Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

Without going into a wealth of detail, it should be noted that the early church fathers treated it as feminine.The one exception is Epiphanius, the 4th.c. Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, but since he thought Prisca was a man too, his evidence may be discounted!

Are you saying that since Epiphanius made this mistake, we shouldn't consider what he said about anything else? If that was true, we wouldn't accept anything Origen writes, or any of the other witnesses you refer to. Because they all said things that were plainly wrong. Origen was a great scholar and one of the most brilliant thinkers in the first 1000 years of church history, but he made a lot of mistakes. In fact, he was declared a heretic, and taught many false teachings.

The question I would have about all the later witnesses (dating, say, after 500 AD) is how they knew (or why they thought) that Iounian was a woman. Were they just going by tradition? Or did they have access to information we no longer have?

If all Chrystosome said was what he could read in Romans 16: 7, then it doesn't show that he knows any more than we do. That appears to be the case with Chrystosome. He simply says that Junia was an apostle, but he doesn't tell us any more. He doesn't even tell us what kind of an apostle-- whether a general apostle or an apostle like Paul or Peter.

Epiphanius is credible because he tells us information which shows he had knowledge about Iounian that is not found in the text. As a bishop, he may well have had church records that verified his information about Junias. I find it hard to believe he was simply making up that information.

I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he said about Prisca. However, even if we grant that Epiphanius said Prisca was a man, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is wrong about Junias. It could be that he had no information about Prisca but that he did have valid information about Junias. If we discount all the information people give because of errors they make, then we wouldn't be able to accept any information they give, since they all made mistakes. And if I did that, I couldn't consistently accept the sources you gave, since they made a significant errors in discussing the manscript evidence.

Quote:

Neil D: Although John Chrysostom, another 4thc. Bishop and writer was generally against women's leadership, he is fulsome in his praise of Junia, "How great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle." (Epistle to the Romans 31.2)

Do you know what basis Chrysostom had for being against women's leadership? It seems that if he believed a woman was an apostle, he would accept women as leaders in the church. It makes one wonder what his explanation was for his viewpoint.

Is it possible that he thought Junia was a general apostle and not as an apostle such as Paul and Peter? "Apostle," after all, also has the significance of "missionary" or someone who was sent out to preach or evangelize. If Chrysostom believed that Junia was an apostle in the technical sense of one who saw the risen Christ and was counted among the apostles and were sent out by God to establish and lead churches, there would be no reason for him to be against women's leadership. On the other hand, if there was such a woman, why isn't she mentioned somewhere in the book of Acts or in the other NT letters?

Also, if such a woman leader in the church actually existed, why would Paul say what he did in 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2-- that he did not permit a woman to teach a man or to exercise authority over a man? I think too many people forget that Paul said that this was his rule in "all the churches of the saints." He explained this by pointing to the law and to the commandments of the Lord, as well as to the fact that Adam was made first and was not deceived.

Quote:

Neil D: Robert Cervin closes the discussion in his article "A note regarding the name Junia/s in Romans 16:7"(New Testament Studies 40 1996 466-470) "A proper examination of the lnguistic evidence regarding the name "Junia" show that the name is feminine not masculine."

Do you mean Richard Cervin or Robert Cervin? I don't know of a Robert Cervin.

Wonder what Cervin consideres a "proper" examination of the linguistic evidence. There are certainly many scholars equally qualified who disagree with him.

I would say that if you accept and believe everything that Richard Cervin says, it would be as much a mistake as accepting and believing everything the "other side" says without careful examination and probing.

Do you believe that if Dr. Cervin makes a mistake, we should disregard everything else he might say? I wouldn't say so, and neither would I say it about Epiphanius.

Quote:

Neil D: Here are sources scholars who choose to endorse the idea that Junia is female. And I will attest that there is plenty more evidence in my internet search.

Sure, I'm sure there are. But of what quality, and why do they say what they do? What is their reasoning and their evidence? That's important. Do they know anything more than what we can gain from studying the Bible text? If they don't, then they are only repeating what others say on the basis of the same information all of have access to, Romans 16: 7. Therefore, the mere addition of more names to the list of those who support one side or the other is really not too meaningful in terms of giving us evidence of what the truth is about the sex of this person.

Quote:

Neil D: The only thing that prevents women from being ordained is the prejudice of men and the blindness of thier old sources...

I wouldn't say anything like that. Aren't you basically saying in that sentence that any man who opposes your viewpoint, or WO, is prejuced against women? I don't know how else to understand that statement. I don't think that's a good way to resolve the issue, and it is certainly harmful to church unity and destructive to love between believers.

Would you like it if people who do not agree with you said that the only reason you want WO is that you don't understand the Bible and SOP or allow the Holy Spirit to lead you? I'm sure you wouldn't, but when you make accusations such as you make here, you are really giving people permission to make accusations against you and against those who support WO.

You are also apparently ignoring the fact that millions of SDA women around the world also oppose WO. That includes many in North America, and even in the Southeast California Conference.

I think we have to assume that people are motivated sincerely and honestly and have good intentions. I don't doubt that you and Tom are motivated by good intentions. I think it's wrong to judge the hearts and motives of people we don't really know. I don't even go there when I'm discussing things with others on the forum. One of the reasons is that each side could exchange such accusations and words all day and it wouldn't do anyone any good, and both sides could very well be, and often are, completely wrong.

