You aren't convincing because you aren't giving any evidence. 'The Bible' does not fit 'the perfect' the context of I Corinthians 13. Paul did not grow up when the canon was complete. He was in the grave waiting for the resurrection like he is to this day. We aren't more mature than Paul just because we have the Bible.
It does make sense that when Jesus returns and Paul is resurrected, that his life on earth before the resurrection will seem like childhood and that he will know fully as he is fully known. That fits the context and the themes in the letter, especially since Paul mentions the coming of the Lord here in I Corinthians 1:7 in connection with the gifts, and discusses the resurrection in chapter 15.
I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation has the Two Witnesses prophesying. There is certainly no sane reason to think tongues and prophecy would cease and then uncease. If they cease, why would they uncease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK replied
The events past this dispensation of grace or the church age have nothing to do with what is being mentioned in 1Cor. 12-14. He is writing to the believers of the Corinthian church. He is not writing to those going through the Tribulation period, nor is he writing to those going into the Millennial Kingdom. Let's keep our focus on the right time period. He was writing a letter to the Corinthian Church. They were, (as he says) looking for the Coming of Christ. All events past that event are moot.
Basically your response is sophistry. I Corinthians 13 talks about gifts ceasing. It doesn't say they only cease for one time period on your Bible prophecy chart and start up in another. If you believe they cease and start up, why not believe they started back up in 1901, the 1830's, the 1500's or other time periods in which tongues are reported in history?
Paul is writing scripture to the church, to all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is profitable for doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible teach that NT scripture is not applicable to the Tribulation era. Can Christians be polygamous in the tribulation time? If scripture does not apply to them, why couldn't they be?
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me scripture that signs are secondary to the edificatin of the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already have, but as I said above: "a man convinced...", and you know the rest.
That does not answer my question. Instead of copping out, why don't you answer the challenge. Where does the Bible say that these gifts role as a sign are primary, and their role for edification is secondary? Where does scripture rank the effects of these gifts?
But in addition to 1Cor.14:21,22 which you failed to address,
I have addressed this many times.
and Heb.2:3,4 (which you failed to properly address as it was specifically speaking about apostles), and
That verse does not mention the apostles. Certainly those who preached the word when it was first preached would have included the apostles, but it is not conclusive that only the apostles preached to the readers. There were others preaching in the early days, and if the readers included diaspora, we may have a slightly later time period than the first six chapters of Acts in view.
2Cor.12:12 (which Paul speaks of the signs of an Apostle--you just seem to deny that one). There are others.
What are you talking about? I am saying using logic and reason. Paul wrote about the signs of the apostles, but scripture shows others besides apostles did signs as well, and shows that the gifts in I Corinthians 12 (which are NOT all called 'signs') were distributed among the church. I would be hesitant to accept that someone was an apostle if he had not done signs and wonders, but that does not mean I don't accept that others who are not apostles can do signs and wonders. Don't make the verse say more than it does.
Acts 2. Tongues (which are always foreign languages) were given as a sign. Peter indicated this. "This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel." This is what? This is the sign that was now being fulfilled by the prophet Joel. It was a sign to the Jews, the unbelieving Jews. Who was Peter addressing? Read his message. He was addressing the very Jews that had crucified Christ. Some of those "unbelieving Jews" believed (about 3,000 of them). That is why the sign was there. That they would believe. But many more did not believe as Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 28:11,12. It was a sign to the Jews.
When they spoke in tongues, some of the people scoffed. When Peter PREACHED in the common language they repented. We don't know that the tongues were preaching anyway. They could have been praises addressed to God. God has chosen the 'foolishness of preaching' to save them that believe.
Tongues (foreign languages) were spoken three times in the book of Acts (Chapters 2, 10, and 19). Study it and you will find that in all three cases there were Jews present. Why? Tongues were a sign to the Jews.
If you paid attention to the context of these three occurences and Paul's statement in I Corinthians 14, perhaps you would not make statements like this.
Paul said that tongues were a sign to them that believe NOT. In Acts 10, tongues occured in front of Jews WHO BELIEVED in Jesus. In Acts 19, Jesus WHO BELIEVED in Jesus spoke in tongues. So the Jews we know were present were NOT unbelievers. They were believers. Why would tongues have been a sign to them, since they believed?
Show me any seen of evangelism in the Bible, especially in Acts, where a Jew is not present. The 12 were Hebrews. So was Paul.
Everywhere tongues were spoken Jews were present. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. This was the first and foremost purpose of speaking in tongues.
I see a lot of opinion and human reasoning, but where is the scripture to back it up. Tongues with interpretation edified the body. Show me the scripture that says being a sign to the Jews was primary and edification of the church was secondary.
When the unbelieving Jews of the first century died off, then there was no more need for the sign.
More human reasoning. Where is the scripture to back it up? If tongues with interpretation for edification of the church is secondary, there is no reason to think tongues would have ceased.
