Should women be allowed to baptize?

[Crabtownboy]

What a joke of a translation. The literal rendering is : "who are outstanding among the apostles".

Unfortunately in English this clears up nothing as there are several ways to interprete this English phrase.

1. They were known by the apostles.
2. They were known as oustanding apostles.

An example, "Abraham Lincoln is one who is outstanding among presidents'.

 

[mandym]

What a joke of a translation. The literal rendering is : "who are outstanding among the apostles".

Rom_16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (ESV)

Rom 16:7 Greet my relatives Andronicus and Junias, who were in jail with me. They are highly respected by the apostles and were followers of Christ before I was. (CEV)

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (DRB)

Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (MKJV)

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Webster)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks Rev. I appreciate you trying to stick to the OP.

As for Wrenn I have been made aware of your position on women in the church and I would appreciate it if per the premises of the OP...

Then why don't you apply that to everyone equally? Why single me out? Huh, Valley?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Rom_16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (ESV)

Rom 16:7 Greet my relatives Andronicus and Junias, who were in jail with me. They are highly respected by the apostles and were followers of Christ before I was. (CEV)

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (DRB)

Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (MKJV)

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Webster)

Notice you left out the NASB, a literal translation. Now I wonder why you would do that.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Those who believe deacons can be women or pastors always say but Phebe was a deacon, Romans 16:Romans 16
1I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

2That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

3Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

Says she was a servant one who served, which is what a true deacon does he too serves tables. However Paul says she was a servant and the greek diakonos, which means
one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister

Phebe served the church at Cenchrea
the servant of a king

a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use

Notice it says one who cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected, no spiritual teaching falls into this.

a waiter, one who serves food and drink

One who serves food and drink, Phebe served the church not Lead the church nor did she teach men in the church.

Paul sais she was succouer this from the greek Prostais a feminine noun which means:

a woman set over others

a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

She was a protectress aiding them with her resources she was charged with caring for others including Paul she cared for his needs. Nowhere does it show her having SPIRITUAL authority over Paul or any other man. She had charge of their needs, that is the work of a servant a diakonos.

The Apostles command for the deacons was that 7 men be chosen to serve tables. To distribute the physical needs of the widows and others. That was what Phebe did, she never had SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY over any man.

As I said in a post the word, diakonostranslated as "servant" is the same word, diakonos that is translated as "deacon" over 20 times in the New Testament. Remember the translators were men and many allowed their bias against women to show in the translation. The weight of evidence in the translation of this word in so many other places indicates very strongly that Phoebe was a deacon.

But let's start with Phoebe as a deacon. The most natural way to read the Greek is that she was a deacon. Those who have this entrenched notion that women could not be deacons are compelled to look for a different reading which they must admit is at least a little strained. Yes, "diakonos" can mean servant, but in Pauline ecclesiological usage "servant" takes on the nuances inherent in "Servant of the Lord" language from the OT, especially in regard to Moses. While non-ecclesiological usage could refer to someone who does menial task, anyone who is referred to as a diakonos in ministry takes on a high status. In fact, according to context, diakonos is often translated as "minister".

http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/2007/11/phoebe-deacon-of-cenchrea.html

 

[HeirofSalvation]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am asking that only those who do not believe women should be ordained ministers or be allowed to preach respond to this thread.

Wrenn, It would not be possible to "single you out" had you simply followed her requests in her OP..... As in..... You would never have run your soup-cooler on the topic. You are more than welcome to start a new thread about Spiritual Headship somehow means nothing more than being the headwaters from which rivers flow and blah blah blah....knock yourself out.... she respectfully asked a question that by definition only those who do not believe in ordination of women should respond to

 

[mandym]

Notice you left out the NASB, a literal translation. Now I wonder why you would do that.

I would do that because in my E-Sword I do not have the NASB as it costs money. Secondly the ESV and the MKJV are "literal" translations.


Adding one more :

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (KJV)


But you are welcome to hold to whatever you want. But not even the NASB proves your point. But as you do with scripture you are welcome to select and cherry pick those things that fit your left wing paradigm.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrenn, It would not be possible to "single you out" had you simply followed her requests in her OP..... As in..... You would never have run your soup-cooler on the topic. You are more than welcome to start a new thread about Spiritual Headship somehow means nothing more than being the headwaters from which rivers flow and blah blah blah....knock yourself out.... she respectfully asked a question that by definition only those who do not believe in ordination of women should respond to

Well, then, Sally, why are others not meeting that criterion responding to it?

And stop lying about my definition of headship. Got nothing to fall back on but insults?

There are some nasty-spirited little people in here.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Remember the translators were men and many allowed their bias against women to show in the translation.

O.K. CTB....what Scholarly evidence will you produce to substantiate that the New Testament (as we have recieved it) has been intentionally abused by men in order to give us an inaccurate representation of God's Word.... Do you have any clue as to the far-reaching signifigance you are claiming with this?????? You are now seriously casting dispersion upon the truth of what all English speakers view as a reasonable rendition of God's Word...... Given what you allege here: At no Point....may you reasonably utilize the Bible as translated into English...... to prove or support any point you want to make. Seriously. WOW :BangHead:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I would do that because in my E-Sword I do not have the NASB as it costs money. Secondly the ESV and the MKJV are "literal" translations.


