Featured How many of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit still operate today?

Neither I nor Dr. Pettigrew said they did.

We know that. What is your point?

We know that too. What is your point?

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

Neither I nor Dr. Pettigrew said they did.

We know. What is your point?

Witness to what? "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

 

We see things a bit different as I believe the author of Hebrews is bring to mind those those events of the Old Testament in the life of Israel to urge them onward. So I don't believe the passage in Hebrews is dealing with sign gifts but I do agree the principle does apply.

I believe these gifts may end at different times in the life of a church, or may not appear at all.

I cannot think of a reason these sign gifts would be relevant in my life, culture, community or worldview. I don't think these signs would have pointed me to Christ. But at the same time I know that my worldview and culture is not universal. Since I do not see Paul's words as focusing on those gifts but rather exalting love, and I do not believe he was pointing to the completion of the Bible but was speaking in general to support the primacy of love, I simply do not see fit to reject the possibility that God may use these sign gifts today.

But I also respect your position and lean towards these gifts as not being relevant to Christianity within the Western worldview or culture. I think part of this is the centrality reason has taken in our secular and religious culture (not that reason is unimportant) and that the world is not like us. But in the end, it is only by the work of the Holy Spirit that one comes to faith.

 

We know that. What’s your point?

(I said that sign gifts did not stand in place of Scripture) My point was that sign gifts did not serve the purpose (in part) that the New Testament serves (in full). Paul’s words then cannot mean that they will cease with the completion of the New Testament. While I am glad we agree, I was just stating the reasons for my conclusions

(I said that the Scripture that validated the gospel for the earliest church existed for over four centuries….i.e., the Old Testament was used to validate the gospel). I am glad that we agree here as well. My point is that the primacy of Scripture in terms of validating doctrine was established before Pentecost and in the church it existed alongside these sign gifts. It is illogical, then, to argue that these things were validated via sign gifts until Scripture was completed. And again, while we agree here some do not. I was simply stating my position as you (and others) seem to do on these forums.

Again, I am glad that you and your friend know this, but I commented in support of my position (your knowledge of its validity did not enter into my decision to post here). I said that the gospel is proclaimed by the church. It is not merely written in the New Testament for the lost, pointing them to the church so that they could explain the gospel. It is not the “perfect” which takes place of the “partial”. Scripture is for the church who proclaims the gospel to the lost. Sign gifts simply pointed the unbeliever to the fact that God was with them (think of Nicodemus’ conclusion – “we know that God is with you because…”. So while this is common knowledge, I only thought I would present my reasoning behind my position as countless others have done without question throughout this forum. I was not implying you thought otherwise, and apologize if you took it that way.

Yes. We all know that. What’s your point?

Again, we all can see this. What’s your point?

(I said that the church validates doctrine by Scripture). My point is that the church validates doctrine by God’s word, not sign gifts. It has always, as we agreed earlier in this post, been that way. The idea that sign gifts ended because that transition period between the Old Covenant program and New Covenant program does not hold water as this was never the purpose of sign gifts. They pointed to the Church and told the world that God was with them. That is what sign gifts do. That is what signs did in Christ’s ministry, and I suspect that they serve the same function for the Body of Christ.

(I said that what validates the gospel to the world is the witness of the church). Witness of the gospel.Romans 10:14-17 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

It is not that the Scripture is completed and therefore all have heard the gospel. The church must carry this gospel. The church must evangelize. And to this end God grants gifts as needed. There seems to have been a time that the church needed to be gifted gifts that would indicate to the lost that God was indeed with that church. I am not willing to assume more than is given in Scripture, so while skeptical I do not denounce the possibility of sign gifts in the world today.

 

Okay, fine. You are off on another of your trips to Neverland rather than actually discussing the issue.

Have a nice Christmas.

 

Why do you say or believe this? I understand Hank's view, and I believe your view as well. I just disagree that the passage in Hebrews and Corinthians indicates that these things have ended. And I believe that I have addressed the issue (just perhaps not to your satisfaction). If you have a legitimate question about what I believe then please feel free to ask me. I will do my best to answer. I certainly did not think I was being difficult here.

And I hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas as well. I suspect you will have much warmer weather than we have here. My son is hoping for snow.

