Certainly right there jasd and it should be obvious to all that those who apply some of Paul's anti-female thinking to our time shoud be willing to follow all of his advice wouldn't you think?

No one is saying women can't serve the Lord in various ministries or in many different ways. What we're trying to find out, and what we're discussing, is what the Bible teaches about the organization of the church and about its officers.

Some people believe that Paul was "chauvinistic." Do you share that point of view?

Of course there are some, too, who claim Paul was homophobic and that anyone who believes that homosexuality is sinful is also homophobic.

I think it's wrong to label people with those words simply because they believe what the Bible is saying on those issues.

I've already made up my mind that homosexuality is sinful, but I am not at all homophobic. I haven't made up my mind about what the Bible teaches as regards women in ministry but am studying the issues and the evidence. So far, I don't see evidence the Bible says women ought to be made bishops or overseers or ordained pastors of the church. But I would be willing and happy to accept them as ordained pastors of local churches if I could find evidence that the Bible shows a time would come when this would be God's will. This is what I am looking for. But my view on it must come from the Bible and not from society or from current church practice or tradition.



Are you implying that the Pastoral Epistles, which Paul wrote in order to give instructions about the officers of the church, are irrelevant? Or that there are other books in the Bible that have greater authority and that contradict the instructions in the Pastoral Epistles?



In Romans 16: 7, the Greek word Jounian is accusative, singular, masculine.

Epiphanius (A.D. 315- 403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he includes this line: "Jounias, 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 Jounias was a man.

Origen (died 552 A.D) also evidently thought Jounias was a man since he translated it in his commentary on Romans by a Latin masculine, singlular, nominative noun: "et Junias."

The truth is that no one can be absolutely certain whether Romans 16: 7 is referring to a female or male. It could be feminine or it could be masculine. It was certainly not a common female name in the Greek world, since there are only three known occurrences of it as a female name in all of ancient Greek literature. The weight of both grammatical and historical evidence appears to be against its being a female name.

Was Junias an apostle? Possibly so, but this is not certain. Grammatically, the phrase, "of note among the apostles" could mean that the apostles held Andronicus and Junias in high regard. Thus they would not be themselves apostles.

We could go further into the meaning and significance of Romans 16: 7 if you like.



I agree with these facts, but how do they signify that the Bible teaches women are to be elders and overseers in the church? Certainly women have important roles in the spreading of the gospel. I think it's possible your argument here shows that you misunderstand the views of those who oppose women's ordination. They don't argue that women can't be evangelists or work in many types of ministries. The question is whether the Bible teaches that women are to be officers in the church, not whether women can preach or teach. Remember that Priscilla taught Apollos and that in the NT church, women did pray and prophesy. So no one is arguing that under all circumstances, women should not preach or teach, etc.



God is free, of course, to choose women as prophetess. The church doesn't choose prophets.

None of the 13 apostles were female. Neither were any of the NT elders or bishops or pastors. That is, none of the NT churches had women as their leaders or rulers.

Women in the NT did give their personal testimonies about Jesus and they also served as prophets, teachers, and as deaconesses. They served under the leaders and rulers of the churches.



The words in Greek are best translated, "pastor-teacher," or to signify someone who had the gift of both pastoring and teaching.



Ellen White never served as an ordained minister in the sense in which that word is understood today, that is, as the leader of a local church. "Minister" can also mean "servant," and Ellen White often referred to herself as the servant of the Lord. As a prophet, or as someone whose work encompassed more than the work of a prophet, Ellen White was selected and ordained by God and not by men or by the church. Her responsibilities as a prophetess or, as she preferred to be called, as a "messenger of the Lord," didn't depend on the recognition of the church.

Please check out Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the essays written by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/wo/pip-evol.html

I posted these three essays on the thread, "Women In Ministry," and would be very interested in your responses to any of the evidence he discusses. He speaks directly to all of the points you've brought up here.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

I am sure John317 that you are able to speak to your personal opposition to ordination of women ... we have seen much of that.

However ... I fear you are not able to speak to the view of others who oppose this. In fact ... you don't have to look far to see that some here oppose women speaking in church at all. I could probably dig up the quotes unless they have been deleted.

I have personally seen many who oppose WO who very much oppose having a woman speak in church. This is first hand and on this forum. So, unless you know of a designated spokesperson or more likely a spokesMAN ... who can speak towards the accepted belief of gender discrimination .... I would say that it is possible that YOU may not fully understand the opposition other than your own.

Do you believe that the Epistles of Paul give us the Word of God or Paul's culturally-conditioned, personal opinions?

Please notice what Paul says in l Cor. 14: 37, 38. What do you think of this?

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

You might look at Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Crossway Books, 2006. It's a book of essays written by 26 different scholars on the subject. None of them make the case that women ought not to be able to speak at all in church.

But the real issue here is what the the Greek NT says about the officers in the church, specifically whether there were any women serving in the NT church as elders, pastors, overseers or bishops, etc.

The world-wide church in GC does not oppose women being able to speak or preach in the church. I am certainly not opposed to that, and I don't believe Paul's statement can be rightly understood to mean that. I know for sure that Samuel Koranteng-Pipim: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/wo/pip-evol.html/ does not mean that, either. And neither does Doug Batchelor or the well-known pastor of the church in Fresno.

Do you know of any leaders in the church or any books published by SDAs that oppose women speaking at church under all conditions and in all situations?

