Originally posted by Link:
DHK, you believe that Paul was saying here that Paul taught that Jesus could come back during a time period when the church had their gifts. But you have also written that you believe that Paul predicted a time before the Lord returned when these gifts would cease. Don't you see a contradiction here?
No, of course not.
I live in an age where I (like the early believers) believes that Christ could come back at any time. I also believe that my elderly father could die at any time. There are many parallels that could cease at the same time. How does that make a contradiction except in your own mind. Paul could not predict the future. He is not God. In as much as I don't know when my father will die, he didn't know when the gifts would cease. In as much as I don't know when Christ would come, neither did he. Where is the contradition?
Total nonsense. The imminent return of Christ has nothing to do with the return of Christ as I have posted here to you many times before.
Your second statement is an example of total nonsense. I suspect you meant to write something else. Do you care to reword it.
Yep, sure would.
The imminent return of Christ has nothing to do with the timing of the cessation of the gifts as I have pointed out to you before. They are unrelated.
Tell me: What does the gift of healing (for example), have to do with the coming of Christ?
It is one of the gifts listed in I Corinthians, the epistle in which Paul talked about his readers coming behind in no spiritual gift as they waited for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So what! It is listed there. That doesn't mean it is for today. That doesn't mean it hasn't ceased along with all the other gifts.
We all know that the Biblical gift of healing has ceased. There is not a single person alive that has the gift of healing and can demonstrate as Peter did in Acts 5:16. You know it and I know it. You just prefer to deny it, and beat around the bush. The gift of healing has ceased.
This statement is clearly false. I've only a seen a few occurances that I would attribute to this gift or that of the working of miracles. I went to a Christian school in 8th grade, affiliated with a church. One of the girls at school the grade above me had severely crossed eyes, very noticeably, and wore really thick glasses. There was an evangelist at church one night who preached a salvation message, and then prayed for the sick, walking people out of wheelchairs and that sort of thing. He laid hands on this girl, and that Monday after that I saw the evidence for myself, as her eyes were straightened out and she no longer had to wear her glasses. So I've seen healing.
Besides, YOU ARE BASING DOCTRINE ON EXPERIENCE. There is absolutely no scripture that says that miracles or healing would cease. I Corinthians says nothing about this. You are pulling doctrine out of the air--or just basing it on your experience (or lack thereof.)
Hmmm, Who is basing doctrine on experience? You better think about that again?
Here you go on your typical Charismatic rant about healing again and your accusation (implied) that Baptists don't believe in healing. I never said that. Let's get it straight.
1. The
gift of healing has ceased.
2. God still heals.
There is a big difference between the two. I never said that God doesn't heal. I said that the gift, that supernatural gift of healing is no longer in operation today. I too have seen God's hand at work, and have seen many people healed. All have been a result of prayer. That is not what happened in Acts 5:16
If you want a modern day parallel of the gift of healing, let someone who claims they have the gift go through any of the major hospitals and heall
all who are there. That is what Peter could do. He could heal ALL, every one who came to him. As it says in Acts 5:16. They were healed
every one. That doesn't happen today, and you know it. Why? The gift of healing is no longer in operation. Your rationalization that it is does not hold up to the standard the Bible sets forth for the
gift of healing. It has ceased.
1Cor.1:7 Has nothing to do with 1Cor.13:8-13. I don't have any idea of what you are thinking. Paul is simply saying that at the time that he is writing that letter (55 A.D.) they were blessed to have all the gifts present in their church. Maybe in 56 A.D. they would all disappear. But then in 55 they were there. He does not say how long they would last. He simply makes the statement that they came (at that time) behind in no gift. The gifts could have ceased in one year, five, or ten years. It doesn't say, and thus the passage has nothing to do with "that which is perfect or complete (the Bible).
You are grasping at straws here.
I am grasping at straws because you what I say is true and you cannot refute it. Paul was writing a particular time in history. He made a statement at that time in history for that church. It was not applicable to any other.
It was like Paul writing to Timothy.
"Take a little wine for thy stomach sake."
You can understand that can't you. It was a historical statement written for Timothy at that time in his life. The same is true with 1Cor.7. He makes a statement about the condition of the church at that time. The condition of the church at that time was that they were blessed with a display of all the gifts. He doesn't make that statement of any other church, and doesn't promise that to be true of any other church.
Yet there is a definite promise of the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit in 1Cor.13:8, and many clues given as to when. "Signs" don't last forever. In fact the "signs" of the gifts were very temporary.
[/qb][/quote]And no reason from the context of the epistle to think that this would happen before the resurrection and Lord's return and plenty of reasons to think the gifts would continue until then, including this verse. [/qb][/quote]
If your mind is not blinded by your theology you would be able to see why these gifts ended by the first century, and why they are primarily signs. But unfortunately
"a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
So even if I could convince you, you still would not believe.
