Have the "gifts of the spirit" ceased?

Yes they have ceased, and they were only for first century Christians. Otherwise Scriptures like 1Cor.13:8-13, and especially 1Cor.14:21,22 would have no meaning or relevancy.

The problem you have here is that I am not the one allegorizing Scripture. Others on this board are. What does the Scripture say:
1. 1Cor.14:21,22 Tongues are for the unbelieving Jews of the first century, not for today. Study the context. This is no allegory.
2. Read Acts 2. "How hear we every man in our own language." Tongues were real and genuine languages, not the gibberish that is spoken today.
3. 1Cor.12:28 Tongues is the least important of all the gifts. Desire the more important of the gifts.
4. 1Cor.14:34,35. Women are not permitted to speak in tongues at all. They are to be silent in the church.
5. The maximum number of people that are allowed to speak in tongues are 3, and everyone must have an interpreter. 1Cor. 14:27,28
6. Tongues are for edification of the church, not for the edification of self. Paul said I would rather speak in 5 words with understanding then 10,000 words in tongues. He didn't place much value on tongues because they didn't edify the church.
7. He rebuked them for the chaos they were causing by many speaking in tongues. He said the result of an unbeliever walking in would thing they would all be crazy (mad). 1Cor.14:23
--Paul did not advocate the speaking in tongues even then. It was a gift that at that time was fading out of existence. It was given to the early church for a specific purpose. But half way through the first century those that had it, had it. It was very likely that God was not giving this gift out any longer. We are not told anywhere to seek after this gift. It was a gift that was fading out of existence on its own, as the older generation who had the gift died.
No doubt, 20 years later, it would have ceased altogether, for judgement on the Jews would have come.

Every Scripture must be taken in its proper context. We must rightly divide the Word of Truth. God promised to make of Abraham a father of many nations. But he didn't give that promise to me. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, but he didn't promise to do that with me. If you want to take Scripture out of its context like you are doing, the Bible says in Psalm 14:1 "There is no God."

Paul made no such promise. Are we to partake in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem as well, when he comes back to Corinth on his next missionary journey?? Not every command, not every promise is for us. Everything must be taken in its own context. Do you baptize for the dead? (1Cor.15:29)

No this was a rebuke. They were misusing the gifts that they had. They thought they were so spiritual that they were the only ones that had the Word of God. They had direct revelation from God, and were proud of it. Paul was reminding them that there was already portions of the Word of God in place including the Old Testament. Their prophecies and their gift of tongues were not the only source of God's word. Don't get hung up on it.

No, believe that things should be taken in the context that they are written in order to get a proper understanding. Tongues have ceased. This is very evident from even a cursory reading of 1Cor.14.
DHK

 

"Ditto" Tam! I could read Link's posts all day long. He has brought out some very interesting Biblical points.

MEE </font>[/QUOTE]Ditto's from me also!
Atestring

 

quote from DHK's above post:
--------------------------------------------------
quote from Link:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
consider these statements from I Corinthians 14:
36. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The implication is that the word didn't start with the Corinthians, and they weren't the only ones who had received it. So they didn't have the authority to change the universal, God-ordained way of conducting church meetings. These commands tell the prophets to speak two or three, and tell people how to speak in tongues in church meetings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No this was a rebuke. They were misusing the gifts that they had. They thought they were so spiritual that they were the only ones that had the Word of God. They had direct revelation from God, and were proud of it. Paul was reminding them that there was already portions of the Word of God in place including the Old Testament. Their prophecies and their gift of tongues were not the only source of God's word. Don't get hung up on it.
--------------------------------------------------

DHK then what about verse 39 in that passage if it was a rebuke?
Wherefore brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak in tongues.

Just asking
Music4Him

 

DHK said:
No, believe that things should be taken in the context that they are written in order to get a proper understanding. Tongues have ceased. This is very evident from even a cursory reading of 1Cor.14.
DHK

That is your opinion. Also like I said there is one scripture that is somewhat a pivotal point of whether one believes tongues are for today or not and your veiw of what is perfect. (1Cor. 13:8-10) But then it may also be to what your idea is of the last days..is it now? Because the prophet Joel written in the last days He (God) would pour out His Spirit on all flesh....(Acts 2:17-21).When do the last days end? To say the last days ended in 70 A.D. sounds like some of what I read in the full preterist(sp?) thread a while back.
It kinda seems that the last days started back right after Jesus left and the Holy Ghost arrived? It also seems that the last days will end with the very last day spoke of in Revelation?
Maybe once we get this settled then maybe there might be some progress on the gifts still being for today.

