Featured Pastor-only-administered ordinances/sacraments?

I doubt:

That John the Baptist was an ordainced "pastor."
I doubt that Philip was an ordained "pastor"
I do not know that Paul was ordained
I do not know that any person in the NT was ordained in the modern sense of the word.

The first known use of the word, ordain, in English was in the 14th century.

I see no hierarchy, when it come to a person being between a person and God, in the NT. Sure, some had more influence than others ... but not spiritual authority in the modern sense of the word.

I believe any Christian can baptize an unbeliever ... can officate at the Lord's supper ... etc. Seems to me the only reason a Christian cannot perform a wedding is because of local or state laws, not Biblical injuctions.

All this who an do what and who can't simply larks back to the beliefs and practices of the Catholic church of previous centuries

Blessings.

 

So would you be happy for any old Joe or Joanna from the street coming to the front at your church and 'doing the communion bit'? If not, why not?

 

It is not the person 'doing the communion', but the recipient's relationship with God that is important.

 

I thought I'd just share some early historical evidence...

"A valid Eucharist is to be defined as one celebrated by the bishop or by a representative of his." --Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c.110 AD), Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.8.1

 

I must say that this is an interesting response, and it is presumptive on different levels. I wasn't in any way arguing for the 'office of monarchial bishop' (whatever you may happen to mean by that) by quoting Ignatius in my post--I was simply citing his statement as early evidence that 'pastor-only-administered ordinances/sacraments' (which is the topic of the thread, is it not?) was the practice of the primitive church, at least in certain areas. This is whether you want to call it 'bishop' or 'senior pastor' or whatever.

Secondly, it is curious that you'd assert that the bishop's office wasn't yet a 'third order', when Ignatius himself in his epistles consistently distinguishes between 'bishop' and 'presbyter'. Sure, one may quibble that the 'bishop' was 'only' a 'senior pastor', supposedly in distinction to some other office that one alternatively labels as 'monarchial bishop' which allegedly only developed after 'another 150 years or so'--and I wouldn't necessarily object to so calling the 'bishop' a 'senior pastor' (since that's what he is), nor to the idea that there was indeed a structural development afterwards within the three-fold order. But the fact remains that by the early 2nd century, there was already a distinction between the 'bishop' (or if you prefer, the 'chief pastor') and 'presbyters' (or, the 'associate pastors') in the cities of Asia Minor, and the Ignatian evidence is that there was in that locale one 'bishop' per city (whether one wants to call him 'monarchial' or not) as Ignatius addresses them by name in his epistles.

But again, the purpose of my previous response was not to argue for the propriety of the historic three-fold order (though I certainly could do so elsewhere), let alone for something called a 'monarchial bishop' (whatever that means).

Again, this is not really relevant to the point I was making, though I could argue in another thread, if so I'm so inclined, that the pattern upon which the three-fold order is based (and which became universal) is actually found in the NT even during the time when the specific terms 'bishop' and 'presbyter' were still interchangeable.

I never said Ignatius was an apostle nor that what he wrote was 'Scripture'. Again, it seems you were trying to pick an argument with me over a point I wasn't specifically making. I merely cited him as 'early historical evidence' for a Church practice, which he undoubtedly provides. It may not have been explicitly spelled out in the NT, but I don't think the early Churches looked at the Gospels or the Epistles as being detailed (or exhaustive) Church manuals, especially since it was that in many cases the particular local Churches were established and functioning before there were any Canonical NT writings penned--all these Churches had to go on initially was the OT Scriptures and the Apostles' oral teachings. Even after the NT writings began to be written and then circulated, none of them individually or collectively provided an exact comprehensive 'how to do Church' manual, but were rather to teach doctrine and correct errors.

So, your conclusion that 'whatever can't be substantiated by Scripture is therefore not authoritative' is debatable, particularly for the early Church, as it assumes an anachronistic idea of 'sola Scriptura', as well as a definitely fixed and universally agreed upon closed Canon which didn't take place for about another 300 years.

While as an Anglican (since you decided to bring that up), I certainly would agree that whatever is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION is contained in the Scriptures and can be proved thereby (per Article VI), I also believe the Church has authority in Rites and Ceremonies (just as long as they don't CONTRADICT Canonical Scripture) in matters not specifically spelled out the Scripture (per Articles XX and XXXIV) so that things are done decently and orderly within the Church.

 

I think others can administer either and both.

 

I'm afraid I missed where Ignatius' statement I quoted contradicted anything in canonical Scripture. I don't recall seeing a specific statement by Jesus or His Apostles to the effect that "Anyone within the congregation is allowed administer the Lord's Supper" or "A lay-led Eucharist is a valid Eucharist". If you can show me any such statement in Scripture, then I'd scratch my head and revise my opinion. Until then, I don't see where an actual contradiction with Scripture exists on this issue, nor therefore any justification in dismissing Ignatius' statement as authoritative for evidence in determining what was early Eucharistic practice.

 

Your views are not substantiated by Scripture either so what is the difference?
You simply post your beliefs without Scripture. They are opinions and that is all.

 

Personal attacks will not warrant you in good standing with the board.
The above are simply lies and slander.