A Rejection of My Ordination

A Puritans Mind ^ | 22Jan2005 | Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

[thePilgrim]

I affirm the Presbyterian form of church government believing that system to be demonstrated in the Scriptures, both by the foundational Old Testament ideas held therein, the accounts of the Gospels, the early church in Acts, as well as the epistles. I reject all forms of Independency as schismatic, and as dissenting from Christ’s Church. This does not mean that I believe all Christians who are part of a Baptist congregation or Independent congregation are not saved, or heretical, or totally apostate. Rather, it does mean that I believe them to be in grave error as to church government, rejecting the lawful authority of Christ and His governmental rule over His Church. This brings specific consequences upon the lawful ordination of men in those churches, in opposition to the Presbyterian ordination seen as exercised in the Scriptures. With that said, I reject my own Baptist ordination as invalid, and unlawful, and repent of having committed sin before God as previously exercising the rights and privileges of an ordained minister when I was not lawfully ordained, though I thought so at the time.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***ordaination to elder is valid no matter what the spiritual state of the ordaining elder.***

An ordination is valid only if God has truly called a man to it. IMHO an elder has no magical power to confer a calling on a person if that person is not called of God.

I know the PCA will not let a man preach in their church unless he is an ordained minister of the PCA. This legalistic rule completely disregards the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in his ability to choose men outside the "system". Something He has chose to do many times down through the ages.

I find it amazing that a Church could establish a rule for preaching that would exclude the very Apostles themselves (being that none of them are ordained in the PCA).


***Do you regard an openly gay elder as a valid elder ***

Would Paul?

Wouldn't living in open rebellion to the will of God automatically disqualify someone from holding a Church office?


***do you regard his ordinations as valid? ***

Again, man confers nothing on man that God has not already given.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Is this a trick question? ***

No tricks - and no offense meant. Please don't take my questions as argumentative in nature.


***"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him...." ***

Granted. And He uses His chosen vessels to do so. So if He used Wesley to bring many tens of thousands of souls to Himself (which He most assuredly did) then we may be assured that God was not so displeased with Wesley's theology as to disqualify him from service. History shows he was a vessel fit for the Master's use.


***Besides, you can't gloss over the wicked things a man does in his life ***

Wicked things??? Wesley was a model of holiness with regards to his lifestyle. I think his personal standard of holiness would sober both of us.

[thePilgrim]

***Wouldn't living in open rebellion to the will of God automatically disqualify someone from holding a Church office?***

I agree, hence my question: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" So, how can anyone hang their hat on a succession of elders through the laying on of men's hands unless you can also spiritually discern the state of the ordaining elder?

So, if the early Protestants who were ordained by Catholics regarded the Catholics themselves as apostate, then how can those apostate men bring a clean thing out of the unclean? If the Catholics weren't unclean, then what right did the Reformers have to break with Rome?

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[xzins]

lawful succession....as xzins did with me

Where did I do that?

[thePilgrim]

***History shows he was a vessel fit for the Master's use.***

I didn't dispute that.

***Wicked things??? Wesley was a model of holiness with regards to his lifestyle.***

Wesley did some regrettable things and treated some of his brethren in a way that I'm certain he has long since apologized to them for his treatment of them.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[thePilgrim]

***Where did I do that?***

Well, I thought that is what you meant when you said this: "McMahon does regard us." But, if that is wrong, then you can simply clear this up for me. Seeing that I have observed on this forum that you are a UMC pastor, does not the UMC claim to have an apostolic succession and does your denomination practice the laying on of hand in the ordaination of your elders (pastors, Bishops, etc)?

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** So, how can anyone hang their hat on a succession of elders ***

Help me understand why someone would want to "hang their hat on a succession of elders"?

Wouldn't that be somewhat like the Pharisees and Sadducees who thought they were good with God because they "had Abraham as their father"?

"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." - Matt 3


To me the only true succession is the succession of those who bear a moral and spiritual likeness to Jesus. The mere physical laying on of hands imparts nothing. If God wants elders He can raise them up from stones - so to speak.


***how can those apostate men bring a clean thing out of the unclean***

Because it is God who make unclean men clean - not church ritual.

Let's say a church was entirely apostate. What I hear you saying is that it would be impossible for God to raise up a man who truly know Him in such circumstances?

[xzins]

LOL!

That was a grammar comment, dude.

You had said something like "McMahon does regard WE Christians..." using the nominative case.

My opinion is that it should have been an objective case pronoun...."McMahon does regard US Christians..."

:>) We'll let grammar sort it out for us, if he's still around.

[thePilgrim]

***Help me understand why someone would want to "hang their hat on a succession of elders"?

[snip]

Because it is God who make unclean men clean - not church ritual.

