[quote=AV1611;425335]Agreed.

Agreed.



Agreed.


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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Why do you find them questionable? Any rationale for that assertion?

"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?

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.

__________________
Jamie
Ruling Elder, PCA
Fayetteville, NC

This is rather an important point and I believe we ought to recognise that to have a "knee-jerk theology" is rather worrying. Look at St. Paul's explanation for why women cannot be presbyters and bishops, the argument is creational. Look at why St. Paul decrys the sin of Corinth, it is moral.

It is important that St. Paul does not argue that only men are to be deacons at all, further if you are correct that Acts 6 specifies the role of a deacon then there is nothing there that would prevent a woman from carrying out that function.

I support women deacons, however I oppose women being deacons in the Church of England. Why? Because in the CofE to be a deacon is to do what a presbyter does minus presiding over the sacraments.

The verse allows for unmarried men to be suitable does it not? Why? Because it is saying that for someone to hold an office within the church they must be moral, one proof of that is not having more than one wife.

My point regarding the words used is simply to point out the flaw in your arguing:

Quote:

First, verse 2 uses the Gk. verb diakoneo to state what was not right for the apostles to be distracted by. Clearly this word is related to the Gk. noun diakonos used on 1 Tim 3 to refer to the office of deacon. So although the English word deacon is absent, a Gk. word related to deacon is quite present.

If you conceed that the termsdiakonos and diakoneo have more than one meaning then your argument that because a similar word is used in both therefore they are refering to the same thing is as valid as the argument that because similar words are used regarding Phoebe then Phoebe was a deacon.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

FWIW: I would agree, on the whole, with this.

I can answer you best if you specify which part(s) you are questioning because I had said alot in this short paragraph. Are you questioning where deacons and deaconesses are in the Bible? Are you questioning where in the Bible does is specify elders to be men-only? Are you questioning where in the Bible does it command me to agree with Mark Dever? Are you asking where in the Bible does it encourage Baptists to not be divisive on issues like this? I'm not sure how to respond or where to begin responding to your question because it's too generalized. So if you could be a little more specific, I can then respond better.

__________________
Will Shin
Rockville, MD

I thought this was interesting from John Piper:

from here

__________________
-JD

It's interesting to note that Mr. Calvin's commentary suggests this verse applies to the wives of both Deacons and Elders.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

No.

I would acknowledge that there is a case for "deaconesses," but it is at best unclear. In addition, the best case is closest to the "servant widow" model of I Timothy 5 which requires a minimum, age 60, widow, good reputation, etc. My understanding of that is that it is an "office", could be paid by the church, could have vows, is under the administrative authority of the Deacons, and is not ordained.

I enjoyed the OPC report titled "Women in Church Office" to which you linked. In their section on deacons they write, "Therefore we offer the following considerations in support of the position that Scripture does not authorize the ordination of women deacons." BTW, the OPC views the office of Deacon as a non-teaching office.

They note an 'analogical' relationship between Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3:8-13. They also see Paul's male headship rationale applying to both the office of elder and deacon.

So does your favorable opinion of the OPC report, represent a reversal of your previous position within this thread?

I was refering to the minority report

My hope in starting this thread was to start a conversation about the biblical merits for men only as deacons, or if you hold that women can also be deacons, then your biblical arguments for that position.

It appears that Mark Dever's position could be summed up like this: Women shouldn't be leaders in the church. This glosses over some key considerations. Here are some questions that would help me to understand your position better:

1) Do you believe that Christ has established offices in His church?
2) If so, how many offices and what names would you give those offices?
3) Should men only or men and women populate these offices?
4) What is your Scriptural justification for your answers to the above question?

There are three reasons I think this is incorrect:

First, the elders' wives are not mentioned because they are not as "directly and extensively involved" in their husbands ministry as the wives of deacons. I don't mean that elders' wives are not a help to them. But how often does an elder ask his wife what the meaning of a passage is? How often does an elder ask his wife's input to case of discipline before they are made public? How often do deacon's wives help them to minister to the congregation?

Second, if deacon's were both men and women, then why would Paul address "women deacons" seperately?

Third, if he were to address "women deacons", why would he do it in the middle of his address to the male deacons?

AV1611 linked to an OPC report that gives some additional reasons that argue against Piper's position.

The minority report makes some interesting points regarding Acts 6:

A. Acts 6:1-6

1. What "office" is being established here?

Some might question the use of the term "office" here at all. It does seem, however, that the appointment (v. 3) of seven to fulfill a specific task (to be "over this business," v.3), which seven then have the apostles' hands laid upon them (v.6), sufficiently justifies our using this term, even if we conclude that the office was ad hoc, with no succession.

That conclusion seems to be the consensus of the majority of those writing on the passage at the present time. (See the summary statement on p. 147 of the survey which appeared in the Biblical Theological Bulletin, 111:2, June 1973, and James Monroe Barnett, The Diaconate (Seaburg, 1981): "Their office was unique and was not continued in the Church" [p. 30].)

Although the verb diakonein appears in v. 2 and the noun diakonia in v. 1 (as well as in v. 4, where it refers to the diakonia of the Word), the seven are not called "deacons" here; and indeed the word "deacon" is found nowhere in the book of Acts. (It is interesting to note that the verb episkeptomai appears in v.3, the root of the term for "overseer" or "bishop," which fact proves nothing except that the appearance of certain roots in a passage should not be used to make the passage speak of offices which are not being spoken of.)

Many also use as an argument against seeing the office in view here as that of Deacon the fact that the later descriptions of the ministries of Stephen (6:8-7:60) and Philip (8:5-40; 21:8), two of the seven, indicate that their ministries went well beyond the ministry of the diaconate as later conceived. We read in 6:8 that "Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." In vv. 9ff. we read of Stephen's wisdom and empowering by the Spirit as he disputed with certain Jews as a Christian apologist. Chapter seven records the climactic message before the Sanhedrin by this Spirit-filled exegete of the Old Testament and powerful polemicist. Philip likewise was a preacher of the gospel, proclaiming Christ to the Samaritans and performing wonderful signs among them. The Spirit commanded him (8:29) to preach Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch beginning from Isaiah 53 (v.35). He administered the sacrament of baptism (v.38). He preached the gospel to all the cities of Azotus until he came to Caesarea (v. 40). His residence there is called "the house of Philip the evangelist" in 21:8.

If the statement in vv. 3-4 would cause us to think in terms of a sharp distinction between word-charismata and deed-charismata (see Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost, p. 52), we must note that the accounts regarding these two of the seven which follow immediately upon this passage describing the establishment of their office focus upon their most full and eloquent employment of word-charismata! "... they appear to function much like the apostles, particularly in the proclamation of the word and in working miracles" (Barnett, p. 31).

Attractive, therefore, is the suggestion (of Rackham and others, including, perhaps, Chrysostom) that the office of the Seven was unique in the same sense as the Apostolate was unique, that their task was essentially that of "assistants to the apostles" (the Seven may be viewed as related to the Twelve as the Seventy in Numbers 27:l6ff. are related to Moses -- the use of episkeptomai in the LXX being seen as an indicator that the Numbers passage is the model for the Acts passage) and therefore that their gifts and calling were as broadly ranging as those of the Apostles, and that their office later gave way to that of the Presbyters, whose ministry was just as broadly ranging, at least until Deacons were appointed to take over the specifically "deed" ministries.

Pointers to this conclusion are said to be the use of "the Seven" as a title (21:8), parallel to "the Twelve" (6:2), the full record of their names (6:5), again parallel to the listing of the Twelve, the fact that after Stephen and Philip we meet with no "successors" other than the Presbyters (11:30; 14:23; 15:2; etc. -- again, "Deacons" do not appear in the book of Acts), and in particular the fact that the collection from Antioch for the brethren in Judea was sent "to the Elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul" (11:30), not to the Deacons.

This understanding might well seem to be very attractive (and might seem to differ little from the view that the Acts 6 passage is the first reference to the appointment of Elders in the Christian church -- see W. K. L. Clarke, Episcopacy: Ancient and Modern, ed. by C. Jenkins and K. Mackenzie, 1930, 10ff., and A. M. Farrer, The Apostolic Ministry, ed. by K. E. Kirk, 1946, 138ff. -- since the only difference between the office of the Seven and that of the later Elders would seem to be in the titles used) were it not for the fact that, as a matter of fact, the Acts 6 passage does not describe the appointment of the Seven in terms of their assisting the Apostles in their ministry generally but rather in the matter of "serving tables" quite specifically and in explicit distinction from the tasks of prayer and the ministry of the Word.

