Why Presbyterians and Lutherans need a Bishop to be Biblical and Apostolic. (Historic Episcopacy)

Working through Ch. 14 of the Lord's Service and the Ecclesiology of Ministers. As Anglicans, we disagree with Meyer's presbyterian form of government.
Notes:
CAPTAINS AND COURTS (A BIBLICAL DEFENSE OF EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT) by the Rev. Dr. Ray R. Sutton
www.stevemacia...
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Ch.8:
"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."
John Calvin's (erroneous) rejection of Ignatius:
"With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration." (Institutes, Book I, Chapter 13, Section 29)
Lightfoot's presbyterian position that Overseer/Bishop is the same as the Presbyter/Elder is from "Essay on the Christian Ministry” “It has been shown that in the apostolic writings the two are only different designations of one and the same office.” (pg. 192)

[@sharoncherian5408]

Very interesting! I've never heard a discussion quite like this and it's well worth pondering, especially how the Biblical model is top-down. Also, great line about staying silent in the church. Looking forward to more of these videos.

[@budicaesar1213]

Presbyterians and Lutherans have bishops... They just don't want to call them bishops, instead they call them session/district leaders.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

Was just about to write this! Synod Moderator is the term and they are recognized as “presiding” over the assembly/synod/presbytery and are a “first among equals” similarly to how the archbishop is described in the orthodox church. And then throughout the rest of their term limit they are called upon to represent the decisions of the assembly at different churches and even at times to other denominations. There are differences for sure, but those differences seem peripheral, not principled.

[@AnglicanCuriosity]

@@toughbiblepassages9082 The problem is the denial of three offices while contradicting themselves.

[@feastofsteven]

Still watching, thanks for posting! I think it's important to clarify that Lightfoot wasn't a Presbyterian scholar, but rather an Anglican Bishop himself. His scholarship is heavily used by Presbyterians, but he didn't intend to supply them with ammunition.

[@FrSteveMacias]

Yes, certainly a noteworthy clarification - puritan, presbyterian, sabbatarians, episcopalian, royalist, and later the methodist, etc were party labels within the C of England and the C of Scotland. Not a "presbyterian" in the way we moderns use the term as a denominational label.

[@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790]

My denomination has heritage in the Christian and Missionary Alliance and Methodist Church, in Chile, and have understood by divine revelation that the historical episcopal model is the more biblical form of government. Even when we don´t have an episcopal succession to Anglican or catholic we have followed the exception of the church of Alexandria, armenia, celtic church and some others who appointed bishops and ordained them by the presbytery. We would really like to have an episcopal succession, especially from Anglican but the problem is that in our area there´s not any Anglican bishop, and also some we have asked wouldn´t be willing to come here or receive us in a close country.

[@yanalbertoagudelo9687]

That's an interesting situation, what's the name of your denomination?

[@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790]

​@@yanalbertoagudelo9687 Church of Jesus Christ Son of the living God would be maybe a proper translation to the name in Spanish, it's a church really Methodist in his heritage, we have traditions that are even not practiced in modern Methodism, like camp preaching, riding preachers (not on horse but on bike), old hymn prayer, celebrating christian feasts especially Methodist ones like covenant renewal service (at new year) agape feast, and even reformation day, believing in baptismal regeneration, and a really high view on tradition following the Wesleyan quadrilateral (scripture, tradition, experience, and reason), importance on Lord's supper as a sacrament and for forgiving of sins, etc. And of course episcopacy, we understand what Wesley did about ordaining a bishop in an exclusive opportunity, but as him we believe bishops should ordain ministers. P.s. we also reject modern teachings like prosperity gospel, sacraments as merely symbolic, anti-trinitarians, anti tradition, etc.

[@hexahexametermeter]

And if one Bishop goes liberal....the whole Diocese goes with it...in spite of all the people in the congregation, as with what happened in ECUSA and UMC. What a disastrous polity.

