Theology Club: The end of gifts, raising the dead, speaking in foreign language (tongues)

[Nick M]

The gifts of the Spirit were prophetic and tied to the restoration of Israel. Israel stumbled and fell, and the gentiles were saved by grace to make Israel jealous. This is so because they had to endure to the end to be saved. A remnant was saved out of it. In the kingdom on earth, there will be no more tears or suffering. The gifts of healing were a taste of things to come.

Consider that an opening statement.

Now, to get specific.....


Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

1 Corinthians 13

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


It doesn't get any more cut and dried. Besides if anybody could do what Peter did after Pentecost, James Randi would have had to pay out $1,000,000. Think about it. Are you really going to claim you can raise the dead? Are you going to let a black mamba bite you? I don't think so. If the gifts of the Spirit, like tongues, which are for unbelievers, were in effect, Billy Grahm and Jimmy Swaggart would not need translators.

 

[Lighthouse]

The gifts of the Spirit were prophetic and tied to the restoration of Israel. Israel stumbled and fell, and the gentiles were saved by grace to make Israel jealous. This is so because they had to endure to the end to be saved. A remnant was saved out of it. In the kingdom on earth, there will be no more tears or suffering. The gifts of healing were a taste of things to come.

Consider that an opening statement.

Now, to get specific.....


Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

1 Corinthians 13

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


It doesn't get any more cut and dried. Besides if anybody could do what Peter did after Pentecost, James Randi would have had to pay out $1,000,000. Think about it. Are you really going to claim you can raise the dead? Are you going to let a black mamba bite you? I don't think so. If the gifts of the Spirit, like tongues, which are for unbelievers, were in effect, Billy Grahm and Jimmy Swaggart would not need translators.

Informative.

But wasn't there interpretation of tongues as a gift, as well?

 

[Guyver]

But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

It doesn't get any more cut and dried.

What is that which is perfect that has come to take away prophecy Nick?

 

[Nick M]

Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.


9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

Informative.

But wasn't there interpretation of tongues as a gift, as well?

I can't find it. I can find Paul saying if somebody doesn't understand because the person speaks arab and the listener doesn't there is no edification. None. Rulz tries to turn Paul saying don't do something into a devotional prayer lanugage.

 

[Bright Raven]

Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.


9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.



I can't find it. I can find Paul saying if somebody doesn't understand because the person speaks arab and the listener doesn't there is no edification. None. Rulz tries to turn Paul saying don't do something into a devotional prayer lanugage.

This may be what you are looking for.

1 Corinthians 12:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

 

[Guyver]

OK....so let's see if I get this straight.

Nick claims that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, and the church structure of Ephesians 4 is defunct.....but...he doesn't even know what the gifts are, and he doesn't know what "that which is perfect" is that nullifies them?

And....there's no basis for claiming that Ephesians 4 is passed?

OK....that's real good Bible believing. Not.

 

[Guyver]

I can't find it. I can find Paul saying if somebody doesn't understand because the person speaks arab and the listener doesn't there is no edification. None. Rulz tries to turn Paul saying don't do something into a devotional prayer lanugage.

He doesn't have to try to hard because that's exactly what the Bible clearly states, and that's exactly what Paul taught.

Unless of course you can come up with a good reason to demonstrate why what Paul taught in the Epistles is not relevant to anyone who believes in Christ today.

 

[Nick M]

This may be what you are looking for.

No, I am not looking for it. Those have ceased. Guyver must not know of my house challenge. We go to the morgue, you raise a dead guy, you get my house.

 

[Nick M]

He doesn't have to try to hard because that's exactly what the Bible clearly states, and that's exactly what Paul taught.

You haven't answered anything I posted, showing those things will come to an end. I can't find it because it doesn't exist. If it did, you would have already shown it.

 

[godrulz]

Nick still misunderstands my views.

There is a distinction between corporate and devotional (public vs private) tongues.

The gifts are supernatural, not natural.

Cessationists are influenced by B.B. Warfield more than Scripture. Continuationism is the biblical view.

Nick's sloppy exegesis and bad theology does not impress.:deadhorse:

 

[Nick M]

There is a distinction between corporate and devotional (public vs private) tongues.

If there was, you would show it. Like this....

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Saying "tongues are a devotional prayer language for believers, therefore, tongues are a sign to non believers" makes no sense whatsoever. And you know it.

The gifts are supernatural, not natural.

Not a part of the discussion, and frankly your strawman burned to the ground before you could beat on it.

Cessationists are influenced by B.B. Warfield

Never heard of him nor read him. I go by what the Bible says. Tongues are a sign to unbelievers. Like having a Canuck like you walk up and start preaching in Cantonese to those that understand. It would be a sign to them.

Now, if you did that with somebody that spoke Russian, you would have prayed for interpretation, because it edified nobody, including the speaker.

 

[Guyver]

No, I am not looking for it. Those have ceased. Guyver must not know of my house challenge. We go to the morgue, you raise a dead guy, you get my house.

