My preference is "ordained" as that could be taken either adoptionist, which it was probably intended, and was not considered a heretical opinion until well after the bulk of the NT was written, or it could be taken as affirming his status.
The Adoptionist, fits the Lukan theology, and the entire opining of Romans was IMO rewritten by a Lukan editor, and all the ten letters of the earlier Pauline collection -- before the Pastorals -- have a Lukan layer. It is particularly large in Romans, Galatians, and the Corinthian letters, but proportionally Philippians and probably Ephesians were also almost doubled in size with the redaction.
But I think we need to ask a few basic questions when looking at Romans 1:1-7. First what is the purpose of the "creed" being added to the introduction? And what other opinions or books is it answering?
The answer to the first question is that as the first letter, and in fact the very first page of the revised Pauline Collection of 13 letters, it is serving as an introduction to the reader of Paul, the source of the authority by which he draws his apostleship, the basic principle of Gospel he preaches, and the type of Christ he is presenting. It sets the stage for reading the collection.
The answer to the second question is that the letter is in response to the Marcionite and Gnostic presentation of Paul, the source of his Authority, and the basic principle o the Gospel and type of Christ he is presenting as found in the head of the earlier 10 letter collection, a shorter form of Galatians chapter one. Specifically 1:1-3 (-καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς and reading αὑτόν instead of αὐτὸν per Tertullian, Origen), 6-9, 11-12, 15-17 (ends at Ἀραβίαν, does not include καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν which is drawn from Acts chapter 9 and Saul's blinding and being instructed in Christianity by Ananias).
In the ten letter collection this very different Paul, one who preached freedom, and accepted no authority above his own revelation, and who preached a Christ who had the ability to raise himself from the dead without the father, and who preached freedom in Christ, is what the reader first encounters. Even the names of the Gospel are different: in Galatians 1:7 the Gospel of Christ, in Romans 1:1 the Gospel of God ... (about his son). This is a Christ revealed in Galatians, whereas in the revised Romans it is a Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures who is a descendant in flesh of David. The former Christ is the same as the one whom the Jewish ("Judaizing" Christians in my view) say that John's Christ is not (John 7:42). So we do see traces left in the NT of this second theology that ultimately did not prevail. But it's presence confirms the motive for writing Romans 1:1-5 to counter this view.
There are other elements that suggest a counter Gnostic/Marcionite motive, such as the call for the obedience of the gentiles to the faith (1:5).
As for the theme of Adoption. I think this is supported by declaration that Jesus is descends from David's seed. It is a claim of a fully human Jesus. Before his death and resurrection he uses powers consistent with OT prophets, but nothing magical enough to require being fully divine. It is his resurrection from the dead, his mission in Hades, which are supernatural. So the designation of all the high names (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20) would be consistent with this ordination. That he was destined for this, Adoptionist would argue happened at the Baptism when the Spirit descended on him and remained, and God in voice declaring him his son.
There are several parallel terms in Romans and Galatians that illustrate the parallel purposes. Both for example mention that Paul was "set apart" (ἀφορίζω, which by the way has the same root word ὁρίζω which all this discussion is about), in Romans 1:1ff like Acts 13:2 from the other apostles to preach to preach to the gentiles, and in Galatians 1:15-16 from his mothers womb to receive Christ in him by a revelation (in modern terms one would say, "I was born to do this" or "I was destined from birth to do this"). There are simply too many parallel points of argument for one not to have been influenced by the other.
I think the argument for which is first is settled both by the existence of Galatians, and it's not being at the head of the collection, but buried in the middle, where there should be no introduction to Paul's authority and Gospel. Second the evidence that Ephesians (Laodiceans) 1:1 is dependent upon an early form of Romans 1:1, 1:7 in Western form, but is otherwise similar to the generic openings for the Pauline letters. That Romans was occupying a middle position in the ten letter collection, suggests that it also that the more generic opening in it's first edition.
Anyway those two questions, even if you disagree with my assessment -- and I am sure most of you do -- need to be asked when examining Romans 1:1-7
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift