What exactly was Stephen? Was he a Deacon or was he an Evangelist or was he both?

Brian Schwertley in his article regarding Offices of the Church under Evangelist places Stephen in the Office Evangelist.. I quote from him:

"The New Testament evangelists had Spirit-given supernatural powers to work signs and miracles (e.g., Stephen–Ac. 6:8; Philip–Ac. 8:13; Barnabas–Ac. 14:3). The miraculous gifts were needed to authenticate the gospel message at a time of new revelatory activity (cf. Ex. 4:5; 1 Kgs. 17:4; Jn. 10:25; 2 Cor. 12:12; etc.); during the foundation laying period of the church. Because of their miracle working abilities and their intimate connection with the apostolate, the office of evangelist was regarded as temporary and foundational by early Reformed theologians and commentators."

Others tell us that Stephen was a Deacon since he was choosen in Acts 6 with 7 Men who are alluded to as being Deacons...

So what was Stephen? What is the Historical Reformed View of Stephen say? Could he have been both?

What saith ye?

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

He was a deacon (that may or may not have been a permanent position) that was set aside for a specific job. He also, at least, performed the duties of an evangelist. It seems fair to say that he had been commissioned by the church to perform those duties, or else you have to assume that he went out on his own, which is doubtful.

__________________

Well not many replies but the poll seems to be in majority on one way... So are we agreed then that Stephen was both a Deacon and a Evangelist? I guess we can not say he was both at the same time since there is not enough information... He could have been a both or he could have left the Deaconite and went to the office of the Evangelist?

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

Is there any reason to believe there may have been two different Stephens?

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

Why is it that we think that there is a Biblical office called "evangelist"? Surely Stephen was one who did the work of an evangelist, but so did Timothy (and he was told to do the work of an evangelist, to boot). I'm not sure there's Biblical warrant for setting aside some "evangelist" class of officers - both these men were surely ordained into their respective offices, and I think the case is reasonably simple to make that they each did what we might associate with an evangelist.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


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