Phoebe, a leader in the New Testament Church

[Gregory Matthews]

Contrary to your statement that Paul used the word "servant," which as I stated is an English translation of a Greek word,  Paul used a Greek word.   The Greek word that Paul used, transliterated into English is Deacon/Deaconess.

[Gregory Matthews]

Mark Leslie:  Yes, the New ENglish  Translation is an interesting Bible which I will comment on in a moment.  But, I note that you quote a translators note which ends with a statement that the view presented should be regarded at tentative and then you go well beyond that and say that the  verse in Romans can not be used as evidence to support women's ordination.  In a sense, you have rejected the view that you have presented of the translators that   what you have cited should be considered tentative.  In as sense, you present yourself as rejecting what you have cited and as being more knowledgeable than your authority figures.

O.K. moving on to the New English translation:

*  It is a translation of about 20 translators.  That is good.  There is much that is good about this translation.

*  It is a dynamic translation, rather than a formal translation.  I support dynamic translations as long as it is understood that they may not be as authorative as a formal translation when used for a doctrinal understanding.

*  The New English Bible is considered by some conservative scholars to have gone beyond what is appropriate for a dynamic translation, in some places.

*  The New English Bible was published in steps as it was translated.  Published versions versions, beginning with the 2nd edition contained the apocryphal books.  Those books are rejected as being inspired by many of your conservataives to include SDAs.

*  The note that you quoted was that, simply a note.  No conservative Christian would ever consider a translators note to be inspired.  That would include note on other translations,  the KJV, NKJV, NIV and I could go on and on.  Translator notes are of value, but they are not inspired.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Mark Leslie:  Since you have cited a translator note related to the Greek word, translitered into the English word Deacon/Deaconess, I think it would be well to go to a more authorative source for the meaning of that Greek word.  The authorative source I am using is the 4th edition of Arndt & Gingrich and I am reading   it in the English language as I am not able to read it in other languages such as German.  As I respond, let us remember that in most languages a specific word may have multiple meanings.  This is true of both English and of Greek which was the  major language of the New Testament.  As to the Greek word that we are discussing, commonly used meanings include:

*  Personal Servant:  Both in the Biblical writings and in contempory literature.  Matthew 22:13 is an example of such use.  

* Minister of the Gospel:  Colossians 1:23 and Galations 3:7 are  examples of it being used to refer to Paul.

* Minister of Sin:  See Galations 2:17.

*  Minister (helper) of God:  I Thessalonians 3:2 when used of Timothy.

*  In contempory literature often used as a church official in a non-Christian setting.

  *  In contempory literature often used as a governmental agent or helper.

The bottom line is this:  That Greek word has been translated into English as "servant."    But, it should be understood as typically having much more importance and authority than we might think of when we read the English word.  It often carried meanings that would be related to important governmental figures and church figures such as Timothy and Paul.

NOTE:  In my listing above, I have only given a reference or two.  I could have cited many more.

 

 

 

[APL]

4 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Galatians 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

 

Most of the passage has to do with surrendering our lusts instead to be the ruled of the Spirit. 

 

Headship means Men are overseer at home, and the Church, with Christ as head. Plenty of Bible examples to show it. 

 

I am so glad I am not confused over this issue.

Is not surrendering our sin the rule of the Spirit???  Hm...

Again - what does "overseer" mean to you?  What ever that man says, goes?  Is that the way of Christ? 

I'm glad you are glad; a verse comes to mind in Luke 18

[Tom Wetmore]

On 9/6/2013 at 9:58 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

While mentioned in other threads, this article from Ministry Magazine deserves to be re-emphasized -

 

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader

 

 

Once again, I urge each of you to not take my word for it.  Please just read the article published in Ministry Magazine, the publication our Church publishes for clergy.  This is not a trifling opinion by some two-bit hack when it comes to theology or NT scholarship.  This is from one of the Churches respected theologians, a careful and well-qualified Biblical scholar.

