Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1  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. |
What I am pointing out is that a large number of
modern scholars hold to the view that Acts 6 is
not speaking about the
office of deacon. What they hold is that the office described in Acts 6 was not the office of deacon but rather a temporary office that was set up owing to the historical situation at that time.
The modern scholars are saying that the office in Acts 6 is
not a deacon, the office in Acts 6 is
not a deacon, the office in Acts 6 is
not a deacon.
The office of deacon does exist, the question is whether it began in Acts 6? The "modern" scholars say 'no'. The question is not whether deacons exist but whther those in Acts 6 were deacons! The "modern" scholars say 'no'.
I really cannot see why it is that hard to grasp.