Ruling Elders and the Sacraments

Is it always wrong for a RULING elder to perform (lead) the sacraments

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • No

    Votes: 11 57.9%

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fred,

That is interesting. So when a ruling Elder preaches from the pulpit ocassionally, is he not expositing the word?

Would a man be allowed to preach from the pulpit and not attempt to faithfully exsposit the word?
My point is that there is a difference between expositing/preaching the Word on an occasion and doing that as a part of one's calling, after having been specifically examined to do that. REs are not examined in that way. In fact, in the PCA, REs are not examined in Sacraments, whereas TEs are.
 
My point is that there is a difference between expositing/preaching the Word on an occasion and doing that as a part of one's calling, after having been specifically examined to do that. REs are not examined in that way. In fact, in the PCA, REs are not examined in Sacraments, whereas TEs are.
I follow.

Do you see any inconsistency at all (honest question)? REs are examined..just not in the exact same way.

So the TEs preach more frequently and they are examined more specifically (and rigorously), so this means the TEs can only do the sacraments, but REs and TEs share the same office?
 
I think the language of the OPC (in addition to the real distinction in offices) is better. In the 3 office denominations, there is no confusion between the official duties due to similarity in names.
So in the OPC are REs allowed to preach from the pulpit ever?
 
I can’t remember off the top of my head, but do the Westminster standards (including the confession and the catechisms) stipulate the number of ordained
offices that should exist in a church?
The Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government lists seven: the extraordinary offices of Apostle, Prophet, and Evangelist, and the ordinary offices of Pastor, Teacher, other Church Governors (viz., Ruling Elders), and Deacons.
 
Can you send me a OPC TE sermon and a RE sermon so I can see the difference in this "preach/exhort"?

First, we don't have TE's, a distinction you don't seem to grasp. Secondly, why do you mock OPC polity? Do you think the OPC has bumbling, illiterate fools in office making unimportant distinctions? Before you go maligning officers of the church in good standing, you may want to remove yourself from the high horse and find out why the distinctions exist.
 
Last edited:
First, we don't have TE's, a distinction you don't seem to grasp. Secondly, why do you mock OPC polity? Do you think the OPC has bumbling, illeliterate fools in office making unimportant distinctions? Before you go maligning officers of the church in good standing, you may want to remove yourself from the high horse and find out why the distinctions exist.
Gforce,

I do not think any of those things. I think you presume to much.

It was an honest question. I started this thread to learn not to mock. OPC does recognize TE and use it to identify a minister (at least that is what is on the OPC official site). I take this quite seriously. I find your "preach/exhort" distinction slightly humorous because I have never heard someone make that distinction regarding a pulpit given sermon.

If I have come across as mocking I apologize, but that is not my intent. But in all seriousness are you able to provide a sermon from a TE and a sermon from an RE to showcase this difference you claim?

If a minister (or TE) were to give a sermon and then an RE were to give a sermon the following Lord's Day...I really doubt there is a true difference (assuming both men faithfully exegete the text) other than the ordained title of the individual.
 
I think a distinction thats important is that the TE is formally, theologically educated (generally) and the RE's don't necessarily have to be.
 
Gforce,

I do not think any of those things. I think you presume to much.

It was an honest question. I started this thread to learn not to mock. OPC does recognize TE and use it to identify a minister (at least that is what is on the OPC official site). I take this quite seriously. I find your "preach/exhort" distinction slightly humorous because I have never heard someone make that distinction regarding a pulpit given sermon.

If I have come across as mocking I apologize, but that is not my intent. But in all seriousness are you able to provide a sermon from a TE and a sermon from an RE to showcase this difference you claim?

If a minister (or TE) were to give a sermon and then an RE were to give a sermon the following Lord's Day...I really doubt there is a true difference (assuming both men faithfully exegete the text) other than the ordained title of the individual.


OPC does NOT have an office of TE.....PERIOD. The BCO says the pastor (minister) and elders govern the church together (session). Secondly, it is not MY distiction (preach/exhort). This is OPC polity. Whether or not you like the distinction is irrelevant and it is there. The difference is not whether the "messages" sound the same or different, but whom has God called and ordained. If this is unimportant to you, you may want to reconsider your own pursuit of ordained office, because your current view is destined to hurt the church...... I'm done
 
OPC does NOT have an office of TE.....PERIOD. The BCO says the pastor (minister) and elders govern the church together (session). Secondly, it is not MY distiction (preach/exhort). This is OPC polity. Whether or not you like the distinction is irrelevant and it is there. The difference is not whether the "messages" sound the same or different, but whom has God called and ordained. If this is unimportant to you, you may want to reconsider your own pursuit of ordained office, because your current view is destined to hurt the church...... I'm done
If it were unimportant I would not have moved my family from the SBC to the PCA, nor would I have posted this thread. I believe in the PCA form of church government, I just want to make sure I understand and can reconcile and defend it fully with scripture, so that I can serve more faithfully as an officer if so called.

