How many gifts of the Spirit are mentioned in the Bible, and which ones are still operating today?

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The two gifts that disappear when "completeness" comes are the 2 revelatory gifts, prophecy and words of knowledge. I think is highly unlikely these would be representative of all the gifts. If Paul was choosing example gifts to represent all the gifts he would have chosen a larger number of diverse gifts, not two very similar gifts. Just like he did a few verses earlier (v1-3) where he chose 5 diverse gifts to represent all of them. In fact if they were representative examples here he would most likely have kept the same ones from the earlier verses.

the context starts in ch 12 starting with "Now concerning spiritual gifts...". Ch 13 is in the same context.

If those 2 gifts are representative of all the gifts then all the other gifts must also be "in part". Now I can see why prophecies would be "in part" because each prophecy provides only a small part of God's revelation to man; but none of the others makes sense as being in part. Miracles are "in part"? Evangelism is "in part"? Exhortation is "in part"? Discernment is in part? Pastors are "in part". Giving is "in part"? Leadership is in part? Mercy is in part? Administration is in part? Helping is in part?

it is us that are in part which is why we need the gifts, otherwise we wouldn't need them at all.

The fact that it was only the 2 revelatory gifts that disappear strongly indicates that their replacement, completeness, would also be revelatory in nature. “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” most likely refers to a full or complete revelation from God.

the only fact here is you have a strong bias and you're using your bais as a proof text to determine what "the perfect" is. What you're building is a house of cards.

Whatever the noun is, it is a concept that Paul could not express in one or two words. Otherwise he would have used those words instead of leaving the noun missing. So that would exclude the resurrection, as Paul had no difficulty using that word throughout his epistle. It would also exclude such easily expressible things as heaven, eternity, the 2nd coming, etc. It would have to be something that cannot easily be expressed as a noun, something like 'the completion and distribution of the canon and subsequent maturing of the church'.

There is no mysterious noun that it points to and it stands alone. What is coming? The perfect is coming not The perfect [insert noun here] is coming. This event of the completion of the canon you describe is completely unsupported in scripture. If Paul intended to mean this he does so highly cryptically and is being quite irresponsible I might add, plus something he never speaks of again. I might as well say the perfect is the perfect cheesecake that I have yet to taste because saying so would be just as scripturally supported. This is a dangerous way of interpreting the bible starting from the place where you want it to end up and then trying to make it fit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
So you think the Living Word stopped being God while He was a man? 2 Timothy 3:16 says God was manifest in the flesh. Colossians 2:9 says the fullness of the Godhead dwelled within him bodily.

No, that is not what I think.

God the Father was/is still sitting on the throne; remember He was the one the Word of God Himself pleaded with, and prayed to when He was Son of Man. The Son is the Father because the Word of God Himself is God.

If I could make my own words my own person, then it would have all of my powers and all of my will endowed in it because it is MY WORD PERSONIFIED. The Word of God has been with God since the beginning because it is God - just like my words are me.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not what I think.

God the Father was/is still sitting on the throne; remember He was the one the Word of God Himself pleaded with, and prayed to when He was Son of Man. The Son is the Father because the Word of God Himself is God.

If I could make my own words my own person, then it would have all of my powers and all of my will endowed in it because it is MY WORD PERSONIFIED. The Word of God has been with God since the beginning because it is God - just like my words are me.

Uh, no. The Living Word (the Logos) is not God the Father. For God the Father so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. The Father sent the Son. The Father did not send Himself. In Matthew 3:17, who do you think spoke from Heaven the following words? "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

There are distinctions in the Godhead or the Trinity.

#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalms 2:1-12) (Psalms 45:6-7) (Psalms 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24).

The Trinity is told to us in one verse.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7 KJV).
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Most versions of the tongues I have witnessed via online are not the version of tongues we see in the Bible. Tongues was the speaking of other languages. That is why it was a miracle or miraculous. Someone would sometimes figure out that they were speaking another language and that what they were saying was correct without any study of having ever known that language. Speaking with tongues was ALWAYS with an interpreter, but that is not the chaos that we see in churches today. Paul said he would rather speak five words with the understanding, than ten thousand words without the understanding. A linguist expert set out to investigate the tongues languages spoken in many Charismatic churches. His recordings show that they are not actually speaking any real language.
Sigh..
No it wasn't "only" with interpretation.
That was one peice of advice in the setting of a meeting.
And denies the scriptures saying there are diversity of types of tongues.

