Has the Gifts of the Spirit ceased?

[theLords]

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act.

We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purposely distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated.

 

[hisbeloved]

The scriptures [manuscripts] do not state that the Holy Spirit gives gifts -- plain and simple. You raised 1 Cor. 12:8-11. However, it is verse 7 which establishes the context of the rendering 'given' in verse 8.

As I set forth in a prior post, the rendered clause 'manifestation of the Spirit' does not mean 'gifts given by the Holy Spirit'. It means 'exhibition/expression of the Holy Spirit'.

When one examines the manuscript meaning of the rendered word 'given' in verse 8, one sees -

G1325
δίδωμι
didōmi
did'-o-mee
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an alternate in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection): - adventure, bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant, hinder, make, minister, number, offer, have power, put, receive, set, shew, smite (+ with the hand), strike (+ with the palm of the hand), suffer, take, utter, yield.
​

As one can see, there is nothing therein the definition which locks it into the meaning you would like it to be. It could have just as easily been rendered as 'bring forth', 'grant', or 'yield', which would not tend to lead the English reader into the corrupted interpretation of 'spiritual gifts'. Keep in mind that the translators already had corrupt understanding when they translated the KJV.

Since the rendering 'given' is indecisive, one needs to examine further manuscript to understand the proper interpretation. That proper interpretation is obtained by the rendered word 'by'. In the manuscripts, it is defined as -

G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
​

Clearly, the rendering 'by' is definitive as to the relationship between the various gifts and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the 'giver' but is the force that channels the gift or through whom the gift is expressed.

So, who is the 'giver' of the gifts?? Well, Paul tells us in prior scriptures who gives the gifts.

1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
​

Clearly, God is the 'giver' of gifts -- not the Holy Spirit!

So, the only remaining question is relative to the timing of when God gives the gifts. Is it when one becomes a true believer as exhibited by the speaking in tongues [gibberish] or is it at birth??

That answer is provided in scripture as well.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

​

The rendering 'repentance' means 'revocation'. Hence, when God gives a gift, it is irrevocable. But, notice that the 'calling' is also not revocable. When is the 'calling' given by God?? Well, scripture informs us of that as well.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
​

It is by God's grace -- not one's own works that determines the 'calling'. Hence, if one had to become a believer first in order to receive the 'calling and gifts of God', it would be 'election' by works -- not by grace.

In the OT, there is direct evidence that the 'calling and gifts of God' are given at birth.

Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
​

The irrevocable gifts of God are given before birth. For the deeper student, those gifts are based upon one's souls existence in the first age. As the message of 1 Cor. 12 is very clear, it is the Holy Spirit that channels and redirects one's gifts given at birth for the betterment of the many-membered body of Christ.



I don't use private interpretations. That is why I go back to the manuscripts for understanding. I am happy with the rendering 'gifts' as one can use the Strong's Concordance to see the definition. Certainly, ones' ordinary skills and abilities which God gives all of us to survive and thrive in this flesh existence are 'gifts'.

The problem with the word 'gifts' is that it has been bastardized into meaning 'spiritual gifts'. Anyone can see for themselves that a base tenet of Pentecostalism and Charismacostalism is the existence of 'spiritual gifts', citing 1 Cor. 12:1 as proof, which is exhibited by the speaking of gibberish [they call it 'tongues'].

As there is no such thing as 'spiritual gifts' in the Word of God, those religions collapse like a house of cards in a light breeze once 'spiritual gifts' is eliminated from their lexicon/faith.

Like you said before, this is all about the spiritual brethren:the word spiritual indicates that one must be spiritual in order to see something like tongues come out of their mouths,so this means that one must have the spirit of God in order to be spiritual and speak in tongues,so it appears that the tongues come from the spirit,or else you would not be required to have the spirit in order to speak in tongues,it is the spirit that gives the utterance.

Futher more ,the List of gifts that Paul shows did not come until pentecost when the Spirit of God was poured out, notice: the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, and as you pointed out above, "God gives the Gifts", so is God separate from his spirit? or are they the same?

Do you not see that all through the scriptures God is using his spirit in man in order to accomplish his will in man.

one thing I did notice below, is the words that you choose to put in bold,
why did you not bold the words give,bestow or offer in bold?

