By Wyatt Pruitt

A Plea to the Presbyterian Church in America

INTRODUCTION

“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me” (John 17:23 KJV).

Unity in the church is based on the shared confession of faith, chiefly in the Nicene Creed. Many churches hold to the Nicene Creed yet they are separated from each other. In modern American society authority and hierarchy has become a negative word. Postmodernism, chiefly, is about the abolishment of this hierarchy. This Postmodernism stems from the Church’s failure at upholding the truth in unity and love. The Church must hold the balance between radical Puritanism, which seeks to force all third tier beliefs on everyone, and radical Pietism, which seeks unity above all else and forgets God’s truth. God instituted the office of Bishop to uphold this unity in truth and love. The church has its unity in the threefold office of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. Within the Bishop, the Church finds her unity, as the Bishop acts as the representative and the first among equals of the Presbytery to other Presbyteries. This hierarchy confronts postmodernism’s heresy head on. It is time for the presbyterian church and all other church bodies to recognize the office of Bishop as the office of unity of Christ’s church here on earth and the authority in which that office represents. 

DIVINE AND ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

& the Role of the Regulative Principle 

Divine authority and Ecclesiastical authority are the difference between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. Divine authority (Mt. 28:18-20) is the Apostolic Deposit given to us by Jesus Christ in the Old and New Testaments and the Traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) handed down from the apostles that is conformable to the Holy Scriptures. Ecclesiastical Authority is the fallible authority that applies apostolic doctrine to the current situation of the church. Divine Authority is attested to in scripture. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version). The scriptures themselves are inspired by God and provide God’s divine command. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. 

The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11).

The Law of the Lord, or Divine Law or Divine Authority is the perfect law, completely infallible, completely true and binding on all men for all time. For the law of God to be inspired it means that it is God-breathed.  “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live” (Deut. 8:3).  Every man lives by God’s word, but God’s word gives authority to certain Men to have a binding authority over all believers. 

The Scriptures give certain Men authority over the Church. This is ultimately evident in the Council of Jerusalem. 

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter…And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me…Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God… (Acts 15:4-6; 15:13; 15:19).

The Council of Jerusalem shows that the Elders of the Church have a binding Ecclesiastical authority over the Church. Other examples of these Binding ecclesiastical councils are the first four councils of the united catholic Church: Nicaea I, Ephesus, Constantinople I, Chalcedon. The reason why these councils are received by the Church is because they are in congruence with God’s word and guards the Apostolic Deposit that has been handed down. This is in congruence with what Paul commanded Bishop Timothy when he said, “…guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.” (1 Tim. 6:20-21). Not only this but the scriptures themselves have given these councils an Ecclesiastical authority. This Ecclesiastical authority was given to us by Jesus Christ but does not usurp the highest authority which is the Holy Scriptures. 

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-13). 

The General Councils were held in order to bring the church into greater unity in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, so that all may come to attain the fullness of Christ. The canons of the general councils are binding on all believers within the visible church as much as they are in agreement with the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, a “regulative” principle may be deduced. Apostolic doctrine is determined by traditions being tested by the word of God. Those traditions that are abhorrent to the Word of God are not apostolic, and those traditions which are congruent with the Word of God and believed by the church universal are Apostolic. 

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church (St Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory 2:4).

It is by the Scriptures that we test the traditions of the church. The Divine law trumps the Ecclesiastical law and it is by this principle that we can Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda (Church Reformed, Always Reforming). 

It belongeth to synods and councils , ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience… if consonant to the Word of God; are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word (Westminster Confession of Faith 31:2). 

By this we can understand how the Threefold office is the apostolic and authoritative government and sacramental structure of the church. 

SCRIPTURAL SOURCE OF THREE-FOLD OFFICE

Introduction

The contention between the Presbyterian and Episcopalian polity hinges on the debate of a two-fold or threefold office (I will argue later that the contemporary Presbyterian polity already has a threefold office). The Presbyterian adamantly insists that there are two offices in the Catholic Church: Elder and Deacon. They contend that the earliest Fathers witness to this and they cite St. Jerome saying, 

This has been said to show that with the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops: but gradually all the responsibility was deferred to a single person, that the thickets of heresies might be rooted out.  Therefore, as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who shall have been set over them, so let bishops also be aware that they are superior to presbyters more owing to custom than to any actual ordinance of the Lord. (Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:5).