Nick. I was waiting for you to clarify your position. You said the gifts had ceased because of 1 Corinthians 13:10. This is exactly what the Baptists do. But, you can't be a Baptist because you think that Ephesians 4 is passed also.

So, I asked you to explain "that which is perfect" you didn't do it. Now, if you are going to claim that the gifts have ceased, you should have a good reason for doing so....because that's kind of a big deal.

I'll deal with the actual gifts later. Let's get to the first part. The first part is that your doctrine is incorrect because you have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 13. That which is perfect is not speaking to the Bible or the Body of Christ. If that were the case, then the end would have come already. Use the context of the verse, and associated verses to prove the meaning.

"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."

I bolded the key parts.

1. When that which is perfect has come....the in part will pass.

2. When that which is perfect has come, I will see face to face.

That's speaking to that which is perfect. No longer knowing in part, or seeing in part - knowing and seeing face to face.

The answer is 1 John 3:2

"Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."

Who will be revealed? It's the Lord Jesus Christ. That which is perfect is speaking of Jesus Christ; when he returns physically to establish his kindgom on earth. That is what is perfect. We will no longer see or know in part because we will see him and be like him. That's when the things spoken will cease.

 

[Nick M]

So, I asked you to explain "that which is perfect" you didn't do it. Now, if you are going to claim that the gifts have ceased, you should have a good reason for doing so....because that's kind of a big deal.

It is Paul's words, not mine. He said we have in part, and in Acts said he was told in part. He was told everything in time. It wasn't all at once.

"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

I changed the bold because the answer is there and you keep skipping it.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I bolded the key parts.

I changed it. He is calling tongues childish, but is now a man. Do you not see Acts?

1. When that which is perfect has come....the in part will pass.

2. When that which is perfect has come, I will see face to face.

That is your opinion that does not match the text clearly laid out. Are you going to address the Spiritual gifts that are prophecy regarding the kingdom that didn't come? Why do you skip those things? You haven't made a case at all.

In the kingdom on earth, there will be no more tears or suffering. The gifts of healing were a taste of things to come.

Israel fell, and the kingdom on earth didn't happen. It still might not, as kingdoms on earth are conditional.

 

[Nick M]

That's speaking to that which is perfect. No longer knowing in part, or seeing in part - knowing and seeing face to face.

Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

1 John is not written to you, but to the circumcision. The author says to inherit life, keep the commandments.

 

[Guyver]

I changed the bold because the answer is there and you keep skipping it.
I changed it. He is calling tongues childish, but is now a man. Do you not see Acts?

Sorry...no I guess I don't understand your point.

That is your opinion that does not match the text clearly laid out. Are you going to address the Spiritual gifts that are prophecy regarding the kingdom that didn't come? Why do you skip those things? You haven't made a case at all.

I think maybe you should make a case. I'm still not really getting what your talking about. The gifts were present in the churches that Paul was writing Epistles to. Has something changed since then?

If so what? Please make a case for your position. My position is that nothing has changed since the epistles were written except that time has passed.

Israel fell, and the kingdom on earth didn't happen. It still might not, as kingdoms on earth are conditional.

Are God's promises conditional? Is his word conditional? The kingdom on earth hasn't happend yet, but neither has the Tribulation Period. Do you think those things are done away also?

My Bible tells me that if God speaks a thing, he'll bring it to pass. Is. 46

"For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it."

 

[godrulz]

If there was, you would show it. Like this....

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Saying "tongues are a devotional prayer language for believers, therefore, tongues are a sign to non believers" makes no sense whatsoever. And you know it.



Not a part of the discussion, and frankly your strawman burned to the ground before you could beat on it.



Never heard of him nor read him. I go by what the Bible says. Tongues are a sign to unbelievers. Like having a Canuck like you walk up and start preaching in Cantonese to those that understand. It would be a sign to them.

Now, if you did that with somebody that spoke Russian, you would have prayed for interpretation, because it edified nobody, including the speaker.

You are looking at one verse in an extended section. Tongues are a sign for a believer in one sense, but much more is said about them (including for self and corporate edification, worship/praise to God, etc.). Your mistake is to proof text one verse that I agree with without formulating a total doctrine on glossolalia based on all the other verses that go beyond your passing verse (not even the primary issue at all). You are trying to make the Bible fit your view, not getting a biblical, balanced view based on exegesis.

You are not just reading the Bible. You did not invent MAD just by reading the Bible. You read other authors, posters, heard speakers, etc. to influence your view (cf. Calvinists who have to convert to it).

B.B. Warfield was influential in shaping the cessationist viewpoint. His arguments got passed on and are used by others whether they recognize him as a possible source or not.

I make the claim that my beliefs and practices as a Pentecostal are explicit in Scripture, so you saying yours are just the Bible does not trump my same claim.

Spiritual gifts are for the Church (I Cor. 12-14). They also can be demonstrated in power evangelistically, etc.