Music4Him

 

You have some valid points Music4Him.
In response to your previous post, I believe that Paul was writing that command,
1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

is to first century Christians. Obviously if you believe tongues and other spiritual gifts like prophecy are still for today then you will not agree with me. But since I believe that they ceased by the end of the first century, I believe that this verse is directed strictly toward the Corinthian believers themselves (to whom Paul was writing), and not to us.

One of the strongest points of 1Cor.13:8-13 referring to the Bible, is not only the context itself, but the preposition "that" which is perfect. The word "that" in the Greek is not masculine and could not refer to Christ or HIS coming, but rather it is a neuter pronoun, thus referring to the Bible.
Concerning the last days, I also believe that the last days started at Pentecost and will end with the Coming of Christ. Concerning the prophecy in Joel 2:28, I believe there was a partial fulfillment in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. That prophecy was fulfilled then. There is no such thing there as a continuous fulfillment. The Day of Pentecost was a one-time historical event, just like the crossing of the Red Sea during the Exodus of Egypt. It was a historical event. It doesn't continue on. Part of that prophecy was not fulfilled and will not be fulfilled until a future date, possibly during the Tribulation Period when "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood." (Joel 2:31)
So part of that prophecy has been fulfilled, and part hasn't.

God did pour out his Spirit on all flesh, in the sense that every believer now is indwelt with the Holy Spirit. That is the only part that continues, not the gifts. God never promised that the spiritual gifts spoken of in 1Cor.12-14 would continue either forever or even til Christ comes. In fact He most definitely says in 13:8 they would cease.
DHK

 

DKH, since you believe that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased what have you got to offer.
Are you trying to minister by your own strength, your own intellect, your own talent, your looks, , your style of dress, etc.??????
IF there is not a flow of the gifts of the spirit of God in ministry, then all that is left is enticing words of mans wisdom with no power or demonstration of the power of God.
I hope you have more intellect,talent , looks etc. than I do.
As for me I will ask God to be the source of anything that I do for Him.

 

DHK,

I'd like to respond to one issue in this thread in this post, what is 'the perfect' or 'perfection' spoken of in I Corinthians 13?

You wrote,
**One of the strongest points of 1Cor.13:8-13 referring to the Bible, is not only the context itself, but the preposition "that" which is perfect. The word "that" in the Greek is not masculine and could not refer to Christ or HIS coming, but rather it is a neuter pronoun, thus referring to the Bible. ***


IMO, this is one of the weakest arguments for a number of reasons.

1. It assumes that 'that' in 'that which is perfect' is a substantive that-- like a thing or person. Some would translate it as 'perfection. John MacArthur, a hard core cessationist the last I read, writes about 'the perfect state.' He argued for cessationism based on his version of dispensationalism, but he knew better than to argue against the gifts based on I Corinthians 13:8-13.

2. There is no referent in the passage! There is no noun in the passage referred that 'that' refers to, so this whole line of argument is tantamount to sophistry. Arguing for what 'that' is based on gender only makes sense if 'that' refers to a specific noun in the passage.

3. I asked a Greek professor about this line of reasoning and he was able to come up with an example of a word like this that did not agree in gender with its referent in another New Testament passage.


If we really look at the context of I Corinthians, 'that which is perfect' cannot refer to the Bible. Why not? Let's look at the passage and find out.

I Corinthians 13
8. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.


Here we see that the coming of the perfect will effect Paul PERSONALLY. His earthly state before the coming of perfection is as childhood. After the perfect comes, his life on earth will seem like childhood. Paul will experience this himself.

Was Paul's state after the completion of the New Testament canon as adulthood, in comparison to his state before the canon?

Well, right before Revelation was completed, Paul's body was dead and in the grave. Right after it was completed, his body was still dead and in the grave. There is no scriptural reason to think he suddenly 'grew up' in heaven when the Bible was completed.

