Lojahw
February 18th, 2011 4:06 pm :#140 Perry Robinson:
“I deny your assertion that the scriptures you mentioned are consistent with ordination by others than bishops. I deny it because your claim depends on the assumption that ordaining presbyters were equivalent with the Reformation notion of a presbyter. I don’t think they are. And I don’t think the Scriptures or the tradition support such a claim. And I don’t think you can provide a demonstration to that effect either.”
“I deny your assertion that the scriptures you mentioned are consistent with ordination by others than bishops. I deny it because your claim depends on the assumption that ordaining presbyters were equivalent with the Reformation notion of a presbyter. I don’t think they are. And I don’t think the Scriptures or the tradition support such a claim. And I don’t think you can provide a demonstration to that effect either.”
Didache 15: “Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.” This statement refutes your position.
“Further, I think there is textual evidence that Timothy and such were presbyter/bishops who alone could ordain, distinct from other presbyters. And I think we know they were bishops from some of the same sources that inform us that Matthew was written by Matthew the apostle.”
Only your presupposition leads to your exclusive position. Acts 20, 1 Timothy 3, 5, and Titus 1 make no distinction between presbyters and bishops [episcopoi]. Please provide documentation to support your position.
“Second, if we are limited to the scriptures in the way you and KM employ them, we have to suppose that the biblical teaching of presbyters being an ordaining source was lost well before the end of the 2nd century as we have no substantial evidence of mere presbyterial ordination at that time or beyond. This isn’t even taking into consideration the Ignatian epistles which are quite monarchial or the Didache, Ireneaus, Polycarp, Tertullian and Hippolytus.”
Your conclusion does not follow. The New Testament, Didache, and other early sources indicate that Apostles as well as laymen “laid hands” on their presbyters/bishops. What does the Holy Spirit say to the men in Acts 13?
“Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”
Please note that Saul and Barnabas were “ordained” by Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen – none of whom are identified as bishops (they were “prophets” and “teachers”). Subsequently, Barnabas is called an Apostle (Acts 14:4, 14). As for Ignatius, which Apostle endorsed his novel interpretation? It wouldn’t have been either Peter or Paul whose teaching is in sharp contrast with Ignatius’ teaching that Caesar must be subject to the bishop! (cf. Rom. 13:1ff; 2 Pet. 2:13). Note that Paul says “every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities” – and that includes bishops within the jurisdiction of Caesar.
“Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”
Please note that Saul and Barnabas were “ordained” by Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen – none of whom are identified as bishops (they were “prophets” and “teachers”). Subsequently, Barnabas is called an Apostle (Acts 14:4, 14). As for Ignatius, which Apostle endorsed his novel interpretation? It wouldn’t have been either Peter or Paul whose teaching is in sharp contrast with Ignatius’ teaching that Caesar must be subject to the bishop! (cf. Rom. 13:1ff; 2 Pet. 2:13). Note that Paul says “every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities” – and that includes bishops within the jurisdiction of Caesar.
“Third, laying on of hands is not essential to ordination by Reformed lights, which is why the Presbyterians forbade it for a clean century to make sure the idea of a transfer of divine power died out. Even if succession came through the presbyterate, the Presbyterians lost it long ago.”
Presbyterians do not claim apostolic succession, so it is not an issue for them.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/keith-mathisons-reply/#comment-15490
No comments:
Post a Comment