Diversities of Gifts, Minstries, Powers, Manifestation

[Biblicist]

I agree with this. Actually, teachers have a tendency to close themselves up and learn and learn (I should know!), but the grace of God is there for them in the teaching, the sharing; this is where they benefit the Body (Romans 12:7).

The people-people are the exhorters..... (Romans 12:8)

talitha,

Of all the ministries in the church I tend to feel most for the teacher and with those who hold the ubiquitous and anthropomorphic role of the pastor. I’ve used these two rather heavy words for the pastor as I see this unbiblical role as being a human understanding of God’s purposes (anthropomorphic) requiring them to be someone who is both everything and who certainly has to be in all places (ubiquitous).

When it comes to the Biblical Office/role of the teacher, even here we have various categories;

1. Academic
2. Adult ministries
3. Womens ministry
4. Youth ministry
5. Childrens ministry
​

If we compare the ministry of those teachers who teach within academia as with Universities and Seminaries, quite often these men who can excel in such an environment can struggle (but not always) within even the larger more sophisticated local congregations. Their frustration can be further exasperated when they are required to share the Word during Sunday meetings as this type of setting can require a fair bit of flair and to try and keep a congregation that may have a broad range of Biblical understanding ‘entertained’ can be hard at times.

The reverse is also true in that there are many fine teachers within our local churches who sometimes teach a specific subject within an academic institution who can feel very intimidated and who may struggle academically and with their confidence when it comes to relating to academic students.

Even though the role of those within our childrens ministries has changed within many congregations from being educators to entertainers, there have been and probably still are many individuals who have a great ability to relate the Word of God to our children but who may not enjoy teaching adults.

All these people still hold the Office or function of a teacher but of course their roles may be confined to certain areas of ministry which in my view comes to their disposition and of course interests. So even though we can recognise that the teacher will have a certain outlook on life and that they will have a disposition to conveying the Word of God they are still wide variations within this Office.

Many tend to view those who have been trained as high school teachers (or similar) that they are essentially automatically equated to the Biblical Office of the teacher, but in my view most teachers that I have met are not all that well suited to this Office. One thing that can be apparent to both students and parents, is that many teachers should not be teaching as their heart is not in it and I know that many take up a teaching role simply because they cannot find anything else that they want to do.
It does seem that many educational training institutions only end up destroying many good potential teachers.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I agree that "Tools" is a good "concept" of the "Charisma". It conveys the accurate idea that the "Quality" of the Christian doesn't affect the "Capability" of the "Tool" at all - since the "Tool" doesn't depend on the Maturity, Theology, or ability of the One manifesting it at all.

There's actually TWO "types" of "Tools" - the ones that CAN BE (and are) Faked, and the ones that CAN'T be.

Gifts of Healings is a good example of one that can't be faked. When somebody (like our associate pastor) is hours from death in hospice with stage 4 Cancer, and then he's O.K. over for 5 years now - still Cancer free - that can't be "done with mirrors".

Tongues, Interpretation, Prophesy, Word of Wisdom, Word of Knowledge, discerning of Spirits, and (at least in the short term) "Faith" can all be faked. And the "Faker" may not really be aware that he's "Faking" - because of FALSE teaching that he may have sat under in his church group.

"Word of Faith" teaching, for example, teaches folks to PRESUME that they have "Faith" (when they don't) in promises that really AREN'T theirs to claim, and to "ACT LIKE" they believe without doubt - when they doubt.

And only later when the provision of what they THOUGHT was "Faith" (but never really was) never happens, do they realize their error.

But raising somebody from the dead, or growing arms on an amputee are well-nigh IMPOSSIBLE to fake even for REALLY creative ministers.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I read some teaching last night which might explain why some "gifts" might appear to be less effective in some situations than others. It is the difference between the "logos" and the "rhema" Word. The "logos" Word is the written Word of God we find in the Bible. It is absolutely reliable and unchangeable. The "rhema" Word is that specific Word that is directly applied by the Spirit to a person. The "rhema" Word is not an addition to the "logos" but is a Word taken from the "logos" and applied directly by the Spirit.