Some people try to argue that the believer will be 'grown up' when the canon is given. That is not what the text says, but if we want to play fast and loose with the text, let us examine the implications.

Before the canon was given, we must consider Paul to be as a child. Now all of us who have the New Testament scriptures must be as grown ups. This interpretation makes Paul, who didn't have the completed scriptures, less spiritually mature than ourselves. While some new believer who hasn't sufferred affliction and become as great of a servant as Paul has, is spiritually mature just because he went down to the local Christian bookstore and bought himself a KJV. Does that make sense? Clearly it does not. Paul, before the canon was complete, was probably more spiritually mature than 99% of Christians alive today who have the New Testament.


Plugging 'the Bible' in as 'that which is perfect' these verses is eisegis. It is plugging in what you want to be there in order to arrive at a conclusion you already like. This isn't the way to intepret scripture. We need to see what Paul is talking about IN CONTEXT. From teh context of I Corinthians, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul has in mind the resurrection of the dead, or the state of the believer, and possibly all creation, at the resurrection of the dead.

Why do I say that this is a reasonable conclusion? Because this is a theme Paul addresses in the text of I Corinthians. There is what some might call a 'long thought' here in Corinthians. Let us consider how Paul writes. Sometimes, Paul brings up an issue briefly, and then goes off on a divinely inspired tangent in another direction, and comes back to the issue he was discussing earlier.

For example, Paul addresses the issue of meat offerred to idols in I Corinthians 8, and then brings up the issue of being free, in discussion of the issue of conscience. From the topic of being free, he goes into a tangent about his own freedom. As a free man, he deserved wages. He goes into the topic of how he deserved to live of the Gospel. Then he starts focusing back on the original issue, discussing Israel as an example of why not to fall into idolatry, and gets back on the practical issues of meat offerred to idols again.

Here in I Corinthians 13, Paul brings up a subject- that which is perfect, and in relation to this brings up tongues and prophecy. Then he goes off onto a tangent about tongues and prophecy in chapter 14, and starts focusing again on this topic of 'that which is perfect'-- i.e. the state in the resurrection in chapter 15. Paul's writings are like a tapestry. This 'perfect' thread shows up in the tapestry in chapter 13, and shows up again in chapter 15. Paul has the topic of the resurrection in mind, no doubt, when he is writing chapter 13. He knows that he must also address the issues of tongues and prophecy.

It doesn't make sense to think 'that which is perfect' is the completion of the New Testament canon. There is nothing in the text of I Corinthians that alludes to this. It makes much more sense to think that Paul is writing about something he actually writes about in the letter.

Consider also I Corinthians 15:36-37.
36. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

Notice how this relates to the issue of perfection/maturity/completeness. After the resurrection, Paul's earthly pre-resurrected life will seem like childhood when compared to hsi resurrected state. His earthly life will seem like a grain wheat, and his resurrected like will be like the full, mature stalk of wheat in comparison. The resurrection will effect Paul personally, unlike the completion of the New Testament canon, and so is a much better- and contextually supported- fit than trying to eisegete the NT canon into the passage.


How do you interpret the book of Revelation. Do you believe it hasn't happened yet? Consider Revelation 11:3
"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."

If the New Testament is 'the perfect' mentioned in I Corinthians 13, then the Two Witnesses would not be able to prophesy in the future. The gift of prophecy would have already been done away with when the perfect came. But if 'the perfect' refers to the resurrection, it makes sense that the two witnesses would still be able to prophesy.

Finally, eisegeting 'the Bible' into I Corinthians 13 as an excuse to disobey direct commands of scripture is a pretty dangerous approach to scripture. (I have commands like 'covet to prophesy and forbid not to speak in tongues' and 'Let the prophets speak two or three...' in mind.)

 

Link, good post. I also believe that the "perfect" is not the Bible. Maybe I missed it but the "face to face" issue also keeps me from seeing the Bible as the "perfect". I can't see how the face to face can be made into a figure of speech, in this context. The perfect needs to be the eternal state of someone. When they die and meet Jesus or when Jesus comes back, whatever happens to a person first. That is how I see it anyway. I respect DHK a lot and have learned a ton from him. What he says about tongues is what I see the Bible saying about tongues. I acceot the service gifts as still being given because I do not believe the "perfect" is the Bible and therefore some gifts must remain.

