That was very possibly it; if so, there is every reason to believe the Holy Spirit moved the first canonical councils to include it with the rest for that reason.

Few apostles are more highly esteemed than Paul, and there is good reason for that, but just as occupying his era gave him unique insights into the Churchs formation, it also made him a product of those times, when the status of women was not what it is now. If such a theological giant was not wholly immune to sexism (and his attitude toward women, as toward many others, was as radically liberal then as it is radically conservative now,) even with his encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish history including Deborah and Huldah, what does that say of the modern controversy over female priests? Mainly, I think, that the resistance to them is more a matter of centuries old chauvinistic tradition than divine will.

The point is, how far does that rationale extend, what, if any, are its limits? Are we to believe that God, knowing Christians of later centuries would heavily weight every word Paul wrote, insured Paul clearly identified each of those words that was not divinely inspired? That He made sure none of Pauls personal opinions not clearly identified as such survived? That He further ensured none of those who compiled the competing canons centuries later ever overlooked or misunderstood His guidance, or fell prey to the same kind of human error Paul displayed in forbidding women the same priestly authority he knew Deborah and Huldah held?

I keep returning to the same core problem: The NT canon was NOT written under the same sense of divine inspiration as the OT, or at least, not all of it was. Those who compiled the first NT canon deliberately sought epistles they felt had divine inspiration, excluding all they felt lacked it, even if believed genuine. Yet we cannot assume them infallible in light of their inclusion of NT scripture that explicitly states it is not the word of God; none can truthfully say, "these words I speak are not mine," and "God is not a man, that he should lie." Perhaps we are set questions so we will seek their answer, and at least find AN answer by the Grace of God.


A wise position. I want to be clear I do not dismiss all scripture, or even "just" the NT, out of hand. I am understandably uncomfortable second-guessing it, and avoid that when possible, but the option is often unavailable. New Testament authors (most notably Paul, the principal one) make it easy when identifying a precept as personal rather than doctrinal, but that opens the door to reconsidering those unidentified either way. Where it is unclear if the author felt a passage divinely inspired (like it or not, the NT has many such,) I rely on passages that ARE unambiguously inspired by God, and on the Holy Spirit through prayer, contemplation and fellowship, then err on the side of caution. If a passages ultimate source is unclear but not onerous, there is every reason to treat it as divinely inspired, and none to do otherwise.

As Protestants, we have a unique corollary catechism of our own: Sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria. Anything and everything is consistent with all five, or inconsistent with Protestant Christianity; anything and everything that appears to conform with some but contradict any only APPEARS to conform with any. The word and will of God, however expressed, will—must—always be in accord and harmony, just as the body of Christ is not divided against itself.