It is quite possible to prophesy, give words of knowledge and wisdom and discerning of Spirits from the "logos". They may be accurate in a general sense, but not always applicable to the person receiving them.

But effective, Spirit-led prophesy, etc comes through the "rhema", and it is always effective.

I maintain that "faking" these gifts may merely be exercising these "gifts" from the "logos" instead of waiting on God for the "rhema" before exercising them.

This is where I think the WOF people get it wrong sometimes. They see the Word in the logos, and make decrees as if it is the rhema, when it is still the logos. But faith comes by hearing the (rhema) Word of God. Once we get the rhema, then we can exercise true faith on it.

 

[Alive_Again]

The "logos" Word is the written Word of God we find in the Bible.

That is the general understanding. Just like the church at large accepts the soul as the mind, will, and emotions, yet the Word says to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, so unless their is a subtlety in the original language, their is a difference.

The the beginning was the "logos". Does this mean that the written Word of God was God? Their must be a fuller definition.

I also believe in a more complete definition of the word "rhema", generally translated as the "speaking" Word of God. People take it upon themselves to mean that when they speak from the Bible that it is rhema. Under some circumstances that may be true, and although God agrees with the entirety of the written Word within the context it was given, true New Covenant spirituality in maturity dictates that the body performs what the Head says, and the Son hears what the Father says, so those spoken words must originate within the "now" mind of Christ, fully united with the purpose of God in the fullness of His timing.

His Words are Spirit and they are life. We know that God can turn the power down on your words based on your level of sanctification. Many preach only out of their heads and to hear them on the radio, they minister no or little life. I'm sure every Spirit fillled/Pentecost Feast Christian can identify someone on the radio who is esteemed and yet has no discernible anointing.

I'm looking to the Holy Spirit to give a fuller understanding of both of these terms, because it appears that the church in its entirety lacks this understanding, in its fullness.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The Issue with the "Logos/Rhema" teaching is that the USE of the greek terms isn't "consistent" to the degree that a "Doctrine" can safely be distilled from it.

However, what you're saying IS consistant with the simple fact that MY FAITH has to be based on what is KNOWN to be a "Word of God" to ME which lets me know His intent, and His desire in the situation. "Rhema" is the way that's normally expressed.

"I maintain that "faking" these gifts may merely be exercising these "gifts" from the "logos" instead of waiting on God for the "rhema" before exercising them."

Except that NO GIFT is actually being "exercised" at all - it's all nothing but a pathetic SHAM if it's done without the Burdening of the Holy Spirit.

I KNOW it's being DONE, but the practice SHOULD NOT be defended in any way. It only leads to error.

 

[pdudgeon]

getting back to the gifts, when i took my church's test earlier this year i came out with the following:

1st place (tied) giving , martyrdom
2nd place (tied) mercy, craftsmanship
3rd place .......... intercession

 

[talitha]

I think I remember that test.. I cannot fathom why they call "martyrdom" a spiritual gift. I think ALL of us have that "gift" if we are faced with that type of situation.

 

[Logeth]

But what is martyrdom?

 

[Biblicist]

Pdudgeon (# 86),

getting back to the gifts, when i took my church's test earlier this year i came out with the following:

1st place (tied) giving , martyrdom
2nd place (tied) mercy, craftsmanship
3rd place .......... intercession

It does seem that there many authors like to jump onto the ‘discovering your gifts’ bandwagon, but over the years it does seem that most of them have little understanding of what the Scriptures have to say on the matter. If an author comes from within a Full Gospel background they may have a reasonable understanding but for most cessationist authors they seem to be quite confused.

I have seen some lists of over 117 supposed spiritual gifts but the Scriptures only provide us with 9 and they are more correctly referred to as Manifestations of the Spirit (1Co 12:7-11). Paul does tell us in 1Co 12:28 that the Father has established 8 Congregational Offices which many tend to confuse as being MotS.

