Man and woman created as equals

[Rossw]

Why are we not cursed from Eve's sin but only of Adam's?

Does the order of Melchizedek add anything to the truth of headship?

[Tom Wetmore]

5 hours ago, Rossw said:

Is an elder the same as a deacon?

What you just told me is you don't have concrete evidence to prove a woman can or cant be a deaconess? But there is no similar proscription for female elders/bishops.

How short your memory is!  Phoebe was a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Not an if a woman can or can't be. According to Paul she in fact was a diakonos.  

And combined with also being a prostatis her position to which Paul appointed he was no less than a bishop/elder. 

The essential meaning of the Greek idiomatic phrase "one woman man" was "monogamous" a oneness/faithfulness of one man and one woman, two united as one. It wasn't descriptive of the man only. Since Paul used that in reference to diakonos and referred to Phoebe as a diakonos, it is obvious it was not limited to men only. 

[Rossw]

35 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

How short your memory is!  Phoebe was a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Not an if a woman can or can't be. According to Paul she in fact was a diakonos.  

And combined with also being a prostatis her position to which Paul appointed he was no less than a bishop/elder. 

The essential meaning of the Greek idiomatic phrase "one woman man" was "monogamous" a oneness/faithfulness of one man and one woman, two united as one. It wasn't descriptive of the man only. Since Paul used that in reference to diakonos and referred to Phoebe as a diakonos, it is obvious it was not limited to men only. 

Issues... diakonos is not always used in the context of church position. For example, Jesus was a servant to humanity by taking away our sins. Does that make him the deacon of a church?...no, he is the head of the church whom is his bride. 

Phoebe participating in acts of service does not necessarily mandate her as a deacon of the church. Nor does prostatis necessarily make her an elder either. She could very well have been a benefactor providing monetary or other services for the church. Paul is not explicit in the services she provided so to assume she was a deacon AND an elder is quite of stretch to the evidence given. Eisegesis

[Rossw]

Back to the topic and the denial of the truth of headship.

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

[Green Cochoa]

56 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

How short your memory is!  Phoebe was a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Not an if a woman can or can't be. According to Paul she in fact was a diakonos.  

And combined with also being a prostatis her position to which Paul appointed he was no less than a bishop/elder. 

The essential meaning of the Greek idiomatic phrase "one woman man" was "monogamous" a oneness/faithfulness of one man and one woman, two united as one. It wasn't descriptive of the man only. Since Paul used that in reference to diakonos and referred to Phoebe as a diakonos, it is obvious it was not limited to men only. 

Let's see, I suppose the "Minister of Education" in my country can now perform marriages and baptisms too.  (Except he is most probably a Buddhist.)  Ha!

The point is, if "diakonos" just means servant/minister (one who serves/ministers) one has to be exceedingly careful to understand the context of its use.  This is why Mrs. White spoke of "ordained minister" or "minister in the sacred desk" or "gospel minister" to set the word apart from simply "minister" or even "pastor."  Most of the "heat" (not "light") on this topic comes from a willful conflation of these terms, ignoring their contextual use, in order to support a particular opinion.

[bluejx]

Obviously.

[Rossw]

...The apostle Paul has given an illustration of this. To the church at Rome he says: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.” Romans 16:1, 2.Phebe entertained the apostle, and she was in a marked manner an entertainer of strangers who needed care. Her example should be followed by the churches of today. 6T 343.4

[LifeHiscost]

8 hours ago, Rossw said:

Why are we not cursed from Eve's sin but only of Adam's?

 

Since she was deceived whereas Adam walked off the cliff with eyes wide open, which shows the power of coveting. In Eve while coveting as well as taking the devils word above Gods', Adam decided, to lose Eve was worse than the promised death sentence for disobeying by eating of the fruit.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!       

[Robert]

12 hours ago, APL said:

 

 

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

You can't use this one to promote women's ordination.  "In Christ" we have a glorified, sinless humanity.  At the resurrection we shall be like the angels.  We will not marry for we will be neither male nor female.  Just keeping you in context. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, below:

I must have totally failed to understand what Green was attempting to say:  There is a civil aspect of marriage.  In the State where I recently lived every competent adult, person who was a resident of the State, was authorized to perform marriages.   There is also a religious aspect of marriages.  I married my present wife in a country where only government officials were authorized to perform my marriage and no clergy person was so authorized.  I have never heard of anyone who has stated that so-called sacramental services could be (should be) performed by a person outside of that religion.  Green has simply lost  me as to his point on this one.

 

Let's see, I suppose the "Minister of Education" in my country can now perform marriages and baptisms too.  (Except he is most probably a Buddhist.)  Ha!

[CoAspen]

Quote

Most of the "heat" (not "light") on this topic comes from a willful conflation of these terms, ignoring their contextual use, in order to support a particular opinion.

