Is Presbyterianism Apostolic?

In the Nicene Creed, we confess that the church is ‘One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.’ This confession is held in common by all orthodox Christians, not just those who recite it in their public liturgies such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglicans.

 

Therefore, it is the duty of all Christian churches to give an account of what they mean by the church being unified (One), of what its purity consists (holy), how that church is universal (Catholic), and how it can be traced through history back to the earliest era of the church (Apostolic). 

 

This short article is meant to be a summary of the Reformed and Presbyterian understanding of what it means to be ‘apostolic’. It will positively assert what Presbyterians believe about the nature of church government (sometimes referred to as ‘polity’). 

 

First, a summary of Presbyterian views of the church and church government. Presbyterians believe and confess that the universal church is both visible and invisible. The invisible sense of the church is that it consists of all the elect throughout redemptive history, from Adam until the Last Judgement. The visible sense of the church is that it is those who throughout history publicly profess the true religion (and their children).

 

These two senses preserve several important features of the church but I want to highlight two of them. First, when we talk about the ‘the church’, we can mean ‘First Presbyterian, a few blocks down the road on Main St.’ We can also mean ‘Immanuel United Methodist across town’, the OPC your X mutuals attend, the ACNA mission that meets in a rented storefront, the nondenominational church at the cinema, even (controversial, I’m sure) St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church next to First Presbyterian. 

 

Why is this important to our discussion? Because it means that the visible church in your town is not irrelevant to the Kingdom that God is building here on earth. Christ came to build a church (Matthew 16:18), a church that witnesses to the Good News (Gospel) of the death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore, we cannot simply believe in Jesus in our hearts and pretend that this is faithful obedience to Christ’s mission. He told us to be part of and to build his church. Indeed, we confess that outside of the church there is no ordinary means of salvation (Acts 2:47). 

 

The other feature that our confessions preserve is that the church does not stand or fall on the basis of whether it practices the correct views of church government. It also means that there can be periods of church history wherein the vast majority (even all!) of the church was under a polity with which Presbyterians would not agree. That doesn’t change the fact that the invisible church wasn’t corrupted in its essence: God still called and saved His people despite what we would consider errors in church polity and discipline.

 

Next, we must answer the question: what is Presbyterian polity? Presbyterian, as a word, is derived from “presbyteros”, which is the word in Scripture used to denote “elder.” Therefore, it is the government of the church by a group of elders. These elders are part of a “session” (the group of elders within the local congregation), and there are also representatives from the various congregations in a regional area that form a ruling body called the “presbytery.” These regional bodies handle local disputes that arise over doctrine and discipline as a court of appeal outside of the local congregation. As yet another ruling body, each presbytery is a member of a “synod”, which covers an even larger region and can also help local presbyteries handle disputes that cannot be adequately resolved by Presbytery. All of the Presbyteries and Synods in a nation and sharing a denomination come together at appointed times in a “General Assembly.”

 

 Presbyterian churches have elders that are called by the local congregation, confirmed by the “session” (the elders of the church), and further authorized by the presbytery. They rule over the local church with other elders and are known as “ruling elders.” There are also ministers of word and sacrament who are appointed to preach and administer Baptism and the Lord’s Table. These are also called “teaching elders.” While ruling and teaching elders have the same authority in the local congregation in decision making and discipline, their functions differ.

 

Some say that this form of government is unique to the Reformation. They claim that this was not seen in the early church; indeed, some say never seen in all of church history until the 16th century. So does it have apostolic warrant? 

 

As in all matters of faith and practice, Presbyterians look to the scriptures to find guidance on matters of polity. One of the more important events in the book of Acts was the Jerusalem Council that determined how the gentiles who came to Christ were to relate to the Old Covenant and circumcision. 

 

While every view of church government looks to this chapter as warrant for its position, there are several features that a Presbyterian view would point out: 

 

1. That Paul and Barnabas went to the region - or we would say presbytery - wherein the conflict arose (Acts 15:1)

2. That they went not to a single individual (in this case, James, who held a position of leadership in the church, most likely pastor or lead elder) but to “the apostles and elders” (v.2)

3. While Peter spoke at the Council, he does not do so definitively or ultimately. 

4. While “the brethren”(v.7)  - or “the multitude (v.12) - are present, they do not speak authoritatively on the matter. Rather, they appear to give their assent to the judgement of the apostles and elders gathered (v.22).

5. If it were simply the case that the apostles could declare infallibly on the matter, there would have been no need to meet with the elders in Jerusalem. However, they did, and the elders confirmed the judgement of the apostles in the decisions made and in their communication to other Christian Churches in that time. 

