The above hypothesis while extensive is not how I see it in Scripture. It appears to me what Paul is talking about is a person "maturing" and "maturity in Christ" not, "cannonization of Scripture".
So then, are you intending to condemn anyone who was once Pentecostal and now is not?Ex-Pentecostals cannot be turned back. Guess who is an ex-Pentecostal.
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
So then, are you intending to condemn anyone who was once Pentecostal and now is not?
TD
The notion, that "perfect" is meant to represent the bible, may well be a nice tradition Major, but its provably false.
Paul's that which is "perfect" can only refer to the fulfilment of Christ's personal reign on earth, because that's when the "perfect" will be here in our midst.
The following shows the correct meaning of the Greek word usually translated "perfect".-
Strong's online Concordance.
5046. teleios
teleios: having reached its end, i.e. complete, by ext. perfect
Original Word: τέλειος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: teleios
Phonetic Spelling: (tel'-i-os)
Short Definition: perfect, full-grown
Definition: perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5046 téleios (an adjective, derived from 5056 /télos, "consummated goal") – mature (consummated) from going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal, i.e. developed into a consummating completion by fulfilling the necessary process (spiritual journey). See 5056 (telos).
[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).]
Therefore until the second coming and the reign of Jesus Christ, nothing is fit to be called completed, fulfilled or perfect.
Until that fulfilment or completion, the ministry and gifts will continue, despite the charlatans who insist otherwise.
And of course, that also explains why the gifts of the Holy Spirit will cease when that future kingdom fully comes. Who needs prophecy, visions or healing etc. when you are actually living in the presence of the great King.
The gifts of the spirit are just partial glimpses of our future kingdom life, as experienced on earth.
As Paul said, "today we see (the things of Christ) through a glass obscurely, but then face to face".
It can only be face to face when Jesus comes again.
That's why "that which is perfect" could never possibly mean the bible.
And that's why the gifts and ministry of the Holy Spirit absolutely must continue until the King comes.
Paul's that which is "perfect" can only refer to the fulfilment of Christ's personal reign on earth, because that's when the "perfect" will be here in our midst.
So then, you didn't realize that the verse you just quoted is a statement of condemnation in that context?No, just feel sorry for them. When you fall away from an experiential belief, believing it was all a lie, you will never let yourself go back into the same "lie." Even if it was the truth all along.
This thread was started by an ex-Pentecostal and it has gone on for over 2000 posts. I rest my case. Actually, it was rested in Hebrews 6. He won't listen to me and a long time ago in this very thread put me on ignore. He doesn't want to hear the answers to his questions.
So then, you didn't realize that the verse you just quoted is a statement of condemnation in that context?
TD
Thanks @swordsman1, I happen to agree completely, and have believed that for decades. That's why I pasted the Strong's concordance reference and underlined those specific points.The lexicon you quoted, as do all modern lexicons, says that teleios can mean perfect, complete or mature. The old King James bible that predominated western Christianity for three centuries opted for "the perfect" which, along with a lack of decent lexicographical resources, is why so many pre-20th century commentators interpreted this passage as referring to Christ’s return.
However when a word has multiple meanings we need to look at the context to decide which is the correct translation. And it becomes obvious ‘completeness’ is the better word for the following reasons:
- It is clear ‘ek merous’ (in part) and ‘teleios’ (completeness or the perfect) are in antithesis with each other. If it is translated as ‘the perfect’ you are awkwardly pitting a quantitative concept (in part) against a qualitative concept (perfect). If it is translated ‘completeness’ there is no such tension.
- The equivalent antithesis pair in v12 (‘in part’ and ‘fully’) are both quantitative.
- It makes far better grammatical sense - the incomplete will be replaced by the complete.
- Paul's other use of the word teleios in his epistles overwhelmingly relate to completing/developing/maturing rather than perfecting (1 Cor 2:6, 1 Cor 14:20, Phil 3:15, Eph 4:13, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, Heb 5:14), making it more likely that the same applies here.
- Throughout scripture and Greek literature when teleios is used in proximity to nēpiois (child), as in v14, it invariably means developing into an adult. See 1 Cor 14:20, Eph. 4:13-14, Heb. 5:13
Many bible versions such as the NIV have realised this and have changed their translations from "the perfect" to "completeness". About a third of bibles now have ‘completeness’ (or similar wording) in their translations and I suspect more and more translation committees will likewise follow suit in their future editions.