Understanding the original language more fully and as it would have been understood by its original readers and Paul himself as he wrote it is important to really understanding these two verses about Phoebe.  This is also not new light, new scholarship or novel ideas.  The same understanding of the key words in the original language articulated in this article were first published by the founders of the Adventist Church in the mid 19th Century in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald in support of women in ministry.

[JoeMo]

I know it's off topic; but it's really good to see you back, Tom.  I always enjoy your posts and appreciate both your open-mindedness and your logic.

[Tom Wetmore]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:14 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

... The same understanding of the key words in the original language articulated in this article were first published by the founders of the Adventist Church in the mid 19th Century in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald in support of women in ministry.

This last sentence should give pause to those claiming to be historic Adventists, those that assume their brand of teaching represents what the founders of the Adventist Church believed and taught.  The reality of the Adventist Church in the 19th Century's that it was people coming out of traditional Christian churches, changing many things and seeking true Biblical teaching.  They were open to new light.  They were indeed progressive for the times their times. And clearly so with regard to the role of women in the Church who were allowed and accepted and recognized as being able to function in many ways that some today are trying to challenge. They were not fundamentalists, as that term is currently understood. The Church leadership was commandeered by fundamentalists going into the 20th Century and that fundamentalism calcified in the Church after EGW died and dominated until it began to be challenged starting in the late 60's and early 70's. That was when the role of women once again came to the forefront.  

[Gregory Matthews]

An interesting choice of a word:  

. . . 

fundamentalism calcified in the Church after EGW died. . .

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I am aware of the clinical meaning of the word.  About two hours ago I was looking at a series of X-rays and I pointed to one spot and said:  This might be some calcification, but then I am not a physician.

 

GM

 

[Mark Leslie]

Quote

But, I note that you quote a translators note which ends with a statement that the view presented should be regarded at tentative and then you go well beyond that and say that the  verse in Romans can not be used as evidence to support women's ordination.

Dear Gregory,

Firstly, I didnt really do an in depth study of the word "servant" - and I do not rely on the translators opinions to see that woman headship is anti-biblical. There are plenty of other proofs that can be developed from the Bible and the Bible alone for that.  

What is interesting is that you seem to think the closing remarks of the NET notes are the thrust of those comments.   What I think is more compelling is that the statement in those notes that say the majority of translators  do not believe the word "servant" should be translated as "deacon/Deaconess". We agree that those translators may not have been inspired, but by the same token, preponderance of evidence in the mind of the majority of the translators seem to think the word should not be interpreted as "deacon". The weight against it is simply more compelling in the minds of the majority of translators, if we view it from purely academic perspectives. 

In any event, either view should be regarded as "tentative" - including your insistence and that of other proponents for WO who believe it to be definitive.  This refusal to call it what it is just further bolsters my ongoing  assertion that WO is a fabrication of womens rights proponents more than it is a concern that the Gospel is spread throughout the world. It has never been any such thing, and therefore, how can anyone claim it is the will of God?  That banner cannot be flown because the will of God and the salvation of souls has never been the supreme reason for this movement. Mrs White says we should let NOTHING distract us from our mission. 

Look at the arguments of WO proponents. Its just about what is fair - and a lot of people that support it sound more like Feminists than Adventists, or even Christians. In fact, now that we are on that subject,  where are the Christian arguments in favor of it?  Where is the cry that "The world cannot be saved without Women's Ordination!" or even, "Souls will be lost without women elders and pastors being ordained!"  You are not going to hear it because its goofy, and untrue, and you guys know it.

It's a fabrication by the enemy to create discord and the sooner we all accept it and get on with being a "peculiar people zealous of good works", the sooner we can finish what we know we are supposed to be struggling over - not ordination of women, but rather the salvation of souls.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

mark Leslie said in the quote below:

That has clearly been stated, even if not always in those ex act words.    Any number of people have made those  comments, in their own wording.