It is true that in the earliest days of the church the word Bishop and Elder were equivalent terms to describe the same office. In this essay I will argue that the office of Bishop and Elder are not distinct offices, but differing degrees of authority instituted by Christ through the twelve Apostles. A Bishop is an Elder but an Elder is not a Bishop.

The Monofold Office 

To understand this we must see the scriptural narrative of the development of Ecclesiastical polity in the Church. This polity starts with Jesus Christ. In the Gospels, Jesus Christ selects twelve men to represent his divine authority on earth. Jesus does this by instituting a new priesthood. Jesus is fulfilling the Old Covenant in everything he does. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). Jesus us acting like the new Moses, dispensing his law and his New Covenant. In the Old Covenant there was the monofold ministry of Moses. As the ministry of Moses expands and the biblical narrative continues, God directs Moses to appoint officers to help him and succeed him. These officers are the High Priest, the Elders, and the Levites. A threefold office that fulfilled all of Moses’ duties. Just as Moses instituted the Old Covenant with blood, Jesus institutes the New Covenant with blood. “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words” (Exodus 24:8). This is after Moses sets up twelve pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel and institutes the Old Covenant Priesthood. But not only this, these twelve pillars represent the twelve apostles upon which Jesus Christ will build his Church. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus institutes the New Covenant saying, “…This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). At this moment Jesus is instituting the New Covenant Priesthood. He confirms this when he says, “You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 12:28-30). This is where the book of Hebrews becomes the important link between the Old Covenant and the New. The New Covenant Priesthood is not a priesthood of atoning sacrifices. The sacrifice that Jesus makes at the Lord’s Supper is not an atoning sacrifice but a thanksgiving sacrifice. It is in the order of Melchizedek that Jesus Christ makes this sacrifice. Jesus Christ ordains his Apostles into this Priesthood when he has them eat the sacrifice and he washes their feet. “After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded” (John 13:5). This is just like how Moses commands that the levitical priests be washed in Exodus 30:17-21. The priesthood of Melchizedek is not an atoning priesthood but a thanksgiving priesthood.

 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.  And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. (Genesis 14:18-20).

The elements offered in the Melchizedekian priesthood are bread and wine. We can see in Genesis that what Melchizedek is doing is thanking God for all that the LORD had done through and for Abraham. In the same way Jesus Christ institutes this sacrifice in the order of Melchizedek and ordains his Apostles in it when he institutes the Lord’s supper. “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said…” This thanksgiving (Eucharist) that Christ offered up to the Father is the new sacrifice of the New Covenant. It is thanking the Father for all that he has done through the new Man, Jesus Christ. And in terms of what the Apostle’s received by faith was the body and blood of Christ. They ate the sacrifice just as the passover sacrifice was eaten. “And they shall eat the flesh (of the lamb) in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it” (Exodus 12:8). Melchizedek’s Priesthood is to offer up sacrifices of thanksgiving, which is the worship of the New Covenant Church. The Sacrificial Law of the Old Covenant was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and has been fulfilled in the sacrifice of thanksgiving and communion in the Lord’s Table.  

For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.  For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death… -Hebrews 7:17-23

This better testament has no need for daily atoning sacrifices, but what Christ has given us is the assured hope and union with him through the sacrifice of thanksgiving on the altar of the Lord and the communing of the Body and Blood of Christ at the Lord’s table. The union of Christ and his people is mediated through the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ. 

 This authority first and foremost was given to the Apostles to distribute to the Church. This is why they were made judges over the twelve tribes of Israel. These “twelve tribes” of Israel symbolically refer to the whole catholic church. All authority in the Church flows from Christ through the prophets (the Old Testament) and Apostles. 

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).

This is the foundation of the Church that Christ instituted before he ascended to rule and intercede for us in heaven, and is the foundation to understanding the threefold ministry. At this point in the Church there is one political office of Apostle that has Divine and Ecclesiastical authority. From this Office, just like how Moses left three descendant offices, (High Priest, Elder, Levite) the Apostles will leave three descendant offices (Bishop, Elder, Deacon). 

What is an Apostle?