So until you are ready to repent (metanoia) ..change the mind.
These is no dicussion possible.
Im willing to see anomalies in many modern doctrines on it Due to some things we are recently experiencing .
Never ever has a single person got the whole picture right.
But your extremism in opposition must be laid down in repentance to God before any true discussion can eventuate.
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not what I think.

God the Father was/is still sitting on the throne; remember He was the one the Word of God Himself pleaded with, and prayed to when He was Son of Man. The Son is the Father because the Word of God Himself is God.

If I could make my own words my own person, then it would have all of my powers and all of my will endowed in it because it is MY WORD PERSONIFIED. The Word of God has been with God since the beginning because it is God - just like my words are me.

the son came forth from out of the father... The son became flesh..
The son was upon the earth as flesh ... He hurt he bled he died ..as flesh.
That is scripture .

He returned to the father from whence he came.
While he was upon the earth he was flesh and blood . at 30yrs old he recieved the Holy Spirit.
He was a flesh and blood MAN with the Holy spirit dwelling "IN him "...

Scripture doesnt say anything differently
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To believe the word of God means to accept it and because you have .put it into action.
When one does this it is Then ...that they "experience" the results of believing the word.

Those that say they believe the word of God yet never act on it.
Are hearers but not doers... Jesus calls them decievers of themselves.
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah checked it.
A collection of out of context verses mulched into ambiguity..
With the comment where ypu say
"Miracles hace ceased " ..
Of course thats about as false as you can get it

Jennifer was Deaf since a baby ,after we laid hands on her in prayer. She can now hear.
Im sure shes very happy that Your opinion is Wrong.

. the other night Sala was healed.. She is very happy miricles have not ceased.

Ade heard our friend speak in her own language.. Thats awsome.
But our friend was speaking in tongues ...God is amazing.

All this in the last month's ..not Sorry to burst your bubble
But the lord Jesus I serve still lives.
Read above ...

Now someone suggested we rely on experience and not the word of God.
But that is a huge Error.
For it was by believing First the word
Then applying it
That All these things began to occur.
Because the words of the lord jesus are faithful and true.
Who so ever believes..
What so ever you ask
If 2 or 3 agree in my name I will do it..
Etc
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟154,410.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I tend to agree that Scripture says Tongues and Traditional Prophecy have ceased. But I strive not to say that anyone claiming to do this is false (So as not to speak against GOD if I am wrong).
Gibberish talk and its interpretation was a crafty Paul's solution to the babes of Corinthians at that time. It can never apply to grown up Christians like us.

Anyways, there are 22 gifts that are clearly stated in Scripture (Ephesians 2:8, Acts of the Apostles 2:38, Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:8-11, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-12) for the early church. 1 of these gifts (that is clearly stated) has changed in function or operation (Prophecy*); And 7 of these gifts (that are clearly stated) are not in operation today. So there are 15 operational gifts today (that are clearly stated in Scripture).
Thanks for listing elaborately.

Here are the Gifts (that is clearly mentioned) that are in operation today:

1. Jesus (The Gift of God's Grace, Salvation).
It is not just grace. Truth go with it. Salvation has to be earned, not free.
2. Holy Ghost (Is a Gift).
Not a gift. He is part of the Godhead.

12. Gift of Administration or Organizing (KJV - Gift of Governments).

Ministry doesn't involve with governments.
13. Gift of Evangelism (Winner of Souls)
14. Gift of Pastorship.
15. Gift of Teaching.

Here are the Gifts (clearly mentioned) that are not in operation today:

1. Gifts of Healing,
2. Working of Miracles,
3. Tongues

Still exist.

4. Interpretation of Tongues

Not gibberish interpretation, but interpretation of existing foreign languages.
5. Gift of Apostleship.

No apostles other than who Jesus chose and one replaced by 11 apostles.

Word of Wisdom.
7. Word of Knowledge.

