Apostolic Succession and Reformed Churches

[ChristopherPaul]

What is the general stance taken by reformers on Apostolic succession? Not necessarily through a pure line of appointed officers, but in ecclesiology as a whole.

Must all confessional churches consider themselves to be most resembling of the apostolic churches that were operating under the Christ appointed officers?

In other words shouldn't all concerned Christians believe either their church home or a denomination of churches they believe to be orthodox (depending if they are physically able to attend such a church due to geographical constraints) to be most identical to the true churches the Apostles initially planted and oversaw?

 

[JohnV]

Chris:

Good question. Others spring off that one. Like, can a person attach himself to a church that he doesn't think is true, simply because there are no better churches available? Is that acceptable?

I think that there are two parts to it. One is that the community of saints lives a real faith, and that that is palpable, discernible. The other part is the administration of authority and the Word. I've got these in reverse order of importance, though. But I'm addressing it from the ordinary member's perspective. These are what I look for.

So on the one hand orthodoxy is paramount, but yet perfection is not the litmus test. It ought to be the aim, but we all still sin. I hate the saying that people always tell me, that there's no such thing as a perfect church. They conclude this in one of two ways: they either say that if you find one, don't join it, because then it won't be perfect anymore; or they say that since no perfect church exists, you should just be happy with the one you're with. These latter just write off apostasies as if they're just differences of opinions. Who cares, as long a we all confess Jesus as our Lord. The problem with this view of church is that it puts church higher than the Word, higher than even Christ. It makes too little of the true meaning of orthodoxy, but yet raises the devotion to the church as if orthodox to such an extreme that it trumps even devotion to Christ and His Word. They believe their church to be the true church, but I don't think they worry about any relationship to the original church under the Apostles.

I know you didn't mean it that way. But I'm just pointing this out as a counterpoint, an example of denominational and particular church devotion that can't be right.

It is the duty of each believer to attach himself to the church. I think that's now a very hard question to deal with in our time. I have a few questions lined up for when I'm finished the book Jus Divinum. Some of them are along the same lines.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
In other words shouldn't all concerned Christians believe either their church home or a denomination of churches they believe to be orthodox (depending if they are physically able to attend such a church due to geographical constraints) to be most identical to the true churches the Apostles initially planted and oversaw?

Some Christians obviously consider the early Christian church unique. So not necessarily.

 

[Saiph]

This is partially what draws me to Anglicanism.

 

[Peter]

Presbyterians have succession from the apostles AND the form of government Christ himself instituted.

 

[Scott Bushey]

 

[Saiph]

Presbyterians have succession from the apostles AND the form of government Christ himself instituted.

Are you serious ?

Please explain how ruling and teaching elders and the session form is taken from scripture ?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Mark,

Are you serious?

I'd start with studying this (Besides Scripture):

http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/FormPresbyterianChurchGov.htm

Then read Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). You can buy it here cheap: http://www.naphtali.com/

That would about do it.

 

[Saiph]

Thanks Matt. I will read those and get back to you.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Saiph

Presbyterians have succession from the apostles AND the form of government Christ himself instituted.

Are you serious ?

Please explain how ruling and teaching elders and the session form is taken from scripture ?

That is rather simple from a Presbyterian perspective, 1 Tim 5:17, Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Moreover, the early church father Jerome thought is was very clear from Holy Scripture...

Jerome (347-420): A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, "˜I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,´ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ´s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, "˜Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.´ John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, trans. A. W. Streane, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164. Cited also by Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.4.2, pp. 1069-1070.
Latin text: Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis: Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi presbyterorum consilio, Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non Scripturarum, sed nostram esse sententiam, episcopum et presbyterum unum esse, et aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii: relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis: Paulus et Timothaeus servi Jesu Christi, omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philippis, cum episcopis et diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563.

Jerome (347-420): Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.
Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained. John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, trans. A. W. Streane, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164.
Latin text: Haec propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros quos et episcopos: paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos: ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate, presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui cum haberet in potestate solum praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret. Videamus igitur qualis presbyter, sive episcopus ordinandus sit. Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Saiph]

So, apostolic successsion is accepted and honored in Presbyterianism, but not exclusively set forth as necessary ? ?