The term Apostle is a complicated and loaded term. The common understanding is that the Apostles are the twelve picked out by Jesus. According to the BDAG the word for Apostle when taken by itself  “…refers to persons who are dispatched for a specific purpose, and the context determines the status or function expressed in such Eng. terms as ‘ambassador, delegate, messenger’” (William Arndt) An Apostle is not just somebody handpicked by Jesus to represent his authority. But an Apostle is also somebody that has witnessed Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension and has been given overseeing and missionary authority over the Church. Evidence for this is that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:26). An Apostle is not just the twelve original. Moreover, not only are these twelve called Apostles, but Barnabas as well is later called an Apostle. “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out…”(Acts 14:14). Barnabas also is a representative at the Jerusalem council as an Apostle. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:2). This is the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Apostles. Barnabas has the ecclesiastical apostolic authority but because he is not one of the twelve he does not have the prophetic authority of the Scriptures. The twelve are the pillars of what the church is built on. Barnabas is not an Apostle counted with the twelve but he has been given an overseeing authority. 

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Epheisians 2:20)

This term Apostle used in Ephesians is not referring to Baranbas but to the Twelve Apostles. This is proven by the prophetic vision of John the Theologian. “ And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14). This shows that there is a special charism of an Apostle, but is different from the divine authority given to the Twelve and the Prophets. An Apostle is one that is sent out to oversee the Church and have ecclesiastical authority over multiple local congregations. Along with Barnabas, Timothy as well gets this special Charism of an Apostle. “So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.” Timothy is later given the qualifications for Bishops (at the time Bishop and Elder are interchangeable words). And TItus, his contemporary, is told to ordain Elders. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee…” (Titus 1:5).Therefore, Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus have this special charism of being Apostles. 

The Prism of the Apostolic Office

As Pentecost passes and the Holy Spirit has given the Apostle’s power, more and more of the elect enter the Church. This requires that the Apostles institute divinely appointed offices for the administration of word and sacrament in the Church. The first office that is seen to be instituted is the office of Deacon.  

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word…Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-4; 6:6) 

The Apostles delegated their ecclesiastical authority first to the Deacons. This was so the Apostles could focus on the ministry of word and sacrament. The Deacons would help in the distribution of the sacrament and the help of the poor and widows. 

The next office (which begins the point of contention between the Episcopalian and Presbyterian polity) is the Elder. The first instance of Elders being ordained is in Acts 14. 

Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe. And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed…. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. And there they abode long time with the disciples.

 (Acts 14:20-23; 14:27-28)

Notice that there are now multiple cities in which the disciples are managing and overseeing. They appoint elders to represent their apostolic authority to these faith communities. The Apostles then later return, after preaching the Gospel to more communities to inspect the faith of these churches. These Elders were word and sacrament ministers over these communities in which they represented the authority of the Apostles. 

The next development that can be seen is at the Jerusalem council. The Jerusalem council shows the authority that certain elders and the apostles had in ecclesiastical matters. 

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter…And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me…Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God… (Acts 15:4-6; 15:13; 15:19).

James the Less (the Elder of Jerusalem), leads this Jerusalem council and makes a decision for it in a monarchical way. This goes against the Presbyterian understanding of a purely republican system. What can be seen is more of a constitutional Oligarchy. A system of a monarch and his advisory board. A sort of hybrid republican-monarchial system is represented where in the Elders and Apostles vote but James has the final say because Jerusalem is his jurisdiction. What is now seen is that there is a threefold office in the earliest church: Apostle, Elder, and Deacon. 

Transfer of Power

At this point is where the presbyterian and the episcopalian depart. The Presbyterian says that none of the ecclesiastical authority of the Apostles survives past their death, while the episcopalian says it does. What both parties agree on is that the divine apostolic authority of the Apostles died when the Apostle John the Theologian died in the late first century. The authority to dogmatically declare doctrines required for salvation died with the Apostles. What the episcopalian contends is that the ecclesiastical authority of the Apostles continued through the laying on of hands of the Bishops. This can be seen simply in the books of Timothy and the book of Titus. What is to be looked for is not the title but the charism of a Bishop. If Timothy and Titus are both given an authority above the average Elder then this Apostolic Ecclesiastical authority has been handed down. First of all looking at Titus to see ecclesiastical authority given to an Elder of the Church.  “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee…” (Titus 1:5). Titus is given an authority in this passage to ordain elders in every city that Paul told him to. This is a passing off of the keys so to speak of the authority of an Apostle. Nowhere else in scripture do we see Elders ordaining clergy without an Apostle present. Then Timothy is also given this gift to appoint Bishops and Deacons, and later he is told to not neglect his gifts given to him in ordination (Remember that we have found that Bishop and Elder are the same title in the New Testament, but the authority and office is being passed along from the Apostles to certain elders over time). “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (1 Timothy 4:14). What is the Presbytery? This presbytery is made up of both the Apostles and Elders. Peter affirms this when he says, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed…” (1 Peter 5:1). This makes sense that if the title of Bishop and Elder are the same in the New Testament that Peter would call himself this title. But nobody would argue that Peter has an authority that is equal to any elder. Likewise, the episcopal position is that this special Ecclesiastical authority of rule was passed from the Apostles to certain elders, and the process started in the New Testament period. It is essential that churches maintain these Bishops in order to have the fullness of Apostolic authority and assurance of the validity of sacramental ministry which was given to the Apostles alone by Jesus Christ. So there is after the Apostles die the continuation of the threefold ministry: The Elders that Rule (Bishops; 1 Timothy 5:17), Elders, and Deacons. 

