Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Huh? So when Paul says, "When I became a man, I put away baby things", that kind of statement:It is a bit difficult for me to be an advocate for Robert Thomas when I don't agree with his view, but I am quite sure he is not saying the gifts are immature, nor can it be implied. If I were to ask "By what criteria can we tell if a infant has matured?....Is he still being breastfed, is he still wearing diapers, does he still use a carseat". That doesn't mean any of those things themselves are immature and childish. They are in fact very sensible and essential for the well-being of a child.
And as I recall, THAT view is typically understood by some of the maturity-party cessationists to extrapolate to Continuationism. Either way, you're fighting a losing battle. (We can discuss this point in more detail).Unlike Thomas I do not think 'teleios' should be translated 'maturity' (not do any bible translations).
(Sigh) No, YOU are the one proving my extrapolation is correct - by continuing to dodge and evade the SPECIFIC questions and objections about Thomas in those posts. Here they are again: post 483 and post 505, and post 533, and post 565.Nor do I put undue emphasis on 1 Cor 13:11. That was just an analogy Paul uses, just like the analogy of the dim mirror in the next verse. Paul is not saying the early church was childish, any more that he is saying they were dim. His point with the analogies is that things changed for the better...No it doesn't lead to that conclusion. That is you "extrapolating" (twisting) - putting words into someone's mouth that they never said, nor meant. Actually it is worse than that. In post #505 you said "Thomas was clear" that prophecy was immature and done away. That was an outright lie, he said nothing of the sort. So yes you should apologize for slandering him.
THAT's my extrapolation. And you've had every opportunity to prove me wrong. Until then, I stand by those words. Here's the nature of this conversation:In post #505 you said "Thomas was clear" that prophecy was immature and done away. That was an outright lie, he said nothing of the sort
(Sigh). No, the two parties differ because:Yes. Except that it is essential to the Continuationist argument.
No continuation, no Continuationism. In that case, what's left is "The Holy Spirit gifts whomever he chooses, whenever he chooses" and there is no dispute separating Continuers from Cessationists.
Or should we discuss your view? You seem to be hedging your "view" with disclaimers and obscurities - one wonders if you're willing to take any kind of stance at all. Anyway, earlier you seemed to summarize your view. You tried to slam this one in my face, so to speak:It is a bit difficult for me to be an advocate for Robert Thomas when I don't agree with his view...Unlike Thomas I do not think 'teleios' should be translated 'maturity' (not do any bible translations). Nor do I put undue emphasis on 1 Cor 13:11. That was just an analogy Paul uses, just like the analogy of the dim mirror in the next verse. Paul is not saying the early church was childish, any more that he is saying they were dim. His point with the analogies is that things changed for the better.
In ch 2, Paul characterized the Corinthians as immature "babes" and used that same Greek word for "babes" in 1Cor 13. He also used the same Greek word for maturity (telion) in both chapters. Or does telion indeed mean perfection? In everyday life, transition from infancy to manhood is universally understood to mean maturation rather than perfection. Admittedly one might want to second-guess that reading due to theological presuppositions (theological biases), but nonetheless a consensus on normal usage carries considerable weight in hermeneutics.Let's just summise by observing...How many of the dozens of scholars commenting on 1 Cor 13 agree that the gifts completely cease when "the perfect" comes, never to return? All of them.
You have opted for "perfection" instead of "mature". I'm confused. Doesn't that make you a Continuationist? Yes, I'm aware this might be a misextrapolation of you, as I'm still unfamiliar with your views. At this point I am asking it as a QUESTION. Please explain to me how your "perfection" isn't Continuationist.Let's just summise by observing...How many of the dozens of scholars commenting on 1 Cor 13 agree that the gifts completely cease when "the perfect" comes, never to return? All of them.
Do you think miracles are the exception or the rule in scripture from Genesis through Acts ?
besides these few people below over a 4000 year period where are the miracles ?
1-God used Moses to perform the miracles to have His people released from bondage to Pharaoh.
2- God used a few prophets after Moses like Elijah and Elisha to perform miracles.
3- Then a huge gap in miracles until Jesus comes on the scene.
4- Then we see the Apostles performing miracles.