When the church denied the request to ordain women to the gospel ministry in 1881, why did Ellen White remain silent, if it was the wrong decision? Ellen White was never silent when she believed a decision by the church was unfair or wrong. On the other hand, if the church made what she believed was the right decision, there was no reason for her to say anything.

Quote:

Neil D: Now, one of the credible objections that you have brought up, is that these sources might be manipulating the evidence....

My concern isn't really that they are intentionally manipulating the evidence. But I've given proof that they have made major errors, which you could see for yourself if you had a copy of the Greek NT, UBS4 or NA27. They gave the manuscript sources that actually support the female name but they gave them as if they support the male name.

Quote:

Neil D: However, if you look at the source of these people, they are coming from different perspectives [ie different churches, Literature of greek and latin, ect] their love of the ancient literature is a 'cross reference' to mistakes made.

Sure, I understand that. But the mistakes that I'm referring to came from only one of the websites you copied. It misrepresented the evidence in the apparatus of the UBS4, textual evidence which actually supports women. They said this evidence was cited as supporting men when it never was. You could see this easily if you have a copy of those texts.

[Neil D]

My! You sure do wax strongly on this subject....I've only really given a few real good articles, and you have whaled upon them post after post after post after post, page after page after page after page ad nausem....What's the matter with this picture, John?

Quote:

Epiphanius is credible because he tells us information which shows he had knowledge about Iounian that is not found in the text. As a bishop, he may well have had church records that verified his information about Junias. I find it hard to believe he was simply making up that information.

Excuse me?!?!?! I would concider a person a reliable witness if he was consistant in his observations...So far, according to the scholars, he refers to Prisca as a man....Either the man was drunk, or a male chauvinistic or just plain not reliable....And you say that this man is good evidence????? How do you know that he isn't feeding history a line? YOu ask me to make sure of my evidence, and yet, I am to take yours as reliable???? PLease, John....I make LOOK stupid, but don't rely on my looks for an easy relationships...

Quote:

I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he said about Prisca. However, even if we grant that Epiphanius said Prisca was a man, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is wrong about Junias. It could be that he had no information about Prisca but that he did have valid information about Junias. If we discount all the information people give because of errors they make, then we wouldn't be able to accept any information they give, since they all made mistakes. And if I did that, I couldn't consistently accept the sources you gave, since they made a significant errors in discussing the manscript evidence.

You mean to say that Epiphanius is reliable because, according to YOUR scholar(s), he might have had some secret but reliable knowledge...?

That sounds abit sketchy to me...whereas MY scholars report the man was so down on women in his writings, that he MISSED, ie "did not recognise", that Prisca was a woman. I am sorry, but we don't recognise this man as a good reliable witness.....HIs testomony just plain doesn't count due to his heavy bias...

Quote:

Do you know what basis Chrysostom had for being against women's leadership? It seems that if he believed a woman was an apostle, he would accept women as leaders in the church. It makes one wonder what his explanation was for his viewpoint.

Chrysostom believed that the weaker sex was also subject to being seduced and played and just a poor decieved human being...That is what is being reported by other scholars...

Quote:

Is it possible that he thought Junia was a general apostle and not as an apostle such as Paul and Peter? "Apostle," after all, also has the significance of "missionary" or someone who was sent out to preach or evangelize. If Chrysostom believed that Junia was an apostle in the technical sense of one who saw the risen Christ and was counted among the apostles and were sent out by God to establish and lead churches, there would be no reason for him to be against women's leadership. On the other hand, if there was such a woman, why isn't she mentioned somewhere in the book of Acts or in the other NT letters?

You rendering of "Apostle" is stretching the meaning abit. Your devaluing of ministy, servants, et al names that Jesus used makes it easier to devalue women and thier role and builds up men and thier importance. Jesus said that in His kingdom, disciples were not to LORD IT OVER THE OTHERS....instead, they were to be called "servants"....Phebes was considered "a servant" as I recall....This was said while she was a "deacon"....

Now, I am going to bed for a while...I don't expect to come back to this, John...Your scholarship of this is really stretching the evidence a bit..Don't worry, your ability in greek is still in tact...

[WayneV]

YAWN

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: My! You sure do wax strongly on this subject....I've only really given a few real good articles, and you have whaled upon them post after post after post after post, page after page after page after page ad nausem....What's the matter with this picture, John?

I just hope you're reading all my "ad nausem," as you call it.

Wow-- I like the sound of that-- ad-nauseam-- :-)

Seriously I was really hoping you would read what I wrote and then talk about the issues in response to what I said.

If you think those were real good articles that you copied and posted, Neil, you need to go back and reread them after you've studied this topic a little longer, reading in depth on both sides of the issue.

Have you read a book written from the viewpoint of opposition to WO? I read both sides of any issue or question, because it helps to keep people honest. One side of any issue is likely only to cite favorable evidence, so it's imporatant to study what the opposing side says in order to see the whole picture. I do the same with all subjects, including the Second Coming, the Investigative Judgment, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, or the Spirit of prophecy.

Your posting, though, makes it crystal clear to me that you've only just begun to study this issue. Anyone can copy and paste, but the important thing is to understand what you're pasting, and you've already proven that you're not doing that. I posted the evidence of this numerous times.

