I Corinthians 1:7 shows that gifts continue

I assume you believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit say that they came behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This epistle is not just for the Corinthians, but for all who call upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

DHK wrote about the gift of healing,

What kind of argument is this? Consider my argument, using the same type of reasoning: "The Bible doesn't say that I am not the Grand Puba of the church, and you have to obey me and come to my church, so therefore I am the Grand Puba, and you have to obey me and come to my church."

The issue here is that the Bible never says or hints that the gift of healing has ceased. I have asked for this before. Now I challenge you to show me any scripture that says that the gifts of healing or miracles will cease. You have not answered my challenge yet. I Corinthians 13 certainly says nothing about these gifts ceasing.

You don't believe in the gift of healing continuing because you have never SEEN anyone do like Peter did. You have never seen it or experienced it, or witnessed it. You are basing doctrine on experience. Plus, you offer no scripture that this gift would ever cease. If so, where is the scripture. Don't do the cop-out thing that you did in the last post-- every time I asked for scripture, you say you've shown it and quote 'A man convinced against his will.' This time, actually show the scripture that you think teaches this.

It was not my intention to say Baptists do not believe God heals. When I wrote 'miracles and healings' in the section in question, I meant 'the gifts of miracles and healing.'

They did not always heal all. Paul certainly didn't. There was a time in Paul's ministry, in Ephesus, when Paul did extraordinary signs and wonders.

What were the ordinary signs and wonders? Maybe the regular miracles he did from time to time were ordinary, since he had performed miracles all along the way as he preached among the Gentiles (Romans 15.)

Perhaps ordinary miracles are the type that people with the gift of healing who were _not_ apostles did. Notice in I Corinthians 12, we are talking about members of the body doing miracles, not just apostles. You are acting as if all believers with this gift function in the 'signs of the apostles.'

So your distinction between healing and the gift of healing is that someone with the gift of healing could heal all? Is that what you are saying? I don't see any reason to believe that.

If that is the case, why did Paul not heal his own sickness, probably of his eyes, and probably on the first missionary journey early in his ministry.

Also, you say people get healed as God responds to prayer. We both agree on that. What about people who get healed when someone lays hands on them and says 'Be healed in Jesus name', 'in the name of Jesus Christ stand up?' The apostles said similar things, commanding the person to be healed, and they were healed.

Where does this fit into your paradigm? Is this the gift of healing, if it is healing not in response to prayer per se.

Sure it does. It tells us, or at least implies, that they will last until the perfect comes-- something that will make us know fully as we are fully known--something that will make Paul's life at that time seem childish in comparison.

Compare this to what John tells us, we will be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

Are you trying to imply that wine was allowed then but not in this time period? The statement is still applicable to those in a similar situation as Timothy, and is still profitable for doctrine. It did not cease to be relevant as you are arguing of the NT scriptures on spiritual gifts.

 

DHK

One scripture does not contradict another. There were 'twelve apostles of the Lamb' and other apostles like Paul and Barnabas.

According to I Corinthians 15, Paul was not one of the 12. According to Acts 14, both Paul and Barnabas were apostles. Look up I Thess. 1:1 and 2:6 for Paul, Silas, and Timothy ministering as apostles of Christ. If an apostle's name is not on one of the 12 foundations, that does not mean he is not an apostle.

Notice that after Jesus appointed the 12, He went into heaven and recieve gifts for men (or 'gave gifts to men' as Paul put it.)

 

Dear Balion

It seems like I must have written something that has offended you. I am certainly open to correction if I have said anything unloving. Feel free to send me a private message to point out whatever it is you believe I have done.

Most of my writing is to the point. I argue hard for my ideas. Part of the reason is time and space. I do not have a lot of time, so I write to point without a lot of pleasantries. Also, the more pleasantries I write, the longer my messages get, and the harder they are to follow.

These discussions are only words. You can't see the wry smile from the poster or hear his tone of voice. Many of the posters on forums like this are used to a very direct style of debate, arguing hard for one's ideas. As long as no one's feelings get hurt and no one sins, I can go along with that. Some people don't like that style of discussion. It's milder than some of the Reformers debates, though. Sarcasm is nt in and of itself a sin. Elijah used sarcasm on Mt. Carmel.