How true, how true.....

[Tom Wetmore]

@Green Cochoa and @Rossw - Both of you are just playing argumentative word games.  If diakonos is merely a servant or merely one who ministers in a general or secular sense, than you are neutralizing the very phrase "husband of one wife" as well as the other qualifications that Paul applies to diakonos.  Was he talking broadly about the qualifications of servants in general? I would assume you believe he was talking about the application of the role/function, or office if you will, in the church. How much more plainly would he have to state it than that precisely about Phoebe when he referred to her as "diakonos of the church at Chenchrea! 

You are correct that the literal meaning of the word is "servant" and that it is used commonly in a secular sense. But that is the truth of every term we currently identify as a church office that we take from the NT.  They were all common words with a primarily secular meaning.  It is only in the modern era that the English word "deacon" that we derive from the Greek word "diakonos" has almost exclusively a religious meaning and usage.  The same goes for bishop, disciple, apostle, and pastor.  And even minister and elder to perhaps a lesser extent.  The Greek words that have been translated in the NT as each of those words were in the 1st Century common practical secular terms that  the NT writers applied to roles and functions within the Church.

To now try to reduce the meanings of those words to that common secular meaning only when it applies to women, is the very result of the  minimizing  of women that the long male dominant tradition of the church.

[Green Cochoa]

8 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

 If diakonos is merely a servant or merely one who ministers in a general or secular sense, than you are neutralizing the very phrase "husband of one wife" as well as the other qualifications that Paul applies to diakonos. 

You need to study the word and how it is used some more.  Apparently, Gregory also needs to do this, as he couldn't grasp the content of my last post.  The fact is, "diakonos" means exactly what you have said: "merely a servant or merely one who ministers in a general or secular sense."  This is why the example I gave is so appropriate in illustrating the need to look carefully at the context.  The Bible explains itself, however.  None need take it from me.  Be a Berean.  Have a look at the verses that use "diakonos" and see for yourself.

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1249&t=KJV

For those too lazy to click on a link and ponder the truths they see there, I will paste below a list of those verses in which I have replaced the Greek word for comparison.

Mat 20:26 - But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your diakonos; [G1249]

Mat 22:13 - Then said the king to the diakonos, [G1249] Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 23:11 - But he that is greatest among you shall be your diakonos. [G1249]

Mar 9:35 - And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and diakonos [G1249] of all.

Mar 10:43 - But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your diakonos: [G1249]

Jhn 2:5 - His mother saith unto the diakonos, [G1249] Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

Jhn 2:9 - When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the diakonos [G1249] which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Jhn 12:26 - If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my diakonos [G1249] be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Rom 13:4 - For he is the diakonos [G1249] of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the diakonos [G1249] of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Rom 15:8 - Now I say that Jesus Christ was a diakonos [G1249] of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Rom 16:1 - I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a diakonos [G1249] of the church which is at Cenchrea:

1Co 3:5 - Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but diakonos [G1249] by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

2Co 3:6 - Who also hath made us able diakonos [G1249] of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

2Co 6:4 - But in all things approving ourselves as the diakonos [G1249] of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

2Co 11:15 - Therefore it is no great thing if his diakonos [G1249] also be transformed as the diakonos [G1249] of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

2Co 11:23 - Are they diakonos [G1249] of Christ? (I speak as a fool ) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

Gal 2:17 - But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the diakonos [G1249] of sin? God forbid.

Eph 3:7 - Whereof I was made a diakonos, [G1249] according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

Eph 6:21 - But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful diakonos [G1249] in the Lord, shall make known to you all things:

Phl 1:1 - Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and diakonos: [G1249]

Col 1:7 - As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful diakonos [G1249] of Christ;

Col 1:23 - If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a diakonos; [G1249]

Col 1:25 - Whereof I am made a diakonos, [G1249] according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Col 4:7 - All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful diakonos [G1249] and fellowservant in the Lord:

1Th 3:2 - And sent Timotheus, our brother, and diakonos [G1249] of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:

 

 

[APL]

16 hours ago, Robert said:

You can't use this one to promote women's ordination.  "In Christ" we have a glorified, sinless humanity.  At the resurrection we shall be like the angels.  We will not marry for we will be neither male nor female.  Just keeping you in context. 

That verse is not talking about the resurrection.  It is talking about now.  Just keeping you  in context. 

[Robert]

48 minutes ago, APL said:

That verse is not talking about the resurrection.  It is talking about now.  Just keeping you  in context. 

Okay, then here's the context only:  "'In Christ' we have a glorified, sinless humanity."  This has nothing to do with ordination. 