In each of these cases the Miracles validated their message that they were Gods mouthpiece and God uses those miracles, signs and wonders to authenticate the message came from God.
One thing that is often overlooked in discussions about signs and miracles is the timing and placement of them in the Scriptures. Contrary to popular belief, people in Bible times did not see miracles all the time. In fact, the miracles of the Bible are generally grouped around special events in God's dealing with mankind. Israel's deliverance from Egypt and entrance into the Promised Land were accompanied by many miracles, but the miracles faded away soon afterward. During the late kingdom years, when God was about to place the people in exile, He allowed some of His prophets to do miracles. When Jesus came to live among us, He did miracles, and in the early ministry of the apostles, they did miracles, but outside of those times, we see very few miracles or signs in the Bible. The vast majority of people who lived in Bible times never saw signs and wonders with their own eyes. They had to live by faith in what God had already revealed to them.
In the early church, the signs and wonders were primarily centered around the first presentation of the gospel among various people groups. On the day of Pentecost, we read that there were “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5). It was to these Jews, who had been raised in other lands, and spoke those foreign languages (v. 6-11), that the sign of tongues was first given. They acknowledged that they were hearing in their native tongues about the wonderful works of God, and Peter told them that the only appropriate response was to repent of their sins (v. 38). When the gospel was first presented among the Samaritans, we read that Philip did signs and wonders (Acts 8:13).
Again, when Peter was sent to Cornelius, a gentile, God gave a miraculous sign to confirm His work. “And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:45-46). When Peter was questioned by the other apostles, he gave this as evidence of God's leading, and the others “glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:18).
In every instance, the sign gifts were a confirmation of God's message and messenger, in order that people might hear and believe. Once the message was confirmed, the signs faded away. We typically don't have a need for those signs to be repeated in our lives, but we do need to receive the same gospel message. got ?
hope this helps !!!
(Sigh) No, YOU are the one proving my extrapolation is correct - by continuing to dodge and evade the SPECIFIC questions and objections about Thomas in those posts. Here they are again: post 483 and post 505, and post 533, and post 565.
Does everyone see this? Here again, I'm literally BEGGING swordsman1 to provide me an alternative extrapolation of Robert Thomas in light of the specific points of question and objection. He DOESN'T HAVE ONE. He just keeps assuming precisely what is in dispute. That's not a reply. That's not an argument. That's not a debate.
Or should we discuss your view? You seem to be hedging your "view" with disclaimers and obscurities - one wonders if you're willing to take any kind of stance at all. Anyway, earlier you seemed to summarize your view. You tried to slam this one in my face, so to speak:
In ch 2, Paul characterized the Corinthians as immature "babes" and used that same Greek word for "babes" in 1Cor 13. He also used the same Greek word for maturity (telion) in both chapters. Or does telion indeed mean perfection? In everyday life, transition from infancy to manhood is universally understood to mean maturation rather than perfection. Admittedly one might want to second-guess that reading due to theological presuppositions (theological biases), but nonetheless a consensus on normal usage carries considerable weight in hermeneutics.
Even Christ, in His infancy:
"Spoke like a child, thought like a child, reasoned like a child" (12:11)
Did He gradually become 'perfect'? Or rather 'mature'? His knowledge developed gradually over time without reaching infinitude on earth. He matured. Post-resurrectionally, however, he reassumed His perfection. Instantly! Notice the contrast.
(1) Maturation is a slow, painstaking, gradual development. It is a quantitative growth of the existing state.
(2) Perfection is a qualitative shift - it is an instantaneous abandonment of the existing state.
And the maturity-party cessationists (including Robert Thomas) agree with the above distinctions. Thomas states of the Greek word telion, "This is quantitative, not qualitative, so to teleion must have the same quantitative connotation" (Robert Thomas, "1Cor 13:11 Revisited: An Exegetical Update," Masters Seminary Journal, Vol 4:2 (1993), p. 190).
A qualitative transition (perfection) seems eschatological. If the gifts remain until we become perfect in heaven, Continuationism is correct. As you insisted:
In that case prophecy wasn't put away, because it was thoroughly adult. Your reading of Thomas, then, is this:(Sigh) I've already explained to you why your "extrapolation" of Robert Thomas' view is bogus. Just because the early church matured and stopped needing prophecy to instruct them does not mean prophecy was childish.
