‘Variance’ for North American, Trans-European Division Fails

[Twilight II]

THat only reflects a biased interpretation of what I have posted by those who are biased against women in ministry. To describe my position as anti-Biblical requires one to ignore the numerous Biblical references I have posted in support of my views.

If true, that would apply just as surely to your post about me being biased.

What Biblical references?

You have not shown once that the edict in the garden of Eden was done awa with during bible times.

And yes I am biased, biased away from secular think tank social engineering and biased towards Gods viewpoint, because God has a bias.

I would surrender that bias if God has changed His mind and that can be shown from the scripture.

My point was simple though, arguing bias does not prove your position, being honest about having a bias negates that argument...

[Neil D]

Gentlemen....gentlemen.....

Please...let us not get to the usual YOU SAID,BUT YOU SAID arguements....This rather childish bantering of YOU NEVER POSTED YOUR VIEWS BEFORE, and I HAVE TOO stuff is rather old.....and most of all, it gets us no where fast.

Has anyone been to "no where" ? I've heard of a place called "10 miles from no where" and it's in Northern California...My father told me that he had been there...Always wanted to seek out that place...

Apparently, it's a mobile place.....

[CoAspen]

Yup! It's a catch-22 subject! D if you do and D if you don't!!

After awhile it becomes rather amusing...don't you think!

A subject that does not have salvation implications becomes one the most controversial subjects, other than sexual orientations, on this forum. Wonder where our focus is??

[Neil D]

Sex????

You were talking about sex???? I'm all ears....

Oh, [ahem] you were NOT talking about sex....

So, uh, um, where were we....?

Oh, isn't this about why we can't have women leaders....?

...and why they can't be in the temple?

[doug yowell]

I don't think Paul discriminated in New Testament times. Culture was different then and so were situations. I'm very familiar with the writings of the New Testament. Because of your unwillingness to think outside the box you will never be able to accept the fact that God is fair in all situations and works accordingly. When a system isn't working, He tries something else.

I do not think that thinking outside the box is a very safe thing if that box happens to be God's revealed word, the Bible."There is a way which seems right to a man, but..." There is a vast gulf between those of us who reason from God's word and those who reason from experience and culture. You simply have nothing Scripturally harmonious to offer when asked why neither the New Testament or Old Testament except to explain it away by putting God in a cultural box on a moral matter(discrimitation against women in spiritual "headship" roles). Yet you then imply strongly that the system that God did establish in the Bible didn't work so He had to wait for EGW to come along in order to show the Church that He made a boo boo (talk about putting God in a box). While basing one argument on the cultural change in the US you also fail to note that there are far more cultures out there that still hold to the former cultural model (and worse). If God's church is to be one world wide body then one spiritual model must persist for all cultures. You can simply claim no biblical evidence that Paul forbid women to exercise authority over men because of cultural taboos. Paul always basis his reasoning in the creation order. To argue that because our culture allows women to do whatever they want God must be in agreement is just plain made up.

[doug yowell]

PST: Doug, In regards to Ellen G. White and her high office, I have a document that shows she was an ordained minister and in the Testimonies she wrote letters to Ministers correcting them on their behaviour.

That's what prophets do and they don't need official GC recognition, credentialing, or permission to do it.

[doug yowell]

Gentlemen....gentlemen.....

Please...let us not get to the usual YOU SAID,BUT YOU SAID arguements....This rather childish bantering of YOU NEVER POSTED YOUR VIEWS BEFORE, and I HAVE TOO stuff is rather old.....and most of all, it gets us no where fast.

Has anyone been to "no where" ? I've heard of a place called "10 miles from no where" and it's in Northern California...My father told me that he had been there...Always wanted to seek out that place...

Apparently, it's a mobile place.....

Send us a post card if you ever find it. We might want to join you there someday if they have enough rooms.

[CoAspen]

I think this subject needs a by all sides!

Maybe we could draw up a document and have everyone sign saying " I will not repeat myself ad nauseam and agree to disagree"!

[doug yowell]

Bill Fagal is very clear in his adamant opposition to women in ministry. I would not take his view unbiased.

He is very clear in expressing his interpretation of history.

How can we know for sure that his interpretation is wrong, when in doubt pick one side and stick with it? Remember that our practice must be in harmony with the Revelation of Scripture not vice versa. At least that's what EGW told us once.Arguing "we did it (or we never did it) therefore it must be from God" is no ultimate winner either.

[doug yowell]

I think this subject needs a by all sides!

Maybe we could draw up a document and have everyone sign saying " I will not repeat myself ad nauseam and agree to disagree"!

500 times!

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: arnie

PST: Doug, In regards to Ellen G. White and her high office, I have a document that shows she was an ordained minister and in the Testimonies she wrote letters to Ministers correcting them on their behaviour.