When one examines the manuscript meaning of the rendered word 'given' in verse 8, one sees -
G1325
δίδωμι
didōmi
did'-o-mee
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an alternate in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection): - adventure, bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant, hinder, make, minister, number, offer, have power, put, receive, set, shew, smite (+ with the hand), strike (+ with the palm of the hand), suffer, take, utter, yield.

 

[Watchman_2]

Poisoning the well. And of course you have a better understanding than the translators.

How is it "poisioning the well" to point out errors in the translation and errors in denominational interpretation?? This is the Apolgetic/Theology Forum where defending the Word of God against false doctrine is to be discussed.

Unless one [errantly] concludes that the translators were inspired by God, one has to conclude that the translation, being a work of man, is error-prone. And, unless one thinks that the Roman Catholic Church perfectly managed and interpreted the Word of God all those centuries that they maintained total control of the Word, one is also forced to conclude that Protestantism, being a spin-off thereof, would carry over some of the bastardized interpretations given them by the RCC, which would be part and parcel of the translators' understanding.

Your appeals to the Greek are not worth much if you haven't been formally taught Greek. Such appeals are exegetical fallacies.

No -- they are not. Dr. Strong understood Greek. I am simply using his work. Certainly, the English rendering alone is exegetically inferior to that of a study of the origninal manuscripts by way of a concordance. No objective viewer would reach your conclusion. The original manuscripts are superior to a translation.

 

[Asyncritus]

Watchman

As I said before, I incline to the way you handle scripture.

But your devotion to Strong's concordance, while admirable, can lead astray, or at least into error, like this:

Suppose you knew no English, and you were handed a small dictionary of English, and told to translate a piece of English text into your native language, say Urdu.

The chances are, that given only the dictionary, you would make serious blunders in your translation.

Why?

Because you don't know English, and a given English word, like a given Greek word, can mean several quite different things, depending on the context.

Take the English word 'tender' as an example. You look in a dictionary, and find that it can mean: gentle, softened, a small boat, a price.

Now which would you choose?

Obviously, if you knew English, and could read the context, all would be clear (as a rule). But you don't - and any translation you support may be completely mistaken, and you'd never know it, and blunder happily along.

I suggest the same may be happening here. You, like me, don't know much, if any, Greek.

Strongs doesn't help much, because there's no word in 12.1 for 'gifts'. So the lexicon is of no help.

As I pointed out to you, about 6 different translations all insert the word 'gifts'.

Now you're in Greece on holiday. You go to a restaurant, are handed a menu in Greek, which you couldn't read, since you know no Greek.

So you ask 6 separate waiters, what does taramasalata mean, and every one of the 6 tells you its a dish made of thus and so.

Would you even begin to contemplate arguing with them? I doubt it.

So here we have an exactly comparable situation. You have the Greek text in front of you, like the menu.

We've asked 6 translators (like the waiters), what does this mean.

They all say 'spiritual gifts'.

Why would you argue with them? I think you'd be on very shaky ground indeed. :amen

 

[Free]

How is it "poisioning the well" to point out errors in the translation and errors in denominational interpretation?? This is the Apolgetic/Theology Forum where defending the Word of God against false doctrine is to be discussed.

Unless one [errantly] concludes that the translators were inspired by God, one has to conclude that the translation, being a work of man, is error-prone. And, unless one thinks that the Roman Catholic Church perfectly managed and interpreted the Word of God all those centuries that they maintained total control of the Word, one is also forced to conclude that Protestantism, being a spin-off thereof, would carry over some of the bastardized interpretations given them by the RCC, which would be part and parcel of the translators' understanding.

To state "Keep in mind that the translators already had corrupt understanding when they translated the KJV," is poisoning the well because this is meant to bring uncertainty to everything that the KJV translators translated. You are poisoning the source in order to cast doubt on everything coming from that source.

Would you rather have us believe that you are inspired by God? Or do you admit that your work, being a work of man, is error-prone? I really do not see how one can pick up Strong's and think they have a better understanding than the hundreds, and probably thousands, of translators who have made knowledge of Koine Greek their life's work.

No -- they are not. Dr. Strong understood Greek. I am simply using his work. Certainly, the English rendering alone is exegetically inferior to that of a study of the origninal manuscripts by way of a concordance. No objective viewer would reach your conclusion. The original manuscripts are superior to a translation.