PATRISTIC SUPPORT FOR THREE FOLD OFFICE

If the evidence for an apostolic episcopate in a “Ruling Elder” who becomes the Bishop when the Apostles die is not enough, there is much patristic support for this. First we can look to Clement of Rome. 

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure”  (1 Clement 44, Schaff).

According to Clement, the Apostles appointed certain Elders (presbyters) to the office of Bishop (Episcopate). These Elders that rule over the Church were for the unity of the church against schism to be in the authority of the Apostles. This authority is the Ecclesiastical ruling authority that the Apostles had, not the Divine authority that they obtained. The Apostle’s divine authority died with them. Notice that Clement makes an appeal to Apostolic authority. 

The second patristic source for the proof of the ruling office of Bishop is Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius is a disciple of the Apostle John the Theologian. Ignatius argues for the Episcopate as necessary for the fullness of Apostolic authority in the Church.

 “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid” (Ignatius to the Smyrnians 8, Schaff).

The Bishops are the representative authority of Jesus Christ on earth. The smallest unit of the Catholic Church according to Ignatius (which he claims the Apostle John handed down to him) is the Bishop and the congregation under him. Ignatius is also careful to make a distinction between the Presbytery and the Episcopate. If we are to unite this view with Clement’s view and the scriptural argument we can conclude that the Bishops are Elders that have been elevated to the Ecclesiastical authority of an Apostle over his brother elders. 

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ…but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 6, Schaff).

The Apostles elevated a certain Elder to be over the presbytery to represent God’s authority on earth. This is not to say that the Bishops can override the Apostolic Deposit of the scriptures, that is Divine Authority, but in the same way that the Kings of the Old Covenant were given authority on earth to represent God, the Bishops were given an ecclesiastical authority to represent God to their flock. These Bishops will be judged more harshly than any other officer of the Church (Matthew 24:45). In his letter to the Trailians, Ignatius asserts that there is no Church without the three-fold ministry. “In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church” (Schaff). The Bishop is an essential aspect of the fullness of the Church. 

REFORMED SUPPORT FOR THE THREEFOLD OFFICE

One must remember that archaeological discoveries have revealed much more patristic evidence for not just how the early church functioned but also has confirmed the contents of the scriptures than what the reformers had. Current scholarship has much more access to patristic sources then the forefathers of the reformation. That being said many reformers were not against the threefold office and the chiefest being John Knox. In book four of his Church History John Knox claims the church had been purified by the word of God. “And yet in how great purity God did establish amongst us His true religion, as well in doctrine as in ceremonies!” (Knox). Then John Knox speaks of the Superintendents as part of the church (Superintendent being the translation of Bishop into English instead of using the transliteration: Bishop). “There were nominated as superintendents Master John Spottiswood for Lothian….” (Knox). And there were many more instances of his praise of the Superintendents in his book. Along with this the First Book of Discipline, written by John Knox and the other “Johns” includes the Superintendents over the Presbyteries. “Every inferior church shall by one of their seniors and one of their deacons, once in the year, notify unto the ministry of the superintendent’s church, the life, manners, study, and diligence of their ministers, to the end that the discretion of some may correct the lenity of others” (First Book of Discipline). These Superintendents were the heads of Presbytery and filled the functional equivalent of a Bishop over a diocese but had a checked power of the Republican Presbyterian system. 

Secondly, the Reformed Church of England adamantly maintains that the Episcopal structure is from the scriptures.

