A Few Ancients on the Church, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine

Status
Not open for further replies.

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
The subject of what constitutes the lawfulness of a church, and stemming from that a discussion of what constitutes the validity of ministerial order, has been discussed in a number of ways and at various times here on the PB. It's not my intention to attempt to adjudicate that controversy. My own tentative position is that a church need not appeal to a succession of men in order for it to be lawful. At the same time, we must have some God-approved means today for recognizing and setting apart men whom God has called and gifted for the ministry. I want to offer the following, albeit a few, testimonies from some ancient witnesses.

1) Tertullian spoke of Churches in his day who had published lists of their bishops by succession to show that their first bishop was a successor of an apostle, but as Tertullian points out, the test of succession is not in the voice of the present day Church, but that of doctrine:

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32.

It was also the expressed opinion of Gregory of Nazianzus that apostolic succession was to be understood as adherence to apostolic doctrine, and that a breach of doctrine constituted a breach of succession. For while speaking of Athanasius, he wrote:

Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense. NPNF2: Vol. VII, Oration XXI - On the Great Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, §8.

3) The following 12 quotes, all of which are drawn from Augustine´s work on the Unity of the Church show that Augustine made his appeal to the Scriptures alone. His argumentation exemplifies a vast difference between himself and the Roman controversialists of our present day. The De Unitate Ecclesiae is a very important work of Augustine's that has never been translated into English and published complete. New City Press has the translation of this work slated for spring (April) 2006. The reason for its importance is because it is in this work that Augustine is contending with the Donatists over what constitutes the true Church. Most of these translations I have taken from the classic work (though relatively unknown today) of William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), three volumes. Regardless of what position one takes, these quotes from this work of Augustine is fascinating. I have gone through Migne's Patrologia Latina, volume 43 to supply the Latin text and document the proper references for each quote. For those unfamiliar with Migne, a typical reference looks as follows PL 43:429. PL = Migne Patrologia Latina, 43 = the volume number, and 429 = the column number (there are two columns on each page, thus one needs to reference it by column rather than by page number. I hope those of you who read these find them to be as fascinating as I have and do.

Augustine (354-430): Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p 164.
Latin text: Sed, ut dicere coeperam, non audiamus, Haec dicis, haec dico; sed audiamus, Haec dicit Dominus. Sunt certe Libri dominici, quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus, utrique cedimus utrique servimus: ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §5, PL 43:394.

Augustine (354-430): Therefore let those testimonies which we mutually bring against each other, from any other quarter than the divine canonical books, be put out of sight. Goode, Vol. 3, p. 164.
Latin text: Auferantur ergo illa de medio, quae adversus nos invicem, non ex divinis canonicis Libris, sed aliunde recitamus. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §5, PL 43:395.

Augustine (354-430): I would not have the holy Church demonstrated by human testimonies, but by divine oracles. Goode, Vol. 3, pp. 164-165.
Latin text: Quia nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §6, PL 43:395.

Augustine (354-430): Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church. See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 109-110.
Latin text: Quicumque de ipso capite, ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput IV, §7, PL 43:395-396.

Augustine (354-430): We adhere to this Church; against those divine declarations we admit no human cavils.
Latin text: Nos hanc Ecclesiam tenemus, contra istas divinas voces nullas humanas criminationes admittimus. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI, §28, PL 43:410.

Augustine (354-430): Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God. Goode, Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Nemo mihi dicat: O quid dixit Donatus, o quid dixit Parmenianus, aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum! Quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei Scripturas aliquid sentiant. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI, §28, PL 43:410-411.

Augustine (354-430): All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith. Goode, Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Remotis ergo omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini praeparati et cauti redditi sumus: sed in praescripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum praedicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum Librorum auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et commemorent, quae obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quae quisque sicut voluerit, interpretetur secundum sensum suum. Talia enim recte intelligi exponique non possunt, nisi prius ea, quae apertissime dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XVIII, §47, PL 43:427-428.

Augustine (354-430): We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men. Goode, Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Ecclesia, quam sicut ipsum caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus, et opinionibus, et factis, et dictis, et visis inquirere. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §49, PL 43:429.

Augustine (354-430): Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen. See Goode, Vol. 2, pp. 341-342 and Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Augustine: Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis episcopi; aut quia nostrorum collegarum conciliis ipsa praedicata est; aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis, quae frequentat nostra communio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum, vel sanitatum fiunt . . . De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §50, PL 43:429-430.

Augustine (354-430): Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms . . . These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports for our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John. See Goode, Vol. 2, pp. 341-342 and Vol. 3, pp. 165-166.
Latin text: Quaecumque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis,...eos [i.e., discipulos] testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit,...Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. 51. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturas, an haec ita se haberent: quas utique Scripturas, nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum? Huc accesserunt Evangelia, apostolicae Epistolae, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Joannis. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §50-51, PL 43:430.

Augustine (354-430): But if they do not choose to understand, it is sufficient for us that we adhere to that Church which is demonstrated by such extremely clear testimonies of the Holy and Canonical Scriptures. See Goode, Vol. 3, p. 166.
Latin text: Quod si nolunt intelligere, sufficit nobis quod eam tenemus Ecclesiam, quae manifestissimis sanctarum et canonicarum Scripturarum testimoniis demonstratur. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §50-51, PL 43:437.