Adding one more :

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (KJV)


But you are welcome to hold to whatever you want. But not even the NASB proves your point. But as you do with scripture you are welcome to select and cherry pick those things that fit your left wing paradigm.

And you are welcome to lie, misrepresent, and slander, because you have what you deny -- soul liberty.

 

[mandym]

And you are welcome to lie, misrepresent, and slander, because you have what you deny -- soul liberty.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks for proving my point.

You are continually throwing out the left-wing charge against anyone who is not as fanatically fundamentalist as you are. The verbs I have used to describe this are accurate.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, then, Sally, why are others not meeting that criterion responding to it?

And stop lying about my definition of headship. Got nothing to fall back on but insults?

There are some nasty-spirited little people in here.

Oh, call me Sally? I am actually not offended... not in the least.... many on this board could hurt my feelings...quite easy to do when one attempts to insult my "manhood" so to speak .... you simply are incapable of it, despite how otherwise (as a former U.S. Marine Corps anti-terrorism expert) sensitive I actually am about that. I am sorry :tear:

And stop lying about my definition of headship.

I am directly refering to an article YOU posted about the topic you are introducing into this thread about the role of women in the Church.... the author's article actually (are you familiar with it??) You posted it.... tried to equivocate Male headship with that of the headwaters of a river..... I know he was reaching when he did it....

So....Before you get your thong in a wad......Lilly is trying to call out everyone who is trying to make this thread about something it isn't, and, had you simply read and complied with her legit request in her OP....This conversation would not even be possible....Go start yourself yet one more "Women should be preachers" post and leave her alone. She wants the opinions of people who see things as she does....what is so wrong with that??

Your objection is vaguely akin to this....
I know I stole a pack of gum from the store... but Tommy did too...so make sure you punish him also........:tear::tear:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Then why don't you apply that to everyone equally? Why single me out? Huh, Valley?

Does da widdle girl scare you????:tear::tear:

 

[Crabtownboy]

O.K. CTB....what Scholarly evidence will you produce to substantiate that the New Testament (as we have recieved it) has been intentionally abused by men in order to give us an inaccurate representation of God's Word.... Do you have any clue as to the far-reaching signifigance you are claiming with this?????? You are now seriously casting dispersion upon the truth of what all English speakers view as a reasonable rendition of God's Word...... Given what you allege here: At no Point....may you reasonably utilize the Bible as translated into English...... to prove or support any point you want to make. Seriously. WOW :BangHead:

What other conclusion can we come to when a word is translated as deacon over 20 times and then when it involves a woman it is changed to "servant". It is the only time in the New Testament that it is translated as 'servant'.

Translators do have to make choices and their own personal beliefs do influence the word they select.

To be more exact Paul uses the term 34 times ... and as I said only once is it translated by some versons as servant.

i. Bible translators have a habit of translating the ancient Greek word diakonon as “deacon” when it speaks of men and “servant” when it speaks of women.

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4516.htm

The NIV gets it right:

1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a] of the church in Cenchreae.

As does Phillips

1- I want this letter to introduce to you Phoebe, our sister, a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea

There are translations that place the word 'servant' in the text, but point to a footnote saying 'deacon' or 'deaconess'.

 

[LillyoftheValley]

O.k. for all of those who can not read I will begin a new thread titled "Should women be ordained" for those of you who CAN, please remain calm while the masses leave. We will resume our regularly scheduled posts in a moment.

O.k. now for all of you who were contributing to the actual topic, thank you and please continue. I feel like I'm learning something here.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Mistaken paste ... sorry.

 

[kyredneck]

Beware folks. Methinks LOV & HOS are one and the same. Don't get too caught up with these two, just my humble advise.

 

[LillyoftheValley]

Beware folks. Methinks LOV & HOS are one and the same. Don't get too caught up with these two, just my humble advise.

I could understand why you would say that since we hold to the same view of thinking, but you are wrong. HoS is my husband. If there is anyway I can prove this to you, then shoot let me know, otherwise I would appreciate you not continuing this line of thinking in that it is false.

 

[annsni]

I can find no biblical reason to deny women that privilege. I can also find no biblical reason to demand that only ordained people can baptize people or serve the Lord's Supper.

The closest principal I can think of that may be applied is the importance of thinking of those who are weak in the faith and our desire to not cause them to stumble unnecessarily.

It does occur to me that in some cases it may be best if a woman were to baptize another woman simply for modesty's sake. I know we always, and repeatedly, tell people to wear clothes that will not be see through when they get wet but...well, the admonish gets ignored way to often. It would be good to have the means in place to protect the modesty of the woman.

That said, at the end of the day, it is up to the local church to set its own policy on this issue. If you are a member you are implying consent to their practices.

Yep this. We recently went to a church in Florida where they had a woman baptize another woman and a teen baptize his parents (he led them to the Lord so they baptized him first and then allowed him to baptize his parents - I thought that was neat!). We've also had the woman who runs the deaf ministry baptize the deaf women who wanted to be baptized.

I think it's a great idea for a woman to baptize other women. I guess in certain situations she can baptize men too but I'd hope that there would be a godly man who could do that.