Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
It strikes me that no one (so far as I can tell) has mentioned WCF XXVII: iv on this thread:
Well, there was post 52 up thread....
(Chapter 29, Paragraph 3 and Chapter 27, Paragraph 4)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It strikes me that no one (so far as I can tell) has mentioned WCF XXVII: iv on this thread:
(Chapter 29, Paragraph 3 and Chapter 27, Paragraph 4)
Four-office, if I were to put a name to it. I understand the order of "elder" to include essentially two kinds of elders, elders who are ministers, and elders who are not. Additionally, there are two kinds of ministers, pastors and teachers/doctors. So, at the end of the day there are pastors, teachers, elders--all of whom are Biblical presbyters; and deacons.Tyler do you personally hold the 2-office view or the 3 office view?
So if someone were to have your above definitions of the "Ordinary" offices, they could also say you have the 2-Office View in a sense?Four-office, if I were to put a name to it. I understand the order of "elder" to include essentially two kinds of elders, elders who are ministers, and elders who are not. Additionally, there are two kinds of ministers, pastors and teachers/doctors. So, at the end of the day there are pastors, teachers, elders--all of whom are Biblical presbyters; and deacons.
There are, of course, the extraordinary offices of apostle, prophet, and evangelist. Apostles ceased with death of the Twelve, and prophets and evangelists are only raised up by God in extraordinary times (that, of course, would be a subject for a different thread).
Yes, someone could say that. Someone could also characterize it as a three-office view, since pastors and teachers are both ministers. I don't get hung up on the labels too much. The nuances are where the most important distinctions are made.So if someone were to have your above definitions of the "Ordinary" offices, they could also say you have the 2-Office View in a sense?
Presbyters (or Elders with 2 orders and a few kinds within the orders) and the Deacon...is that somewhat fair?
Thanks. I am just trying to make sure I understand the logic...as I think through this. I am now getting more of a handle on it.Yes, someone could say that. Someone could also characterize it as a three-office view, since pastors and teachers are both ministers. I don't get hung up on the labels too much. The nuances are where the most important distinctions are made.
The reason I prefer the four-office designation is that I'm convinced that function constitutes office. If there are different functions, there are different offices.
It's an issue that you'll hear a number of different views on. That's why Presbyterian churches don't make their officers subscribe to every detail of a form of government, but only to the general principles.Thanks. I am just trying to make sure I understand the logic...as I think through this. I am now getting more of a handle on it.
As Bruce noted, the word "elder" does not appear in the Westminster Standards.A another question in getting back to the OP:
Do the Westminster standards ever make a distinction between “minister of the gospel” and “Elder”? I do not have the standards with me currently, but I am not sure if the actual confession or catechism deal with The specific term Elder. Did the standards view “minister of the gospel” as the full office of the elder?... looking for loving correction if I am wrong. So don’t be hasty! And in the words of the great theologian Nacho Libre... “Take it Easy”.
I would love to see someone try to make an argument from scripture that REs are not allowed to administer the sacraments.
I'm just asking that a solid argument be made from the scriptures.So you would argue that the Westminster Confession is contra-scriptural and contains lies?
Please interact with Rev. Buchanan's response:I'm just asking that a solid argument be made from the scriptures.
Opps! I must have. Thanks.Please interact with Rev. Buchanan's response:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ruling-elders-and-the-sacraments.95964/page-4#post-1173082
Did you miss it?
I'm just asking that a solid argument be made from the scriptures.
Alan,As noted immediately above (by Patrick), Bruce Buchanan has just made such an argument.
You should understand in terms of historic Reformed and Presbyterian polity that the question has not been whether there is warrant for the office of minister but whether there is warrant for the office of ruling elder, reflected, for example, in the discussion of the words επίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος in which not only was the former taken to mean minister/pastor but the latter was understand as a TE (to use the PCA term). In the Roman church the former was taken to mean higher clergy (bishop), while the latter referred to the parish minister (priest).
My point is not that there is no clear NT warrant for the office of ruling elder, certainly there is in Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12 (gifts of leading and administrating), but I believe elsewhere as well, including I Timothy 3 by inference, though I take that chiefly to refer to ministers. I should say that I think that the chief warrant is from the OT institution of elders in the gates and their relations to the Levites, which continues in the NT economy, seen at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), in which elders join apostles in joint rule, the extraordinary office of apostle giving way in the Pastorals to the ordinary one of minister/pastor (with elder continuing on). Bruce alludes to this and I have written of this in various places, one example being here: http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=393&issue_id=90.
To imply, as your "challenge" seems to, that the biblical argument for ministers only administering the sacraments has not been made on this forum is not accurate. And it is certainly the position of our doctrinal standards.
Peace,
Alan
In my humble opinion, I think the PCA has the 3-office view in practice... but on paper (BCO) claims a 2-office view.
Haha...I seeIt's sometimes called a 2 1/2 office view: one office of elder, but two functions within that office.
Your insight and knowledge have served to at least bless one saint this very morning!
As such, would I be okay to approve the PCA BCO (for serving as a Deacon), while also holding to more of a 3-office view (which I believe I hold)? In your opinion?
This has been a useful thread for me, I think I will read some of the links with more attention when I have more time. The thing which has always struck me is that in Acts 8 it seems fairly clear that the one preaching to the Samaritans and baptising the Ethiopian eunuch is Philip the deacon.
I know it is generally accepted in most Presbyterian circles that administering the sacraments is within the purview of Teaching Elders only - but I'm not sure its clear either from the Scriptures or the WCF. Does "minister of the word, lawfully ordained" exclude the Ruling Elder (who has indeed been lawfully ordained)? To put it another way, is there a scriptural reason to believe that a minister of the word is exclusively a Teaching Elder, and not a Ruling Elder?
Does "minister of the word, lawfully ordained" exclude the Ruling Elder (who has indeed been lawfully ordained)?
Why would we assume Philip was not promoted to a higher office?
The answer to your question is "yes". The Ruling elder is ordained as a Ruling Elder, not as a minister of the gospel. Even two office churches recognize that; the question shouldn't even come up in a three office church.
Because we shouldn't assume things into a Scripture to suit a viewpoint. A much more pertinent question is, why should we assume he was?
The improper assumption is that Acts is giving you all the information you might possibly need. Your Baptist friends would say you are assuming things into Scripture to suit a viewpoint, when all they read in Acts is that there was a profession of faith, followed by a baptism. No-infant-baptism slam dunk?Why would we assume Philip was not promoted to a higher office?
Because we shouldn't assume things into a Scripture to suit a viewpoint. A much more pertinent question is, why should we assume he was? We know that much later in the book of Acts he was called Philip the Evangelist, but the events of chapter 8 seem to follow pretty closely on the death of Stephen in chapter 7, which follows quite closely on the ordination if the deal ons in chapter 6. It would be quite strange to have Philip ordained a deacon and then very quickly made an evangelist.
Neil,Because we shouldn't assume things into a Scripture to suit a viewpoint. A much more pertinent question is, why should we assume he was?
I know it is generally accepted in most Presbyterian circles that administering the sacraments is within the purview of Teaching Elders only - but I'm not sure its clear either from the Scriptures or the WCF. Does "minister of the word, lawfully ordained" exclude the Ruling Elder (who has indeed been lawfully ordained)? To put it another way, is there a scriptural reason to believe that a minister of the word is exclusively a Teaching Elder, and not a Ruling Elder?