Ordination in Free Presbyterian Church Valid?

[brymaes]

This is a serious question and not intended to spark too much heat.

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

Curious also...

 

[RamistThomist]

What would be problematic about Free Church ordinations? I haven't read up on them.

 

[beej6]

An interesting question. I have the FPC {Irish} listed in my website. Here are excerpts (from their denominational seminary, Geneva Reformed Seminary):

Distinctives of the Free Presbyterian Church

"...The Free in our name refers to our total dissociation from the major Presbyterian denominations of the world, which have largely repudiated the historic Christian faith. Indeed, we have no affiliation with any liberal church hierarchy or organization. Thus, Free declares our liberty to stand without compromise for Christ in a day of apostasy. We view our freedom as the liberty to be holy, observing both personal and ecclesiastical separation unto the Lord.

So much of modern Christianity is either aberrant or eccentric. Some compromise creed or standards in the name of Christian liberty or evangelistic outreach; others protect their turf with an unbiblical and sectarian standard of separation that precludes the possibility of biblical unity. Given the strange climate in so much of modern fundamental and evangelical Christianity, the FPC with its unapologetic and uncompromising commitment to a Reformed theology that is Christ-centered, biblical, evangelistic, and separatist is crucial... "

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
What would be problematic about Free Church ordinations? I haven't read up on them.

Well for those who only consider Presbyterian ordinations valid, I suppose the fact that Free Pres. allows for baptistic congregations would be the main issue.

I don't know that much about them, but they seem to be Presbyterian in government but otherwise are basically fundamentalist as evidenced by their close relationship to BJU, their King James Only position, etc.
http://www.freepres.org/about.asp#Began

This is the group that Ian Paisley helped to start , not to be confused with FCOS, etc.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[BronxBriar]

For some reason this whole concept on "validity" makes me sick. Anyone preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is ok in my book. I am not impressed with what hoops you jumped through, how impressive your diploma looks, how many courses you aced or who, if anyone, laid hands on you. Come to NYC and try to find a good reformed/presbyterian church. Lots of impressive credentials out there and lots of confusion. They can take their credentials and well......you know.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by BronxBriar]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(Luk 9:49-50) And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

(Mar 9:38-40) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.

AT the same time I would say that we should consider someones conversation (life and doctrine) before we should hold anyone in any reguard. Others in the visible church would recognize someone as knowing God and being an Elder or Deacon. That is why eldership is so important. It is a set guide and guard for the church. The scriptures bare out this responsibility and instruction for our benefit. So be careful when speaking about the Church and Elders. You may be kicking against the goads as St. Paul was.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by puritancovenanter]

 

[beej6]

Douglas,

I sympathize with you brother, being born and raised around NYC before I was born again and having *no idea* about Reformed faith then. (This was well prior to Rev. Keller's Redeemer PCA etc.)

Of course, I'm biased, but I would send you out to Franklin Square and Bill Shishko's OPC...

 

[brymaes]

The question of vaild vs. invalid ordinations is not an irrelevant one. While it is something that has generated a lot of heat around here, that ought not make it out of the question to discuss.

Obviously, not all are called to the pastorate, i.e not all are gifted by God to be a minister of the Word and sacrament. Therefore, there has to be such a thing as a valid ordination. As a result, there must be such a thing as an invalid ordination, or a man that is taking these resposibilities unto himself without being properly gifted or recognized.

For the record, I am a minister (assistant pastor) in a Reformed Baptist church, and I hold an "independant" Baptist ordination. My point in asking the origial question is to establish which ordinations some of the more "hard-core" Presbterians would consider valid.

 

[Pilgrim]

Of course, "hard core" Baptists that are influenced by Landmark beliefs would deny the validity of Presbyterian ordination (and any other ordination but Baptist), "alien" immersion, etc.

 

[brymaes]

Sure, but by "'hard-core' Presbyterians" I was referring to certain members on this board. Landmarkish beliefs would be ruled out in this context because of the confessional subscription requirement here, i.e. one cannot affirm the LCF and buy that Trail of Blood nonsense.

 

[beej6]

I'm interested in this topic and in church gov't in general... but please forgive my ignorance as a lowly layman.

