Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

you didn't check the link that I gave you, did you?

Yes, I did check it, Neil. The link is about the Codex Sinaiticus. And that is a nice and interesting web-site. But my question had nothing to do with the Codex Sinaiticus. My question had to do with a misuse of terminology, specifically "codexes," which may not seem like a big thing to some peoole, but when it comes to technical writing, it is important.

This is a legitimate issue when it comes to discussing the question before us. It goes to the question of the reliability of the author(s). And what concerns me, too, is that you and Tom did not see it or recognize it, in addition to not seeing the problem with the author(s) giving false information about the textual evidence.

Quote:

If you did, you would have seen where I copied and answered your question. It started with the words-

What is Codex Sinaiticus? You will note that anything that I quote I change the color of it to show that it is NOT my wording...

Yes, I know it is not your wording, Neil. It is the wording of the writers of the Web-site you posted. That was my concern: they wrote things that are incorrect, and I am pointing that fact out. This is what people are expected to do when they come across misinformation and mistakes.

My question is, can you see that they are giving you false information? I'm wondering why you didn't see that fact before.

It's not helpful in a disscussion for someone to post significant mistakes and then be unable to tell they're mistakes and to refuse to acknowledge those mistakes even after they are pointed out.

Remember that the article you posted claims that certain codices and manuscripts-- B2 D2 33, etc.-- support the masculine name Junias, BUT this is not true. Those sources support the female name Junia. The article also stated that the UBS4 "may have" wrongly listed Chrysostom as a support of the male name Junias. But no edition of UBS4 lists Chrysostom as support of the name Junias. He is listed in UBS4 as a support of the female name, Junia. In the several editions of UBS4, I have seen absolutely no evidence that the editors of that Greek NT list Chrysostom as a witness for the male name, Junias.

Don't you see how these things go to the issue of the reliability of the article you posted?

Quote:

Neil D: you are casting aspersions on what I have posted and on me.....that is just plain rude.

Where have I been rude to you, Neil? I am simply talking about evidence and the information you posted. That is not a matter of rudeness. We are able to question evidence and information. I have not attacked you personally. If you believe I have, please copy and paste it here.

Quote:

If you can't refute the material that I gave in a legitimate debate, then what good are you to this forum? And what does it say about you, your dealings with others here?

I am refuting the material. I am showing that the material you posted from the web-site contains false information.

This is the issue, Neil:

The article you posted claims that certain codices and manuscripts-- B2 D2 33, etc.-- support the masculine name Junias, BUT this is not true. Those sources support the female name Junia. The article also stated that the UBS4 "may have" wrongly listed Chrysostom as a support of the male name Junias. But no edition of UBS4 lists Chrysostom as support of the name Junias. He is listed in UBS4 as a support of the female name, Junia. In my several editions of UBS4, I have seen absolutely no evidence that the editors of that Greek NT list Chrysostom as a witness for the male name, Junias.

But why would the article state that UBS4 "may have" wrongly listed Chrysostom? Don't they know for sure? If not, why not?

Quote:

If you can't loose a debate gracefully, then stop posting and making things worse...

How am I making things worse, Neil? Anyone who goes through this discussion can see that I am posting evidence and information directly related to the issue.

I refer you and everyone else who may be interested to all the posts on this discussion, and particularly to your post #351249. If you had posted that to anyone else, I would have deleted it.

I think the shoe belongs on the other foot. But I will let Stan, Gail, Amelia, Bravus and the other moderators examine the evidence and decide for themselves. I invite all of them individually to give me their input on what has happened the last few days on this discussion. I hope all of them read it carefully.

Now let's get back to serious discussion about the issues, men and women's roles in the church, and what the Bible teaches about it.

May God bring peace to this forum, to all its members and to the SDA church. Let's show love and kindness to each other as we search for truth, especially in the midst of disgreements. It's not always necessary to agree, but God does want us to love each other and practice the law of Christ-- the Godlen Rule-- during discussions. That's what the Forum should be all about.

[SivartM]

Now let's get back to serious discussion about the issues, men and women's roles in the church, and what the Bible teaches about it.

Yaaay!

Okay, now that we're talking about it again, I'll post what I said on one of the other WO threads:

You have two people who do the same thing. One is male, one is female. The male is called "pastor" and gets paid to do what he does. The female does not.