[@gunsgalore7571]

Catholic here. I do think there is a growing interest for high-church Protestantism with apostolic succession. A lot of Evangelicals/Baptists/etc. are becoming convinced (often through Catholic apologetics) that the way they do church is not biblical, but they're not necessarily willing to totally swim the Tiber and become Catholic or Orthodox, either due to specific objections to either of these churches or, as is often the case in Catholicism, simply due to not liking the idea of being under the Pope. I do have a question, though. How does a Lutheran or Presbyterian or Methodist church get apostolic succession? Many of these churches (especially in America) have operated under a system with no distinction between presbyter and bishop for hundreds of years. Any apostolic succession they may have had to begin with is certainly lost, and neither Catholics nor Orthodox are likely to help ordain an "Apostolic Lutheran" bishop so that a Protestant church can have apostolic succession. Would you then go to Anglicans, I suppose? What do you think of the claims that Anglicans actually lost apostolic succession at some point during the 1600s? I'm just trying to understand how a non-apostolic Protestant church goes about becoming apostolic.

[@FrSteveMacias]

There have been several different kinds of attempts, the Anglican have even united their orders with the Old Catholics (this Dutch Touch was after Apostolicae Curae) and some protestants like Lutherans have national bodies that maintained a historic Episcopal succession like the Swedish Lutherans. Back in the 1980s, the Evangelical Lutheran Church went through a process with the Episcopal Church (American Anglicans) to restore a sense of Apostolic Succession in "Called to Common Mission." They required the ELCA to have a Bishop in historic succession lay-hands at all their ordinations. There is also the example of the "United Churches" like Church of South India & Church of North India that brought many protestant denominations (Anglican, Methodist, Reformed) together under an Episcopal Polity. Both of these groups are also in communion with the Old Catholics, which is interesting to consider, but as you may imagine there are other issues in modern protestantism such as female orders, gay clergy, doctrinal differences, that may make their "Apostolic Sucession" insufficient for reunion with the Apostolic Churches themselves.

[@gunsgalore7571]

@@FrSteveMacias Indeed - more liberal churches doing their versions of apostolic succession will probably not get the overall apostolic gap between the traditional apostolic churches and Protestant apostolic churches bridged. My grandfather was an Episcopal priest and left in the 1970s to become Catholic. He wound up being one of the few married Catholic priests, as he was already married during his conversion and St. Pope John Paul II allowed him and many other disgruntled Episcopal priests to become Catholic priests. His opinion on those matters was that while the Catholic Church does not recognize the Apostolic Succession of most pre-1970s Anglican clergy, it is fairly simple to re-ordain an Anglican priest into communion with Rome (as was done to him) because the doctrine and practice of apostolic succession between the two was very similar. However, he said that post-1970s Episcopalian apostolic succession would never fly in in Catholicism, with the female and even gay clergy as well as a much lower-church understanding of the practice. I suspect that the same could likely be said of some of the other mainline churches. Nevertheless, while these discussions are not going to bring about reunion tomorrow (or next century) due to the many other differences in the Catholic-Protestant divide, they are critical in getting the ball rolling. God bless you and your work.

[@DeFyYing]

As much as I deplore how American Lutheranism has neglected the historic episcopate unlike the Lutheran Nordic state churches and appreciate our Anglican brothers and sisters, I just find the doctrinal variety to be too steep. I do appreciate the efforts and product of the Elizabethan Settlement, but now the tent is so wide where it's hard to define what Anglicanism is when Tridentine Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, Wesleyan Arminians, even charismatics are all considered Anglican. So with this impasse between these two traditions, I personally went with doctrinal consistency over polity. The ELCA has received apostolic succession from the Episcopalians, but I feel as though it doesn't mean very much when our bishops are essentially just pastors in leadership positions, and we only recently developed an ordained diaconate instead of by laity. Edit: grammar, sorry I was typing on my phone lol