One of the major issues that many have is that they cannot differentiate between natural and / or learned talents and skills with those that the Spirit of God works through us – two completely different things.
I developed the following chart several years ago which I trust will help to explain how 1Co 12 was constructed by Paul.

One important feature of chapter 12 is that the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit are the domain of the Holy Spirit, whereas the 8 Congregational Offices have been established by the Father.

The only three Offices/Functions/Ministries that are entirely influenced by the Holy Spirit (ie MotS) are those of the prophet, miracles, healing and tongues. The remaining four are based (or built upon) an individuals talents and temperatment/personality.

If some surveys are looking purely at natural talents and abilities then they are a different kettle of fish.
​

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"They see the Word in the logos, and make decrees as if it is the rhema, when it is still the logos."

Yup - go to the "Word of Faith" forum here, and that silliness is rampant.

Bottom line - if you don't KNOW in the Spirit that it's yours - then there nothing to base "faith" in. Simple as that.

Folks make GREAT SWELLING STATEMENTS about their "Power" and "Authority" in the Spirit - but nothing in their lives indicates that any of it is true.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"They see the Word in the logos, and make decrees as if it is the rhema, when it is still the logos."

I've received a new understanding of logos/rhema.

The logos is what is written in the Bible. The logos becomes rhema when we act on it.

This is where WOF gets it wrong. They teach that quoting Scripture or saying some positive thing in relation to a situation will cause the Holy Spirit to activate what they "command" or declare it.

But really should happen is that we read the Bible and see what it commands us to do as New Covenant people. This is the logos. When we do what the Scripture commands us to do, it then becomes rhema.

Taking a very basic example. If the Scripture tells me that I need to call upon the Lord and believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead in order to be saved, when I start believing and calling on the Lord, the logos instruction then becomes a rhema for me, because I am putting the Scripture instruction into practice, and the Holy Spirit is able to activate my salvation based on my obedience to the Scripture.

If I am baptised in the Spirit and the Scripture tells me that I can speak in tongues. The knowledge from the Scripture is the logos. But when I put that knowledge into practice and actually start speaking in tongues, then the logos becomes rhema for me.

The Holy Spirit will always back up a rhema Scripture. But if we hear or read the logos and stay passive, not acting on it, then the Holy Spirit will not activate anything, but will wait for us to take action based on what the logos has told or instructed us.

This is what is called "doing" the Word, and not just hearing it.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"The logos is what is written in the Bible."

This appears to be a TRUE statement

"The logos becomes rhema when we act on it."

Not true!!!! "Logos" becomes "Rhema" when the Holy Spirit lets you KNOW IN FAITH that it's yours.

The Bible says many times that "God heals" (And it does - you know where just like I do), so you take that "Logos" and ACT on it - take your diabetic son's insulin away -

Let us know how that works out for you.

Presumption based on "Logos" is nothing but presumption.

There's 2 verses in MAtthew 12 that are interesting in their use of the two terms:

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word (Rhema) that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words (Logos) thou shalt be justified, and by thy words (Logos) thou shalt be condemned.

The implication is that when you SPEAK it - it's "Rhema", and when they're "Read back" later from the record, they're "Logos".

The use of the two Greek terms Biblically, however, isn't consistent enough to really build a doctrine on (Not that folks don't do it anyway).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Fascinating...

 

[Biblicist]

Just so that we keep this thread on topic, it should be pointed out that Paul never uses the term spiritual gifts in spite of virtually all the translations implying that he does.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Paul never uses the term spiritual gifts in spite of virtually all the translations implying that he does."

Unimportant. What he specifically MENTIONS in 1 Cor 12 (Pneumatikos "pertaining to the Spirit"), are "temporary enablements" (Charisma - "a favour with which one receives without any merit of his own") which we refer to as "Gifts" which is a perfectly good "Buzz word".

Although, I like Oscarr's "Spiritual Tools" as a more accurate description of what they really ARE functionally. The primary line of demarcation is between:

"Actions and ministries which are RELATED TO the spiritual development, and enhancement of the abilities of the PERSON (Fruits of the Spirit)".

