### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul give forbids women from speaking in church. 1 Corinthians 14 NIV > 34 Women 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. ... later > 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do > not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a > fitting and orderly way. I am assuming the word in Greek Paul is using here for church is Ecclesia, and that he wasn't, in fact, referring to a physical meeting place, or house, but rather a Christian gathering in general (but perhaps I am mistaken in this). I wonder how it is that he explicitly forbids them to speak "They are not allowed to speak", but then a mere four verses later he is instructing 'brothers and sisters' to be eager to prophesy, and *speak* in tongues. If not at Christian gatherings, then where else were they prophesying and speaking in tongues? I understand that context is probably the key here, and that things in the Corinthian church had probably gotten very much out of hand, however, It just seems strange to me that if he meant women to speak in tongues and prophesy, he would have said "They are not allowed to speak *out of turn*", or something to that effect.

St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:23 : >And such as we think to be the less honourable (*ignobiliora*) members (ατιμότερα) of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely (*inhonesta*) parts (ασχήμονα) have more abundant comeliness (*honestam*, ευσχημοσύνην). Upon which St. Thomas Aquinas commentates (as reported by Reginaldi de Piperno ): >Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Are the genitals honorable or uncomely parts of the human body, according to Church fathers or doctors? It would seem they are one of the most honorable, because they help create new human life, and life is sacred. Genitalia would seem the most ignoble, because, as St. Thomas, they are difficultly subjected to man's will, due to Original Sin.

James writing to Jews, seems to ignore the value of wisdom literature: >If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. (James 1:15 ESV) Later he gives a more detailed description of wisdom from above: >13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3) With the detailed explanation of wisdom in mind, the earlier statement, *if any of you lacks wisdom* seems rhetorical. Of course, everyone lacks the type of wisdom James describes. So everyone should realize this condition and ask God. Paul makes a similar distinction between the wisdom of God: >For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21) Paul is explicit, the world did not know God through wisdom. He continues making clear he is speaking of the Gospel which is foolishness to the Greek who seek wisdom (Corinthians 1:22-30). Therefore, in contrast to Judaism who would find wisdom in wisdom books, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, the Christian whose access to God by the Spirit in the name of Jesus, would ask God. How should Christians value the relevance of Old Testament wisdom books?

In light of passages like *1 Corinthians 15:52-53* which states that only **after** the “dead in Christ are raised” then those who are alive are “changed… putting on immortality” and the teaching on the judgement of the sheep and goats in *Matthew 25:31-46* which takes place at the inauguration of the Millennium, when the non-believers will “depart into eternal punishment” and believers into eternal life… **WHO will remain in perishable bodies (capable of reproducing) to repopulate the earth, thus producing the generations up to the final rebellion?** Whether you hold to a pre- mid- or post-tribulation rapture, there still stands the passage in *1 Corinthians 15* I cited above; you can’t allow for a parousia without first experiencing the resurrection or the putting on of immortality. This has been troubling me for a while, but I’ve concocted a few ways to marry these passages in light of post-trib eschatology… firstly; that “all” of Israel are converted just **after** the “harpazo” to fulfill *Zechariah 12:10* thus they won’t put on immortality. OR (THEORY) The multitude of victims of child sacrifice/abortion/infanticide are resurrected into an *edenic* state and those of us who have put on immortality are tasked with ruling them alongside Jesus with the rod of iron. Because they weren’t in-dwelt with the Spirit but (generally agreed upon) saved by grace nonetheless. Bonus: What do YOU suspect will happen when these fetuses/babies/children are bodily resurrected? Finally, what if there are pregnant believers that enter the millennial kingdom? And what of the children who haven’t reached the “age of accountability?” Thanks in advance!

The gift of interpretation of tongues is mentioned in chapters 12 and 14 of the apostle Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians: > 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, **to another the interpretation of tongues**. [1 Cor 12:10, ESV] > > 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? **Do all interpret?** 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. [1 Cor 12:29-31, ESV] > > 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, **unless someone interprets**, so that the church may be built up. [1 Cor 14:5, ESV] > > 13 Therefore, **one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret**. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. [1 Cor 14:13-15, ESV] > > 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, **or an interpretation**. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, **and let someone interpret**. 28 **But if there is no one to interpret**, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [1 Cor 14:26-28, ESV] Besides these two biblical chapters, are there any other extra-biblical documented occurrences of the gift of interpretation of tongues in the history of the Church?