I enjoy studying and writing on many subjects. I write a lot on any Bible subject, from prophecy to the Gospels and the epistles of Paul. I'm the kind of person who writes and considers a subject until he's satisfied that he's gotten to the bottom of it.

Returning to the focus of this thread, Neil, I think the really sad picture is that you post things but then are unwilling to discuss the issues without becoming personal. A good example of this is how you began your post. I don't get personal with people when I discuss the subject.

If you did that in person, that'd be OK with me, but not on the public forum. That's the reason for the rules, to keep exchanges from becoming personal and merely an exchange of "barbs," or cutting remarks.

I could reply in kind to your posts, but I don't believe it would be right. I don't believe God is pleased to see us talk that way. As moderators, let's keep our exchanges above those attitudes and treat each other as we want to be treated. By God's grace that's what I will do even if others don't.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Epiphanius is credible because he tells us information which shows he had knowledge about Iounian that is not found in the text. As a bishop, he may well have had church records that verified his information about Junias. I find it hard to believe he was simply making up that information.

Quote:

Neil D: Excuse me?!?!?! I would concider a person a reliable witness if he was consistant in his observations...So far, according to the scholars, he refers to Prisca as a man....Either the man was drunk, or a male chauvinistic or just plain not reliable....And you say that this man is good evidence?????

Where has Epiphanius said these things? I've asked you over and over again for the reference and for the quote-- his actual words. So far you haven't provided them.

Have you read Epiphanius? If you have not read his writings, how do you know whether he's consistant or inconsistent in his observations?

Quote:

How do you know that he isn't feeding history a line?

How do I know you aren't feeding history a line? How do you know that your sources aren't feeding you a line? How do you know the "witnesses" you refer to aren't feeding history a line?

You've quoted stuff that is just plain false, but you didn't know it because you evidently don't understand it unless you have someone telling you what it says.

Quote:

YOu ask me to make sure of my evidence, and yet, I am to take yours as reliable???? PLease, John....I make LOOK stupid, but don't rely on my looks for an easy relationships...

It's OK if you don't accept evidence. That's entirely up to you.

And no, I'm not looking for any kind of "easy relationships."

Not sure what you mean by "I make LOOK stupid." I certainly never said that you "make [something] LOOK supid."

But in all sincerity I'd like to ask if I have your permission-- and Stan's and Gail's-- to talk to you as you do to posters? I wouldn't do it anyway, but I'm just wondering if you like to be talked to as you do to others. It doesn't personally bother me but I do get concerned about how it appears to other members and visitors.

It's great to post one's views and opinions-- that is the purpose of the Forum-- and it really doesn't matter what those ideas are, as long as one follows the rules and is civil and thoughtful towards others. We can disagree without being disagreeable, as Doug Batchelor said at the beginning of his sermon.

Our attitude towards each other will tell if we have Christ in our life or if we are under the influence of Christ's enemy. We need to remember that we're talking about the Bible and about things of God.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he said about Prisca. However, even if we grant that Epiphanius said Prisca was a man, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is wrong about Junias. It could be that he had no information about Prisca but that he did have valid information about Junias. If we discount all the information people give because of errors they make, then we wouldn't be able to accept any information they give, since they all made mistakes. And if I did that, I couldn't consistently accept the sources you gave, since they made a significant errors in discussing the manscript evidence.

Quote:

Neil D: You mean to say that Epiphanius is reliable because, according to YOUR scholar(s), he might have had some secret but reliable knowledge...?

That sounds abit sketchy to me...whereas MY scholars report the man was so down on women in his writings, that he MISSED, ie "did not recognise", that Prisca was a woman. I am sorry, but we don't recognise this man as a good reliable witness.....HIs testomony just plain doesn't count due to his heavy bias...

But where did Epiphanius say that Prisca was a man? Can you give the reference to Epiphanius' works and quote him? The Loma Linda University Library has his works in the original language and I'd like to see where Epiphanius is said to have made that statement about Prisca.

Are you relying on other people's explanations about him? It's important to see what he actually said.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that he did say Prisca was a man. Does that make everything else he said irrelevant? Have you ever said anything foolish? If you're human, you probably have. Do you think that your saying something foolish is cause for others to reject everything else you say from now on?

But the point here is that you have not even shown proof that Epiphanius said what is claimed. Wouldn't one want to consider whether he in fact said it, and then, once you know he said it, look to see why he said it?

Those are the things that people do when they're thinking these things through carefully and judiciously. You appear to me to have become overly emotional about the issue and to be jumping to conclusions. That's just the way it appears to me on the basis of your language. Of course, I could be totally wrong, and I hope I am.

Continued

[John317]

Continued from previous post

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: Do you know what basis Chrysostom had for being against women's leadership? It seems that if he believed a woman was an apostle, he would accept women as leaders in the church. It makes one wonder what his explanation was for his viewpoint.

Quote:

Neil D: Chrysostom believed that the weaker sex was also subject to being seduced and played and just a poor decieved human being...That is what is being reported by other scholars...

Have you actually read his writings or are you going by what people are telling you? Are those his actual words?

You make Chrysostom out to be a pretty unreliable person. Is there any chance that the reason you accept his testimony is it fits with your view?