But what is this completeness? Is it the completed NT canon or the return of Christ? I would say the canon for the following reasons:
- “Completeness” is the antithesis of “in part”, so it is obvious these two quantitative expressions are related. Whatever ‘in part’ is referring to, almost certainly applies to ‘completeness’. That which is ‘in part’ is the practice of the gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge (v9), both of which are revelations from God. It follows therefore that ‘completeness’ would also involve revelation.
[*]“In part” refers to the fact that the revelation communicated by these gifts was partial or piecemeal. The corresponding “completeness”, as the counterpart to “in part” must then refer to a full or complete revelation from God.
[*]
[*]This can only be seen as the completed revelation God as preserved in the New Testament
[*]
- At the time of Paul's writing the early church needed prophecy and words of knowledge to guide them in the faith in the absence of a New Testament. However when a church had a completed canon, it would no longer need the gift of prophecy to guide them. Thus, the completed canon would replace the partial prophecies and words of knowledge.
- In other scriptures teleios is never used to describe heaven, Christ's return, or anything eschatological.
[*]It is however used to describe scripture in James 1:25
[*]
- 'Face to face' in v12 is not referring to seeing Christ as continuationists suppose. There is no mention of Christ in this passage.
[*]'Face to face' is referring to the analogy of a mirror. At the time of Paul's writing, when church had to rely on piecemeal prophecies for guidance in the faith in the absence of the NT,
[*]
You also forget that all scripture starts as fresh prophecy given direct from the voice of the Holy Spirit. So it's hardly sensible to claim that Christ's historic words are better than Christ speaking afresh now through the gifts. Or that his historic words are better than when he comes again![*]it was like seeing dimly in a poor mirror (mirrors were poor quality in those days). But when 'completeness' came, it would be like looking at someone 'face to face'. Prophecies would cease and we would have God's revelation to man presented in a far superior way.
[*]
- The analogy of a child maturing into a man in v11 indicates that the process would not be an instantaneous one (as would happen at the 2nd coming) but rather something that occurs over a period of time, as the completed canon is distributed among the churches. This ties in perfectly with church history where the early church fathers (100-200AD) said tongues were still active, the middle fathers (200-300 AD) saying they are rare, and the late fathers (300-400AD) saying the gifts have ceased.
- In v13 it says that faith hope and love would remain after the 3 gifts had ceased. The greatest is love because love never ceases (v8), but faith and hope cease at the 2nd coming when they become reality (Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."; 2 Cor 5:6-7 "while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord - for we walk by faith, not by sight"; Rom 8:24 "but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?"). So if faith and hope cease at the 2nd coming and outlast the 3 gifts then the 3 gifts must cease before the 2nd coming.
- If Paul was referring to the 2nd coming, then it wouldn't just be prophecy, words of knowledge, and tongues that will cease. All the spiritual gifts will cease. In the eternal state there will be no need for healers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, giving, faith, discernment of spirits, etc.
[*]Yet Paul makes no mention of those ceasing. When completeness comes (the completed canon)
[*]
[*]only the revelatory gifts cease, the purpose of which was to provide divine guidance in the faith in the absence of scripture.
[*]This interpretation is corroborated elsewhere in scripture, notably in Eph 2:20 which says that apostles and prophets were only for the foundation of the church.
[*]
[*]Few people deny that apostles ceased after the founding the church and this verse undeniably says the same applies to prophets.
[*]And of course history confirms this interpretation. Tongues etc did indeed cease shortly after the apostolic age.
TD, you need to read the extract I pasted from Strong's Concordance, and you will see that the use of Perfection is a poor translation.FD, what exactly is the scope of your "perfect" that you're talking about here, since the scope of perfection in each context may be different. It is not reliable to take two isolated passages and try to make the same word in each context exactly the same meaning. In the context of the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth (if indeed that is what you are referring to), there is still no absolute perfection, since Christ will need to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Therefore there must still be many imperfections within the nations. The imperfection will ultimately be proven by the fact that at the end of the 1000 year reign, Satan will again deceive the nations, which shows that imperfection will still be in the world even at that time. This case of comparison is more a case of comparing apples and oranges. If Paul is referring to the coming of Christ, then it is more likely he is talking about resurrection and glorification of believers, not Christ's personal reign on earth.
TD
TD, you need to read the extract I pasted from Strong's Concordance, and you will see that the use of Perfection is a poor translation.