That's what prophets do and they don't need official GC recognition, credentialing, or permission to do it.

No one is arguing that she had or needed a prophet credential. But to be recognized as an ordained minister of the SDA Church, function as such and be paid for her services as a minister to the church she needed a credential and in fact was issued one.

I have yet to hear anyone give a plausible answer to the dishonesty of the idea that the General Conference would issue her false credentials. If they gave her that credential and she was not recognized as an ordained minister of the Church, they would be lying. And for her to use it if she was not an ordained minister is saying she was also guilty of dishonesty.

How do you explain that?

[CoAspen]

Good question.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Nevertheless, it occurs to me, that the word 'servant' in this case does carry with it, some inhertant meanings...including minister, a leader with preaching capabilities..

Where do you get that? The word "servant" means the same as "minister of religion"? This is absolute nonsense. Go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of the word "servant". You cannot make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Most English translations have it as "servant," which does NOT mean the same as "minister of religion."

Your schooling system really has a lot to answer for. The explanation for the heart of most problems in religion can be found here: problems with religion

[Neil D]

Where do you get that? The word "servant" means the same as "minister of religion"? This is absolute nonsense. Go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of the word "servant". You cannot make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Most English translations have it as "servant," which does NOT mean the same as "minister of religion."

Your schooling system really has a lot to answer for. The explanation for the heart of most problems in religion can be found here: problems with religion

The problem seems to be that unless there is a statement, ie

"you should ordain female ministers, priests and pastors.", there is no precedence for it and they can not be anything close to what a male should be...because, well,..they are women... However, when one points out that there are female deacons, or even apostles,...why it's preposterous that a female could do leadership as well as a man could. And yes, I can offer evidence of both deacon and apostle of female gender. And the bible gives these females the name of servants/deacons and apostle. So, don't argue with me...argue with the Word....

....and good luck with that...

[Tom Wetmore]

Uhh... You do know that the NT was not written in 21st Century English, don't you?

We are talking about the meaning of the original language it was written in, 1st Century Greek.

[epaminondas]

Whatever one says, whatever one does, there is no way anyone can say Romans 16:1 unequivocally states that Phoebe was a minister of religion, a pastor or a priest. Most English translations opted for servant to convey the meaning. That is to say, the translators thought "servant" most closely conveyed the meaning. First you invoked the translators, now you're against them. If they thought pastor or priest was closest they would have used those words.

To TW:

Quote:

We are talking about the meaning of the original language it was written in, 1st Century Greek.

And the word used does NOT mean "minister of religion", "pastor" or "priestess." One series of meanings I got was: dusty one; servant; messenger for the more modern version of the word and maybe deacon for the older version.

Here is a link to many English translations of Romans 16:1 and commentaries which mention the word used in the Greek. Please note that the "minister" used in one some of the commentaries is in the sense of a verb. One commentary explicitly states:

Quote:

not that she was a teacher of the word, or preacher of the Gospel, for that was not allowed of by the apostle in the church at Corinth, that a woman should teach;

Why do you want to bend the truth? Why do you want to make it appear as if there is no option but that Phoebe was the equivalent of a modern pastor, priest or minister of religion when that is the least likely of all explanations?

[aldona]

Quote:

Nevertheless, it occurs to me, that the word 'servant' in this case does carry with it, some inhertant meanings...including minister, a leader with preaching capabilities..

Where do you get that? The word "servant" means the same as "minister of religion"? This is absolute nonsense. Go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of the word "servant". You cannot make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Most English translations have it as "servant," which does NOT mean the same as "minister of religion."

Your schooling system really has a lot to answer for. The explanation for the heart of most problems in religion can be found here: problems with religion

If our idea of "leadership" or "ministry" was like that modelled by Christ - that is, if we truly understood that the one who wants to become a leader must be a servant, to the point of being willing to offer his/her life for those who are being led - there would be no more debate about male vs female in ministry. The men would all leave the ministry in droves and leave this whole line of work open to females, just as has been the case with all other "servant"-type jobs (cleaning, nursing, looking after the aged and disabled, etc.)

The fact that we are still having this argument shows that we are still under the misconception that to be a leader or pastor is to be "higher" or "above" others, just as the Pharisees lorded it over those "beneath" them.

Meanwhile, women who receive God's call to preach the gospel are just going right ahead and doing so, without wasting time arguing about what "title" men will assign to them.

AJ

[Neil D]

Whatever one says, whatever one does, there is no way anyone can say Romans 16:1 unequivocally states that Phoebe was a minister of religion, a pastor or a priest. Most English translations opted for servant to convey the meaning. That is to say, the translators thought "servant" most closely conveyed the meaning. First you invoked the translators, now you're against them. If they thought pastor or priest was closest they would have used those words.