I've seen the arugment made that women are agaisnt WO because of the influence of the men in their lives. Do you believe this? How do you account for the fact that many women are opposed to WO?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Is it possible that he thought Junia was a general apostle and not as an apostle such as Paul and Peter? "Apostle," after all, also has the significance of "missionary" or someone who was sent out to preach or evangelize. If Chrysostom believed that Junia was an apostle in the technical sense of one who saw the risen Christ and was counted among the apostles and were sent out by God to establish and lead churches, there would be no reason for him to be against women's leadership. On the other hand, if there was such a woman, why isn't she mentioned somewhere in the book of Acts or in the other NT letters?

Quote:

Neil D: You rendering of "Apostle" is stretching the meaning abit.

Neil, the word "apostle" is used in different ways in the NT. I assume you're aware of this fact, but you talk here as if you didn't know it. Explain how I am "stretching" the meaning. I am actually only saying what all good Bible scholars acknowledge and write about when they discuss the word "apostles" [Gk apostolos] (Strong's # 652). The word simply means "sent ones."

Do you beleive Junia was an apostle in the sense in which that word is used in Acts 1: 26? Or as "apostle"-- ie, "messenger" or preacher of the gospel-- is used in 2 Cor. 8: 23; Phil. 2: 25; John 13: 16?

How does Dr. Luke use the word "apostle" in Acts 14: 14? Is that different from its meaning in Acts 1: 26?

If you get a comprehensive concordance and do a word study of "apostle," you will see it has different meanings in the NT. It may mean what Bible scholars call "a general apostle" or a "technical apostle." The latter were appointed personally by Christ. These include the 12 apostles and Paul and James. General apostles are what we today would call missionaries and evangelists. See any standard Greek-English lexicon. This is common knowledge. Some examples of these two meanings are given in the above verses.

Quote:

Neil D: Your devaluing of ministy, servants, et al names that Jesus used makes it easier to devalue women and thier role and builds up men and thier importance.

I'm not devaluing anyone's ministery. But I'm directing your attention to the fact that not all references to the word "apostle" signify the same thing. As the lexicons will tell you, in the NT the Greek word apostolos can mean delegate, envoy, messenger, missionary, one who proclaims the gospel, or preacher of the gospel.

Quote:

Neil D: Jesus said that in His kingdom, disciples were not to LORD IT OVER THE OTHERS....instead, they were to be called "servants"....Phebes was considered "a servant" as I recall....This was said while she was a "deacon"....

All quite true. Yes, Phoebe was a servant, a deacon, deaconess. Thats' how the word is translated in all the Greek-English lexicons. The same word is sometimes translated "minister." (For instance, Jesus came to minister to humanity.)

Quote:

Neil D: Now, I am going to bed for a while...

I sincerely hope you get a really refreshing sleep and wake up feeling good, Neil.

Quote:

Neil D: I don't expect to come back to this, John...

Back to what, Neil?

Quote:

Your scholarship of this is really stretching the evidence a bit..

I have only said what many scholars say in well-known publications on the Scriptures. You'll find the same information in most of the good study Bibles and particularly in the standard Greek-English Lexicons and Greek dictionaries.

Quote:

Neil D: Don't worry, your ability in greek is still in tact...

Not worried about anything, but OK, thanks. I shall take that as a compliment from you, friend, whether you meant it that way or not.

Happy Sabbath! :-)

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Now, I am going to bed for a while...I don't expect to come back to this,

Notice that here are 6 translations which show Andronicus and Junias to be men. It proves without a doubt that the verse may be translated legitimately to read as it does below. Some of the best Bible scholars and translators in the world made these translations. Notice the way the Greek word, apostolos, is translated in Romans 16: 7.

1) "Andronicus and Junias... are outstanding men among the messengers..." Phillips

2) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of note among the Apostles..." Twentieth-Century NT

3) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of note among the apostles..." James Moffatt

4) "Andronicus and Junias... are men of esteem among the apostles..." Letters From Paul

5) "Andronicus and Junias... are noted men among the missionaries..." Goodspeed

6) "Andronicus and Junias... are men held in high esteem among the apostles..." Amplified

In the last few years, there have also been several translations published which render it as the name of a man. This only serves to disprove your view that there is no longer any doubt as to the sex of Iounias.

Also check out The Message, a very popular paraphrase, which I enjoy reading: "Hello to my cousins Andronicus and Junias. We once shared a jail cell. They were believers in Christ before I was. Both of them are outstanding leaders."

Do you believe that since Eugene H. Peterson decided to translate it as a man's name, it means Peterson is opposed to women? I hope you don't believe so. It wouldn't be true of him, and it's not true of anyone else who bases their belief about this issue on the Bible.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: My! You sure do wax strongly on this subject....I've only really given a few real good articles, and you have whaled upon them post after post after post after post, page after page after page after page ad nausem....What's the matter with this picture, John?

1) It says I consider the subject important.

2) It means I enjoy writing.

3) It means you better get busy and respond to the evidence I'm posting because you are falling further and further behind.

4) It means I have a lot of time on my hands.

5) The fact that you ask shows that for some reason you wish I would stop writing about it.

6) Your asking about it also shows me either that you don't know how to reply to most of my posts or that you have lost interest in the topic or.... who knows....

7) Finally, Neil, it shows that I am open-minded enough to consider everything written about it and am interested in discussing it with anyone who shares my interest in the topic. I'm willing -- indeed anxious-- to submit my evidence and reasoning to all.

