I Corinthians 7

[Dennis M. Scott]

Paul brings to the surface some interesting thoughts regarding scriptural inspiration and authority in I Corinthians 7. It is widely thought that Paul likely did not know that his letter(s) to the church in Corinth would become regarded as scripture, but it has now. For the purposes of this discussion, the subject matter - that of marriage and sexual relationships - isn't the object of my question. Rather, I'm interested in how we understand inspiration and authority in light of the following thoughts.

In v 6, Paul says that what he has said is a concession and not a command.

In v 10 he says that what he says is a command not from Paul, but from the Lord.

In v 12 he says that what he says is not from the Lord, but from him personally.

Although I readily adopt that what Paul says in all this chapter is important, he seems to be saying or implying that in what he writes there are some things that carry more weight, or have more authority. Does what the Church has come to believe about scripture over ride what Paul was trying to communicate about authority of what he was saying? We have come to understand that ALL scripture is God-breathed. Paul seems to be saying that his idea was that some of what he was writing to the Corinthians was more authoritative than other parts - perhaps that in some of it God was breathing a little harder.

Admittedly, Paul did not have the benefit of twenty centuries of Church understanding. What do you think? Do you disagree with Paul that what God says is more important than what Paul says?

At very least, Paul communicates that what he says isn't as authoritative as what God says, and that fits at best awkwardly into our theories of inspiration.

[John Kennedy]

To boil it down, Paul was simply saying, "Some of this is written in blood, some in ink, and some in pencil." Sorting out which is which has kept theologians employed for awhile.

[Kyle Borger]

To boil it down, Paul was simply saying, "Some of this is written in blood, some in ink, and some in pencil." Sorting out which is which has kept theologians employed for awhile.

I kind of like that thought. In some ways it seems like Paul writes this way in many of his letters. He is passionate and personal. Somethings are very clearly directions from God. Others have more weight in the view of the relationship and the context in which he is approaching them. It doesn't make what he has written less important, but needs to be viewed in context of that relationship. We know that Paul thinks you should get married if you don't have the strength to resist the temptation of a woman. Kind of a negative view point of marriage. But you have Paul who is driven to do nothing else but preach the gospel. There is no room for anything else. If God didn't want anyone to get married then eventually his creation would cease to exist. Paul is simply pointing out that it is a lot easier to commit everything to God if you don't have a family distracting you. Jesus also pointed out that it is incredibly difficult for the rich to be saved. It isn't that the married or the rich can't be saved or can't serve God, but it would do us well to be aware of the difficulties.

So it does seem to me that there are times when Paul is saying this is what Jesus is all about. This is what God has as a message for you. This other part here, Jesus isn't telling you about it, but as your mentor I am telling you that you should be careful.

My mentor holds a spiritual connection between me and God. In the same way Paul as a mentor has a spiritual connection between us and God. I look at in terms of the relationship and find his words to be valid in that context.

[John Reilly]

I think Paul did have some understanding of the spiritual significance and authority with which he spoke and wrote, therefore he qualifies himself in the sense that what God inspires is ultimately important and what might be "Paul" in personal context is less important. We can consider Paul's use of authority language in other letters to support the concept that divine inspiration revealed to and through a human heart and mind will blend with human context in space and time. So while Paul spoke to the people of his day and time the authority of God's inspiration is timeless in biblical principle concerning all things having to do with salvation.

[Doug Ward]

Dennis, I like your thoughtfulness here, and your fidelity to the text, but let me channel Benjamin Burch here. WHile Paul does seem to admit to varying levels of authority in 1 Corinthians, it is almost beside the point. As Paul writes this letter, he has no idea that what he writes is anything other than a letter - a letter he writes in response to a list of questions he received from the Corinthian church himself. It is not Paul that made this Scripture - it was the church. The church who collected this letter. copied, it, passed it around, weighed it, and eventually stated this is authoritative and demonstrates correct doctrine. The community of faith accepted this letter as Scripture, and did not divide up the verses as being of different levels of authority. So while Paul does seem to indicate this - he is merely talking about different weight given to different areas of advice to Corinth. This was not the concern of the later church, who looked to this letter as a guide not only to them, but for all who might follow.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis, I like your thoughtfulness here, and your fidelity to the text, but let me channel Benjamin Burch here. WHile Paul does seem to admit to varying levels of authority in 1 Corinthians, it is almost beside the point. As Paul writes this letter, he has no idea that what he writes is anything other than a letter - a letter he writes in response to a list of questions he received from the Corinthian church himself. It is not Paul that made this Scripture - it was the church. The church who collected this letter. copied, it, passed it around, weighed it, and eventually stated this is authoritative and demonstrates correct doctrine. The community of faith accepted this letter as Scripture, and did not divide up the verses as being of different levels of authority. So while Paul does seem to indicate this - he is merely talking about different weight given to different areas of advice to Corinth. This was not the concern of the later church, who looked to this letter as a guide not only to them, but for all who might follow.