Certainly ordination in a like-minded (here, Reformed) church is a good sign that one has at least passed muster among one's peers to have been called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. But I could see where access to the pulpit and to adminstration of the Lord's Supper may also be left to the discretion of the local Session... to wit, there may be men under care or serving internships (that's an easy example). Another example: a pastor wishes to invite a former professor who is not currently ordained to exhort his congregation.

For a more regular preaching engagement, whether as pulpit supply or a local pastorate, investigation of another church body's ordination becomes extremely important.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Chris, sounds like you have a pretty low opinion of the FPC...is this simply because they choose to hold to KJVO (something that I couldn't care about one way or another), headcovering (something I hold to), voluntary abstinance from alchohol, and rejection of gambling and sensual dancing (both of which I detest)?

Or are there doctrinal stands you consider them fundamentalists in?

 

[Scott Bushey]

The first thing one must deal with is are all ordinations valid. If all ordinations are not valid, then only some of them are. That eliminates about 50% in my book.

The bible has a purposeful procedure in regards to ordination. in my opinion, Presbyterian polity is biblical.

I know a lady whom has a ordination certificate hanging on her wall in her office; is she ordained?

Baptist and Presyterian ordinations are not the same, so I have no idea what Paisley is thinking. In fact, based upon this, he is part of the problem. You would have to acknowledge my female ordinee if you side w/ Paisley; the gate swings wide open in that regard.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
(Luk 9:49-50) And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

(Mar 9:38-40) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.

AT the same time I would say that we should consider someones conversation (life and doctrine) before we should hold anyone in any reguard. Others in the visible church would recognize someone as knowing God and being an Elder or Deacon. That is why eldership is so important. It is a set guide and guard for the church. The scriptures bare out this responsibility and instruction for our benefit. So be careful when speaking about the Church and Elders. You may be kicking against the goads as St. Paul was.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by puritancovenanter]

Randy,
These passages have nothing to do w/ ordination. Possibly you could clearify?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BronxBriar
For some reason this whole concept on "validity" makes me sick.

Not good. Christ appoints through the means he prescribed only; it should bless you.

Anyone preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is ok in my book.

In Gods book it is NOT ok. There are tons of people preaching who have not officially been sent.

I am not impressed with what hoops you jumped through, how impressive your diploma looks, how many courses you aced or who, if anyone, laid hands on you.

God has called our leaders to a higher standard; they best be prepared. As far as impressed goes, I believe it is ok to give credit where credit is due, even Gods word says to give them their due.

Come to NYC and try to find a good reformed/presbyterian church. Lots of impressive credentials out there and lots of confusion. They can take their credentials and well......you know.

BB,
This is part of the problem; where these men were trained. That is sad. There are very few good reformed institutions.....

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by Draught Horse
What would be problematic about Free Church ordinations? I haven't read up on them.

Well for those who only consider Presbyterian ordinations valid, I suppose the fact that Free Pres. allows for baptistic congregations would be the main issue.

I don't know that much about them, but they seem to be Presbyterian in government but otherwise are basically fundamentalist as evidenced by their close relationship to BJU, their King James Only position, etc.
http://www.freepres.org/about.asp#Began

This is the group that Ian Paisley helped to start , not to be confused with FCOS, etc.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

Chris,
Sounds like they are confused.

 

[beej6]

After reviewing our discussion, my conclusion re: FPC ordination would be the same as my post last evening. The separatism/fundamentalism in the FPC disturbs me, as all church bodies should be seeking unity based on common doctrine. They have every right to declare the use of the KJV from their pulpits, but if they go further than that and say that others who don't are less (or even not!) faithful churches, then I would cast a wary eye.

This is not to say that we shouldn't fellowship with them (or how else can we get them to be less separatist? ;-) but, like anyone else who could present for ordination in, say, the OPC, a fairly thorough exam would be in order as compared to someone presenting from the PCA (though these days, everyone's Credentials Committee should be - and is - working hard in God's grace).

 

[BronxBriar]

Originally posted by beej6
Douglas,

I sympathize with you brother, being born and raised around NYC before I was born again and having *no idea* about Reformed faith then. (This was well prior to Rev. Keller's Redeemer PCA etc.)

