Destroying the Disastrous Doctrine of Cessationism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm asking you and Dave. Please give me some direction. All this talk makes me wonder if when I spoke to my depression and told it to go and it left; was it God or the devil behind my healing, because there are some who say that couldn't happen today because the Apostles are dead now.
I don't see that it has anything to do with the Apostles. They may have been gifted with healing abilities, but it is not as though no healing can occur unless one of the Twelve or Paul intervene with you.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No we don't. The scripture you posted wasn't saying that.

Do you know what eisegesis means?
Well, the Revelation of Jesus Christ is nothing other than the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Right down to the very words used.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, the Revelation of Jesus Christ is nothing other than the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Right down to the very words used.
Still, there's nothing in your post linking the book of Revelation and the closing of the Canon with the "perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Still, there's nothing in your post linking the book of Revelation and the closing of the Canon with the "perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10.
Only if you think Paul was a false prophet would you claim otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not Paul's fault you present a weak and unconvincing argument for cessationism.
How can two exact phrases mean two different things? You are trying to say 1 apple +1 apple = 2 apples sometimes but not others.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul said the Revelation of Jesus Christ would ALSO confirm them unto the end. Meaning your interpretation of "perfect" is off.
Are you a preterist? That's the only conceivable way you can assume "telos" in 1 Cor 1:8 refers to anything other than the day Jesus physically returns.

And besides that, the word used in 1 Cor 13:10 is teleios, not telos.

Teleios is usually used in reference to maturing in sanctification. "Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect".

Telos (noun) is used for the end o r consummation of a thing. Often in association with the parousia.

So no, you've not shown a sufficient link between 1 Cor 1:7, or 8, and 1 Cor 13:10. Unless you're a preterist? And then we're having a very different conversation.

On the other hand, my interpretation of "the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 referring to love fits the immediate context and the Biblical framework of perfection very well.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SinoBen
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

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Doctrine is formed from scripture.


The doctrine of Christ.



JLB
Yes, but there is descriptive Scripture and prescriptive Scripture. You don't normalize special events in the Bible. You don't normalize them to the Christian experience because God has not stated that such things are guaranteed to every believer for all time.

I am not saying that doctrinal material isn't viewable in narratives or descriptive text. What I am talking about is creating doctrines out of special events that occur in the Bible.

For example: False teachers, like televangelists use the story of Elijah and widow of Zerapeth who used the last of her food to feed the prophet, to justify telling people that if they will send him their last dollars that they need for medicine, or food or rent, that God will provide for them just like He did for that widow. They are calling on people to act in presumption upon God for something He never promised He would do and they are using that event in Elijah's ministry to do it.

People will say, "If God did it for them, He will do it for me or you," and that simply not true and is not stated anywhere in the Bible. You can put out a lot of false teaching by getting people to presumptuously expect something from Him that He did not promise to do.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
the completion of the canon is not a biblical theme and scripture itself cannot support this interpretation where an eschatological interpretation not only is the historical interpretation but has wide bible support such as in the opening and closing of 1 Corinthians. It is the only responsible biblical interpretation.

Non sequitur. That fact the completion of the canon is not a common theme in scripture does not exclude it from being the correct interpretation of 1 Cor 13.

The eschatological view is not the only historic interpretation of that passage.

It is not a responsible interpretation when there are a number of flaws with the theory (which you have not addressed).

the context is of alll the spiritual gifts and the 3 are used representative for all the gifts. this is completely consistent with the way Paul previously handles the immediate context of spiritual gifts with the images of the body and showing how love is above all, not to mention the poetic style he uses that also is suggestive of this.

The two gifts that disappear when completeness comes are the 2 revelatory gifts, prophecy and words of knowledge. It 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 he would most likely have kept the same ones he used earlier.

Paul is very specific that only the 2 revelatory gifts will be done away as they are "in part". If those 2 gifts are representative of all the other 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 piece of God's revelation to man; but none of the others makes sense. 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? None of those make sense.

Now what about the other problems with the eschatalogical view that I have highlighted?