Continued

* Prophecy today is not like it was in the early church. The early church would predict future events and could give us new words that could be written down as Holy Scripture. Prophecy today is being able to have the power by the Spirit to be able to discern properly those texts in the Bible that deal with the End Times (i.e. Eschatology).

Exists. Help from the Holy Spirit is different from this for understanding.


Other gifts that the Bible mentions the word "gift" in context, but does not tie it directly tie a particular gift by name are:

1. Celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7).
2. Marriage (1 Corinthians 7:3, 1 Corinthians 7:7).
3. Being Sober and Watchful in Prayer (1 Peter 4:7-11).4. Hospitality (Sharing one's home or resources with others; Especially brothers) (1 Peter 4:7-11).
They are not just gifts, but our responsibility too.

Not Directly Stated or Implied Gifts (Galatians 5:22-23):

1. Love.
2. Joy.
3. Peace.
4. Long-suffering (Patience).
5. Faith.
6. Self Control (Disciplined)
7. Goodness.
8. Gentleness.
9. Humbleness (Meekness - KJV).
No they are not gifts. They are the fruit of the Spirit that we should cultivate for salvation

Other Not Directly Stated or Implied Gifts

1. Voluntary Poverty or Forsaking Possessions (2 Corinthians 8:9) (Matthew 19:21-26 - with a special focus on Matthew 19:26).
A must for the ministry, not gifted
2. Intercession (Romans 8:26-27).
Help from the Holy Spirit not a gift.

Other Not Directly Stated or Implied Gifts That are No Longer in Operation:

1. Dreams (Acts of the Apostles 2:17).
2. Visions (Acts of the Apostles 2:17).

I am sure there are more, but so far by my count, this would mean that there are 30 gifts in operation today and 39 gifts during the time of the Early church.

No, they continue guide the true believers in their path of perfection
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say fruit, I said gifts of The Holy Spirit, Ie spiritual gifts when a person is filled with The Holy Spirit.

That filling of The Holy Spirit is the 3rd step in faith a Christian takes in his/her Christian walk with Jesus.
The fruit of the Spirit is the outcome of a Spirit-filled life and a genuine conversion to Christ. These are not gifts as such but describe the rivers of living water that flows out of us. We don't manifest the fruit of the Spirit as we would gifts. The fruit of the Spirit is the conduct and demeanour of a genuinely converted Christian who is living and walking in the Spirit.

I thought I'd just clarify that. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ARBITER01

Legend
Aug 12, 2007
13,348
1,695
✟161,131.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
The fruit of the Spirit is the outcome of a Spirit-filled life and a genuine conversion to Christ. These are not gifts as such but describe the rivers of living water that flows out of us. We don't manifest the fruit of the Spirit as we would gifts. The fruit of the Spirit is the conduct and demeanour of a genuinely converted Christian who is living and walking in the Spirit.

I thought I'd just clarify that. :)

Let me clarify it it even more Oscarr,..

The fruit and the gifts go hand in hand together, they are both deposited within the Christian that is filled with The Holy Spirit. You don't have one without the other.

Born again Christians are "sealed" with The Spirit until the day of redemption, but not filled, so they haven't experienced the walking in the Spirit life yet.

Many of them reject it in fact.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
the context starts in ch 12 starting with "Now concerning spiritual gifts...". Ch 13 is in the same context.

Yes 1 Cor 12-14 are about spiritual gifts. How does that prove that the 2 revelatory gifts in this passage are representative of all the gifts?

it is us that are in part which is why we need the gifts, otherwise we wouldn't need them at all.

No, it is not "us" who are in part. It is the exercise of the gifts of prophecy and knowledge that is in part.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."

Otherwise according to the continuist interpretation it is not the gifts that cease when Christ returns, but us!

There is no mysterious noun that it points to and it stands alone. What is coming? The perfect is coming not The perfect [insert noun here] is coming.

A substantive adjective (teleios here) still has a referent even though it is not specified in the text. Continuists argue it should be translated as 'the perfect' and that it refers to the perfect state of affairs after the return of Christ. Whereas cessationists argue it should be translated 'completeness' and it refers the completion of the canon (in a nutshell).