The only difference is gender. You cannot say that men and women are equal and give them unequal treatment. If women cannot be pastors, don't just refrain from calling them pastors; don't let them do the things that pastors do. If they are doing the things that pastors do, they might as well be a pastor. Job titles derive their meaning solely from the actual job. If someone is a church secretary, we don't make them do it unofficially and call them something else. We call them church secretaries.

So either let women be called "pastors" or don't let them do the work of a pastor. If God did not mean for women to be pastors, then they should not do the same things as people we call pastors.

[Woody]

Hmmmm, maybe we have become our own stumbling blocks! In our desire for absolute certainity, we often over look the obvious, God would not make the truth so difficult to discern.

This is an important point CoA. Would He require us to be an expert in Greek?

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: You have two people who do the same thing. One is male, one is female. The male is called "pastor" and gets paid to do what he does. The female does not.

The female should be paid the same amount as a male for doing the same work and carrying the same responsibilities and doing the same duties.

Quote:

SivartM: The only difference is gender.

OK, yes, the only difference is the sex of the male and the sex of the female. And that is a huge difference. Go to any football, baseball, basketball, ice-hocky game and you will see that gender or sex are important. It is also important in the Bible in regards to the duties and responsibilities that God gave to men and women.

Gender and sex (or color or race or nationality) have nothing to do with our standing before God or with salvation, but gender and sex are very important in terms of what God expects of us in this life. His expectations of me as a male are not the same as they are for my wife.

Men and women are different in more ways than simply having different genitalia. Their brains and their thinking and how they feel about things are generally different, and God meant males and females to be different. He doesn't want us to be the same in our looks or in our roles or responsibilities or in the way we do things. This is made plain all through the Bible.

Quote:

SivartM: You cannot say that men and women are equal and give them unequal treatment.

Are you talking specifically about men being made elders and church pastors?

What do you think of God's making men priests and kings and disciples? Did God's choices that way mean that God didn't love women as much as He loves women? I don't think so.

God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all equal but they have different roles and different work. That is the same with men and women.

The real question is, are we going to do what the Bible teaches or are we going to do things simply on the basis of what culture and society says we should do?

If we're going to obey the Bible, then we need to search sincerely to find what the Bible teaches on this issue, with a willingness to obey it no matter what it says about it. God's will is revealed in the Scriptures, and it is not hard to determine what His will is. It's a question, really, if we want to continue following it. The answer is found ONLY within the pages of God's word.

Quote:

SivartM: If women cannot be pastors, don't just refrain from calling them pastors; don't let them do the things that pastors do. If they are doing the things that pastors do, they might as well be a pastor.

"Pastoring" has to do with feeding the flock of God and caring for its individual members. People can be pastors in that sense without holding the office of minister of the church.

I think you are using the word "pastor" in a technical sense of being the minister of a congregation, but that is not how Ellen White uses the word, "pastor" or "pastoring". The KJV itself only contains the word "pastor" in Eph. 4: 11. The same Greek word is more often translated "shepherd."

There are many types of ministries that women are encouraged to do. There are ministries dealing with women, children, music, counseling, Bible Instruction, personal evangelism, health, Sabbath School, education, and many more.

In most parts of the world, women don't do all the things that pastors do. For instance, they don't establish churches, perform weddings, or conduct baptisms.

In China, there are many women doing exactly the same thing as their male counterparts, and in those situations, I believe the women should be called by the same title and paid the same.

Quote:

SivartM: Job titles derive their meaning solely from the actual job. If someone is a church secretary, we don't make them do it unofficially and call them something else. We call them church secretaries.

Yes, this is true.

Quote:

SivartM: So either let women be called "pastors" or don't let them do the work of a pastor. If God did not mean for women to be pastors, then they should not do the same things as people we call pastors.

My opinion is that the Bible doesn't teach that women should be the minister or elders of local congregations. That is my current leaning, but I attend churches where women are pastors and I am willing to talk about it with others who disagree with me, and I do so with love and respect, without getting angry or calling names. I change my mind on theological issues and I am willing to be persuaded that I am wrong on this subject, but it must be through reasoning in the Scriptures and not through the kinds of tactics brought to bear in previous posts. (I'm not speaking here of opinions-- all opinions and views welcome-- but of the inappropriate way those views have too often been expressed on this thread.)