If Paul wants to be clear he has no trouble doing this, but if he is meaning the completion of the canon and only the 3 gifts mention he does not highly cryptically and irresponsibly I might add, this is not consistent with Paul's style.

It is not cryptic at all. The two revelatory gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge are "in part" - they only provided piecemeal revelation. When "completeness" comes they both disappear and are replaced by a much clearer, complete form of revelation - the completed canon. It is less cryptic than the eschatological interpretation, with far less 'problems'.

Apostle is an untranslated word. it means "a messenger" or "sent out one" and it is not an abstract 1st century office of the church. The word actually is common greek and was more often used in a military context like an ambassador. Biblical speaking the word is used in different ways.

Jesus is called "the apostle and high priest" in Heb 3. Jesus himself quotes scripture saying "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners…" sent here is the verb form of apostle which would mean in that context Jesus would be an apostle "of the Lord". And all other scripture where Jesus speaks of being sent uses the same verb. Paul is not this kind of apostle.

The 12 disciples are all apostles. The 12 are "sent out" such as verse like "As you sent Me into the world, I have sent them into the world" the word "sent" is the verb for apostle. Acts 1 opens telling us of the chosen apostles and that Judas was replaced by Matthias "to take over this apostolic ministry". Paul is not this kind of apostles.

Paul was an apostle and he uniquely calls himself out as not just any apostle "sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead" so Paul identifies other apostles and separates himself in this mix as one called by God rather than man.

there were other apostles than just these 12 + Paul, for example, Barnabas was called an apostle in Acts 13. it's a fitting word to use because as Paul and Barnabas were literally "sent" out so can be called apostles simply by taking this task on but it affirms the sending out was by the church and the HS so this apostleship was ordained and made clear from others outside the 12. There are also others, in Romans 16 Pauls makes reference to a husband and wife and calls them "outstanding among the apostles". Others called apostles are Silvanas and Timothy and possibly more unmentioned. So apostles can be used more broadly in a missional aspect and these examples show us it's broad use. The word "missionary" is not in the bible but it is an anglicized version of the a Latin use of apostle. Missionaries are "sent out" and if they were identified in the bible they would be called apostles.

All Christians are also "sent out" and so all Christians are apostle of Christ, in that we carry the message of Christ and are sent out by Christ to do this, but this is different than the role of Paul as an apostle so being an "apostle" isn't such a cut and dry statement.

By far the most common use of the word 'apostle' in the NT is as a term to refer to the handful of men who were divinely appointed, miracle working, spokesmen of Christ. ie the Twelve + Paul + 2 or 3 others. When combined with the definite article "the apostles", as it does in Eph 2:20 for example, it refers exclusively to them. The Greek word 'apostolos' can also mean 'messenger' but it is only used in that sense in 3 places in the NT (John 13:16, Phil 2:25, 2 Cor 8:23) and our bible translators are wise enough to not use the English word 'apostle' in those places but instead use the word 'messenger' (or similar) to avoid confusion.

BDAG Lexicon
apostelos ἀπόστολος

① of messengers without extraordinary status delegate, envoy, messenger (opp. ὁ πέμψας) J 13:16. Of Epaphroditus, messenger of the Philippians Phil 2:25.—2 Cor 8:23.

② of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy (cp. Epict. 3, 22, 23 of Cynic wise men: ἄγγελος ἀπὸ τ. Διὸς ἀπέσταλται).