If this thread is going to cause you to become so angry and spew accusations, then please abstain. I think we all owe each other an extra measure of kindness and understanding because though we claim to be reformed we all have different backgrounds and traditions, yet we are all in the same body. I apologize if I have offended you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone, please remember the nature of the internet.

In a sense, both Greg and Grant are "correct," and both are not quite, on this point. The term "teaching elder" has more-or-less a distinctly PCA provenance.

A few years back, sometime after the PCA came into existence, and in those years when the PCA and OPC were thinking of merging, the OPC added this language to their BCO chapter on Ministers, today it's ch.4. The title of the ch. was changed to read Ministers or Teaching Elders; and the language of para.2 now reads, "Every minister of the Word, or teaching elder, must..." I added that italic for emphasis.

I'll say some more for the thread's sake, but I want to quickly try to tone us down a bit.
 
I think a distinction thats important is that the TE is formally, theologically educated (generally) and the RE's don't necessarily have to be.
Scott,

I Agree (and appreciate) that seminary is a very important requirement for the TE (especially studying scripture in the original languages). I am just not sure if I can "biblically" say that seminary is required to administer the sacrament. Formal training (as seminary) was not really there for the NT Elders

I am only seeing (currently) that the requirement is that it be administered along with the ministry of the word by a qualified elder, which is carried out primarily by the TE, but the RE as well occasionally.
 
If Ministers (or TEs) and Elders (REs) have the same office, then (in my opinion) they should take the same vow. They don't (and never have, SFAIK) and whether you want to call it the tail-wagging-the-dog or whatever you will, that's prima facie evidence that these are two different offices. Or, at the very least the line of distinction within one class of officer to cleanly mark the divide between them is a matter of historical reality.
 
If Ministers (or TEs) and Elders (REs) have the same office, then (in my opinion) they should take the same vow. They don't (and never have, SFAIK) and whether you want to call it the tail-wagging-the-dog or whatever you will, that's prima facie evidence that these are two different offices. Or, at the very least the line of distinction within one class of officer to cleanly mark the divide between them is a matter of historical reality.
I may be finding that I am in more agreement with the OPC, at least if it is going to be maintained by both OPC and PCA that REs cannot administer the sacraments (i am still working through this as I still feel an RE can).
 
RE’s in the PCA deliver the LS as it is administered by the TE. I have seen Deacons help with this and have no issue given the distinction made on the actual administration.
 
RE’s in the PCA deliver the LS as it is administered by the TE. I have seen Deacons help with this and have no issue given the distinction made on the actual administration.
Thanks. Yes this is how it is done in our small congregation.

We just increased the frequency of our LS observance from quarterly to "every other month"..I am very grateful for that progress.
 
At the end of the day I’m OK submitting to the what is detailed in the PCA BCO 100%.

Whioe the BCO is not the infallible word of God, it does Outline practices based on the biblical ideas.

I don’t think the PCA prohibits ruling elders from performing the sacraments in an effort to create an upper echelon amongst the teaching elders nor to say REs are not worthy. Rather I see that the BCO for the PCA gives it’s best effort to protect the holiness and sanctity of the Lords two sacraments and the administration thereof.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's an important question:
Do Presbyterians, historically, have clergy? Are their ministers clergy, and their elders laity?

And, as a follow up question, is such a distinction biblically defensible? Obviously, if we have clergy, and want to defend having such in a way consistent with our professed belief (that everything related to the church's worship and government is strictly regulated), then this has to have been attempted in the past. There's your research project.

Ch.Hodge argued: the effort to combine the elders with the ministers of the church in a single office, though maintaining the difference in "function" according to class might damp down the tendency, such a move would have one of two natural effects.

1) It would either laicize the clergy, leading to congregationalism. Or 2), it would lead to a new and hard division between the rulers and the ruled; it would lead to a pronounced clericalism, no less an issue than that found in the hierarchical denominations.