Yes. And while we're at it, why not just label this whole process "inspiration"? I think we create all sorts of problems for ourselves when we try to limit inspiration either to the act of “original” writing, or to the physical words on the page. Not only do both of those options limit how God can (and does) work with human beings, they also go against what we know of the process of how Scripture came to be authoritative in the Church (canonization), as well as how human beings create literature (in this case, Paul responding pastorally to questions, and behavior, from a congregation).

Inspiration is the term we use to describe how God is at work in providing us with a trustworthy testimony to his self-revelation in history. And that work of God, his in-spiriting people to understand, encompasses both the initial “event,” as God helps people understand that it is, indeed, God at work, through the entire process of bearing witness to that understanding of God’s self-revelation, including the inspiration of a modern reader encountering God in the text or of a pastor proclaiming the truth about God from that witness.

It’s a little dated now, but still the best perspective on this dynamic and encompassing view of inspiration is Paul Achtemeier’s The Inspiration of Scripture (Westminster John Knox, 1980).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[John Kennedy]

This is in response to Kyle Borger's post above:

In all fairness, I must give credit to Keith Drury, a man quoted from time to time on NN. He used those terms when he was writing about a spiritual meltdown he experience a one point in his life.
Those categories reflect a lot of my own experience - I now have fewer beliefs, but more belief.

There are a lot of people with backgrounds similar to mine who have, I believe, experienced the same thing. The written in pencil category has expanded - there's been a lot of thought and reflection before adding to the written in blood category.

Quite frankly, the people with an inflamed written in blood category can be more than slightly difficult to be around. They certainly have the right to write in whatever way they wish - I simply have to desire to try to deal with them.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't disagree with Paul. I do believe that he was chosen and that he was inspired to write Scripture. Whether he was fully aware, isn't an issue for me, his calling was that of God's "chosen vessel" to speak to the gentiles. And did he speak! My estimation is that Paul is the founder of the Church in an organizational sense, he provided the nuts and bolts, he was the one who guided us through the transitional period between Jewry and the Church. Where would we be without Paul's guiding hand?

So I don't disagree with his instruction as to authority. He says that he speaks with advice given by himself rather than from God? Yes, absolutely and it's good advice, yet it may not be the best advice for everyone. I do find it interesting that where he gives advice in the early part of the chapter, it is in reference to things that would be kept private and also to things that Paul himself would not have experience. Is it good advice? The best! Paul had humility, yet he was surely inspired.

When we move forward to where he claims a command from God, then yeah, it's a command from God. No exceptions, what he tells us is from the one who knows us better than we know ourselves. Should we deny or stray from these commands, our life experience will surely suffer.

Then back again to personal advice, which is sound advice to be sure. What I do find is that this "sandwich" places God's command in the center where it cannot be missed in both it's import and it's authority. There is no mistaking this as an absolute for Paul has placed it upon a high hill.

I do believe that Paul had the benefit of twenty centuries of Church understanding, he had the eye of the One who created us! I don't disagree with Paul regarding how he places authority, nor the inspiration which caused him to pen this in like fashion. I'm really comfortable with his wisdom as he unpacks a subject which must have been more difficult then as opposed to today.

[Jim Chabot]

I kind of like that thought. In some ways it seems like Paul writes this way in many of his letters. He is passionate and personal. Somethings are very clearly directions from God. Others have more weight in the view of the relationship and the context in which he is approaching them. It doesn't make what he has written less important, but needs to be viewed in context of that relationship. We know that Paul thinks you should get married if you don't have the strength to resist the temptation of a woman. Kind of a negative view point of marriage. But you have Paul who is driven to do nothing else but preach the gospel. There is no room for anything else. If God didn't want anyone to get married then eventually his creation would cease to exist. Paul is simply pointing out that it is a lot easier to commit everything to God if you don't have a family distracting you. Jesus also pointed out that it is incredibly difficult for the rich to be saved. It isn't that the married or the rich can't be saved or can't serve God, but it would do us well to be aware of the difficulties.