Of course, I'm biased, but I would send you out to Franklin Square and Bill Shishko's OPC...

I have relatives in Franklin Square! I'll check it out!

 

[BronxBriar]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The bible has a purposeful procedure in regards to ordination.
[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]

Where might I find that "purposeful procedure"?

 

[BronxBriar]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

In Gods book it is NOT ok. There are tons of people preaching who have not officially been sent.


God has called our leaders to a higher standard; they best be prepared. As far as impressed goes, I believe it is ok to give credit where credit is due, even Gods word says to give them their due.

[

I thought the preacher was called to preach. He must be "officially sent"?

Regarding the higher standard, yes I agree. But the standard has biblical foundations and getting your preaching/theology/scripture degree is not a biblical mandate.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

\"Sending\" is very much a part of the vocabulary of the ministry

The church calls one they recognize or believe God has sent.

See the following verses: 2 Chron. 36:15;

Jeremiah is simply packed: just a few references: 1:7, 7:25, 25:4, 26:5, 29:29, 35:15, 44:4, etc; compare with 14:14-15, 23:21 & 32, etc. for the opposite



Some additional verses: Mt. 21:34; Lk. 20:10 (cf. 13:24); John 4:38, 13:20, 20:21; Acts 13:3 & 26, 22:21; 1 Cor. 1:17; Rom. 10:15


Still further: Apostles are "sent" ones; churches call missionaries, and "send" them (Acts. 13:3);

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Okay, we went to a FPC church this morning...and thoroughly enjoyed it. The denomination I believe insists only on the use of the KJV from the pulpit (I will clarify this at evening service tonight) otherwise we saw an NKJV Reformation Bible (and there might be others). Most, not all, the women wore coverings (a WIDE variety of interpretation there). From speaking with one of the ladies, most are not dresses only...but will wear dresses and skirts for church.

Their view of separatism is not that one can't call another "brother" or that they won't associate with other reformed ppl...but rather the emphasis that they want nothing to do with the World Council of Churches or the Ecumenical Movement (neither of which I can blame them).

 

[Larry Hughes]

As a side but related issue are missionary boards valid, since the church calls and sends? Or does this relate to denominational polity?

On the lay end we id a truly called pastor by what he preaches, does he really give Christ as Christ to you or some other Christ even with scriptures? Or does he never wrongly mingles pure Gospel with a sort of law? Now every pastor in the land from Pentecostals to R. Bap. to the staunchest Reformed would "claim" they preach the whole Word of God, for what pastor is going to own up to & say, "Naaaa, I don't cut it straight I mingle law & gospel all over the place such that the devil himself is confused", but do they really is the real question? And that takes discernment on the hearer's part. I've heard many in our former churches claim they preached the whole council of God, but that was an excuse for their poor if not rank "preaching" & I've heard many really preach & truly give you pure law & gospel...so it takes discernment...esp. in this region in which one can literally have a church every 1 mile, many of the same denom. and theologically (loosely speaking) miles apart.

L

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Chris, sounds like you have a pretty low opinion of the FPC...is this simply because they choose to hold to KJVO (something that I couldn't care about one way or another), headcovering (something I hold to), voluntary abstinance from alchohol, and rejection of gambling and sensual dancing (both of which I detest)?

Or are there doctrinal stands you consider them fundamentalists in?

I wouldn't say I necessarily have a low view of the FPC. I know little about them other than what I've gleaned on this board and from looking at their website the other day. My best guess is that an FPC church is probably a better choice than the vast majority of churches on the scene today, whether they fly an evangelical or fundy banner. In other words, I'll take Paisley over the ECT crowd (regardless of their supposed personal theological soundness) any day of the week.

I simply meant that several of the stances they take owe more to fundamentalism than to, say, the Old School Presbyterianism that I would most closely identify with at this point.

BTW I am not a fan of gambling or "sensual" dancing either and agree with the FPC statement that gambling=covetousness.