The genius of Presbyterianism cannot be sustained unless there is a robust, and lay-eldership. As an analogous illustration, consider how the genius of the constitutional republic has devolved into rule by elites, under the guise of a democracy; the original design of which was expressly erected to oppose both tendencies. Unless citizens are in charge of the House, they are no longer self-governing in a meaningful sense. Lay-representation in government is the design of Presbyterianism, and that idea was at one time appropriated and reconfigured for secular purposes.

If elders are laymen then they are not clergy. Clergy are ministers of Christ's government, the function of which is in a proper sense (not in a sacerdotal sense) to represent Christ unto the people--to be his mouth in the proclamation of His word; and his hands in the administration of baptism and his Supper. If the elders are summoned to the same work, without any distinction in what they do and why--not just for the sake of additional education, or "full time employment"--then who represents the governed in the assembly?

If the halls of power are captured by the interests of those in those halls, if they ALL see themselves as representing top-down authority, the government's interests, its secrecy, its finances, the rules it makes for the people to follow and who are not held to a common standard, who is left to speak, or even to answer upward?

The fact is, no one. We end up with a situation in the church a lot like the situation in the secular world. Those who are sent to the capital as representatives of "the people" end up in love with the perks and prerogatives of being above the hoi polloi, they love people beseeching them for favors, and that's what they end up seeing as their job. They stop seeing themselves as spokesmen for the collective rights of the body politic, which each constituent holds as a personal possession. Instead, they find themselves in the position of benefactors. They have become representatives of what is "above" to those who are "below." And no one is the voice of the people.

Elders of the church are the people's representatives, to sit with the ministers (be that in on a session, where they typically dominate; or in Presbytery where ministers in the OPC tend to dominate, or G.A. where there is a form of parity in the OPC) and come together as representing above and below for the sake of good order and discipline.
 
Here's an important question:
Do Presbyterians, historically, have clergy? Are their ministers clergy, and their elders laity?

And, as a follow up question, is such a distinction biblically defensible? Obviously, if we have clergy, and want to defend having such in a way consistent with our professed belief (that everything related to the church's worship and government is strictly regulated), then this has to have been attempted in the past. There's your research project.

Ch.Hodge argued: the effort to combine the elders with the ministers of the church in a single office, though maintaining the difference in "function" according to class might damp down the tendency, such a move would have one of two natural effects.

1) It would either laicize the clergy, leading to congregationalism. Or 2), it would lead to a new and hard division between the rulers and the ruled; it would lead to a pronounced clericalism, no less an issue than that found in the hierarchical denominations.

The genius of Presbyterianism cannot be sustained unless there is a robust, and lay-eldership. As an analogous illustration, consider how the genius of the constitutional republic has devolved into rule by elites, under the guise of a democracy; the original design of which was expressly erected to oppose both tendencies. Unless citizens are in charge of the House, they are no longer self-governing in a meaningful sense. Lay-representation in government is the design of Presbyterianism, and that idea was at one time appropriated and reconfigured for secular purposes.

If elders are laymen then they are not clergy. Clergy are ministers of Christ's government, the function of which is in a proper sense (not in a sacerdotal sense) to represent Christ unto the people--to be his mouth in the proclamation of His word; and his hands in the administration of baptism and his Supper. If the elders are summoned to the same work, without any distinction in what they do and why--not just for the sake of additional education, or "full time employment"--then who represents the governed in the assembly?

If the halls of power are captured by the interests of those in those halls, if they ALL see themselves as representing top-down authority, the government's interests, its secrecy, its finances, the rules it makes for the people to follow and who are not held to a common standard, who is left to speak, or even to answer upward?

The fact is, no one. We end up with a situation in the church a lot like the situation in the secular world. Those who are sent to the capital as representatives of "the people" end up in love with the perks and prerogatives of being above the hoi poloi, they love people beseeching them for favors, and that's what they end up seeing as their job. They stop seeing themselves as spokesmen for the collective rights of the body politic, which each constituent holds as a personal possession. Instead, they find themselves in the position of benefactors. They have become representatives of what is "above" to those who are "below." And no one is the voice of the people.

Elders of the church are the people's representatives, to sit with the ministers (be that in on a session, where they typically dominate; or in Presbytery where ministers in the OPC tend to dominate, or G.A. where there is a form of parity in the OPC) and come together as representing above and below for the sake of good order and discipline.
Thanks. All of that really helps me think through this. I can see the benefit and the Biblical ideas founded upon. I guess operationally the PCA and OPC are very similar on this specific mattter with the only real “major” (still a minor in the grand scheme) being that the PCA sees 2 offices to GOVERN (deacons and elders but split the elder into 2 classes) and the OPC separates out 3 distinct offices for that task (deacons, elders, minister). Does that sound true enough? Basically the “lingo”?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Various???What other exceptions? I have no exceptions with our standards, but only 1 with the section of the BCO that says only a teaching elder (excluding the RE) can administer the sacraments.