Yes, it is true that what is immediately afterwards recorded regarding the ministry of Stephen and the ministry of Philip has to do with their word ministry; but nevertheless we cannot deny that the only task committed to the Seven as "the Seven" is what may be described as a deed ministry. Report 32 presented to the 1981 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church emphasizes that "other duties performed by the seven have later come to institutionalized expression in the offices we now know as minister of the Word and evangelist (and ... home missionary, foreign missionary, and even professor of theology!)"; but when it speaks of "the breadth of duties assigned the seven" and of the care for the widows as "among the tasks assigned the seven" (emphasis added), it reads such breadth of functions "assigned the seven" into the text. The only task that we know was assigned to the Seven is recorded in v. 3. H. Meyer would seem to be correct in noting that there is no suggestion that their word-ministry was carried out specifically in fulfilment of their appointment as the Seven, but what we are to see is that the specific task of the Seven was by no means to exclude other Christian work in the measure of existing gifts." The congregation might well have decided to select for the specific task of overseeing the distribution of the daily food provisions men who were already serving as, in some sense, "assistants to the apostles," but nevertheless the task for which they are set apart with prayer and the laying on of hands in Acts 6 is that of "serving tables."

With Meyer, therefore, we are inclined to see in Acts 6 the record of the first official appointment of those who would oversee the distribution of that which was given to help meet the physical needs of the church's poor, which record quite properly guided the church "analogically" in the later development of the diaconate (see Committee report, p. 331).

2. How does this passage bear on the question of the propriety of women deacons?

The conclusion we have reached concerning the particular office in view in Acts 6:1-6 (that it was an office assigned the "deed-ministry" of caring for the needy widows in the congregation, and that therefore, although it may have had itself a certain ad hoc character, its establishment was a guiding precedent for the church as it later developed the permanent office of Deacon) requires that we consider whether the inauguration of this "prototype diaconate" points to factors which are relevant to our understanding of whether or not women may serve as Deacons. Three factors speaking against the appointment of women to the diaconate have sometimes been suggested:

a. Do we not have in v. 3, it is sometimes noted, the explicit instruction of the Apostles to "select from among you, brothers, seven men ...," which instruction was carried out in the choosing of seven males?

Yes, this is certainly the case. And the word used in v. 3 (andras, from aner) is not the word which is used generically to indicate "person," "human being" (anthropos), but is the word which often accents gender, man in contrast to suggest that another number (than twelve) was chosen in order to show that the number Twelve (Apostles) was not normative!). But we do not believe that we need to know for certain the reason why that number was commanded in that situation in order to know that it is not binding for every council of deacons. In like manner, we need not establish definitively the reason for the selection of males only in the appointment of the original Seven in order to believe that this is not a normative regulation for every council of deacons.

The situation would be different, of course, were a definite restriction of the diaconal office to men only to be stated, based upon Biblical principle (as is the case with regard to teaching and ruling elders, I Timothy 2:12); but this is not stated in Acts 6, and we should be extremely careful not to read more into the intended instruction for us than is actually there.

b. In v. 6 we read that the Seven were brought before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. Some would argue that the very fact that Deacons also are to be ordained settles (negatively) the question as to whether women may serve as deacons. Ordination, it is argued, involves the commission of authority, and a position of authority must not be given to a woman (I Timothy 2:12). The Committee, for example, seeks to establish on both Biblical and historical grounds that "authoritative leadership is implied in ordination and special office" (p. 1022). It appeals to Gordon Clark's statement that in every instance of Biblical ordination, ordination confers authority to act in a particular capacity, and then quotes his conclusion: "Ordination is induction into an authoritative order," and since "Scripture explicitly forbids women to teach or exercise authority, it is a violation of divine law to ordain a woman" (p. 326).