Thanks for the list of scholars who support the canon view. Now please address the six objections that I raised against it. Otherwise that's like me saying, "You should be a Roman Catholic because, see here, I've got a whole list of scholars that support this view."I have expressed my own understanding of 1 Cor 13:8-13 many times on this forum. It is essentially the canon view, which has considerable support from scholars as detailed here, including a few links to their expositions.
Wow. That's an effective rebuttal. I'm terribly impressed.Look, I could spend hours exposing your exegetical and logical fallacies but I have better things to do with my life (at least for the time being).
Gotcha. Because the Reformists introduced views contrary to mainstream opinion, they should have been dismissed as heretics. Didn't realize that you were opposed to the Reformation and reform in general. But that's your prerogative.The simple fact that your unorthodox theories have ZERO scholarly support tells us which end of the heresy scale your views reside.
And stop telling lies. For example I cited where your cessationist friend Robert Thomas drew the same conclusion on 1Cor 13 as I did. And I linked you to posts where I cited other cessationists scholars who concur with some of my main points.The simple fact that your unorthodox theories have ZERO scholarly support tells us which end of the heresy scale your views reside.
In that case prophecy wasn't put away, because it was thoroughly adult. Your reading of Thomas, then, is this:
"When I became an adult, I put away adult things, such as prophecy".
(Sigh). Again, you're not meeting the force of my objections. You are not postulating a reading of Thomas that is viable. At what point are you going to do that?
Thanks for the list of scholars who support the canon view. Now please address the six objections that I raised against it. Otherwise that's like me saying, "You should be a Roman Catholic because, see here, I've got a whole list of scholars that support this view."
Wow. That's an effective rebuttal. I'm terribly impressed.
Gotcha. Because the Reformists introduced views contrary to mainstream opinion, they should have been dismissed as heretics. Didn't realize that you were opposed to the Reformation and reform in general. But that's your prerogative.
No, sir. Prophecy isn't a tool for gaining (direct) revelation. It IS (direct) revelation - otherwise cesstionists would lack cause to debate this chapter! The chapter replaces immature revelation with mature revelation - Thomas is not denying that fact. So what is the immature revelation that gets replaced?No, I've already explained this to you. It's not a case of prophecy itself being childish or adult. Prophecy is a tool for God giving people information. It was used in the infant church to instruct people in the absence of scripture.
Um..er..every Christian should see himself as a potential reformer. Are you asking me to accept the teachings of Calvin and Luther uncritically? In that case, which one of them, in your opinion, is the pope?Haha. You think you are a Reformer?!
It appears to be a ridiculous position. Prophecy offers the potential for infallible revelation. Exegesis lacks that potential. So if God wants to MATURE us in revelation, wouldn't it be His intent to INCREASE the amount of prophecy? You're correct - that chapter is not rocket science. Here's a paraphrase of Paul's argument:It's not rocket science.
It's not rocket science.
As I intimated earlier, your cessationist friend Robert Thomas (not to mention Farnell and several others) soundly refuted that position. I guess you're saying that Thomas and Farnell don't do their homework well enough? They don't represent the opposing sides in a fair and fairly exhaustive manner? Having read hundreds of pages from Thomas, Farnell, and others, I'm satisfied I understand that position. That's why I raised six objections against it.But it wasn't just a list of scholars. I also linked to expositions fully explaining the canon view. If you had bothered to read them your objections would be answered..
Linguists can immediately tell if a spoken language is genuine simply by studying the structure of phonemes. The task is made all the easier if there is an interpretation into English. Professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' have categorically ruled it out as being a human language or a language of any kind. The most respected study is by Dr. William Samarin of the University of Toronto who did a 10 year study of Pentecostal tongues.
However he did point out that Samarin's views were that there were two types of tongues, one depicted in Acts and one in 1 Corinthians.
So Samarin is clearly not of the opinion that tongues has ceased..
I don't feel anything in particular about it. Should I?I see you are an anglican - how do you feel about the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking in tongues?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?