 

[Scott]

Mark: Matt can answer this better than me. And there may have been different views among different theologians. But one view was that what is called "ministerial succession" was important. "Apostolic succession" normally means ordination by bishop (who is really a super-presbyter), and so may not be the best term. The reformed who taught ministerial succession taught that men must be ordained by previously ordained elders, who in turn must be ordained by previously ordained elders, who in turn must be ordained by previously ordained elders, and so on until you get to Christ's calling of the apostles. The one exception was in cases of extreme necessity.

Turretin is an example of someone who affirmed ministerial succession. See, for example, his Calls of the First Reformers. Note how he defends the calls (ordination in Rome, or extreme necessity).

Scott


[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Scott]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Good thoughts John.

Originally posted by JohnV
Chris:

Good question. Others spring off that one. Like, can a person attach himself to a church that he doesn't think is true, simply because there are no better churches available? Is that acceptable?

Indeed many questions do spring off this. Practically speaking, what are the options? The Apostles started churches on the right track, but only to visit them later rebuking them for their apathy towards paganism which influenced everything they did and taught. But the Christians in those areas had no choice but to continue meeting at the apostate church, no? Without the Apostles teachings, we have no clue as to what that "right track" really was.

Originally posted by JohnVI think that there are two parts to it. One is that the community of saints lives a real faith, and that that is palpable, discernible. The other part is the administration of authority and the Word. I've got these in reverse order of importance, though. But I'm addressing it from the ordinary member's perspective. These are what I look for.

So on the one hand orthodoxy is paramount, but yet perfection is not the litmus test. It ought to be the aim, but we all still sin. I hate the saying that people always tell me, that there's no such thing as a perfect church. They conclude this in one of two ways: they either say that if you find one, don't join it, because then it won't be perfect anymore; or they say that since no perfect church exists, you should just be happy with the one you're with. These latter just write off apostasies as if they're just differences of opinions. Who cares, as long a we all confess Jesus as our Lord. The problem with this view of church is that it puts church higher than the Word, higher than even Christ. It makes too little of the true meaning of orthodoxy, but yet raises the devotion to the church as if orthodox to such an extreme that it trumps even devotion to Christ and His Word. They believe their church to be the true church, but I don't think they worry about any relationship to the original church under the Apostles.

This is an excellent point. I have been engaged in ongoing conversations with a guy on the leadership team at the church my family just left. After four years of attending, we just left a seeker-sensitive, restoration movement church. After several emails exchanged thoroughly explaining how I changed and not the church and how I cannot in good conscience remain for the sake of my household due to an entire paradigm shift resulting from, what I believe to be a more true understanding of God's word, I get a short reply from the leadership team:

"I'm sure I'm underestimating things, but I still see this as very sad. Like so many, we agree on Jesus Christ. We agree on the necessity of salvation and the path to get there. This is the 98%. Yet we (and too many Christians) spend our time debating the 2%. 1000 years from now when we're together praising God, will it matter so much? I don't say this to understate your position. In fact I agree with most of it. I know you and your family will be a blessing wherever you serve."

Originally posted by JohnV
I know you didn't mean it that way. But I'm just pointing this out as a counterpoint, an example of denominational and particular church devotion that can't be right.

It is the duty of each believer to attach himself to the church. I think that's now a very hard question to deal with in our time. I have a few questions lined up for when I'm finished the book Jus Divinum. Some of them are along the same lines.

The apathetic church of today seems to have forgotten that God's way is perfect and His word is proven (2 Samuel 22:31) and if we truly love God we will seek to do His will (1 John 2:3-4). This is the reason I specified confessional churches because the independent ones seem to not even think about such a concept. If the Apostles were to visit our churches today, would they rebuke any as they did with Corinth, or Laodicea, and if so which ones?

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
The reformed who taught ministerial succession taught that men must be ordained by previously ordained elders, who in turn must be ordained by previously ordained elders, who in turn must be ordained by previously ordained elders, and so on until you get to Christ's calling of the apostles. The one exception was in cases of extreme necessity.

