Cessationism- have tongues and prophecy ceased, or are they still active?

[gr8grace3]

I said it's an idiom; a method of expression which seems to be characteristic of Paul.

So can you give us an example of where Paul used the expression "the perfect" to mean the coming of the Lord?

New American Standard Bible
but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11:29&version=RSV

 

[MarkT]

So can you give us an example of where Paul used the expression "the perfect" to mean the coming of the Lord?

New American Standard Bible
but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

The expression is when the perfect comes. ie. When we are made perfect.

 

[reba]

1Co 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.

Let me see if i understand this..
Prophecies are gonna fail
Tongues will cease
and knowledge will vanish
when the scriptures are complete?

 

[Free]

I said this:
"The other view is the coming of the Lord. The Lord is the Living Word, the Bible is the written Word. What's the difference? Paul called Scripture the mind of Christ. 1 Cor 2:16

The difference is that the Bible is not Christ nor is Christ the Bible.

The view is just as strong as referring to the Lord Himself. Esp so since the only gifts of the Spirit noted in 1 Cor 13:8 are about gifts that fill in the gaps until the canon is completed."

That it refers to the completion of canon is quite weak, as I have shown and you have failed to address.

That wasn't the whole post. It was part of a post. Picking out a snippet of one's post removes the context. The post addressed what 1 Cor 13:10 meant by 'when the perfect comes' (NASB). The NIV has "when completeness comes". I noted 2 views. One was that the phrase refers to the second coming of the Lord. The other view is the finishing of the canon of Scripture.

So, in context, my comment above equates the finished canon, as the Written Word, with Jesus Christ Himself, the Living Word.

I clearly stated that I didn't understand what you were saying. Context had nothing to do with it.

This view makes no sense, hence why I was asking for clarification. You are essentially saying that Jesus wasn't complete until the canon was complete. The finished canon does not fit the context.

But, as gr8grace3 so skillfully pointed out, the gender is neuter, which shows that Paul did not have the second coming of the Lord in mind in 1 Cor 13:10. He did have in mind the completion of the canon. And the Greek word does carry the idea of completeness.

No such thing has been shown and I have shown that to be the case. But you would rather ignore what I said and just appeal to what someone else has said that appears to be correct but isn't necessarily. That "the Greek word does carry the idea of completeness," is irrelevant to proving either view right or wrong.

Just as there was more to my post.

Don't play this silly little game. I gave you more to respond to first that is relevant to the discussion. Please be more considerate if you're going to debate.

 

[billybalke]

1Co 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.

Let me see if i understand this..
Prophecies are gonna fail
Tongues will cease
and knowledge will vanish
when the scriptures are complete?

Yes

 

[Free]

1Co 13:8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
1Co 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (ESV)
1 Cor 13:11 when I was a child, I spoke like a child(the gift of tongues), I thought like a child(the gift of knowledge),I reasoned like a child(the gift of prophesy/wisdom..) When I became a man(the perfect comes), I gave up childish ways(the temporary gifts listed in vs 8)

We see Christ face to face in His completed word. We see His person. His character. His virtue. His integrity. The Lord knew full well the person or character of Paul. With the completed canon we can see fully and clearly, the character and Person of Jesus Christ.....Hence the " Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP."

No, we don't see "face to face". The Apostles saw Christ face to face, a necessary condition for being an Apostle. We can get to know about Christ and we can get to know him through the Holy Spirit, but that is not "face to face." The best fit for the passage is the completeness and perfection that will occur at Christ's return, after judgement when death and sin are no more.

Please address the following, one at a time, as you avoided them in your post:

"Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." How is Paul only going to know fully when the canon of Scripture is complete? Did he not know more fully once he died and went to be with the Lord? Is it the canon of Scripture that fully knew Paul? Who has fully known us and just how fully have they known us?

More importantly, who, in the entire history of Christianity, has known fully, "even as [they] have been fully known?" Similarly, who has ever not seen as "in a mirror dimly"? Do you think we see perfectly now?