 

There are not many things more personal to a person than one’s beliefs, and perhaps very few opportunities where one is more vulnerable than expressing those beliefs among people who obviously will disagree. The anonymity of this forum and distance between members is, of course, a buffer. Unfortunately, this is a buffer which works both ways as people can ridicule others with the same relational distance.

There are several positions on the continuance or cessation of “sign gifts”. Traditional dispensationalists hold that these signs existed during the time of Jesus and the transition phase between the Old and New Covenant programs (the transition of the early church, which has passed). Reformed theology agrees that these gifts have ceased, but for different reasons. They view that signs served to confirm the apostle’s proclamation, and since this phase in salvation history has passed we should not expect such miracles (until the second advent). Those supporting a continuation of sign gifts view these gifts as testifying to the reality of the Kingdom of God or as a witness that God is with that people or person.

I do not dogmatically take either side because I see neither strongly affirmed in Scripture. I believe Paul was talking in general terms, and the author of Hebrews speaking to a people caught up between Judaism and Christianity. Signs were not designed to be “in part” what is “perfected” with the establishment of the church or the completion of the Canon. They were given to serve a purpose where the church was yet established and where they would be relevant.

I believe that they may cease with the firm establishment of the church. But I do not believe this to be a universal church. Tongues, for example, may have no relevance in America but be a profound sign to a tribal people. Or maybe not. I simply do not see the existence of the New Testament and the local church as something that invalidates sign gifts to a people who have neither. So I have no experience with sign gifts, am naturally doubtful, believe that if evidenced they need to be carefully evaluated, and allow in my theology the possibility that God may indeed gift these things to the church.

So my position is that Scripture does not provide enough evidence, but I lean towards these gifts being present when needed and note something D.A. Carson - “The coming of the Spirit is not associated merely with the dawning of the new age but with its presence, not merely with Pentecost but with the entire period form Pentecost to the return of Jesus the Messiah.” It, therefore, falls on us to examine the exercise of such gifts and test their validity with the Word of God. If they have ceased, then each instance will undoubtedly fail. If they are present, then some may be validated. I just am not willing to stand behind a doctrine that I cannot justify without reading that doctrine into Scripture.

I realized a little too late that posting my position here was an invitation for ridicule. But having already put my understanding out there, all I can do is provide clarification as requested. I understand and respect the positions that are expressed on this thread thus far. I respect those scholars on all sides of this issue (from the cessation of Warfield to the continuation of John Piper and D.A. Carson). Is my understanding so difficult to grasp? Have I indeed lacked at least a basic level of clarity? Does my poor articulation really warrant ridicule when I am willing to clarify, answer questions and engage the issue?

If it helps others to understand, my position agrees with Carson and Piper with the addition that I have yet to experience an environment where these gifts would serve their design.

 

Hank - I understand your position and believe it is logical. However, I do not find enough evidence for me to denounce these gifts in general. I respect that you do. Part of our difference is that I do not see these gifts as pointing to the Word of God but as an affirmation that the one bringing this word is of God.

 

Thank you. I hope you also have a wonderful Christmas as we join with John Wesley in his final words - "The best of all, God is with us." I do believe in miracles because I have experienced one that makes sign gifts pale in comparison. God recreated me. I do not think that man can experience a greater wonder than this act of God, except perhaps when this recreation reaches its fulfillment in our own glorification in Christ. Have a wonderful Christmas.

 

I can certainly understand how it may appear to be “secondary inspiration”. The difference is that I am not speaking of these sign gifts as inspiration, or even a special revelation. What I am saying is that these signs in Jesus’ ministry served as an indicator or witness that God was with Him. From what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, the same was true of the sign gifts and the local church. These signs did not make a secondary inspiration nor did they form special revelation. They pointed to or affirmed that the church was indeed the people of God, that God was with them. And this brought conviction, not the signs themselves but that the proclamation of the church was indeed affirmed by God.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 13, consider the verse within the fuller passage

1 Corinthians 13:8-13
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I am suggesting that we don’t need to “fill in the blank” but instead take the statement to be pointing to love as the greatest gift. If there is any eisogesis (and I believe there is) it falls squarely on those who would assign to Paul’s statement here something that is absent (i.e., the New Covenant program, the Canon of Scripture, or the formation of the Church). None of those things are even brought up by Paul. Paul begins by stating that love never fails, then he shows that those other gifts are temporary, and concludes that love is the greatest of all.

 

Then you don't understand the passage of scripture.