Turretin is an example of someone who affirmed ministerial succession. See, for example, his Calls of the First Reformers. Note how he defends the calls (ordination in Rome, or extreme necessity).

Scott

Scott, I know we have discussed this before, but I am not convinced you have understood Turretin correctly. Now, I understand that Turretin defended the call of the first Reformers who had been ordained under the auspices of Rome. That is clear from Turretin.

What isn't clear, as you seem to suggest, is this matter of "ministerial succession." After all, the matter of "extreme necessity" is itself a rather subjective aspect, and one which alone seems to rule out the necessity of ministerial succession. I don't think Turretin is arguing so much for a "ministerial succession" on behalf of the Reformers when he defends those Reformers who had received their calls under Roman auspices, as he is simply defending the fact that they have been legitimately ordained. The only time in this section (to which you've pointed) he even mentions "succession," it doesn't demand the meaning you seem to want to derive from Turretin. He said...

Hence if it is inquired to which of two assemblies we ought to join ourselves, the one which is supposed to have an uninterrupted succession (but without the truth), but the other truth of doctrine (but without the succession), no one will hesitate in replying that we ought to join the latter because a call without the truth cannot save, but truth can save without the call.

It is clear that what he does emphasize is the need for a succession of doctrinal truth, not simply a succession of men who have been lawfully ordained. It was Rome that argued the need for an "uninterrupted succession," not the Reformers.

Moreover, I don't think you should begin here in seeking to establish Turretin's view. You ought not to begin here, but rather go back to where he begins to treat the topic of a ministerial call under "The Twenty-Second Question: The Calling of Pastors," and begin reading Turretin there to have a fuller view of his position. For example, Turretin said...

For they [i.e., the Romanists] hold to such a necessity for an ordinary call and mission that if perchance such a case should occur (that if any visible church with a public ministry should be corrupted by heresy and idolatry, and should eject true believers from her bosom), it would be better for those pious people to remain without a pastor and external worship than to usurp the right to create pastors and to give them the power to preach the word and to administer the sacraments (as the author of the book, de Praejud. C. 5+ says). Hence from want of a call and mission they are wont to condemn our Reformers as schismatics and usurpers who ought not to be heard. However, we think that the ordinary call is necessary in a constituted church, still it is not necessary in one to be constituted or corrupted, but that believers may undertake those parts from an extraordinary call which is such, if not from public authority and as to solemn rite, still from private love imposed upon individuals by God from their general call. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXIII.xiv p. 219.

This section, so it seems to me, makes it clear that Turretin required no ministerial succession in a church to be constituted or corrupted, and that the people themselves in such a situation may "create pastors" and "give the power to preach the word and to administer the sacraments." He doesn't simply speak of a church corrupted, but of a visible church to be constituted. Now, I have read these sections of Turretin a number of times, and I'm not seeing this "ministerial succession" emphasis that you're placing on him. To be sure, Turretin emphasizes that is is not "lawful for anyone to exercise it [i.e., the ministry] without a special call." But he goes on to say: "One is the method for a disturbed or to-be-constituted church; another for one constituted and well ordered." (Vol. 3, p. 213). In other words, he's not simply speaking of a corrupted church (as was/is the case of Rome), but of a church to be constituted, and he's not arguing for the need of a ministerial succession. That is simply ruled out by him when he offers two exceptions to the ordinary method for appointing pastors.

Now, I believe that you want to represent Turretin correctly, as do I, but I am not convinced you have understood him correctly. If I'm the one that's missing something substantial here, please point it out to me so that I can be corrected.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Scott]

David: From prior conversations, I know your position and don't think I will be able to persuade you. I am happy for Mark to read it and decide for himself.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
David: From prior conversations, I know your position and don't think I will be able to persuade you. I am happy for Mark to read it and decide for himself.

Scott,

I suspected you may reply in this way. But the question here has nothing to do with my position or your position, but what was Turretin's position. I do not believe you have properly understood him, and I'm challenging you on your presupposition of his position that you seem to take for granted is correct.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Scott]

David: I understand. Before I write a long post I need reasonable belief that I can persuade. You have studied the issue and come to a reasoned and informed understanding that I happen to disagree with. It happens with people often. I don't think anything I say is going to tip you the other way.