Augustine (354-430): (Turretin trans.) I have the most manifest voice of my pastor commending to me, and without any hesitation setting forth the church, I will impute it to myself, if I shall wish to be seduced by the words of men and to wander from his flock, which is the church itself, since he specially admonished me saying, My sheep hear my voice and follow me; listen to his voice clear and open and heard; who does not follow, how will he dare to call himself his sheep? (Goode trans.) Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God. Turretin, Vol. 3, pp. 91-92 and Goode, Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Habeo manifestissimam vocem pastoris mei, commendantis mihi et sine ullis ambagibus exprimentis Ecclesiam: mihi imputabo si ab ejus grege, quod est ipsa Ecclesia, per verba hominum seduci atque aberrare voluero; cum me praesertim admonuerit dicens, Quae sunt oves meae, vocem meam audiunt et sequuntur me (Joan. X, 27). Ecce vox ejus clara et aperta: hac audita qui eum non sequitur, quomodo se ovem ejus dicere audebit? Nemo mihi dicat: O quid dixit Donatus, o quid dixit Parmenianus, aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum! Quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei Scripturas aliquid sentiant. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI, §28, PL 43:410-411.

Blessings,
DTK
 
A couple more questions I have in regard to this is
1. What is the content of the "apostolic doctrine" that the Fathers are appealing to?

2. What are the "Holy Canonical Scriptures" that are being defended by the ECF?

From the small amount of reading I have done on the ECF, it seems overwhelmingly clear that the body of doctrines they held were thoroughly Catholic and have little resemblance to our Protestant interpretations. Yet we appeal to the Fathers for support in certain specific things. If we are consistent with our doctrine of Justification, we would anathematize everyone until Luther. This, however, doesn't seem right to me.
And it is my understanding that the scriptures used by the apostles in the Greek world was the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. In fact, the Apocrypha seems to have been universal until the Reformation, it was even part of the 1611 King James.
We seem to quote the Fathers for support because we feel so uneasy about having so few predecessors for 1500 years, yet if they were in a church down our street, they closely resemble Roman Catholics .
Just questioning....
 
"The Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the Church." - B.B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine
 
Originally posted by Canadian Baptist
From the small amount of reading I have done on the ECF, it seems overwhelmingly clear that the body of doctrines they held were thoroughly Catholic and have little resemblance to our Protestant interpretations.
Not in the least. If you take current RCC teaching on meanings and impose it on the the writings of the ECF, then in some cases you are correct, but if you let them speak for themselves about what they meant, they're shockingly "protestant" in many, many cases. Read some of the early commentaries. Chrysostom, for example, seems to me to clearly teach justification by faith alone in his commentary of Galatians. Theodorete is frequently very "evangelical" in his commentaries.

Yet we appeal to the Fathers for support in certain specific things.
Just as we appeal to current writers for certain things. In other words, protestants can read them and take the good and leave the bad. Tons of their writings would be rejected by the current RCC and EO as well, but they don't like to talk about that. They like to perpetuate the myth that these men all thought and taught alike when they were drastically different.

If we are consistent with our doctrine of Justification, we would anathematize everyone until Luther. This, however, doesn't seem right to me.
Might I suggest that it doesn't seem right because it isn't entirely accurate? :) The further you go after Constantine the worse the doctrine declines, but in the earlier church fathers you find some very nice teaching. Exhortation to the Heathen by Clement of Alexandria can almost read like a gospel presentation in any evangelical church today at times. There's some error in there, but the gospel is also there.

And it is my understanding that the scriptures used by the apostles in the Greek world was the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. In fact, the Apocrypha seems to have been universal until the Reformation, it was even part of the 1611 King James.
It was always present, but it wasn't considered scripture. In the major commentary through the middle ages that everyone used they said it wasn't scripture. Also, the apocrypha that the RCC accepted isn't inclusive of all that's in the Septuigant as the Eastern Orthodox will gladly point out... So the RCC has no "higher ground" upon which to sit here at all. They were commonly considered uninspired, but very useful, texts. They still are in many ways. But they were only claimed to be what the RCC wants them to be now after the reformation when they were desparate to try and get shreds of support for unbiblical positions the chruch was taking.

We seem to quote the Fathers for support because we feel so uneasy about having so few predecessors for 1500 years, yet if they were in a church down our street, they closely resemble Roman Catholics .
Just questioning....
I'd say many of them would reject the RCC outright as the Eastern Orthodox did and everyone else that finds their teaching on the Papacy utterly unfounded in church history or the Bible. In fact, I submit the current RCC teaching on the Papacy alone would cause droves or ECF to abandon them in and of itself.
 
I was reading in the Post-Nicene Fathers set edited by Schaff today, and apparently the early church wouldn't count Gnostic baptisms as valid. How does that line up with our counting RCC baptism as valid?
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I was reading in the Post-Nicene Fathers set edited by Schaff today, and apparently the early church wouldn't count Gnostic baptisms as valid. How does that line up with our counting RCC baptism as valid?

Would you happen to have a specific reference about this?
 
A couple more questions I have in regard to this is
1. What is the content of the "apostolic doctrine" that the Fathers are appealing to?
In many cases, that content is summed up in the ancient creed that one finds in Irenaeus and others who followed after. Each article (doctrine) of that creed is drawn from Holy Scripture. Some of those following him, stated...
Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386): But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart. NPNF2: Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture V, §12.

Niceta of Remesiana (335-415): These things beings so, beloved, persevere in the tradition which you have learned. Be true to the pact you made with the Lord, to the profession of faith which you made in the presence of angels and of men. The words of the Creed are few"”but all the mysteries are in them. Selected from the whole of Scripture and put together for the sake of brevity, they are like precious gems making a single crown. Thus, all the faithful have sufficient knowledge of salvation, even though many are unable, or too busy with their worldly affairs, to read the Scriptures. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 7, Writings of Niceta of Remesiana, Explanation of the Creed, §13 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1949), p. 53. Thus the tradition that has "œsufficient knowledge of salvation" is that which is inscripturated.

Augustine (354-430): Receive my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; before ye sleep, before ye go forth, arm you with your Creed. The Creed no man writes so as it may be able to be read: but for rehearsal of it, lest haply forgetfulness obliterate what care hath delivered, let your memory be your record-roll: what ye are about to hear, that are ye to believe; and what ye shall have believed, that are about to give back with your tongue. For the Apostle says, "œWith the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother. NPNF1: Vol. III, On the Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens.