[Tom Wetmore]

@Green Cochoa - Speaking of context.  Is the context the same in every one of the 25 uses of diakonos that you quote? (By the way, you missed a half dozen more times it was used in the NT, not to mention the 37 times it is used in its verb form.) Is it always translated the same? Why not?  How does the context effect the meaning, and/or the translation? Why is it most frequently translated as "minister" when used in a spiritual context? But not always? A few times Paul refers to himself by the word, and it is translated as servant when it is clearly in a spiritual/religious context. In those instances when clearly referring to a man in a spiritual/religious/church context are you saying that it is intended as merely the literal secular meaning of servant? Or does it take on a new and different connotation in that sort of context? How do you  make that distinction?  And why for Phoebe in a clearly church/religious/spiritual context are you not willing to give it that same meaning, but rather insist because she was a woman that she was just a ordinary helper doing menial  tasks for the church?

And then there is the 50 or more times that the word translated in English as servant in the NT is yet one of a couple other different Greek words that also mean servant, some of which are used in much the same variety of ways as diakonos. Have you considered and compared those as well?  Your post above seems to assume I have not really studied this extensively and in depth. In that, you would be wrong.  Your condescension is misplaced.  I have been doing so quite seriously for at least 25 years, carefully considering all of the verses and the same resource you reference, plus many more. (What you have linked is a nice starting point...)

I would suggest you should take your own advice...

[Green Cochoa]

19 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa - Speaking of context.  Is the context the same in every one of the 25 uses of diakonos that you quote? (By the way, you missed a half dozen more times it was used in the NT, not to mention the 37 times it is used in its verb form.) Is it always translated the same? Why not?  How does the context effect the meaning, and/or the translation? Why is it most frequently translated as "minister" when used in a spiritual context? But not always? A few times Paul refers to himself by the word, and it is translated as servant when it is clearly in a spiritual/religious context. In those instances when clearly referring to a man in a spiritual/religious/church context are you saying that it is intended as merely the literal secular meaning of servant? Or does it take on a new and different conotation in that sort of context? How do you  make that distinction?  And why for Phoebe in a clearly church/religious/spiritual context are you not willing to give it that same meaning, but rather insist because she was a woman that she was just a ordinary helper doing meaningless tasks for the church?

And then there is the 50 or more times that the word translated in English as servant in the NT is yet one of a couple other different Greek words that also mean servant, some of which are used in much the same variety of ways as diakonos. Have you considered and compared those as well?  Your post above seems to assume I have not really studied this extensively and in depth. In that you would be wrong.  Your condescension is misplaced.  I have been doing so quite seriously for at least 25 years, consider all of the verses and the same resource you reference, plus many more. (What you have linked is a nice starting point...)

I would suggest you should take your own advice...

1) If you are going to criticize such petty things as the number of references I did or did not provide, perhaps you should learn to count better.  My post includes at least 27 uses of diakonos, not 25.

2) I never said I had quoted them all.  I did imply that I was providing the ones to be found at the link--which I did.

3) The ones I quoted are the same ones that appear on the page I linked.  That page limits results to a certain number of verses per page, and if you follow the link, you can click on the next page to see the remaining three verses, all from 1 Timothy.  No "half dozen more times it was used in the NT" here.

4) This is not the first time I have studied these words either--so I have not given any advice that I have not personally followed.  

5) By your numbers, you give weak evidence for having looked "extensively and in depth" at these things.  Perhaps they are simply honest mistakes or typos?  

Quote

Strong's Number G1249 matches the Greek διάκονος (diakonos), which occurs 30 times in 28 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Tom, the numbers is not where this discussion needs to be.  You make it appear by such trifles to be simply grasping for any possible flaw you can criticize so as to undermine a truth you would rather not see.  The core of this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not I quoted all of the texts.  Did you ask for them all?  Did I claim to have provided them all?  How do false accusations like yours about my supposed "flaws" in posting such on-topic Bible verses move this discussion forward?  All you have done is shown that you have no real basis upon which to support your position.

Women's ordination seems to be all about one thing: "empowerment" of women.  Christianity, however, is about an opposite thing: humble servanthood/service to the Master.  If you truly read through the diakonos texts I posted, this theme should stand out.

[Rossw]

35 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa - Speaking of context.  Is the context the same in every one of the 25 uses of diakonos that you quote? (By the way, you missed a half dozen more times it was used in the NT, not to mention the 37 times it is used in its verb form.) Is it always translated the same? Why not?  How does the context effect the meaning, and/or the translation? Why is it most frequently translated as "minister" when used in a spiritual context? But not always? A few times Paul refers to himself by the word, and it is translated as servant when it is clearly in a spiritual/religious context. In those instances when clearly referring to a man in a spiritual/religious/church context are you saying that it is intended as merely the literal secular meaning of servant? Or does it take on a new and different conotation in that sort of context? How do you  make that distinction?  And why for Phoebe in a clearly church/religious/spiritual context are you not willing to give it that same meaning, but rather insist because she was a woman that she was just a ordinary helper doing meaningless tasks for the church?

