From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 01/02/2026 10:12, mick falconer wrote:

The argument in defence of unveiled women in authority is that the New Testament was written in a age where women were regarded as second class citizens and that here in the 21st century we are more enlightened.
However for me this all depends on ones view of Scripture. The above
view is saying that Scripture is historically and culturally determined
and as such as history and culture change so does Scripture. But if one takes the high and holy view of the absolute inerrancy of Scripture then
the historical and cultural arguments fail. What the Holy Spirit wrote
two thousand years ago, stands for today. God have mercy on all of us.

1Ti 2:12-a But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Cor 11:10-a For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

2Pe 3:16-a As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other
scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Well, there are differing views on the nature of scripture, and that
underpins a lot of the disagreements we see today among Christians.

You said it yourself there, so I will emphasise a word: "*IF* one takes
the (---) view of the absolute inerrancy of scripture..."

Many Christians, perhaps most in this part of the world, do NOT hold to
that view. The idea of absolute inerrancy is, in fact, a relatively
modern formulation rCo 19th century at the earliest.

My counter-argument has always been that 'Inerrancy of scripture' does
not appear in any of the ancient Creeds, which are meant to define basic Christian doctrine. So it is not acceptable IMO to try to claim that
people who do not hold to that view are not Christians.

Personally I think there are problems with the concept of 'Biblical Inerrancy', that they would have been aware of when the Creeds were formulated, and that is probably why it was not included.

I expect the Anglican Communion will become a more loosely defined organisation in the future, with more autonomous groups linked chiefly
by a common history than by total agreement, and the See of Canterbury
will be deemed to have less authority over other Sees in the Communion, especially those in Northern Africa and parts of Asia.

I would like to hope however, that we can all move forward in fellowship whilst agreeing to differ, even though that may be difficult.

Tim.






--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2