John Cassian (360-430s?): For, as you know, a Creed Symbolum) gets its name from being a "œcollection." For what is called in Greek su,mboloj is termed in Latin "œCollatio." But it is therefore a collection (collatio) because when the faith of the whole Catholic law was collected together by the apostles of the Lord, all those matters which are spread over the whole body of the sacred writings with immense fullness of detail, were collected together in sum in the matchless brevity of the Creed, according to the Apostle´s words: "œCompleting His word, and cutting it short in righteousness: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth." This then is the "œshort word" which the Lord made, collecting together in few words the faith of both of His Testaments, and including in a few brief clauses the drift of all the Scriptures, building up His own out of His own, and giving the force of the whole law in a most compendious and brief formula. Providing in this, like a most tender father, for the carelessness and ignorance of some of his children, that no mind however simple and ignorant might have any trouble over what could so easily be retained in the memory. NPNF2: Vol. 11, On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius, Book 6, Chapter 3.
The ECFs cited above were all very anxious to insist that the words of the Creed were collected out of the Holy Scriptures. You don´t find that kind of sentiment expressed by modern day Rome.

2. What are the "Holy Canonical Scriptures" that are being defended by the ECF?
Good question. The ECFs do not establish a uniform canon. By and large, the Eastern church never accepted the OT apocrypha as canonical in the sense of using it to establish doctrine, and there is inconsistency in the west. Jerome rejected the OT apocrypha as a basis for establishing doctrine, and was followed in that sentiment by many in the medieval church. This has received recent and extensive documentation in Vol. 2 of Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.
From the small amount of reading I have done on the ECF, it seems overwhelmingly clear that the body of doctrines they held were thoroughly Catholic and have little resemblance to our Protestant interpretations. Yet we appeal to the Fathers for support in certain specific things. If we are consistent with our doctrine of Justification, we would anathematize everyone until Luther. This, however, doesn't seem right to me.
Well, I think you´re painting here with a very broad brush. The Eastern Church never accepted the "œthoroughly" Roman dogma of papal primacy, and the ECFs were inconsistent on any number of interpretations and dogmas insisted upon today by modern Rome.

We appeal to the fathers to demonstrate 1) that Roman apologetic charges of novelty against the Protestant Reformers cannot be consistently maintained, and 2) that there is no such thing as "œUnanimous patristic consent."

Speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus in Catholic theology, Cardinal Yves M.J. Congar wrote: "œApplication of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter´s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgment made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith." Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399. And Cardinal Congar even goes on to insist "œIt is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity." Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399. That is an expression of sola Ecclesia with a passion.
And it is my understanding that the scriptures used by the apostles in the Greek world was the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. In fact, the Apocrypha seems to have been universal until the Reformation, it was even part of the 1611 King James.
There is simply no proof that early copies of the LXX always included the Apocrypha. Now, to be sure, that is a claim perpetuated by Roman apologists, but that claim is simply based on late extant copies of the LXX that are dated from the 4th century.
We seem to quote the Fathers for support because we feel so uneasy about having so few predecessors for 1500 years, yet if they were in a church down our street, they closely resemble Roman Catholics .
Just questioning....
Things are not always as they seem. The above quotes were not offered by myself due to a sense of uneasiness, but rather to demonstrate the inconsistency on the part of Roman apologists in how they appeal to the ECFs.

Blessings,
DTK
 
Originally posted by DTK
Things are not always as they seem. The above quotes were not offered by myself due to a sense of uneasiness, but rather to demonstrate the inconsistency on the part of Roman apologists in how they appeal to the ECFs.

Blessings,
DTK
And boy do they hate that... :) As one raised in the RCC I truly have appreciated the work you and others have done in the area of the ECF. It's helped me considerably as I'm the only Protestant in the family. Don't know where I'd be if people like yourself, James White, William Webster, etc weren't directly challenging these wholy unwarranted RCC assertions about the ECF.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by rgrove]
 
David: A hypothetical. A group of individuals gather together and decide to form an independent church with no denominational affiliation. Putting aside ecclesiology, their doctrine is correct.

[1] What is the process, if any, for installing lawfully ordained officers?
[2] Assume they select the initial officers of this brand new congregation by public majority vote. Are these men lawfully called?

Thanks
 
Ron,

I an grateful that you've found our labors helpful.

Now, then, Scott...
David: A hypothetical. A group of individuals gather together and decide to form an independent church with no denominational affiliation. Putting aside ecclesiology, their doctrine is correct.

[1] What is the process, if any, for installing lawfully ordained officers?
[2] Assume they select the initial officers of this brand new congregation by public majority vote. Are these men lawfully called?
Scott,

I think that your question is surely one that naturally arises in the course of such a scenario, say, as Tertullian posed above. I'm not comfortable with such hypothetical questions, although I would say at least this much: If they are to be lawfully ordained, I think that, biblically speaking, examinations (as to fitness for office, both doctrinally and morally) and an election is required, though if I recall correctly from a past post you called that into question (Forgive me if my memory is errant - I can't remember the conclusion drawn from that past thread). I know that this is something that a Church Father like Cyprian (c. 200-58) insisted upon, and I think he offers something of a paradigm not altogether unlike our practice in the PCA. This comes from his 67th epistle. I'll quote it and add a few observations afterwards....
Epistle 67