This event of the completion of the canon you describe is completely unsupported in scripture. If Paul intended to mean this he does so highly cryptically and is being quite irresponsible I might add, plus something he never speaks of again. I might as well say the perfect is the perfect cheesecake that I have yet to taste because saying so would be just as scripturally supported. This is a dangerous way of interpreting the bible starting from the place where you want it to end up and then trying to make it fit.

The return of Christ interpretation is even more cryptic and irresponsible when you realise that neither Christ nor anything eschatological is ever mentioned in this passage. People see the dubious translation 'the perfect' and the words 'face to face' and immediately jump to the conclusion it must be referring to the return of Christ. The passage should be studied carefully and interpreted using the established rules of hermeneutics (looking at the context etc). If it points to the completion of the canon rather than the return of Christ then so be it. The fact the completed canon is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in scripture elsewhere is not a valid reason for rejecting it. There is plenty of evidence for a completed canon both inside and outside of scripture. Surely you don't think the canon is still open?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: ARBITER01
Upvote 0

ARBITER01

Legend
Aug 12, 2007
13,348
1,695
✟161,131.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
The return of Christ interpretation is even more cryptic and irresponsible when you realise that neither Christ nor anything eschatological is ever mentioned in this passage. People see the dubious translation 'the perfect' and the words 'face to face' and immediately jump to the conclusion it must be referring to the return of Christ. The passage should be studied carefully and interpreted using the established rules of hermeneutics (looking at the context etc). If it points to the completion of the canon rather than the return of Christ then so be it. The fact the completed canon is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in scripture elsewhere is not a valid reason for rejecting it. There is plenty of evidence for a completed canon both inside and outside of scripture. Surely you don't think the canon is still open?

1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I have been known.

What is to happen that would put us face to face,.....

1Co 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Gibberish talk and its interpretation was a crafty Paul's solution to the babes of Corinthians at that time. It can never apply to grown up Christians like us.

I do believe certain gifts have ceased. I just feel it is good to be loving and to strive to not condemn myself if by some chance I may be wrong (Although many Scriptures show Cessationism to be true).

You said:
Thanks for listing elaborately.

You are most welcome.

It is not just grace. Truth go with it. Salvation has to be earned, not free.

I believe we have free will in our choice in regards to choosing Jesus Christ for salvation and in continuing to follow Him. We have to continue in the faith; For without faith it is impossible to please GOD. We have to continue in his love; For we learn that loving God and loving your neighbor is a part of eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). We have to continue in his goodness, otherwise we can be cut off. I believe King David was not saved while he was committing his sins of adultery and murder and that he needed to confess (Psalms 51) in order to be saved again. The prodigal son was not saved while he was living a prodigal life in sin, until he repented towards his father (everlasting Father, i.e. Jesus) and became "alive again." While we do have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, I would not say that salvation has to be earned (as if to say we have no grace to rest in at any point). I would say that there are "Works of responsibility in possessing the gift of salvation who is a person named Jesus Christ."

Muslims believe in a system of works ALONE salvationism and there is no grace to rest in at any point. It's all based on one's own merits alone (with no grace). Jesus has to be how we first get saved. It is by His grace we are first saved, and it is by His grace that we build upon in our walk with the Lord. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of our faith. That is the concrete slab (foundation) of our house or building (work). The whole of the building (Whether it be the work of wood or concrete block) rests on the foundation of Jesus and His grace.

Yes, it is true that works do play a part in the salvation process, but grace is how we are initially and ultimately saved. Also, the work a believer does is not by their own power alone, a believer is merely choosing of their own free will to abide in the good work that God wants to do through us. For Jesus said we can do nothing without Him (John 15:5).

But do we earn salvation? I would say it is not about earning salvation but it is about believing in Christ's sacrifice as our ultimate salvation and in doing work of responsibility so as to maintain that free gift. The best way to illustrate the difference to you is by way of a real world example (that Jesus made many times with his parables).