The context of these verses are not about Paul dying and finally getting to know the "secrets of the universe." The context is about giving up childish things and becoming mature/complete/perfect before we die.

Which is impossible. We can become more mature and closer to perfection and completeness, but that perfection and completeness will not happen until we die or Christ returns.

 

[reba]

Yes

if knowledge has ceased how can we know?

 

[brujaq]

Those are the gifts in debate, from 1 Cor 13:8-10.

I thought you were saying speaking in tongues and such gifts of the Spirit were done away with a couple thousand years ago, sorry ..

 

[brujaq]

When I first become ''born again'' I thought all churches taught the same thing so I picked the closest one to the house . A lovable and loving Baptist church in walking distance from the house, a sincere Jesus church .. But I had believed and accepted Jesus while running one day earlier that week alone .. The instant I believed and knew Jesus is who he says he is by revelation I thought about all the crap in my life I would have to give up if I became a Christian, then the next instant I thought I'm a lot of things but I'm basically a truthful person and now knowing the Truth I could not live a lie . But I also thought if every thing in the Bible is not true then the deal is off .. In a couple weeks knowing nothing about the Bible I came across the gifts of the Spirit and asked the preach, a good man . He told me those things were done away with that it wasn't done anymore .. But I thought ''but I'm reading it word for word right here'' .. So I didn't argue but kinda made my mind up to find out for myself .. From that time I have put Jesus first , asked questions prayed and found out for myself not leaning on my understanding and certainly not anothers understanding even though most all real Christians have the basics or excel in areas and they all mean well thank God.. I've went through a couple spiritual barriers when my mind was opposed to truth while my heart was believing the Word and it's Truth .. My heart has told my carnal mind a few times ''shut up it is written right here'' .. Proverbs 25:2 I have been and did some bad things but Jesus won't turn me loose .. He has forgiven me 70 x7 and more .. But there's always a few Gods little church policemen to show up to correct you to their way and they mean well .. Heck, some used to burn you at the stake and probably still would and do when they can get away with it .. And some would and still do willingly endure severe persecution for the Lords sake .. If Jesus has something, anything, especially a gift for me I WANT IT and will seek it out .. But even I'm not going to hand the keys to the car over to a child .. And the last thing on my mind is to use a gift from God to hurt or brag as if it's from me and not God .. I expect to see souls saved and miracles done for good and glory to the Lord ..

 

[chessman]

Really the question is.....

Actually that wasn't an answer to my question; "Are there still unbelievers?". But I'll take your additional question's reference to unbelievers as a 'Yes' answer. And answer Yes to your follow-on question. And then point out that the Gospel according to John is indeed sufficient for unbelievers. Thus unbelievers living/dying before John's Revelation on Patmos was written and delivered to the churches, already had sufficient Gospel "to judge them". Good point!

Is the gospel and His word sufficient for unbelievers....

Yes, to judge them, John 12 sure is:

The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has one who judges him; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.​

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 12:48&version=LEB

Thus, the visions John received on Patmos provided additional revelation of Christ above and beyond the words (and signs) He spoke to them (past tense 33 AD) face-to-face in John 12.

Is the gospel and His word sufficient for unbelievers.........or does he still need tongues/healings/signs and wonders to get His "partial/imperfect" point across?

First, you setup a false dichotomy. Sufficient for unbelievers to do what?
1. To cure their unbelief? No. (Evidently the High Priests needed more, for example.) Some people need signs, tongues or even to place their fingers in the side of the risen Lord, I guess. For me, an encounter with the Holy Spirit in my own language was sufficient. For some, even these are not sufficient:

But as many signs as he had performed before them, they did not believe in him,​

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John 12:37&version=LEB


2. To judge them as either believers in Christ/Messiah/light (God incarnate) versus unbelievers in Messiah (darkness)? Yes. Sure.
3. To revel Christ's specific and individual messages to the seven churches in Asia Minor? No.
4. Etc.

does he still need tongues/healings/signs and wonders to get His "partial/imperfect" point across?