So it does seem to me that there are times when Paul is saying this is what Jesus is all about. This is what God has as a message for you. This other part here, Jesus isn't telling you about it, but as your mentor I am telling you that you should be careful.

My mentor holds a spiritual connection between me and God. In the same way Paul as a mentor has a spiritual connection between us and God. I look at in terms of the relationship and find his words to be valid in that context.

Great stuff Kyle!

I see something else here as well. Paul is saying that our commitment to our spouse and to our children is central. He says that family will hinder us if we seek to commit everything to God. What he conveys indirectly is that this hindrance is proper, the Spirit will surely direct us toward our commitment to our family as it is a commitment to God Himself.

Years ago I heard a sad statement from a preacher who was going through a divorce. He said that "if the one who is closest to me, doesn't get it, I have failed miserably at my calling." What made it incredibly sad was that he moved past that point to a point of blaming his wife, he chose to save his career rather than seek to reconcile with his wife. Yes I stopped watching him at that point.

[Ian Gentles]

I think here its best to trust in God the Holy Spirit. I beleive God guided the church to include in scriptures what He wanted included. The writers are just normal humane beings guided by God. They write as humanes, think as humanes, with their own personalaties. They were, in their own age folks just like us, moved by the Holy Spirit. Paul sees what he is saying as comming from himself, yet God includes it in scripture.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Seems like what we've said thus far is that Paul may have thought authority of what he wrote might vary according to whether God said it or Paul said it. That changed, however, late in the fourth century when the Church recognized what Paul - and others - wrote, as scripture. At that point, it's authority sort of homogenized, and any variation of authority was eliminated.

Once writings were canonized their weight shifted from what Paul understood.

I'll need to chew on that a little

[Benjamin Burch]

Dennis, I like your thoughtfulness here, and your fidelity to the text, but let me channel Benjamin Burch here. WHile Paul does seem to admit to varying levels of authority in 1 Corinthians, it is almost beside the point. As Paul writes this letter, he has no idea that what he writes is anything other than a letter - a letter he writes in response to a list of questions he received from the Corinthian church himself. It is not Paul that made this Scripture - it was the church. The church who collected this letter. copied, it, passed it around, weighed it, and eventually stated this is authoritative and demonstrates correct doctrine. The community of faith accepted this letter as Scripture, and did not divide up the verses as being of different levels of authority. So while Paul does seem to indicate this - he is merely talking about different weight given to different areas of advice to Corinth. This was not the concern of the later church, who looked to this letter as a guide not only to them, but for all who might follow.

Well, there seems to be no need for me to give a response now, other than a nod of the head.

[Hans Deventer]

That changed, however, late in the fourth century when the Church recognized what Paul - and others - wrote, as scripture. At that point, it's authority sort of homogenized, and any variation of authority was eliminated.

Yeah. Kind of like the Manual.

On a more serious note, the authority is still in all things pertaining to our salvation.

[Larry Parsons]

There was a time when Paul and Silas told a Jailer to believe on the Lord and your whole household will be saved. Was Paul saying to the Jailer since you have believe on the Lord Jesus Christ then your whole house hold will be saved. Is Paul telling the Jailer that his family will be saved eternally? I don’t think so but here what happen when the Jailer became one with Christ. His family was set apart because of marriage vow. This is what Paul is saying in 1Cor. 7 The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Maybe Paul is saying since you have been saved you don’t have to divorce your unsaved spouse.
Thanks
Larry

[Paul DeBaufer]

Dennis, I like your thoughtfulness here, and your fidelity to the text, but let me channel Benjamin Burch here. WHile Paul does seem to admit to varying levels of authority in 1 Corinthians, it is almost beside the point. As Paul writes this letter, he has no idea that what he writes is anything other than a letter - a letter he writes in response to a list of questions he received from the Corinthian church himself. It is not Paul that made this Scripture - it was the church. The church who collected this letter. copied, it, passed it around, weighed it, and eventually stated this is authoritative and demonstrates correct doctrine. The community of faith accepted this letter as Scripture, and did not divide up the verses as being of different levels of authority. So while Paul does seem to indicate this - he is merely talking about different weight given to different areas of advice to Corinth. This was not the concern of the later church, who looked to this letter as a guide not only to them, but for all who might follow.

This seems to be what was, but I'm not convinced that it is what should be.