Link, I am waitin for oyur response to one of my last posts. Thanks!

In Christ,
Brian

 

Briguy,
Btw, brother, I appreciate your polite demeanor.

You wrote,
*When Paul says earlier in Chap 14 that when you speak in an unknown tongue you edify yourself, that is a negative statement. He is saying it is wrong to do that. People edify themselves or think they are rather, and that is wrong because gifts are for the edification of the "body" not the individual. Hope that clears up my position. Have a great day!**


I disagree with you here, and if you really think about it, you may end up disagreeing with yourself on this as well. : )

"Edify" in the chapter is a good thing-- building up, and there is no reason to think that Paul is being sarcastic when he says that the one who speaks in tongues is edifying himself. edify means to build up, not try to draw attention to oneself.

It is good to edify oneself. Don't you ever read the Bible, pray, etc. by yourself to build yourself up? That is a good thing, isn't it, even if it doesn't build up the body. Praying in tongues alone is a good thing, even without interpretation, but it is _superior_ to edify the body. He that prophecies is _greater than_ he who speaks in tongues because he edifies the church. It's not bad to build yourself up. But it is better to edify the body.

I found an interesting passage that said that David encouraged himself in the Lord. That was a good thing. I can imagine him alone with a harp singing an encouraging song about the Lord to himself. I believe that David did something even better, though, when he sang a song to the Lord's people, and it was recorded as scripture. He edified others and not just himself.

I think it is vlear from the passage that Paul is not forbidding uninterpreted tongues altogether. He just forbids them from being spoken out inteh assembly. Please look at this verse:

I Corinthians 14:28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If Paul is against speaking in tongues without interpretation atogether, he doesn't make sense that he allows the person to 'speak to himself and to God.' The reason he allows this is because it is a good thing for someone to edify himself. edifying is a good thing. It doesn't mean drawing attention to yourself. It means building yourself up.

The following instructions are found in Jude, where the word for 'building up' is closely related or a form of the word used for 'edify.'

Jude 20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

 

Briguy,

If you don't believe that the perfect is the Bible, then why would you thinkt hat tongues and prophecy have ceased?

Look at the following verses from I corinthians 13:
9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Does this indicate that tongues and prophecy will cease when the perfect comes.

Btw, to Brigay and DHK,
Do you believe that it still possible for Christians to cast out demons.

 

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

2Cor.12:9a And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee:

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I hope the above answers your question. No, I don't need the gifts of the Holy Spirit. No one does.

2 Corinthians 4:1-5 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

There was no flow of the gifts of the Spirit from Paul. He preached the glorious gospel of Christ (vs.4). He didn't preach himself (i.e., about himself), but Christ Jesus the Lord (vs.5). His mission was to preach, not to speak in tongues, not to prophecy, etc. He preached the gospel. There was no show of gifts here.

Good, but if you are depending on gifts that are already ceased you won't find them there.
DHK

 

Every statement you have made is an argument that you have made against yourself. Later on you say that "that which is perfect" refers to the Resurrection of the dead.

It makes no difference.

That is right, and the resurrection of the dead isn't going to change those facts either. His body is still dead and in the grave.

So why are you telling me this? It is not what I believe.

Your right. Who believes this. I don't. So why are you bringing it up??

I never said he wasn't.

Substitututing "rhema" a neuter noun for Word, is rightly dividing the Word of Truth. It fits the context as the pronout "that" is a neuter pronoun, not a masculine pronoun. Chapters 12-14 are specifically speaking of "spiritual gifts." Chapter 13:8 speaks of prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge. Chapter 14:1 continues with a discussion of tongues and prophecy. There are no chapter breaks in the original Greek. The entire context is the spiritual gifts, especially these three. The last few verses of chapter 13 are speaking of these spiritual verses in relation to the Word of God. That is your context. All of these gifts are related to revelation--that is the Word of God. That is the context--the revelation of the Word of God.

