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.

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?

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.

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?

Thanks for the preview. You’re definitely scratching where it itches. I think it must be poison ivy, because now I have more questions! Just one, though.

If the proper way to leave is to be kicked out for orthodoxy(and the kickee is the faithful remnant after judgment, is it were), then that only changes the form of my question. What are the grounds for the kicker to become the “kicked out”? It must be a doctrinal matter, hense your term “orthodox”, but which doctrines constitute that, and whose exegesis trumps the other’s?

We need a principle that can protect orthodoxy and the HCC, and yet deter the misguided, but yet doctrinaly-wounded conscience of some young zealot from starting a new splinter group. Perhaps Rome thinks the OPC and PCA are Starbucks Bible Study groups?

1a,b. Some kind of succession is necessary, but not necessarily via individuals. I will argue that both OPC and PCA have the necessary succession (as you already hint in 1b).

1c. Because, the CREC has no claim whatsoever to being part of HCC; no succession at all. Whenever you think “CREC,” think, “Starbucks Bible Fellowship” — a bunch of guys that liked to get together for coffee and cigars, who one day said, “we be a church!” But it doesn’t work that way.

At the end of the day, there will be tough cases to adjudicate; but some, such as the CREC, can be ruled out so quickly that it is not even necessary to make all the eventual qualifications and nuances.

2a. The proper way to leave is to be kicked out for orthodoxy; this is how Luther, and the OPC started, for example. But we should model it that the corrupt side that is doing the “kicking” is actually kicking itself out; the “kickee” is the continuing body. (Thus, aa and aaa are largely obviated.)

2b. When I write on the marks, I am going to favor the earlier two-mark model and suggest that the third mark is implied by the first two. 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.

1. Just what are the criteria for being a part of the HCC?

a.) A tracing of Bishops (Apostolic Succession)back to the apostles? Then the OPC (you guys) and the PCA (and I) are not part of the HCC.

b.) Ministerial Succession (a different form of AS)? PCA and and OPC ministers can be traced back to the the time of the Reformation, so we’re good. But so is the theological compromized and liberal PCUSA. And why cannot an OPC pastor leave to join the CREC if in his view the OPC is corrupt (this has precedent, you know?)?

c.) Apostoloic Doctrine, Baptism, Recognition by others, etc. You have already dealt with these adequately.

2. What are the grounds on which lawful, HCC ministers may leave the HCC?

a.) Wholesale theological and ecclesiastic abuses, a la those of 15th and 16th century Roman Catholic church?

aa.) Just which abuses? Justification? Lord’s Supper? Predestination? Sola Scriptura? Papal Supremacy?

aaa.) Where does scripture list these issues as the criteria for judging churhes as in or out of the HCC?

b.) Three marks of the church (which are found in scripture)?

bb.) Then many local congregations of legitimate HCC denominations have unfaithful preachers of the gospel, no discipline, and quasi-sacraments. Is HCC to be determined on a local by local level?

bbb.) And how do we judge if a church really has the marks? Some think that a lack of law/gospel antithesis from the pulpit is no goespel. Is Welch’s juice a sacrament?

I’ve got more, but I don’t want to unload too much. Thanks for the previous posts on HCC. I look foward to any repsonses you might give.

I should point out a couple translation errors that never got fixed.

I said “ascension” (of Mary) rather than “assumption.” Also, Council is often erroneously given as “counsel.” Let the context determine the correct reading.

It was an interesting read. I was unaware of that development, and feel a bit abashed that I am nearly two decades behind the times.

Here’s a link that worked for me to get me directly there. Hopefully it will work for others as well.
Link

Thanks, Tim!

-Turretinfan