[Gina Stevenson]

Seems like what we've said thus far is that Paul may have thought authority of what he wrote might vary according to whether God said it or Paul said it. That changed, however, late in the fourth century when the Church recognized what Paul - and others - wrote, as scripture. At that point, it's authority sort of homogenized, and any variation of authority was eliminated.

Once writings were canonized their weight shifted from what Paul understood.

I'll need to chew on that a little

For sure, since he seems to contradict other Scripture: Genesis~~"not good to be alone," Corinthians~~"better to be alone (supposedly), unhindered" ... now those two cannot occur with the same individual simultaneously. Tell you what ... having experienced both, I'll agree with Genesis any day ... this "alone" has hindered more than anything did prior to being widowed.

This seems to be what was, but I'm not convinced that it is what should be.

Right ... again I reference Genesis, feeling some "opinion" was indeed allowed to be inserted into Scripture, God knowing the creatures He created would be of the highly opinionated variety.

[Hans Deventer]

Gina, Paul expected the Lord to return very soon. That sheds a specific light on what he wrote. We now know that this was not to be, we are still waiting. Which means we have to read his advice in a different light.

[Larry Parsons]

Gina, Paul expected the Lord to return very soon. That sheds a specific light on what he wrote. We now know that this was not to be, we are still waiting. Which means we have to read his advice in a different light.

Hans, where are the Scriptures that show us that Paul was expecting the second advent to take place in his day?
Thanks
Larry

[Dennis M. Scott]

the authority is still in all things pertaining to our salvation.

Well, generally, although the Bible contains some history, it is not primarily a history book.

Although it addresses some science concerns, it is not primarily a science book.

I had not pondered whether or not it is a manual for marriage, family and sex. For the most part, we usually treat it as though it is. Let's not let this thread go down the path so often wandered on Naznet.

Regarding the Manual wording, ". . . necessary to our salvation.", it seems like that still treats the primary usefulness of the Bible to be an object to be possessed, held in one's hand, misplaced, or that might fall of a desk. Surely we now see salvation more as redeemed relational, including growth and obedience. At that point, the Manual statement might appear to be a little abrupt.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, where are the Scriptures that show us that Paul was expecting the second advent to take place in his day?
Thanks
Larry

I take that as a trick question.

[Hans Deventer]

Surely we now see salvation more as redeemed relational, including growth and obedience. At that point, the Manual statement might appear to be a little abrupt.

I'm not really following you. Salvation is relation, yes. So why is that statement abrupt? Can you explain?

[Dennis M. Scott]

I just wish it were a little more clear on the relational aspect. Consideration for ways to walk in growing relationship would be seen as important, too.

Sometimes there are some who are of the "Now I've been saved, and the Bible is inerrant in the things that helped me get that taken care of, but in the wider range of things, the autographs might not have been as inerrant.

We also might help to have a statement on the apocrypha, which have widely been understood as helpful for Christian living, but not scripture.

[Larry Parsons]

I take that as a trick question.

No it not a trick question!I just can't find the idea in the scripture where Paul is expecting Christ to return physically during the 1st century.
Thanks

[Jim Chabot]

No it not a trick question!I just can't find the idea in the scripture where Paul is expecting Christ to return physically during the 1st century.
Thanks

Hey Larry, there are a couple of passages that allude to this, I'm thinking that Paul's thinking was colored by this belief, after all Jesus did say that he would be back soon, and of course He did come!

We shall not all sleep [i.e., die], but we shall all be changed – in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

[James Diggs]

... but let me channel Benjamin Burch here...

Did that hurt?? I am too scared to try it myself.

[Larry Parsons]

Hey Larry, there are a couple of passages that allude to this, I'm thinking that Paul's thinking was colored by this belief, after all Jesus did say that he would be back soon, and of course He did come!

The two verses that you have quoted is talking about something that will happen on the last day which include the 2nd coming. But the idea that Christ would return again physically during the first century is not there. You mention that Christ believe that he would return soon I'm assuming you mean physicaally so where is the scripture for this?
Thanks
Larry

[Jim Chabot]

The two verses that you have quoted is talking about something that will happen on the last day which include the 2nd coming. But the idea that Christ would return again physically during the first century is not there. You mention that Christ believe that he would return soon I'm assuming you mean physicaally so where is the scripture for this?
Thanks
Larry

Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass" and I believe he made mention that John could possibly be alive when he returned, that's all I was referring to. Nothing concrete.

