Comments on: Roger Williams, Independent (HCC #3)

By: Is Independency possible? (HCC #2) | First Word

Is Independency possible? (HCC #2) | First Word — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:03:46 +0000

[...] my next HCC post, I will illustrate this dilemma with an example of an historical personage that wanted to be Independent and was also willing to bite the bullet on this with great honesty, [...]

By: TJH

TJH — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:36:53 +0000

Jokes aside, if I understand the Framian triangles, they are an effort at appropriating Hegel’s brilliant insights to trinitarian theology, at least as afar as impetus. So yes, all these distinctions will eventually be manifest as triangles.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:29:01 +0000

Thanks. Now can you fit this to one of Frame’s triangles? jk!

By: TJH

TJH — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:39:15 +0000

There is a normative and a factic aspect to the constitution of the church. The factic emphasizes that we don’t come to form a church; rather, the church pre-exists us; we come to the church. The normative has to do with things like the marks and so forth. American Protestants tend to emphasize the normative to the neglect of the factic.

By: JoshuaI

JoshuaI — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:27:51 +0000

TJH,

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I get what your saying here:

“The marks will become a useful guideline once the principle of correlativity is understood: a mutually-implied dialectic of the given (represented by ordination and sacraments) and the essence (represented in the preaching of the word). This only needs to be applied at historical junctures: it would never need to be applied at the local level, except perhaps in America as a practical family matter after moving.”

Could you help me understand this, by perhaps saying it in different words? Perhaps it’s the rum tonight.

By: TJH

TJH — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:51:25 +0000

Joshua — my proposed answer is already outlined in #25.

I’ll be back with more. I haven’t forgotten this series, it’s just my plate is full and it’s taking longer than I ever thought.

By: Joshu

Joshu — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:36:08 +0000

TJH,

You write: “…we say that Luther and Calvin received true ordination from the holy catholic church, and continued the succession of that ordination.”

I can corroborate Luther’s ordination (he was a priest), but I have difficulty verifying Calvin’s. My reading indicates that Calvin was likely installed (by protestants) as Pastor in Geneva, but by whom I don’t know. Any help on this?

By: TJH

TJH — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:55:18 +0000

John — We are actually not as far apart as you probably find yourself in most interactions with modern presbyterians. Hang in there in the coming weeks if you will. And let’s not try to settle every issue in an hour, or with one post.

The thesis I am defending is that ordination by succession is necessary, but that the body of succession is not “any individual bishop” but rather the presbyery. (Here I use the term “presbytery” for an authoritative manifestation of holy catholic church representing the universality principle [i.e. by no means just a local church], even if not exactly organized in the way we categorize as “presbyterian.”)

To be sure, this is a different position than that adopted by the Anglican church; yet the two principles are not contradictories. There is an overlap between them; and if the P-principle is the correct one, it only means that the A-principle was unnecessarily restrictive, but not that it was in error in the sense of denying the truth. That would only follow if the bishops in the succession were acting contrary to the wishes of the wider assembly, the virtual “presbytery.” But I have no reason to think this was ever the case.

On the assumption that the P-principle is correct, and that the bishops were not acting autonomously and contrary to the holy catholic church, then the bishops in the act of ordaining were de jure executives of Presbytery. This is less than optimal (since it would have been better if Presbytery had been present and more active) but it is not contradictory to the P-principle in the sense of negating it.

Therefore, you neither are forced to model what we do as “seizing ordination apart from a Bishop,” nor to suppose that adopting our principle “says the Universal Church was in error for over 1400 years.” There is a middle position that is logically sound.

The Holy Spirit leads the church into all truth; but He does so in strange and mysterious ways. Sometimes, the church has done what was necessary without understanding very perfectly why, and even, it may be, partly misconstruing the reason.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:31:15 +0000

I think there are a few things going on here.

1. The Bishopric: I’m not concerned with “what was understood” by the early church, as much as I am in the objective, inspired (and thus infallible) Word. You know my take on the so-called distinction between Bishop and Preist, John, so I won’t belabour that.

2. The Scattered: It takes the Bishopric view to grant your point that Presbyterian Protestants are scattered. I think TJH will argue that Rome is scattered itself, and thus we Presbyterians don’t need to come back home–we are home. They are the ones with the work to do. Grant the points of a)ministerial succession (not only bishops, but all elders can peform “orders”), and b) Rome has left the fold, and I think you’ll agree that the PCA and OPC is “in”.

3. Interpretation: I think this is going to go back to the question, “Who interprets scritpure?” We both grant that our views of church government must be grounded in scripture, and we both agree that the church must be the Apostolic church. You see Christ and the Apostles as setting up a Bishopric to perpetuate the apostolic authority and unity of the church, and I see otherwise. As I’ve said in the past to you, I don’t think Scripture itself teaches us that non-authoritative words (church history, Church fathers, etc.) are the way to interpret scripture. Would you agree that Scripture needs to teach us this? Or starting with the Bishopric, are you content with the words and traditions of the men in that office?

By: John

John — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:23:35 +0000

Joshua,
If the universal position of the church for let’s say 1400 years (until Wycliffe and Huss) was tactile succession. By this I mean the laying on of hands for ordination either to the office of Bishop or that of Priest by a Bishop. From what I understand for many hundreds of years it was understood that only a Bishop could ordain because he shared in the Apostolic function. As an aside the Priest shared in the Apostolic function too, but never was an ordination by a priest,in the Catholic sense of the term, recognized as valid. Anyone who assumed the perogative of ordination apart from being ordained a Bishop was recognized as a schismatic and therefore seperate from the Apostolic Church. The Apostolic Church is the only Church there can be for it was to them that the authority was given by Christ Jesus for laying the foundation of the same. Certainly, wolves can come into the Church and scatter the flock. If indeed, there were abuses at the time of the Reformation that scattered the flock then the sheep today (protestants) are not justified in remaining apart from the Church, nor were they at the time of the Reformation. Certainly, it is not pleasant to be scattered and there might be seemingly very good reasons to run like Forrest Gump to get out of there, but ask yourself, “Should the sheep come back?” Are they justified in remaining scattered? For my money I think the Anglican Communion got the best of both worlds. She remained Catholic, yet was washed with the Reformation. Tactile succession was the Universal standard because the Church was and is one. To throw it out is to deny the visible Church no matter how much you wiggle. As I’ve pointed out before: The Church held this position universally, therefore if the PCA or OPC in seizing ordination apart from a Bishop thinks itself justified it in effect says the Universal Church was in error for over 1400 years. This is too incredible to believe and we are bound to believe Christ Jesus, when he says, “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth.”