 

[Scott]

Mark: BTW, you should read Matt's article on Lawful Ordination. He does a good, high-level overview of ministerial succession in the reformed tradition. Probably the best quick introduction available.

Scott

 

[DTK]

Mark, I encourage you, in order to understand Turretin's position accurately, that you read Vol. 3 of his works on the call to the ministry, and not simply the section posted for you on the web site to which you were directed.

Turretin believed that a lawful ministry could be raised up in a church without the call and ordination of previous pastors in exceptional cases. Hence, I think that logic dictates that if we apply Turretin's principle today, apart from a succession of doctrinal truth, the claim of any church to a ministerial succession is, in the end, an arbitrary appeal. Here are some further samples of Turretin that you won't find by reading only the section of Turretin posted on the web site...

Francis Turretin (1623-87): While the ministry flourishes in a church, she ought indeed to use it for the calling of pastors; nor can she ordinarily institute pastors, except by the ministry already constituted. But the ministry failing (being miserably corrupted), she can elect ministers to herself for her edification, even without the intervention of a ministry; both because she has this right from God and because in every time and place she is bound to preserve a ministry for the instruction of believers. Nor can it be said without the greatest absurdity that it is better in a case of necessity (all pastors failing) for a church to remain without pastors and to be without external and public worship and the exercise of religion, waiting for God to raise up others out of the ranks, than to call pastors without the intervention of other pastors. The necessity of a ministry to give a call is a necessity only of order (which ought to be observed in an instituted state), but which is not absolutely and simply necessary to salvation. But the necessity of the preaching of the gospel and the call of pastors to it is a necessity of salvation which cannot be obtained without the word and faith in it. Again, since the end is to be preferred to the means, the institution of pastors, which is the end, should be considered more necessary than the observance of the received order, so that it may not be done except by pastors, which is only a means to secure that end. And since primary obligations ought to take precedence over later obligations, who doubts that the law which places the necessity of a ministry in the church binds much more strongly than that which wishes no one to be ordained except by the ministry of other pastors? The latter is particular, holding good only in a constituted order and while its use is possible, but which has its exceptions; but the former is universal, which in every time and place without any exception ought to obtain. Hence when it is impossible for both laws to be observed, regard should be paid altogether to the first (which is more ancient and universal) and the cause and foundation of the second.
Although God has not expressly said that in extraordinary cases it is lawful for the pastoral power to be communicated in another way than by the ordinary ministry, it does not follow that this cannot be done. The institution of the ministry being once made in the church (which ought to continue until the end of the world) gives a sufficient right to the church of always conserving, reforming and erecting it anew (if it is corrupted and extinct), so that there is no need of a new command for it; as the precept which he gave to the church and to believers concerning the preservation of the truth obliges her when to reform herself "” when she finds that she has departed from the truth. The same command embraces both things: the preservation of the truth and the restitution of it when corrupted. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXV.xxiii-xxiv, p. 242243.

In the next paragraph, Turretin denies the necessity that pastors be ordained by previous pastors is of divine institution, and argues instead that it is one of order.

Francis Turretin (1623-87): Nor ought it to be said that a secession from the public ministry cannot be made by private persons without a violation of the obedience which God himself has frequently commanded should be rendered to it. For although no one denies that we ought to hold in great esteem the pastors and faithful ministers of God who watch for our souls and that we ought to obey them according to the direction of Paul (Heb. 13:17); still it is certain that that obedience and dependency is not absolute and unlimited (which belongs to God and Christ alone), but circumscribed within certain limits (i.e., as far as it promotes the glory of God and our safety and as far as it can consist with the fidelity and obedience due to Christ). For since the public ministry is nothing else than the external means for bringing men to salvation by a profession of the true faith and the practice of a pure worship; this, however, is the relation of external means "” that when they recede from the destination of the user and not only do not bring us to the faith, but remove us from it, the love of the end ought to prevail over the love of the means because the means are not sought except on account of the end. If it appears that the public ministry not only does not lead us to salvation and does not point out to us the way to heaven, but thrusts us by its pestiferous errors on to most certain destruction, who doubts that we ought to secede from it in order to secure our salvation? Nor can the example of the civil magistrate (who is not to be deserted although he executes his office wrongly) prove the contrary. Only a temporal good is here involved which brings no damage to salvation; but the ministry is concerned with a spiritual good and the salvation of our souls, than which nothing ought to be dearer to us. Nor, moreover, ought it to be said that this is to resist God himself, who placed us under pastors. In the ministry, we must carefully distinguish that which is of divine institution and that which is of human disposition. That there should be a ministry in the church is of divine institution, but that the ministry should be exercised by this or that person (if you except the apostles and evangelists, the first teachers of the church) is of human disposition. The order of ministry is inviolable because it is from God; but it is not the same with the ministers. For they are called by men, so the call can often be corrupted by various faults, either of the givers or of the receivers. In this case, it is not only lawful, but necessary to secede from false pastors who endanger salvation. Nor is the scandal which can spring from such a separation (if any does arise from it) to be compared with the peril of salvation and the injury to religion. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXV.xxvi, p. 244.