8) Feel free to add your idea on this line: _________________________________________

[olger]

Doug Batchelor is a good man, in spite of what the SECC liberals say about him.

[Woody]

Doug Batchelor is a good man, in spite of what the SECC liberals say about him.

No doubt he is a good man. No one is questioning that. He has done much good. He just don't know what he is talking about on the subject of ordaining women. That was evident by his presentation and both sides have admitted his multiple errors.

If you doubt this ... just read the Conferences's response to his error. I've been in the church all my life and I do not recall a conference speaking so boldly against an individual pastor's error as this Conference has done. It was needed unfortunately. But Doug brought this upon himself.

[phkrause]

Doug Batchelor is a good man, in spite of what the SECC liberals say about him.

Most definitely agree, and I would go as far as saying the SECC don't know what they are talking about.

pk

[John317]

Originally Posted By: olger

Doug Batchelor is a good man, in spite of what the SECC liberals say about him.

No doubt he is a good man. No one is questioning that. He has done much good. He just don't know what he is talking about on the subject of ordaining women. That was evident by his presentation and both sides have admitted his multiple errors.

If you doubt this ... just read the Conferences's response to his error.

I'm going to be posting both Doug's Sermon (which I have already begun posting), and I will also be posting the responses from the Southeastern Ca Conf. and Mike Tucker.

All are welcome to express their views.

Show us specifically what you believe Doug said that shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's look at all the evidence.

Let's also keep the exchanges away from personalities and focussed strictly on the issues and the evidence.

[phkrause]

I agree with all your posts John.

I would stand with DB on everything that he says over any or most other theologians. Being also that he has a Jewish background and would more be able to determine jewish names, if they are male or female, I would also accept his view of Janias. Do I agree with all that DB says? No. Because like EGW he also says that we should check him out according to the Bible and not just take his word for it. I'm pretty sure he has done as extensive research as others or more than most on the matter of WO. And besides his wife seems to agree with him, and if you know his wife she pretty much is the boss of there home.

And for the 4th or 5th time, not one woman has asked for WO in all the years that I've been an Adventist. I think men seem to be the only ones arguing this subject. And I will say this again also, I am for WO, and if its to be it will be, period. When God leads no one can stop it.

pk

[Gregory Matthews]

Woodly said:

{quote]If you doubt this ... just read the Conferences's response to his error. I've been in the church all my life and I do not recall a conference speaking so boldly against an individual pastor's error as this Conference has done. It was needed unfortunately. But Doug brought this upon himself.

DB also made errors when he attempted to get into the field of psychology. He clearly does not understand what he is talking about in his comments.

John317: Yes, I have a graduate background in psychology and can address the above. No, I am not going to argue that point here. So, take it or leave it as to what I have said. I am simply suprised that a person of his posiiton would make the comments that he made.

[olger]

"When you hit the hive, look out."

[John317]

Gregory, I sincerely invite you when we come to that section of the sermon to share with us what you believe and think about it. I'm interested in all points of view. I think as a church we need to discuss this topic.

I have reason to believe that we're entering serious times when the church will be forced to examine its beliefs not just about Women Ordination but about the ordination and acceptance of practicing homosexuals as well. I've heard from what I consider reliable sources (a pastor in TN, who got it from the GC) that our GC will be faced with gays who want the church to accept the gay agenda. We really need to pray for our church, that it will do what God wants it to.

My question (to myself mostly) is, does the church have what it takes to stand up against this kind of pressure? I believe this is what the whole church needs to be urgently praying about.

So, come back and write what you believe about the psychological aspects of Doug Batchelor'sermon. I also invite you, if you choose to, to discuss the theological aspects as you see them.

[John317]

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: I am simply suprised that a person of his posiiton would make the comments that he made.

I'm not here to defend what Doug Batchelor said about psychology. I've already said he probably would have been better off not to bring that up, because (IMHO) it has nothing to do with the Bible position, even if he's right. He wasn't using it as proof of the theological aspects of the issue. He was using those things as a possible explanation of why the Bible's teachings make sense. He was looking at the psychology of it from a very personal viewpoint, his own and his mother's experiences. That part of the sermon is really illustration. His explanations may or may not be true, but whether they are true or not, doesn't affect what the Bible itself says about men and women's roles in the church and in the home. That's my take on the situation.

But we can return to this issue in greater depth when we get into that part of the text of DB's sermon or when we analyze the SECC response or Mike Tucker's piece.

[John317]

Thanks. And I agree with you.

I don't believe Doug Batchelor is saying people need to feel they agree with him on it or that he's completely right in everything he's saying and that everyone else who disagrees is wrong. He's expressing what he believes on the basis of his study and his walk with Christ. I don't believe everything he said, but I do believe he's right on the issue of Women's Ordination. He's not saying women have no place in ministry. On the contrary, he is saying there are many ministries that God wants women to do. They can do many good things that men can't do as well. Doug is talking about being the pastor and the elders of the churches in all world conferences.

But we can discuss these issues more, if you like, as we look in greater detail at what the participants have said.

[Neil D]

Ok, it's an opinion page...and it's about the Vatican and the sex scandel.....but it includes the same biblical views that others here have encourage- namily that there is a history of maleness overtaking the church the last 700 years..