For example:
If a man named Rick received a car as a free gift, he would have to do "works of responsibility" so as to keep that gift. He would have to make sure he has a driver's license, stop at the gas station to fill up, drive responsibly (not running red lights, or hitting pedestrians), and doing general maintenance on his car. In fact, if Rick hit pedestrians and or ran red lights or drove smash drunk all the time, he would lose his free gift. But if Rick is responsible with his gift, he could keep his free gift. But the car is a free gift. Rick did not have to get a car loan and work at a job that pays enough to pay off that car loan. Rick was not trading dollars for hours at a job (earning) so as to one day own the car clear and free. For if Rick did not make his payments, the car could be taken away from him. But if Rick received the car as a free gift, he would not have to work at a particular job so as to be able to afford to pay off that car. The car would never truly be his until he paid off the loan if the car was not a free gift. But if the car was a free gift, Rick would only need to sell a thing here or there and or do an odd job every once in a while to afford to maintain the car or do "works of responsibility" in keeping that car as a free gift that was given to him. Rick could rest in owning the car and not worry about the bank taking it away from him if he forfeited on making the payments if he lost his job. So that is the difference between "earning salvation" vs. "resting in the gift of God's grace and in doing works of responsibility so as to maintain that gift."

Knowing this truth will help you to understand what Paul meant in Romans 4:4 when he said, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." For Paul was trying to fight against the false heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism." (See: Galatians 2:3, Galatians 2:3, Galatians 5:2, Galatians 5:6, Galatians 6:5, 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Romans 2:28-29, Romans 3:1, Romans 4:9-12, Acts of the Apostles 21:21. Also see: Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, Acts of the Apostles 15:24) (Note: Hover your cursor over the above verses to check them out). So when Paul talked about the "Law" he was referencing the Old Law (the old contract of the 613 laws of Moses) and works alone salvationism that did not include God's grace; Paul was not referring to the commands of Jesus and His followers. So yes, we are saved by God's grace and obedience to the faith. But it would be "works of responsibility" in possessing the free gift and it would not be: "earning salvation."


You said:
Not a gift. He is part of the Godhead.

Acts of the Apostles 2:38 clearly says that the Holy Ghost is a gift.

Oh, and yes; I believe in the Trinity. That God exists as three distinct persons and yet He is one God. But I believe that a person can be filled by Jesus or the Living Word (the Logos) and not have the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit yet. In some way, they are connected to the Holy Spirit by way of the Godhead, but it would not be an indwelling entirely of the Holy Spirit. All men through out all time were saved by abiding in Jesus Christ. For we learn that the fathers (the Israelites) who crossed through the red sea had drank of that Rock and that Rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4). For there is no other name under Heaven whereby we can be saved (Acts of the Apostles 4:12). The 12 disciples had to have dwelled in Jesus in order to have life. For he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). The disciples had the Spirit working among them, but they did not have the dwelling of the Holy Spirit yet until Christ breathed the Spirit upon them.

You said:
Ministry doesn't involve with governments.

I believe governments (or administrating or organizing) of the fellowship of Christians is a gift.

1 Corinthians 12:28-31 says,
28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

They organize so as to fellowship and to then go out and then do ministry two by two (usually directly to people's houses, or by preaching to a crowd in a town).

All gifts are a part of the body; But not all gifts are for today.

Jason0047 said:
1. Gifts of Healing,
2. Working of Miracles,
3. Tongues
You said:
Here are the Gifts (clearly mentioned) that are not in operation today

Yes, any words in red means that it is not operation on my list. So we agree at this point.

Jason0047 said:
4. Interpretation of Tongues
You said:
Still exist.

I see Interpretation of Tongues as going hand in hand with Tongues (Which is the speaking of foreign languages). But I would need to test to see if some believer out there is genuinely operating in this way and has correct doctrine.

Jason0047 said:
Word of Wisdom.
7. Word of Knowledge.

You said:
Continued

I thought that initially myself, but after seeing another poster suggest that they were not in operation, it dawned on me that they were correct. These were new words of knowledge or new words of wisdom so as to form new Scripture (i.e. the New Testament). This was not the interpretation or explanation of the existing Word we have (i.e. the Bible).