[@FrSteveMacias]

Here's my off the cuff thinking on this... You, as we all do, are picking a few doctrinal issues to be "consistent" about or choosing a few issues to be your key distinctives. Ecclesiology is also a doctrinal distinctive. Although it is one that many Protestants seems to think as less important than the intramural squabbles over soteriological buzzwords. This is not wrong it iself, but as an Anglican I would rather place my distinctives in the safety of the historic episcopate with a longer view of history - one that trusts in the persuasiveness of the Holy Spirit through his Living Church. But there is a human weakness is trusting the boundaries of the Nicene Creed to be sufficient. Even as you point to the ELCA, we often point to recent history and notions of pragmaticism to guide our way forward. That is not to say that I am not bothered by the diversity within the current state of Anglicanism, but that I believe the solution is found in a return to the undivided church rather than some arrogant hope in my own pet issues. My push toward the historic episcopate around Nicene Orthodoxy is based on my trust that Jesus will work out the wrinkles in his time.

[@joefrescoln]

Many Anglicans probably find Lutheran doctrinal particularities too steep. Yet appreciate current communal unity with Christians, who may think differently, while the particularities are worked out in time.

[@DeFyYing]

@@FrSteveMacias Thank you, I definitely see what u mean in that there is a safety in the essentials in the Creeds and with going and expecting anything beyond that is mostly speculation by different hermeneutics. I rlly don't understand why many Protestant denominations either reject or disregard the historic episcopate and the three-fold order, even if they don't believe it to be necessary there's just no reason to not have it (although I suspect many Evangelicals reject it for being "too Papist). So in this sense I suppose polity would be another safety, then, along with ensuring the affirmation of the Real Presence universally but without requiring going any further (whether some view it as bodily, spiritual, transubstantiation, etc). Although one of my concerns is for many doctrinal practices that may be too out of line. Things like invocation of the saints, purgatory, even rejection of Sola Fide from many Anglo-Catholics. And while I appreciate many things to have come from the Oxford movement, some of it just sees too far for me, personally, although I'd imagine many Anglicans would agree as far as historical Anglican beliefs are concerned. And I wonder if these kinds of doctrinal differences that go this far would likewise be "unsafe" in going so far as to reframe the entirety of the Gospel in such a way as to be "unsafe" in the sense used earlier. Not that I believe any of these are a barrier to Salvation, but still significant enough to be possibly being problematic. So with all of this I suppose there's a lot of pros and cons of a confessional vs creedal approach. Either way, I hope I didn't seem to be dismissive earlier, especially as you guys are undoubtedly our closest friend among other traditions.

[@FrSteveMacias]

@@DeFyYing Great thoughts. Appreciate you sharing!

[@ericcarlson9885]

@FrSteveMacias. Exactly what type of “safety” is to be found within the “historic episcopate”? The TEC, the Anglican Communion outside of GAFCON, the Swedish Lutherans, the ELCA: is there really a demonstrable “safety” within the walls of any of these monstrosities? Even within the ACNA, even within GAFCON, there are huge problems with postmodernism and the doctrinal chaos of Charismaticism and the acceptance of women’s ordination. But, according to you, all we have to do is wait it out and let Jesus “iron out the wrinkles.” I’m sorry, but THAT sounds kind of arrogant to me. Whatever happened to this verse? Has it been excised from Scripture? “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” Come out from among them! This was the advice that Martyn Lloyd-Jones had for J. I. Packer and John Stott many long decades ago. Eventually, Packer had no choice but to listen. I’m not so sure there ever was an “Undivided Church.” I would much rather work toward an “Unpolluted Church” so that we have something of eternal value to unify around.

[@bridgerbond]

which book are you using?

