a) I don't see it as being a gift of the spirit to be sought after.
1 Corinthians 12:11 says the Spirit administers the gifts as he wills. So even if a gift of celibacy is not to be sought after, if God gives it by his sovereign will, like Paul must have received it as he said he had such a gift, then would that not then make it a valid and good state for that person to walk in so long as the gift remains in him or her? If as James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above" (1:16) would this gift of celibacy not also be good for the one it was given unto?
*** Be awfully sure that it WAS God who did it, and,
Yep, that makes sense and would align with the "walk in step with the Spirit" doctrine. I agree that is indeed critical and important!
nor assume that an adult who finds themselves in a single state due to death, divorce, or perhaps some trauma giving them problems (such as having been raped), is automatically being "called" to this state, or given a spiritual gift for it, or that God has declared Himself the only husband they need. In nearly all cases, they're just in between and need to be encouraged and helped to get into a good marriage.
So the words "nearly in all cases" would then allow for some not to be in the common norms and to still be right with the Lord, correct?
I would agree we should not speak for God to someone and say to them who are in those circumstances God has called you to that. How can someone else know for sure if God has or has not given the gift? I don't think a person would be able to say such a thing with absolute confidence.
Also, it is those types of comments that make me think you've seen people say that to others, and thus those who said that to others you have seen the problem with it where it has likely injured others and that has led you to a strong emotional view against the idea of celibacy. That is where I see the possible emotional reaction bleeding through as it seems which could likely be causing your comments to go further in the anti-celibacy direction than what you may even notice.
Paul? He made quite a point of making sure that we knew he was NOT speaking for God when he said that he wished we could all be like himself, did he not? I find that significant.
How would we square that thought with the statement by Paul that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)? Would it not be that he was indeed speaking for God through inspired revelation yet he was saying by that he did not have an already existing statement from Matthew's gospel or from any of the other gospels that were already available or from Christ himself?
In other words how can we affirm the law of non-contradiction, which in one sentence is: "all Scripture including this statement by Paul is from God", and yet then in another statement say, "Paul was not speaking for God here"? Would that not be us saying "A" is but also "A" is not at the same time, and thus place us squarely in violation of the most basic law of all logical discourse?
Would it not be better to say he was referring to the Lord Jesus' teaching since he used the specific term "kurios" in 1 Cor. 7:12 there instead of the term "theos" for God the Father? Would that not alleviate the issue and still then place Paul's words on a solid footing with it being an inspired revelation from God , and thus in line with 2 Tim. 3:16, but just not a direct verbal teaching from Christ while he was on earth or while he was directly instructing Paul during his three year preparation period after conversion?