 

Look at the arguments of WO proponents. Its just about what is fair - and a lot of people that support it sound more like Feminists than Adventists, or even Christians. In fact, now that we are on that subject,  where are the Christian arguments in favor of it?  Where is the cry that "The world cannot be saved without Women's Ordination!" or even, "Souls will be lost without women elders and pastors being ordained!"  You are not going to hear it because its goofy, and untrue, and you guys know it.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

15 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

the will of God and the salvation of souls has never been the supreme reason for this movement [the ordination of women].

I disagree.

 

15 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

It's a fabrication by the enemy to create discord and the sooner we all accept it and get on with being a "peculiar people zealous of good works", the sooner we can finish what we know we are supposed to be struggling over - not ordination of women, but rather the salvation of souls.

 

Bringing the gospel to the people *is* the ultimate goal of those who endorse the ordination of women.  It's sure as heck not because women want a job where they're basically on-call 24/7.  It's not because they want to get rich from a hefty paycheck.  It's not because they want to chair church board meetings where gripes and complaints need to be adjudicated.  It's not because they like being under a microscope for what they say, what they do, and what they wear.  It's not because they have a burning desire to be the object of scorn and derision from those who disagree with her choice of vocation.  And it's definitely NOT because they want to "lord it over" men.  The very idea of a woman spending thousands of dollars going through college and seminary with the sole goal of being a woman in a male-dominated UNDERPAID field is ludicrous and nonsensical.  And it also defies logic to second guess a person's heartfelt calling by God to go into the ministry. 

Maybe the SDA church should start using dice to decide who should be ordained as pastors and leaders.... after all, it's scriptural.... the casting of lots was used time and time again in the Bible...

[CoAspen]

Quote

Maybe the SDA church should start using dice to decide who should be ordained as pastors and leaders.... after all, it's scriptural....

[Mark Leslie]

6 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I disagree.

 

 

Bringing the gospel to the people *is* the ultimate goal of those who endorse the ordination of women.  It's sure as heck not because women want a job where they're basically on-call 24/7.  It's not because they want to get rich from a hefty paycheck.  It's not because they want to chair church board meetings where gripes and complaints need to be adjudicated.  It's not because they like being under a microscope for what they say, what they do, and what they wear.  It's not because they have a burning desire to be the object of scorn and derision from those who disagree with her choice of vocation.  And it's definitely NOT because they want to "lord it over" men.  The very idea of a woman spending thousands of dollars going through college and seminary with the sole goal of being a woman in a male-dominated UNDERPAID field is ludicrous and nonsensical.  And it also defies logic to second guess a person's heartfelt calling by God to go into the ministry. 

Maybe the SDA church should start using dice to decide who should be ordained as pastors and leaders.... after all, it's scriptural.... the casting of lots was used time and time again in the Bible...

You just proved my point with your tirade. 

Not a single Godly  purpose in the movement. Its just a rant. 

By the way - it sounds like the church you are used to isn't filled with very nice people.  Are these the same people voting for WO?

[Mark Leslie]

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Thats big of ya. I have seen your marked attacks on Mr Wilson. 

 

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

 

19 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

mark Leslie said in the quote below:

That has clearly been stated, even if not always in those ex act words.    Any number of people have made those  comments, in their own wording.

 

 

 

 

Well then, its apparent that there are people astute enough here to be able to distill the WO argument to simple a paragraph. At least we know what we are dealing with.

[Mark Leslie]

This forum software is really something else.

[Gregory Matthews]

Mark Leslie:

If you want to call Pam's post a tirade, I will not argue with you. 

However, to call it a rant demonstrates that you totally fail to understand what she is saying.  Pam raised a valid point, regardless of whether or not you chose to acknowledge it.   Her point is valid even if you are against female ordination.

The manner in which you dismiss those who disagree with you is the manner by which you will be dismissed.

Neither is right.

[Mark Leslie]

1 minute ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Mark Leslie:

If you want to call Pam's post a tirade, I will not argue with you. 

However, to call it a rant demonstrates that you totally fail to understand what she is saying.  Pam raised a valid point, regardless of whether or not you chose to acknowledge it.   Her point is valid even if you are against female ordination.

The manner in which you dismiss those who disagree with you is the manner by which you will be dismissed.