Also Swordsman, (who contends with me on this thread) posted a good explanation of the same in his Post No 2180.
As stated, Paul's that which is perfect, or more accurately, complete, refers to the period that is fulfilled when Jesus comes again.
Not really sure why you posted this, have you not read my previous posts?Read #2187. It has to do with the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. Knowing Him. Even with the Bible, AND the gifts we still see Him and know Him like looking at Him through a dark glass. The connecting word from 'what is the perfect' is "THEN."
The above hypothesis while extensive is not how I see it in Scripture. It appears to me what Paul is talking about is a person "maturing" and "maturity in Christ" not, "cannonization of Scripture".
TD, you need to read the extract I pasted from Strong's Concordance, and you will see that the use of Perfection is a poor translation.
Also Swordsman, (who contends with me on this thread) posted a good explanation of the same in his Post No 2180.
As stated, Paul's that which is perfect, or more accurately, complete, refers to the period that is fulfilled when Jesus comes again.
I can only assume you guys are talking about the 'perfect thing' that's the eternal state not the Scriptures.Would you like to explain the Greek grammer that says "teleios" which means "Completed" and must a THING and not a person as He is not a thing.
The only complete Teleios Revelation of God is Christ himself!
You're not serious in imagining that the Lord has absolutely nothing more to say to his own children?
It is erroneous thinking to imagine that scripture somehow replaces the prophetic ministry. The Old Testament period demonstrates this clearly as the two ran side by side, and that is how the early church worked and was meant to function till Christ's return.
- Amusingly, all 28 translations of James1v25 in Biblehub.com use the word perfect rather than the better "completed" as you outlined above.
- So although thousands wouldn't, I happen to agree with you, so lets run with that.
- But to claim teleios is used to describe the scriptures is a trifle dishonest swordsman, when
there's zero reference whatsoever to the scriptures in the whole chapter!
[*]In fact, teleios is referring to the word nomos which means law, and again that cannot mean the Law of Moses because we know from Hebrews, that law doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to perfection stakes.
- Heb7v19 for the Law (nomos) made nothing perfect (Teleios), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
- The context reveals that James is referring to the Law of Liberty, in Christ Jesus, not OT or NT law.
You also forget that all scripture starts as fresh prophecy given direct from the voice of the Holy Spirit. So it's hardly sensible to claim that Christ's historic words are better than Christ speaking afresh now through the gifts. Or that his historic words are better than when he comes again!
That apostasy gradually entered the church and the gifts of the spirit receded into the background is no basis whatsoever to create a doctrine. Many other errors entered the church at that time, and persecution of the true saints, (those who held to both the written word and the gifts,) was done by both pagan governments as well as by apostate Christians.
But that's all make believe because in no place does it doesn't it state that faith and hope outlast the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
There has never been a single reference in any scripture to the completed canon and you know that.
If the revelatory gifts have ceased, then what are we left with other than human intellect.
Your scripture does not say the apostles and prophets were "only" for the foundation of the church. As usual, you added the word "only" into the text to make it suit your pet doctrines.
Tongues, although subject to massive persecution by the Roman Catholic church, and
Protestant churchessince the Reformation, has never entirely ceased.
Not really sure why you posted this, have you not read my previous posts?
It's not the knowledge of God we need, but knowing him personally as he knows us. As Paul says, that is currently very limited, or partial.
Intimately knowing him will only happen when he comes again, or we die.
And that is what I have been posting again and again and again.
Just an observation. I peeked in on this thread just so see whats being discussed. What I noticed, is what Catholics within this forum have been saying is true right here on this page #108. That being, without any authority, there is discord as seen here, which equals to the fact of disunity and why there are tens of thousands of different Protestant/ Evangelical/ Fundamental/ Non-Denominational churches and sects throughout the globe. I am willing to wager that if I were to ask any of the posters, (pescador, 1rstcenturylady, Biblicist, Explorer55, swordsman1, bbbbbbb, and Major1) if the're interpretations of the Scripture passages they are commenting on was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so they have to be correct, they would say yes.
If that is the case, why the disagreements? Surely, you all would agree there is no possible way the Holy Spirit could be in error..... right? So...... after this observation, the question to you all is, which of you are in error, and which one of you thinks they're not?
Two pages later from this post, and the only thing that's changed is a few more posters to put on the list. Do you all not see it?
Wow!