Most of the SDA church also doesn't believe women should be the minister or the elders of churches. Hundreds of thousands of SDA women around the world agree that the Bible teaches that women ought not to be the pastors and elders of the local churches.

I have no doubt that women are called to be "ministers" and deacons, but I don't believe the Bible gives us support in appointing them to be the minister or elders of the local congretations.

What we're doing on this discussion is talking over this very question. Anyone is invited to participate, ask questions, and state their views and the grounds of those views.

[John317]

Quote:

CoAspen: Hmmmm, maybe we have become our own stumbling blocks! In our desire for absolute certainity, we often over look the obvious, God would not make the truth so difficult to discern.

I don't believe the truth of God is difficult to discern. That is why the vast majority of the SDA world church believes that women should not be in the position of pastor and elder of the local congregations. This is reflected in the fact that the question will not be coming up in the current General Conference Session. A woman told me the other day she read that if it came to a vote, only two or three North American unions would have voted to pass it. I don't know if that information is correct, but the President of the GC must believe that there's no chance of its passing. Otherwise, you can be sure it would have been introduced at this upcoming GC session.

I believe it is also the reason that during the history of Christianity-- until recently and in certain churches-- there has been a pattern of male leadership in the Christian church.

Speaking of "our desire for absolute certainty," SDAs and many other Christians believe they can be absolutely certain of various doctrines, such as Christ's existence, His death and resurrection, the Sabbath, the Second Coming, the Investigative Judgment, and the Third Angel's Messages. I think those are the really important beliefs in which certainty is necessary.

In terms of the discussion on this thread, related to Romans 16: 2, I have been saying that we cannot be sure whether the name is Junia or Junias. There are others who are saying they KNOW for sure that the name is Junia. I am saying God only knows. There is evidence showing it could be either male or female. I myself don't think it matters if it's male or female.

Quote:

Woody: This is an important point CoA. Would He require us to be an expert in Greek?

Does God require anyone to be an expert in Greek or any other language? No, of course not.

At the same time, if anyone is going to join a discussion about evidence in the Greek manuscripts, it is rather unwise of people to say it doesn't matter if one understand's Greek or not. In the same way, if I join a thread where the discussion is about the law, it would be unwise to say that it doesn't matter if anyone knows or understands the law or not.

Do you agree?

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: The problem is, Neil, as I said on my previous post, the evidence is indecisive. Most translations show it was a male name. The SDA Bible Commentary says the name could be either Junia or Junias. Almost all translations and commentaries aknowledge this.

Quote:

Neil D; Generally speaking, the weight of evidence shows to me that Junia is a female, and most of that evidence is based upon extra biblical sources that show the name to be female, common to the era.

What extra-biblical sources? Please name them, and tell how many times "Junia" occurs in Greek literature during the time of Paul.

Quote:

Neil D: So far, most of the exceptions to that rule that I have encountered, are more along the lines of speculation and stretching of the argument.

Can you give a couple of examples?

Quote:

Neil D: As I have posted, there are more bibles that side with a female gender than male...

Are you referring to English translations of the Bible or to the Greek manuscripts or printed Greek texts?

Quote:

Neil D: The feminine form of the name appeared in Erasmus' critical Greek text in 1516 and continuously thereafter in all other critical Greek texts, with the exception of Alford's 1858 edition,

OK, but Erasmus' Greek text of 1516 is full of errors, Neil. You certainly don't want to depend on the text of 1516, do you? It has hundreds of mistakes in it, and besides, it was based on only a handful of late manuscripts. It was criticized very quickly because of errors, and therefore Erasmus published a revised edition in 1519. But it was the third edition (1522) of Erasmus' Greek NT which was used by William Tyndale, the translators of the Geneva Bible and of the King James Version.

There's probably not a person who's studied this issue who wouldn't tell you that Alford's 1858 edition is far more accurate and dependable than Erasmus' 1516 Greek text. Have you read them and compared them?

How is Alford's text fundamentally different from Erasmus' 1516 edition?

It sounds like you are saying is that we should stick with Erasmus' text. I like Erasmus' text and I love the King James Version-- it is my favorite, and I am OK with everything in it, including the name Junia-- but I recognize that there is further textual and linguistic evidence that we need to examine and weigh.

Quote:

Neil D: until 1928 when Nestle inexplicably (read: he didn't explain it in the apparatus) went to the masculine form.