Neither is right.

Ok. What do I fail to see?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, Mark Leslie said:

You just proved my point with your tirade. 

Not a single Godly  purpose in the movement. Its just a rant. 

By the way - it sounds like the church you are used to isn't filled with very nice people.  Are these the same people voting for WO?

**sigh**

It wasn't a tirade.  It wasn't a rant.  I wasn't angry at all when I wrote my 10 sentences.  Not even close.  I was actually feeling sorry for you, Mark Leslie.  

Discord in the church isn't new, and it certainly didn't begin with the subject of women's ordination.  There's the jewelry issue, the dancing issue, the clothing issue, the music issue, the trinity issue... there was the issue about using radio/TV evangelism, and now there's the ordination issue (which really isn't new).  Can Satan use the differences of opinion on issues to his advantage?  Sure he can....if there isn't respect for the people on both sides of the issues.  But if there is respect, it ties his hands....he can't use it against the church.  What he *can* use, are phrases such as "Not a single Godly purpose in the movement."  That, my friend, is ammo for the devil.

You can toss my opinion aside.  Doesn't matter...

[CoAspen]

Quote

 What he *can* use, are phrases such as "Not a single Godly purpose in the movement."  That, my friend, is ammo for the devil.

[Gregory Matthews]

What he *can* use, are phrases such as "Not a single Godly purpose in the movement."  That, my friend, is ammo for the devil.

Phrases like the above are conversation stoppers and demonstrate a failure to understand the issue on the most basic of levels, so basic that it raises the question as to whether further communication and discussion is of any value.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

The whole of Mark’s dismissive condemnation is also, IMHO, a disingenuous indication of unwillingness to actually engage in the effort to seriously consider the wealth of information, and evidence from Scripture and EGW, and evidence of Gods calling of women, that supports women in ministry and leadership in the Church.  It is a fallacious reductionsitic argument frequently employed by opposers. It puts blinders on and makes it sound like absolutely nothing else has been said on the topic. It leaves out context. It pretends that whatever narrow point is targeted by the observation is the only and best point in support of the issue at hand.

One thing already said numerous times before that I alluded to above... The evidence of the call of God to ministry. That would be a supremely important Godly purpose. It is one of the most significant  things that is identified, based on Scripture and EGW’s writings,  as proof of the call to ministry as a prerequisite to ordination. Souls brought to Christ in baptism.  It is applied to men claiming a call to ministry before they can be ordained.  Yet for all the women that have brought many souls to Christ in baptism, it is ignored by those that are unwilling to approve of women as ministers. As if it never happened. Ever.  Blind to the obvious. 

[Kevin H]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 3:28 PM, Rossw said:

In which way is headship a heresy? I don't quite understand what you meant.

Headship theology is the very opposite of the Law of God which is self sacrificing love/Self renouncing  love.  To Mrs. White a major issue in the great controversy is that God imposes the law of self renouncing love on his creatures but that he himself does not keep it.

This idea is fine for say Muslims, Augustinians, and Calvinists who say that God has every right to be a tyrant and be self exalting  because he is God and we are not, we are just blessed that God is a benevolent tyrant.  But to Seventh-day Adventism and  Mrs. White this would say that Lucifer has won the great controversy and the Sabbath is free to be done away with.

[Mark Leslie]

Quote

Headship theology is the very opposite of the Law of God

Of course this statement is utterly ridiculous. The Godhead itself is based on the concept of "Headship Theology".  In fact, the earthly marriage is patterned after the Headship construct found in the Godhead.  The marriage is said to be a microcosm of community and of society itself. Astute individuals can see the obvious extension to the Church hierarchy. As far back as the Garden, we see that God Himself first approached Adam after the Fall. Not each of them together - but Adam. "Adam, where are you"? 

Adam was the leading representative of Earth. He was the one held responsible. The same is true today in the Church. Anything stated otherwise is simply, heresy.

I am not going to dignify the rest of your post with an answer.

[CoAspen]

So the RCC have it correct is what I hear you saying!