A Church Mary Can Love

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: April 17, 2010

I heard a joke the other day about a pious soul who dies, goes to heaven, and gains an audience with the Virgin Mary. The visitor asks Mary why, for all her blessings, she always appears in paintings as a bit sad, a bit wistful: Is everything O.K.?

Mary reassures her visitor: “Oh, everything’s great. No problems. It’s just ... it’s just that we had always wanted a daughter.”

That story comes to mind as the Vatican wrestles with the consequences of a patriarchal premodern mind-set: scandal, cover-up and the clumsiest self-defense since Watergate. That’s what happens with old boys’ clubs.

It wasn’t inevitable that the Catholic Church would grow so addicted to male domination, celibacy and rigid hierarchies. Jesus himself focused on the needy rather than dogma, and went out of his way to engage women and treat them with respect.

The first-century church was inclusive and democratic, even including a proto-feminist wing and texts. The Gospel of Philip, a Gnostic text from the third century, declares of Mary Magdalene: “She is the one the Savior loved more than all the disciples.” Likewise, the Gospel of Mary (from the early second century) suggests that Jesus entrusted Mary Magdalene to instruct the disciples on his religious teachings.

St. Paul refers in Romans 16 to a first-century woman named Junia as prominent among the early apostles, and to a woman named Phoebe who served as a deacon. The Apostle Junia became a Christian before St. Paul did (chauvinist translators have sometimes rendered her name masculine, with no scholarly basis).

Yet over the ensuing centuries, the church reverted to strong patriarchal attitudes, while also becoming increasingly uncomfortable with sexuality. The shift may have come with the move from house churches, where women were naturally accepted, to more public gatherings.

The upshot is that proto-feminist texts were not included when the Bible was compiled (and were mostly lost until modern times). Tertullian, an early Christian leader, denounced women as “the gateway to the devil,” while a contemporary account reports that the great Origen of Alexandria took his piety a step further and castrated himself.

The Catholic Church still seems stuck today in that patriarchal rut. The same faith that was so pioneering that it had Junia as a female apostle way back in the first century can’t even have a woman as the lowliest parish priest. Female deacons, permitted for centuries, are banned today.

That old boys’ club in the Vatican became as self-absorbed as other old boys’ clubs, like Lehman Brothers, with similar results. And that is the reason the Vatican is floundering today.

But there’s more to the picture than that. In my travels around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. One is the rigid all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. To me at least, this church — obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted from social justice — is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus criticized.

Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty.

This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives.

This is the church of the Maryknoll Sisters in Central America and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa. There’s a stereotype of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. I learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters like that, I’ve come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns.

So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church. Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a difference.

It’s high time for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime — even divine — side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers whose magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness. They’re enough to make the Virgin Mary smile.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, and it seems some amongst us would be more comfortable with the dogma and traditions of the Vatican on the matter of the role and function of women...

I think we need to reignite the "protest" in Protestantism...

[olger]

Gregory, I sincerely invite you when we come to that section of the sermon to share with us what you believe and think about it. I'm interested in all points of view. I think as a church we need to discuss this topic.

I have reason to believe that we're entering serious times when the church will be forced to examine its beliefs not just about Women Ordination but about the ordination and acceptance of practicing homosexuals as well. I've heard from what I consider reliable sources (a pastor in TN, who got it from the GC) that our GC will be faced with gays who want the church to accept the gay agenda. We really need to pray for our church, that it will do what God wants it to.

My question (to myself mostly) is, does the church have what it takes to stand up against this kind of pressure? I believe this is what the whole church needs to be urgently praying about.

So, come back and write what you believe about the psychological aspects of Doug Batchelor'sermon. I also invite you, if you choose to, to discuss the theological aspects as you see them.

Makes sense. Both issues are gender issues and feed organically off of each other.

g

[karl]

Yes, and it seems some amongst us would be more comfortable with the dogma and traditions of the Vatican on the matter of the role and function of women...

I think we need to reignite the "protest" in Protestantism...

I agree with your last sentence above, but I don't think you want me to.

Aren't the same people who are FOR women's ordination OPPOSED to any direct protests against Roman Catholic teachings or political machinations?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the whole liberal theology thing is a bit of a politically correct package.

1) Against sanctification as part of salvation.

2) Pro-WO

3) Coddling to those who are vocally disaffected from main-stream Adventism

4) Pro-gay

5) Against any confrontation with Roman Catholic teachings

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Ok, it's an opinion page...and it's about the Vatican and the sex scandel.....but it includes the same biblical views that others here have encourage- namily that there is a history of maleness overtaking the church the last 700 years..

The church never had women priests or pastors before 1300 AD. So why do you say "the last 700 years"? Can you name a female biship or archbishop during those centuries?

Quote:

Neil D: The first-century church was inclusive and democratic, even including a proto-feminist wing and texts. The Gospel of Philip, a Gnostic text from the third century, declares of Mary Magdalene: “She is the one the Savior loved more than all the disciples.” Likewise, the Gospel of Mary (from the early second century) suggests that Jesus entrusted Mary Magdalene to instruct the disciples on his religious teachings.

We don't accept Gnostic texts. They're false and therefore hold absolutely no authority or even influence on what SDAs do. They contain heresies and were rejected by the Christian churches. Other than for historical interest, I wouldn't even bring them up.

