I Corinthians 7

[Dennis M. Scott]

Well this is what was written: (below) So is it the Lords command ref (Law) or did Jesus issue a command? To me Paul is referencing written in the law as the Lords command not that Jesus gave Paul a directive that women must not speak in church. I mean Jesus even spoke to female Samaritans. (women at the well) Didn't Jesus know jews don't associate with Samaritans? Its just not done I tell you!

Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[h]

Paul told us about his having been steeped in the ways of OT Law.

Paul did not have the benefit of observing Jesus in ministry: a ministry that often befuddled the twelve in relationship to dealing with women - including that Samaritan woman. Jesus frustrated those most committed to "the Law".

When facing a situation with women, Paul seems to draw on his familiarity with "the Law", more than Jesus' model. That seems normal, but maybe different than Jesus indicated He might have done.

On the other hand, Paul was the champion of non-Jews - which a person most committed to OT Law probably would not have been. In fact, Peter, who had that three year mentoring, seemed to hang on to "Jewish only" Christianity longer than Paul.

This set of observations was made by the women students in an introduction to the Bible class I teach. I love watching people with little Bible background make exciting discoveries. If nothing else, people who had only heard that Paul was unreasonable discovered him in a new light.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Yes and no.

(1) Yes - The Church interprets Scripture. There is no way around this. The Church is the sole arbiter in theological disputes, and in such situations, it is the Church, and the Church's interpretation of Scripture, which carries authority, not an individual's reading of the Bible. The Bible does not exist as interpreted apart from an authoritative body which can interpret. Otherwise, we end up with a bunch of individuals pushing "what the Bible says."

If the interpretation of Scripture rests with the church, then our faith is not resting on the testimony of the word, but rather it is resting on poor, fallible, fanciful, prejudiced men telling us the meaning of the word. You have described here the Jehovah Witness view on biblical authority and interpretation perfectly.

Scripture is self authenticating. It is utterly vain to pretend that the power of judging the certainty of interpretation lies with an authoritative body.

(2) No - This is where a lot of the problems arise in this conversation. I always have authority (to a certain degree) over my life. That is, I can live however I want within the law. I have no need to place myself under the authority of any Church or Bible. Yet, I do. Out of my own authority over my own life, I place myself under the authority of the Church, and assume a subordinate position to the Church.

In fact, this is how all authority works where people exercise choice. I do not know why we act as though this isn't the case. My college exercises authority over me, my actions, etc, but only so long as I choose to pay tuition there, and not somewhere else.

The same is true of the Church. The Church has come to find certain books to be authoritative, because they give witness to and confirm the Apostolic Tradition, which precedes the Scriptures, and it places itself under the authority of those canons, taking a subordinate position to the Scriptures.

In light of what you stated in (1), what you state in (2) is nothing more than lip service to the principle of biblical authority. If only the church's interpretation is considered to be authoritative, then the church stands over Scripture as the most certain rule of truth. Scripture itself bows to the authority of the church.

I understand what you're wanting to do. You are trying to hold to two standards of equal authority: Scripture and the Church. Unfortunately, for the sake of your argument, all multiple-source views of authority are unstable and ultimately give preference to one source over the other. It's just the way it is.

[Benjamin Burch]

If the interpretation of Scripture rests with the church, then our faith is not resting on the testimony of the word, but rather it is resting on poor, fallible, fanciful, prejudiced men telling us the meaning of the word. You have described here the Jehovah Witness view on biblical authority and interpretation perfectly.

Scripture is self authenticating. It is utterly vain to pretend that the power of judging the certainty of interpretation lies with an authoritative body.

This simply isn't true. "Self-authenticating" is the only pretense being thrown about. Nothing in life is self-authenticating in such a way. When you and another faithful Christian disagree on Scripture, Scripture does not self-arbit that one of you is correct, and make it known to the both of you. Instead, both interpretations are given a degree of latitude until it becomes an issue of central importance, at which point the Church fulfills its role of arbiter. This happens every time without fail.

Orthodox
Catholic
Anglican
Lutheran
Confessional Reformed

The fact is that even in the latter two, who would appeal to Scripture as self-authenticating, it is not so, as their disagreements with the former three end, in this life, with nothing more than human opinions.

All we ever have is frail human opinions about Scripture. That is all we have. Ever. The collection of the saints, and those with Apostolic authority to discern, within the Church, is the best bet among the variety of available options of human frailty.

Every Church believes this in practice, even if they give lipservice to the idea that they don't. I know you'd like to believe it, lots of Protestants do, but there is nothing but their own presuppositions to base it on, with nothing in the realm of objective data.

