Featured Would the Continuation of the Gift ofProphecy Challenge Sola Scriptura?

Answered above.

Earnestly Contend

 

It is hard for me. You are divorcing Chapter 13 from Chapter 12, which is about spiritual gifts, and from Chapter 14 which is about spiritual gifts. So yes, it is hard for me to see that as responsible interpretation.

 

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice

Most here don't agree with Sola Scriptura anyway.

Somebody appealed to a lexicon as supreme authority on doctrine.

Somebody appealed to a Creed or Confession or Chatechism as a final authority on doctrine.

There was a thread on church membership - a PRACTICE - in which some here arguing for Sola Scriptura did not appeal to scripture as any kind of authority on the matter.

I, for one, do not embrace Sola Scriptura. And quite frankly, neither do most

 

You are reading into this passage an interpretation that you've been taught, and not what it actually says.

It doesn't say "gifts will cease".
It doesn't say "gifts will fail".
It doesn't say "gifts will vanish away".

You want it to say this, but it doesn't.

But here is something that The Scripture actually does say:

Romans 11:29
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

There is no need to make up some doctrine to explain Apostolic cessation...
The eye witnesses of Christ's resurrection, hand picked by Him, are all passed away.

So they were gifts, given to the Church, given W/O repentance, but given to men, through men, who were mortal.

No subsequent gift was given in this manner.
We still have prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

And we still have the witness of the Apostles in our Canon.


The reason you have been taught to ignore/insert the words of Scripture, is FEAR.
The Post-Penecostal Evangelicals fear that they don't have an answer for the Charismanics.
So they pretend that God no longer gives Spiritual gifts.

This isn't necessary.
Show them that they can't receive the things of God in the first place, in their natural state, because they add (to Grace) human responsibility.

Show them that tongues is a sign to unbelievers only....and that they hear in their own language.
That'll stop the show.

But don't try to make God a liar, and say that He recalled gifts.

Earnestly Contend

 

Then the Bible is wrong in your opinion. The Bible gives us what the standard for a prophet must be and that is not changed anywhere.
When 3 different "prophets" can tell a witch that she is on the right track and God is pleased with the direction she is going then we have a problem when they are not held to the Biblical standard.

 

I'm wrong for supporting the Biblical definition of a true prophet. Ok so good to know that you think the Biblical definition is wrong, I'm going to go with the Bible on this one.
Why should their words be judged, um to make sure that they fit the qualifications of a true prophet that the Bible has already laid out.
why should only 2 or 3 speak, because that is what God has decreed, so that there is order in worship.

 

1 Cor. 14:29. 'Let two or three prophets speak and let the others judge.'
I think you are mistaken here. What is said is not judged (pace the NIV insertion here). The prophets are to judge which ones of them should speak if there were more than two or three prophets. If one set of prophets stand in judgement over another set of prophets, the possibility of rivalry or collusion become very great. That way lies madness.

Only if you are supposing that OT prophesy is radically different to the NT version, which you have not yet done.

 

...and shall not endure sound doctrine.

 

I hope you're feeling better very soon, Prof.
You're keeping us amateur theologians up to the mark!

 

You don't know anything about me; you don't know whether I've been taught anything, and if I have, what it is.

Now please stop showing off and behaving like a spoilt child if you want to discuss theology.

 

I'm not sure what a "spoilt" is, but I'm sure you are reading an interjected interpretation into this passage.

Earnestly Contend

 

Well I'm sure your whole hermeneutic is faulty because you quote passages without considering the context, so there!

Now do you want to leave the ad homs behind and discuss theology?

 

I'm not sure that you are capable of a theological discussion.
I'm quite sure that you have no idea what the definition of "ad hominem" is.
I'm quite sure that you used an ad hom attack, just 2 posts ago...

Last try:

English 101
Number and gender agreement.

Gift of prophecy is not = to prophecies.

"Prophecies" (plural), is a name for the words spoken.
"Gift of prophecy"(singular) is the ability to speak prophecies.

Earnestly Contend

 

I remember spoil, spoiling, spoiled, have spoiled, will have spoiled.

I never saw spoilt.



Earnestly Contend