 

Thomas Witherow, in his work on the Apostolic Church, makes the following conclusion about these elements Jerusalem Council: 

 

“We are thus conducted to this twofold fact that, in the Apostolic Church, there existed the privilege of referring disputed matters to the decision of an assembly of living men, external to the congregation where such dispute originated, and composed of the rulers of the Church; and that this ecclesiastical assembly, in the absence of the apostles, consisting simply of the rulers of the Church, has a right to meet, to deliberate, to decide, and to demand obedience to its decisions in the Lord. This twofold prin­ciple we designate the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders, and the right of government exercised by them in their associate capacity.”

 

It is claimed that elders may exist within the church but that they are governed by a bishop, who holds an office of superiority over them, and whose job it is to consecrate elders/presbyters/priests to validate the succession of the apostles by the laying on of hands. 

 

Presbyterians would respond by noting the following. First, that the term presbyter (elder) and bishop are used synonymously in several Scriptural texts. Acts 20:17 refers to the “elders [presbyteros - πρεσβυτέρους] of the church” and later in v. 28 refers to this same group of people as “overseers” - which translates the Greek ἐπισκόπους - episkopos, or “bishop”. 

 

Further, the church in Philippi appears to have had several “bishops” (Phil. 1:1), since Paul greets the “episkopois” and deacons at Philippi. If this meant a office bearer separate from elder, it would be an unusual state of affairs: this would mean that there were several bishops in one church region overseeing the elders! 

 

Finally, In his letter to Titus Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders “in every town” (1:5), then giving qualifications for those who would be appointed, and referring to them as “overseers” (episkopois) in verse 7. 

 

From this, Presbyterians conclude that the terms for “bishop” and “presbyter” refer to what is functionally the same office under two names. 

 

This is confirmed by Jerome, early church writer and translator of the Bible into Latin (often known as the Latin Vulgate). In his commentary on Titus, Jerome says: 

 

“A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.”

 

Later in the commentary, Jerome goes on to note that the distinction between bishop and presbyter is one of human custom and not of divine law: 

 

“Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained.”

 

Augustine of Hippo further confirms this reading by Jerome in a letter to him: 

 

“According to the titles of honors which Church usage has now established, the episcopate is greater than the presbyterate.” 

 

This confirms that: 

1. The distinction between bishop and presbyter is simply one of honor and/or age. Which is in agreement with Jerome noting that the distinction is merely a “title of age”. 

2. That it was “Church usage” which had later (“now established”) made a distinction of office between bishop and presbyter. However, in the apostolic church there was no such distinction of office, merely an honorific distinction by title.  

 

There is one final point to be made regarding the apostolicity of Presbyterianism. One may come across the idea that apostolic succession is secured by the laying on of hands by the bishop to consecrate other elders and bishops. That without this, there is no historic link to the ancient church. 

Some respond to this argument by saying that apostolic succession is not secured by the laying on of hands but rather by the integrity of the teaching of the church. In other words, when the officers of the church teach the apostolic doctrine, they are “in succession of” the apostles. This agrees with the idea that the church publicly professes the death and resurrection of Christ and it seems reasonable and prudent to say that it is what is taught that secures apostolic succession, since each and every major Christian church body claims that it is apostolic in its teaching office. When each and every expression of Christianity in the world makes a claim to what the apostles taught, it would seem self-evident and an assumed fact that continuity with apostolic teaching is necessary for claiming apostolicity. 

 

However, apostolic succession through doctrine (as described above) need not be placed in opposition to apostolic succession of office through the laying on of hands. While Presbyterian and Reformed writers have differed on this matter, there has been general consent that the laying on of hands is part of the rite of ordination. Further, when confronted with the objection from Independents that Presbyterians don’t have succession of office because they didn’t maintain ties with the succession of Rome, Presbyterians have maintained that succession through presbyterial ordination (along with right doctrine) maintains the church’s apostolic link. Moreover, when those who argue for episcopacy note that Presbyterians did not maintain succession of bishops, we respond that the apostolic practice (as described above) is that bishop and presbyters are not separate offices; therefore, we hold that succession by the ordination of presbyters is valid. This would include - as part of the rite of ordination - the laying on of hands, and by doing so we continue this apostolic observance. If one were to press the claim that the laying on of hands has necessity of means to validate the ordination, Francis Turretin responds with several arguments in his Institutes which point out that a number of the Reformers had valid succession from ordination in Rome and/or that those ordained outside of Rome had their ordination during a crisis in the church. Following Trent, the ordinations of the true church continue in the constituted Reformation church bodies.

In conclusion, when we say Presbyterianism is apostolic, we mean the following: 

 

1. We continue in the witness of the apostles testifying to the death and resurrection of Christ. 

2. We believe that bishop and presbyter are distinguished by titles of honor but not in function. Therefore, succession of office is apostolic by virtue of presbyteries calling and ordaining the officers of the church, regardless of the variations in polity that have occured in times past.