But there is a non sequitur here. One may well say on the basis of the Biblical evidence that ordination appoints one to a ministerial office and function with authority to perform it. The undersigned has no quarrel with such a definition. But it is a leap of logic to say that that office and that function in the case of the deacon involves the kind of teaching and ruling authority which the apostle rules out for women. That is what must be established, and we must not beg that question.

It should be noted, for example, that just two pages later (on p. 328) the Committee says: "Our conclusion ... is that I Corinthians 11:5, 13 imply that in some form public prayer and prophecy by women was an accepted practice in the churches known to Paul. In this way the Committee itself reminds us that we must be very specific as to precisely what kind of teaching and exercise of authority is forbidden to women by Paul's instruction in I Timothy 2:12.

Report 32 to the 1981 C.R.C. Synod notes that "authority can be defined as the designation, authorization, empowerment, or 'enablement' of an individual to do a certain task" and suggests that "with the early church and segments of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches" we should understand that "headship functions did not inherently apply to the particular ministry of deacons."

Again, our Committee emphasizes Gillespie's insistence that ordination "standeth in the mission of the deputation of a man to an ecclesiastical function with power and authority to perform the same" (p. 325); and the undersigned has no quarrel with that definition (as long as the reference to "a man" is not intended to rule out women). But note again that the nature of the authority to be exercised in the particular office depends on the particular office.

Similarly, in Samuel Miller's definition of ordination as "that solemn rite, or act, by which a candidate for any office in the Church of Christ, is authoritatively designated to that office, by those who are clothed with power for the purpose.... They are fully invested with the office, and with all the powers and privileges which it includes" (p. 326). The Committee has added the emphasis, and it is precisely what needs to be emphasized! The authority to be exercised by any church officer is that (kind of) authority which that particular office includes. And, as we shall need to spell out further, the authority of the deacon is not to be equated with the authority of the elder.

John Owen is another who makes the distinction between the elders' authority and the deacons' authority clear, although his point seems to have been missed by the Committee, which quotes him with approval (p. 336) as though supporting its position: "This office of deacons is an office of service, which gives not any authority or power in the rule of the church; but being an office, it gives authority with respect unto the special work"

Remember Van Bruggen's suggestion that our understanding of the diaconate is "derailed" when we begin on the basis of some formal definition of the authority of special office in the church and read the specific texts which speak of deacons in the NT. church in the light of that monolithic definition of office and authority -- and his suggestion that our appreciation of the particular role and function of the deacon will be brought back "on track" if we begin by noting that the N.T. speaks of women as well as men deacons and go on to ask what this teaches us about the nature of that office.

With regard to ordination, Van Bruggen questions whether its Scriptural necessity in the case of deacons has actually been established. He suggests that instead "an official commissioning and testing" might be employed. His questioning, of course, is based on the fact that traditionally the case for the ordination of deacons has rested primarily on the fact that the Seven in Acts 6 were ordained; and he does not believe the Seven can simply be identified as the first deacons. It seems to the undersigned, however, that in view of what has been seen regarding the analogical relationship between the Seven and the later deacons, and the fact that ordination in the N.T. church was not narrowly restricted to ordination to the office of elder (see Acts 13:3), there is no reason not to ordain deacons, as long as ordination is not misunderstood as in itself investing the recipient with spiritual rule in the church.

c. The Committee emphasizes on p. 331 that "we should not overlook or minimize the authority vested in the Seven (and hence, eventually, in the diaconate)" and draws our attention to the verb episkeptomai in v. 3, "put in charge of" (see our earlier comment above, Al. p. 367).

It seems to the undersigned, however, that the Committee's emphasis here is quite contrary to the thrust of the passage's important teaching regarding the role of the Seven, and by analogy later the role of the deacons. As noted above, the Seven are appointed as "assistants to the apostles." Now, there is a certain authority implied in that; but it is clearly delegated authority, authority in a particular area, authority exercised under the authority of the apostles -- even as the deacons, who were appointed later as "assistants to the elders" when the spiritual headship role in the church came to be exercised by the elders rather than by apostles, exercised delegated authority, authority exercised under the authority of the elders whom they helped.

