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

[gr8grace3]

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.

Free. Can you please tell me again what you think "the perfect" is.......Just to get back to a starting point of some kind.

" when the perfect comes....."

Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

Where, exactly, would Paul have the "mind of Christ"? What else might he have been referring to?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul was referring to the completion of canon.

Yes, there is. Just one: the neuter gender.

I have asked several questions which support my point, but which you have so far not bothered to address.

I don't think they do support your point.

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

It seems I do.

I said this:
"The rough and tumble fisherman, Peter, could have done that, but not Paul."

Are you serious?

Why wouldn't I be? Did Peter have formal training?

 

[brujaq]

Free. Can you please tell me again what you think "the perfect" is.......Just to get back to a starting point of some kind.

" when the perfect comes....."

Thanks.

Are you perfect ? I'm not .. Was Paul ? He implied he wasn't .. When will you be ? I hope to be at my resurrection with a new body not of corruptible flesh but an assigned and transformed new body incorruptible and not until.. Why do we need the Holy Spirit ? Was he done away with or have we already been led into all Truth ? Did Paul see Jesus in the flesh or before he ascended to heaven ? If not why did Paul teach ''gifts of the Spirit'' ? According to your understanding shouldn't Paul have been to late and the certain gifts he taught too ? Did the church at Corinth stop with the gifts when Paul died ? Have you received your gift by the laying on of hands in the Presbytery ? Have you ever stirred up that gift within you ? Do you hate or can't stand when some one speaks in tongues ? Is that God's way of keeping you from quenching the Spirit and away from those who do ? Are there folks who have more to be thankful for than you or that depend on God more than those who rely on their riches ? My answer is yes there are .. Have you ever been persecuted to the point that when you got to church you could look over all the faults of the brethren and just be glad they're in the Lord and you feel true fellowship and sanctuary from the world ? What are the signs that follow those who believe ? If the Spirit is subject to the prophet then does the prophet permit or not ?
No need to reply, too many questions but if you want to pick out a couple OK ..

 

[Free]

Where, exactly, would Paul have the "mind of Christ"? What else might he have been referring to?

The most you could say with your argument is that the OT is the mind of Christ. Or do you think that Paul told the Corinthian church that the OT and his letter were the mind of Christ? Wouldn't that be quite misleading of Paul, from your point of view?

Looking at the context:

1Co 2:6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
1Co 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
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)

The whole point here is about having spiritual understanding (and continues into chapter 3). Paul contrasts the believer who has the Holy Spirit whom gives understanding of the things of God, with the unbeliever who does not. Paul most certainly does not equate the completed canon with the mind of Christ.

Yes, there is. Just one: the neuter gender.

You are in over your head. You are arguing things you don't even understand. In no way whatsoever does the neuter gender mean that Paul was referring to canon. You are only arguing that because someone else on here tried to make that point.

I don't think they do support your point.

Then please be courteous enough to show me how they don't support my point. Your merely saying that they don't and avoiding answering them is very discourteous and unbecoming of a Christian in a discussion.

It seems I do.

No, you don't.

I said this:
"The rough and tumble fisherman, Peter, could have done that, but not Paul."

Why wouldn't I be? Did Peter have formal training?

Again, I must ask, are you serious?

 

[Free]

Free. Can you please tell me again what you think "the perfect" is.......Just to get back to a starting point of some kind.

" when the perfect comes....."

Thanks.

I've stated it more than once, so I hope I don't have to again. The perfect could mean the resulting state of things at Christ's return or after judgement, the perfect knowledge the believer will have at Christ's return or after judgement, or something along those lines. Those fit the context significantly better than the completed canon of Scripture which has little to no support.

Add to that that Paul could very well look to the future to the time of Christ's return--something he spoke of more than once and something his audience would know. But to say that Paul was looking forward to the completion of canon, something he never mentions, something he never even implies he is aware of, simply does not work. Paul never even mentions that his letters are Scripture. If one wants to say that "it was inspired, so it was the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul," then that makes the last few verses absolutely meaningless to Paul and his initial audience.

