Dear Rich,
Thanks for your response. Let me briefly respond to your points. But before I do, let me say that my own position is that I don't think we find a blueprint in the NT for how the ordering of office is to occur. Yes, we are to have leadership in the church that can teach. But how we structure this I don't think is specifically commanded by Scripture. That is why there has been so many intractable differences between believers who hold a reformed soteriology. Witness the Puritans and their disagreements as an example. The parties tend to appeal to different parts of the NT that display a snapshot of the trajectory concerning office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  I don't believe Presbyterianism rises or falls on the Office of an Elder that rules but does not teach (in fact, technically, most Church claim to only have deacons and Elders) but the issues are:
1. A plurality of Elders in each Church (which is supported by more than one Scripture) |
Well it hangs on how one uses verses to do this: are they prescriptive or descriptive verses? I find plenty of verses describing elders in congregations. But I find no
prescriptions that we
must have multiple elders. There is a big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles 2. Elders appointed from within the congregation |
What about Titus who was to appoint elders in every town on crete (Titus 1:5)? There is one man in the lead appointing elders, not the congregation. Moreover, we have the example of Stephanas who appears to have naturally take on leadership himself (1 Cor. 16:15). We can say that these are exceptions to a rule, but the problem is that it is an argument from silence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles 3. Elders which assemble from the Churches to council together to decide Church matters. |
Again, you have the prescriptive / descriptive issue here. There may be examples of elders doing this (say Acts 15, but even then it involved the apostles). But can you find direct commands or principles that this must be the case? Moreover, congregationalists will point to Matthew 18 and 1 Cor. 5 where the "church" seems to be the final court of appeal for church discipline. In Matthew 18 elders do not appear to be involved in the church discipline process.
As for deacons I frankly don't know what they are. We are not told in 1 Tim. 3 what they do. And I see no reason to believe that the appointment of the seven in Acts 6 is to the office of "deacon". The office is not mentioned, and the verb "to serve" used there is used of all sorts of people who aren't deacons elsewhere in the NT.
In short, I don't think the way we structure leadership is an issue that should divide reformed Christians. It was this that contributed to the downfall (amongst other things) to the English Puritan movement of the 17th century. The indisputable point about office in the church is
godliness. That's the dominant theme of Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. If whoever holds the power is godly that will make the issues of government work well.
God bless you Rich.