I recall that you came on the forum recently, and after reading just a couple of fairly mild posts from someone who disagreed with you and you called the man a fool. Your posts also seemed to imply that those who disagreed with you did so because they did not know history and/or were not open to the Holy Spirit. When you were shown scripture that did not agree with your interpretation, you did not address the point.

If you feel that an intense style of debate is not appropriate, perhaps you should reconsider your own approach in this forum.

Anyway, I am not sure exactly what I have posted that offends you. Perhaps there is something in my style that bothers you. I have tried to steer clear of personal attacks. If I have done something wrong, let me know. If you can think of something specific, send me a personal note, and I will pray about it and spend some time in instrospection.

 

Balion wrote

Spin job? Me? Look at what you are doing.


You did not answer a major objection that proves your theory false. You promote that 'tongue' is fake in the chapter and that 'tongues' is real. When Paul finally gets down to telling the Corinthians how to use the real 'tongues' in church, he uses the word tongue!!!

So, which is it? 'Tongue' is the real gift in verse 27, Paul allowed for fake tongues, or you believe Paul is wrong? Those are the three logical options. If you have another, please share it with me.

Do you agree that verse 27 says tongue? Is there an 's' on it in your translation? If that is the issue, bring it up.

He says if anyone speak in a TONGUE---singular. You haven't even responded to this issue. You said we interpret scripture differently. That does not answer the question.

Some liberals throw up a smoke screen of historical arguments to try to contradict what Paul says in Romans 1 and what he says about women not usurping authority over men. The homosexual propagandists say homosexual relationships in the first century were prostitution and molestation, so therefore the Bible doesn't count when it comes to their relationships. Some liberals try to argue that what Paul said to Timothy does not count because there were female priestesses in Ephesian pagan temples. the scripture still says what it does, no matter what history we refer to.

I am not calling you a liberal. My point is that the history of pagan parallels to tongues does not change what Paul says in the chapter.

If 'speaking in tongues' was used to refer to pagan practice, that does not mean that is what Paul had in mind. We can understand what Paul was talking about by context.

Honestly, you come off to me as a bit of an immature know-it-all with a very thin skin. Someone who really dishes it out heavily, but can't take it when it is 'dished out' very mildly with kid gloves back to him. I would not have said anything about it if you had not brought up this line of reasoning. Remember when you came on here, one of the first responses urged you not to be proud, and it was not from me. You called someone a fool right off the bat. You challenge people to respond to your points, and when they do, you don't respond back. When an argument you imply is the one those who know history are open to the Holy Spirit hold to is shown to contradict scripture, you don't address the issue and pretend you are right. Btw, if you think comments like this are too sensitive for a forum like this and we should discuss it in private messages, let's do so. It seems you think this type of discussion is for an open forum, however, since you go around calling people fool, foolish man, immature, etc. in this forum.

If someone attacks your argument, it does not mean they are attacking you personally. I have not gotten personal with you until that last paragraph. We are discussing issues here. The idea you present is not you. So don't get so bent out of shape if someone disagrees with your idea strongly.

It certainly is to those who percieve it. It is obvious that 'tongue' does not mean 'fake tongues' in I Corinthians 14, when God instructed the church to allow a 'tongue' and for it to be interpreted.

I don't see where my posts demonstrate a defensive attitude. I am arguing for sticking to what scripture says and not making up doctrine not supported by scripture. I do see where yours are being offensive, directly attacting and insulting people at times, and attacking the character of those who disagree with you and prove one of your arguments false. If someone shows you are wrong, you should be thankful for that, not stick to your guns and insult the person's character. The Proverbs say a wise man loves rebuke. For the most part, your arguments have shown to be wrong and you haven't been rebuked much, except for this post and one other by another poster earlier.

I do argue strongly for my point of view. Maybe that can be percieved as sarcastic if I make a strong point. But again, i don't see where sarcasm is sin, and sarcasm can sometimes be a legitimate tool to make a point as in the case of Elijah.. It's not like there is a verse that says 'Thou shalt not ever be sarcastic.' There is a passage that says if you call your brother 'Thou fool' you shall be in danger of Hell fire.