 The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly (Thirty Nine Articles of Religion)

The 39 Articles of Religion are not a political settlement between the reformed and Roman church but is its own unique theological system that was influenced by the continental reformers. This theological system uniquely recognized that the office of the Bishop is not superstitious or based in the traditions of men but is from its interpretation of the scriptures. The Ordinal of the Church of England says, “It  is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons” (The Ordinal). This realization that the divine office of the episcopacy is from the scriptures was not at first admitted by the continental reformed, but the threefold distinction was recognized by John Calvin in his institutes and later in his life he requested that the episcopacy be reinstated in Geneva with the help of the reformed Church of England. 

John Calvin argues at first for the traditional Presbyterian understanding that there is a threefold office of Presbyters (Teaching/Ruling) and deacons. “As we have stated that three classes of ministers are set before us in Scripture, so the early Church distributed all its ministers into three orders. For from the order of presbyters, part were selected as pastors and teachers, while to the remainder was committed the censure of manners and discipline. To the deacons belonged the care of the poor and the dispensing of alms.” (Institutes 4.4.1) But Calvin himself was not against the separate charism of the Bishop (as a superintendent over the presbytery).

 All, therefore, to whom the office of teaching was committed, they called presbyters, and in each city these presbyters selected one of their number to whom they gave the special title of bishop, lest, as usually happens, from equality dissension should arise. The bishop, however, was not so superior in honour and dignity as to have dominion over his colleagues, but as it belongs to a president in an assembly to bring matters before them, collect their opinions, take precedence of others in consulting, advising, exhorting, guide the whole procedure by his authority, and execute what is decreed by common consent, a bishop held the same office in a meeting of presbyters. (Calvin, Institutes 4.4.2)

Though Calvin does not argue for a ruling Bishop as part of the Divine law he does recognize it as necessary for the unity of the Church. He recognizes that the Bishop, as the one who presides, has at least the right by tradition to ordain Presbyters. “But though they all did the same act, yet because the bishop presided, and the ordination was performed as it were under his auspices, it was said to be his. Hence ancient writers often say that a presbyter does not differ in any respect from a bishop except in not having the power of ordaining.” (Calvin, Institutes 4.4.15). As can be seen the original Reformed position is not against an Elder being given the charism of a Bishop that rules over the presbytery. In fact there is a scriptural argument, patristic argument, and a reformed argument for Bishops not only being an optional office but as necessary to the fullness of the Church. 

Later in John Calvin’s life he wrote a letter in which he said, 

Let them then show us a hierarchy in which the bishops are distinguished, but not for refusing to be subject to Christ, in which they depend upon him as the only head, and act solely with reference to him, in which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with each other, bound together by no other tie than his truth; then, indeed, I will confess that there is no anathema too strong for those who do not regard them with reverence, and yield them the fullest obedience. -Calvin, Necessity of Reforming the Church 107

Calvin’s denial of the episcopacy in Geneva is not in rebellion to the three-fold order of divine right, but it is a radical repenting of the sins of Rome in order to stop the corruption of the Bishops of the time. The modern presbyterian system was never to be a permanent solution but a bandaid to the problems of the corruption of Rome so that later good Bishops could later be reinstated. According to Archbishop Parker of Canterbury a letter was sent from John Calvin to Queen Elizabeth requesting Bishops but it was never seen by King Edward VI or Queen Elizabeth I. 

Perusing some papers of our predecessor Matthew Parker, we find that John Calvin, and others of the Protestant churches of Germany and elsewhere, would have had episcopacy, if permitted : but could not upon several accounts, partly fearing the other princes of the Roman Catholic faith would have joined with the Emperor and the rest of the Popish Bishops, to have depressed the same; partly being newly reformed, and not settled, they had not sufficient wealth to support episcopacy, by reason of their daily persecutions. Another, and a main cause was, they would not have any Popish hands laid over their Clergy. And whereas John Calvin had sent a letter in King Edward the VIth’s reign, to have conferred with the Clergy of England about some things to this effect, two Bishops, viz. Gardiner and Boner, intercepted the same: whereby Mr. Calvin’s offerture perished. And he received an answer, as if it had been from the reformed Divines of those times; wherein they checked him, and slighted his proposals: from which time John Calvin and the Church of England were at variance in several points; which otherwise through God’s mercy had been qualified, if those papers of his proposals had been discovered unto the Queen’s Majesty during John Calvin’s life. But being not discovered until or about the sixth year of her Majesty’s reign, her Majesty much lamented they were not found sooner: which she expressed before her Council at the same time, in the presence of her great friends, Sir Henry Sidney, and Sir William Cecil. -John Strype, The life and acts of Matthew Parker 70

The Continental and Scottish faith are not only congruent with the Episcopacy, but the fullness of the Reformed Catholic faith requires Episcopacy. John Knox had it and John Calvin wanted it. The Church of England never got rid of it. This Episcopacy is required for the unity of the reformed catholic faith. As said before, St Clement of Rome said, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate” (1 Clement 44, Schaff). This has been true even through the reformation. As can be seen it wasn’t rejected by any of the pillars of the Reformed faith. The presbyterian church must restore the office of the episcopate of the catholic church.  