Considering Acts 6:1-6 an instructive indication of how the position of "helper," "servant" developed in the early church, Van Bruggen offers the following scenario: "The council of the elders (the overseers) was established by the apostles or their assistants." "With the increase in ecclesiastical work for which the overseers knew themselves responsible, they provided for the help of male and female (I Timothy 3:11; Romans 16:1) helpers (deacons) who were allocated particular ecclesiastical tasks.... Their services can be very diverse. Of deciding importance is that they receive an ecclesiastical assignment for a particular service and that they have to perform their work with the same worthiness with which the overseers lead the congregation." As Van Bruggen notes earlier in his study,

Though the New Testament offers little information regarding deacons, it yet so happens to appear that there were also female helpers in the ancient church. Here is a striking difference with the elders or overseers. The overseers have as their task to shepherd the congregation by word and teaching, and the woman is not allowed to fulfill that task. The woman is never permitted to teach or have authority over the man.... The reasons given for this are not timebound because they have to do with God's creation order and with the history of the fall into sin. That the woman's not being permitted to do the work of the overseers has nothing to do with a lesser value of the woman or with a timebound subordination with reference to her is evident when we see the women all at once come to full view alongside the deacons.

AV1611


I realize you are quoting a minority report here.

I do not think it is anything like a majority opinion that the office of Deacon was not continued. The vast majority of Christian denominations have had the office of Deacon over the centuries. Philippians 1:1 refers to the office again:

"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the sints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:"

Right below the surface of the issue of qualifications for the office are very important questions of:

1)valuation of the office of Deacon
2)valuation of ordination
3)church government generally

It has been well established Presbyterian polity since the Reformation that the office is perpetual.

The "surface issue" of can women serve as deaconesses has right below the surface in many arguments, something of a devaluation of the office of Deacon, (e.g. after all, it's not really an "office" or part of the government of Christ's Church, it is merely a term for servants or serving). It's also being said "ordination" is not really needed to set these officers apart, they can be "commissioned," a diluted form of installation. The implications of this are fundamental to Presbyterian and Reformed church governance of Christ's church.

That's why getting this right biblically is so important.

I think you have misread the argument. The point being made is that many scholars are of the opinion that the office described in Acts 6 was not the office of deacon but was, like that of the Evangelist, a temporary office. Hence, "Their office [of the seven men] was unique and was not continued in the Church".

The minority report says,

"With Meyer, therefore, we are inclined to see in Acts 6 the record of the first official appointment ... to help meet the physical needs of the church's poor, which record quite properly guided the church "analogically" in the later development of the diaconate (see Committee report, p. 331)."

They agree with the majority report here! Both reports contend that Acts 6 is analogical or foundational to the office of deacon. Can we now agree that Acts 6 has something to teach us about the office of deacon?

The Minority Report also says,

"But we do not believe that we need to know for certain the reason why that number was commanded in that situation in order to know that it is not binding for every council of deacons. In like manner, we need not establish definitively the reason for the selection of males only in the appointment of the original Seven in order to believe that this is not a normative regulation for every council of deacons."

We can imagine a number of reasons that the apostles might require seven men. However, can we think of any reasons that they would require men only? BTW, I agree with the majority report that the same headship issues that apply to elders in 1 Tim 3 naturally applies to deacons in that passage as well. Therefore, I think it dangerous to use the it-was-cultural rationale here even though there may be a few places in the NT where it is warranted.

Finally, the minority report states,

"It seems to the undersigned, however, that the Committee's emphasis here is quite contrary to the thrust of the passage's important teaching regarding the role of the Seven, and by analogy later the role of the deacons. As noted above, the Seven are appointed as "assistants to the apostles." Now, there is a certain authority implied in that; but it is clearly delegated authority, authority in a particular area, authority exercised under the authority of the apostles -- even as the deacons, who were appointed later as "assistants to the elders" when the spiritual headship role in the church came to be exercised by the elders rather than by apostles, exercised delegated authority, authority exercised under the authority of the elders whom they helped."

All authority in the church is delegated authority. Christ delegates some of his authority to the elders in the church who then further delegated a more limited portion of that authority to deacons. The majority report agrees that the deacons are invested with some authority.

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

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.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I have made clear I do not agree with these particular "modern" scholars, nor that this ever has been the majority report in Chrisendom on Acts 6.