Again, if you have specifics of where I have erred, send me a private message so we don't scroll the forum. If you do that, I can consider what you say and examine myself. If you just make general character attacks, it comes off more as your venting your frustration over believing something even though you cannot formulate arguments that show that it is true. That seems to be the case, since you are not dealing with the points that contradict one of your main arguments here. What I have in mind here is that you said 'tongue' was false tongues, and I Corinthians 14:27-28 which disproves that.

I do not believe someone with the gift of healing can necessarily do that. I do not think every 'regular believer' in Corinth who had this gift necessarily operated in the same level of power that the apostles did at times-- that they healed every one.

And I do not see that the apostles _always_ healed everyone. They were dependant on God's grace and the will of God. Apparently they felt that they were not doing enough signs and wonders all early because in Acts 4 they prayed for God to grant that signs and wonders be done for Christ's sake. God answered their prayer. If they could turn their healing power on and off like Superman can with his powers, then why would they have to pray? What would Acts make note of a specific period of time when God granted that special miracles be done through the hands of Paul? Why would Peter need to kneel down and pray before raising Tabitha/Dorcas from the dead?

So if your standard for the gift of healing is something we don't know the apostles would measure up to on a daily basis, you are setting it too hard.

For me, if ONE person says, "Be healed in Jesus' name" and that person is healed, that is evidence. Scriptural evidence is two or three witnesses, not the doctor saying the person was healed of cancer instead of saying 'spontaneous remission.' I have seen evidence of one or two miracles or healings like this that I can think of off the top of my head. But I believe God gives the gift because of scripture. I have seen a lot more of other gifts in operation.

If this is your big reason for not believing in healing, you seem to be basing your belief that there is no gift of healing based on your experience (or lack of experience)-- because you have not seen it-- rather than on what the Bible says about it. If you really want to see healing, believe what the Bible says, and pray for the gift. Then start ministering to the sick.

The problem is, you attack me in general instead of pointing out specific errors. If you really want to help me, send me specifics through a personal message.

Also, notice that you come off as immature and you have attacked quite a few people.

I just noticed this last paragraph, but I'll post this anyway. Really, it looks like you were proven wrong and got frustrated about it and started blaming people. I will take your advice about my tone under consideration. Some people get offended easily in these kind of serious discussions.

 

Balion wrote

Spin job? Me? Look at what you are doing.


You did not answer a major objection that proves your theory false. You promote that 'tongue' is fake in the chapter and that 'tongues' is real. When Paul finally gets down to telling the Corinthians how to use the real 'tongues' in church, he uses the word tongue!!!

So, which is it? 'Tongue' is the real gift in verse 27, Paul allowed for fake tongues, or you believe Paul is wrong? Those are the three logical options. If you have another, please share it with me.

Do you agree that verse 27 says tongue? Is there an 's' on it in your translation? If that is the issue, bring it up.

He says if anyone speak in a TONGUE---singular. You haven't even responded to this issue. You said we interpret scripture differently. That does not answer the question.

Some liberals throw up a smoke screen of historical arguments to try to contradict what Paul says in Romans 1 and what he says about women not usurping authority over men. The homosexual propagandists say homosexual relationships in the first century were prostitution and molestation, so therefore the Bible doesn't count when it comes to their relationships. Some liberals try to argue that what Paul said to Timothy does not count because there were female priestesses in Ephesian pagan temples. the scripture still says what it does, no matter what history we refer to.

I am not calling you a liberal. My point is that the history of pagan parallels to tongues does not change what Paul says in the chapter.

If 'speaking in tongues' was used to refer to pagan practice, that does not mean that is what Paul had in mind. We can understand what Paul was talking about by context.

Honestly, you come off to me as a bit of an immature know-it-all with a very thin skin. Someone who really dishes it out heavily, but can't take it when it is 'dished out' very mildly with kid gloves back to him. I would not have said anything about it if you had not brought up this line of reasoning. Remember when you came on here, one of the first responses urged you not to be proud, and it was not from me. You called someone a fool right off the bat. You challenge people to respond to your points, and when they do, you don't respond back. When an argument you imply is the one those who know history are open to the Holy Spirit hold to is shown to contradict scripture, you don't address the issue and pretend you are right. Btw, if you think comments like this are too sensitive for a forum like this and we should discuss it in private messages, let's do so. It seems you think this type of discussion is for an open forum, however, since you go around calling people fool, foolish man, immature, etc. in this forum.