Plus there is no reason to think that tongues as a sign to Jews would cease in the first century. Why would second century and third century Jews not count any more? None of the passages about God's dealings with Israel says tongues will cease.
The sign was removed. By the end of the first century (and more accurately 70 A.D., when the Jews were scattered,) the sign was removed. There wasn't any more need for them.
Again no scripture connecting the scattering of the Jews with the ceasing of tongues. It seems like this is where our debate stopped about a year ago, and you never offered the scripture for this.
To corroborate this Paul plainly says that tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew in 1Cor.14:21,22. How anyone can miss that passage I don't know.
Paul quotes an OT passage addressed to Hebrews and concludes that tongues are a sign to them that believe not. He did not conclude from it that tongues are a sign for Jews only. If you do see tongues as a sign for Jews in particular, I can see why you might hold to that, but it doesn't have anything to do with tongues ceasing. You haven't shown scripture to show a connection between tongues as a sign for Jews and tongues ceasing-- only human reasoning.
Verse 21 alone you would have to cut out of your Bible and throw into the garbage if you read it and come to the conclusion that tongues is not a sign for the Jews, for you would just be denying a plain statement made in the Word of God.
Tongues are a sign for Jews if they believe not.
To clarify this point: These gifts were given both to the Apostles and their close associates such as Philip, who worked closely with the Apostles. You will remeber that he was chosen by the church for the sake of the Apostles that they would be more free to give themselves to the Word and prayer.
Philip and Stephen are counter examlpes to the argument that the signs were specifically to authenticate the apostles, so you add 'their close associates.'
To some extent, you can argue that signs authenticated the apostle's message. God confirmed His word with signs. The problem comes with illogically arguing that there isno place for signs and wonders, since their message is still preached, and the Bible shows that these gifts were not only for the apostles. It does not teach that these gifts and signs would cease when the apostles died, or that the apostles were the only conduit for such gifts.
The question is what translation have you been using. Paul plainly says that he would rather the church prophecy than speak in tongues. He tells them that he would rather speak 10,000 words in a language that they can understand, then five words in an unknown tongue. It doesn't speak much for tongues does it. Almost every verse in chapter 14 of First Corinthians is a rebuke to the gift of tongues. There is no encouragement at all in that chapter to seek after tongues or even to use the gift. So, yes, What translation are you using??
My interpretation on this is in line with the text. Paul is against tongues without interpretation in the church meeting, and gives instructions on how tongues are to be intepretted. And he is downright enthusiastic about the saints prophesying in church. What about you, do you allow tongues and interpretation in church and are you downright enthusiastic about the saints prophesying in church? Do you and your church obey the commandments of the Lord in this passage and let the prophets speak two or three...?
Furthermore if you look carefully at 1Cor.12:28 you will find the gifts of the Spirit listed in order of importance. Tongues and the interpretation thereof are listed at the bottom as the least important of all the gifts.
Since the list does not contain all the charismata, your conclusion is illogical. We do not know if tongues is less than some of the gifts from other passages, for example. We know that 'apostle' is first in the list, but intepretation comes after tongues, so perhaps it is topically arranged there at the end, rather than in terms of rank.
But the Charismatics put it at the top of their list, some on the fringes make is so important as to say that one cannot be saved without speaking in tongues.
This is not an argument I have made, so please stick with the arguments instead of arguing with a stereotype of Charismatics.
Since he explained that tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jews, there probably wasn't much chance or need of them to use this gift in this Gentile city.
What a big blow you have struck to your own argument! Paul allowed tongues in a city where you do not think there was much of a chance of tongues being needed as a sign to the Jews. Interesting.
You wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main reason for tongues and other sign gifts was to be a sign to the Jews that the message that the Apostles preached was from God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I replied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you show me some scripture that shows that being a sign to the Jews was God's main reason for tongues? I have never seen this. Otherwise, how can you claim to know God's purposes without scripture. Do you claim a charismatic revelation of God's purposes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You responded,
There are volumes of it. I have already shown you plenty. But as you know by now: "A man convinced...and you know the rest.
This seems to be your response when you cannot answer. Again, I ask, where does scripture say that the MAIN reason for tongues was as a sign. Why do you make the 'sign' aspect of tongues the main reason, and not edification? Where is your scripture to back it up, or is it just your opinion?
I wrote,
Paul says tongues is for a sign, quotes a verse about God speaking through men of other tongues and the people NOT believing, and then gives an example of unbelievers or unlearned hearing tongues and saying the church was mad. I believe the Isaiah verse is a sign in that it is a fulfilled prophecy, fulfilled when unbelievers hear tongues and still don't listen.
That is an opinion, invalid when men convinced against their will remain unconvinced still.
Paul does quote from Isaiah 28:11,12 which is a prophecy. He quotes part of it almost verbatim. Both in the prophecy and in verse 21 he uses the phrase "this people" which can only refer to the nation of Israel. There were people from other nation speaking the message of God to the nation of Israel.