We see in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophesy is a sign for believers, yet in the latter verses it appears to indicate the opposite, that tongues are sign for believers and prophesy a sign for unbelievers. What did Paul mean when he said this? I included verse 21 because it seems to indicate that the speaking in foreign tongues like what we see happen at Pentecost is descriptive of how tongues are a sign to unbelievers, naturally a foreigner speaking your tongue will serve as a sign from God. I've heard the interpretation that tongues means two different things in this passage but I don't see that as justifiable since it talking about tongues in such a close proximity without any distinction. > ## 1 Corinthians 14:21-25 ## >21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

This question regards those who support and participate in the modern 'speaking in tongues' and asks what their answer would be regarding the emphasis of scripture. Note that it is not a matter of 'cessation' (or not). It is a matter of *emphasis.* ----------------------------------------------- There is but one mention of tongues in the four gospel accounts, namely in Mark 16:17. Although I do not, many do dispute the acceptance of the last sixteen verses of Mark into the canon of scripture so I will pass over that single text as I assume so few would bring it up in answer to my question, that it would be regarded as moot. **Acts** There are two mentions in Acts which specifically refer to the apostles speaking in known foreign languages such that persons from other nations, attending the event, were able to understand those foreign languages. Then there are two mentions more, both of specific and special occasions, one being the matter of gentiles receiving the gospel, 10:46, and then the matter of twelve receiving the gospel who had not (yet) heard of the Holy Spirit, 19:6. In neither case is it stated what, exactly, the 'tongues' were. These four occasions are the only documented record we have of people actually speaking in tongues and they are all special and specific occurrences upon which the tongues were a sign - a signification. **1 Corinthians** Paul mentions tongues twenty one times in first Corinthians (never in second Corinthians) and his quest is to regulate the matter, as it appears to have got out of hand and to have become disorderly, so he corrects the situation and applies rules. Only if an interpreter is present can anyone speak in an unknown tongue. Paul does not comment on the *origin or the kind of the tongue* in question. He simply regulates all future utterances - of any kind - in the assembly, in such a way that all hearers, on every occasion, must be informed, intelligently - in their own mother tongue - of what is uttered at the gathering, so that all may be edified in an understandable way. **Elsewhere** There is no other mention that I can find of such occurrences in the Greek scriptures. Paul does not mention the subject again to the Corinthians in his second epistle and he never mentions it in any other epistle to any other group or church. (From a purely forensic point of view, this would be circumstancial evidence that only the Corinthians were practising the procedure.) Paul fails to mention the subject in his epistles, shortly before his death, when he instructs the younger ministers, Timothy and Titus, regarding ministerial conduct, teaching of doctrine, and matters of church government. John fails to mention tongues in any of his four books. These books are clearly written at a later stage, clearly complete the canon of scripture and clearly contain all that is relevant to the remainder of the Church Age, prior to the Lord's return. Peter never makes mention of tongues. James never refers to them. Jude, likewise. Nor does the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that author may be. Matthew makes no historical record in his gospel account. Luke, likewise, in his gospel account. ----------------------------------------- If tongues were as central (1) a feature of church activity as some suggest, if tongues are an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit on every occasion, if tongues are essential to the life of the church, if tongues are also essential to the edification and sound spiritual health of every single believer in the body of Christ . . . . . . . . then why do we see just four mentions in Acts on special occasions when a sign was necessary to mark a particular event, and why do we see just a chapter, or so, and that only when Paul regulates a matter that had got out of hand ? Why is there silence *from every other book and from every other author* ? Leaving aside the matter of 'cessation' that one might therefore expect that tongues - being a sign, given at a specific juncture in the inauguration of the New Testament - had ceased altogether, is it not questionable that there is a matter of emphasis to be considered ? To be even more plain, is there not a *justifiable question of imbalance* with regard to the modern emphasis on the speaking of tongues ? What is the response of those who participate in the speaking in tongues ? --------------------------- Please note that I wish to read responses from persons who actively do speak in tongues, as to their thinking regarding the subject ; or to read references to those persons. I am not looking to read theoretical assumptions from persons who do not actively practice the technique. --------------------------- Please further note that my research was from Young's Analytical Concordance and covered every occurrence of the word tongue/tongues. It could be that this subject is alluded to in different words which I have not listed. Also, I have deliberately not referred to the Old Testament and particularly not to prophetic passages, which require specific interpretations, e.g. Isaiah 28:11. I am interested in keeping the inquiry (and the response) within the compass of that outlined above. -------------------------- (1) This word added as an edit after the comment (below).