Let's say a church was entirely apostate. What I hear you saying is that it would be impossible for God to raise up a man who truly know Him in such circumstances?***

Would you mind doing me a favor. Please read the article. At least until you see how what we are discussing is addressed in the article.

It is McMahon who has rejected his Baptist ordination as sin and schismatic and embraced Presbyterianism because Presbyterianism claims a succession of elders.

Please read the article to see what I mean.

Thanks,
Christian.

[thePilgrim]

***That was a grammar comment, dude.***

Fine. Would you mind actually addressing this question of mine now?

"Seeing that I have observed on this forum that you are a UMC pastor, does not the UMC claim to have an apostolic succession and does your denomination practice the laying on of hand in the ordaination of your elders (pastors, Bishops, etc)?"

Thanks,
Christian.

[xzins]

Yes and NO on the first....depends on what you mean.

And "Yes" we practice laying on of hands at ordination.

The Methodist lineage is through anglican to celtic to early church.

The geneological lineage is no more important than is the theological lineage.....without being in the theological lineage of the first church one could lay on a gazillion hands and it would simply be a powerless (pointless) ceremony.

[thePilgrim]

Fine, so is it the Methodist position that the laying on of hands is exclusively ceremonial and is not required for a valid ordination?

Christian.

[xzins]

We do not hold ordination to be a sacrament, but rather an ordinance.

[thePilgrim]

Actually I asked the wrong question. I'm distracted by the collapse of the Steelers, even though it should be obvious that a rookie would not do so well in the playoffs.

I should have asked if the Methodists accept the ordination from other denominations. If you don't, then you Methodists also practice a full apostolic succession, claiming exclusive authority to ordain elders even though you call it an ordinace and not a sacrament. If you do, then are there any denominations which you do not recognize ordination?

Christian.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Would you mind doing me a favor. Please read the article. At least until you see how what we are discussing is addressed in the article.***

I thought I understood the issues at hand. I read the article and now I KNOW I understood them.

My issue is basically with this....

"With that said, I reject my own Baptist ordination as invalid, and unlawful, and repent of having committed sin before God as previously exercising the rights and privileges of an ordained minister when I was not lawfully ordained, though I thought so at the time. I may have been gifted and graced with the abilities, but only Scripturally ordained elders could lawfully ordain other elders. "


...Which is utter hogwash. This man is saying that every Baptist minister's ordaination is unlawful, invalid and sinful.

Hence my points.

1. No one should "hang their hat on a succession of elders". God often circumvents the "system".

2. God who make unclean men clean and fit for His use - not "legal" church ritual.

3. The real calling and ordination comes from God, not from men (read elders).


***It is McMahon who has rejected his Baptist ordination as sin and schismatic and embraced Presbyterianism because Presbyterianism claims a succession of elders***

I understand this and am persuaded that he is wrong and several of his basic assumptions are wrong.

[xzins]

There is no elder in our denomination who has not been through our ordination process.

There are pastors in some of our churches who are not ordained elder.

We have what we call lay speakers, licenced local pastors, and some affiliate (other denominations) pastors....all of whom are "probationary" upon completion of our course of study (5-10 years.)

Upon completing the course of study, they can enter an associate route to ordination.

The primary route to ordination is through designation as a candidate by a local church, completion of seminary and the mentoring requirements for ordination, a probationary ordination, and then full ordination.

I repeat that there is no elder in our system that is not ordained elder by us (or another recognized Methodist or Similar Church.)

An elder for us is NOT a layperson, but is clergy.

[xzins]

I'm distracted by the collapse of the Steelers

Too bad, but what a great year for a rookie. He's from our area (Miami U, Oxford) and we were all pulling for the Steelers.

I always believed, though, that the Steelers were a few years away. They won too many games on a hope and a prayer....testimony to a good leader, but not to a powerful team.

Unfortunately, finishing this high this year will probably slow down their drive to plug their holes on defense and get another back in the tradition of Franco Harris. It almost would have served them better to have lost a few of those close games.

That former starting q-back might be trade bait, though...at least clear up a bit of cash.

[thePilgrim]

***I thought I understood the issues at hand. I read the article and now I KNOW I understood them.***

I got the sense that we were not quite on the same page. I basically agree with your assessment. I think that McMahon is off on this one, too.

Christian.

[xzins]

Steelers just scored.

2 TDs down with 8 minutes in the 3rd is time enough to make me entirely wrong .... happily 'cause I'm with Roetlisburger.

[jude24]

My point is that McMahon has seemed to hang his hat on the fact that an ordaination to elder is valid no matter what the spiritual state of the ordaining elder. In that case, then an openly gay elder would be able to ordain and the entire church should recognize such an ordaination as valid.

Wasn't that the whole point of the Donatist Contraversey?