You have your facts wrong, Neil. I suggest that you get your information by actually studying the Greek texts rather than relying on those people who apparently don't know the difference between "codexes" and "codices," and who give you false information about textual evidence.

I'm looking at a copy of the second edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society's Greek text, called, H KAINH DIATHEKE, published in 1904. That organization adopted the 4th edition of Nestles Greek text (1903). In Romans 16: 7, it reads, "Junias," , i.e., Iounian, with the circumflex accent over the last syllable, the alpha.

Of my 16 Greek New Testaments, 9 give the male name Junias, and 7 give the female name Junia.

(Does this mean the name in Romans 16: 7 is definitely male? No. Anyone should be able to tell that the evidence is inconclusive and that NT textual scholars are divided in their judgment on this issue.)

The reason that Nestle went to the masculine form of the Iounian is pretty clear, Neil. That reason is the manuscript evidence. The editors of the 2nd and 3rd editions of the United Bible Societies' Greek NT indicate in the apparatus that they are certain the name given is that of a man.

Here is the manuscript evidence supporting the male name:

Sinaiticus (original), Vaticanus (original), Codices C, D (original), P, Athos;

Minuscules 33, 81, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 629, 630, 1241, 1739, 1877, 1881, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2127, 2492, 2495,

Other evidence, including church fathers, and ancient translations:

Byz Lect; itd, dem, e, f, g, vulgate; syriac p,h; coptic sa; arm

As you look the above evidence over, is there anything there that would indicate to you the reason the editors chose the male name rather than the female name?

Hint: it has nothing to do with prejudice against women. It is based strictly on how the editors decided their readings.

Continued next post

[John317]

Continued from previous post:

Quote:

Neil D: This remained the case until the 1998, when the edition just as inexplicably went back the other way and the masculine is dropped as even an alternative (not in the apparatus).

Are you saying that on the basis of that one edition, you believe that the case is closed and that you shouldn't even consider a different reading?

That wouldn't make any sense. Do you realize that it's possible in a few years, both Greek texts will adopt a different reading? I've seen it happen before. For instance, do a study of the textual witnesses for 1 Cor. 10: 9. Or Jude 5. In the latter verse, UBS2 reads, "Jesus once for all saved the people out of the land of Egypt." That is on the basis of some very good manuscript evidence.

Did anyone tell the editors of NA27 that we can now be absolutely certain that Iounian was a woman? The name might be a woman's, but on the other hand, Iounian might also have been a man. The fact that the 1998 edition changed "inexplicably" after being just as certain only a few years before that it was a man, ought to show you how uncertain these things are.

The 1998 edition of NA27 changed in order to be in agreement with UBS4. Those two Greek New Testaments, which used to be separate and have different texts, decided to adopt exactly the same Greek text, and so their only difference today is some matters of punctuation and certain things in the apparatus. The editors write about this goal in the introductions to UBS4 (2005, 10th printing).

They have gone from indicating their certainty that the name Iounian is male to indicating that they are certain the same name is female. In the meantime, New Testaments are still being published-- and on the basis of UBS4 and NA27-- which translate the name to be that of a male. For instance, a very fine, recently published New Testament, The Voice (2008), reads "Give my regards to Andronicus and Junias..." (Thomas Nelson, publishers) (The Voice is the product of twenty-one noted Bible scholars and writers.)

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Grammatically, "of note among the apostles," could mean that the apostles held Andronicus and Junias in high regard. Thus they would not be themselves apostles.

Quote:

Neil D: That is not necessarily true either.

You're right it is not necessarily true. But then there's nothing necessarily true about this verse as far as Iounian is concerned. It is just a very difficult verse, as all scholars will tell you. It's proven in all the various ways it's translated and in all the different Greek texts. That's why I said it "could mean" that they were held in high regard among the apostles. That is a completely possible translation, is it not? If you don't think so, check out the info below.

There are quite a few excellent Bible scholars and translators who believe that is the correct translation. They are not saying it cannot be translated differently, but they are saying they believe Paul's meaning is that Andronicus and Junias (or Junia) were held in high esteem among the apostles.

One such translator is Charles B. Williams, who taught NT Greek for decades, was Dean of Southwestern Seminary, Professor of Greek at Union University, and President of Howard College. He produced one of the best and most accurate translations, called The New Testament In the Language of the People. He translated it as, "... they are held in high esteem among the apostles..."