To The Clergy And People Abiding In Spain, Concerning Basilides And Martial

1. Cyprian, Caecilius, Primus, Polycarp, Nicomedes, Lucilianus, Successus, Sedatus, Fortunatus, Januarius, Secundinus, Pomponius, Honoratus, Victor, Aurelius, Sattius, Petrus, another Januarius, Saturninus, another Aurelius, Venantius, Quietus, Rogatianus, Tenax, Felix, Faustinus, Quintus, another Saturninus, Lucius, Vincentius, Libosus, Geminius, Marcellus, Iambus, Adelphius, Victoricus, and Paulus, to Felix the presbyter, and to the peoples abiding at Legio and Asturica, also to Laelius the deacon, and the people abiding at Emerita, brethren in the Lord, greeting. When we had come together, dearly beloved brethren, we read your letters, which according to the integrity of your faith and your fear of God you wrote to us by Felix and Sabinus our fellow-bishops, signifying that Basilides and Martial, being stained with the certificates of idolatry, and bound with the consciousness of wicked crimes, ought not to hold the episcopate and administer the priesthood of God; and you desired an answer to be written to you again concerning these things, and your solicitude, no less just than needful, to be relieved either by the comfort or by the help of our judgment. Nevertheless to this your desire not so much our counsels as the divine precepts reply, in which it is long since bidden by the voice of Heaven and prescribed by the law of God, who and what sort of persons ought to serve the altar and to celebrate the divine sacrifices. For in Exodus God speaks to Moses, and warns him, saying, "œLet the priests which come near to the Lord God sanctify themselves, lest the Lord forsake them." And again: "œAnd when they come near to the altar of the Holy One to minister they shall not bring sin upon them, lest they die." Also in Leviticus the Lord commands and says, "œWhosoever hath any spot or blemish upon him, shall not approach to offer gifts to God."

2. Since these things are announced and are made plain to us, it is necessary that our obedience should wait upon the divine precepts; nor in matters of this kind can human indulgence accept any man´s person, or yield anything to any one, when the divine prescription has interfered, and establishes a law. For we ought not to be forgetful what the Lord spoke to the Jews by Isaiah the prophet, rebuking, and indignant that they had despised the divine precepts and followed human doctrines. "œThis people," he says, honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is widely removed from me; but in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men." This also the Lord repeats in the Gospel, and says, "œYe reject the commandment of God, that ye may establish your own tradition." Having which things before our eyes, and solicitously and religiously considering them, we ought in the ordinations of priests to choose none but unstained and upright ministers, who, holily and worthily offering sacrifices to God, may be heard in the prayers which they make for the safety of the Lord´s people, since it is written, "œGod heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth." On which account it is fitting, that with full diligence and sincere investigation those should be chosen for God´s priesthood whom it is manifest God will hear.

3. Nor let the people flatter themselves that they can be free from the contagion of sin, while communicating with a priest who is a sinner, and yielding their consent to the unjust and unlawful episcopacy of their overseer, when the divine reproof by Hosea the prophet threatens, and says, "œTheir sacrifices shall be as the bread of mourning; all that eat thereof shall be polluted;" teaching manifestly and showing that all are absolutely bound to the sin who have been contaminated by the sacrifice of a profane and unrighteous priest. Which, moreover, we find to be manifested also in Numbers, when Korah, and Dathan, and Abiram Claimed for themselves the power of sacrificing in opposition to Aaron the priest. There also the Lord commanded by Moses that the people should be separated from them, lest, being associated with the wicked, themselves also should be bound closely in the same wickedness. "œSeparate yourselves," said He, "œfrom the tents of these wicked and hardened men, and touch not those things which belong to them, lest ye perish together in their sins." On which account a people obedient to the Lord´s precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones.

4. Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony; as in the book of Numbers the Lord commanded Moses, saying, "œTake Aaron thy brother, and Eleazar his son, and place them in the mount, in the presence of all the assembly, and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and let Aaron die there, and be added to his people." God commands a priest to be appointed in the presence of all the assembly; that is, He instructs and shows that the ordination of priests ought not to be solemnized except with the knowledge of the people standing near, that in the presence of the people either the crimes of the wicked may be disclosed, or the merits of the good may be declared, and the ordination, which shall have been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all, may be just and legitimate. And this is subsequently observed, according to divine instruction, in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter speaks to the people of ordaining an apostle in the place of Judas. "œPeter," it says, "œstood up in the midst of the disciples, and the multitude were in one place." Neither do we observe that this was regarded by the apostles only in the ordinations of bishops and priests, but also in those of deacons, of which matter itself also it is written in their Acts: "œAnd they twelve called together," it says, "œthe whole congregation of the disciples, and said to them;" which was done so diligently and carefully, with the calling together of the whole of the people, surely for this reason, that no unworthy person might creep into the ministry of the altar, or to the office of a priest. For that unworthy persons are sometimes ordained, not according to the will of God, but according to human presumption, and that those things which do not come of a legitimate and righteous ordination are displeasing to God, God Himself manifests by Hosea the prophet, saying, "œThey have set up for themselves a king, but not by me."

5. For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighboring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides. Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed. The result of this is, that the sins of Basilides are not so much abolished as enhanced, inasmuch as to his former sins he has also added the crime of deceit and circumvention. For he is not so much to be blamed who has been through heedlessness surprised by fraud, as he is to be execrated who has fraudulently taken him by surprise. But if Basilides could deceive men, he cannot deceive God, since it is written, "œGod is not mocked." But neither can deceit advantage Martialis, in such a way as that he who also is involved in great crimes should hold his bishopric, since the apostle also warns, and says, "œA bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God."

6. Wherefore, since as ye have written, dearly beloved brethren, and as Felix and Sabinus our colleagues affirm, and as another Felix of Caesar Augusta, a maintainer of the faith and a defender of the truth, signifies in his letter, Basilides and Martialis have been contaminated by the abominable certificate of idolatry; and Basilides, moreover, besides the stain of the certificate, when he was prostrate in sickness, blasphemed against God, and confessed that he blasphemed; and because of the wound to his own conscience, voluntarily laying down his episcopate, turned himself to repentance, entreating God, and considering himself sufficiently happy if it might be permitted him to communicate even as a layman: Martialis also, besides the long frequenting of the disgraceful and filthy banquets of the Gentiles in their college, and placing his sons in the same college, after the manner of foreign nations, among profane sepulchers, and burying them together with strangers, has also affirmed, by acts which are publicly taken before a ducenarian procurator, that he had yielded himself to idolatry, and had denied Christ; and as there are many other and grave crimes in which Basilides and Martialis are held to be implicated; such persons attempt to claim for themselves the episcopate in vain; since it is evident that men of that kind may neither rule over the Church of Christ, nor ought to offer sacrifices to God, especially since Cornelius also, our colleague, a peaceable and righteous priest, and moreover honored by the condescension of the Lord with martyrdom, has long ago decreed with us, and with all the bishops appointed throughout the whole world, that men of this sort might indeed be admitted to repentance, but were prohibited from the ordination of the clergy, and from the priestly honor.