For example your one statement above "including this verse." This verse (1Cor.1:7) has nothing to do with the cessation of gifts. As pointed out many times already it is a simple statement of fact, a description of the condition of the church of Corinth in the year 55 A.D. How that could affect the continuance of the gifts into 56, 57, or any other year is beyond me. Remember the context. He was writing a letter to the Corinthians. It was written in 55 A.D. That is what he said in his letter to the Corinthians. Context is very important.
Nowhere does the Bible list ceasing of supernatural gifts as a sign of the Lord's coming.
I agree totally. Who said it did?
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.
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.
Nevertheless they were a sign. For the time they were a sign they may have had a seondary role.
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.
But in addition to 1Cor.14:21,22 which you failed to address, and Heb.2:3,4 (which you failed to properly address as it was specifically speaking about apostles), and 2Cor.12:12 (which Paul speaks of the signs of an Apostle--you just seem to deny that one). There are others.
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.
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. 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. When the unbelieving Jews of the first century died off, then there was no more need for the sign. 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.
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. 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.
The other two Scriptures I gave you are Scriptures that plainly show that tongues (as well as other sign gifts) are signs for an Apostle to authenticate them as God's messengers, and their message. 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.
What translation are you using? Have you switched to The Message Bible or something? The Bible is positive about gifts. We are to use gifts as good stewards of God's grace, because that is a way God's grace is manifested in the church, through the gifts. These are the tools, from God, to edify one another. If you want to try to edify others without God's grace to do so, in your own strength, you can go ahead and do so. I will continual to be thankful to God for His charismata.
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??
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. 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.
About tongues, Paul was more positive toward prophecy than tongues, and more actively encouraged it, but he certainly did not advocate using prophecy and 'not tongues.' Much of the passage is spent encouraging the Corinthians to make sure the tongues were interpreted. Interpreted tongues edify the body.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It was a sign for the Apostles to authenticate both them and their message, that they were the true apostles and that they were from God.
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. This was a sign to Israel. The Gentiles were anathema to Israel. They were unclean. They would have nothing to do with the Gentiles. Remeber the abhorrent reaction Peter had when told to go to the house of Cornelius. He had to be convinced by God in a vision before he would go. And now the Jews were expected to believe a message from their God, Jehovah coming from unclean nations--the Gentiles, in unclean languages. This was a sign. If they would not listen to their own prophets God would give them a sign, a sign that judgement would soon come upon them if they would not listen to this message this one last time. And they didnt'.
In Acts 2, some of those who heard speaking in tongues scoffed and accused the speakers of being drunk. Can you show me scripture that says that tongues authenticated the apostles? The verse you quote does not.
Both of the Scriptures do, when men who are not convinced against their will, will not remain unconvinced still. But that is not the case is it?
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?
This verse says nothing about tongues being a sign or tongues ceasing. I have run across people who made the nonsensical argument that since this is in the past tense, that signs, wonders, and gifts would never happen again-- pure nonsense, and it contradicts the epistles that show signs and wonders among Gentiles after the apostles proclaimed the Gospel first among the Hebrews in Jerusalem.
One can easily see your bias and how you will not be convinced thought the evidence is plainly set before you. The verse says that the message (of salvation) was confirmed to us (apostles)...by signs, wonders, miracles, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 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. 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.
It does show that when the Gospel was first proclaimed among the Hebrews, it was proclaimed with signs and wonders. While Israel played a special role, the Gospel was accompanied by signs and wonders when it was first proclaimed among other groups as well, like the Samaritans, and cities where Paul preached the Gospel.
It was accompanied by signs and wonders done by the Apostles. That is the important part to remeber here. Signs and wonders were the sign of an apostle.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are the signs of an Apostle.
2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--Miracles, and other signs of the Spirit are the signs of an Apostle.
I believe Ephesians 4, and do not believe that apostleship have ceased either. The passage says that signs, wonders, and mighty deeds were signs that Paul as an apostle did. It does not say that that signs and wonders were only for apostles. That kind of interpretation would contradict Acts, which shows Stephen and Philip doing signs and wonders. If you try to extrapolate that the gifts were only for apostles, that would contradict I Corinthians 12, which has gifts, including the working of miracles, healing, prophecy, and tongues being given to the church. Clearly these gifts were not only for apostles.
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." 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.
Paul also lists workers of miracles as a separate category of gifted person from apostle toward the end of I Corinthians 12, which shows that there were miracle workers who were not apostles.
Almost every church had an apostle or a close associate of one of the apostles in it. 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. 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.
I believe God's word on this. None of the verses you quoted in any way indicate that gifts have ceased. Do you believe God's word when it says that the gifts in I Corinthians 12 are given as the Spirit wills to profit the body of Christ?
Yes, in the first century.
But like I say:
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
DHK