Then there is the translation of Kenneth S. Wuest, who taught NT Greek for many, many years at Moody Bible Institute and whose books on the translation of the Greek NT are well known and very highly respected. His translation of Romans 16: 7 says, ".... who are of excellent reputation among the apostles..."

In his book on translating Romans, Wuest explains in detail why he translated it the way he did.

TEV has, "they are well known among the apostles..."

An excellent new translation, called The New Translation (Tyndale House Publishers), reads, "They are highly thought of by the apostles..." In the footnote, it reads, "Or: 'They are outstanding among the apostles,' (or, 'among the missionaries,')."

There are others I could give but this is sufficient to show how the verse may be translated.

Quote:

Neil D: The scholarship tends to favor that she is a "she".. John Chrysostrom (337-497) said, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! This is high praise coming from a man who is down on women in the bible.-nd (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).

Here's the question, Neil: How did John Chrysostom know Iounian was a woman? He lived over 400 years after this individual lived, and there's no indication that he knew anything about her that we can't know from Scripture. In other words, Chrysostom was going by the same information available to you and me. There's no reason to believe he knew any more about this person. He doesn't say anything to indicate he had access to any further information, does he?

I'm glad you at least describe it as "tends to favor." That means that it's inconclusive, Neil. This is what I've been saying all along: we don't know for sure if it's a male or female. "Tending to favor" one or another is not conclusive evidence or certainty.

Why do you [or the people you copied the statement off of] call this man, John Chrysostom, "a man who is down on women in the Bible"? Are you [or they] judging him on the basis of 21st century American thinking and values?

Quote:

Neil D: Jerome (340-419), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) all wrote that Junia was a woman. The evidence is overwhelming.

What did these people say which shows they believed Iounian was a woman? And how would they know for sure? I would put more confidence in Jerome than the others, but it is interesting that much of the ancient Italian as well as the Latin Vulgate, which was translated by Jerome, reads, Junias.

The evidence only seems "overwhelming" in your thinking possibly because you are neglecting to say anything here about the evidence that favors a male name. Anyone can do that, by simply not mentioning the evidence that opposes your position. That's what it seems to me you're doing here. I doubt if you're aware you're doing it, but I notice you mention people who lived in about the year 1000 but you do not say anything about the earliest known witnesses to the identity of Iounian.

The most ancient witnesses, such as Epiphanius (AD 315-403), and Origen (d.252 AD), believed that the name was of a man, Junias. Notice that these two early Church Fathers lived before any of the people you've named who thought Iounian was a woman. What's more, Epiphanius wrote that Junias was a man who became a bishop. In other words, he wrote about Junias in a way that shows he knew more information about Junias than other, later writers knew.

We need to look at ALL the evidence, not just a part of it. That is why I think it's good to let this subject and its evidence be completely shown in order for people to look at it and discuss it openly. I think when they do that, they will be able to see that no one should build a theology of women's role in the church on Romans 16: 7. In fact, if I were a supporter of Women's Ordination, and were defending your position, I would be embarrassed to think that the issue of WO evidently is so weak that its supporters feel they must prove that we can KNOW for sure Iounian is a woman. On the basis of the evidence it seems clear to me that any thinking person should be able to see that it's open to debate. No wonder the GC session is refusing to vote on the issue this year. They can probably see that WO not only doesn't have the support of the world church but that it doesn't have sound biblical support. If the Bible broadly and clearly supports Women's Ordination, why is it so important to spend so much time on a verse that at best offers difficulties in translation?

As I said earlier, even if you could prove that Iounian is a woman, what good does it do you? Next you have to prove that Iounian was an apostle in the technical sense that Paul and James and Peter were apostles, rather than in a general sense of missionary or one sent out to preach. But can you-- or anyone else-- do that? I don't see how, but maybe you can surprise me. Let's look at it and see.

So then let's assume for the sake of discussion that we're talking about Junia. What now?

PS. Talking about Junia won't mean I will stop studying your earlier posts and replying to them. I also will soon be talking (hopefully) to Tom about an article by John Brunt in the Sept. 1988 issue of Ministry Magazine. I would like you take part in that exchange also if you've a mind to.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I don't believe the truth of God is difficult to discern. That is why the vast majority of the SDA world church believes that women should not be in the position of pastor and elder of the local congregations.

Quote:

CoAspen: So the majority is right in this case? Has the majority always been right? No, of course not!