ⓐ of prophets Lk 11:49; Rv 18:20; cp. 2:2; Eph 3:5.
ⓑ of Christ (w. ἀρχιερεύς) Hb 3:1 (cp. ApcEsdr 2:1 p. 25, 29 T.; Just., A I, 12, 9; the extra-Christian firman Sb 7240, 4f οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς μόνος. Μααμετ ἀπόστολος θεοῦ). GWetter, ‘D. Sohn Gottes’ 1916, 26ff.
ⓒ but predominately in the NT (of the apologists, only Just.) of a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys. Also Judaism had a figure known as apostle (שָׁלִיחַ; Schürer III 124f w. sources and lit.; Billerb. III 1926, 2–4; JTruron, Theology 51, ’48, 166–70; 341–43; GDix, ibid. 249–56; 385f; JBühner, art. ἄ. in EDNT I 142–46). In Christian circles, at first ἀ. denoted one who proclaimed the gospel, and was not strictly limited: Paul freq. calls himself an ἀ.: Ro 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1f; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Ti 1:1; 2:7; 2 Ti 1:1; Tit 1:1.—1 Cl 47:1. Of Barnabas Ac 14:14; 15:2. Of Andronicus and Junia (less prob. Junias, s. Ἰουνία) Ro 16:7. Of James, the Lord’s brother Gal 1:19. Of Peter 1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1. Then esp. of the 12 apostles οἱ δώδεκα ἀ. (cp. ParJer 9:20; AscIs 3:21; 4:3) Mt 10:2; Mk 3:14; Lk 22:14 (v.l. οἱ δώδεκα); cp. 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; Ac 1:26 (P-HMenoud, RHPR 37 ’57, 71–80); Rv 21:14; PtK 3 p. 15, 18. Peter and the apostles Ac 2:37; 5:29. Paul and apostles Pol 9:1 (cp. AcPlTh Aa I, 235 app. of Thecla). Gener. the apostles Mk 6:30; Lk 24:10; 1 Cor 4:9; 9:5; 15:7; 2 Cor 11:13; 1 Th 2:7; Ac 1:2; 2:42f; 4:33, 35, 37; 5:2,12, 18, 34 v.l., 40; 6:6; 8:1, 14, 18; 9:27; 11:1; 14:4; 2 Pt 3:2; Jd 17; IEph 11:2; IMg 7:1; 13:2; ITr 2:2; 3:1; 7:1; IPhld 5:1; ISm 8:1; D ins; 11:3, 6. As a governing board, w. the elders Ac 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4. As possessors of the most important spiritual gift 1 Cor 12:28f.Proclaimers of the gospel 1 Cl 42:1f; B 5:9; Hs 9, 17, 1. Prophesying strife 1 Cl 44:1. Working miracles 2 Cor 12:12. W. overseers, teachers and attendants Hv 3, 5, 1; Hs 9, 15, 4; w. teachers Hs 9, 25, 2; w. teachers, preaching to those who had fallen asleep Hs 9, 16, 5; w. var. Christian officials IMg 6:1; w. prophets Eph 2:20; D 11:3; Pol 6:3. Christ and the apostles as the foundation of the church IMg 13:1; ITr 12; 2; cp. Eph 2:20. οἱ ἀ. and ἡ ἐκκλησία w. the three patriarchs and the prophets IPhld 9:1. The Holy Scriptures named w. the ap. 2 Cl 14:2 (sim. ApcSed 14:10 p. 136, 17 Ja.). Paul ironically refers to his opponents (or the original apostles; s. s.v. ὑπερλίαν) as οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀ. the super-apostles 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11. The orig. apostles he calls οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀ. Gal 1:17; AcPlCor 2:4.


So did the gift of an apostle cease? depends what you mean by this. I can't speak for you but I am called as a messenger (apostle) of Christ to preach the gospel. if this was a gift would it not be the greatest of them all?

So do you call yourself an apostle (of the biblical kind)? Do we still have apostles like Paul, John, Peter, etc today? Or have they ceased?

yet Christians are still sent out

But Christians today are not the foundation of the church as Eph 2:20 says the apostles and prophets were. The only conclusion to draw from that verse is that both apostles and prophets have ceased.

we are sent to those who have yet to accept the Bible, apostolic gifts may be warranted as well so that Christ may establish his authority and by glorified.

Faith comes by hearing the gospel as presented in scripture (Rom 10:17), not by observing miracles. Christ and the apostles in scripture have already been authenticated by their miracles.

where does it state it will stop after we put together the bible? it doesn't. so why jump to this conclusion? The bible can only support an eschatological meaning to this verse in question so why try and force another meaning, especially one only confirmed outside of scripture?

There is a strong allusion to it in the main passage that deals with the cessation of the revelatory gifts. Far more so than the return of Christ. There is not a single verse in scripture that says all the gifts would continue until His return.