To reduce them to just a sign for Israel, commending the apostles to launch the church, as a sign for unbelievers, passing after Paul, etc. is to misunderstand a few verses and to ignore dozens more that say so much more in addition.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. You are partially right, but more wrong. You are like a Calvinists ranting about Open Theism without even understanding the view.

 

[godrulz]

Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

1 John is not written to you, but to the circumcision. The author says to inherit life, keep the commandments.

Hogwash. Johannine and Pauline truths are complementary, not contradictory. The problem is with the way you interpret any given verse (which you have to to retain wrong MAD), not with Paul vs John/Peter/James/Jesus.

You are also ignoring I Cor. 12-14 to proof text a difficult verse grammatically, etc. Paul is not arguing for the cessation of gifts in the Church Age, but the uses and misuses during the Age. He is pointing to Christ's return (I Jn. 3:2) and emphasizing love now in the verse. He is not saying gifts will cease with the canon or with his ministry. This is sheer nonsense/eisegesis.

 

[Guyver]

Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

1 John is not written to you, but to the circumcision. The author says to inherit life, keep the commandments.

Your right that John does mention the commandments. But, I certainly don't see how he could be writing to the circumcision. The circumcision rejected Jesus - didn't they?

1 John 5
"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome."

But he also says this at the end of his first epistle.

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

This is clearly speaking of being in the Body of Christ, the same way that Paul taught it.

I have a couple of points here.

1. All of the Epistles that Paul wrote, he wrote for the church..ie.. Christ's Body, after Mid Acts - from a chronological point of view.

2. John, St. John, the Beloved Disciple, whatever you want to call him was the Pastor of the Church of Ephesis.

So, I guess I don't understand how you obtain doctrine that divorces Paul's teaching from John's. Especially in light of the fact that Paul teaches Christians to uphold the law, and actually holds a more strict set of rules regarding personal conduct.

1 Timothy 1:8-11
Romans 3:31
Galatians 5:19-21

 

[Lighthouse]

Acts 26:16

16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.


9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.



I can't find it. I can find Paul saying if somebody doesn't understand because the person speaks arab and the listener doesn't there is no edification. None. Rulz tries to turn Paul saying don't do something into a devotional prayer lanugage.

:think:

Nick still misunderstands my views.

There is a distinction between corporate and devotional (public vs private) tongues.

There is? Where's your Scripture?

The gifts are supernatural, not natural.

:sherlock:

Cessationists are influenced by B.B. Warfield more than Scripture. Continuationism is the biblical view.

Nick's sloppy exegesis and bad theology does not impress.:deadhorse:

Can you give us the Scripture that supports your view and show how it does so?

Your right that John does mention the commandments. But, I certainly don't see how he could be writing to the circumcision. The circumcision rejected Jesus - didn't they?

No, not all of them did; for instance Peter, James, John and the other disciples didn't. Those in the council mentioned in Acts 15 did not.

And in 2 John John shows to whom he wrote in the first verse: "To the elect lady and her children," [2 John 1:1].

Hebrews tells us to whom it is written in its name.
James begins his epistle with, "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:" [James 1:1]
1 Peter 1:1, "To the pilgrims of the Dispersion"
And before that we have Galatians 2:9, "James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

So this is how we know James, Peter and John wrote to the circumcision.

But he also says this at the end of his first epistle.

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

This is clearly speaking of being in the Body of Christ, the same way that Paul taught it.

Is it? Did John ever use the phrase "Body of Christ"?

I have a couple of points here.

1. All of the Epistles that Paul wrote, he wrote for the church..ie.. Christ's Body, after Mid Acts - from a chronological point of view.

Paul specifically stated that he was the apostle to the Gentiles.

2. John, St. John, the Beloved Disciple, whatever you want to call him was the Pastor of the Church of Ephesus.

Walt Weaver is the pastor of Faith Church Assembly of God in Anderson, IN. Jim Lyon is the pastor of the Madison Park Church of God in Anderson, IN. Do you think they automatically teach the same things in reference to their entire message? If Pastor Lyon wrote a letter to the Church of God in Anderson, IN do you think it would contain the same teachings as letters Pastor Weaver wrote to the Assemblies of God in Anderson, IN?

So, I guess I don't understand how you obtain doctrine that divorces Paul's teaching from John's. Especially in light of the fact that Paul teaches Christians to uphold the law, and actually holds a more strict set of rules regarding personal conduct.

1 Timothy 1:8-11
Romans 3:31
Galatians 5:19-21

You quote a verse that states the law is not for the righteous and still think Paul is teaching us to uphold the law? The same Paul that actually taught circumcision is nothing, that eating meat offered to idols isn't a sin, and that the Sabbath is just another day?

And what, in the world, makes you think Paul held a more strict set of rules regarding personal conduct than John?

 

[Guyver]

And what, in the world, makes you think Paul held a more strict set of rules regarding personal conduct than John?

Galatians 5:19-21

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Bold my own emphasis.