Phil & Ruben. Thanks for the info. I don't agree with the two office view of pastor & teacher but your responses were helpful in explaining your viewpoint. Sorry for taking the thread off track. My point was to show that yes we all do have Ephesians 4:11 in our Bibles but some of us interpret it differently. Carry on.
Why can't REs administer the Lord's Supper?
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
There is no mention of a doctor of the church there.
---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------
Thanks. So all teachers of the church are doctors? Or only the teachers at a certain level in the church? Is the term even helpful anymore? Is a Sunday school teacher who is not a pastor, but is usually less trained than a pastor thus called a doctor because he is a teacher whereas the seminary trained pastor is not?
And are they elders? So we have TEs, RE's and then teachers? Or do we still only have TEs and REs, which are all still elders (who are under one set of qualification by Paul)?
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
According to the WDCG there are 4 distinct offices in the Church. 1) Doctor, 2) Minister, 3) Ruling Elder, 4) Deacon. All with different responsibilities. There is no "Teaching Elder"/"Ruling Elder" according to the WDCG. It is just Minister and Ruling Elder.
If you understand that the word "doctor" means "teacher" then there most certainly is. You might debate the relationship of teacher to pastor, but you can't deny that "teaching" is set out as a part of the work of the ministry.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Pergamum, just to expand a bit on what Rev. Glaser and Ruben have already said -
The point I tried to make in post #29 is that the divines used the term "doctor" and "teacher" synonymously. I believe that is precisely why they worded the associated heading the way that they did - "Teacher or Doctor." In addition, the divines evidently took the two words used in Ephesians 4:11 (poimenas - "shepherd" or "pastor", and didaskalous - "teacher") to be talking about distinct offices. As I noted before, the Directory even so states: "the scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor." So from our perspective one could apparently simply use the term "teacher" instead of "doctor," and not miss anything they intended.
As for your questions about the distinct traits the Directory attached to the title "teacher or doctor," go back and read their own description of it. (I cited it in post #16.) It seems pretty self explanatory.
It seems to me that the real question, as John has pointed out, is whether poimenas kai didaskalous in Ephesians 4:11 is better understood as "pastor-teachers" or "pastors and teachers." Certainly, good and capable men may and have indeed disagreed on this.
However, my purpose in discussing all of this in the first place, per the OP, was to try and shed light on what the divines meant by the phrase "a minister of the Word lawfully ordained" as it relates to an administrator of the sacraments. In light of all the information that we have explored here, it is pretty plain to me that the divines intended to indicate those whom they also called "preaching presbyters", and whom modern Presbyterians would commonly call "teaching elders." (It is also interesting that while the Directory ended up using the term "other church-governors" for non-preaching presbyters, in Gillespie's work he specifically gives an alternate heading of "ruling elders".)
In my humble opinion then, and with all respect, the practical point of this whole exercise is that elders who subscribe to the Westminster Standards should be aware that when WCF 27.4 states that the sacraments should be administered only by "a minister of the Word lawfully ordained," the divines were almost certainly talking about "teaching elders" as distinct from "ruling elders."
As such I certainly appreciated Ian's post about his taking a conscientious exception to this particular point. In other words, if an elder genuinely believes that this statement in the Confession is overreaching when compared to their own reading of scripture, they should inform their Presbytery. Then the final decision is left to the brethren in that Presbytery (at least in the PCA) as to whether or not such an exception violates a critical doctrine as taught by our Standards, or is in fact an admissible exception to take. Obviously, as Ian noted, some have in fact deemed it acceptable (and as such, it might be pointed out, have chosen to disregard the non-binding pastoral advice that was put forth in the relevant PCA position paper mentioned by Wayne in post #6).
The point I tried to make in post #29 is that the divines used the term "doctor" and "teacher" synonymously. I believe that is precisely why they worded the associated heading the way that they did - "Teacher or Doctor." In addition, the divines evidently took the two words used in Ephesians 4:11 (poimenas - "shepherd" or "pastor", and didaskalous - "teacher") to be talking about distinct offices. As I noted before, the Directory even so states: "the scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor." So from our perspective one could apparently simply use the term "teacher" instead of "doctor," and not miss anything they intended.
As for your questions about the distinct traits the Directory attached to the title "teacher or doctor," go back and read their own description of it. (I cited it in post #16.) It seems pretty self explanatory.
It seems to me that the real question, as John has pointed out, is whether poimenas kai didaskalous in Ephesians 4:11 is better understood as "pastor-teachers" or "pastors and teachers." Certainly, good and capable men may and have indeed disagreed on this.
