Thank you Edward. Some follow-up questions if you don't mind answering:
No, TEs must be ordained by presbytery
In the PCA, at least, yes. REs and Deacons are elected by the congregation, and ordained by the Session. PCA BCO 24-6
Thank you Edward. It appears my assumption that all Presbyterians believed ordination to be the act of a presbytery (as in the Form of Presbyterial Church Government - 1645) was incorrect.
I'm still, even as a committed Presbyterian, struggling to understand the biblical basis for this kind of distinction between TEs and REs on the two-office view (which I hold to).
The elders of the church at Jerusalem ordained the deacons elected by the congregation of the church (Acts 6). And Titus wasn't directed to call a presbytery meeting to ordain elders in the local churches. (Titus 1:5).
Thank you Edward. I appreciate you offering your understanding of those passages. It is helpful to know where current Presbyterian understanding is different from say the Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645) which understood those passages a bit differently.
They objected, among other things, to the assembly's third proposition concerning presbyterian church government ("the Scripture does hold forth that many particular congregations may be under one Presbyterial government"), which they proved by the instances of the church of Jerusalem and at Ephesus. The debate papers that passed between the congregationalists (aka dissenting brethren aka Independents) and the assembly known as the Grand Debate, contains their objections (Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren against the proofs from the instance of the church of Ephesus, submitted to both houses of parliament, 12 December 1644) and the assembly's reply (Answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren against the instance of the church of Ephesus, 13 October 1645). To expand on the reason for the proof of Acts 20, here is the assembly's "Instance of the Church of Ephesus":
But were these really deacons in Acts 6? The verb form of diakonos is used in v.2 in the negative to refer to what the Apostles should not be doing, and when the noun form is used in v.4 it is referring to the Gospel ministry of the Apostles. Considering what the 7 were chosen to do - rule (in this case to ensure a fair distribution to the needy) - they seem more like modern-day "ruling elders" than modern-day "deacons." Furthermore, considering that Stephen and Philip (at least - little is known about the other 5) went on to preach the word, Scripture seems to hold forth 2 general offices in the current dispensation: the minister of the Word (transliterated "bishop") and those who help them rule (transliterated "deacon"). The word "elder" seems to be a general term that can refer to both or either. This would align with the offices in the old dispensation (Moses and the Seventy, priests and Levites, high priests and Sanhedrin) and Christ's example with the 70/12. What this says (if anything) about the current presbyterian model of Church offices and officers is perhaps worth considering. Many of the Reformation-era models had 4 or more distinct offices, but they seem to be simply further divisions of these 2 categories. I think Acts 6 is important as it shows that the people chose (v.5) but the Apostles ordained (v.6), and this did not seem odd to anyone but in fact received their approval. There is a question whether Acts 6 is referring to one congregation in Jerusalem or several, though the use of the singular "multitude" (pléthos) in v.2 seems to indicate the former (later in Acts and the Epistles there seems to be more than 1). But the modern idea that the "elders" deal with spiritual matters while the "deacons" deal with temporal ones is simply not Biblical - what the 7 were chosen to deal with was not merely temporal, and no issue ever is. This is why there are substantially the same spiritual qualifications for these offices (it is worth noting here that the Titus/Timothy lists make very little difference between the 2 offices, with teaching being the only major one). The Apostles reference to "serving tables" was a euphemism, not a literal need - the issue was not "serving tables" but dealing with anti-Christian discrimination within the Church. This required wise, Godly rulers, but not at the same level of what the Apostles were needed for (deciding how, when, and where to preach the Gospel after Christ's ascension), which again returns to Moses and the Seventy, priests and Levites, high priests and Sanhedrin, Christ and the 70/12. This model - "every great matter let them bring unto thee, and let them judge all small causes: so shall it be easier for thee, when they shall bear with thee" (Exodus 18.22) - was not only wise from a human perspective (see Exodus 18.13-26) but was also Divinely appointed (Numbers 11.16).
No, the issue was the Jews discriminating against the Hellenists in the treatment of widows. Or are you suggestiing that the Jewish followers of Jesus weren't Christians?
Acts 1:23-26 "And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
IT is dangerous to turn narratives into doctrine. Was this action Divinely appointed? Weren't the disciples not told just a few verses earlier to wait for the Holy Spirit? So stating that "the Biblical model of picking apostles is by casting lots" seems a bit of an overreach - the disciples did it once and seemingly without Divine warrant. It would seem that Paul was to be the Divine replacement - chosen directly by Christ on the road to Damascus, not by lots (I Cor 15 w I Tim 2.7).