Francis Turretin (1623-87): This is confirmed more strongly if the nature of the union which believers hold with Christ and with their pastors is examined. For the union of believers with Christ is immediate, but with pastors only mediate because believers are not united to their pastors except in Christ and on account of him (for he is the center and bond of our communion, whether with believers or with pastors). Hence it is gathered that believers ought not to be united to Christ; and they ought to be separated from them as often as they see them to be separated from Christ and wanting to draw others away from him. The same is to be said concerning the dependence on which believers ought to have both on Christ and on pastors. The first is immediate and absolute; but the latter only mediate and conditional. Christ alone has a right over the conscience, as the supreme and anypeuthynos ("œbeyond human accountability") ruler. Pastors are ministers and interpreters of his will; therefore, the dependence and submission due to them rests wholly upon the dependence due to Christ by them (which is the rule and cause of that). Therefore, as long as pastors show themselves to be true ministers of God, believers ought to depend upon them on account of Christ; but if it happens that they act like lords, not as ministers, and lead away from Christ and do not lead them to him; if, in order to depend on them, the dependence and obedience due to Christ has to be violated, who will deny that we ought justly (nay, indispensably) to secede from them in order that our union with Christ ay remain safe and unimpaired? Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXV.xxvii, pp. 244-245.

Francis Turretin (1623-87): Innovators, who propose to us a new and false doctrine, differ from reformers, whose design is not to bring a new doctrine, but to reform the old which had been corrupted and to purge it from the errors superinduced. The first are not to be heard, according to the command of Paul (Gal. 1:8). But the latter not only are not to be rejected, but are to be embraced and followed with zeal, if we are satisfied that they are true reformers. In order to ascertain this, we must examine their doctrine. We maintain that our first pastors were such from the conformity of their doctrine with the doctrine of Christ; nor except most falsely can they be traduced as innovators. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXV.xxviii, p. 245.

Francis Turretin (1623-87): The passage of Tertullian "” "œWho are ye? When and whence come ye? What do ye in mine, not of me?...I am an heir of the apostles, as they decreed in their will, as they swore, I dold" (Prescription Against Heretics 37 [ANF 3:261; PL 2.51]) "” is rightly opposed to innovators who introduce a new doctrine differing from that of the apostles. Concerning whom he immediately adds, "œHence foreigners and heretics, enemies to the apostles, except from a diversity of doctrine, which each one at his pleasure, either takes or receives against the apostles?" (ibid.). But it has nothing to do with our Reformers, who had no other object in view than to bring us back to the truth of the gospel and to the purity of the apostolic doctrine, from which the church of Rome had departed. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXV.xxix, p. 245.

Francis Turretin (1623-87): The examples drawn from the practice of the apostles about the call and ordination of pastors are not against us. They relate to the church already established, in which the apostles wished the order instituted by them in presbyteries to be preserved. But we speak of a corrupted church which had no pastors, except those corrupt and tainted with multiple errors. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXV.xxx, p. 245.