However, I do have a problem with a church that states unequivocably that alcohol should be abstained from, and would have difficulty joining myself to such a church. Of course this was one of the reasons for the OPC/BPC split in 1937. That the FPC calls it "voluntary abstention" is downright silly, with all due respect. Abstention is mandatory if you want to be a communicant member. The RPCNA once had a similar stance on alcohol but changed in the last 20 years or so. Abstention is fine and perhaps even wise, but in the light of Scripture it should not be required for communicant membership, in my opinion.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Okay, we went to a FPC church this morning...and thoroughly enjoyed it. The denomination I believe insists only on the use of the KJV from the pulpit (I will clarify this at evening service tonight) otherwise we saw an NKJV Reformation Bible (and there might be others). Most, not all, the women wore coverings (a WIDE variety of interpretation there). From speaking with one of the ladies, most are not dresses only...but will wear dresses and skirts for church.

Their view of separatism is not that one can't call another "brother" or that they won't associate with other reformed ppl...but rather the emphasis that they want nothing to do with the World Council of Churches or the Ecumenical Movement (neither of which I can blame them).

I think what you state about their KJV position is probably correct.

The view of separation you describe is no different than that found in the OPC and most other confessional Reformed churches.

 

[Pilgrim]

Here is the FPC's stance on the KJV
http://www.freepres.org/sep_details.asp?sep_principles

In carrying on this preaching ministry the Free Presbyterian Church has, throughout its history, used the Authorized (often called the "King James") Version of the Scriptures. We wish to avoid the confusion that arises from the use of many different translations and paraphrases in church services. We believe the Authorized Version is unrivaled as a translation of the Scriptures and that it reflects the authentic, historic Hebrew and Greek texts that God "immediately inspired, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" (Westminster Confession of Faith, I. 8.).

This says that they believe that the texts underlying the KJV, including the TR for the NT (including the Johannine Comma, discussion of which occasioned Dr. White coming aboard here) were themselves immediately inspired and thus any deviation is a corruption. At least, that's what I take it to mean, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[beej6]

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the arguments re: the TR, however I don't buy the logical extension of the conclusion that other translations are less faithful because of inferior manuscripts. Does that mean that God's providence over His Word ended in 1611?

 

[LadyFlynt]

I agree with them for the matter of avoiding confusion...just as when we were attending a PCA church they chose the ESV as the norm to avoid confusion. I was raised KJVO, but do not agree with many of their arguements. I am however very particular (KJV, NKJV, and ESV...I REALLY enjoy my ESV!...and avoid the NIV at all costs). So I would say that I am in partial agreement on the matter.

On the issue of alchohol...you are correct...I see their "voluntary" abstinance as pretty arm twisting. I'm glad to see that they admit it is not a scriptural mandate, but rather a practical one. I don't believe it should be mandated for membership, but also see it as a very minor issue (though I know many on this board wouldn't ).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The first thing one must deal with is are all ordinations valid. If all ordinations are not valid, then only some of them are. That eliminates about 50% in my book.

The bible has a purposeful procedure in regards to ordination. in my opinion, Presbyterian polity is biblical.

I know a lady whom has a ordination certificate hanging on her wall in her office; is she ordained?

Baptist and Presyterian ordinations are not the same, so I have no idea what Paisley is thinking. In fact, based upon this, he is part of the problem. You would have to acknowledge my female ordinee if you side w/ Paisley; the gate swings wide open in that regard.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]

I don't know if your accusation against Paisley is very accurate Scott. I do believe them to hold to some confession. If not they have some problems. I am almost certain they do not hold to a position where a woman is lawfully ordained. There are lawful ordinations and innordinate unlawful ordinations. The Scripture is clear about women and subordination. Paisley wouldn't go against it I am sure.

Concerning the passages above, I believe God uses others in denominations that are not yours. They are lawfully ordained for Gospel ministry even though they don't run in your circles or mine. Godly men who have had hands laid on them for ministry in a lawful way are ordained for Gospel ministry. I do not see a direct correlation to anyone being a decendent of any of the first twelve. Maybe I am wrong. But I do see many who have been born from the Spirit and ordained by God. I really don't want to get into the arguments about Catholic ordination or who laid hands on Calvin, Luther, Hus, or other good men. I do consider signs of regeneration to be a must before on is ordained. Sometimes God choses to raise something up out of nothing. It isn't the norm but it does happen.