An important distinction here is if the gifts are continually offered or if the gifts are continually received. the latter is dependant upon man, the former is dependant upon the HS. I'm not really interested in what man does or does not do, I'm interested in the will of the HS.

Right. The Holy Spirit distributes gifts according to his will (1 Cor 12:11). If certain gifts have been absent from the church since apostolic times what does that tell you about His will for those gifts?

spiritual neglect or drift doesn't need to have biblical evidence (but there're lots if you want some like the letter to the Church in Sardis)

So the God withdrew the gifts because the church neglected them? That means God's 'punishment' for the errant cessationist church was to withdraw the very gifts that would enable them to reform. A vicious circular argument that makes no sense at all.

misuse is not a reason to sweep this under a 1st-century rug, nor is it a reason to continue neglecting what the bible teaches. The Corinthians got it wrong and after Paul tells them off he leaves them with "...do not forbid speaking in tongues"

It is not misuse of todays 'gifts' that I object to. It is their very nature I have a problem with. If the charismatic gifts that are claimed to have been reinstated in the last century are true NT gifts they would match the biblical descriptions. They don't. So what does that tell you about today's so called gifts? They are bogus are they not?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
All the apostles = no more to follow.

Unfortunately for you there is no scripture that says anything remotely close to such nonsense.

He gave the five fold ministry of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers for the purpose of equipping the saints, for the work of the ministry.

This will never change until Christ returns.


And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— Ephesians 4:11-15



JLB
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For example: False teachers, like televangelists use the story of Elijah and widow of Zerapeth who used the last of her food to feed the prophet, to justify telling people that if they will send him their last dollars that they need for medicine, or food or rent, that God will provide for them just like He did for that widow. They are calling on people to act in presumption upon God for something He never promised He would do and they are using that event in Elijah's ministry to do it.


Agreed.



JLB
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Please stop it.

The point is no one has proof there are miracles performed today, until you have that proof, you're just trying to confuse the issue.
I disagree. There is plenty of proof. However, evidence is relative to one's level of skepticism. The more skeptical you are, the greater the "proof" required to convince you. For example, if you were to ask me what I did this weekend and I told you I was at the beach with my family. Most reasonable people would believe my personal testimony. However, if you were skeptical, you would demand "proof". So I show you a picture of me at the beach with my family that was dated on the exact day I claimed. Of course, being the skeptic that you are, you say that that a picture of you at the beach doesn't prove anything. I could be photo shopped. That may be someone else's family or my identical twin brother. Do you see my point? The problem isn't that "there is no proof", rather, there is no proof that your skepticism will accept. This is the same argument I have with agnostics who claim that "their is no proof that God exists." To which, I give the same answer.

So here is a question for you. If no one has proof that there are miracles performed today, what proof do you have to show miracles were performed in the Bible?
 
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

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
disagree. There is plenty of proof. However, evidence is relative to one's level of skepticism.

Proof is proof, you can play the twist it around game all day pretending to make it look like you have a point but you do not.

Evidence is relative to ones level of naivety.

I've seen people here say that someone saying something happened is proof...ridiculous.

Curious of your level, what is proof to you?
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First of all, cessationism is a dying doctrine because almost ALL of the old denominations have abandoned it. The following passage was used as an excuse for starting it …

“But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)

PROBLEM:
Since “that which is perfect” is NOT specified, any interpretation of it must be an assumption.


At some point, the church claimed the “perfect” meant the completion of the Canon of Scripture.

PROBLEM:
Did knowledge also pass away?

PROBLEM:
The early church fathers witnessed the gifts of the Spirit (ref: Wikipedia) …
Justin Martyr (d.165) -- “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time.”
Irenaeus (d.202) -- “In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light, for the general benefit, the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, who also the apostles term spiritual”
Origen (d.253) -- “He (Origen) professes to have been an eye-witness to many instances of exorcism, healing, and prophecy” … “Origen has been described as ‘the greatest genius the early church ever produced’ ”.
Augustine (d.430) -- “Augustine noted that miracles in his own day were not as spectacular or noteworthy as those at the dawn of Christ-ianity, but that they continued to take place.”