And while this view may have the effect of undermining the Scriptural basis for the office of Deacon, and the perpetual nature of the office, it does not advance the case for "deaconesses."

This book by Brian Schwertley is an excellent study on this issue. I highly recommend it.

__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia :cheers:

The problem with what you have stated is that the Scriptures affirm both the office of elder and deacon as perpetual offices in the church. This is the position of Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Elders are to rule and teach and deacons are to serve. Deacons are not called to rule or teach and elders are not called to serve. The two offices are distinct in its function. The deaconate is not a stepping stone to the office of elder as some erroneously teach.

Many good men see the qualifications for women in I Timothy 3:11-15 as noting some kind of diaconal work or service. Whatever your position is on deaconesses those verses cannot be ignored.

He makes very strong convincing arguments. He certainly comes from a different angle than what I have seen thus far in the PCA debate on this issue.

I hope Sterling is not in one of those congregations that refuses to ordain men to the office of deacon, which is quite prevelant in some presbyteries.

This view is not "undermining the Scriptural basis for the office of Deacon", all we are saying is prove that the seven in Acts 6 were the first deacons. It is possible but in no way probable and certainly not conclusive. I affirm that there is such an office of a deacon, what I question is that the seven in Acs 6 were deacons. The historic church is divided as to what office the seven in Acts 6 held. Some argue that these were the first deacons, some argue that they were the first bishops and some argue that they were ordained to a role that has not continued.

As for it does not advance the case for "deaconesses"; what the argument does do is challenge the soundness of the argument "In Acts 6 seven men were ordained as deacons therefore only men can be deacons" on a number of grounds. 1stly, we cannot be sure that the seven men in Acts 6 were ordained deacons and 2ndly, we should not read into the text what is not there, so men were chosen, it does not follow that women should not be deacons.

What the argument does do is say, "So you want to prove that only men can be deacons, well you need to find another proof-text"

Good point, brother.

"Incidently, Calvin's comments are interesting:

He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office, for she performed a most honorable and a most holy function in the Church; and then he adduces another reason why they ought to receive her and to show her every kindness, for she had always been a helper to all the godly. As then she was an assistant of the Cenchrean Church, he bids that on that account she should be received in the Lord; and by adding as it is meet for saints, he intimates that it would be unbecoming the servants of Christ not to show her honor and kindness. And since it behooves us to embrace in love all the members of Christ, we ought surely to regard and especially to love and honor those who perform a public office in the Church. And besides, as she had always been full of kindness to all, so he bids that help and assistance should now be given to her in all her concerns; for it is what courtesy requires, that he who is naturally disposed to kindness should not be forsaken when in need of aid, and to incline their minds the more, he numbers himself among those whom she had assisted.

But this service, of which he speaks as to what it was, he teaches us in another place, in 1 Timothy 5:9, for as the poor were supported from the public treasury of the Church, so they were taken care of by those in public offices, and for this charge widows were chosen, who being free from domestic concerns, and cumbered by no children, wished to consecrate themselves wholly to God by religious duties, they were therefore received into this office as those who had wholly given up themselves, and became bound to their charge in a manner like him, who having hired out his own labors, ceases to be free and to be his own master. Hence the Apostle accuses them of having violated their faith, who renounced the office which they had once undertaken, and as it behooved them to live in widowhood, he forbade them to be chosen under sixty years of age, (1 Timothy 5:9,11,) because he foresaw that under that age the vow of perpetual celibacy was dangerous, yea, liable to prove ruinous.

In his institutes he writes:

The care of the poor was committed to deacons, of whom two classes are mentioned by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, “He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity;” “he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom_12:8). As it is certain that he is here speaking of public offices of the Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves. For although the term diakonia has a more extensive meaning, Scripture specially gives the name of deacons to those whom the Church appoints to dispense alms, and take care of the poor; constituting them as it were stewards of the public treasury of the poor. Their origin, institution, and office, is described by Luke (Acts 6:3). When a murmuring arose among the Greeks, because in the administration of the poor their widows were neglected, the apostles, excusing themselves that they were unable to discharge both offices, to preach the word and serve tables, requested the multitude to elect seven men of good reports to whom the office might be committed. Such deacons as the Apostolic Church had, it becomes us to have after her example.