7. Nor let it disturb you, dearest brethren, if with some, in these last times, either an uncertain faith is wavering, or a fear of God without religion is vacillating, or a peaceable concord does not continue. These things have been foretold as about to happen in the end of the world; and it was predicted by the voice of the Lord, and by the testimony of the apostles, that now that the world is failing, and the Antichrist is drawing near, everything good shall fail, but evil and adverse things shall prosper.

8. Yet although, in these last times, evangelic rigor has not so failed in the Church of God, nor the strength of Christian virtue or faith so languished, that there is not left a portion of the priests which in no respect gives way under these ruins of things and wrecks of faith; but, bold and steadfast, they maintain the honor of the divine majesty and the priestly dignity, with full observance of fear. We remember and keep in view that, although others succumbed and yielded, Mattathias boldly vindicated God´s law; that Elias, when the Jews gave way and departed from the divine religion, stood and nobly contended; that Daniel, deterred neither by the loneliness of a foreign country nor by the harassment of continual persecution, frequently and gloriously suffered martyrdoms; also that the three youths, subdued neither by their tender years nor by threats, stood up faithfully against the Babylonian fires, and conquered the victor king even in their very captivity itself. Let the number either of prevaricators or of traitors see to it, who have now begun to rise in the Church against the Church, and to corrupt as well the faith as the truth. Among very many there still remains a sincere mind and a substantial religion, and a spirit devoted to nothing but the Lord and its God. Nor does the perfidy of others press down the Christian faith into ruin, but rather stimulates and exalts it to glory, according to what the blessed Apostle Paul exhorts, and says: "œFor what if some of these have fallen from their faith: hath their unbelief made the faith of God of none effect? God forbid. For God is true, but every man a liar." But if every man is a liar, and God only true, what else ought we, the servants, and especially the priests, of God, to do, than forsake human errors and lies, and continue in the truth of God, keeping the Lord´s precepts?

9. Wherefore, although there have been found some among our colleagues, dearest brethren, who think that the godly discipline may be neglected, and who rashly hold communion with Basilides and Martialis, such a thing as this ought not to trouble our faith, since the Holy Spirit threatens such in the Psalms, saying, "œBut thou hatest instruction, and castedst my words behind thee: when thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst unto him, and hast been partaker with adulterers." He shows that they become sharers and partakers of other men´s sins who are associated with the delinquents. And besides, Paul the apostle writes, and says the same thing: "œWhisperers, backbiters, haters of God, injurious, proud, boasters of themselves, inventors of evil things, who, although they knew the judgment of God, did not understand that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only they which commit those things, but they also which consent unto those who do these things." Since they, says he, who do such things are worthy of death, he makes manifest and proves that not only they are worthy of death, and come into punishment who do evil things, but also those who consent unto those who do such things "” who, while they are mingled in unlawful communion with the evil and sinners, and the unrepenting, are polluted by the contact of the guilty, and, being joined in the fault, are thus not separated in its penalty. For which reason we not only approve, but applaud, dearly beloved brethren, the religious solicitude of your integrity and faith, and exhort you as much as we can by our letters, not to mingle in sacrilegious communion with profane and polluted priests, but maintain the sound and sincere constancy of your faith with religious fear. I bid you, dearest brethren, ever heartily farewell. ANF: Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 67.
It is my studied opinion that when Cyprian refers to "tradition" here and elsewhere in his writings, he's using it as a virtual synonym for Holy Scripture...

1. He indicates that the Christians in Spain desire to hear not so much "œour counsels" as they do "œthe divine precepts" quoted from the Scriptures to direct them. He emphasizes this in sections 1 & 2 above.

2. He affirms that to permit unfaithful priests to continue in their office is to "œreject the commandment of God, that ye may establish your own tradition."

3. He affirms that bishops, priests and deacons are to be chosen by the suffrage of the people in sections 2, 3, 4 & 5.

4. He affirms that the character of their persons is to be investigated before they are ordained in section 2.

5. He affirms that they are to break fellowship with sinful members of the clergy in sections 3 & 9.

6. He declares this practice to be of "œdivine tradition" and "œapostolic practice" in section 5.

7. He denies that a sinful bishop may continue to hold his office in sections 5 & 6, quoting the apostolic tradition of 1 Timothy 3 that "œthe bishop must be blameless..."

8. Such men upon repentance may be received back into communion, but not to a restoration of their office, section 6. (As an aside, this possibility does exist in the PCA).

9. Priests should forsake "œhuman errors" and hold to "œthe Lord´s precepts" in section 8.

10. Cyprian applauds the people´s rejection of unfaithful clery, which he says is an expression of their maintaining "œthe sound and sincere constancy of [their] faith with religious fear" in section 9.

Now, this may not offer you as full an answer as you're seeking, but I find it to be a helpful paradigm which stands in rather stark contrast to the practice of Rome.

Now, I am well aware that this doesn't address a newly formed independent congregation as such. But our situation in the PCA, of which I approve, is that we did withdraw from what we perceived to be a denomination in serious error (the PCUS) in order to begin a church "independent" of the PCUS.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by DTK]
 
"Now, I am well aware that this doesn't address a newly formed independent congregation as such."