I agree. The majority is often wrong. I'm merely saying that I believe the church can see the truth. I realize very well, though, that there are others-- perhaps you-- who believe the church has been wrong about WO all these many years.

Quote:

CoAspen: The Bible is complete with a history of the majority being wrong.

Sure. Just because a majority believes in something doesn't make it true. Truth and what is right is not determined by a vote. Truth is often not popular. And people who tell the truth are often unpopular. But then are we here to be popular? Jesus wasn't popular and neither was Paul or Jeremiah or Ellen White. And in some places neither is Doug Batchelor. In fact, some SDA churches won't even let him preach. But he's OK with that. As he says himself, he's not here to be popular. He's here for the same reason I'm here on this forum-- to express what I'm convicted is the truth. I like to think that's what everyone is here for.

Quote:

CoAspen: The fact of the constant straining of words to support one view or the other should be enough for even the casual reader of this and like threads to see that it, WO, is not a forgone conclusion of being wrong, but rather an unanswered question.

Where's "the constant straining of words"? I am not surprised it may seem that way to you. If you feel like it, tell me what you see that way, and maybe I can explain it so that you can see its significance in a different light.

My view is that it doesn't matter whether the person in Romans 16: 7 is a man or a woman. I am only persenting evidence to show that scholars are not certain. I have 65+ translations and 17 Greek New Testaments that show there's no certainty as to Iounian's sex.

But you are mistaken if you think I'm saying WO is wrong because of what Romans 16: 7 says. That's not my argument at all. I'm not even certain that WO is wrong, but I am certain that so far I haven't seen any solid biblical evidence to show that the Bible supports it. I see people's arguments based on the history of the SDA church and based on a few statements by Ellen White, but no strong and clear biblical evidence for WO has been brought out.

Actually I agree with you that WO is an unanswered question. That is why the church is still studying it after 150 years.

But let me ask you: if the Bible is so clear about WO, why hasn't this clear teaching been found and communicated? If it has, and you know what it is, please share it.

Why do those who support WO spend so much time trying to make a verse like Romans 16: 7--- a verse with well-known difficulties-- prove their position? It makes me wonder why they don't go on to more profitible biblical evidence. Could it be that the evidence for WO is so meager that Romans 16: 7 looks like a real gold mine?!! I'm beginning to think so.

Quote:

CoAspen: Look at the length of this thread and all the referencing and disagreement over peoples references, that proves what?? Nothing, we are down to opinions about others opinions, interpretations, etc, etc.

OK, I understand, but please remember that the conversation kind of got bogged down on the exchanges about Romans 16: 7 because it was claimed that this verse plainly shows women as apostles. The subject of men and women roles in the church go far beyond Romans 16: 7, of course, and hopefully we'll get back on track soon, and be talking about things of greater interest to you and probably to a few others.

Much of the disagreement has to do with the fact that Tom and Neil are copying and posting things they find on the Internet, whereas I am talking from about 30 years of experience studying the Greek New Testament and comparing the manuscript evidence supporting different readings and various translations. It's a hobby. So anyway I got my information first hand and from reading standard texts. Tom and Neil are merely copying and pasting and they obviously don't read the Greek NT, because if they did, they wouldn't write a lot of the stuff they post. And it would ordinarily not matter one bit, but it's kinda helpful in a practical sort of way when you're discussing the Greek NT. I've already shown that they accept things that are plainly in error.

It may seem to you like it all means nothing, but perhaps it's because you aren't reading it carefully or because you don't understand the information and material being discussed.

Your objection is the same one that many people raise when they listen to people of two different religions or two different denominations "debate" their doctrines and teachings. It just seems like utter confusion to most people. The same when two philosophers debate.

If you are coming to the point where this discussion shows you that there are two fairly equally good viewpoints about Romans 16: 7, you are right. That has really been my position all along. That is why if I were translating this verse, I would certainly tell the reader that the name could be either male or female. Readers have a right to know such information. And that is why you will find that most translations do in fact tell their readers it's uncertain whether Iounian is male or female.

By the way, as I told Neil, I'm really OK with the idea that Iounian is a woman. If I found out today that it was definitely a woman, it wouldn't matter to me at all. I don't see anything hanging in the balance with that verse. I'm perfectly happy with translations, such as the KJV, which translate Iounian as Junia. On the other hand, I am very happy with translations, such as NIV and NASB, that show this individual to be a male.