Yes, they are. Read Asyncritus' post. One cannot just go and pick up a lexicon or concordance and re-translate the Scriptures. There is far more to it than this. Yes, they can be used for some additional understanding and possible interpretations, but without a thorough understanding of Koine Greek with all its nuances, tenses, etc., one cannot just haphazardly pull whatever meaning of a word they like from a lexicon. It is even fallacious to argue to the root word since that, at times, will not even give the correct meaning.

This is one reason there are so many translations. Greek scholars cannot even fully agree on what the meanings are, so how do you think you can just go and reinterpret Scripture with just Strong's in hand? And, afaik, it's not even considered that great among scholars.

The best way is to go with as many English translations as possible and compare.

 

[theLords]

Thread closed pending moderator review.

 

[Vic C.]

Thread reopened.

PLEASE, get back on topic. :bigfrown

 

[Sam21]

How is it "poisioning the well" to point out errors in the translation and errors in denominational interpretation?? This is the Apolgetic/Theology Forum where defending the Word of God against false doctrine is to be discussed.

Unless one [errantly] concludes that the translators were inspired by God, one has to conclude that the translation, being a work of man, is error-prone. And, unless one thinks that the Roman Catholic Church perfectly managed and interpreted the Word of God all those centuries that they maintained total control of the Word, one is also forced to conclude that Protestantism, being a spin-off thereof, would carry over some of the bastardized interpretations given them by the RCC, which would be part and parcel of the translators' understanding.



No -- they are not. Dr. Strong understood Greek. I am simply using his work. Certainly, the English rendering alone is exegetically inferior to that of a study of the origninal manuscripts by way of a concordance. No objective viewer would reach your conclusion. The original manuscripts are superior to a translation.

Though the original manuscripts are superior to a translation, why would you believe that your personal translation would be any better than that of the translator?

 

[Sparkey]

The OP examined 1Cor 13:8 (Prophecies, Tongues and Knowledge shall stop) in context of 1Cor 13:12 (we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face).

The Contention:
Some scholars of the 20th and 21st Century have examined these Scriptures with an eye toward the Pentecostal movement that they are familiar with (as seen today). They look at television or perhaps have attended a "Tent Meeting" or have had some experience with the Gift of Tongues in one manner or another. They may consider what they see and hear to be the workings of charlatans. From the position that this phenomena isn't of God and that it is "gibberish" some then try to prove their position concluding that although there was Scriptural reference to Tongues on the Day of Pentecost, it was a one shot deal and does not continue today. It has "ceased".

Counter-Point Assertion:
The OP brings counter-point to their assertion but agrees that Paul did indeed state that tongues will fail (cease or be rendered inoperable) but doesn't leave it there. We are challenged to look deeper and discover when. When (at what time) will these things be done away?

The 13th Chapter of 1Corinthians has rightly been called the "Love Chapter". Many have committed portions of this Holy Scripture to memory because they consider it to be of utmost value. Paul shows us here (by the Holy Spirit) the nature and qualities of Love (translated "charity") as he continues to speak on the subject of the previous chapter - tongues and knowledge and prophecy and other things we that can see. While examining the manifistations of the Spirit, we are told to remember the attributes and unseen things - the real motivators which are Love & Hope and Faith (which never cease). Essentially Paul is admonishing that the Big Picture (Faith, Hope & Love) must be remembered as the target that will be accomplished in us. They things that get us there will be done away upon our arrival at the destination: Seeing even as we are seen.

Now, we know that all matter (every thing that is made) will pass away - and only those unseen things will remain. The statement that Paul is making is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (specifically mentioned in chapter 12) including tongues, word of knowledge, and prophecy will cease "when that which is perfect" is come. Paul says, "Now" we see through a glass darkly.

What means "Perfect" ?
Some scholars will want to come and insist that the word "perfect" has a special meaning. It means "mature," they will assert. I have no objection to this. The word means complete and describes one who lacks nothing. It is the same concept that is spoken of in James where we learn the purpose of trials: (James 1:4 KJV) - "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." God works in all things (even our trials) for the good of them who love Him.