In light of what you stated in (1), what you state in (2) is nothing more than lip service to the principle of biblical authority. If only the church's interpretation is considered to be authoritative, then the church stands over Scripture as the most certain rule of truth. Scripture itself bows to the authority of the church.

I understand what you're wanting to do. You are trying to hold to two standards of equal authority: Scripture and the Church. Unfortunately, for the sake of your argument, all multiple-source views of authority are unstable and ultimately give preference to one source over the other. It's just the way it is.

I disagree. The Orthodox Church stands as a living testament against your conclusion here.

[Randy Wise]

Paul told us about his having been steeped in the ways of OT Law.

Paul did not have the benefit of observing Jesus in ministry: a ministry that often befuddled the twelve in relationship to dealing with women - including that Samaritan woman. Jesus frustrated those most committed to "the Law".

When facing a situation with women, Paul seems to draw on his familiarity with "the Law", more than Jesus' model. That seems normal, but maybe different than Jesus indicated He might have done.

On the other hand, Paul was the champion of non-Jews - which a person most committed to OT Law probably would not have been. In fact, Peter, who had that three year mentoring, seemed to hang on to "Jewish only" Christianity longer than Paul.

This set of observations was made by the women students in an introduction to the Bible class I teach. I love watching people with little Bible background make exciting discoveries. If nothing else, people who had only heard that Paul was unreasonable discovered him in a new light.

So you don't know


Randy

[Randy Wise]

Well maybe there is something in this remaining silent

Randy

[Larry Parsons]

Well maybe there is something in this remaining silent

Randy

This may help the letter of 1 cor. is like most New Testamnt letters they were written for certain reason or for certain occasional. In other words Paul was only dealing with a problem that this certain church was having with some of the women and when he suggested that the women to keep silent in church he wasn't declaring a universal law for all churchs to obey.It was just rare occurrence that took place in the Corinthian church.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

The fact is that even in the latter two, who would appeal to Scripture as self-authenticating, it is not so, as their disagreements with the former three end, in this life, with nothing more than human opinions.

Exactly. You can put two Christians in a room with the very same Bible, and they come out with utterly and totally contradicting views, that can impossibly portray the same God. The Bible is no use in this regard, people read as they want to read and we all do it, no exceptions. Which is the very fact that makes inerrancy such a useless concept. Who cares if the Scriptures are inerrant if I still read them any way I want?
Anyway, I've come to the point that when someone says, "I believe the Bible" my conclusion is that as yet, I know nothing about that person's faith. Even Muslims (at least in theory) accept the Bible as sacred, and Hindus might understand it as describing one of the incarnations of Krishna. Perhaps the only conclusion one can draw is that the person is probably not an atheist.

I need to know the answer to the question Jesus asked as well: Luke 10:26 - “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” where obviously the key question is the latter.

I guess answering this question is basically how I preach. I'm explaining how I read and why. And I'm doing my very best not to let fear determine my reading, which is not easy.

[Jim Chabot]

All we ever have is frail human opinions about Scripture. That is all we have. Ever. The collection of the saints, and those with Apostolic authority to discern, within the Church, is the best bet among the variety of available options of human frailty.

Every Church believes this in practice, even if they give lipservice to the idea that they don't. I know you'd like to believe it, lots of Protestants do, but there is nothing but their own presuppositions to base it on, with nothing in the realm of objective data.

I think that you are right here, the frail human opinions about Scripture are all we have ever, no disputing this. Where you miss the mark is in your description of "those having apostolic authority." My frail human opinion is that your frail human opinion here is absolute and utter bunk, this is nonsense. Apostolic authority ends with those who were personally selected by Christ, which would be the twelve, which became the eleven and then back to twelve when Jesus personally selected Paul. The thought that this continued beyond them is nothing other than allowing for the vanity of men seeking control over others.

Yes there is a place for church authority, it's found in the congregational model, you have said so much yourself. You have placed yourself under the authority of your church, and any time you choose you can remove yourself from that authority, just as you have removed yourself from the authority of the CoTN. This "authority" is illusory in the sense that you "choose" it.

[Randy Wise]

This may help the letter of 1 cor. is like most New Testamnt letters they were written for certain reason or for certain occasional. In other words Paul was only dealing with a problem that this certain church was having with some of the women and when he suggested that the women to keep silent in church he wasn't declaring a universal law for all churchs to obey.It was just rare occurrence that took place in the Corinthian church.
Thanks
Larry

I was kidding and meant myself (remaining silent)

Its difficult to read that what Paul wrote was a suggestion. Did the word of God begin with you?