Ever heard of Shakespeare's play, Much Ado About Nothing? lol

I'm not saying this is about nothing but its importance is certainly-- as you will probably agree-- overrated. I love studying the Greek New Testament and comparing all the manuscript evidence for all the variants-- which I'm sure accounts for why I love writing about it. But I don't think for a moment that the church's doctrines (or even WO) hang on this one verse. At least I should hope we as a church have better sense than to base a theology of anything on it.

[John317]

Quote:

CoAspen:

God makes the choice, no man can or presume who should be a leader.

Yes, God certainly makes choices, I agree. But what of the church's responsibility? Doesn't God make his choices known through the decisions of his church?

And what relationship do you see between the Bible and God's leadership of His church? Would God ever lead His church in a way that is contrary to His revelation in the Bible?

Gotta finally go

[SivartM]

The Bible doesn't say anything about pastors baptizing or performing weddings. The apostles baptized, but they were not "pastors". So that is not even part of the job description.

I don't understand why, if people don't believe in ordaining women, they are okay with women in China being pastors. If it's against the Bible, then it's against the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn't really have much to say about the people we know today as "pastors". Back then they were called shepherds, they were elders, they didn't go to seminary, etc.

If we're going to stick with exactly what the Bible says about church offices, we're way off anyway.

[Woody]

Quote:

I don't believe the truth of God is difficult to discern. That is why the vast majority of the SDA world church believes that women should not be in the position of pastor and elder of the local congregations.

So the majority is right in this case? Has the majority always been right? No, of course not! The Bible is complete with a history of the majority being wrong. The fact of the constant straining of words to support one view or the other should be enough for even the casual reader of this and like threads to see that it, WO, is not a forgone conclusion of being wrong, but rather an unanswered question. Look at the length of this thread and all the referencing and disagreement over peoples references, that proves what?? Nothing, we are down to opinions about others opinions, interpretations, etc, etc.

God makes the choice, no man can or presume who should be a leader. We are not in a perfect, pre fall world or caught in some time warp with Old or New testament writers. Knowledge is dynamic, we but have a small glimpse of what God wants us to know. If you are against WO, fine, if others are for it,thats okay too. But to 'assume' one argument or the other is the correct one is a matter of personal opinion and interpretation. Gods message is simple, not complicated and we should not presume to speak for God in any thing, let alone WO.

I think the 'leader' title is in Gods hands and I will continue to let Him make the decisions.

Excellent post CoA. Personally ... I think the fact that the world body does not recognize the clear need for WO and instead has opted for gender bias of spiritual gifts .... is just a sign of the end. We are told that people would stray from the clear path of truth. And I think we can see it now. His coming has been postponed. He would have come during EGW's time ... but for issues like this ... His people are not ready. I pray that soon His people will wake up and be ready for Jesus.

As for me ... I haven't see any Bible evidence that spiritual gifts are gender specific ... so I have to stick with the Bible and the Bible alone.

[Gail]

Are we really talking about gender bias for gifts, or just for an official position?

[Gail]

I received this today from ANN. This probably could and should also be posted in the GC forum:

Quote:

Women's ordination issue not on World Session agenda, Adventist president says

Paulsen: world church not ready to move forward, based on divisions' responses

7 Apr 2010, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States

Mark Kellner, Adventist Review/ANN

The issue of women's ordination will not be added to the agenda for the 59th General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the church's President Jan Paulsen said April 6.

Speaking to leadership at Spring Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland, Paulsen said that a canvass of the church's 13 world church divisions revealed only three willing to accept a change in the current policy of not ordaining women to pastoral ministry, and eight divisions reporting the move would negatively impact membership. Two other divisions apparently did not respond.

President Jan Paulsen said a survey of the church's 13 world divisions revealed that three would have supported an agenda item at this summer's World Session regarding the ordination of women. He said two divisions did not respond.

The survey arose, Paulsen said, from discussions held during the January 2010 meeting of the church's President's Executive Administrative Council.

Paulsen's comments came in response to a question from Johann E. Johannsson, a pastor who is also treasurer for the church's Trans-European Division. Johannsson asked why the issue was not included in the Spring Meeting agenda as had been promised at last year's Annual Council.

"We had a full discussion of this and agreed at that time, that we would attempt to take the pulse of the global church on this matter of the role of women in leadership positions, the role of women in ministry and how we affirm that, by what credential, [and] by what process do we do that," Paulsen told Spring Meeting delegates.