SCRIPTURAL ROLE OF ELDERS & RULING ELDERS (BISHOPS)

All Elders have the same function. Each has the authority over the Mysteries of God (Word & Sacraments) and the discipline of the Church. The common Presbyterian view is to split the presbyterate into two roles. Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders. Ruling Elders deal with Ecclesiastical Discipline and Teaching Elders have authority over the Mysteries of God and Ecclesiastical discipline. The Presbyterian Church claims that this does not split the office. “Elders being of one class of office, ruling elders possess the same authority and eligibility to  office in the courts of the Church as teaching elders. They should, moreover, cultivate zealously their own aptness to teach the Bible and should improve every opportunity of doing so” (BCO). But in function the different elders differ in the charisms they possess. The Ruling Elders do not have the power to consecrate the elements at the Lord’s Table. This functionally creates two different offices in which the people of God see the Teaching Elders as the true shepherds of the Church and the Ruling Elders are of a lesser degree. The Presbyterian argument for this split is the verse, “ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17). From the Presbyterian perspective all Elders labor in word and doctrine, but this verse does not speak to the authority of certain elders over the sacraments. Also when it is said, “the elders that rule well” does not denote Elders that only rule and elders that rule and have a ministry in the word but it denotes that some Elders are better at ruling than others. Another possibility for this verse is that the elders that rule are referring to Apostles and later Bishops. Peter describes himself as an elder. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder” (1 Peter 5:1) But he is also an Elder that rules. He writes the books of Peter as ecclesiastical books exporting the laity to submit to the Elders of the church among other things. If this interpretation is true it gives credence to the interpretation that the distinction of Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders is not at the congregational level but is at the Presbytery/Diocesional level. This distinction is not a difference of charism over the ministry of word and sacrament and congregational discipline but it is a level of authority above the presbytery managing multiple churches in a city or a geographical area. 

Starting with the Bishop (Ruling Elder/Superintendent), what is his scriptural authority? If the interpretation that the Bishop is an extension of the Apostle’s ecclesiastical authority is true then his responsibilities become clear. He is to represent his presbytery at the general council (Acts 15). He is to appoint elders in every city in which he has authority (Titus 1:5), he is to confirm those who have been Baptized in the faith by hearing their confession and the laying on of hands. (Acts 19:6). He has chief authority over the word and sacrament ministry in his presbytery (1 Corinthians 4:1) And finally authority over the missional work of his presbytery (Matthew 28:19-20). This authority is in the stead and representation of Jesus Christ as an Angel (messenger/defender over his church). If this interpretation is followed the Angels of the Churches in Revelation are the Bishops over the churches of that particular area (for example the Angel of Philadelphia is the Bishop of the presbytery of Philadelphia). 

The Elders being ordained by the Apostles and later the Bishops have authority over the Mysteries of God in their local church and ecclesiastical discipline. All of the authority of the Bishop is given to the Elder but at the local level. 

SCRIPTURAL ROLE OF DEACON

The Deacons are the third ordained office of the Christian Church. The chief scriptural verses that show the Deacons’ role the best is in the book of Acts chapter six. In this chapter, the Apostles’ were over burdened with the physical needs of the church. “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables” (Acts 6:2). The Archdeacon of this group was Stephen. Stephen sets the precedent for the role of what a deacon shall do other than meeting the congregation’s physical needs. Stephen goes to the synagogues and preaches with authority to the Jews (Acts 6:8-10). Consequently, part of the Deacons’ role is local evangelism. Within this evangelism Stephen speaks with power a sermon. Deacons have an authority to teach in the church of God. Hence, the role of Deacons’ is to meet the physical needs of the congregation (distributing communion, distributing monetary funds, managing the church; Acts 6:2). The second is teaching and evangelization of outsiders (Catechism & Teaching; Acts 6:8-10). This office is in service to the Bishops and by extension the Elders/Presbyters and the Congregation. The scriptures themselves say very little on the role of deacons but it is clear that they are a distinct office with their own role. 