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

I don't think anyone accepts church authority these days. Doesn't matter if one is as concerned as it gets, or as liberal as it gets. Or anything in between. The truly honest hymn of the Western Church is sung by Mr. Sinatra: "I Did It My Way".

So we read the Bible as we please (there goes its authority), we choose the church we like (illusory authority indeed, you are right, Jim) and the bottom line is we only trust ourselves. This being the case, the least we can do is being honest about it, lest we lose all credibility whatsoever. (Some might argue that this doesn't matter because we actually have none left. I might agree)

Through time, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a helpful unifying truth in the Church. Sure, most will accept the ecumenical creeds but they primarily deal with issues that were hot debates 1600 years ago. They are hardly any use today. Seems the only question that really matters today is the question "What is God like?". Is He the one who will eventually save all, no matter what? There are churches who believe that. Is He the one who will send the vast majority of mankind to everlasting torment, though they cannot help it? There are churches who believe that.

The only thing I wonder is why we just don't join a church that thinks like we do, and try to live out what we believe God wants us to do, in stead of tearing one another apart. Forget unity. There is none till Jesus returns and straightens us all out. Just do the best in following Christ. There are many issues we could raise that will only make Jesus answer in the same way as He did before: "What is that to you? You must follow me."

[Randy Wise]

. Apostolic authority ends with those who were personally selected by Christ, which would be the twelve, which became the eleven and then back to twelve when Jesus personally selected Paul. The thought that this continued beyond them is nothing other than allowing for the vanity of men seeking control over others.

I do believe in 12 only as well. Paul ruled against having to keep the Sabbath and religious festival's as a means of righteousness. Scripture states that command (Sabbath) was inscribed by the hand of God on a tablet. So in that case Paul refused to back down from grace.


27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

[Randy Wise]

Paul told us about his having been steeped in the ways of OT Law.

.

I think Paul saw all the law as law and at times used the law to support his teachings/decisions. Which preacher would argue against this law quoted by Paul: "For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

Randy

God's concern might indeed cover all of creation. After all, He didn't only created mankind, animals are his creatures too.

[James Diggs]

What is wrong with the understanding that there were people who were called and responded to that call to be part of the body of Christ (the birth of the Church) before anyone wrote anything down as a way to share the call with others and eventually that writing was affirmed by the body as scripture?

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with what you say here. The point is, if we say that from the church's authority the canonical books derive their power, such a position naturally places Scripture in a subordinate position to the Church.

I think the only reason you would worry about this is if you forget that the Church and the Body of Christ is a living Church and the voices of the Apostles and the early Church are still living members of the body of Christ who's voice through the inspired words of our scriptures will always be the voice of the Church.

I know this sounds rather "Roman Catholic", but I think despite praying to the saints and so fourth this is exactly what the Roman Catholic church forgot which lead to the need for the reformation. But, I also think you (as most protestants) are holding on to an old reformation argument that overcompensated for the actions of a (once?) power hungry institution that marginalized the voice of the early Church and the Apostles in favor of their own. I think this overcompensation may have likely been necessary at the time because of how bad it had gone the other way, but in the end I think the scriptures we protestants fought so hard to point to as "the authority" are so because they contain the living and inspired voices of the Apostles and the early church that we follow as they follow Jesus.

That's my take anyway. I would be interested in what Hans and Ben think regarding what I am saying.

[Jim Chabot]

I do believe in 12 only as well. Paul ruled against having to keep the Sabbath and religious festival's as a means of righteousness. Scripture states that command (Sabbath) was inscribed by the hand of God on a tablet. So in that case Paul refused to back down from grace.


27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

Agreed, we also find specific mention in Revelation of twelve foundations, on which is written the names of the Twelve Apostles of The Lamb. I believe that Peter correctly affirmed that one would lose his office and that he would be replaced. However as is in much of acts, the choosing of Matthias was, I believe, descriptive rather than prescriptive. The Apostles had no authority to replace Judas. I'm guessing that this was made clear to Peter when it was learned that Jesus had personally called Paul to this twelfth spot. If one is to lose his office and be replaced, there is room for but one, Jesus chose Paul, this invalidates the Apostles choice and negates the authority they believed they had.

[Hans Deventer]

I think this overcompensation may have likely been necessary at the time because of how bad it had gone the other way, but in the end I think the scriptures we protestants fought so hard to point to as "the authority" are so because they contain the living and inspired voices of the Apostles and the early church that we follow as they follow Jesus.

