the church.

Thomas Hooker said, "religion, without the help of a spiritual Ministry is unable to plant itself." These are searching words for the ministers on this board. (All ministers everywhere.)

Newton said that "None but he who made the world can make a minister of the Gospel." Again, this is the exceedingly important. Think about it, the solid establishment of people in religion and the things of God can be utterly hindered by the rude interpretations, poor exegesis and misguided application that they come up with as a result of their inability to execute the office responsibly.

As Charles Bridges said, "A small number of chosen Pastors is preferable to a multitude of unqualified teachers." Ministry is ONLY for those who embrace a comprehensive view of Scripture in its doctrinal light, practical obligation, and experimental influence. No others need apply.

Some questions to think about:

Where would authority to ordain a man to office come from? Is it inherently given to a church body? How would you prove that Scripturally?

How does this view then differ from, say the Montanists, or any other sectarian group, that would want to "ordain" given their own belief system?

Where do the Scriptures teach us that the right to ordain is given apart from "apostolic" or "elder" power?

For instance, the official statements of the WCF are as follows:

"Touching the Doctrine of Ordination.
NO man ought to take upon him the office of a minister of the word without a lawful calling."

"Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong."

"Touching the Power of Ordination.
ORDINATION is the act of a presbytery."

"1. Because there is no example in scripture that any single congregation, which might conveniently associate, did assume to itself all and sole power in ordination; neither is there any rule which may warrant such a practice.

2. Because there is in scripture example of an ordination in a presbytery over divers congregations; as in the church of Jerusalem, where were many congregations: these many congregations were under one presbytery , and this presbytery did ordain."

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

If Presbyterianism is correct in its ecclesiology, then Independency is not correct, and thus, it is schismatic and dividing Christ´s Church. It promotes a structure that is foreign to the Bible, and thus, those who are "œordained" in those churches are in fact not ordained lawfully, and not lawfully called to partake and exercise those privileges. Only lawfully ordained men, under Christ´s authority through the apostles, and subsequent elders of the church, are permitted to exercise the rights and ecclesiastical keys of the kingdom. It is with the laying on of hands (Hebrews 6:2) by the eldership coupled with a lawful call to the ministry and the gifts and graces to perform that ministry, that men are ordained. 1 Timothy 5:22 states, "œDo not be hasty in the laying on of hands," and 2 Timothy 1:6 says, "œFor this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." Thus, if there are not "œlawful elders" to ordain, and "œa lawful call" as recognized by the church, there cannot be "œa lawful ordination." The question arises, "œWho, then, ordained the first Independent minister?" The next question is, "œHow do Independents, who are schismatic, lawfully ordain others?" Thus, "œCan one who is not really ordained ordain another?" This is the crux of the ecclesiastical problem of church government.

Independency rests ecclesiastical ordination in the hands of the congregation, believing that the power to ordain is inherent in the church "“ the people of the church "“ not simply in the elders who are simply part of the overall church. Presbyterianism believes that ordination is given strictly by the authority of Christ to ordain apostles, then a lawful authority given to them in the keys of the Kingdom as overseers of Christ´s church to ordain elders, and then those elders to ordain other elders, and so on. However, power to ordain does not give Presbyterianism the right simply to ordain because of apostolic succession (like the Roman Church who ordains based on "œright to ordain alone.") Instead, there must be a lawful calling recognized by the session, and then only those true elders can ordain other elders by the laying on of hands for the ministry to which these men are called. The congregation may, if need arises, bring an objection to the session as to some reason why this person should not be ordained, and then the session considers that. On the other hand, ruling elders are nominated by the body to be installed in the official office, though, again, the session has the final word "“ they are those that govern the Church. It is a mute point for people to argue that this resembles apostolic succession as in the Roman Catholic Church. That is a judgment based on a very illiterate ecclesiology, poor church history knowledge, and very bad case of shortsightedness. Instead, proper ordination reaches from Christ in succession (ministerial succession)through His appointed men who are both gifted and called, and recognized, to enter the office. As Paul says in Ephesians, "œAnd he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers (4:11)." Christ did this, not the congregation.

I have a chart compiled here about mid way through the paper that could be of help.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonLawfulOrdination.htm

For a serious study of this, read Jus Divinum. Their section on the "power of the keys alone" is the nail in the coffin for Independency.
 
Though I believe w/o a doubt Presbyterianism is the form of government jure divino, I wonder, are those who use the keys of the church w/o lawful ordination, but teach apostolic doctrine, merely illicit ministers or altogether illegitimate ministers? that is, do they administer the ordinances of the church however unlawfully or do they administer them not at all but only pretend to?
 
Can one who is unlawfully set in office administer anything lawfully?

I believe men like this may have all the gifts and graces that they need, but are overthrowing the authority of Christ. If the Head minister to the body through a lawfully ordained vessel, what then does the Head do through a man who is not lawfully called or ordained? Anything? Some things in spite of his sin? Etc.

[Edited on 4-22-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]
 
We have to acknowledge that irregularities are a part of this fallen world.

As for how to handle those, I look at Paul coming to Ephesus and finding a group of believers, who only know the baptism of John. He teaches them more accurately the further revelation, and they are added to the regular church.

The church in Rome was probably started without direct apostolic oversight. This does not mean they definitely had no ministry, but Paul seems to want to go there, in part, to impart some spiritual gift to them. It is not outside the realm of possibility that his persistent desire to go there was so that the church there could be regularly established (his language, Rom. 1:11).

