[quote=AV1611;425335]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahavah7  All churches everywhere consist of men and women. |
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahavah7 This is a constant from one church to the next. |
Agreed.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 This is your opinion without evidence and this is the problem. |
My quotes above are my rationale to explain the evidence. They were written in response to your contention that the number seven must be prescriptive if the selection of men is prescriptive and your subsequent request that I prove it. I don't know that a rationale to explain why one detail of the narrative is prescriptive and the other descriptive can have further evidence from the same text. If such further evidence existed, then the rationale would not be necessary. I do know that the all-or-nothing premise that underlies your assertion is untenable. Have you developed a rationale for that premise? Or have you abandoned it all together?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 This is your opinion without evidence and this is the problem. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 Furthermore you have "In a previous post I have stated that the office of deacon may not yet have been formalized this early in the Church". Now in your opinion |
Are my opinions automatically deficient? Don't get me wrong; I am not a great man that my opinions should be automatically received. Nevertheless, I think it would further the conversation if you would give
reasons to why you find them deficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 Just because the Apostles asked for men to be chosen does not therefore mean that women were never to diakoneo. Indeed in Romans 16 we read of Phoebe who is diakonos which as you write below is clearly related to the Gk. noun diakoneo . So according to your own logic Phoebe was a deacon. |
Now you are returning to the underlying premise that
diakonos and
diakoneo have only one meaning in the Bible – servant/ to serve. That argument was dealt with in the first few posts. If you believe that
diakonos and
diakoneo have only one meaning, then make a case for it (I have not seen such a case made, only the assertion made). Incidentally, no one is arguing that women may not serve in the church, only that they may not hold the office of deacon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the reason men were specified was more cultural than principle.] |
This is the same rationale that liberals use to explain away the NT teaching that homosexuality is wrong or that men only should be elders or many other true teachings they find objectionable. I reject it out of hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 This is really just drawing an inference but is not really proof. |
WCF 1:6 "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." Yes, my confession allows good and necessary consequences (inferences) of Scripture. Do the 39 Articles allow this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 Quote:
Originally Posted by ahavah7 that doesn't detract from the foundational aspect of this text for the office of deacon | but that is your opinion not evidence. The terms seem, to me, to be pretty fluid and the inferences you draw seem to be pretty questionable. |
Why do you find them questionable? Any rationale for that assertion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 Quote:
Originally Posted by ahavah7 Third, the qualifications here and in 1 Tim 3 are very similar. | Again, so what. As a layman I am to be of honest report and blameless. These are not "qualifications" but "evidences of suitability". Everyone who desires to be a deacon must be of honest report and blameless not everyone who is of honest report and blameless is to be a deacon. |
"qualifications" vs. "evidences of suitability" is a distinction without a difference. And what bearing does this have on the question of whether women can be ordained to the office of deacon? If 'the husband of one wife' is an "evidence of suitability", then how can a women be seen as suitable to the office?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 When the NT witness on the role of the office of deacon is unclear, the terms used are fluid in meaning and clear historical witness that women were deacons we need to be careful from reading into Scripture what really isn't there. |
First, who believes the
role of deacons is unclear. I suppose if you throw out Acts 6, then it does make it less clear since our understanding of the role of the office of deacon, comes chiefly from that passage.
Second, I see you cede that the terms involved,
diakonos and
diakoneo , have more than one premise. However, in this same post, when referencing Phoebe, you assume the word can have only one meaning. Terribly inconsistent!
Third, to have any force, the charge that I am reading into Scripture what is really not there needs to be argued and not merely stated.