How would you respond that that situation (newly formed independent congregation)? That is the situation I face commonly (people in, or from, or going to entities with these sorts of origins).

The independent London Confession, as I recall (and I think Phillip Way affirmed this, although I may be misremembering), says that the authority to install vests initially with the people who gather together. They elect the first officers. After that the elders ordain. In your view is this a legitimate option?
 
Originally posted by Scott
"Now, I am well aware that this doesn't address a newly formed independent congregation as such."

How would you respond that that situation (newly formed independent congregation)? That is the situation I face commonly (people in, or from, or going to entities with these sorts of origins).

The independent London Confession, as I recall (and I think Phillip Way affirmed this, although I may be misremembering), says that the authority to install vests initially with the people who gather together. They elect the first officers. After that the elders ordain. In your view is this a legitimate option?
Scott,

I am not convinced that any "newly formed independent congregation" serves the bene esse of the church, but given my present tentative position that "succession of apostolic doctrine" must be of the esse of the church, then I think I'm compelled to recognize them as a legitimate church with duly appointed officers. At the same time, I'm not convinced that any such group begins with an altogether complete tabula rasa in our day, unless they are altogether heretical and depart from an apostolic succession of doctrine. I don't see how what a small church does on a small scale differs in any profound sense from what (say) the PCA did on a larger scale. It may not make for a pretty picture ecclesially, but I don't think I have the right to bind my (or anyone else's) conscience to any other paradigm than what we find in Holy Scripture, viz., succession of apostolic doctrine. I agree with Tertullian on this point, "To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine." I don't think that Tertullian was referring to people who became Christians in a vaccum.

But I am Presbyterian, and we are installed by the Presbytery following the suffrage of the people. That makes for the bene esse of the church. I don't think it's my place to pronounce that which differs as legitimate or illegitimate for others whose conscience may differ. I do think *I* am compelled by conscience to recognize those who differ in such polity, but who have been duly appointed in independent cogregations to be officers, as officers in Christ's Church. If I wasn't so compelled, then I think I would be forced to repudiate many men in church history whose ministries were greatly used of God, but who differed from myself and others ecclesiastically.

But I don't support a bunch of rebels who simply commit schism, and on that basis form their own church.

Blessings,
DTK
 
Thanks, David. I understand where you are coming from and it is probably the majority view in our denomination (after all, we had John Piper preach at GA - and I like Piper BTW). In this part of the country, we have people start up new orthodox, evangelical, independent non-denominational groups all the time.

It is a real issue for us. A common situation in the PCA churches around here (and in many places) is to have PCA members leave for one of these groups. In discussing this decision with departing members, it is important for the Session to know whether lawful ministry is a valid concern to raise (I believe it is). For example, our confession rightly (in my opinion at least) teaches that only lawfully called men should preach the Word and administer the sacraments. If our people are leaving to a body that does not have lawfully called ministers, we should warn those departing of the problems they will be encountering (of course, we would warn them of other material issues as well).

Anyway, we disagree on this point, although I recognize that I am part of a small minority on this issue (few people even consider the topic). I agree more with Matt's analysis. I don't think when our confession speaks of lawful calls it is referring to the kinds of calls issued by independent groups.

I also agree with Matt that we can separate the issue of whether a body is a true church from the issue of whether a body has lawfully called ministers. I don't think viewing a man's ministerial authority as invalid means having to jettison his other contributions, any more than the rejection of infant baptism by guys like Spurgeon means that we have to jettison all his works. These are discrete issues.

I also agree that the scriptures teach that administration of the Word and sacraments (even by unlawful men) makes a church a true church. But that does not mean that a new group of men who form together may arrogate to themselves the right to ordain anyone. Christ has not given them this power. That fact that a group is a true church does not mean they have the power to ordain.

Scott
 
It is a real issue for us. A common situation in the PCA churches around here (and in many places) is to have PCA members leave for one of these groups. In discussing this decision with departing members, it is important for the Session to know whether lawful ministry is a valid concern to raise (I believe it is). For example, our confession rightly (in my opinion at least) teaches that only lawfully called men should preach the Word and administer the sacraments. If our people are leaving to a body that does not have lawfully called ministers, we should warn those departing of the problems they will be encountering (of course, we would warn them of other material issues as well).
Scott,

Perhaps, your session does address this: But I think another question of equal concern to "departing members" from the PCA is whether or not they are upholding the vows that they took when they became members in their departure. I would think that this ought to be the first concern.

On another note, John Piper visited our Church this past summer a year ago. I was given advanced word only the day before (not that it was needed, mind you) that he would be worshipping with us on the Lord's day. I think I was preaching on the "Life of Peter" at the time. At any rate, he came up to me and told me that he wished that his mother-in-law (who lives about 10 miles down the road in another town) would attend our church and worship with us.

We had an intern working with us that summer who had been wanting to preach. I walked up to him (the intern) that morning and said, "Well, you've been wanting to preach all summer. Dr. John Piper is with us today, and you're up!" It was rather amusing to watch his facial response. And no, I didn't pass the buck.

Blessings,
DTK
 
But I think another question of equal concern to "departing members" from the PCA is whether or not they are upholding the vows that they took when they became members in their departure. I would think that this ought to be the first concern.

Its true. There are normally a set of issues (often the churches are dispensational, baptistic, memorialistic in sacraments, etc.). One challenge with the membership vows is that they don't address circumstances of termination of the membership covenant. The BCO provides simply that if one person moves from our "branch of the visible church" to another branch, the Session is just to note the irregularity. It is similar to a no-fault divorce setting. And as entire congregations are allowed to leave the denomination at their discretion (and with no "coercion" from the denomination), it is hard to reasonably impose a higher standard on individuals.