This question assumes He has an imperfect point to make. I don't agree with this assumption.

"the perfect" Judges us in the end.

Okay, I agree. Notice:

They will give an account to the one who is ready to judge the living and the dead. Because for this reason also the gospel was preached to those who are dead, so that they were judged by human standards in the flesh, but they may live in the spirit by God’s standards.​

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 Peter 4:5-6&version=LEB

Do you think John's complete visions seen in Revelation was preached to those who were dead?

John 12:48~~New American Standard Bible
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Did you notice that "the one who judges" and "the word" underlined above is presented in the masculine gender?

 

[FreeGrace]

Gender is only for translation.

Actually not. Gender is for communication in the language being used.

After translation comes understanding.

Actually not, again. Understanding comes with communication, in which gender, verb tense, voice and mood are all involved. Then comes translation in other languages.

You are isolating the word 'perfect' making the gender of a single word in the sentence determine Paul was not referring to the coming of the Lord.

Because it IS the gender of a single word that communicates what Paul was meaning.

What if Paul wanted to say perfect, knowing the perfect will come when the Lord returns. What word would satisfy you?

What the Greek word really means: complete. Which is what he did write. In Greek.

 

[FreeGrace]

What does “when the perfect comes” mean in 1 Corinthians 13:9-10?
Perhaps the following quotes from a couple of commentaries will help answer your question.

OK. More opinions.

First from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

13:9-10. As Paul explained it, the gift of knowledge (v. 8), essential as it was, was not exhaustive. The ability to prophesy, however crucial for the church’s life, was of limited scope. The gifts were temporary blessings in an imperfect age. One day they would give way to perfection, toward which all the gifts pointed. What Paul meant when he referred to the coming of perfection is the subject of considerable debate. One suggestion is that perfection described the completion of the New Testament. But verse 12 makes that interpretation unlikely. A few have suggested that this state of perfection will not be reached until the new heavens and new earth are established. Another point of view understands perfection to describe the state of the church when God’s program for it is consummated at the coming of Christ. There is much to commend this view, including the natural accord it enjoys with the illustration of growth and maturity which Paul used in the following verses.

13:11. Paul elsewhere described the purpose of gifts by an illustration employing the imagery of growth and maturity. According to Ephesians 4:11-16, the gifts were to be used to bring the church from a state of infancy to adult hood. The word translated “mature” in that passage (Eph. 4:13) is the word translated “perfection” (teleion) in 1 Corinthians 13:10. In the Ephesians passage, maturity is defined as “attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Such a state will obviously not exist until Christ’s second coming. It would appear that the same perspective was developed in this passage to the Corinthians. Paul applied the illustration to himself (cf. vv. 1-3). The threefold talking, thinking, and reasoning were probably meant to balance the thrice-mentioned gifts (v. 8). With the coming of adulthood, such gifts become passe Œ. Paul’s use of the word became (gegona, a perf. tense verb, probably proleptic; cf. Rom. 13:8; 1 Cor. 14:23) was of course to be understood in the context of the illustration. It does not indicate that he personally or the church collectively had yet arrived at that point (cf. Phil. 3:12). It would not, on the other hand, necessarily rule out a gradual obsolescence of certain gifts as the church progressed toward maturity.


13:12. A city like Corinth, famous for its bronze mirrors, would have particularly appreciated Paul’s final illustration. The perfection and imperfection mentioned in verse 10 were deftly likened to the contrasting images obtained by the indirect reflection of one’s face viewed in a bronze mirror and the same face when viewed directly. Such, Paul said, was the contrast between the imperfect time in which he then wrote and the perfect time which awaited him and the church when the partial reflection of the present would give way to the splendor of perfect vision. Then Paul would see God (cf. 15:28; 1 John 3:2) as God now saw Paul. Then partial knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1-3) would be displaced by the perfect knowledge of God.