And then there is the 50 or more times that the word translated in English as servant in the NT is yet one of a couple other different Greek words that also mean servant, some of which are used in much the same variety of ways as diakonos. Have you considered and compared those as well?  Your post above seems to assume I have not really studied this extensively and in depth. In that you would be wrong.  Your condescension is misplaced.  I have been doing so quite seriously for at least 25 years, consider all of the verses and the same resource you reference, plus many more. (What you have linked is a nice starting point...)

I would suggest you should take your own advice...

It appears you've picked the definition of diakonos that serves your liberal agenda. In my quote of EGW she doesn't even agree with the definition you've decided on. 

Tom, what's your angle here? What's your motivation? Are you trying to win a self serving argument or are your motives in the best interest of the church? The evidence from Scripture so obviously does not support your denial of headship.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In the extensive study that went into this issue prior to SA Texas, The study groups did not agree on this.  Perhaps, it is not as obvious as you think.

 

The evidence from Scripture so obviously does not support your denial of headship.

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

15 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In the extensive study that went into this issue prior to SA Texas, The study groups did not agree on this.  Perhaps, it is not as obvious as you think.

It is plain enough, Gregory.  So plain a child could understand it.  That is how God likes it.  When God gives an important truth, He does not leave us to wander in the darkness of confusion.  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33.  Only those whose minds are bent by cherished sin and who, on account of it, wish to reject the light, will claim that God's Word is not "obvious" when such texts as the following make it utterly plain.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Ephesians 5:22-23

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  1 Corinthians 11:3

Interestingly, that second verse does not use "husband" and "wife" in terms of its headship definition, but rather "man" and "woman," which cover each gender more generally.  This being the case, it is difficult for the WO folk to "kick against the pricks."  Why keep kicking?

 

By the way, "headship" does not mean "inequality."  Is Christ lesser to God?  The WO folk create a non-existent "problem" in speaking of "inequality" of women in a church that observes biblical headship.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:  Again, the denomination has extensively studied the issue.  The official reports of those multiple study groups have been posted on the Internet.   They do not agree.

You are entitle to your position.  I can even understand how your would arrive at it, as I also understand how other people arrive at their position.

Your statement to the effect that a child could understand it in the same manner that you understand it reflects an arrogance and an implication that those in the study groups who do not agree with you are less than children in their spiritual understanding.  I do not fault you for the position that you have taken on the issue even though I disagree with you on some aspects.  But, I will criticize you for the arrogance that you often reflect and the dismissive way in which you often relate to other people.  

Ultimately, if the SDA denomination is to come together in a common agreement on this issue, it will have to be the Holy Spirit that brings us to a common understanding.  I do not hear the voice of the Holy Spirit in  the manner in which you often respond on this issue.

I find it interesting that the recent study groups that failed to come into a common agreement on this issue, did in fact come into a common agreement on one point.  That point on which they agreed was on how they should relate to each other.  That relation acknowledged that each side was honest, sincere, seeing the Bible as an authority in spiritual life and all were seeking to understand what the Bible taught.  It also acknowledged that each side had some very valid questions. 

I will suggest that when you can come to this same manner of relating to people you will serve your side much better.  You are intelligent and an in-depth student of the Bible. But, the manner in which you sometimes present yourself tends to cause people to dismiss you and not dialogue with you.  That does not serve your purpose well.

 

[Green Cochoa]

11 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Your statement to the effect that a child could understand it in the same manner that you understand it reflects an arrogance and an implication that those in the study groups who do not agree with you are less than children in their spiritual understanding.  I do not fault you for the position that you have taken on the issue even though I disagree with you on some aspects.  But, I will criticize you for the arrogance that you often reflect and the dismissive way in which you often relate to other people.  

Would you consider Jesus to have been arrogant, Gregory?

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,  And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.  (Matthew 18:2-5)

If we don't become as little children, we will have insufficient understanding to reach heaven.  It's quite simple, actually.  

17 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Ultimately, if the SDA denomination is to come together in a common agreement on this issue, it will have to be the Holy Spirit that brings us to a common understanding.  I do not hear the voice of the Holy Spirit in  the manner in which you often respond on this issue.

Do you hear the Holy Spirit in Jesus' words? in the Bible texts brought here?

[Rossw]

8 Just as it is written:

“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

Is it any different today?

[APL]

13 hours ago, Robert said:

Okay, then here's the context only:  "'In Christ' we have a glorified, sinless humanity."  This has nothing to do with ordination. 

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This verse tells us in Christ we are ALL one.  Men are not more ONE than women. God can ordain women for leaderships roles, and has! 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gree3n asked below:

Green, I do not equate you to Jesus.   I  consider both you and I to be subject to error.

Would you consider Jesus to have been arrogant, Gregory?