[/QUOTE]


Thanks for citing John Calvin, always worthy of consideration.

It seems Mr Calvin has in mind two different kinds of "deacons"- one of the overseeing office, and the other more of the "servant widow" of I Timothy 5. The latter is where I think we get closest to having "deaconesses."

Regarding Calvin on I Timothy 3:11...

"Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things."

His commentary seems to interpret this as qualifications for the wives of both Elders and Deacons.[/QUOTE]

This is the point that Brian Schwertley makes in his book referred to earlier in this thread. It was Calvin's position and others in the history of the church that there was an office of women who ministered to widows and the poor. They were called to assist in works of mercy. I believe this is the basis for the women in I Timothy 3 & 5. They may not have been ordained (they were not in Geneva) but appointed to serve women.

Chrysostom on Acts 6: "But what sort of rank these bore, and what sort of office they received, this is what we need to learn. Was it that of Deacons? And yet this is not the case in the Churches. But is it to the Presbyters that the management belongs? And yet at present there was no Bishop, but the Apostles only. Whence I think it clearly and manifestily follows, that neither Deacons nor Presbyters is their designation: but it was for this particular purpose that they were ordained. And this business was not simply handed over to them without further ceremony, but the Apostles prayed over them, that power might be given to them." Homily 14 on the Acts of the Apostles

Chrysostom on 1 Timothy 3:11: "Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses." Homily 11 on First Timothy

Fourth, if he meant "women deacons", why would he not use the word he supposedly used in naming Phoebe as a holder of the diaconal office?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I don't follow your argument here.

AV1611
Puritanboard Senior


In applying the regulative principle, it would follow that if men were chosen for this then, men would be chosen for this now. The regulative principle would say if women were not chosen for this then, women would not be chose for this now.

A key biblical intepretive principle to guide conduct of Christ's Church is:
if it is not clear from Scripture, we do not do it. We may acknowledge that it is not clear, assume good motives of one another, acknowledge brothers and sisters can differ on intepretation, all within the bounds of orthodoxy, but we do not do it out of the overarching respect for the clarity of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. [Principle of perspicuity]


Acts 6:5

"And the saying pleased the whole mutitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Proch-o-rus, and Nic-canor, and Ti-mon, and Par-me-nas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:"


That's v. 0
We have an example here, 7-0.


It indicates this was met with much approval- choosing seven men with qualifications of having an honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.

While not determinative in itself, it indicates a pattern and suggests qualifications for office.

The Church historically understood this and looked to Acts 6 as a beginning for the office of Deacon in the Church.

It would say nothing of the sort. Why? Firstly, you have not demonstrated that the office of Acts 6 was not simply a temporary one established purely for the historical situation in Jerusalem. Secondly, the regulative principle only applies to worship. Furthermore, if you are correct it would also say that if seven men were chosen for this then, seven men would be chosen for this now. You want to make the number a circumstance? Well, if that is the case, I would argue the gender was also a circumstance.

It does nothing of the sort. If we look objectively at what took place we cannot conclude that Acts 6 establishes the office of deacon, indeed the great diversity of view in the historic church mitigate against drawing such a definite conclusion and the making of dogmatic statements.

This means that we can find really one core area to go to regarding the qualifications of deacons, 1 Timothy 3. Yet once we do so we find that 1 Timothy 3:11 refers to women deacons. Hence St. Chrysostom writes in Homily 11 on First Timothy, "He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses." Theophylact, Grotius and Bloomfield all concur with this reading.

What is interesting is that Clarke, whilst arguing that it simply refers to women in general writes,

"if the apostle had those termed deaconesses in his eye, which is quite possible, the words are peculiarly suitable to them. That there was such an order in the apostolic and primitive Church, and that they were appointed to their office by the imposition of hands, has already been noticed on Romans 16:1. Possibly, therefore, the apostle may have had this order of deaconesses in view, to whom it was as necessary to give counsels and cautions as to the deacons themselves; and to prescribe their qualifications, lest improper persons should insinuate themselves into that office."