THE APPEAL TO THE PCA: BECOMING REFORMED-CATHOLIC

Radical Presbyterian Puritans to Reformed Catholicism

Currently Presbyterianism does not recognize the office of Bishop and specifically the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has embraced a radically puritan view of the faith, has mostly rejected her catholicity, and has let particular and general baptists infiltrate her institutions. This is not something that the magisterial reformers would have stood for. The Revival of the Reformed Catholic faith is necessary for the fullness and unity of the faith of Christ’s Church. The chief change is the reinstitution of the office of Bishop over the presbytery (among a few other reversions and additions that will be talked about hereafter). 

Amend the BCO

The Book of Church Order (BCO) of the Presbyterian Church in America can be easily amended to accommodate catholic faith and practice. This comes through acknowledging, adopting, and adapting creeds and confessions that are already in existence. There are three issues that must be chiefly addressed. The first is the distinction of the Ruling and Teaching Elder. This distinction makes the office of Deacon redundant which is why the BCO acknowledges that the Ruling Elders can take on the Deacons duties if the session is unable to ordain them.  “In a church in which it is impossible for any reason to secure deacons, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders” (BCO 9.2). The solution to this problem is to make all Elders “Teaching Elders/Pastors” and give the responsibility of church discipline. Then give to the Deacons the catechesis, monetary and communion distribution functions of the current “Ruling Elders.” This restores the classic and scriptural two-fold order of the local church. Current education qualifications for teaching elders are too high. Currently all teaching elders in the PCA are in normal circumstances required to have a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree or an approved certificate to be considered for ordination as a teaching elder. “An intern applying for ordination shall be required to present a diploma of Bachelor or Master from some approved college…” (BCO 21.4a). These qualifications are not the scriptures qualifications for becoming an Elder in the Church of God. What the Bible requires is that a Man is  “apt to teach;” (1 Timothy 3:2). Requiring a degree bars many men who are of godly character, humble conscience, cunning in wisdom, and vast in knowledge from serving as elders in the church of God on account of a lack of finance or on account of their youth. “ Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12). In order for enough Elders to be ordained in the church of God a degree should not be required but only the passing of the trials for ordination. The second change to make ordination permanent. When the laying on of hands is done and a man is consecrated to any of the three offices his ordination is permanent. Just as when a person is baptized, if they fall away and come back they are not baptized again, a person who is ordained is always ordained. There is a clear distinction between the charism of a Pastor and the posting of a pastor. Timothy, had hands already laid on him by the presbytery before he was posted by Paul to the Churches he was appointed. If an Elder retires still has the charisma (authority and power) of an Elder, but he is not called to be posted to the particular church he had been serving any longer. This retired Elder could be called upon to serve again at a different parish without being ordained again. The third change would be the ordination of Bishops over the presbytery. This position would be permanent unless that Bishop would be excommunicated or retired. The church of God is never isolated. The smallest unit of the church is the Bishop and his congregations served by his Elders. The Bishop would have the right to preside over the ordinations of all of his Elders and to participate in the ordination of other Bishops. Every Bishop should be ordained by at least three other Bishops. The Bishops should be chosen by the Elders. Notice that the Elders are still called by the congregations and the congregations have a right to accept or reject the posting of Elders. These three changes bring the Church government of the PCA in line with the biblical and catholic faith. 

Eucharistic Communities

The church of God is a people that surround and consume the Body and Blood of Christ. There is only one explicit commandment or ordinance our Lord gives concerning corporate worship of God and that is during the Last supper. He commands us that we are to come together and “…do in remembrance of me (Jesus)” (Luke 22:19). The church is also given a vision of what worship looks like in heaven.  “And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth” (Revelation 5:6). At the center of the church in heaven is the body and blood of Christ shed for us; the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The church is promised that at every altar around the world the Holy Spirit spiritually connects us with this Altar, and the people of God are given access to the true Body and Blood of Christ to eat and drink. The author of Hebrews also exhorts us to come to the Altars of the churches with our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving and commune with the body and blood of the Lord. “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle…By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” The English Standard Version translates “communicate forget not” to “share what you have.” The word here that is used is “κοινωνίας” this is the same word that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 10 when he says in the ESV, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” This verse means that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly taken and eaten in the sacrament of the Lord’s table. The KJV translates “κοινωνίας” to communion. In the context of the Altar in Hebrews 13 it makes sense that the author is referring to both communing with the body and blood of Christ and the giving of alms. These verses then, are all commandments for the church of God to surround an Altar or table that connects us by the Holy Spirit to the bread of heaven; the body of Christ; and the cup of salvation; the blood of Christ. This means that the church of God is chiefly a Eucharistic community. A body of believers that thank the Father by communing with His son’s flesh and blood.  This is why the early church’s only two liturgical acts were communion and the prayers. “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). The Presbyterian Church in America must have a Eucharistic Revival in order to come into the fullness of its Reformed Catholic faith. 