I would agree. As I wrote below, revelation precedes faith, but faith precedes the written expression of that revelation.

[Randy Wise]

God's concern might indeed cover all of creation. After all, He didn't only created mankind, animals are his creatures too.

Adam named the animals not God. Did you note Adam and Eves clothes? So man is much more important to God then animals. But I certainly can believe God has compassion for animals but the testimony I read shows God's Love for mankind.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Adam named the animals not God. Did you note Adam and Eves clothes? So man is much more important to God then animals. But I certainly can believe God has compassion for animals but the testimony I read shows God's Love for mankind.

I'm just stating: "The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made." (Psalm 145:9)

Now tell me He doesn't care about animals again, or does not love them.

[Randy Wise]

I'm just stating: "The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made." (Psalm 145:9)

Now tell me He doesn't care about animals again, or does not love them.

Adam named the animals not God. Did you note Adam and Eves clothes? So man is much more important to God then animals. But I certainly can believe God has compassion for animals but the testimony I read shows God's Love for mankind.

Randy

[James Diggs]

Adam named the animals not God. Did you note Adam and Eves clothes? So man is much more important to God then animals. But I certainly can believe God has compassion for animals but the testimony I read shows God's Love for mankind.

I don't understand why you are so adiment to make this point Randy, what you have said does not conflict with Han's statement "God's concern might indeed cover all of creation. After all, He didn't only created mankind, animals are his creatures too."

These ideas are not mutually exclusive

Matthew 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

Being "more valuable" does not negate God's care for "the birds of the air", and in this case the fact that he does care for them is the very evidence needed to create a launching point to describe just how much God loves us.

Randy I also don't understand your above response given again in response to Hans saying "Now tell me He doesn't care about animals again, or does not love them."

[Jim Chabot]

I don't understand why you are so adiment to make this point Randy, what you have said does not conflict with Han's statement "God's concern might indeed cover all of creation. After all, He didn't only created mankind, animals are his creatures too."

These ideas are not mutually exclusive

Matthew 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

Being "more valuable" does not negate God's care for "the birds of the air", and in this case the fact that he does care for them is the very evidence needed to create a launching point to describe just how much God loves us.

Randy I also don't understand your above response given again in response to Hans saying "Now tell me He doesn't care about animals again, or does not love them."

Well Hans did say "Now tell me He doesn't care about animals again, or does not love them." it appears that Randy obliged him.

Then again, Randy never did say that "He doesn't care about animals", and he never did say that God "does not love them." Did he? Often we speak as politicians do, we reinforce our own points while failing to recognize the others. Hans failed to address what Randy actually said.

What I hear Randy properly saying is that creation is for man. Creation is the home that God has built for the creatures he wishes to spend eternity with. Of course He loves the animals, God is love, he can do no other. Yet there is no real comparison to be made.

[Randy Wise]

I don't understand why you are so adiment to make this point Randy, what you have said does not conflict with Han's statement "God's concern might indeed cover all of creation. After all, He didn't only created mankind, animals are his creatures too."

These ideas are not mutually exclusive

Matthew 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

Being "more valuable" does not negate God's care for "the birds of the air", and in this case the fact that he does care for them is the very evidence needed to create a launching point to describe just how much God loves us.

Randy I also don't understand your above response given again in response to Hans saying "Now tell me He doesn't care about animals again, or does not love them."

I repeated what i stated Per request not what hans wrote that i stated. Lets get back to what hans original replied to. I don't understand that stance in regard to what paul wrote in the law. How was the covenant with abraham establised. Were animals killed? Were animals killed to make skins for adam and eve. Do we eat meat. Is that a sin? We do have cats and dogs we love but then we also turn around and eat steak? God did not issue a command to not kill animals for food or any reason. Define Gods concern for animals in that light. Still I don't know how we got into the context of the extent of Gods compassion for animals from the context of what Paul wrote.

R. Sigh..

[Hans Deventer]

Adam named the animals not God. Did you note Adam and Eves clothes? So man is much more important to God then animals. But I certainly can believe God has compassion for animals but the testimony I read shows God's Love for mankind.

Randy

Randy, you may have missed it but you already wrote this. And I already replied.

What got this started? I replied to this statement:

I think Paul saw all the law as law and at times used the law to support his teachings/decisions. Which preacher would argue against this law quoted by Paul: "For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

I answered: "God's concern might indeed cover all of creation. After all, He didn't only created mankind, animals are his creatures too."

With this, you seemed to disagree. So I quoted the Psalm (one of Wesley's favourites, btw). Then I got your same answer back. What are you doing?