You said:
No they are not gifts. They are the fruit of the Spirit that we should cultivate for salvation

When I first accepted Christ as my Savior, I had a love, joy, and peace like I had never known before. So yes, I would say that they are gifts as a part of possessing the Holy Spirit. For I did not have these fruits before. They were new gifts to me in my life.

You said:
A must for the ministry, not gifted

I initially thought that way myself, but in Matthew 19 (we learn): That when Jesus said that is is hard for a rich man to be saved, and the disciples asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus said with man this is impossible, but with GOD all things are possible.

Meaning, GOD can work in a person to forsake their worldly possessions.

Help from the Holy Spirit not a gift.

It is the gift of a person helping others. See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31.

You said:
No, they continue guide the true believers in their path of perfection

Not sure what you are in disagreement about here.

Anyways, may God bless you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes 1 Cor 12-14 are about spiritual gifts. How does that prove that the 2 revelatory gifts in this passage are representative of all the gifts?

because it is an already established style within the context. The question should be why break out of the established form?

No, it is not "us" who are in part. It is the exercise of the gifts of prophecy and knowledge that is in part.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."
Otherwise according to the continuist interpretation it is not the gifts that cease when Christ returns, but us!

can you tell me a gift we do not do in part? can it be said we teach perfectly, we help perfectly, we administer perfectly? I really don't think we can, it is all in part because we are in part. perhaps instead of highlighting "know in part" you should include the first person plural "we know in part and we prophesy in part" what's the common element here? it is us... we are the "in part" not the gifts given to us.

A substantive adjective (teleios here) still has a referent even though it is not specified in the text. Continuists argue it should be translated as 'the perfect' and that it refers to the perfect state of affairs after the return of Christ. Whereas cessationists argue it should be translated 'completeness' and it refers the completion of the canon (in a nutshell).

it is an adjective that translators favour in a qualitative form. the NIV uses "completeness" which is quantitative and this seem to be to pair it better with "in part". This becomes more apparent when looking at the 1984 edition which accomplishes the same thing but favours the qualitative pairing "perfect" with "imperfect". So it is difficult to know which is a better translation based on the NIV as it seems their agenda is like vs like rather than looking at the word and translating to it's best counterpart in English. it is laudable and I think helps the reader better but for serious study it should be excluded as having a bais, not a hidden agenda or conspiracy but simply forcing like vs like to make it read better. Overwhelmingly the word is translated as a qualitative and this actually includes the NIV, they perhaps favour the quantitative in this passage but the other uses of this word in scripture they favour the qualitative.

It really doesn't matter to me. "the perfect" or "completeness" are both abstracts and both can point to the same thing and I don't think one favours a cessationists or a continuists view better but regardless "the perfect" is the favoured translations by a long shot, not just for this passage but for all uses of the word in scripture.

The return of Christ interpretation is even more cryptic and irresponsible when you realise that neither Christ nor anything eschatological is ever mentioned in this passage. People see the dubious translation 'the perfect' and the words 'face to face' and immediately jump to the conclusion it must be referring to the return of Christ. The passage should be studied carefully and interpreted using the established rules of hermeneutics (looking at the context etc). If it points to the completion of the canon rather than the return of Christ then so be it. The fact the completed canon is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in scripture elsewhere is not a valid reason for rejecting it. There is plenty of evidence for a completed canon both inside and outside of scripture. Surely you don't think the canon is still open?

the issue with it being irresponsible is that it effects doctrine and important doctrine as well related to how the HS operates and then how we approach the HS. the idea of the completion of the canon is not addressed anywhere else in scripture nor is this idea of diminished gifts of the HS. This doesn't void the completion of the canon and I'm not sure why it would as it was not about prophetic fulfillment.

You say it can't be eschatological because the passage has no eschatological context, well, how does that matter? You are in the same problem as there is no other prophetic context in the passage either so perhaps it can't be prophetic either. Clearly Paul is saying a prophetic statement and eschatological events are within the context of prophecy and do not disagree with this passage. Paul also didn't write in chapters and verses and 1 Corinthians and all his letters for that matter do have eschatological context but not one has a completion of the canon context.