Ok, so "servant" doesn't mean "Minister of religion", or "pastor" or "priest". I agree. What you haven't heard was that we were trying to emphasize was that there is leadership potential here. In fact, the greek word that describes Pheobe as servant also is the same word that is used by Paul to describe himself in Ephes 3:7 "I was made a minister",,...and that the word for servant in her case is translated over 22 times as deacon. See Strongs concordance...So, the code word for servant also means minister...because Tychicus is called a servant in the NIV and a minister in the KJV, Eph. 6:21, yet both are translated from the same Greek word used for Phoebe.

"For she herself has also been a "prostatis" of many, and of myself as well." Prostatis, 4368, is defined by Thayer's Greek Definitions as "A woman set over others, a female guardian, a protectress, a patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources." "Patroness" indicates ample financial resources. She has helped and protected many, including Paul, and is traveling on church business requiring the help of the congregation. "Set over others" she may be one of the Greek "leading" or "chief women" Paul mentions converting in Acts.17:4.

There is lots of evidence that points out that she was a leader in her day...So, if she can become a leader, why not the women of our day?

[Parade Orange]

folks have been arguing this for decades in the SDA church

i feel like Paul is trying to argu about greeks not getting their forskins cut off

and PAUL sees they refuse to understand

the men had to lift their robes to show if they were HIS back then!

it's very clear and mandated all over the OT His children must get CIRCUMCISED!

even to the point of death to MOSES when he didnt do it!!!!!!!!

very very important stuff Paul was going against the whole mind,culture,religious,mandates,understandings,.. OLD TESTAMENT!

it was now DIFFERENT and all that CUTTING OFF THE FLESH OF YOUR WEES went into waste basket !

but it took YEARS for christian Jews to figure it out

just like now!

when will u folks figure it out?

GOD gave us a WOMAN to lead the CHURCH in the LAST DAYS for a reason!!!!!!

u think there wasnt a weakest of the weak thats wasnt a dude????????/

[John317]

Bill Fagal is very clear in his adamant opposition to women in ministry. I would not take his view unbiased.

He is very clear in expressing his interpretation of history.

Looks like you don't accept what he says because you don't like it, not because there's anything mistaken or wrong with what William Fagal says.

What do you believe is the reason Ellen White accepted the ministerial credential? Do you have better information than the Ellen G. White Estate about this question?

Would you accept what James Nix has to say about it?

[Overaged]

PO! NO ROBE LIFTING!!

[Overaged]

He said they said....you are! No you are!

[Parade Orange]

u funny OA

well if u lift my robe all u would see is my CLARABELL UNDERWEAR

[Parade Orange]

..... err .. wait

I dont wear a robe

its more like a Hilary Clinton pantsuit!!!!!!!!!!

[John317]

I don't think Paul discriminated in New Testament times. Culture was different then and so were situations.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

... If God's church is to be one world wide body then one spiritual model must persist for all cultures. You can simply claim no biblical evidence that Paul forbid women to exercise authority over men because of cultural taboos. Paul always basis his reasoning in the creation order. To argue that because our culture allows women to do whatever they want God must be in agreement is just plain made up.

I agree, Doug. The fact is that Paul doesn't refer to cultural taboos at all as the reason for his instructions concerning man and woman's role in the church.

Paul says (1 Cor. 14: 30-40) that his instructions for women to "keep silent" in the churches applies to "all the churches of the saints." His explaination is that woman is "to be submissive, as the law also says." In 1 Cor. 11: 3-16, Paul points to the creation of man and woman as the reason for the differences between them in the church. The main difference here, again, is the fact that man was created first, then woman, and woman is from man, not man from woman. The woman was created for man, not man for the woman.

Notice that Paul again informs his readers that he's describing the practice of Christians in the "churches of God" (v. 16). There's no indication that Paul is telling the church at Corinth to do anything different from all the rest of the churches that he established.

When we look at 1 Tim. 2: 8-15, we find Paul again pointing his readers to the creation of man and woman, as well as to the Fall, as the reason for His instructions. He doesn't say anything about culture or false doctrines in the church. So we can dismiss culture and false teachings as reasons for what Paul says regarding the role of woman in the churches of God.

Verses 13 and 14 refer us to Adam as having been formed first and to the fact that Eve was deceived whereas Adam was not.

Notice that after Paul says (in 1 Cor. 14: 34-38) that women are to keep silent in the churches, he goes on to tell his readers that "if anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things" which Paul has written "are the commandments of the Lord." His next statement is, "If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."

Clearly the apostle Paul was not giving his mere opinion, but it is obvious to me that Paul believed he was giving us the very commandments of Christ.