However, my purpose in discussing all of this in the first place, per the OP, was to try and shed light on what the divines meant by the phrase "a minister of the Word lawfully ordained" as it relates to an administrator of the sacraments. In light of all the information that we have explored here, it is pretty plain to me that the divines intended to indicate those whom they also called "preaching presbyters", and whom modern Presbyterians would commonly call "teaching elders." (It is also interesting that while the Directory ended up using the term "other church-governors" for non-preaching presbyters, in Gillespie's work he specifically gives an alternate heading of "ruling elders".)
In my humble opinion then, and with all respect, the practical point of this whole exercise is that elders who subscribe to the Westminster Standards should be aware that when WCF 27.4 states that the sacraments should be administered only by "a minister of the Word lawfully ordained," the divines were almost certainly talking about "teaching elders" as distinct from "ruling elders."
As such I certainly appreciated Ian's post about his taking a conscientious exception to this particular point. In other words, if an elder genuinely believes that this statement in the Confession is overreaching when compared to their own reading of scripture, they should inform their Presbytery. Then the final decision is left to the brethren in that Presbytery (at least in the PCA) as to whether or not such an exception violates a critical doctrine as taught by our Standards, or is in fact an admissible exception to take. Obviously, as Ian noted, some have in fact deemed it acceptable (and as such, it might be pointed out, have chosen to disregard the non-binding pastoral advice that was put forth in the relevant PCA position paper mentioned by Wayne in post #6).
So is that the confesssional answer? There are 4-offices? Do confesssional Presbyterians agree on this number? Who differs?
---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------
If there are more offices than just elder and deacon, why does Paul only give qualifications for those two and not also for teachers and RE's?
Exactly. That is why I believe that those are the only two current offices and why I believe that pastor & teacher are synonymous in Ephesians 4:11. The only other alternative you have since there are no qualifications listed for this office of teacher is that it was an office that has now been done away with just like the office of apostle. Why would God give us an office of the church yet fail to tell us what the qualifications are?
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Pergamum and John,
If you read the Directory's descriptions carefully (especially as enlightened by the secondary sources), it is reasonable to say that the divines saw the three denominated offices of (1) ministers/pastors/teaching elders (2) doctors/teachers (3) and other church governors/ruling elders, as all falling under the purview, or being sub-sets of what scripture calls elders/presbyters. Historically, the idea that elders are rightly distinguished between those performing different tasks and duties is based on the distinction made in 1 Timothy 5:17. So while one may disagree with how such divisions should ultimately shake out, the principle is clearly biblically based.
Also keep in mind that most modern Presbyterian churches do not belabor or exercise the distinct office of "teacher or doctor". (Nor is this a refusal of what they have adopted as their binding standards, since the DPWG is not part of their constitutional makeup - which rather is usually the WCF WLC and WSC - none of which specify that office.)
If you read the Directory's descriptions carefully (especially as enlightened by the secondary sources), it is reasonable to say that the divines saw the three denominated offices of (1) ministers/pastors/teaching elders (2) doctors/teachers (3) and other church governors/ruling elders, as all falling under the purview, or being sub-sets of what scripture calls elders/presbyters. Historically, the idea that elders are rightly distinguished between those performing different tasks and duties is based on the distinction made in 1 Timothy 5:17. So while one may disagree with how such divisions should ultimately shake out, the principle is clearly biblically based.
Also keep in mind that most modern Presbyterian churches do not belabor or exercise the distinct office of "teacher or doctor". (Nor is this a refusal of what they have adopted as their binding standards, since the DPWG is not part of their constitutional makeup - which rather is usually the WCF WLC and WSC - none of which specify that office.)
Phil,
I see what you are saying but according to the quote from Mr. Glaser (see post #36) there are "4 distinct offices of the church." You are saying there are "three denominated offices" (plus deacon). The Scripture gives qualifications for 2 offices. You seem to understand this because you say:
Therefore, if they are under the heading of elder, they are an elder and not a separate office. I do know the separate viewpoints in regards to 1 Timothy 5:17, however it gives me no indication that it was a separate office. It just says that those who rule well are worthy of double honor. As to the OP, if one were to believe in "ruling elders" as distinguished from "teaching elders", they would still be the same office but with different duties. However, even though they have different duties they should be proficient in all of the duties. For example, a ruling elder should be apt to teach and a teaching elder should be able to rule. So, I don't think any duties that one could do the other could not, including administering the Lord's Supper. But that's just me and I don't believe in a distinction between ruling and teaching elders.