Paul opens this letter in a context of the eschatological and closes in the same context of the eschatological or waiting for the coming of the Lord. What exactly do you think the Corinthian church would think the coming of the perfect would be? Why would they think it would be anything else but Christ? It in fact should be so obvious that all other interpretations should demand a lot more to base it on then one abstract word that could be interpreted theoretically to mean anything when looked at in isolation. It's just plain irresponsible and this is a rather new phenomenon demanding this word mean something else. I don't question the canon as you asked but why do you question pretty much all of church history before the 20th century on this passage?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
the son came forth from out of the father... The son became flesh..
The son was upon the earth as flesh ... He hurt he bled he died ..as flesh.
That is scripture .

He returned to the father from whence he came.
While he was upon the earth he was flesh and blood . at 30yrs old he recieved the Holy Spirit.
He was a flesh and blood MAN with the Holy spirit dwelling "IN him "...

Scripture doesnt say anything differently

My point has been given He was all of these things Son of Man, everything He did was what a son of man should be able to do also. The Word of God humiliated Himself in that form to vindicate us - not Himself.

Every single exploit Son of Man (The Word of God) did on this plane of existence should be operable by every son of man who follows The Word of God Himself.

He told us the things He did aren't marvelous, and that we should be able to do the same things - even more - as born again sons of man turned sons of the Mot High God. The Word of God executed faith, patience, love and obedience well before He was enveloped in the Spirit after baptism.

So, as to the OP: if Son of Man can do it, we can do it. Handicapping ourselves because of our own hangups or fear does not excuse the fact that we should be doing exploits by consequence of being a son of God walking in the path of the Word of God.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
because it is an already established style within the context. The question should be why break out of the established form?

Huh? That is illogical. It is not an established style. Just because Paul uses a representative example once doesn't mean every time a gift is subsequently mentioned it must also be representative of all the gifts. To be a representative example you must be able to replace that example with any of the other gift and the passage to still make sense. Does it makes sense to say the apostles were only part apostle? Pastors are only part pastor? When we show mercy do we only partially forgive? When miracles were performed were they only partially performed? Do administrators only partly administer?

can you tell me a gift we do not do in part? can it be said we teach perfectly, we help perfectly, we administer perfectly? I really don't think we can, it is all in part because we are in part.

"In part" does not mean imperfect. You are making the mistake of thinking it is a qualitative term. It is quantitative.

perhaps instead of highlighting "know in part" you should include the first person plural "we know in part and we prophesy in part" what's the common element here? it is us... we are the "in part" not the gifts given to us.

"in part" is describing the verb not the pronoun. It says "we prophesy in part", not "we who are in part, prophesy". In fact "we" does not appear in the original Greek, just the plural form of the verb.

If it is us who are in part do we cease to exist when the Lord returns? - "but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.". I thought continuists believe the gifts ceased at the 2nd coming, not us.


the NIV uses "completeness" which is quantitative and this seem to be to pair it better with "in part". This becomes more apparent when looking at the 1984 edition which accomplishes the same thing but favours the qualitative pairing "perfect" with "imperfect". So it is difficult to know which is a better translation based on the NIV as it seems their agenda is like vs like rather than looking at the word and translating to it's best counterpart in English. it is laudable and I think helps the reader better but for serious study it should be excluded as having a bais, not a hidden agenda or conspiracy but simply forcing like vs like to make it read better. Overwhelmingly the word is translated as a qualitative and this actually includes the NIV, they perhaps favour the quantitative in this passage but the other uses of this word in scripture they favour the qualitative.

It is not just the NIV that translates it this way. AMP, DLNT, EHV, GW, ISV, TLB, MOUNCE, NIRV, NRSV, OJB, WEB also translate it as 'complete'. Do they also have an "agenda" and "bias"?

The reason teleios should be translated completeness is as follows:
  • 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.

the issue with it being irresponsible is that it effects doctrine and important doctrine as well related to how the HS operates and then how we approach the HS. the idea of the completion of the canon is not addressed anywhere else in scripture nor is this idea of diminished gifts of the HS. This doesn't void the completion of the canon and I'm not sure why it would as it was not about prophetic fulfillment.