I’ve been doing some dedicated reading into what I’ll call the “neo-patriarchy movement” as a lot of this literature has been gaining traction in my congregation. One of the consistent ideas in this camp that I find questionable is that the husband has an exclusive and uni-lateral role in discipling his wife: > The Bible also teaches that a wife should be a disciple of her husband…a husband should be instructing and teaching his wife. She should not make this duty superfluous by going elsewhere for the instruction. > > “Reforming Marriage” Doug Wilson > Though both men and women are to seek wisdom, women are instructed to seek it from men; from their husbands. > > “It’s Good to be a Man” Michael Foster The passages used to support the concept in both cases are 1.) 1 Cor. 14:35 which instructs wives to ask their husbands at home if they have questions in the assembly, 2.) Eph. 5:26 which discusses a husband washing his wife with the word. My thoughts both for and against this view: 1) There are multiple interpretations of the Corinthians passage, which can’t be debated here. However I hold to the “judging prophecies” view. In that case this is just saying in this context it would subvert male authority for women to speak out in judging prophecies.. The purpose of them asking their husbands isn’t to give a universal rule of exclusive husband discipleship, but to maintain order in the worship service. 2) Eph. 5:26: It might be a hot take, but I think it fits better with the flow of this passage if you take this section as referring to what Christ does, not what the husband does. In any case, if you do take this as a command to husbands, its still seems a stretch that this is creating a general rule of exclusive, uni-lateral husbandly discipleship. At most this could be taken as giving the husband the responsibility of caring for his wife's general spiritual welfare. 3) We know that “there is one mediator between God and men” 1 Tim 2:5, that all Christians can approach the throne of God “with confidence” (Heb. 4:16), and that through Jesus we now “have access to the father” (Eph. 2:18). So it seems odd that a woman getting married would result in her access to Christ being reduced. It also seems unbiblical that her husband would act as a sort of mediator to this degree. 4) Multiple examples of women learning directly from Jesus or other men: Jesus with Mary and Martha, the woman at the well, Paul teaching Lydia and the other women in Acts, the women following around Jesus and his ministry in Luke. 5) Even Calvin doesn’t see this passage as an exclusive, uni-lateral discipleship role. “When he says husbands, he does not prohibit them from consulting the prophets themselves, if necessary. For all husbands are not competent to give an answer in such a case; but, as he is reasoning here as to external polity…it is the part of the prudent reader to consider, that the things which he here treats are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification.” 6) This concept does account for a the wife being a helper to her husband. How can she help him, if all the wisdom she receives, he already has since he gave it her? 7) On the other hand, in Genesis, God does give the command to Adam directly and not to Eve as well. (Although Eve wasn’t around to hear it at the time). 8) In my earlier examples of Jesus directly teaching women, none of them were married. The only exception is Joanna the wife of Chuza. But in her case she is not explicitly taught by Jesus (although it’s hard to believe she would not have heard his teaching while traveling with him). 9) If you hold to a different interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 or Eph. 5:26, then there may be a stronger case to take v. 35 as building a general rule of exclusive male discipleship. *I know this can be a hot topic, so thoughtful comments dealing with the biblical text and/or Christian teaching only. Please no patriarchy bashing.

1 Cor 7:8 (ESV): > "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am" 1 Cor 7:32-34 (ESV): > "... The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband." 1 Cor 7:38 (ESV): > "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better" **Here is the antinatalist implication of these verses.** If we follow Paul's advice and stay single and childless, then humanity would go extinct (because nobody will replenish the population). But the doctrine that argues for human extinction (antinatalism) is widely regarded by Christians to be a false one. The implication that the "ideal" scenario is the one where humans die out is an incredibly repugnant one. So my question is, **how can Christians interpret 1 Corinthians 7 to avoid all of these 3 implications below?** 1. it is better for humanity to go extinct 2. it is better to be single 3. it is better to be childless **Edit**: My question is different from [the proposed duplicate](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74782/would-god-allow-all-of-humanity-to-be-celibate) , because the duplicate asks a general philosophical question, while my post asks a specific question about the interpretation specific Bible verses by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 and 1 Corinthians 7:38).

