Dear AV1611,
Thanks for starting this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611  How do you defend it? |
For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the NT actually gives a set blueprint for ecclesiastical polity. Here are some thoughts why:
[1] There is so much disagreement between Reformed believers who have so much in common that it seems to me the issue is not black and white, and hence there is freedom to disagree over this issue. If it were crystal clear there'd be a knock down set of NT texts and much more of a consensus amongst Reformed believers.
[2] There seems to me to be development and change in the NT period concerning how church leadership is structured. Hence, that's why there's no consensus, different positions appeal to different verses, which indicate different snapshots in the process of the development.
[3] We must be careful to note whether NT passages are
descriptive or
prescriptive. For example, just because a church had elders and deacons, does that mean it
always has to be done that way? (BTW what exactly is a deacon? 1 Tim. 3 doesn't explicitly tell us? It's a rather long jump to think that the 7 chosen in Acts 6 are deacons as spoken of in 1 Tim 3).
Hence, I don't think episcopacy is explicitly taught in the NT, but I don't think it's unbiblical.
Every blessing,
Marty.