There is no mention of the resurrection anywhere in these three chapters. The context of all three of these chapters is the "spiritual gifts." Take a look at 1Cor.7:1, and you see that Paul is answering a letter that the Corinthians wrote them. He is addressing problems and questions that they asked of him.
Ch. 1--He speaks of their divisiveness: how some followed Paul, and some Apollos, etc.
Ch. 2--He reassures them that he comes to them in the power of the Holy Spirit, and not with the wisdom of men.
Ch. 3--He rebukes them for their carnality, and warns them of the judgement seat of Christ.
Ch. 4--Paul defends himself for his actions
Ch. 5--He rebukes them for incest and immorality.
Ch. 6.--He rebukes them for taking one another to court.
Ch. 7.--He discusses matters of marriage with them.
Ch. 8--He discusses idolatry, and offending the weaker brother.
Ch. 9--He defends his apostleship.
Ch. 10--He rebukes idolatry.
Ch. 11--He addresses women's head-coverings, and the Lord's Supper
Ch.12-14 He addresses the abuse of the Spiritual Gifts (ch.13:1-7--about love)
Ch.15 is about the Resurrection.

One chapter of the book deals with the resurrection. The rest of the book deals with other non-related issues, especially chapters 12-14.

No, Paul addresses the proplems in an orderly fashion. There is order to the book.

There are no tangents there. There was an orderly progression of thought exactly as Paul intended to present it.

Whoa!! You are reading into Scriptures things that are not there. There is no mention of the Resurrection until chapter 15. Paul is discussing spiritual gifts, not the resurrection. Please keep things in their context. The context is revelation--the revelation of the Word of God. God revealed his word to them at that time through prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge. Someday those gifts would cease. When? When that which was "perfect" or "complete" (as the word means) is come. It refers to revelation or the Word of God, if you just keep things in its context.

He addresses everything in its proper order, as I have shown you. Check the Table of Contents.

The entire three chapters is speaking of the "revelation" of God's Word to some extent or another. Tongues is a form of revelation. Prophecy is a form of revelation. Knowledge is a form of revelation. Interpretation of tongues had to do with revelation. Every chapter dealt to some extent or another with revelation (i.e., God's Word).

Great! But it has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual gifts, or anything in the context of chapters 12-14.

The Tribulation Period to come has nothing to do with the present dispensation of grace.

It appears I am not the one eisegeting. You have totally destroyed any valid hermeneutical approach to 1Cor.12-14. The topic has nothing to do with the resurrection. There are plenty of commands that have nothing to do with you. Will you also give when Paul takes up the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem??
DHK

 

DHK wrote,
***Every statement you have made is an argument that you have made against yourself. Later on you say that "that which is perfect" refers to the Resurrection of the dead.
***

I don't follow you at all here. Maybe you left something out. How am I arguing against myself?

You made this statement after quoting where I said that Paul would experience the coming of the perfect himself. Paul will experience the resurrection of the dead. Do you disagree?

You brush aside the points I made without giving an intepretation yourself. I don't even know what objections you have to the points I have made. When Paul compares his state before the perfect comes to childhood, what do you believe his point is? How will the coming of the perfect make him like an adult? Can you explain your interpretation of the passage?

As for plugging in "rhema" because it is a neuter noun for "that which is perfect".. I assume I'm safe in assuming you don't know Greek. The Greek word for "perfect" is not a blank in a 'mad lib' that you can fill in with something that fits grammatically. The only thing that keeps this from being sophistry, is that you seem to sincerely believe it. Besides, how would a Greek word that refers to the spoken word be a good word to plug in to mean 'scriptures.'

Something else about the tongues being a sign verse, and Isaiah 28:

I really don't get how to can say that tongues is a sign of the destruction fo the temlpe. When Judah was carried away into captivity the first time, and the people heard the men of other tongues talking to them in Aramaic or Akkadian ("Babylonian"), Jerusalem had already been sacked! The temple may have been destroyed. The temple had probably been torn down and they were still hearing people telling them to keep walking in some strange tongue as they were marched chained, possibly naked to Babylon.

