This book by Brian Schwertley is an excellent study on this issue. I highly recommend it.
- Status
This book by Brian Schwertley is an excellent study on this issue. I highly recommend it.
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.
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
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
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
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?
I don't follow your argument here.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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. 0We 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.
Last edited:
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."
Mindaboo
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
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...
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Status