He added, "There were three divisions that responded by saying either they were ready to affirm women in ministry by the process of ordination, or significant parts of their division would do it."

Johann Johannsson, treasurer for the church's Trans-European region, asked Paulsen for a report about last October's promise to discuss at Spring Meeting the issue of women's ordination.

Of the eight divisions that declined to consider women's ordination, each included in their response a description of how women are engaged in leadership in their respective region. However, "They came back and said they would not ordain women, and the people in their part of the world would be negatively affected. ... [it would] seriously undermine the unity [of the church]," Paulsen said.

As a result, Paulsen said church leadership concluded there was "no basis whatsoever to bring to the session any measure. ... We felt we could not begin to address that question. Given the sentiments, the responses we got back, we have to leave it there."

However, he added, "in fairness to the global church, many of you say, 'There are changes also taking place in the church in our part of the globe. We are not where we were 10 years ago.' It's a process of education, a process of growth. Maybe a new generation is needed. I don't know."

At its 1990 and 1995 General Conference sessions, delegates considered the issue of ordaining women, but declined to do so on both occasions. Since ordination is, under church bylaws, required for certain offices including election to most executive leadership roles, the issue is likely to remain in under discussion for some time to come.

[Gail]

I see that Alex has it (something like it) nicely featured there...

:)

[Woody]

Here is a statement from one of our finest theologians. And I might add that after being in his home a number of times ... I can say he is one of our nicest theologians:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/201...l_church_elders

And guess what? He states that " Junia was a female apostle (Rom 16:7).

[SivartM]

Are we really talking about gender bias for gifts, or just for an official position?

Pastoring is a gift, not a position.

[Gail]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Are we really talking about gender bias for gifts, or just for an official position?

Pastoring is a gift, not a position.

I agree.

It just sounded by those couple of posts that the words were being used interchangeably, as if those denying women to be officially ordained was equal to denying women the gift.

I don't see it that way.

I don't think whether a woman with the gift of pastoring will be deterred without an official position, unless the woman chooses not to utilize the gift.

The SOP recommends that pastors' wives be renumerated. Even though they are not the pastor themselves, they are doing pastoral work. They are ministering to the sheep.

[SivartM]

I get that... but it's still not fair to deny someone a position if they have the gift.

[aldona]

Quote:

I don't understand why, if people don't believe in ordaining women, they are okay with women in China being pastors.

Women pastors are quite acceptable, as long as:

1. they serve in the most difficult and dangerous mission fields where men don't want to go; and

2. they don't use the "P" word to describe themselves or request the "O" word to recognize their calling.

aldona

[Woody]

What I haven't figured out ... is why the men want the 'O' word so much.

[aldona]

What I haven't figured out ... is why the men want the 'O' word so much.

Because ordination and being a minister are still seen as being all about power and authority, and being "above" the lay members.

As I think I've said elsewhere, if the leadership truly grasped what Jesus taught about being a leader, about being willing to wash the feet of the members and give their lives for them, then the debate would take quite a different turn - men would be pushing for all the women to be ordained while finding Bible texts and obscure EGW quotes to support the idea that women are just naturally more servant-like and that this is what God created them for.

aldona

[SivartM]

I doubt that. Who would do the housework if all the women were busy serving others?

[Tom Wetmore]

Here is a statement from one of our finest theologians. And I might add that after being in his home a number of times ... I can say he is one of our nicest theologians:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/201...l_church_elders

And guess what? He states that " Junia was a female apostle (Rom 16:7).

At the risk of negative repercussions about his credibility because of anything I may say could have...

But I am sure that there are amateur theologians and ancient language hobbyists that would disagree with his mere opinions on the matter...

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: Here is a statement from one of our finest theologians. And I might add that after being in his home a number of times ... I can say he is one of our nicest theologians:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/201...l_church_elders

Why don't we disuss the article in some detail? Would you be willing to do that?

Quote:

And guess what? He states that " Junia was a female apostle (Rom 16:7).

OK, he states it. But what is his evidence? Are you able to show why that position must be true, and why other explanations and views are incorrect?

[Gregory Matthews]

Southeastern California Conference responds to Dkoug Batchelor:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29820169/Southeastern-California-Conference-Responds-to-Doug-Batchelor