How can a reference to something that occured AFTER the temple had been destroyed the first time, be a sign that would occur BEFORE the temple the temple was destroyed the second time? How can a reference to what happened AFTER their being kicked out of the land the first time, be a sign of an UPCOMING dispersion. Where do you get the idea of the temple being destroyed from Isaiah 28 anyway?

Not to mention the fact that the point Paul makes based on this verse doesn't say anything about the temple being destroyed. His point is that tongues are a sign to unbelievers, and goes on to write about unbelievers and the unlearned in general- not just Jews- hearing tongues and not believing.

And if you do think that tongues are a sign of the destruction of the temple-which has yet to be supported by scripture-that wouldn't prove tongues have ceased anyway. If _one_ purpose of tongues is no longer needed, that doesn't do away with the other uses of tongues. For example, tongues with interpretations builds up the body of Christ?

And also, why did speaking in tongues not cease when the temple was destroyed or when John died? Why are there references to it, for example, around 200 AD in the time of Ireneaus?

The Babylonians kept jabbering away in Akkadian long after the children of Israel were taken away into captivity. I doubt the Persian conquest did away with their language. Aramaic continues on until this day. So why would speaking in tongues cease at the destruction of the temple?

 

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

????Tell me how you are strengthened?
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

?????Please tell me how you wait upon the Lord ?

2Cor.12:9a And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee:

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
?????Please tell Me about your annointing?

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I hope the above answers your question. No, I don't need the gifts of the Holy Spirit. No one does.
?????You must be one talented dude???

2 Corinthians 4:1-5 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

There was no flow of the gifts of the Spirit from Paul. He preached the glorious gospel of Christ (vs.4). He didn't preach himself (i.e., about himself), but Christ Jesus the Lord (vs.5). His mission was to preach, not to speak in tongues, not to prophecy, etc. He preached the gospel. There was no show of gifts here.

?????So are you sying that Paul did not speak in tongues? Are you saying that He did not prophecy?
Do you believe that he never saw the sick healed in His ministry?

When He said that he did not come with enticing words of mens wisdom but in power and demonstration, do you think that He was not refering to the power of god and the gifts and callings of God were needed to get the job done?

Good, but if you are depending on gifts that are already ceased you won't find them there.
//////The problem DKH is that Gifts from God have not ceased and they will not cease until that whcih is perfect has come.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]

[ June 05, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: atestring ]

 

Hi there Link, DHK, atestring, and others who have been lurking and following this thread.

I was wondering if any of you read Bro.Jims comments about this subject? (**It's not to be debated there**), but what he said makes since and reasonable. Go give it a look, its at the top of this fourms topics.
(On page 7 of The Carpenter's Chapel)
I have been reading the debates/arguments presented here on "that which is perfect" and as to what it is. (Some people here with me included, see the perfect as the Word *Jesus*, DHK and some others sees the perfect as the word *compleated bible*.

Music4Him

 

I am not answering any more questions from you atestring until you stop the mockery, and 2, you answer the above yourself. I gave you Scripture in answer to your question. If you don't like the Scriptural answers I gave you give an explanation of the Scripture yourself. I want to hear your interpretation.
For example: "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." What spiritual gift do have that helps you to accomplish this verse? Be specific. Cite the exact gift from 1Cor.12 that you have that enables you to be strong through Christ. Do likewise through all the verses that I have given you. Relate them all to the spiritual gifts and tell me which ones you are currently exerising that relate to the above Scriptures.
You be "the one smart dude."
DHK

 

Dkh
This suits me just fine.
I have heard enough from you. You avoid guestions and then get mad when someone does not give you answers.
So let's just both be happy and not respond to each other.

 

Given that this is turning into personal remarks rather than debate, I'm going to close this thread for now.
I'll reopen it in a day or so if I get any pm's from those who wish to continue the discussion, but do be advised that it will close at 20 pages regardless.
Gina

 

Ok, it's been 24 hours. If we were goldfish anyhow.
Topic reopened, my apologies for trying to shut it prematurely.
Gina

 

Your point was that Paul would be dead before he would see the completion of the canon of Scripture. That is true. Then you prceeded to try to fit the Resurrection of the dead into that same passage. Ironically Paul is still dead and the resurrection of the dead has not taken place. The same arguments that you have used against me in that respect, I use against you.