And:

"Actions and ministries which are UNRELATED TO the spiritual development, and abilities of the PERSON (Gifts of the Spirit)".

Paul in 1 Cor 12 is trying to point out that the GIFTS (that the Corinthians are so Obsessed, with and egotistically PROUD of - aren't related to THEM at all - they're the Holy Spirit's, and distributed according to HIS will to whomever.

And then in 13 he starts discussing the FRUIT (Love) which is still viable - even if the "Charisma" disappear (As they largely did for centuries).

 

[Biblicist]

"Paul never uses the term spiritual gifts in spite of virtually all the translations implying that he does."

Unimportant. What he specifically MENTIONS in 1 Cor 12 (Pneumatikos "pertaining to the Spirit"), are "temporary enablements" (Charisma - "a favour with which one receives without any merit of his own") which we refer to as "Gifts" which is a perfectly good "Buzz word".

I’m of the strong opinion that the inability of the Pentecostal movement to understand the differences between the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit and the 8 Congregational Functions (offices/roles) has been one of its greatest failures.

One of the saddest things that I have encountered within the Full Gospel movement over the decades is that it is very hard to find either a Pentecostal or Charismatic who understands what a Manifestation of the Spirit is and how this differs from natural talents such as that of the apostle, teacher, helps and administrations. This has led many to simply presume that virtually every human talent and ability is in some way an operation of the Spirit.

“Buzz words” can certainly have their place, such as with our extra-bliblical use of the term pastor, alter-call and even with how we often use the term the Baptism in the Holy Spirit; but when we use the term spiritual gifts which is not an expression that Paul uses in 1Corinthians, this totally dismantles Pauls line of thought regarding the Trinitarian operation of the Manifestations and Congregational Functions.

Unimportant. What he specifically MENTIONS in 1 Cor 12 (Pneumatikos "pertaining to the Spirit"),

Even though “pertaining to the Spirit” is one of a number of translation options for pneumatikos, this still limits Pauls discussion to those activities which emanate only from the Spirit. Paul is not only talking about the Spirits role in the life of the believer and the Church but also with how the Father has established the 8 Congregational Functions.

In my view it seems that Paul is saying more along the lines of “now about spiritual matters” which includes not only the Spirits activities but also with that of the Father. Spiritual matters not only address issues that relate to the Holy Spirit but also with any aspect or activities/actions of the Trinity.

Before anyone can have any hope of understanding the “Differences between Diversities of Gifts, Minstries, Powers, Manifestation” then they may first understand how Paul uses the Greek words pneumatikos and charismata and most importantly with how the various translations are frequently inconsistent not only with how they render the Greek into English but also with how frequently they inadvertantly tamper with Pauls line of thought.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"In my view it seems that Paul is saying more along the lines of “now about spiritual matters”

Which would be accurate according to the discussion that follows.

"which includes not only the Spirits activities but also with that of the Father. Spiritual matters not only address issues that relate to the Holy Spirit but also with any aspect or activities/actions of the Trinity."

This, of course, would be your "Personal agenda" showing. But that's not related to the Biblical text - only what you're "Reading into it" to satisfy your paradigm.

What's being discussed (in 1 Cor 12) is the horrendous corruption within the Corinthian group with relation to the "Charisma" - i.e. - the MANIFESTATIONS of the Spirit in the church, and the obvious egotistical PRIDE and DISMISSAL of others based on the "Gifts" that this or that "Special" person was manifesting. "I do miracles!!! - you only speak in tongues - I HAVE NO NEED of YOU!!!! - I'm SPECIAL - and YOU'RE NOTHING!!!" - leading to the discussion of the "Better way" in C13.

There's really no problem AT ALL differentiating between what you do, as part of your OWN PERSONAL SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT as a result of the ministry of the Spirit in our life, and what the Lord miraculously does "through" you.

YOU WILL NEVER HEAL ANYBODY regardless of how mature, and "Spiritually developed" you are. Healing (or Prophesy, or Specific Faith) is ALWAYS a "miraculous empowerment".

But you WILL be able to teach the Word out of your "Personal Storehouse" of knowledge and personal experience as the Spirit has developed you - it's a FRUIT of the Spirit.