 

[MarkT]

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


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


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


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

I asked what is the masculine because you said Paul would have used the masculine. So what word should Paul have used if he wanted to communicate the coming of the Lord?

The perfect can refer to a lot of things but it is always associated with God who is perfect or what belongs to God. Knowledge, for example. The proverb says God gives knowledge. Pr. 2:6 God is perfect in knowledge. Job 37:16

So there is no question Paul is referring to the second coming when he says, 'when the perfect comes', but the perfect in this case is perfect knowledge.

 

[MarkT]

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

Just another example of Paul's method of expression which is characteristic of Paul.

The expression is 'when the perfect comes'. ie. When we are made perfect or when our knowledge is perfected. This will occur when the Lord returns.

 

[FreeGrace]

Are you perfect ? I'm not .. Was Paul ? He implied he wasn't .. When will you be ?

I don't see how any of these questions are relevant to the issue of 1 Cor 13:8-10.

I hope to be at my resurrection with a new body not of corruptible flesh but an assigned and transformed new body incorruptible and not until.. Why do we need the Holy Spirit ?

To empower the believer to live the normal Christian life. Without the Spirit, no one can.

Was he done away with or have we already been led into all Truth ?

These questions are irrelevant. Being led into all truth and being filled with the Holy Spirit aren't related. We HAVE the truth. But that doesn't mean we will be filled with the Spirit.

Did Paul see Jesus in the flesh or before he ascended to heaven ? If not why did Paul teach ''gifts of the Spirit'' ? According to your understanding shouldn't Paul have been to late and the certain gifts he taught too ? Did the church at Corinth stop with the gifts when Paul died ? Have you received your gift by the laying on of hands in the Presbytery ? Have you ever stirred up that gift within you ? Do you hate or can't stand when some one speaks in tongues ? Is that God's way of keeping you from quenching the Spirit and away from those who do ? Are there folks who have more to be thankful for than you or that depend on God more than those who rely on their riches ? My answer is yes there are .. Have you ever been persecuted to the point that when you got to church you could look over all the faults of the brethren and just be glad they're in the Lord and you feel true fellowship and sanctuary from the world ? What are the signs that follow those who believe ? If the Spirit is subject to the prophet then does the prophet permit or not ?
No need to reply, too many questions but if you want to pick out a couple OK ..

Did. And none of the questions are related to the 3 gifts of the Spirit that aren't necessary after the completion of the canon.

 

[FreeGrace]

The most you could say with your argument is that the OT is the mind of Christ. Or do you think that Paul told the Corinthian church that the OT and his letter were the mind of Christ? Wouldn't that be quite misleading of Paul, from your point of view?

What, then, if your view of what Paul was referring to?

Looking at the context:

1Co 2:6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
1Co 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
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)

The whole point here is about having spiritual understanding (and continues into chapter 3).

Exactly.

Paul contrasts the believer who has the Holy Spirit whom gives understanding of the things of God, with the unbeliever who does not. Paul most certainly does not equate the completed canon with the mind of Christ.

Again, we disagree. The Holy Spirit clarifies what the Word of God says. Before the canon was complete, the Holy Spirit communicated through the supernatural communication gifts. When the canon was complete, that wasn't necessary.

You are in over your head. You are arguing things you don't even understand.

I take these 2 snipes as ad hominems, which the forum forbids.

In no way whatsoever does the neuter gender mean that Paul was referring to canon.

Then please explain how Paul could have been referring to the Lord/His coming by use of the neuter gender.

You are only arguing that because someone else on here tried to make that point.

3rd snipe.

Then please be courteous enough to show me how they don't support my point. Your merely saying that they don't and avoiding answering them is very discourteous and unbecoming of a Christian in a discussion.

The answer has been given numerous times, all of which you've just waved off.

ie: "In no way whatsoever does the neuter gender mean that Paul was referring to canon"
"You are only arguing that because someone else on here tried to make that point"
etc

 

[FreeGrace]

I asked what is the masculine because you said Paul would have used the masculine. So what word should Paul have used if he wanted to communicate the coming of the Lord?