Yes I can. You only assumed my position, then went to great lengths to describe some postition that wasn't mine at all. Why should I defend somebody else's position. So I kept quiet.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Notice the adverbs here: "first," "secondarily," "thirdly," "after that," "then." These denote a definite progression of the most important gift to the least important gift. The apostolic gift was the most important of all the gifts and only held by a few. Tongues was the least important of all the gifts.
In one of your last posts you were concerned about obeying ALL the commands of Christ. What about this one.

1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts:
--The best gifts (apart from being an apostle) were that of prophesying and teaching. They were the best because they edified the church the most.
--Tongues, the least important of all the gifts, was the gift that the immature believers sought after. The carnal Christians sought after it because it was a showy gift. They had the idea that if they could speak in tongues people would think they were more spiritual, whereas the opposite was true. They were more carnal, and it showed. Thus Paul wrote 1Cor.14 to correct all the abuses of speaking in tongues. That sets the backgroung for the understanding of 1Cor.13:8-13

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
--When I was a child (i.e., immature in my walk), I spoke as a child. The key word here is "spoke." He is referring directly to the gift of tongues. That is the context of the entire chapter set in the context of spiritual gifts. When he was more immature he used the gift of tongues more often.
But when I became a man (ie., more mature) I put away childish things (immature gifts--the least important ones). He concentrated more on prophecy. What did he say in 1Cor.14--He would rather speak 5 words with understanding than 10,000 words in tongues. He had put away the childish gift of tongues.

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
--We see through a glass darkly because we don't have the entire Word of God to reflect back the image that God reveals to us through His Word. God's Word is often used as a mirror, or glass, as it is in James 1:23-25.

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The source of the light is Jesus Christ who is revealed to us through His Word. We come face to face with Christ through His Word. His Word reveals to us who we really are.

Paul knew in part. He also knew that there would come a day that the NT canon would be complete. When that day would come he writes that he shall know even as he is known. The Word of God will reveal to him more brightly than ever who he really is--his faults, sins, etc., as it contrasts him to the glory of Christ. The context of the whole passge is revelation--the Word of God.

Please don't rant on about your knowledge of Greek as compared to others. That neither adds or detracts from the argument. The entire interpretation hinges more on context than anything. The fact that the pronoun "that" is a neuter pronoun only strengthens the argument. Every pronoun (whether in Greek or English) must have an antecedent. This is simple grammar. The word "that" must refer to something that is in the context of the passage. You want to "plug in" resurrection which is ludicrous to say the least. For resurrection is not even mentioned in these three chapters (12-14). It isn't even in the context. The context is speaking of "revelation," God's Word, in the larger context of the spiritual gifts. A neuter noun meaning Word just happens to fit that context.

The meaning of 1Cor.14:21,22 is quite clear:

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Paul quotes an OT passage here (Isa. 28:11,12). This passage does not indicate what languages will be spoken. It says "with men of other tongues and other lipw will I speak unto this people (Israel) ...and they will not hear me." The New Testament believers were not confined to the languages that you mentioned. They spoke in tongues, in foreign languages, the gospel message. The Jews heard them and understood that this message was from God. It was a fulfillment of this very prophecy that Paul was quoting. To deny this is to deny the Scripture that Paul is referring to and stating as fulfilled. What other interpretation could you possibly give it. The Gentiles had now received the Messianic message in their own languages. They were not just preaching it in the native tongue of the Galilieans--as noted in Acts 2, but in the mother tongues of all that came to Jerusalem. This was the sign that was given to the Jews. It continued to be the sign to the Jews throughout the first century as the Jews were scattered throughout the Roman empire. Tongues were a sign for the Jews.
Verse 22 begins with the word "wherefore" connecting it to verse 21. Wherefore tongues is a sign to the unbelievers. It is a sign to the unbelieving Jew. That is the context. The two verses go together. There is nothing said about the destruction of Jerusalem specifically. But in Isaiah 28 if you read further, you find that a refusal to "hear" as the Jews did not hear and obey, would result in judgement. Disobedience always results in judgement. God brought judgement upon the Jews. We see that in history, when the Temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered in 70 A.D. History does indicate that tongues ceased around that time.
DHK