A Lutheran View of the Validity of Lutheran Orders [Narratio #2]

A recording of the Rev Dr. Arthur Carl Piepkorn's essay "A Lutheran View of the Validity of Lutheran Orders."
In this essay, Dr. Piepkorn discusses why Lutherans believe that Lutheran ordination is valid in light of critiques from Eastern and Roman critiques. He offers a number of arguments from scripture and history.

[@thegearhouse5337]

I am so unbelievably thankful that I found this video! I am a recent convert to the LCMS and I’ve been doubting my decision given how aggressive the claims from the Eastern, Orthodox, Church, and the Roman Catholic Church are. I’ve been terrified for my salvation, for ending up in the wrong ecclesial body. This makes me feel much much better!

[@Mygoalwogel]

Finally! Piepkorn kept me Lutheran. I'd be Assyrian Church of the East without him.

[@danstoian7721]

This is great! The fact that biblical speaking, there's no distinction between presbyter or bishop. Nor in the early letters of Clement, Shepard of Hermas or Polycarp.
As well as the fact that renascence of these where still present in St. Olaf, John Chrysostom, St. Cassian.

[@Mygoalwogel]

"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12

[@AugsburgAugustinian]

Excellent.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Ive been looking all over for this! Thanks for posting. Im in my circles making the case that while we ought to have an episcopate, i don't therefore think Lutheran orders are invalid.
Aby other resources for presbyterial succession?

[@augustinian2018]

As an ACNA Anglican who was raised and educated as an LCMS Lutheran (LCMS preschool, Kindergarten, grade school, high school, and undergrad), I’d be interested in hearing a discussion on this with an Anglican at some point-someone like Father James of the channel Barely Protestant who acknowledges that επισκοπος and πρεσβυτερος were originally synonyms or at least perionyms. This was not among the issues that drove me to leave the LCMS, nonetheless, the general affirmation from Anglicans that Lutherans do indeed have valid Eucharists was important to me while walking the Canterbury trail to Anglicanism.
The validity of Lutheran holy orders, on the other hand, is a more layered discussion that really gets to the heart of theological epistemology, hemerneutics, and the nature of biblical perspicuity. I found some of Piepkorn’s arguments dependent on debatable aspects of Lutheran theological epistemology and the questions of established formularies for church order and discipline weren’t adequately addressed. That said, I ultimately take no stance on the validity of Lutheran holy orders beyond a firm preference for Anglican theological epistemology and the three-fold office. Lutherans and Anglicans who can calmly discuss the question without taking or giving offense while teasing out the epistemological, hermeneutical, and methodological differences would be of great interest to me, and perhaps others as well.

[@not_milk]

How sure are we that bishop and presbyter were interchangeable in the early church?
What if a bishop is merely a specific type of presbyter, which is a specific type of deacon?
Similar to how a square is a special type of rectangle, which is a special kind of quadrilateral.
Is there any passage which would make this sort of categorization impossible? Because if not, it is very hasty to merely say that because some presbyters are also bishops, then all presbyters must be bishops.

[@not_milk]

To further this point, Paul refers to himself as a deacon, yet we don’t equate the office of deacon and apostle.
All apostles are deacons, not all deacons are apostles.
All bishops are presbyters, not all presbyters are bishops

[@BassByRon]

This is a form of "proof-texting," which only serves to indicate exceptions that prove the rule. One could use this methodology to advance nearly any notion. What has carried through and agreed upon through numerous councils, and where there is ZERO disagreement between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, is that ordination is exclusively an episcopal prerogative.

[@StoicHippy]

shut up

[@dave1370]

Even if granting that, that doesn't mean that it's not correct or valid though. That's the whole point.

[@dave1370]

Besides, seeing Rome and the East agree on something does not necessarily make that the correct view either.