Scott
 
Quick biblical point. It seems that Titus 1:5 contradicts theories that would vest authority to ordain with the congregation, even initially (as opposed to with previously ordained elders). Paul charged Titus to go to existing congregations to appoint elders. Would not be needed if congregations had authority to elect elders by simple vote of congregation. The appointments required someone already ordained (Titus).
 
Originally posted by Scott
Quick biblical point. It seems that Titus 1:5 contradicts theories that would vest authority to ordain with the congregation, even initially (as opposed to with previously ordained elders). Paul charged Titus to go to existing congregations to appoint elders. Would not be needed if congregations had authority to elect elders by simple vote of congregation. The appointments required someone already ordained (Titus).
Scott,

I don't agree with the presupposition that your understanding of "existing congregations" seems to suggest, if by that you think that these congregations sprang up independently of the ministry of Paul and Titus on that island. These were churches planted by them, as suggested by Paul in v. 5, "For this reason I left you in Crete..." That being the case, it seems only natural that they wouldn't abandon these churches before assisting them in the proper organization of these congregations that were planted by what Tertullian would call an "Apostle" or "Apostolic men," which was not the case for the churches to which he himself referred in the citation originally posted in this thread.

Moreover, I think you are "pushing the paper" a bit to assume that what was descriptive here is also ipso facto prescriptive in nature. As Thomas Witherow, The Apostolic Church, wrote:
That the Lord Jesus may give a special call to any laborer, and send him to work in His vineyard, none disputes. There can be very little doubt also that, if an inspired apostle were still upon the earth, he would have the right to ordain alone, if he thought it right to do so. Nay, if some modern evangelist could show, as Titus could, that an apostle had left him behind for this special purpose, he, too, in virtue of the right conferred upon him by a higher power, would have the privilege of ordaining (Titus 1:5). Any one, therefore, claiming the right of doing all that an evangelist did, would require to show that, if not an apostle, he possesses, like Titus, the authority delegated to him by an apostle. But here every ruler in every Church must fail. It remains, therefore, that we examine the Scriptures to discover who it was that, in the absence of apostles, or those delegated by apostles, had the privilege of solemnly setting apart others to ecclesiastical office, and especially to ascertain if this power was lodged in one individual or in more.
I think that a biblical argument for your case would be better served from such passages as 1 Tim. 4:14 and Acts 13:1-3. Commenting on 1 Tim. 4:14, Witherow states, "These words are decisive as to the parties with whom the power of ordination is lodged."

BTW, your passage here (Titus 1) is one of episcopacy's classic dicta probantia for Prelatic contentions.

But alas, this thread is drifting...

Blessings,
DTK
 
Agree that Paul helped establish these churches (not that they sprang up independently). Still think the point holds that if the church as a whole had the right to ordain, no need for Titus to do so (the congregation could have). Agree that other passages teach that power to ordain properly vests with elders. Anyway, seems to me that to affirm that new independent congregations can ordain through means other than through previously ordained elders is in essence independency and contrary to presbyterian theology (i.e. the Bible :D ).
 
David: I am also curious about what means, apart from ordination by previously ordained elders, an independent congregation could use to produce a minister that you would believe to be lawfully ordained (eg. laying on of hands by the whole congregation).
 
Originally posted by Scott
David: I am also curious about what means, apart from ordination by previously ordained elders, an independent congregation could use to produce a minister that you would believe to be lawfully ordained (eg. laying on of hands by the whole congregation).
Scott,

I simply don't think that my personal views on the subject merit discussion. It is enough that I am Presbyterian in my perspective, polity, and conviction. I think that Presbyterianism is biblical and serves the bene esse of the church. We have discussed this at length in another thread in connection with Calvin's views and others at the time of the Reformation. I'll make a few comments, but I'm not as interested in pursuing this at length as you evidently are. It worries me a little when I see someone pursuing a matter on which there has been much disagreement and dissent throughout the history of the church. Sometimes I think we need to exercise humility while we cry for more light. Now, perhaps some of the following examples from both history and Holy Scripture will give you some indication why I'm exercising restraint here, and I'm not going to argue my understanding on this matter ad nauseum, and I want you to understand that I'm only being cautious in granting a bit of latitude here. I'm not put off by your question, mind you, but my reticence here is simply being normed by what little light I think I have, while it is my prayer to receive more.

1) I think that Tertullian's historical witness serves to inform us that there were churches being founded in his day apart from any ministerial succession, and implies that these churches were "admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles" when he denies by contrast that churches which did not meet the test of apostolic succession of doctrine were not. How they ordained their recognized elders (which surely they had sooner or later) is not explained. If we are going to recognize such independent churches, then I don't know how we can avoid recognizing their ministers as ministers, regardless of the manner of how they were set apart for their office.