13:13. Paul completed his three-paneled portrait of love (vv. 1-3, 4-7, 8-13) with a final triad: faith, hope, and love. Much discussion has focused on whether faith and hope were portrayed by Paul as being (with love) eternal. The solution is probably found in verse 7. Faith is an expression of love (the word “trusts,” pisteuei, v. 7, is the verb form of the noun “faith,” pistis), as is hope (cf. Gal. 5:5-6). Faith and hope, as manifestations of love, will endure eternally. So too everyone who follows the way of love (1 Cor. 14:1) finds “the most excellent way” (12:31b), because every individual characterized by love carries that mark eternally. The spiritual gifts will one day cease to exist, but love will endure forever.

(3) Priority of prophecy to tongues (14:1-25). Chapter 13 is one of the most sublime digressions in any letter in any language. But it was nonetheless a deviation from the central theme of gifts and their use by the church which Paul began in chapter 12 and then concluded in chapter 14. Paul had intimated in chapter 12 that the Corinthians were perverting the purpose of gifts from a unifying influence on the church to one fostering fragmentation and discord (esp. 12:21-25). A contributing factor to their factious spirit was the Corinthian pursuit of individual freedom and personal enhancement at the expense of other members of the body whose needs may have been trampled or ignored along the way. Manifestations of this self-centeredness affected each of the problem issues taken up since chapter 8.

The focal problem in the matter of the use and abuse of gifts seemed to be the Corinthian fascination with tongues, a gift which apparently lent itself most readily to perversion from something intended “for the common good” (12:7) to something employed for personal enhancement (14:4). Paul’s corrective was not to stifle the use of gifts (14:39; cf. 1 Thes. 5:19-20) but to urge that their use be regulated by love. The gifts of the Spirit should be controlled by the fruit of the Spirit, chief among which was love (Gal. 5:22). This would lead to exercising the gifts so they would benefit the church body as a whole (14:5) and also honor God (14:25, 33, 40). By way of illustration and correction, Paul compared and contrasted the Corinthians’ preoccupation with tongues with their apparent disinterest in prophecy.

In his study Bible, Charles Ryrie has the following to say about verse 11:

There are stages of growth within the present imperfect time before Christ’s return. After the church began, there was a period of immaturity, during which spectacular gifts were needed for growth and authentication (Heb. 2:3-4). With the completion of the NT and the growing maturity of the church, the need for such gifts disappeared.

We should note that Paul makes a distinction between the disappearance of the gifts of prophecy and knowledge and that of tongues. This is done using different Greek words and voices. With prophecy and knowledge, he used a word in the passive voice which meant “to be rendered inoperative.” Note also verse 9. But with tongues he used the middle voice and a word that meant “to cease.” The middle voice suggest that this gift would gradually die and disappear on its own. Probably because its primary purpose as a sign to the Jews (see chapter 14:20f) would cease after the fall of Jerusalem. This of course is debated.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word)

Bottom line: the neuter gender neuters the idea that Paul was referring to the coming of the Lord.

 

[FreeGrace]

Please, I've read your rebuttals throughout this thread. Deflecting blame to others because you refuse to accept insturction constantly to avoid obvious facts is what culminated in my patient gentle chastisement that there is no need for you to become angry in this discussion.

The "obvious facts" are that "that which is complete" is neuter gender. Cannot be about the Lord Jesus.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said it's an idiom; a method of expression which seems to be characteristic of Paul. ie. when Paul says, "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29 when he is talking about the covenant with Israel.

Let's not go down that road again. Nowhere in Scripture is the covenant with Israel described or called a gift or a call.

 

[FreeGrace]

The difference is that the Bible is not Christ nor is Christ the Bible.

Paul called Scripture the "mind of Christ" in 1 Cor 2:16.

That it refers to the completion of canon is quite weak, as I have shown and you have failed to address.

The issue is that the phrase "that which is complete" is neuter gender, and therefore, cannot refer to the Lord.

This view makes no sense, hence why I was asking for clarification. You are essentially saying that Jesus wasn't complete until the canon was complete. The finished canon does not fit the context.