[Dennis M. Scott]

I should have put the thread about rattlesnakes in here. It's about the only thing this thread hasn't included.

[Randy Wise]

I should have put the thread about rattlesnakes in here. It's about the only thing this thread hasn't included.

If anyone wants to play with rattlesnakes because of what Jesus stated then you reply "Jesus also stated thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test" Though Paul was bitten and didn't swell up and die.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

Randy, you may have missed it but you already wrote this. And I already replied.

What got this started? I replied to this statement:



I answered: "God's concern might indeed cover all of creation. After all, He didn't only created mankind, animals are his creatures too."

With this, you seemed to disagree. So I quoted the Psalm (one of Wesley's favourites, btw). Then I got your same answer back. What are you doing?

I don't kill things I love. In the US if we deem an animal (not food) we can love them. Horses, dogs, cats etc. But food nope (chickens, cows, etc...) That differs from other parts of the world where one might eat dogs and cats.

I would agree that God doesn't like intentional cruelty towards animals.

[James Diggs]

I don't kill things I love. In the US if we deem an animal (not food) we can love them. Horses, dogs, cats etc. But food nope (chickens, cows, etc...) That differs from other parts of the world where one might eat dogs and cats.

I would agree that God doesn't like intentional cruelty towards animals.

So God does not love chickens and cows? Is that the point you are wanting to make?

[Jim Chabot]

If anyone wants to play with rattlesnakes because of what Jesus stated then you reply "Jesus also stated thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test" Though Paul was bitten and didn't swell up and die.

Randy

It should be duly noted that Paul did not get himself intentionally bit as is the custom of some "geniuses" here do. Which has me wondering if the snake handling churches are Calvinists or not. They do display a predilection toward fatalism, pun intended.

Now if only the snakes were kept in a kitchen sink, then we would have it all in this thread. Rattlesnakes, Calvinism and Kitchen Sinks, oh my!

[Jim Chabot]

So God does not love chickens and cows? Is that the point you are wanting to make?

Especially Chickens! And I'm not all that sure about cats either.

[Randy Wise]

So God does not love chickens and cows? Is that the point you are wanting to make?

He even likes fish. Good eaten.

The point I was making was Gods love is directed to mankind.

What was your point? Despite the fact that we kill and eat animals God cares for animals as well. Ok fine. I can care for animals and my love is pale compared to Gods love. But if we kill and eat animals (and that is lawful) then is that the same Love God shows for mankind? NO, Not even close.


R.

[James Diggs]

He even likes fish. Good eaten.

The point I was making was Gods love is directed to mankind.

What was your point? Despite the fact that we kill and eat animals God cares for animals as well. Ok fine. I can care for animals and my love is pale compared to Gods love. But if we kill and eat animals (and that is lawful) then is that the same Love God shows for mankind? NO, Not even close.

Who said the love had to be equal? Just because God loves us "more" why does this mean he doesn't love the rest of his creation at all and it is only here for consumption? Believing God takes delight in the birds of the air, does not mean he only likes them because they can be "food".

[Randy Wise]

Who said the love had to be equal? Just because God loves us "more" why does this mean he doesn't love the rest of his creation at all and it is only here for consumption? Believing God takes delight in the birds of the air, does not mean he only likes them because they can be "food".

I don't have issue with God caring for anything living.

I disagree that "Love" from God dictates you can be killed and eaten or your skin can be used for the clothing by mankind. I don't see that as Love. It suggests to me animals were made for man not man for animals.

delight vs love?

I think we will just have to disagree.

[James Diggs]

I don't have issue with God caring for anything living.

I disagree that "Love" from God dictates you can be killed and eaten or your skin can be used for the clothing by mankind. I don't see that as Love. It suggests to me animals were made for man not man for animals.

delight vs love?

I think we will just have to disagree.

Oh, I am not trying to change your mind, just figure out what our actual disagreement is.

I don't think "man was made for the animals either", but I am not sure that it is either/or that they are just made for man- I think God delights in all his creation and not just for utilitarian purposes of people.

I understand that you rule out God loving them because they are killed for utilitarian purposes. I don't understand this, but I accept it as your reason.

[Steven Burton]

Oh, I am not trying to change your mind, just figure out what our actual disagreement is.

I don't think "man was made for the animals either", but I am not sure that it is either/or that they are just made for man- I think God delights in all his creation and not just for utilitarian purposes of people.

I understand that you rule out God loving them because they are killed for utilitarian purposes. I don't understand this, but I accept it as your reason.

Utilitarians will get your every time .