Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611  Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1 I do not agree that by any objective standard the "conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority..." This is simply wrong. There may be "many scholars" who believe this but the historical evidence is far, far to the contrary. | He notes that the "conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority of those writing on the passage at the present time." He does note that Chrysostom held to the view that the office of the seven was temporary. If you want to argue history then we can, the early Church had female deacons as we see recorded in both St. Clemens of Alexandria and St. Jerome. This is also pointed out by both John Gill and John Calvin. |
You're shifting the argument here away from this notion that the broad majority of Christians believe that the office of Deacon was temporary- citing one person (Chrysostom) in antiquity who believed that does not change my point at all. Acts 6 is not now, nor ever has been viewed as creating a temporary office... not within Chrisendom generally.
History is replete with Deacons constituting govenment in Christ's Church. Virtually all Presbyterian and Reformed denominations view it as a
perpetual office, it is so referenced in their constitutions.
In order to make a case for "deaconesses" your argument devalues the office of Deacon itself to say, in effect, it wasn't really intended to be an high office in Christ's Church, after all it was probably only temporary so, consequently, it doesn't matter so much what the qualifications are.
Devaluing the office of Deacon, its ordination, election, installation, administrative authority, qualifications and vital role in the government of Christ's Church is not necessary to make a case for "deaconesses."
"For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." I Timothy 3:13