2) But there are some principles that Holy Scripture seems to suggest to us elsewhere about recognizing other laborers in the Lord's work, who perhaps were not recognized and commissioned officially and/or lawfully. For example, we read of the following apostolic observance in Mark 9:38-41 (and Luke 9:49ff) from the apostle John and his fellow eyewitnesses...
38 Now John answered Him, saying, "œTeacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." 39 But Jesus said, "œDo not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 "œFor he who is not against us is on our side. 41 "œFor whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
Now the moment I deny such a one "proper orders" whom God has evidently raised up, then it seems to me that I risk conflict with an explicit command of Christ, "Do not forbid..." It was quite evident to the apostles, as well as to the Lord Jesus, that this man was exercising a ministry without having been officially commissioned for it. Now, quite clearly as well, this was not the norm. But the inclusion of this example in Holy Scripture is sufficient to cause me to pause and exercise caution in my judgments. I don't think that it follows necessarily that my recognition of such ministers grants them tacit approval. Calvin's comment on this passage is noteworthy...
John Calvin (1509-1564): Mark 9:38. Master, we saw one. Hence it is evident that the name of Christ was at that time so celebrated, that persons who were not of the number of his intimate disciples used that name, or perhaps even abused it, for I will not venture to avouch any thing on this point as certain. It is possible that he who is here mentioned had embraced the doctrine of Christ, and betaken himself to the performance of miracles with no bad intention; but as Christ bestowed this power on none but those whom he had chosen to be heralds of his Gospel, I think that he had rashly taken, or rather seized upon, this office. Now though he was wrong in making this attempt, and in venturing to imitate the disciples without receiving a command to do so, yet his boldness was not without success: for the Lord was pleased, in this way also, to throw luster around his name, as he sometimes does by means of those of whose ministry he does not approve as lawful. It is not inconsistent with this to say, that one who was endued with special faith followed a blind impulse, and thus proceeded inconsiderately to work miracles.
I now come to John and his companions. They say that they forbade a man to work miracles. Why did they not first ask whether or not he was authorized? For now being in a state of doubt and suspense, they ask the opinion of their Master. Hence it follows, that they had rashly taken on themselves the right to forbid; and therefore every man who undertakes more than he knows that he is permitted to do by the word of God is chargeable with rashness. Besides, there is reason to suspect the disciples of Christ of ambition, because they are anxious to maintain their privilege and honor. For how comes it that they all at once forbid a man who is unknown to them to work miracles, but because they wish to be the sole possessors of this right? For they assign the reason, that he followeth not Christ; as much as to say, "œHe is not one of thy associates, as we are: why then shall he possess equal honor?"
39. Forbid him not. Christ did not wish that he should be forbidden; not that he had given him authority, or approved of what he did, or even wished his disciples to approve of it, but because, when by any occurrence God is glorified, we ought to bear with it and rejoice. Thus Paul, (Philippians 1:18,) though he disapproves of the dispositions of those who used the Gospel as a pretense for aggrandizing themselves, yet rejoices that by this occurrence the glory of Christ is advanced. We must attend also to the reason which is added, that it is impossible for any man who works miracles in the name of Christ to speak evil of Christ, and therefore this ought to be reckoned as gain; for hence it follows, that if the disciples had not been more devoted to their own glory than anxious and desirous to promote the glory of their Master, they would not have been offended when they saw that glory heightened and enlarged in another direction. And yet Christ declares that we ought to reckon as friends those who are not open enemies.
40. For he who is not against us is for us. He does not enjoin us to give a loose rein to rash men, and to be silent while they intermeddle with this and the other matter, according to their own fancy, and disturb the whole order of the Church: for such licentiousness, so far as our calling allows, must be restrained. He only affirms that they act improperly, who unseasonably prevent the kingdom of God from being advanced by any means whatever. And yet he does not acknowledge as his disciples, or reckon as belonging to his flock, those who hold an intermediate place between enemies and friends, but means that, so far as they do no harm, they are useful and profitable: for it is a proverbial saying, which reminds us that we ought not to raise a quarrel till we are constrained.
Now, Calvin clearly expresses that he believed that such a one acted rashly and even unlawfully, but not to the extent that it was without some efficacy, and that of such we ought "to bear with it and rejoice."

3) An interesting figure mentioned by both Luke and Paul in the NT is that of Apollos (Acts 18:24ff, 19:1ff; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4-6, 22, 4:6, 16:12; Titus 3:13), whom it appears that God raised up independently of the direct ministry of any Apostle. Yet Paul seems to recognize the validity and function of his ministry in the acknowledgment of those whom Apollos had discipled.

4) Now, there is another element in addition to that of an internal and external call (though some might connect it with both of these), and that is the element of efficacy, such as that to which Gamaliel seems to refer in Acts 5 regarding the ministry of the Apostles in contrast to continuing Judaism, v. 39, "œbut if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it"”lest you even be found to fight against God."

Such instances cry out to me to exercise caution in our regard for others, whom we may or may not regard as lawfully commissioned officers in Christ's Church. And I suppose I would err on the side of those who would oppose reducing this matter to that of mere formalities. We both know that God can strike a straight line with a crooked stick, but then we both know that such is not God's norm ordinarily. I think this is a matter that demands charity from us, while at the same time not compromising our own convictions regarding polity as Presbyterians.

Now having said all this, I'm not sure that you're going to be happy with my response, but my caution dictates to me that I carry it no farther. Thank you for your patience.

Blessings,
DTK
 
Thanks, David. I appreciate your response and will not press you further. I was asking you b/c I know you are studied and have a considered opinion on the issue (in contrast few people place much concern in church government). I always find benefit in hearing the reasoned and studied opinions of others.

Appreciate the Mark 9:38 text and I have often used that text to appreciate the work of those outside the visible church. I had not connected this to ministry before, but makes sense. Calvin does mention that even though efficacious the ministry is unlawful which to me at least is an important point.

It seems to me that independent groups that want to ordain men apart from the instrumentality of previously ordained elders necessarily employee some sort of manmade means. Seems to me to replace biblical ecclesiology (on this point at least) with the principles that underlie the authority of civil government. Respecting civil rulers, Peter tells the people to obey "every authority instituted among men." Civil governments come in a variety of forms, each with different political underpinnings. We are to obey these authorities instituted among men irrespective of their human origin. We don't have license to disobey a government simply b/c it is in the form of a moarchy, republic, democracy, or whatever. That it is instituted among men is sufficient.

To recognize the lawfulness of the ministerial orders of men who do not follow biblical principles seems to require at base this sort of view. People are essentially called to submit to "every church government instituted among men" (b/c in the end, even if it is not the best, it is "lawful").

That, said, I don't think taking a classical reformed view on lawful calls undermines the efficacy or truth of the work of unlawful ministers. Truth is truth wherever you find it. Sort of like those who do not baptize their infants can be great teachers of truth. And I agree that there can be true churches with unlawfully called ministers. I don't think the fact that a group is a true church invests that body with the power to ordain apart from biblical prescription.

BTW, I am not pressing you further. Just thought I would I would throw out my :2cents: .

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Scott]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top