No, I am not "essentially" saying anything close to that. I am puzzled as to why the idea of the canon not being complete seems so foreign to some. Until the canon was completed, God did use other means, such as visions, dreams, etc, to communicate what people needed to know. With the completion of the canon, we now have all that He intends for us to know. No more need for individuals prophesying, or speaking in tongues for edification.

No such thing has been shown and I have shown that to be the case. But you would rather ignore what I said and just appeal to what someone else has said that appears to be correct but isn't necessarily.

What is correct is that the phrase in question is in the neuter gender, and that makes the notion of the Lord's return incorrect.

That "the Greek word does carry the idea of completeness," is irrelevant to proving either view right or wrong.

I have a different opinion.

Don't play this silly little game. I gave you more to respond to first that is relevant to the discussion. Please be more considerate if you're going to debate.

I think the gender is the whole issue. Was Paul ignorant of proper grammar? Did he make a mistake? According to Porcius Festus, Paul had "great learning" (Acts 26:24). I don't believe he made grammatical errors.

The rough and tumble fisherman, Peter, could have done that, but not Paul.

 

[FreeGrace]

I thought you were saying speaking in tongues and such gifts of the Spirit were done away with a couple thousand years ago, sorry ..

Just the 3 mentioned in 1 Cor 13.

 

[brujaq]

Just the 3 mentioned in 1 Cor 13.

OK, I think I get it Bro

 

[gr8grace3]

Bottom line: the neuter gender neuters the idea that Paul was referring to the coming of the Lord.

Yep.Cut through all the back and forth and rabbit trails.............we just can't honestly/intellectually make the neuter gender of 'the perfect' mean 'the coming of the Lord."

1 Cor 13:10~~New American Standard Bible
but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

 

[Free]

Paul called Scripture the "mind of Christ" in 1 Cor 2:16.

1Co 2:16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (ESV)

Where, exactly, in this verse does Paul call Scripture the mind of Christ? I just don't see it.

The issue is that the phrase "that which is complete" is neuter gender, and therefore, cannot refer to the Lord.

Again, I have already pointed out that this is irrelevant to what I, and others, have been saying.

No, I am not "essentially" saying anything close to that. I am puzzled as to why the idea of the canon not being complete seems so foreign to some. Until the canon was completed, God did use other means, such as visions, dreams, etc, to communicate what people needed to know. With the completion of the canon, we now have all that He intends for us to know. No more need for individuals prophesying, or speaking in tongues for edification.

You are presuming all of that and reading it into the text. God still uses visions and dreams to communicate to people, especially Muslims. You also don't seem to understand the full use of prophecy and why it is just as relevant and useful today as it always has been.

As for tongues being edifying, they were also edifying to the self as prayer offered to God, so why would that change?

1Co 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. (ESV)

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul was referring to the completion of canon. I have asked several questions which support my point, but which you have so far not bothered to address.

What is correct is that the phrase in question is in the neuter gender, and that makes the notion of the Lord's return incorrect.

You probably shouldn't be arguing to someone else's argument, as it seems you don't really understand it.

I have a different opinion.

An opinion which is not correct. There are nuances in meaning, for one thing, where the context determines and for another, 'completeness' in no way whatsoever must refer to something that is written.

I think the gender is the whole issue. Was Paul ignorant of proper grammar? Did he make a mistake? According to Porcius Festus, Paul had "great learning" (Acts 26:24). I don't believe he made grammatical errors.

And, once again, this is irrelevant to the arguments being presented.

The rough and tumble fisherman, Peter, could have done that, but not Paul.

Are you serious?

 

[Free]

Yep.Cut through all the back and forth and rabbit trails.............we just can't honestly/intellectually make the neuter gender of 'the perfect' mean 'the coming of the Lord."

1 Cor 13:10~~New American Standard Bible
but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

And as I have just pointed out, that is a straw man. That is not the argument I am making, nor that some others are making.