Cessationism begins -- The obvious reason why the church came up with this doctrine
Powerful church leaders (who did NOT have any of the 9 spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12) were obviously jealous of those who had them!
So starting after 400 a.d., these leaders simply declared that the gifts had ceased … using
1 Corinthians 13:10 as an excuse! Could any-thing be more obvious? Less obvious is that Satan was involved in deceiving these men
into satisfying their desires.


PROBLEM:
The Almighty God says He does not change

“For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6)
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

God has always been a God of signs, wonders, and miracles. He performed them all throughout the OT (Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.), and all throughout the NT (as a confirmation of the truth of Jesus’ gospel).
“… in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that (everywhere) I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” (Romans 15:19)
“… God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?” (Hebrews 2:4)


PROBLEM:
Are verses like this in the NT only for the church back then?

“Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” (James 5:14-15)
If this was only for the NT church, then what about all the other verses in the NT, such as the salvation verses? Who can divide the NT verses: Those for back then … versus … Those for now?

PROBLEM:
God’s miraculous signs were prophesied for these last days

“But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; and they shall prophesy … before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.’ ” (Acts 2:16-20)

PROBLEM:
Peter prophesied that the Pentecost experience would be common for many
“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off,
as many as the Lord our God will call.’ ”
(Acts 2:38-39)

Peter promised that “as many as the Lord our God will call” among them and their ancestors … would receive the same “gift of the Holy Spirit” as was given to the 120 on this Day of Pentecost. Those of the 120 who had not received the Holy Spirit previously (see Luke 20:22), received the born-again experience … and ALL of the 120 received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, evidenced by: “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues (Acts 2:4)

The obvious reason why cessationism has been one of Satan’s biggest successes
God’s method of confirming the truth of Jesus’ gospel with miracles, etc. was squashed for many centuries! Due to the church’s UNBELIEF, many people have been robbed of this confirming evidence of the truth of the gospel, and therefore did not believe. Not only that, but countless people have been robbed of being healed of all manner of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual problems/

Several reasons why BACs today choose to believe in cessationism
Some simply have been misled-brainwashed-deceived about it since childhood.
Some are guilty of the serious sins of doubt,
lack of faith, and unbelief.

You haven't shown anything that shows they haven't ceased. You've made assumptions just like you've accused those Chruch leaders of the 400's of doing. If you'd like to discuss the subject I'd be glad to. We could start by looking at the reason for the gifts in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Non sequitur. That fact the completion of the canon is not a common theme in scripture does not exclude it from being the correct interpretation of 1 Cor 13.

The eschatological view is not the only historic interpretation of that passage.

It is not a responsible interpretation when there are a number of flaws with the theory (which you have not addressed).

that misrepresents the facts. it's not that it's just not a common theme it's that it's not a theme at all. The bible doesn't speak of this event. if the gifts in question are to pass before the others during this special time do you not think it would be a repeated theme in the bible? I don't see why its absence in the bible is not a concern to this view.

an eschatological interpretation is the only biblical supported theme and this is why it is responsible. it is also the popular historical interpretation, not to mention the natural interpretation of the text. the cessationist view looks at the effect first, which is the missing gifts and scans scripture for the cause and this is poor hermeneutics.

The two gifts that disappear when completeness comes are the 2 revelatory gifts, prophecy and words of knowledge. It 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 he would most likely have kept the same ones he used earlier.

Paul is very specific that only the 2 revelatory gifts will be done away as they are "in part". If those 2 gifts are representative of all the other 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 piece of God's revelation to man; but none of the others makes sense. 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? None of those make sense.

Now what about the other problems with the eschatalogical view that I have highlighted?

what other problems?

all gifts are in part as they reflect an absence or inability within ourselves to fully perform these tasks and a dependance upon the HS to do them. the passage speaks of 3 gifts, not 2, not sure what gift you are ommiting but all are mentioned in ch 12 and still work to tie it back to all the gifts in ch 12. but this isn't the only reason, it's Paul style that he has repeated 3 previous times in the immediate context by referring to a few but meaning them all, not to mention the poetic style of the language he is uses also indicates this.