Quote:

Neil D: St. Paul refers in Romans 16 to a first-century woman named Junia as prominent among the early apostles, and to a woman named Phoebe who served as a deacon. The Apostle Junia became a Christian before St. Paul did (chauvinist translators have sometimes rendered her name masculine, with no scholarly basis).

Wow-- you can tell this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't realize that all the Greek-English lexicons, including Thayer's, give the male name Junias at Romans 16: 7. I have the male name also in 7 out of 12 printed Greek New Testaments. In addition, by the far the majority of the English translations read "Junias," not Junia. The female name is in the minority.

He's basing his view on political correctness and a political agenda, not linguistics. We could turn it around and say it's being translated a certain way because of feminists. That wouldn't be right, would it? Both kinds of arguments are wrong.

Let's see if the writer of your opinion page knows what he's talking about when he says there is no scholarly basis for translating the name Iounian as a male:

38. In Romans 16:7, Paul wrote, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who

have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in

Christ before I was.” Isn’t Junias a woman? And wasn’t she an apostle? And doesn’t that

mean that Paul was willing to acknowledge that a woman held a very authoritative

position over men in the early church?

Let’s take these three questions one at a time.

1. Was Junias a woman? We cannot know. The evidence is indecisive. We did a

complete search of all the Greek writings from Homer (b.c. ninth century?) into the fifth

century a.d. available now on computer through the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (Pilot

CD ROM #C, University of California at Irvine, 1987), which contains 2,889 authors and

8,203 works. We asked the computer for all forms of Iounia- so that we would pick up all

the possible cases. (We did not search for the possible first declension masculine genitive

Iouniou, which morphologically could come from a masculine Iounias, because there is

no way to tell if Iouniou might come from the man’s name Iounios; so that all these

genitive forms would be useless in establishing a masculine Iounias.)

The result of our computer search is this: Besides the one instance in Romans 16:7

there were three others.

1. Plutarch (ca. a.d. 50-ca. 120), in his Life of Marcus Brutus, wrote about the tension

between Brutus and Cassius, “. . . though they were connected in their families, Cassius

having married Junia, the sister of Brutus (Iounia gar adelphe¯ Broutou sunoikei

Kassios).”17

2. Epiphanius (a.d. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of

Disciples, in which he includes this line: “Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became

bishop of Apameia of Syria” (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase “of

whom” is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought Iounias

was a man.

3. John Chrysostom (a.d. 347-407), in preaching on Romans 16:7, said in reference to

Junias, “Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted

worthy of the appellation of apostle!”

What we may learn from these three uses is that Junias was used as a woman’s name

in the time around the New Testament (Plutarch). The Church Fathers were evidently

divided as to whether Paul was using Junias that way, Epiphanius assuming it is

masculine, Chrysostom assuming it is feminine. Perhaps somewhat more weight may be

given to the statement by Epiphanius, since he appears to know more specific information

about Junias (that he became bishop of Apameia), while Chrysostom gives no more

information than what he could deduce from Romans 16:7).19

Perhaps more significant than either of these, however, is a Latin quotation from

Origen (died 252 a.d.), in the earliest extant commentary on Romans: He says that Paul

refers to “Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow

captives (Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion, quos omnes et cognatos suos, et

concaptivos appellat)” (Origen’s commentary on Romas, preserved in a Latin translation

by Rufinus, c. 345-c.410 a.d., in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 14, col. 1289). The

name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying-if this ancient

translation is reliable-that Origin (who was one of the ancient world’s most proficient

scholars) thought Junias was a man. Coupled with the quotation from Epiphanias, this

quotation makes the weight of ancient evidence support this view.

Masculine names ending in -as are not unusual even in the New Testament: Andrew

(Andreas, Matthew 10:2), Elijah (Elias, Matthew 11:14), Isaiah (Esaias, John 1:23),

Zacharias (Luke 1:5). A. T. Robertson (Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New

York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914], pp. 171-173) shows that numerous names ending in

-as are shortened forms for clearly masculine forms. The clearest example in the New

Testament is Silas (Acts 15:22) from Silvanus (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:12).

So there is no way to be dogmatic about what the form of the name signifies. It could

be feminine or it could be masculine. Certainly no one should claim that Junia was a

common woman’s name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only these three

known examples in all of ancient Greek literature. Moreover the fact that Andronicus and

Junias, like Prisca and Aquila (16:3), are given as a pair does not demand that they be

husband and wife, because in 16:12 two women are greeted as a pair: “Greet Tryphena

and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.” Andronicus and Junias could be

addressed as two men, since Tryphena and Tryphosa are addressed as two women.

2. Was Junias an apostle? Possibly so, but this is not certain. 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. But this is unlikely because Paul

himself is an apostle and would probably not refer to them in the third person. On the

other hand, since Andronicus and Junias were Christians before Paul was, it may be that

their longstanding ministry (reaching back before Paul’s) is precisely what Paul might

have in mind when he says “of note among the apostles.” They may well have been

known among the apostles before Paul was even converted. Here again we cannot be

certain.