[@abbottdietrich]

Does the REC have any plans or ways in specific situations to build orthodoxy and improve biblical literacy across the ACNA

[@FrSteveMacias]

The REC operates three seminaries - Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Cranmer Theological House, and Cummins Theological Seminary that are sending graduates to REC and ACNA parishes throughout the country. Also exciting the REC100 initatiave check it out at www.rec100.org/

[@no-page]

I appreciate your clear argument, but there is a key point that I did not understand. I do understand that the apostles wrote letters to churches and visited occasionally, providing insight, and guidance as well as correcting error. I could accept calling them bishops, but I don't recall any apostle assigning a successor to rule over a church let alone an entire city. Could you cite an example of that in the Bible?

[@FrSteveMacias]

I'm out and about, but here are a few Bible references I could copy and paste: Acts 14:21-23 KJV 21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22 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. 23 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. Titus 1:5-7 KJV 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: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre Philippians 1:1-3 KJV 1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: 2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

[@no-page]

​@@FrSteveMacias Thank you for your kind reply. I will study those references carefully.

[@sametsahin5024]

Two follow-up questions on Acts 14 specifically: 1) What is the reason to think that the elders ordained by Timothy could not ordain other elders? Why shouldn't we think that Timothy was also an elder who ordained elders (given that Peter himself considers himself to be a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1)? 2) When they had ordained them elders in every church, what was really happening in each of those groups of believers who are called "church" here: Were they each already a church before or after the ordination of elders? Thank you.

[@laurelin3422]

The bishop has authority in spiritual matters, correct? Say, you find out, your local bishop or priest or any one is a pedophile or abuser what can a lay person do in that situation. Can a normal person speak up against someone who’s doing evil in the office of the priesthood? I mean, I think I agree with you that the Episcopal structure is correct but I am worried about the potential of abuse such a system. I’m asking as someone who is considering joining a ACC church.

[@FrSteveMacias]

While the Bishop-based (Episcopal) structure emphasizes hierarchical authority, it also upholds the principle of accountability. If a layperson discovers that a bishop, priest, or any lay church leader is involved in immoral or illegal activities, such as pedophilia or abuse, it is both a moral and legal obligation to speak up. In my branch of the Anglican Church, the Reformed Episcopal Church provides avenues for addressing such situations: Link: static1.squarespace.com/static/5665ac3ce4b07298bc144cf6/t/5d76ac3d5dcaf05002a8591c/1568058432553/DMA+Child+and+Youth+Protection+Policy+2019+v2.3.pdf I am not familiar with the process in the ACC and couldn't find it on their website. Being vigilant and proactive in such situations is crucial for the health and integrity of any church community.

[@LDMIEN]

-Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:7 The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.

[@FrSteveMacias]

Jerome is a post-Nicene father, answering the question of whether deacons are equal to presbyters - but here's the answer in our context: Jerome also tells us that the power of ordination can only belong to the bishop. Therefore Jerome thinks that in his present age, a bishop and a presbyter are not identical. The question that then needs to be addressed is “when and by whom did this change come about?” Apparently, Jerome identifies the source of the change with the Apostles. For he thinks that the present, fixed character of the tri-fold ministry (where bishops have a power that presbyters don’t-ordination, as he stated earlier in the letter) is “handed down by the Apostles”.

[@LDMIEN]

Thanks for the response, I enjoy hearing your views Keep up the good work. God bless you

[@davidsprouse151]

Certain personality types get pleasure (entertainment) from eristic solipsisms. Teach people how to read instead of telling them what things mean.😢

[@jefferymartenson2633]

But Luther rejected apostolic succession did he not? Why the need for bishops if this is the case.

[@FrSteveMacias]

I allow that each state ought to have one bishop of its own by divine right; which I show from Paul, saying for this cause left I thee in Crete.'" Martin Luther. "By what right or law may we dissolve the ecclesiastical polity, if the bishops will grant to us, that which in reason they ought to grant? And if it were lawful for us to do so, yet surely it were not expedient. Luther was ever of this opinion." Philip Melanchthon