Trevor,
This is what I am trying to draw out.

I think that some would say this...

__________________
Bryan Michael Maes [Blog - Facebook - MySpace]
St. Mark's on the Mesa Episcopal Church
Albuquerque, NM

Are Episcopal or Lutheran ordinations valid?

Maybe someone asked this already - but valid for what? I don't think these would be a valid ordinations for preaching in a PCA, but would be for preaching in a whatever denomination that one was ordinated under. Maybe there's some inter-denominational recognition of ordination - I really don't know. But I think the term "valid" in context of ordination is limited to the scope of particular denominations.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

To be validly or lawfully ordained is to be rightly appointed to be a Minister of the Word and Sacrament. Because this is a universal ecclesiastical office, the question trancends denomination.

If the validity of one's ordination is limited to the scope of the particular denomination, then the assertions that some Presbyterians make on this board that "Independant" ordinations are invalid is nonsensical.

But you question was if ordination in a particular denomination was "valid" in another denomination. You've already limited the scope is to by assuming denominations themselves are valid. If you want to question the practice of denominations to say what is a valid ordination for that denomination, you should first question the validity of denominations themselves. Why do we have denominations? What separates one from another? Validity of ordination is limited to the scope of denominations, it's a technical issue regarding the visible church.

What an interesting discussion.

I think Civbert pointed out something plain, which is to say that there is a technical side to the original question:

"For those who would consider only Presbyterian ordinations to be valid and lawful, would you accept an ordination from the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster/North America (www.freepres.org) as valid?"

I see theologae's point, who asked the original question; I think the consensus answer is yes. But that may be far from whether, say, a PCA minister would "automatically" allow an FPC minister to preach in "his" pulpit, much less have a blanket endorsement to "automatically" be allowed to preach in other PCAs. I believe that is why our Presbyteries have Credentials Committees, to vet these men for the whole church. As for individual churches, the Session would be responsible for who is in the pulpit.

Trevor, I think the answer to your question is "no." But again, I don't believe you could ask for "carte blanche" to preach at, say, any PCA church. (Not that you were asking for this.)

__________________
BJ Mora
Grace OPC, Modesto, CA
Reformed & Presbyterian Churches & Denominations in North America

The original question was whether FPC ordinations were valid considered by themselves. In other words, are men appointed and sent by that denomination really and truly lawfully consecrated Ministers?

I am aware of an OPC session that will not allow a particular OPC minister preach from their pulpit. So even within the bounds of a denomination, no one's pulpit is wide open in that regard. And nor should it be.

This question was resurrected from a time when there was much controversy here over lawful ordination. At that time, it was stated that Phillip Way's church was not a true church because his ordination was not a Presbyterian one. It had nothing to do with whether he could minister in a church in another denomination, it had to do with whether he could minister in his own!

Trevor, I agree with you.

Bryan, I agree with you also, albeit given what you said, it seems to me the logic (not yours) is backward... Shouldn't the logical flow be "XYZ church is not a true church, *therefore* an ordination from XYZ is not valid"?

I'm really surprised the big guys haven't weighed in yet...

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

Someone asked whether the PCA would see say a baptist as a minister allowed to preach. To be clear, this is not really an issue in the PCA. The PCA had reformed Baptist John Piper preach at General Assembly in the past year or two. As Matt has noted elsewhere the idea of valid ordinations is almost forgotten and ignored. I would say that the issue is perceived more as a matter of prudence than anything else (which is quite a departure from the past). Now, that is not saying that the PCA's practical leniency on the issue is correct. But in practice, it is not an issue that many people care about.

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

Who or what has the authority to ordain a man to the gospel ministry?

The King of the Church, Lord Jesus, working through godly men (his church on earth).

Trevor et al., some older threads on the subject:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...=4953#pid60453

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...=4894#pid59225

Fasten your seatbelts.

Vic

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

As I asked earlier, are all ordinations valid? Which ones are excluded? I would second the idea that if the governing body is not a church; if it does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church of Christ then the ordinations are invalid.

Another thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...3415#pid189629

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Perhaps this could be the subject of a different thread since it's a more general question than our view of the FPC.

I suppose the question is, do we think the Bible has spoken on issues like baptism? And if so, how much compromise is desirable for the sake of unity? And when we speak of unity, what kind of unity do we have in mind?

There is also the issue of mode, since Baptists say immersion is the only valid baptism, and many throughout the ages (witness the IMB guidelines) say it has to be done in a Baptist church.

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon

Trevor,
Are all true churches? One needs to address what groups are excluded in this regard. Then, after looking at that, the ordinations. The above will effect the outcome of whether or not one is actually administering a sacrament at all.

[Edited on 4-21-2006 by Scott Bushey]

There are degrees of purity in the church, and therefore among individual churches, so there are degrees of fellowship. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that church C and church P agree on every jot and tittle of doctrine except for the issue of (C)redobaptism v. (P)aedobaptism. And let's say even further that church C doesn't hold firm to immersion, but is holding firm to credobaptism - so basically we have a Reformed Baptist church and a Reformed church. I don't think that either church would call the other false. Neither, though, could these churches enter into formal church fellowship unless one were going to "submit" to the other re: baptism. That is, ideally, church fellowship should be leading to church unity; but I don't believe that disunity in all cases = disfellowship.

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.

If you use the term "valid" or "lawful" in a broad sense, but the church that would not allow particular ministers in their pulpit would do so based on some criteria that is most likely doctrinal. And if doctrinal, it's probably denominational. A "valid" or "lawful" minister in the broadest sense, may not be considered validly or lawfully ordained within the scope of that church or denomination.

I think part of the problem with the whole question is what scope or sense we are using the terms "valid" and "lawful". Certainly there are ministers who are truly and faithfully preaching the Gospel, truly called by God to the ministy, but that does not neccessarily mean they have been met the legal requirments of ordaination to stand in the pulpit of a particular church. This does not mean he is not a true minister of the Gospel, only that he's credentials do no satisfy the technical requirements of that denomination. And I'm sure that exceptions can be made if that person was willing to be examined by the the elders of the church or denomination.

I think the whole question is like asking who is in the invisible church and who are in the visible church. We go by outward signs to see who is in the visible church - baptism, confession of faith, formal membership - but we also know that some in the visible church are not the elect, and not saved. So we use the outward evidence for practical reasons. And a "valid" ordination is a technical question, not a judgment of the person's true status as a minister of the Word.




[Edited on 4-21-2006 by Civbert]

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, IMHO. Doctrine has to come ahead of formal structure, continuity, or any other criteria, every single time.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

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.