It is not cryptic at all. The two revelatory gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge are "in part" - they only provided piecemeal revelation. When "completeness" comes they both disappear and are replaced by a much clearer, complete form of revelation - the completed canon. It is less cryptic than the eschatological interpretation, with far less 'problems'.

in a biblical vacuum (which would be sola scripture), it cannot be supported and the only view is eschatological

By far the most common use of the word 'apostle' in the NT is as a term to refer to the handful of men who were divinely appointed, miracle working, spokesmen of Christ. ie the Twelve + Paul + 2 or 3 others. When combined with the definite article "the apostles", as it does in Eph 2:20 for example, it refers exclusively to them. The Greek word 'apostolos' can also mean 'messenger' but it is only used in that sense in 3 places in the NT (John 13:16, Phil 2:25, 2 Cor 8:23) and our bible translators are wise enough to not use the English word 'apostle' in those places but instead use the word 'messenger' (or similar) to avoid confusion.

in the NASB the word occurs 80 times, it is translated as apostle 19 times. this shows the broadness of the word.

So do you call yourself an apostle (of the biblical kind)? Do we still have apostles like Paul, John, Peter, etc today? Or have they ceased?

the question you should be asking is if the spiritual gift of an apostle has ceased. this sort of plays against your rule that the only revelatory gifts have ceased. it's arbitrary to say there are no more foundational apostles, obviously there are not, but rather what is the focus of the gift is the better question.

But Christians today are not the foundation of the church as Eph 2:20 says the apostles and prophets were. The only conclusion to draw from that verse is that both apostles and prophets have ceased.

there are different kinds of apostles, some clearly belong to the beginning, others have more missional roles.

Faith comes by hearing the gospel as presented in scripture (Rom 10:17), not by observing miracles. Christ and the apostles in scripture have already been authenticated by their miracles.

don't exclude the work of the HS in hearing the gospel, words alone are not enough and it is the spirit that pulls people in.

There is a strong allusion to it in the main passage that deals with the cessation of the revelatory gifts. Far more so than the return of Christ. There is not a single verse in scripture that says all the gifts would continue until His return.

the only verse that may arguably be defended to support the canon view is 1 Cor 13:10. I don't see why it is a strong allusion to this, at best it would be a cryptic allusion but since the rest of the Bible cannot agree with this (making it all the more cryptic) why do we waste our time with this interpretation?

Right. The Holy Spirit distributes gifts according to his will (1 Cor 12:11). If certain gifts have been absent from the church since apostolic times what does that tell you about His will for those gifts?

gifts are not distributed without our control, we can reject what is offered.

So the God withdrew the gifts because the church neglected them? That means God's 'punishment' for the errant cessationist church was to withdraw the very gifts that would enable them to reform. A vicious circular argument that makes no sense at all.

gifts are still offered. this is not punishment just a product of not forcing it.

It is not misuse of todays 'gifts' that I object to. It is their very nature I have a problem with. If the charismatic gifts that are claimed to have been reinstated in the last century are true NT gifts they would match the biblical descriptions. They don't. So what does that tell you about today's so called gifts? They are bogus are they not?

that doesn't matter, Christians can get a lot of things very wrong. what is more important is the loss of impact that Christ desires for his Church through these gifts. wag your finger at people who do it wrong, that's fine, but let's use that as a reason to teach it right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HatGuy
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Curious of your level, what is proof to you?
You are the one who is demanding proof. You tell me. What would "proof" of the miraculous look like to you? At what point would you consider something to be a miracle and not some phenomenon that is currently unexplained by science?
 
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

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Non sequitur. That fact the completion of the canon is not a common theme in scripture does not exclude it from being the correct interpretation of 1 Cor 13.
But the fact that other common themes of scripture can be linked to 1 Cor 13:10 with much more ease, and much more naturally, than the cessationist viewpoint makes the cessationist viewpoint very questionable.

The plain reading of scripture leads one to believe the gifts are still valid. The only way one can read otherwise is to engage in eisegesis - read history and experience into the text. But even then, the cessationist view is questionable.

One should rather, IMO, spend all the time and energy studying on how the gifts should be used and use the energy to build the Church up in those gifts properly and teach the Church how to use them properly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DamianWarS
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.