If someone attacks your argument, it does not mean they are attacking you personally. I have not gotten personal with you until that last paragraph. We are discussing issues here. The idea you present is not you. So don't get so bent out of shape if someone disagrees with your idea strongly.

It certainly is to those who percieve it. It is obvious that 'tongue' does not mean 'fake tongues' in I Corinthians 14, when God instructed the church to allow a 'tongue' and for it to be interpreted.

I don't see where my posts demonstrate a defensive attitude. I am arguing for sticking to what scripture says and not making up doctrine not supported by scripture. I do see where yours are being offensive, directly attacting and insulting people at times, and attacking the character of those who disagree with you and prove one of your arguments false. If someone shows you are wrong, you should be thankful for that, not stick to your guns and insult the person's character. The Proverbs say a wise man loves rebuke. For the most part, your arguments have shown to be wrong and you haven't been rebuked much, except for this post and one other by another poster earlier.

I do argue strongly for my point of view. Maybe that can be percieved as sarcastic if I make a strong point. But again, i don't see where sarcasm is sin, and sarcasm can sometimes be a legitimate tool to make a point as in the case of Elijah.. It's not like there is a verse that says 'Thou shalt not ever be sarcastic.' There is a passage that says if you call your brother 'Thou fool' you shall be in danger of Hell fire.

Again, if you have specifics of where I have erred, send me a private message so we don't scroll the forum. If you do that, I can consider what you say and examine myself. If you just make general character attacks, it comes off more as your venting your frustration over believing something even though you cannot formulate arguments that show that it is true. That seems to be the case, since you are not dealing with the points that contradict one of your main arguments here. What I have in mind here is that you said 'tongue' was false tongues, and I Corinthians 14:27-28 which disproves that.

I do not believe someone with the gift of healing can necessarily do that. I do not think every 'regular believer' in Corinth who had this gift necessarily operated in the same level of power that the apostles did at times-- that they healed every one.

And I do not see that the apostles _always_ healed everyone. They were dependant on God's grace and the will of God. Apparently they felt that they were not doing enough signs and wonders all early because in Acts 4 they prayed for God to grant that signs and wonders be done for Christ's sake. God answered their prayer. If they could turn their healing power on and off like Superman can with his powers, then why would they have to pray? What would Acts make note of a specific period of time when God granted that special miracles be done through the hands of Paul? Why would Peter need to kneel down and pray before raising Tabitha/Dorcas from the dead?

So if your standard for the gift of healing is something we don't know the apostles would measure up to on a daily basis, you are setting it too hard.

For me, if ONE person says, "Be healed in Jesus' name" and that person is healed, that is evidence. Scriptural evidence is two or three witnesses, not the doctor saying the person was healed of cancer instead of saying 'spontaneous remission.' I have seen evidence of one or two miracles or healings like this that I can think of off the top of my head. But I believe God gives the gift because of scripture. I have seen a lot more of other gifts in operation.

If this is your big reason for not believing in healing, you seem to be basing your belief that there is no gift of healing based on your experience (or lack of experience)-- because you have not seen it-- rather than on what the Bible says about it. If you really want to see healing, believe what the Bible says, and pray for the gift. Then start ministering to the sick.

The problem is, you attack me in general instead of pointing out specific errors. If you really want to help me, send me specifics through a personal message.

Also, notice that you come off as immature and you have attacked quite a few people.

I just noticed this last paragraph, but I'll post this anyway. Really, it looks like you were proven wrong and got frustrated about it and started blaming people. I will take your advice about my tone under consideration. Some people get offended easily in these kind of serious discussions.

 

DHK wrote

I Corinthians is bigger than chapter 13. And I Corinthians, like other epistles of Paul, have many threads running though them.

I Corinthians 13 mentions tongues, prophecy, and the coming of the perfect.
Chapters 14 and 15 go into detail on tongues, prophecy, and the resurrection.

What evidence? The argument does not make sense in context. As I have pointed out over and over again, when the Bible was completed, Paul did not go from spiritual childhood to spiritual adulthood. Nor are we more mature than Paul because we have the Bible. How do you explain this passage? Do you bother, or do you just want to pull out a verse for a prooftext for what you already believe?