When taking your exception to the BCO, don't forget to take exception to the Westminster Confession, as well.
(Chapter 29, Paragraph 3 and Chapter 27, Paragraph 4)

So we are up to at least 3 exceptions you'll need to take to the Constitutional standards. And I haven't started looking to see if there is anything I don't recall off the top of my head. (Aren't there a couple of places in the BCO dealing with this - that will take some looking as that document changes more frequently).
 
When taking your exception to the BCO, don't forget to take exception to the Westminster Confession, as well.
(Chapter 29, Paragraph 3 and Chapter 27, Paragraph 4)

So we are up to at least 3 exceptions you'll need to take to the Constitutional standards. And I haven't started looking to see if there is anything I don't recall off the top of my head. (Aren't there a couple of places in the BCO dealing with this - that will take some looking as that document changes more frequently).
If you’ve read all of my post on this thread you will see that I do not plan to take any exceptions. I am simply trying to understand the practice and as will all of my beliefs I do try and attempt to be convinced by scripture first and then my confession, and then my BCO.

Rather than go into attack mode, I would simply invite you to respond with helpful information and scriptural support to the OP as well as read my post before this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, two exceptions to the WCF per my post above, one to Directory of Worship Chapter 58-4, and one to the BCO (8-5 and 8-6).

Look at BCO 19-15 and see if you need to add that in. (Prohibition for interns).
 
OK, two exceptions to the WCF per my post above, one to Directory of Worship Chapter 58-4, and one to the BCO (8-5 and 8-6).

Look at BCO 19-15 and see if you need to add that in. (Prohibition for interns).
Also Presbyterian Denominations (specifically OPC and PCA) obviously vary slightly on some interpretations of the standards... otherwise they would use the same BCO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you’ve read all of my post on this thread you will see that I do not plan to take any exceptions.

That actually concerns me more than the exceptions themselves would.

I would simply invite you to respond with helpful information

The WCF and BCO (including the Directory) are clear. You either subscribe to them or take exception and let your session decide whether that is an impediment to your ordination. You don't get to decide that you don't think they are scriptural and thus you don't need to state an exception.

and scriptural support

I'd refer you to the Proof Texts to the WCF on the issue. Again, if you don't think they support the proposition, the proper course is to state your exception to the Constitutional Standards as being unscriptural, and leave it to the Session.
 
Also Presbyterian Deniminations (specifically OPC and PCA) obviously vary slightly on some interpretations of the standards... otherwise they would use the same BCO.

Of course, but the original post said PCA. If you switch to the OPC, there are several fine OPC folks on here that are better versed on their BCO. WCF should be the same for both on this issue.
 
That actually concerns me more than the exceptions themselves would.



The WCF and BCO (including the Directory) are clear. You either subscribe to them or take exception and let your session decide whether that is an impediment to your ordination. You don't get to decide that you don't think they are scriptural and thus you don't need to state an exception.



I'd refer you to the Proof Texts to the WCF on the issue. Again, if you don't think they support the proposition, the proper course is to state your exception to the Constitutional Standards as being unscriptural, and leave it to the Session.

Again you must not have read all of my post , Because I have already articulated that I am beginning to understand why the BCO is written the way that it is and coming to agree with it based off the Helpful (not attacking) post of others. Hence why I stated I am most likely not going to take exception.
 
Of course, but the original post said PCA. If you switch to the OPC, there are several fine OPC folks on here that are better versed on their BCO. WCF should be the same for both on this issue.
I am reading you references now.

Do the Westminster Standards distinguish a minister and elder?
 
I guess operationally the PCA and OPC are very similar on this specific mattter with the only real “major” (still a minor in the grand scheme) being that the PCA sees 2 offices to GOVERN (deacons and elders but split the elder into 2 classes) and the OPC separates out 3 distinct offices for that task (deacons, elders, minister). Does that sound true enough? Basically the “lingo”?

For that, I'd suggest that you read the PCA study paper on the number of offices. http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-455.html
and particularly Appendix A http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-462.html

Appendices B-D can be found under this indirect link
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/index.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top