What was Paul talking about when he said: 1 Corinthians 13:10 "but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with."

What was it that was not yet complete at the time of Paul's writing but that would be complete in the near future?

 

And I, of course, believe that you do not understand the passage but are reading into it what is not there. This is not to say that sign gifts continue, or end, but that the passage itself does not provide the evidence.

There are numerous options as to what was not yet completed. I don’t believe that the transition into the New Covenant program is one of them, except as it applies to individual local churches (which would allow for a continuation of these gifts today). But I believe that the church is organic and local, not universal. Paul could be implying that tongues will cease when the church in Corinth reaches a mature state and they are no longer needed. Paul could be pointing to Christ’s return (which may be supported by ch. 15). Paul could be looking into the future where the Canon of Scripture is completed. Paul could simply be pointing out that these things are temporary and will end, but not love.

Please understand me here, it is not that I do not comprehend your conclusions or respect your position. I am, however, pointing out what you seem to be missing. You are reading into the text. It may be that “that which is perfect” refers to the New Covenant program. But Paul is less specific here because exactly when the will cease is not his point.

1. Love never ends. As for prophecies, tongues, knowledge – they will cease.
2. For now we prophesy in part
3. When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
4. When I became a man I gave up childish ways. Now we see dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully.
5. Faith, hope, and love abides. But the greatest is love.
6. Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophesy (which is greater than the gift of tongues).
7. Paul reminds the church of the faith they received and the Resurrection of Christ.

Where you are wrong is not necessarily in your opinion that tongues, knowledge, and prophesy ended when the New Covenant program was fully initiated. Where you are wrong is in not recognizing where your conclusions begin and Paul’s words end. I doubt that, when you were a seminary professor, you would have let your students off so easy as to say "Paul says here that these things will end when the New Covenant program fully arrives". I believe that you would have told your students that they need to separate their interpretations from the text and deal honestly with what Paul has actually said. I think that you may have even taken the time to explain why it is important to realize what is written and what is deduced. You just seem like you would have been the type of professor that insisted such integrity in interpretation (not that the deduction is necessarily wrong, but at least recognizing from whence it came).

Leon Morris suggested that Paul is speaking of the temporary nature of these gifts, but that love will endure. I believe that John Gill (who also holds that these gifts have ceased) viewed this passage correctly and honestly:

“and then that which is in part, shall be done away:
the imperfection of knowledge shall be removed; the imperfect manner of communicating knowledge, and of receiving and acquiring it, will cease: thus the apostle explains what he means by the cessation and failing of knowledge, and prophecy; not that knowledge itself will be no more, and a state of ignorance and darkness succeed; but imperfect knowledge will vanish away, or rather will be perfected, or be swallowed up in perfect knowledge; the imperfection of it will disappear; and it will be no more taught and received in part; the whole of truth will be clearly known.”

I don't take exception to your position. I do take exception to insulting others who do not read into a text the same opinions that you hold. I take exception to the implication that what is lacking is understanding. I understand what you are saying. I understand what and why you substitute "that which is perfect" with "the New Covenant program". But I disagree that this is what Paul actually says, and indeed that this is what Paul implies (even this is when these things cease).

 

I do think it reasonable that these gifts (sign gifts) are provided for the church in its infancy. I think that there are several ways of viewing this. It could be, as TCassidy says, that when transition from the Old to the New Covenant program is completed these things will cease. It could be that when the church is established firmly and these things are no longer needed that they will cease. But I am not sure that tongues, prophesy, and knowledge all ceased at once....or if they are instead (as John Gill held) more perfectly completed.

Regardless, I am in line with what you are saying here brother. But where we probably disagree is that can see this applying to the church as the visible and local church. In other words, if these signs were to help the church in its infancy then they also may help other churches in their infancy (churches that are being planted in areas without the Scripture, without the gospel, and without an established community of believers).

And, again, my position is that I am simply unwilling to denounce the possibility that God may use these gifts in the world today.

 

Another typical JonC "answer." Yada yada yada yada without saying anything.

You accuse others ( especially me) of "eisegesis" but when asked a simple question, you give your typical no answer answer.

Here it is again. Try real hard to answer the question this time.

What was Paul talking about when he said: 1 Corinthians 13:10 "but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with?"

Show your exegesis to support your answer.

This is very simple. Just a one sentence answer with your exegesis to support your answer.

Now focus. Try real hard. You can do it!