I see what you are saying but according to the quote from Mr. Glaser (see post #36) there are "4 distinct offices of the church." You are saying there are "three denominated offices" (plus deacon). The Scripture gives qualifications for 2 offices. You seem to understand this because you say:
Therefore, if they are under the heading of elder, they are an elder and not a separate office. I do know the separate viewpoints in regards to 1 Timothy 5:17, however it gives me no indication that it was a separate office. It just says that those who rule well are worthy of double honor. As to the OP, if one were to believe in "ruling elders" as distinguished from "teaching elders", they would still be the same office but with different duties. However, even though they have different duties they should be proficient in all of the duties. For example, a ruling elder should be apt to teach and a teaching elder should be able to rule. So, I don't think any duties that one could do the other could not, including administering the Lord's Supper. But that's just me and I don't believe in a distinction between ruling and teaching elders.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Hi John,
Rev, Glaser can obviously answer for himself here, but I suppose we have perhaps been a little confusing with how we have used various terms among us. Maybe the best way to look at it is that the divines saw "multiple roles fulfilled within the two biblically defined offices" - or something like that. In defense of this understanding, I would draw attention to the part of 1 Tim. 5:17 that you seem to have left out of your notation - "especially those [presbyteroi] who labor in preaching and teaching." The plain implication here is that there were elders who did not "labor in preaching and teaching", no?
Rev, Glaser can obviously answer for himself here, but I suppose we have perhaps been a little confusing with how we have used various terms among us. Maybe the best way to look at it is that the divines saw "multiple roles fulfilled within the two biblically defined offices" - or something like that. In defense of this understanding, I would draw attention to the part of 1 Tim. 5:17 that you seem to have left out of your notation - "especially those [presbyteroi] who labor in preaching and teaching." The plain implication here is that there were elders who did not "labor in preaching and teaching", no?
Dearly Bought
Puritan Board Junior
This is just a tidbit of the consideration given to this question in this magnificent work.
I'm good with that definition as well.
I don't think the rest of that verse changes anything that I have said. I'm perfectly ok with the fact that in a multiple eldership there may be one elder who is better gifted in preaching and teaching and may do so more often than the other(s). We all have different levels of ability. However, the ability must be there and I don't think it is good practice for an elder to never preach & teach. All elders must be apt to teach. All elders must be able to rule. An elder who rules well is worthy of double honor especially if he is also the main teacher. That is my view of the verse.
interalia
Puritan Board Freshman
In the EPC, RE's "serve", but not "administer." We do, however, provide for the "commissioned pastor", who is an RE, but upon finding themselves in a particular area of minsitry where a TE is not available, recieves this title after training and examination from the local session and presbytery in order to preach and administer the sacraments in limited situations.
sdesocio
Puritan Board Freshman
Even more pointed Question I knew an RE who was licensed to preach so that he help plant a church, but needed a TE to administer the supper. Id see that as the most obvious point of inconsistency. He is an Elder (one of the Two offices in the church) and he has been granted the power to preach.
It seems like there might have been an assumption that RE's never preached (which is not really true anymore). It would be interesting to hear of an RE argue that he is an minister of the word at the congregation he is called to (at least on a semi regular basis.)
It seems like there might have been an assumption that RE's never preached (which is not really true anymore). It would be interesting to hear of an RE argue that he is an minister of the word at the congregation he is called to (at least on a semi regular basis.)
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I would agree with Sam that a consistent 2-Office view would seem to say that the TE and RE distinctions are really just a matter of dividing up responsibilities among the Elders of the local church and therefore should not restrict the administration to the TE.
This is why it seems to this three-office guy that even professing two-office advocates in practice act like the Church has three-offices.
This is why it seems to this three-office guy that even professing two-office advocates in practice act like the Church has three-offices.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
To the OP Q. 169 of the Larger Catechism limits the administration of the Lord's Supper to "Ministers of the Word".
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Wouldn't that answer the question as to whether women may help distribute communion?
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Yes
No. Because the distribution of the elements implies an admission to the Table (since we no longer use an actual Table). It is not the job of a congregant to keep the elements from the "unworthy and scandalous." It is the job of the Session.
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
Is it the job of the Session or only of "ministers of the Word"? (Not trying to be contentious here -- just trying to find some consistency. It seems to me that the physical distribution of the elements can be related to, but not necessarily tied to, admission to/barring from the Table. Is WLC 169 speaking to both or only one? If both, then it looks like only the Teaching Elders admit to/bar from the table as well.)
- Status
