How valid is an ordination according to Reformed doctrine? Is there an "apostolic succession" of laying on of hands through elders?

Not open for further replies.

Daniel Silva Mendanha

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't speak english very well. So forgive me if something is not understandable.

My question concerns the practice of ordination in Presbyterian and Reformed churches. As I understand it, ordinations with the laying on of hands by other presbyters, previously ordained, are only valid.

In order for this to make sense and to be able to validly ordain only those who have already been validly ordained, we need an unbroken line of valid ordinations from the apostles to this day.

Some pastors say this succession is unnecessary. It is enough that a person is faithful to the Bible and is recognized by the Church for him to be validly a minister. So all the unordained could go around and found a church without any laying of hands on them.

In this case, how do we interpret Hebrews 6.2, which treats the "laying on of hands as" a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith?
How do we know that the "laying on of hands" in Hebrews 6:2 is referring to ordination to ministry? It could also be a referent to healing.
Turretin makes a distinction between a church constituted and a church to be constituted (III: 239). In a constituted church, we expect a call because we want to maintain good order. However, if we find ourselves in an area with no constituted church, granted it is an extreme example, no call is needed.
Not open for further replies.