You know he does mention in verse 29 that "the time is short", he certainly could have been referring to the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem. He gives good advice for those troubled times. Those times are surely behind us now.

[Larry Parsons]

Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass" and I believe he made mention that John could possibly be alive when he returned, that's all I was referring to. Nothing concrete.

You know he does mention in verse 29 that "the time is short", he certainly could have been referring to the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem. He gives good advice for those troubled times. Those times are surely behind us now.

I agree Jesus did promise that some of his discipes would see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Jesus even told a high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power. Yes John did see the Son of Man coming in to his kingdom couple years after he wrote Revelation which he during the middle of the first century.
Thanks
Larry

[Peggy Gray]

Sometimes there are some who are of the "Now I've been saved, and the Bible is inerrant in the things that helped me get that taken care of, but in the wider range of things, the autographs might not have been as inerrant.

Could you expand on this a little? I'm not sure I follow. (Imagine that)

[Jim Chabot]

I agree Jesus did promise that some of his discipes would see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Jesus even told a high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power. Yes John did see the Son of Man coming in to his kingdom couple years after he wrote Revelation which he during the middle of the first century.
Thanks
Larry

OK, but I think this gets us off track. Hans mentioned that because we are still waiting then we need to read Paul's advice in a different light. I'm agreeing that we need to read it in a different light, however I'm seeing it as accomplished. The time was short, the trouble is now past.

Paul's advice beginning in verse 25 is for tumultuous times, I believe that he is concerned for the coming trouble. He advises that single folks will navigate these troubles easier than those with families. He is clear, he has no command from the Lord, he gives his judgement.

[Randy Wise]

Paul's advice beginning in verse 25 is for tumultuous times, I believe that he is concerned for the coming trouble. He advises that single folks will navigate these troubles easier than those with families. He is clear, he has no command from the Lord, he gives his judgement.

I agree with "because of the present circumstances" (Paul's day) Tough road ahead.

However the Lord Himself responded somewhat like Paul to the disciples statement vs 10 below

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

[Larry Parsons]

OK, but I think this gets us off track. Hans mentioned that because we are still waiting then we need to read Paul's advice in a different light. I'm agreeing that we need to read it in a different light, however I'm seeing it as accomplished. The time was short, the trouble is now past.

Paul's advice beginning in verse 25 is for tumultuous times, I believe that he is concerned for the coming trouble. He advises that single folks will navigate these troubles easier than those with families. He is clear, he has no command from the Lord, he gives his judgement.

Ok You mention verse 29 where Paul tell them the time is short. At this point of time the only persecution that the Christians were recieving came from the radial Jews and not from Nero but Nero persecution of the church was about to come. Three or four years after Paul wrote 1 Cor.the pagan of Rome begin to go after the Christians. This what Paul was talking about when he said "The time is short"
Thanks
Larry

.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Could you expand on this a little? I'm not sure I follow. (Imagine that)

Unfortunately, I neglected to place the end quote quotation marks. What I wanted to say was that there are some who tend to to dismiss things other than related to "being saved" as not as inspired as those things that do relate to "salvation". They gravitate toward saying, "Since I'm saved now, those portion of the Bible that are outside that issue aren't as authoritative, and we don't need to pay as much attention to them." Depending on how one reads our Manual statement, one could go down that path.

Technically, that isn't what the Manual says. It merely says that the portions that pertain to our salvation (at least) were inerrant in the autographs. Some have labeled this the "slippery slope", and are convinced that is reason enough to insist on a wider designation for inerrancy.

My original question in this thread intended to discover opinions as to Paul's understanding about his own writings. Frequently, such is thought to be important to context. Sometimes, context is seen as helpful to interpretation and application to situations two thousand years later. I think that is part of what Dennis Bratcher meant when he suggested the whole situation is involved in "inspiration": it includes not only knowing what was originally said (and perhaps meant), but how to apply it now.

As to Peggy Gray getting things, you and those like you can contribute to the discover team of which I am a part, anytime you want. You "get it" pretty well. Scary, isn't it?

[Benjamin Burch]

Did that hurt?? I am too scared to try it myself.

Am I that evil?

[Doug Ward]

Did that hurt?? I am too scared to try it myself.

No, it did not hurt, but I had a hard time finding the eye of a newt, and the incantation was tough to memorize.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Technically, that isn't what the Manual says. It merely says that the portions that pertain to our salvation (at least) were inerrant in the autographs.

IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

Just for the sake of clarity, a couple of points.

1) The Manual never says that any part of Scripture is inerrant. The word used is an adverb, “inerrantly,” describing how the Bible does what is stated, “revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation.” It may seem like the same thing, but the two are significantly different. To state it more strongly, the Church of the Nazarene, in its official statement about Scripture in the Articles of Faith, does not affirm that the Bible is inerrant. Rather, it states that the Bible reveals the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation and that it does that inerrantly.

Personally, I think “infallibly,” in the sense of faithfully, reliably, dependably, trustworthily, perfectly might serve us better. But then, no matter what word we use some will try to make it fit their own ideas anyway. (Not that you have done that!)

2) The Manual never takes a position on supposed “autographs” and that idea is never mentioned in the Manual. Some traditions, like the Wesleyan Church, have such statements about autographs. However, the Church of the Nazarene does not take that position. In light of what we understand about the development of some parts of Scripture, the idea of autographs is a logically derived position in order to argue an inerrant text in light of the obvious and very demonstrable fact that the text we actually have is most certainly not inerrant.

Of course that raises the awkward question, if God could superintend the writing of Scripture so as to produce an inerrant “original” (assuming there ever was such a “master copy”) why could he not also have worked to preserve that text as inerrant? In other words, what good is an inerrant text that no longer exits? (see The Problem with Autographs).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dennis,

Your corrections are kind and appreciated.

Dennis

[Hans Deventer]

In other words, what good is an inerrant text that no longer exits?.

Reminds me of a question Bruce Springsteen once asked:

[Marcus Kibbe]

Dennis, I like your thoughtfulness here, and your fidelity to the text, but let me channel Benjamin Burch here. WHile Paul does seem to admit to varying levels of authority in 1 Corinthians, it is almost beside the point. As Paul writes this letter, he has no idea that what he writes is anything other than a letter - a letter he writes in response to a list of questions he received from the Corinthian church himself.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Paul states, "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (! Cor. 14:37,38). I'm not sure he could be anymore direct or absolute about his awareness that the letter he was writing had authority equal to the OT.

It is not Paul that made this Scripture - it was the church. The church who collected this letter. copied, it, passed it around, weighed it, and eventually stated this is authoritative and demonstrates correct doctrine.

Scripture preceded the church - it does not owe its existence to the church. The church recognized and affirmed the divinely inspired writings. The church did not "make" Scripture.

The community of faith accepted this letter as Scripture, and did not divide up the verses as being of different levels of authority. So while Paul does seem to indicate this - he is merely talking about different weight given to different areas of advice to Corinth. This was not the concern of the later church, who looked to this letter as a guide not only to them, but for all who might follow.

I don't see Paul "weighing" anything. Considering the context, in verse 7:25 he says he spoke as one "who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." It seems he is implying that he considered his judgments were placed on the same authoritative level as the words of Jesus. This must mean what he is saying in 1 Cor. 7:12 is that he has no record of any earthly teaching of Jesus on the subject of a believer who is married to an unbelieving spouse. Therefore, he gives his own instructions.

"To the rest I say, not the Lord," is then actually an amazingly strong affirmation of Paul's own authority. If he did not have any words of Jesus to apply to a situation, he could simply use his own, for his words had just as much authority as the words of Jesus.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Paul states, "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (! Cor. 14:37,38). I'm not sure he could be anymore direct or absolute about his awareness that the letter he was writing had authority equal to the OT.

I don't see Paul "weighing" anything. Considering the context, in verse 7:25 he says he spoke as one "who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." It seems he is implying that he considered his judgments were placed on the same authoritative level as the words of Jesus. This must mean what he is saying in 1 Cor. 7:12 is that he has no record of any earthly teaching of Jesus on the subject of a believer who is married to an unbelieving spouse. Therefore, he gives his own instructions.

"To the rest I say, not the Lord," is then actually an amazingly strong affirmation of Paul's own authority. If he did not have any words of Jesus to apply to a situation, he could simply use his own, for his words had just as much authority as the words of Jesus.

I think you have described this perfectly but misunderstood it. The authority you describe and ascribe to Paul is not that of Scripture, but that of one of the elevated priestly office of bishop.

Scripture preceded the church - it does not owe its existence to the church. The church recognized and affirmed the divinely inspired writings. The church did not "make" Scripture.

Yes. And this Scripture you speak of includes the so-called apocrypha and protestants like you willingly reject inspired scripture.