3. Did Junias have a very authoritative position in the early church? Probably not. The

word apostle is used for servants of Christ at different levels of authority in the New

Testament. Revelation 21:14 refers to “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (cf. Matthew

19:28; Acts 1:15-26). The twelve had a unique role in bearing witness to the resurrection

of Jesus. Paul counted himself among the privileged group by insisting on having seen

and been called by the risen Christ (Galatians 1:1, 12; 1 Corinthians 9:1-2). Very closely

related with this unique inner ring were the missionary partners of Paul, Barnabas (Acts

14:14) and Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 2:6), as well as James, the Lord’s

brother (Galatians 1:19) and perhaps others (1 Corinthians 15:7).

Finally, the word apostle is used in a broad sense as “messenger,” for example, of

Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25, and of several “messengers of the churches” in 2

Corinthians 8:23. Therefore, if Andronicus and Junias were apostles, they were probably

among the third group serving in some kind of itinerant ministry. If Junias is a woman,

this would seem to put her in the same category with Priscilla, who with her husband

seemed to do at least a little travelling with the Apostle Paul (Acts 18:18). The ministry

would be significant but not necessarily in the category of an authoritative governor of

the churches like Paul (2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:10).

39. Paul seems to base the primary responsibility of man to lead and teach on the fact

that he was created first, before woman (1 Timothy 2:13). How is this a valid argument

when the animals were created before man, but don’t have primary responsibility for

leading him?

The contextual basis for this argument in the book of Genesis is the assumption

throughout the book that the “firstborn” in a human family has the special right and

responsibility of leadership in the family. When the Hebrews gave a special responsibility

to the “firstborn,” it never entered their minds that this responsibility would be nullified if the father happened to own cattle before he had sons. In other words, when Moses wrote this, he knew that the first readers would not lump animals and humans together as equal candidates for the responsibilities of the “firstborn.” We shouldn’t either.

Once this concern with the priority of animals is out of the way, the question that

evangelical feminists must come to terms with is why God should choose to create man

and woman sequentially. It won’t do just to say, “Sequence doesn’t have to mean

leadership priority.” The question is: “What does this sequence mean?” Why didn’t God

create them simultaneously out of the same dust? In the context of all the textual pointers

assembled by Ray Ortlund Jr. in his chapter on Genesis 1-3, we think the most natural

implication of God’s decision to bring Adam onto the scene ahead of Eve is that he is

called to bear the responsibility of headship. That fact is validated by the New Testament

when Paul uses the fact that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13) to draw

a conclusion about male leadership in the church.

40. Isn’t it true that the reason Paul did not permit women to teach was that women

were not well-educated in the first century? But that reason does not apply today. In fact,

since women are as well-educated as men today, shouldn’t we allow both women and

men to be pastors?

This objection does not match the data in the Biblical text, for at least three reasons:

(1) Paul does not give lack of education as a reason for saying that women cannot “teach

or have authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12), but rather points back to creation (1

Timothy 2:13-14). It is precarious to build an argument on a reason Paul did not give,

instead of the reason he did give.

(2) Formal training in Scripture was not required for church leadership in the New

Testament church-even several of the apostles did not have formal Biblical training (Acts

4:13), while the skills of basic literacy and therefore the ability to read and study

Scripture were available to men and women alike (note Acts 18:26; Romans 16:1; 1

Timothy 2:11; Titus 2:3-4). The papyri show “widespread literacy” among Greakspeaking

women in Egypt, and, in Roman society, “many women were educated and

witty” (Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. N. Hammond and H. Scullard [second edition;

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970], p. 1139).

(3) If any woman in the New Testament church was well-educated, it would have

been Priscilla, yet Paul was writing 1 Timothy 2:12 to Ephesus (1Timothy 1:3), the home

church of Priscilla and Aquila. Beginnning in 50 a.d., Paul had stayed at the home of

Priscilla and Aquila in Corinth for eighteen months (Acts 18:2, 11), then they had gone

with Paul to Ephesus in 51 a.d. (Acts 18:18-19, 21). Even by that time Priscilla knew

Scripture well enough to help instruct Apollos (Acts 18:26). Then she had probably

learned from Paul himself for another three years, while he stayed at Ephesus teaching

“the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27, rsv; cf. v. 31; also 1 Corinthians 16:19), and no

doubt many other women in Ephesus followed her example and also learned from Paul.

Aquila and Priscilla had gone to Rome sometime later (Romans 16:3), about 58 a.d., but

apparently had returned, for they were in Ephesus again at the end of Paul’s life (2

Timothy 4:19), about 67 a.d. Therefore it is likely that they were back in Ephesus in 65

a.d., about the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy (persecution of Christians began in Rome in 64

a.d.). Yet not even well-educated Priscilla, nor any other well-educated women in

Ephesus, were allowed to teach men in the public assembly of the church: writing to

Ephesus, Paul said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (1

Timothy 2:12). The reason was not lack of education, but creation order.

See entire book: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/overview_central_concerns.pdf

[karl]

In Romans 16:7, Paul wrote, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who

have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”

If Junias were a woman, would she have been in prison with Paul?

[John317]

Yes, I agree with you.

Check out these links to a very good book that discusses all these issues:

The first is to the book, the second to a chapter:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_...direction-desc/

http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/overview_central_concerns.pdf

[Gregory Matthews]

John317 said:

Quote:

The church never had women priests or pastors before 1300 AD. So why do you say "the last 700 years"? Can you name a female biship or archbishop during those centuries?

Would you like to share with us why you did not mention a female pope? Well, a am not up on my dates. Perhaps it was after 1300?