St Paul, while referring to the need for a women to cover her head during worship says in 1 Cor 11:7 (NSRVCE): > For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. But then, we read in Gen 1: 27: > So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. One can hardly interpret the terms ‘humankind’ and ‘them’ as comprising only Adam and his male progeny . In fact they comprise both Adam, Eve and their progeny of both sexes. But then, why does St Paul give a different type of interpretation of Gen 1: 27, putting a limit to the concept of creation in God's image? Is he only referring to the physical appearance of man and woman for the purpose of supporting his teaching that woman should cover her head during worship ? In fact, he goes on to state in Verses 14 & 15: > Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. **My question therefore is**: According to Catholic scholars, is St Paul referring to physical appearance of man and woman when he tells of creation in God's image, in 1 Cor 11: 7?

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10 ([NKJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A10&version=NKJV)) : > Now to the married I command, **yet not I but the Lord**: A wife is not to depart from her husband In [verse 12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A12&version=NKJV) Paul writes: > But to the rest **I, not the Lord**, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. How do Evangelicals explain this in line with scripture inspired by God?

**According to Catholic theologians, why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between pleasing his wife and pleasing God?** Can't a husband please God by pleasing his wife? Or is that what Paul meant? 1 Cor. 7:32 -33: > 32. But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. > 33. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

Luther denied that marriage is a sacrament conferring grace.¹ He said marriage is a “worldly matter” (*weltlich geschefft*).² But 1 Cor. 7:14 says the husband and wife can mutually sanctify one another: >For the unbelieving husband **is sanctified** by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife **is sanctified** by the believing husband… In view of this verse, how did Luther not think this shows that matrimony confers grace? 1. Reynolds 2016 §17.3 (pp. 742-54)
2. *ibid.* p. 749n102: "*Von Ehesachen* WA 30.3: 205/12–14. *Traubüchlein*, WA 30.3:74/2."

Is, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 , the state of virginity more meritorious than that of marriage? Catholics think it is, and some (all?) Protestants think it is not. Why? For example, the Council of Trent says: > Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.

This question is aimed at those Christians who believe that someone saved can't become "unsaved" later. At least in 1 Corinthians 9:27 apostle Paul says he is not sure whether he will be saved or not (AFAIK there are other verses like this, and of course other places where Paul expresses his hope he will be saved). Here it is: > 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have > preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV–1984) Question is simple: how do those Christians interpret this? ---------- Related: - Can a Christian walk away from their salvation? - Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved? - [Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? \[closed\]][3] - How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

1 Corinthians 2:8 the rulers of the sage some claim that Jesus was crucified demons could you refute their arguments and prove Jesus was crucified by it by Pontius Pilate in Roman rulers

In [1 Corinthians 8:5–6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+8%3A5&version=ESV) , we read: > 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God (ESV) I'm having a hard time with in one breath we see "one God" and then the former "many gods and many lords." What is an overview of how should we understand "many gods and many lords" here?

>"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Here is another one. >"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:12-14). I asked my mom once about this and she explained that when the holy spirit descended, both men and women received it. And this gives us many different gifts such us prophesying, singing and preaching. I understood her but what I could not ask her was that, Corinthians and Timothy came after the holy spirit descended in Acts. In Africa you cannot keep on asking challenging questions to the elderly as it might be seen as disrespect. Someone help me here.

In 1 Corinthians 10:16, the Apostle Paul says that: > The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (ESV) Transubstantiation theology says that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance, but not the accidents, of the bread and wine are changed to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. However, Paul identifies the Eucharist as participation bread and wine **and** body and blood. How is this reconciled? To clarify what exactly my question is, I need to make clear that I am not saying Paul is contradicting REAL PRESENCE theology. That is, I don’t think this verse in Paul’s epistle demonstrates that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. Instead, I am asking specifically about CATHOLIC real presence theology, which has transubstantiation built in. For a counter example, consider the general Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran views, which hold that bread and wine AND the body, blood, soul, and divinity are present in the communion meal.