There are so many human assumptions in your argument, not supported by scripture, even if one accepted the idea that tongues were a sign particularly to Jews.

1. Show me where scripture teaches that the role in tongues in edification in the church would no longer be needed if tongues were not needed as a sign.
2. Show me scripture that says that tongues was only a sign for the FIRST CENTURY Jew. There are plenty of Jews still around.
3. Show me the scripture that says that tongues would cease because they were no longer needed as a sign. A minute ago, you were saying they would cease when the perfect came. But you also argue that they ceased because there were no more first century Jews. You can't have it both ways. The Bible ties it in with the coming of the perfect, not the death of the first century Jews.

Paul says that signs, wonders, and mighty deeds were signs of an apostle. He does not say that ONLY apostles did these things. Nor does he say that these things are signs of 'the apostles AND THEIR CLOSE ASSOCIATES'. He says signs of 'an apostle'. Yet the Bible shows non apostles doing signs, and specifically calls them signs. So either you need to conceed that this verse does not teach that non-apostles cannot do signs.

Scripture He also teaches that regular believers (non-apostles) recieved those I Corinthians 12 gifts. We can see that in the chapter. The Bible does not call all of these gifts 'signs' however.

Two problems here. The Bible does not teach that all spiritual gifts going on today are fraudulent. Do you teach your congregation? Is that fraudulent, or do you do it without any grace from the Spirit? Think about the implications of your argument for yourself.

The second problem is the same one the local yokal had who insisted there were no snakes on the farm, though he hadn't gone around to check it out himself. You have not seen all manifestations of the gifts, and you would not be qualified to discount a gift if you saw one. You don't believe in gifts being available to help you discern, and it is hard to discount even a few repeated syllables as not being from another language from a Linguists point of view.

 

DHK wrote

I Corinthians is bigger than chapter 13. And I Corinthians, like other epistles of Paul, have many threads running though them.

I Corinthians 13 mentions tongues, prophecy, and the coming of the perfect.
Chapters 14 and 15 go into detail on tongues, prophecy, and the resurrection.

What evidence? The argument does not make sense in context. As I have pointed out over and over again, when the Bible was completed, Paul did not go from spiritual childhood to spiritual adulthood. Nor are we more mature than Paul because we have the Bible. How do you explain this passage? Do you bother, or do you just want to pull out a verse for a prooftext for what you already believe?

There are so many human assumptions in your argument, not supported by scripture, even if one accepted the idea that tongues were a sign particularly to Jews.

1. Show me where scripture teaches that the role in tongues in edification in the church would no longer be needed if tongues were not needed as a sign.
2. Show me scripture that says that tongues was only a sign for the FIRST CENTURY Jew. There are plenty of Jews still around.
3. Show me the scripture that says that tongues would cease because they were no longer needed as a sign. A minute ago, you were saying they would cease when the perfect came. But you also argue that they ceased because there were no more first century Jews. You can't have it both ways. The Bible ties it in with the coming of the perfect, not the death of the first century Jews.

Paul says that signs, wonders, and mighty deeds were signs of an apostle. He does not say that ONLY apostles did these things. Nor does he say that these things are signs of 'the apostles AND THEIR CLOSE ASSOCIATES'. He says signs of 'an apostle'. Yet the Bible shows non apostles doing signs, and specifically calls them signs. So either you need to conceed that this verse does not teach that non-apostles cannot do signs.

Scripture He also teaches that regular believers (non-apostles) recieved those I Corinthians 12 gifts. We can see that in the chapter. The Bible does not call all of these gifts 'signs' however.

Two problems here. The Bible does not teach that all spiritual gifts going on today are fraudulent. Do you teach your congregation? Is that fraudulent, or do you do it without any grace from the Spirit? Think about the implications of your argument for yourself.

The second problem is the same one the local yokal had who insisted there were no snakes on the farm, though he hadn't gone around to check it out himself. You have not seen all manifestations of the gifts, and you would not be qualified to discount a gift if you saw one. You don't believe in gifts being available to help you discern, and it is hard to discount even a few repeated syllables as not being from another language from a Linguists point of view.