2, 2.5 or 3 office?
- Thread starter Abeard
- Start date
- Status
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I assume by "2.5" you mean to designate the view that makes a practical distinction between Teaching and Ruling Elders while still maintaining that they are essentially the same office. Is that correct?
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes thats what I meant. I just heard of it a couple weeks ago listening to Dr.Pipa.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
This is the view that I would align with. However, I must state, I do not believe there are "2.5" offices, but only two: Elders and Deacons. But I am comfortable acknowledging a practical distinction between men who focus more on laboring in the Word and doctrine and those who labor more in governing and ruling. So the office of elder is singular, but within that office there is a diversity of gifts. If I'm not mistaken, this is the position of the RPCNA.
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
I guess the 2.5 is a way of distinguishing the different distinctions of the two office view? I believe in the 2 office also I think an elder should be able to teach even if that just means talking one on one with people about their understanding of the Bible.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm a 2-office guy, but I'll admit I hold some sympathy for the 2.5-office view.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
Within the Eldership of the early church there existed the the five fold Ascencion Gift Ministries for want of a better phrase, these being Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors & Teachers. We have Peter an Apostle calling himself an Elder, Paul telling Timothy to make full use of his ministry & do the work of an Evangelist, the Church Eldership at Antioch containing
certain Prophets & Teachers, all these functioning as Elders! + gift no 6 that of Ruler, he that ruleth, this being a continuation from the Older Testament, all variations of gifts within the Office of the Elder(ship).
plus that seperate Office of Deacon, he that sheweth mercy.
cessation of gifts belongs to another thread ie; extraordinary ministers vs ordinary ministers, though I'll give Scripture proofs for the above :
1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder,
2 Timothy 4:5 do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers;
Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
Romans 12:6-8 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
well the implication can be seen in the apostate eastern & western catholic "churches" because these two show the end result of the pastorship being dislodged from the eldership then through unbridled, sinful & prideful ambition developing
into the 2 systems that you see.
the eldership was also the bishoprick, that is Elders are Bishops & Bishops are Elders, when the pastor became the sole Bishop in the early church you developed the 3 office system, then this due to avarice, greed & prideful preeminence led to jostling in the early for sinful honour & eminence, were the city or metropolitan "bishops" or archbishops became preeminent over ordinary bishops of small towns & villages, this led eventually to the further development of various kinds like patriarchs & primates & the like, leading eventually to the man of sin, bishop of bishops, the papacy.
As soon as one mentions 2.5 offices it is apparent that terms are not being applied properly. In historic Presbyterianism there are two orders of office -- elder and deacon. Within the order of elder there are two offices -- one which is plenary and includes teaching and ruling, the other which only includes ruling. Those who hold there are only two "offices" -- elder and deacon -- maintain a distinction of "function" within that office, namely, teaching and ruling. This is a misnomer because the so-called teaching elder also rules. Furthermore, the word "office means "duty," so a difference of "duty" is by definition a difference of office. Those who maintain 2.5 offices just add to the confusion.
What makes me nervous about a 3-office view is that I've often seen it used as a way to water down the requirement of being able to teach, and I don't know that I agree that "able to teach" includes being able to talk one-on-one. While we may have a man who is specifically called to take the time week by week to preach the word, teaching's presence in the scriptural requirement for office should not be overlooked.
Differentiating "function" does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the work and qualifications of a "ruling" elder. If his function is to rule as distinguished from teaching the qualifications will of necessity be different.
When 1 Timothy 3 sets out the qualifications for a bishop it does so with the fully functioning bishop in mind, that is, the minister or teaching elder, or whatever one chooses to call him. Where it is acknowledged that one is not fulfilling all the functions of a bishop, which is provided for in 1 Tim 5:17, the qualifications must be adjusted accordingly.
Besides, the requirement to be "apt to teach" does not of itself mean an "ability to teach," but mainly refers to a disposition to teach rather than strive, as in 2 Tim. 2:24.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I get your concern there. I see that too with the 3 office view and an implication of that or another side of that is that when at Presbytery, for example, when the TE speaks it carries more weight than an RE and that in my opinion is just dumb. God has ordained each elder to be an elder whether they are RE or TE, and equal weight should be given to who they are and more weight should be given to the content of their words and how it lines up with Scripture.