And it's really just that simple.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"getting back to the gifts, when i took my church's test earlier this year i came out with the following:

1st place (tied) giving , martyrdom
2nd place (tied) mercy, craftsmanship
3rd place .......... intercession"

So in other words you church didn't "Test" for "GIFTS" at all (in the Biblical sense), and only conducted a fleshly "Personality/Natural Abilities" assessment. These were REALLY popular during the '70s, and some still waste their time on 'em.

I remember giving a teaching series on the Gifts of the Spirit by Derek Prince based on the list in 1 Cor 12 to a Lutheran Brother whose church was doing one of those "Assessment classes". They didn't have any idea what any of the REAL "Charisma" were about, and didn't want to even deal with any of it, preferring to concentrate on their "fleshly" strengths and weaknesses as all that was important.

 

[Biblicist]

... So in other words you church didn't "Test" for "GIFTS" at all (in the Biblical sense), and only conducted a fleshly "Personality/Natural Abilities" assessment. These were REALLY popular during the '70s, and some still waste their time on 'em.

I remember giving a teaching series on the Gifts of the Spirit by Derek Prince based on the list in 1 Cor 12 to a Lutheran Brother whose church was doing one of those "Assessment classes". They didn't have any idea what any of the REAL "Charisma" were about, and didn't want to even deal with any of it, preferring to concentrate on their "fleshly" strengths and weaknesses as all that was important.

I have definitely come to the point where I simply refuse to sit through any more supposed spiritual-gift courses; they’re generally so secular and worldly in character that they seem to have little if any bearing on how the Spirit works through us.

This is one of the reasons that I lament the fact that the Full Gospel movement has in most part been unable to differentiate between the Manifestations of the Spirit (1Co 12:7-11) and with the Congregational Functions (1Co 12:28).

 

[Biblicist]

"In my view it seems that Paul is saying more along the lines of “now about spiritual matters”

Which would be accurate according to the discussion that follows.

"which includes not only the Spirits activities but also with that of the Father. Spiritual matters not only address issues that relate to the Holy Spirit but also with any aspect or activities/actions of the Trinity."

This, of course, would be your "Personal agenda" showing. But that's not related to the Biblical text - only what you're "Reading into it" to satisfy your paradigm.

I suppose I'm guilty as charged; at least my agenda is little different to the following individuals who also consider the Trinitarian nature of this passage to be of great importance, as they also know that its meaning is critical to understanding the ‘Biblical text’. It should be pointed out that a wide diversity of opinion exists as to the meaning and importance of these passages:

D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (1987) pgs. 9, 20-24

“When Paul opens the chapter with the words now about spiritual gifts, brothers (12:1), he is setting the agenda of the ensuing three chapters. Clearly, then, the word rendered ‘spiritual gifts’ is important; but in fact it hides a difficult ambiguity…”pg.9

With regard to Spirit, Lord, Father “…Yet it would be equally wrong to think that the parallelism of 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 is nothing but arbitrary rhetoric…” pg. 23
​

Anthony G Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2000) pg. 928

“Interpreters differ in placing emphasis on unity or on diversity in this chapter. But Dale Martin, Harrington, and Lategan argue convincingly that in these verses, at least, Paul places his emphasis on the unity of source which lies behind a diversity of phenomena…”
​

Anthony G. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary (2006) pgs. 196-197

“Verses 4-7 have a double meaning. First, they provide a kind of “ground plan” of Trinitarian theology. Second, they expound a dialectic of unity and diversity: …”
​

Gordon D Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (1987) pgs. 582-589

David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (2003) pgs. 574-579

David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians (1985/1993) pgs. 195-197

Simon J. Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians (1993) pgs. 417-419

Paul Barnett, 1 Corinthians (2000) pgs. 227-228

Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (1999) pgs. 256-257

Ciampa/Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (2010) pgs. 567-571

Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians (2010) pgs. 219-220

Richard E. Oster, Jr, 1 Corinthians ( 1995) pgs. 281-283