Reformed Catholic Faith

The PCA must revive her Reformed Catholic faith and practice. The Reformed Catholic faith is the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). To understand this faith we must understand what the two words “Catholic” and “Reformed” mean. The word Catholic is commonly referred to as meaning “universal.” This is slightly misleading. The word catholic comes from the greek word “καθόλου” which means “on the whole.” When the word made it into Latin the word meant “universally accepted.” The term catholic means to be of the faith that is universally accepted by the whole church. The word Reformed means originally to be conformed to the word of God. This is where the phrase “the church Reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God” comes from. Therefore, the meaning of the term Reformed Catholic Faith means: the faith agreed upon by the whole church brought into conformity with the Word of God. This faith does not reject the traditions of the Church or her authority but rather checks the churches power by God’s divine authority. The PCA must bring back this attitude and central belief by rejecting the Radical Revolution of the Baptists which the PCA’s tradition rejects and an acceptance of the Catholic Faith conformed to the word of God. 

Scots Confession & other Reformed Confessions

This means not only adhering to the Westminster Confession those creeds of the Catholic Faith. The PCA must adopt the Apostle’s creed as the baptismal formula, the Nicene Creed as the catholic confession of faith, and the Athanasian Creed as the clarification of the trinitarian formula and catholic faith. The Church must hold to the general councils of the early church, and she must revive her roots in the reformation. This means adopting the only purely Presbyterian confession, the Scots Confession. This confession would clarify the Presbyterian position on the sacraments and be truly presbyterian. The Westminster Confession is a wonderful document but it is Puritan and does not reflect the reformation. Other documents such as the Augsburg (modified or unmodified) Confession, the Helvetic Confessions, the Three Forms of Unity, and the 39 Articles should be considered. Not one single confession is perfect, but together they show the Reformation tradition and practice to its fullest extent. 

Conclusion

Jesus Christ instituted a threefold ministry through his Apostles. In our postmodern society, which rejects hierarchy, the episcopate is a strong, divinely inspired tool to combat the sins and schism of our world. Though this is hard to see in a world zoomed in on historical and textual criticism. If a covenantal approach is used, it is very clear. The Presbyterian Church in America needs to adopt the office of Bishop and subsequently the Catholic faith if she is to be scriptural and part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, that Jesus Christ himself instituted.

WORKS CITED

2023 BCO PCA, http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-BCO-PCA.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2024.

“Ante-Nicene Fathers.” Translated by Philip Schaff, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01/anf01.i.html. Accessed 17 July 2024.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge, Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

“The First Book of Discipline.” Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 12 July 2014, http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/important-documents/the-first-book-of-discipline-1560/.

Jerome. St. Jerome’s Commentary on Titus.

King James Version (KJV), http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/King-James-Version-KJV-Bible/. Accessed 17 July 2024.

Knox, John. Edited by Cuthbert Lennox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland , http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48250/48250-h/48250-h.htm. Accessed 6 July 2024.

Lerins, Vincent. “Commonitory.” CHURCH FATHERS, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm. Accessed 17 July 2024.

“The Ordinal.” Eskimo, http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/ordinal/index.html. Accessed 17 July 2024.

Strype, John. “The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker .” Internet Archive, 1 Jan. 1698, https://ia600505.us.archive.org/22/items/bim_eighteenth-century_the-life-and-acts-of-mat_strype-john_1711/bim_eighteenth-century_the-life-and-acts-of-mat_strype-john_1711.pdf

Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/109014/Thirty-Nine-Articles-of-Religion.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2024.

“The Westminster Standards.” Reformed Theology at A Puritan’s Mind, http://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/. Accessed 17 July 2024. 

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 122.