I have no way of looking up what you're asking. I consult a Greek lexicon to parse words. If the lexicon says the word is feminine, then I accept it. If it says it's neuter, I'll accept that. If it says the word is masculine, then I'll accept that.

I don't have to recognize the Greek word or know the word, as it seems you're suggesting. I only have to be able to understand what the lexicon says about the word.

So there is no question Paul is referring to the second coming when he says, 'when the perfect comes', but the perfect in this case is perfect knowledge.

The Greek word means "complete".

NT:5046 teleios (tel'-i-os); from NT:5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with NT:3588) completeness:

KJV - of full age, man, perfect.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Notice that the lexicon doesn't have "perfect". That comes from the KJV. The lexicon has "completeness" in the neuter.

 

[FreeGrace]

Just another example of Paul's method of expression which is characteristic of Paul.

The expression is 'when the perfect comes'. ie. When we are made perfect or when our knowledge is perfected. This will occur when the Lord returns.

As many translations have "when completeness comes". Apply that to the Lord's coming.

 

[WIP]

It seems this discussion is getting off track and becoming more personal. How about getting back on topic and away from the personal comments.

 

[Free]

What, then, if your view of what Paul was referring to?

I gave it very clearly in my post.

Exactly.

And here is your response to what I said Paul was referring to. See what happens when you pick out a snippet of someone's post? It removes the context.

Again, we disagree. The Holy Spirit clarifies what the Word of God says. Before the canon was complete, the Holy Spirit communicated through the supernatural communication gifts. When the canon was complete, that wasn't necessary.

'Before the canon was complete,' the Holy Spirit communicated largely through the Apostles and their writings, as well as teachers and evangelists. Once the canon was finalized, the Holy Spirit didn't change the main method of communication. Under certain circumstances the Holy Spirit would speak through people in various ways through these spiritual gifts, and those circumstances have not changed.

Then please explain how Paul could have been referring to the Lord/His coming by use of the neuter gender.

I am not going to because that is not the point I have been making, for the umpteenth time. Please read what I am actually writing.

3rd snipe.

But it's true. You never argued to the gender until someone else did and now you haven't let up on it, as though you even understand it. I have my doubts as to the truth of that argument, not that it has anything to do with the points I have been making, that still have gone unaddressed.

The answer has been given numerous times, all of which you've just waved off.

ie: "In no way whatsoever does the neuter gender mean that Paul was referring to canon"
"You are only arguing that because someone else on here tried to make that point"
etc

You have given no answer and just continue to be discourteous. Once again, I have asked several questions which you continue to avoid answering. Merely stating that they don't support my point is not a valid response. When someone continues to avoid answering questions, it strongly suggests that they have no answer. Being dismissive without answering is the easy but discourteous way to debate.

 

[MarkT]

I have no way of looking up what you're asking. I consult a Greek lexicon to parse words. If the lexicon says the word is feminine, then I accept it. If it says it's neuter, I'll accept that. If it says the word is masculine, then I'll accept that.

I don't have to recognize the Greek word or know the word, as it seems you're suggesting. I only have to be able to understand what the lexicon says about the word.


The Greek word means "complete".

NT:5046 teleios (tel'-i-os); from NT:5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with NT:3588) completeness:

KJV - of full age, man, perfect.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Notice that the lexicon doesn't have "perfect". That comes from the KJV. The lexicon has "completeness" in the neuter.

I said complete is ok. But complete what? I'm saying complete knowledge. And when will our knowledge be complete? When the Lord returns.

 

[billybalke]

if knowledge has ceased how can we know?

I do not like long posts, either to write or to read of others. I would prefer to discuss this piece by piece, however, I shall submit one tid-bit. I Cor.13 says tongues etc. will cease, Vs.8. When? "..when that which is perfect is come,.." vs. 10. Some believe the "perfect" is Christ. But our translators didn't capitalize "perfect''..James 1:25 speaks of the "perfect law of liberty". Note the word perfect. Now read the context of Jas.1:21-25. Note the words "the engrafted word", "doers of the word". The word of God here is likened unto a mirror we look into and see ourselves as we really are. When the perfect is come, the completed scripture which is perfect, tongues etc. will cease.
I could give much more.