PERFECT: 1) full grown, adult, of full age, mature

1. brought to its end, finished
2. wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3. perfect
4. that which is perfect

Ask yourself, do we yet see through a glass darkly? Or do we see clearly? Is it as if we are looking at spiritual things through a dark reflection? Or do we (today in the 21st century) see face to face? Do we know [God], even as we are known? --or--- does is our full understanding and maturity in Christ still found wanting?

Conclusion:
(1Cr 13:8, 12 KJV) - "(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. ... (12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

 

[warfrog]

The OP examined 1Cor 13:8 (Prophecies, Tongues and Knowledge shall stop) in context of 1Cor 13:12 (we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face).

The Contention:
Some scholars of the 20th and 21st Century have examined these Scriptures with an eye toward the Pentecostal movement that they are familiar with (as seen today). They look at television or perhaps have attended a "Tent Meeting" or have had some experience with the Gift of Tongues in one manner or another. They may consider what they see and hear to be the workings of charlatans. From the position that this phenomena isn't of God and that it is "gibberish" some then try to prove their position concluding that although there was Scriptural reference to Tongues on the Day of Pentecost, it was a one shot deal and does not continue today. It has "ceased".

Counter-Point Assertion:
The OP brings counter-point to their assertion but agrees that Paul did indeed state that tongues will fail (cease or be rendered inoperable) but doesn't leave it there. We are challenged to look deeper and discover when. When (at what time) will these things be done away?

The 13th Chapter of 1Corinthians has rightly been called the "Love Chapter". Many have committed portions of this Holy Scripture to memory because they consider it to be of utmost value. Paul shows us here (by the Holy Spirit) the nature and qualities of Love (translated "charity") as he continues to speak on the subject of the previous chapter - tongues and knowledge and prophecy and other things we that can see. While examining the manifistations of the Spirit, we are told to remember the attributes and unseen things - the real motivators which are Love & Hope and Faith (which never cease). Essentially Paul is admonishing that the Big Picture (Faith, Hope & Love) must be remembered as the target that will be accomplished in us. They things that get us there will be done away upon our arrival at the destination: Seeing even as we are seen.

Now, we know that all matter (every thing that is made) will pass away - and only those unseen things will remain. The statement that Paul is making is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (specifically mentioned in chapter 12) including tongues, word of knowledge, and prophecy will cease "when that which is perfect" is come. Paul says, "Now" we see through a glass darkly.

What means "Perfect" ?
Some scholars will want to come and insist that the word "perfect" has a special meaning. It means "mature," they will assert. I have no objection to this. The word means complete and describes one who lacks nothing. It is the same concept that is spoken of in James where we learn the purpose of trials: (James 1:4 KJV) - "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." God works in all things (even our trials) for the good of them who love Him.




PERFECT: 1) full grown, adult, of full age, mature

1. brought to its end, finished
2. wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3. perfect
4. that which is perfect

Ask yourself, do we yet see through a glass darkly? Or do we see clearly? Is it as if we are looking at spiritual things through a dark reflection? Or do we (today in the 21st century) see face to face? Do we know [God], even as we are known? --or--- does is our full understanding and maturity in Christ still found wanting?

Conclusion:
(1Cr 13:8, 12 KJV) - "(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. ... (12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Greetings,

The perfection spoken of is the resurrection, we are in corruptible bodies and see through a glass darkly, knowing the invisible things, the far off things, but not seeing them.
Being made perfect happens when we are raised incorruptible, in which all things you spoke off are done away with, because we have inherited the invisible things.
Then the gifts of the Spirit will cease because we will have obtained the invisible things through Him.
Right now we see through a glass darkly, but when we recieve the invisible things, we will shine through the glass.

The day we are with Him forever is the end of the patience, it is the perfect work, we are made perfect and attire as He is, through Him, and want nothing, because we are with the Lord.
Right now we groan for that day, knowing it will come but not receiving, so we groan for it, to be absent of the body and to be with Him, that is why we say "Even so Lord, come quickly"

The gifts of the Holy Spirit have not ceased, and shall not cease until we are made perfect through Him.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Asyncritus]

Greetings,

The perfection spoken of is the resurrection, we are in corruptible bodies and see through a glass darkly, knowing the invisible things, the far off things, but not seeing them.