Notice my quote did not go into the Jew/Gentile issue. And it follows what the passage says. You have yet to explain how tongues are a sign to them that believe not, but the example Paul gives is of them NOT believing when they hear tongues. Explain this in a way that makes sense.
Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
The verse says that the message (of salvation) was confirmed to us (apostles)...by signs, wonders, miracles, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
That is a bizzar interpretation. Let's look at the whole verse with this interpretation.
How shall we [the apostles] escape, if we neglect so great salvation' which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us [the apostles] by them that heard them...
So now you have a warning that the apostles should not neglect the salvation, and you have the apostles hearing the message of the Gospel by those who heard the Lord.
The apostles heard the Lord and preached to others with signs and wonders. The verse does not specify apostles however, and may include a larger number of saints, such as the 70, the 120, or the 500 who saw the Lord, or all of the apostles and certain of these other groups.
How about interpreting 'us' to be the writer and the reader? That makes sense.
There are no more apostles today. The signs, the miracles, the gifts of the Holy Spirit verified that Apostles were genuine, that their message was genuine. These signs and gifts ceased when the Apostles ceased. This is quite obvious here.
Where is the scripture that says that there are no more apostles? Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy and possibly Apollos are called apostles after Paul's call.
And even more crucial to your point here, the issue here is no 'signs' per se, but gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12. If all the apostles died, it does not stand to reason that the I Corinthians 12 gfts woul cease. Those gifts are for members of the body, not just apostles. You don't have any scripture that says that when the apostles died the gifts would cease. Again, this is your filling in the gaps in your argument with human reasoning, human reasoning that runs contrary to other scripture (I Cor. 12 in this case.)
The message was confirmed to them not to others but to them by the gifts of the Spirit. Those signs and gifts were given only to the Apostles and their close associates. It was for their verification, especially the signs and wonders.
Hebrews tells us that the Gospel was preached to the Hebrews by them that heard the Lord with signs, wonders, and miracles. It does not say anything about signs and gifts only being for the 'apostles and their close associates.' Show me the verse that says that. Your argument flat out contradicts I Corinthians 12. Surely you don't believe the Corinthian church was composed of Jews who followed Jesus around before the crucifiction. Yet they had gifts.
You can believe what you want to. I do not believe in apostolic succession. There were 12 Apostles, and then Paul, as one "born out of due time."
Traditionally, apostolic succession is about a sucession of bishops dating back to the apostles rather than a true succession of apostles. And God apparently made Paul an apostle without any need for apostolic succession except directly from Christ Himself, the Apostle and High Priest of our profession. God gifted Paul without the laying on of hands of the 12 apostles, and without his being one of their close associates. 'All scripture is profitable for doctrine....'
Look up that phrase and you will see that Paul was as one born too early, not as one born too late. He was as a premature baby. But he survived. It does not have anything with him coming along later than everyone else.
This is what the Bible teaches. There are 12 foundations in heaven each one having the name of one of the 12 apostles. This contradicts your theory right away. "The Twelve" are often mentioned in Scripture. This is what I am referring to. The Twelve Apostles and their close associates were authenticated by signs and wonders, and when they passed off the scene so did the gifts. They were no longer needed. Tongues was a sign. So were the other gifts.
Since Judas was dead (if Matthew is chronological), it makes sense that Christ did not appear to him after the resurrection. Yet Jesus appeared to the 12 before appearing to Paul according to Paul in I Corinthians 15. So Paul was not one of the 12.
And Barnabas was not one of the 12 either, and he is called and apostle. He and Paul both did miracles.
Almost every church had an apostle or a close associate of one of the apostles in it.
If you are referring to the 12 and Paul, that is a strange claim. the churches may have had -visits. But considering the number of churches, it does not make sense that they all had a resident apostle who was the member of the 12.
Not every church had all the gifts. Some of the churches may not have had any of the gifts. A church does not need the gifts of the Spirit to operate; but they do need the fruit of the Spirit.
That does not line up with what the New Testament teaches...as every man has received the gift. That was written to a large number of churches, too. God gave grace to the saints to minister to one another. That's the Biblical perspective on it. He still does. He did not leave us to our own flesh and our own strength.
Your concept of the church and the universe on this issue is different from scripture. Show me the universe in which God leaves the church without gifts in scripture--this idea of a church without God's grace functioning, being left to human devices and human strength.
Paul emphasized that. "I show you a more excellent way" He had just finished listing all of the gifts. Then he said desire the best gifts (prophesying and teaching). Then he makes a statement which has the meaning: I will show you a better way a way that is more valuable than all of these gifts put together. Then he launches into 1Cor.13, one of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible, describing how love is so essential to the Christian life--not the gifts of the Spirit, but love. The gifts are not essential. But the fruit of the Spirit are.
Suppose someone were to say since we have love, we don't need the Bible. Does that make sense? No. Paul talks about love in the context of gifts. Gifts need to be used in love. Paul tells the saints to covet earnestly the best gifts.
Link