Francis Turretin (1623-87): If in some churches the Reformation was instituted by laymen, besides the fact that (in that most deporable state and in a case of unavoidable necessity) there was a sufficient call for individuals to resist the abuse (as we have already proved and confirmed by various examples), the old canon in Clement of Rome pertains, in which it is enacted: "œThat he who teaches, although he may be a layman, yet skilled in speaking and sober in morals, may teach because they will all easily learn of God" (cf. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 8.32* [ANF 7:495; PG 1:1134]). If anything could be desired here, it would be supplied both by a subsequent ordination and by the public authority of the magistrate and the consent of the people. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 3 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), 18.XXV.xxxi, p. 245.

I am convinced, unless I can be shown otherwise, that a careful reading of Turretin demonstrates that he held that succession of doctrinal truth is what constituted the esse of the church, and that in exceptional cases, ministers could be lawfully raised up by means of an internal and external call, the latter being by the consent of the visible church from which it is made.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Saiph]

Thanks for that addendum David. Very helpful.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

David,

Good stuff quoted. I have not had time to further that information on the web, so I am glad you posted it.

I think, also, that we should consider the circumstacnes that Turretin plainly gives when up against this very question of "when should this all happen."

Turretin is writing in the context of when "the ministry failing (being miserably corrupted), " is what is going on. As David quoted, "The same command embraces both things: the preservation of the truth and the restitution of it when corrupted." In those extreme examples, not simply the norm for everyday life, such things should and ought to be enacted, otherwise, we would, in such extreme examples (few come to mind) leaders in the church would cease to exist. Today for example, this would never happen. (ANd it was probably only during the reformation that it really did happen to certain degrees). But we always have to speak about the possibilities.

I especailly like his (tongue in cheek) qualification of true ministers, "if we are satisfied that they are true reformers."

I am convinced, unless I can be shown otherwise, that a careful reading of Turretin demonstrates that he held that succession of doctrinal truth is what constituted the esse of the church, and that in exceptional cases, ministers could be lawfully raised up by means of an internal and external call, the latter being by the consent of the visible church from which it is made.

This is exactly what Turretin is saying. That is why it is so crucial not mix up what is the esse of the church (which is not governmental) with the bene esse of the church.

 

[Scott]

Agreed.

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by webmaster
Mark,

Are you serious?

I'd start with studying this (Besides Scripture):

http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/FormPresbyterianChurchGov.htm

Then read Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). You can buy it here cheap: http://www.naphtali.com/

That would about do it.

This may be what drives the last nail in my Reformed Coffin!!! but I have to agree with Saiph, To say that the Presbyterian Form of Church Government is plainly laid out in Scripture is vague at best,especially when a distinction is made between ruling elders and teaching elders,those that are laity and those that are clergy. I think that an argument for an Episcopate could be made just as easily,you must do a"cut and paste" to scripture to come to that conclusion. Sola Scriptura is lacking in this regard,we can affirm qualifications for Bishops,Presbyters,and Deacons,but we are left wanting for duties,and governing roles.

We must therefore look to Patristics and Tradition to give us a greater understanding of what church government should look like. The real purpose of lawful ordination is not so much of passing down the office as it is in passing down foundational orthodox teaching.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Denny]

 

[DTK]

This may be what drives the last nail in my Reformed Coffin!!! but I have to agree with Saiph, To say that the Presbyterian Form of Church Government is plainly laid out in Scripture is vague at best,especially when a distinction is made between ruling elders and teaching elders,those that are laity and those that are clergy. I think that an argument for an Episcopate could be made just as easily,you must do a"cut and paste" to scripture to come to that conclusion. Sola Scriptura is lacking in this regard,we can affirm qualifications for Bishops,Presbyters,and Deacons,but we are left wanting for duties,and governing roles.

We must therefore look to Patristics and Tradition to give us a greater understanding of what church government should look like. The real purpose of lawful ordination is not so much of passing down the office as it is in passing down foundational orthodox teaching.

Well, I think this pretty much confirms where I suspected you were coming from all along.

1) You claim to be a Presbyterian elder, but believe that Scripture offers no objective paradigm to resolve the issue.

2) Moreover, your assertion that "sola Scriptura is lacking in this regard" is due to the fact that you presuppose another question-begging assumption, namely, that "we are left wanting for duties,and governing roles."