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was asking who was YOUR authority since you seemed to be speaking for all those opposed to WO.

I could list all kinds of people who believe that women should not speak in church ... but I personally do not believe that annocdotal references make a good preference for speaking in regard to ALL those who oppose WO.

I had asked you for a reference as to who speaks for ALL those who oppose WO. You seemed to be speaking with some authority.

This has been a problem when I read your posts. You seem to make statements and suggestions but without references. In fact I find many of your bold statements to be totally wrong.

You have stated that NO vote was ever made to ordain women elders. I have repeatedly provided that reference for you and then you repeat the accusation.

Here are a few more unfounded statements ...



Please provide references for the above claim. The Annual Council has voted and approved the above in 1975 and the GC has repeatedly enforced this by not voting to oppose it in any way. If the "vast majority" opposed it then why did they not vote and address the issue. By their "inaction" they have approved it.



Please provide a reference for the above outrageous claim.



Again ... please provide a reference for this outrageous claim.



Can you explain with references .. how pastors are not appointed by God. That one just blows my mind.



No such vote has been taken that I am aware of .. please provide references for such a vote.



You seem to make this bold claim repeatedly. But please provide the reference.


The above claim would be countered by multiple documents that have been presented here. OR are you calling her a liar for signing these documents?



This is simply untrue. The list of credentialed ordained women ministers during Ellen White's time has been posted. Do you have any references to counter this list?


This insinuation has been shown to be untrue ... but you continue to repeat it without references.



If women pastors and elders contradict the Bible ... this is entirely YOUR opinion. And that is fine. But I would rather that you refrain from stating that the "church" goes along with your "opinion". I am not aware of ANY vote that would indicate that women pastors and elders is contrary to scripture. Yet, this promotion remains in your posts. Please provide references for your statements about the church.

I feel that with the force of your unfounded statements ... you are misleading a great number of people. I hope you can correct this problem.

As you study the literature on the subject, you find that the issue is not whether women cannot speak in church at all, but whether women should be pastors and elders or overseers, etc. In other words, it has to do with the question of whether women should be church officers with certain kinds of doctrinal and governing authority.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

I've said that no such vote to ordain women as elders and pastors was made by the world church in General Conference session.





I accept the vote by the GC in opposition to women being made pastors and elders as evidence that the GC in session opposes that action.



I don't believe that we can assume that the GC in session approves the vote by the Annual Council just because it does not vote to oppose it. The simple fact that the GC did not vote in favor of women being ordained elders and pastors of local churches shows me that it does not approve of their being made elders and pastors.





When did the GC in session vote in favor of making women pastors on a conference by conference basis?

Do you know what the vote ratio was?

Here's a 1995 statement by Fritz Guy:

The vote in Utrecht against allowing equality for Adventist women in ministry was a grievous error. It constitutes a blot on the history and character of Adventism, and it must be rectified as early, as clearly, and as widely as possible. A proper response to this vote must address its meaning; to try merely to circumvent it verbally and procedurally is to ignore the stark reality that it was morally wrong. What we need to be doing now is not finding ways to affirm women without ordaining them, but finding ways to ordain them without resulting in too much turmoil.

Some practices and structures (such as the distribution of tithe funds, the organization of conferences, and the use of various communication media) are matters of church policy, and they can be settled by a majority vote according to practical and cultural considerations. In such cases we accept decisions even if we disagree with them. But the full equality of women and men in ministry is a matter of moral, spiritual, and theological integrity, in which we must be guided by the teaching of the whole Word of God and the spirit of the gospel of Christ. While we have great respect for a vote of a General Conference session because it is the broadest representation of the community of faith that is our spiritual home, we must live in accordance with the Word and the gospel.

We are painfully aware that in response to the vote in Utrecht, any action in opposition, or even any statement of dissent, may be misinterpreted as disloyalty to the church as a whole. This causes us great personal and spiritual sorrow; but we must live with integrity, motivated by an even higher loyalty to the principles of truth and love on which the church itself is founded. Opposing an action of the General Conference on moral grounds is a far more authentic expression of loyalty to and love for the church than is passive or grumbling compliance. For it is from the church that we have learned to "call sin by its right name" and to "stand for the right though the heavens fall." In obedience to conscience we cannot, by a failure to speak or act, participate in the continuing discrimination against Adventist women in ministry.

Since the General Conference session failed to recognize the moral imperative of ordaining women in ministry, the responsibility for doing so now rests on others, beginning with the largest and most comprehensive organizational structures. The mission of the church will be best served if this responsibility is accepted by the North American Division. If the division fails to accept the responsibility, it will pass to the union and local conferences. If these organizations fail to accept it, the responsibility for ordaining women will pass to the congregations served by women ministers.









Study the NT.

Where is the Bible record that prophets were ever selected by a human being?
Church officers, on the other hand, are ordained and selected by the church and by human beings. This does not mean pastors and others working in the church are not guided or "called" to their ministry, but it is not the same as being commissioned by God directly as prophets are.

The issue on this thread is what evidence the NT offers for women being made church officers.

Regards,
"John 3: 17"

It is clear that what you have said here in this response ... does not in anyway match the statements that I quoted you as saying.

So, All I can ask is that you please don't repeat them again since you have no basis for them.

Just tagging on here . . . Thought this started out as NT Greek issues. (In fact, I think I started the thread.) These other questions may have their place, but it seems like they pertain to the 'women in ministry' thread?

Dave