To be deep in scripture is to cease being Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Calvinist

 

[Sister Christian]

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

Parroting isn't really evidence. Because it would actually be impossible for Paul to be referring to a canon of new testament scripture when there was no such thing at the time.
The Word, is what is being overlooked or willfully ignored when arguing about grammar rules concerning the coming of Christ written in the words of Paul. Because a canon does not come. It does not arrive. And when the Lord comes again, that is when what is being discussed in the passage foretelling that will be complete. Which is the other meaning of, Parousia. Being present.
That Bible scholarship linked repeatedly at times to explain why the gender neuter arguments are errant is unfortunate. The attitude that insists it shall not learn first it is wrong, and then learn the correct meaning of Paul's letter is a roadblock to sincere interest in exegesis.
A canon cannot be present. But the returned Christ can be.

There are enough resources here to lead those truly interested in the meaning of 1Corinthians to find truth for themselves. Circling the argument page after page as truth is challenged by that which is opposed does not bear righteous fruit. God be with his son's and daughters here.
Be ye not afraid to read the links in these many pages and gain wisdom and therein defeat that which is adversarial to the pursuit.

 

[gr8grace3]

I've stated it more than once, so I hope I don't have to again. The perfect could mean the resulting state of things at Christ's return or after judgement, the perfect knowledge the believer will have at Christ's return or after judgement, or something along those lines. Those fit the context significantly better than the completed canon of Scripture which has little to no support.

Add to that that Paul could very well look to the future to the time of Christ's return--something he spoke of more than once and something his audience would know. But to say that Paul was looking forward to the completion of canon, something he never mentions, something he never even implies he is aware of, simply does not work. Paul never even mentions that his letters are Scripture. If one wants to say that "it was inspired, so it was the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul," then that makes the last few verses absolutely meaningless to Paul and his initial audience.

In the context of these verses, Paul is contrasting "in part" to "complete." A quantity.

He would not suddenly 'switch' from quantity(in part) to a quality(utopian/perfect) to state his antithesis of 'in part.'.......as Freegrace mentioned.......Paul was a master and knew quantitative and qualitative thesis and their relative antithesis.

He would not set up a thesis of 'in part'(quantitative) and have his antithesis 'complete/perfect' be qualitative.

Paul is referring to the completed canon.

1 Cor 14~~37If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

 

[Free]

In the context of these verses, Paul is contrasting "in part" to "complete." A quantity.

He would not suddenly 'switch' from quantity(in part) to a quality(utopian/perfect) to state his antithesis of 'in part.'.......as Freegrace mentioned.......Paul was a master and knew quantitative and qualitative thesis and their relative antithesis.

He would not set up a thesis of 'in part'(quantitative) and have his antithesis 'complete/perfect' be qualitative.

This is entirely irrelevant but since you brought it up, Paul is, in fact, comparing qualitative with qualitative. His whole point is that we only know in part in this life, prior to death or the return of Christ, at which point the state of things will be such that we will have complete knowledge. Knowing in part is the state of things, just as knowing fully will be the final state of things.

Paul is referring to the completed canon.

1 Cor 14~~37If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

As I have stated, there is no support, no evidence whatsoever that Paul is referring to the completed canon. The lack of response from the two of you to my questions speaks volumes. Even here you don't directly address the points I made in the second half of my post.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said complete is ok. But complete what? I'm saying complete knowledge. And when will our knowledge be complete? When the Lord returns.

Depends. At the completion of the canon, all the knowledge that God intended to reveal to mankind was complete.

 

[chessman]

“The article in v10 is anaphoric, referring back to the twofold ἐκ μέρους [in part] of v9. It is as if Paul said, “when the perfect comes, the ‘in part’ will be done away.” The point is that with the coming of the perfect (most likely the return of Christ), both the gift of prophecy and the gift of knowledge will vanish.”

Greek Grammar - Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace, p236

“It may be significant that with reference to prophecy and knowledge, Paul used a different verb and put it in the passive voice. ... Yet he does not speak about tongues being done away “when the perfect comes.” The implication may be that tongues have “died out” of their own before the perfect comes.”

p422

​