If you are quite happy with the idea of a completed canon, then why would you object to it appearing once in scripture? I'll tell you why. It is because it is mentioned in association with the charismatic gifts ceasing, an idea you find repugnant due to your denominational bias. If the completion of the canon was mentioned without gifts ceasing you would be perfectly happy to accept it. So your argument that it cannot be the completion of the canon because that concept is not mentioned elsewhere is completely bogus.

You say it can't be eschatological because the passage has no eschatological context, well, how does that matter? You are in the same problem as there is no other prophetic context in the passage either so perhaps it can't be prophetic either. Clearly Paul is saying a prophetic statement and eschatological events are within the context of prophecy and do not disagree with this passage. Paul also didn't write in chapters and verses and 1 Corinthians and all his letters for that matter do have eschatological context but not one has a completion of the canon context.

You can only make it eschatalogical by making unwarranted assumptions - a very bad exegetical practice. The text says what it says. We must read the meaning out of it, not our own ideas into it.

Paul opens this letter in a context of the eschatological and closes in the same context of the eschatological or waiting for the coming of the Lord. What exactly do you think the Corinthian church would think the coming of the perfect would be? Why would they think it would be anything else but Christ? It in fact should be so obvious that all other interpretations should demand a lot more to base it on then one abstract word that could be interpreted theoretically to mean anything when looked at in isolation. It's just plain irresponsible and this is a rather new phenomenon demanding this word mean something else. I don't question the canon as you asked but why do you question pretty much all of church history before the 20th century on this passage?

'The perfect' is an English translation, and a dubious one at that. All the Corinthians would have seen is the Greek word teleios. And that word is never associated with anything eschatological. Paul's use of the word favours completeness over perfection. So I would expect the Corinthians would have been just as perplexed as expositors today are about the meaning of this passage.

I expect the canon view would have been far more popular in pre-twentieth century commentaries if the King James Version had rendered the word "completeness" instead of 'the perfect'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My point has been given He was all of these things Son of Man, everything He did was what a son of man should be able to do also. The Word of God humiliated Himself in that form to vindicate us - not Himself.

Every single exploit Son of Man (The Word of God) did on this plane of existence should be operable by every son of man who follows The Word of God Himself.

He told us the things He did aren't marvelous, and that we should be able to do the same things - even more - as born again sons of man turned sons of the Mot High God. The Word of God executed faith, patience, love and obedience well before He was enveloped in the Spirit after baptism.

So, as to the OP: if Son of Man can do it, we can do it. Handicapping ourselves because of our own hangups or fear does not excuse the fact that we should be doing exploits by consequence of being a son of God walking in the path of the Word of God.
Yes i agree... And am increasingly learning to do so :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Gibberish talk and its interpretation was a crafty Paul's solution to the babes of Corinthians at that time. It can never apply to grown up Christians like us.


Thanks for listing elaborately.


It is not just grace. Truth go with it. Salvation has to be earned, not free.

Not a gift. He is part of the Godhead.



Ministry doesn't involve with governments.
13. Gift of Evangelism (Winner of Souls)
14. Gift of Pastorship.
15. Gift of Teaching.

Here are the Gifts (clearly mentioned) that are not in operation today:


Still exist.


Not gibberish interpretation, but interpretation of existing foreign languages.

No apostles other than who Jesus chose and one replaced by 11 apostles.


Continued



Exists. Help from the Holy Spirit is different from this for understanding.


Other gifts that the Bible mentions the word "gift" in context, but does not tie it directly tie a particular gift by name are:


They are not just gifts, but our responsibility too.


No they are not gifts. They are the fruit of the Spirit that we should cultivate for salvation


A must for the ministry, not gifted

Help from the Holy Spirit not a gift.



No, they continue guide the true believers in their path of perfection
absolutly nothing here but erronious opinion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Let me clarify it it even more Oscarr,..

The fruit and the gifts go hand in hand together, they are both deposited within the Christian that is filled with The Holy Spirit. You don't have one without the other.

Born again Christians are "sealed" with The Spirit until the day of redemption, but not filled, so they haven't experienced the walking in the Spirit life yet.

Many of them reject it in fact.
Correct. The reality is that if there is not the fruit of the Spirit, the manifestation of the gift is false and does more harm than good.
 
Upvote 0