3) You presuppose, in the third place, an objectivity to be found in the "Patristics and Tradition" that is lacking in Scripture in order "to give us a greater understanding of what church government should look like." But the problem with your construct here is that both the "Patristics and Tradition" are far more subjective in their formulations in that there is to be found an even greater diversity and disagreement between the witnesses of these therein. How, for example, are you able to reconcile Jerome's witness above (testifying as both a father and a witness to tradition) with the diversity of witnesses found elsewhere? Your presupposition of objectivity in these witnesses simply will not float in the wide sea of ecclesiastical history. If sola Scriptura won't work here, as you assert, still less will the derived witness of the patristics and tradition work because of the contradictions their combined testimonies yield, revealing quite clearly the fallible nature of human witnesses.

4) If something is unclear in Holy Scripture, how exactly does the varying, and often conflicting, witnesses of the patristics and tradition do more than muddy the waters even further? Can these witnesses actually make Scripture mean more than it actually says? If our theological constructs are to be based upon revelation alone, how can anything with less authority be accorded the same status as revelation? None of this means that sola Scriptura doesn't work. After all, it has been working for various Protestants for centuries all the while Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have been at odds with one another, both taking time ever now and then to pause for a moment, and condescend to our level long enough to tell us that our paradigm isn't working. When I hear such charges, I confess it's everything I can do to keep from busting my gut in sheer laughter. As William Whitaker pointed out...

William Whitaker(1547-1595): The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The Jesuit [i.e., Bellarmine] answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of their truth, is nothing more than saying they are truer. But what sort of distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the words that the truth arises. If therefore he confesses that the scriptures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the scriptures than the in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, in Irenaeus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. "œThe words of scripture," says he, "œare more obscure than the words of the fathers." Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels in all powers of expression. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 390.

5) Furthermore, the purpose of biblical revelation is not designed under God to put an end to all controversy, but in many cases to create division, per the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11,

17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions (ai`re,seij) among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

See also Mt 10:34-39; Lk 2:34; Jn 3:19-21; 7:40-43; 9:16; 10:19-21. Truth, by nature, has this amazing ability both to unite and divide.

6) God's people are all one family, and it may come as a surprize, but family members have been known to disagree and to disagree bitterly, without making any member of said family any less a member. Thus sola Scriptura can't be said not to work, simply because members of God's family may disagree with one another. It's only when the paradigm of perfection is forced to define the state of the church this side of eternity, rather than its goal, that sola Scriptura can be said not to "work," as though complete uniformity in understanding makes for the esse of the church. Quite frankly, I have always thought that that is a ridiculous notion.

Wishing you the best,
DTK

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

This thread is awesome.

 

[Saiph]

Maybe I am being naive here but ultimately, wouldn't we want to argue for Abrahamic succession rather than apostolic anyway ??

The Church starts with him no ?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Saiph
Maybe I am being naive here but ultimately, wouldn't we want to argue for Abrahamic succession rather than apostolic anyway ??

The Church starts with him no ?

But scripture already does this, no? God has already revealed the connection from Abraham to Christ to His Apostles. Where things get cloudy is in the last days after special Revelation ceased with the last Apostle. So with this in mind it brings us right back to where we are at.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Mark,

In a study of "Offices" in the church one must take into account any Christological changes or improvements. Elders and deacons, being ordinary offices after the consecutive line of varying offices (prophets, apostles, evangelsits, etc.) are those now permenant until Christ returns. We would not formally say it is an "Abrahamic Office" since there was no "Abrahamic Office". There is certainly an administration of the Covenant of Grace as Abrahamic, but this is not an office (a solemn setting apart of a man to some public office = ordination in that regard). Rather, the office in Israel, under that dispensation of the CoG, would have been prophetic, elders (as in council), High Priest, priests, kings, etc.

 

[Saiph]

Good point Matt.

As soon as I can afford it I will order Jus Divinum .. . .

What a great find!

 

[Mayflower]

Originally posted by Saiph
This is partially what draws me to Anglicanism.

Dear Mark,

I really to know (if it possible ?) why you left the presbyterian church to join the angelican Church ? I hope that you can share something about it. Iam looking foreward.