Even before the congregation, members look more to the wisdom of TE's compared to RE's. I think this is a problem in the 3 office leaning congregations. Even those who 'claim' 2.5 office, I see the practical said of such a view being a 3 office view.
According to the distinction in 1 Tim. 5:17, no.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
Matthew I don't know what your trying to say in this 2nd paragraph, are you saying that only teaching elders are bishops or
are you saying that all elders are bishops, but that teaching elders or ministers are fully functioning because they both teach & rule, whereas ruling elders only primarily rule. I do hold that all elders are bishops & all bishops are elders, as the
terms are interchangeable, as per 2 office view.
Philippians 1:1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
It is my opinion that ministers do the pulpit preaching & teaching & that ruling elders who ought to be apt to teach take care of other teaching needs like sabbath school & catechism.
That is what I am saying. Ruling elders are bishops in the sense that they oversee by means of ruling alone. Ministers oversee both by teaching and ruling. That these are distinct offices in Presbyterian churches is obvious from the fact that ministers have their seat on Presbytery whereas elders have their seat on Session. Elders have no authority, technically speaking, to teach the Word because they have not been ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and do not exercise their office with immediate accountability to the Presbytery.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks Matthew, I agree with you on this one, It is the historic Presbyterian view. the 3 office view of Bishop--Minister *** ruling Elders *** Deacons = Cyprian 3 Office view
***************
Is not only not Biblical, but has led to numerous abuses; monarchical Bishops destroy the biblical pattern of the equality of elders. Eldership Session or Teaching Elders & Ruling Elders *** Deacons = Presbyterian 2 Office view
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
I've been away, but here's something that I would add more lately to the conversation:Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Peace,
Alan
Peace,
Alan
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Do you believe that a ruling elder has the right to administer the sacraments? If your answer is "no", you are implicitly adhering to the 3-office view. If there are only two offices, then it is perfectly acceptable for ruling elders to administer the sacraments. The Westminster Standards teach otherwise:
There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. WCF 27:4
Of course, the same applies to the preaching of the word (WLC 158).
I seem to recall reading something by Thomas Witherow, a two-office advocate, wherein he criticised the Westminster Confession owing to its "unbiblical" three-office position. In fact, here is the source: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_58971#page/n33/mode/2up/search/Westminster+Confession
There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. WCF 27:4
Of course, the same applies to the preaching of the word (WLC 158).
I seem to recall reading something by Thomas Witherow, a two-office advocate, wherein he criticised the Westminster Confession owing to its "unbiblical" three-office position. In fact, here is the source: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_58971#page/n33/mode/2up/search/Westminster+Confession
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
Hmm interesting never thought about that. But does a minister of the Word being "lawfully" ordained go through a different ordination process than a teaching/ruling elder?
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
Another question... would holding a three office view mean that the TE has more authority than a ruling elder?
All who rule do so in parity and in assembly. The minister of word and sacraments has been given authority to administer word and sacraments. The ruling elder has not. Even the two office distinction between teaching and ruling elder, if it means anything, must mean that authority has been given to fulfil different "functions." But as noted above, the terminology is misleading because the "teaching elder" also "rules."
Abeard
Puritan Board Freshman
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Earl:
I assume that you mean a TE (minister) who is not installed into a particular pastorate (he's ordained, of course). The answer is that an ordained minister serving in some capacity other than a pastorate may preach and administer the sacrament: a missionary may do so, a chaplain may do so, a theological seminary professor may do so, etc. There are other expressions of the ministerial office than the local pastorate and any lawfully ordained minister serving in other such capacities is fully qualified to preach and administer the sacraments.
Peace,
Alan
I assume that you mean a TE (minister) who is not installed into a particular pastorate (he's ordained, of course). The answer is that an ordained minister serving in some capacity other than a pastorate may preach and administer the sacrament: a missionary may do so, a chaplain may do so, a theological seminary professor may do so, etc. There are other expressions of the ministerial office than the local pastorate and any lawfully ordained minister serving in other such capacities is fully qualified to preach and administer the sacraments.
Peace,
Alan
- Status