Then why doesn't he say 'when the resurrection is come'? He knew the word for resurrection (as see ch 15).

Being made perfect happens when we are raised incorruptible, in which all things you spoke off are done away with, because we have inherited the invisible things.

Don't you think that when we are made perfect, then we'll have even greater gifts than the 1st Century?

 

[warfrog]

Then why doesn't he say 'when the resurrection is come'? He knew the word for resurrection (as see ch 15).



Don't you think that when we are made perfect, then we'll have even greater gifts than the 1st Century?

Greetings,

When we are changed, gathered up to him we are made perfect, being made perfect and the resurrection mean the same thing.

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

All of us, each one, are in corruptible bodies and will continue to be in such until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are in part, because of the Helper, the Holy Spirit, but when that which perfect has come, when we inherit incorruption through the resurrection, then that which is in part will be done away, which is the corruption.

We are away from incorruption attaining it through Him but not being in it completely, for we are of the flesh, but in our gathering to Him,corruption is put away completely and we are made perfect.

No, we shall all be raised as He was raised, through Him we shall attain this incorruption, those of the 1st century and before, all who are gathered to Him in His name will be made incorruptible. Rewards themselves may be varied from each to each but all that are His shall all inherit the inheritance of Christ in the same manner, through Christ.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Chris]

If anyone is happy to put old testament laws in a thread regarding eating animals and be bound by them here is the complete list of the 613 commandments and laws you can bind yourself up in.

613 Laws of the Old Testament

I am living under grace its easier.

Praise my savior Jesus from freeing me from that!

I can eat anything but I wont if it has recently had a face

 

[Asyncritus]

Greetings,

When we are changed, gathered up to him we are made perfect, being made perfect and the resurrection mean the same thing.

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

All of us, each one, are in corruptible bodies and will continue to be in such until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are in part, because of the Helper, the Holy Spirit, but when that which perfect has come, when we inherit incorruption through the resurrection, then that which is in part will be done away, which is the corruption.

We are away from incorruption attaining it through Him but not being in it completely, for we are of the flesh, but in our gathering to Him,corruption is put away completely and we are made perfect.

No, we shall all be raised as He was raised, through Him we shall attain this incorruption, those of the 1st century and before, all who are gathered to Him in His name will be made incorruptible. Rewards themselves may be varied from each to each but all that are His shall all inherit the inheritance of Christ in the same manner, through Christ.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hi warfrog

I'm with you on everything you've said in this post.

But you haven't answered the question, which basically is:

If 'perfect' means being raised to eternal life, then surely at that time the gifts of the spirit will be manifested even more powerfully than in the 1st Century?

How then can they be 'done away' at that time?

 

[warfrog]

Hi warfrog

I'm with you on everything you've said in this post.

But you haven't answered the question, which basically is:

If 'perfect' means being raised to eternal life, then surely at that time the gifts of the spirit will be manifested even more powerfully than in the 1st Century?

How then can they be 'done away' at that time?

No, the gifts will cease, the Holy Spirit is a Helper, when were made perfect we no longer require the gifts of the Holy Spirit, so therefore those gifts will not be made manifested even more powerfully, because they wont be needed at all.

Dont need a helper when were made like Him through Him.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[defender2]

1C 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1C 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

1. The 'knowledge' spoken of here is specifically talking about the knowledge of God. What use is the 'knowledge of the world' to the saved ?

2. Has the 'knowledge of God' passed away ? No

“that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;†(Col 1:10)

We notice in Colossians 1:10, that Paul is encouraging the saved to increase in the 'knowledge of God'. Why would Paul be doing that if God's knowledge had passed away ?

3.
1C 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1C 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

In verse 12, Paul says "now I know in part". If the perfect had already come, how is it that Paul knew in part at the time of writing ?

Conclusion
The gifts of the Spirit have not ceased. I can personally testify to that. I became born again or received the Holy Spirit years ago with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

 

[INHISHANDS55]

I agree with you. We are to be orderly and mannerly and that means being wise in knowing when and around whom you can exercise the privilege of using the gift of tongues.

The last time I was In aplace where the Holy Ghost was operating, The Spirit was in charge not rules made by man. Sorry if I seem brash on this forum. I say what the Holy Spirit in me says to say. I doubt Ic ould be quiet if I wanted to.