As for those who persist in staying outside, I only respond as Jesus did to one of those "Son's of Thunder" John, who wanted to forbid the man casting out demons in Jesus name. Jesus doesn't exonerate the unknown man, but he does say to John and the rest, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in my name can soon afterward speak evil of me. For he who is not against us is on our side." (Mk. 9:38-39)
 
The problem with ME questioning the "lawfulness" of this guy's ordination, or that church's lawful behavior, is that I lack jurisdiction, I lack studied familiarity with that "car".
Aren't there reasons for which a judgment would need to be made, though? For example, if someone is considering joining a church, an important question should be whether or not the ministers are lawfully ordained. The issue is unavoidable for some people.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by Scott]
 
Can churches "spontanously generate" then in closed countries where people happen upon sermon tapes or Bibles and self-study?

Can a group of believers be raised up and gathered in an assembly and then recognize several men as leaders....which still happens in tribal areas of Irian Jaya with little or no contact with long-term outside missionary presence.
Yes. If you get a chance, check out Matt's article. Reformed theology says that lawfuly ministry is for the well being of the church, not its being. A true church can exist without lawful ministers. But lawful minister are needed for the church's well being.
 
Most RBCs, by the way, get ordained ministers together to ordain another RBC minister; their practice (and presumably their doctrine) is not purely congregational in this department.
It would seem that if the RBCs have essentially the same lineage, then they could make a case for having lawful minister even under the type of analysis Matt has described.
 
Originally posted by Scott
The problem with ME questioning the "lawfulness" of this guy's ordination, or that church's lawful behavior, is that I lack jurisdiction, I lack studied familiarity with that "car".
Aren't there reasons for which a judgment would need to be made, though? For example, if someone is considering joining a church, an important question should be whether or not the ministers are lawfully ordained. The issue is unavoidable for some people.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by Scott]
Unavoidable for some? Yes, I agree. Occasions to make judgments? Yes. In the post, I'm talking about myself. I won't even begin the process of questioning the ordination or lawful ministry of, say, Al Martin. I just won't go there. Ever. Al's never going to join my presbytery. I'm not thinking of joining TRBC. It's not on my radar screen. He's an incredible preacher. I suppose (I have no idea) he's also a decent elder. That's the end of my evaluation.

What other men MAY think about someone's ordination is one of the sorrier aspects of the last few weeks on the board. News flash--all churches have (more or less developed) a "doctrine of the church," and that doctrine includes issues related to officers. And there are big differences. Presbyterian doctrine has been settled now for a few hundred years.

But there's a difference between learning what presbyterian's believe and have believed for 400 years, and then applying the abstract doctrine to yourself (who holds a different doctrine), and then demanding that your presbyterian buddies (or former buddies!) tell you what they think of your specific ordination, and then basing your further friendship or relationship on what they tell you. "It better be what I want to hear! Or we're through!"

Some questions are better off not asked. And maybe better still, not answered, just diplomatically diverted. We'll get along fine, as long as some questions are just left on the floor, not picked up at thrown in the other guy's face. In the mean time, we each skip along within our respective communions, the people we serve are either happy, or not. And we get to have fellowship with other men who we at least respect enough to treat with grace, despite differences minor or major.
 
Bruce: BTW, I don't have firmly held views. I think the reformed view, as described by Matt, makes sense biblically. But denominational fragmentation may render the issue unintelligible in our context. As an anlogy, instructions to clean a vase presuppose that the vase is complete. The cleaning instructions don't make sense once the vase has been broken into thousands of pieces, and parts have even been ground to dust. The NT presupposes organizational unity that has been lost (in part in 1054 and then much more so since the Reformation). Or to use a biblical example, many of the OT worship commands don't make much sense in the context of a divided kingdom (the commands presupposed the unity of the 12 tribes).

Still, say that you have a member who is thinking about switching to an independent church (say he is moving to another town). Would the validity (or lack thereof) of the independent minister's ordination be even a consideration that the member should consider? If it is even one consideration among many, then the issue is unavoidable, especially if he comes to you for advice.

Our contact with other churches, and especially the movement of people among churches of different or no denominations, makes judgment on the issue unavoidable, even if the resolution is simply to say that it should not be a factor.
 
I think we have moved away from the point and into the theorhetical or other points of the issue without answering the initial question.

Yes or no?
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
No one asked me to be a mechanic onthat vehicle. Now, if you try to put a "volvo" fuel pump in one of my "bmws" I'm going to have to take a look at that thing, to see if it's compatible. Never mind whether I think volvos or any other brand ought to be on the road for any other reason. Different question.
That does it; the question is already a moot point. Any minister driving a BMW has to be making too much money, and thus is operating it unlawfully!

DTK
 
Hey now!
I just didn't want the issue to degenerate into a import-export fight, or a Ford-Chevy debate, and have folks miss my point!

I also used nocaps. That ought to be sufficient, right?

And if anyone thinks I actually have a fleet of BMWs, I also have a bridge I'd like to sell you... :D
 
"sorry, bmws don't cut it...still wondering on a serious answer."

Suggest you send a U2U to Matt.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Hey now!
I just didn't want the issue to degenerate into a import-export fight, or a Ford-Chevy debate, and have folks miss my point!

I also used nocaps. That ought to be sufficient, right?

And if anyone thinks I actually have a fleet of BMWs, I also have a bridge I'd like to sell you... :D

Sorry but I'll pass. I'd rather have the BMW. But until then I'll settle for :deadhorse:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top