On Romans 16:1 he writes,

"There were deaconesses in the primitive Church, whose business it was to attend the female converts at baptism; to instruct the catechumens, or persons who were candidates for baptism; to visit the sick, and those who were in prison, and, in short, perform those religious offices for the female part of the Church which could not with propriety be performed by men. They were chosen in general out of the most experienced of the Church, and were ordinarily widows, who had borne children. Some ancient constitutions required them to be forty, others fifty, and others sixty years of age. It is evident that they were ordained to their office by the imposition of the hands of the bishop; and the form of prayer used on the occasion is extant in the apostolical constitutions. In the tenth or eleventh century the order became extinct in the Latin Church, but continued in the Greek Church till the end of the twelfth century."

This is factually incorrect, one example is St. Chrysostom who writes the following on Acts 6 in Homily 14 on the Acts of the Apostles.

"But what sort of rank these bore, and what sort of office they received, this is what we need to learn. Was it that of Deacons? And yet this is not the case in the Churches. But is it to the Presbyters that the management belongs? And yet at present there was no Bishop, but the Apostles only. Whence I think it clearly and manifestily follows, that neither Deacons nor Presbyters is their designation: but it was for this particular purpose that they were ordained. And this business was not simply handed over to them without further ceremony, but the Apostles prayed over them, that power might be given to them."

I would have to disagree with this point. I just looked up the passage that you have quoted here and if you look at verse 12 it says that deacons should be the husband of one wife. I have never seen anywhere in scripture where it says that women are to be the wife of one husband as a qualification for office. If women are called to live in submission to their husbands then how can we possibly be placed in a position of authority over a whole congregation?Women play a huge part in the church and in the mercy ministries and there are times when it would be more appropriate for women to handle situations. But even this should be done under the authority of the deacons. We don't need a title to do this. Women already struggle with wanting authority over man, so why would you men want to encourage us in this?

Women are given a job to do within the church. Titus tells the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands and children, be workers at home, and to be kind and submissive to their own husbands. There are qualifications for this laid out in Titus. I would then think that my responsibility is to be a worker at home and when I am an older woman, I am responsible to teach the younger women. If women would focus on this it would be a great encouragement to us young moms who need all of the help we can get.

__________________

Mindy
Happy to be a member of Eagle Heights Presbyterian Church, where the Lord brought me to salvation, and where my life was changed completely!
Wife to Brad
Mom to Taylor, William, Leah and Julia
By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established;by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches. Proverbs 24:3-4

AV1611
Puritanboard Senior
Scripture here describes chosen men being placed in oversight authority of mercy ministry. It is commonly understood, as a precursor to the office, by analogy. Acts 6 describes this situation in a normative manner, and indicates the Church's approval in choosing men to oversee this.

This is much more than simply a temporary situation "established purely for the historical situation in Jerusalem."

Where did you get that idea?

The Westminster Confession summarizes the regularive principle as:

what must be "either expressly set forth in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."

The regulative principle is a principle by which we interpret Christian faith and practice based upon Scripture. Although it does apply to worship, and is often discussed in the context of worship, the principle applies to much more than that.

The Westminster Standards use this principle particularly in the area of Church government and worship.
(see WCF I:VI; XX:II; XXI:I; LC Q. 3)

No, seven was situational. In fact, how could it be seven in a congregation that had fewer than seven men?


Thank you for clarifying you do not believe Acts 6 is related in any way to the office of Deacon. I believe that it established a normative case of men overseeing role of mercy ministry, a forerunner of the office of Deacon. This is consistent with other Scripture (e.g. I Timothy 3). This has been the historical consensus.

You stated earlier that it was the "consensus" of theological opinion that Acts 6 is not in any way about the office of Deacon. I am glad that now you have backed away from that assertion and are now saying there is only a...

It is important to recognize that the Church universal has, in the main, looked to Acts 6 as foundational (by analogy) for the office of Deacon, in the sense of establishing the oversight of mercy ministry by church officers.

We may not agree with that historical intepretation by the Church universal, but can not deny the fact of it.

I find it curious that in order to make your case for ordaining women deacons, you find it necessary to discount the early practice of the Church in Jerusalem even when Scripture indicates its approval and describes it in a normative way. Asserting that Acts 6 is not in any way related to the office of Deacon, does not advance your case that Scripture commands (regulative principle) ordination of women deacons.