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

[Kaon]

Yes i agree... And am increasingly learning to do so

Excellent.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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?



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



"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.




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.

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 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.



'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'.

For me the biggest proof that 1 Corinthians 13 is talking about the close of the canon in addition to knowing in part and that which is “perfect” and seeing “face to face” (mirror darkly) is James 1. It also talks about seeing one’s own face like in a mirror and it talks about “perfect,” too. This “Perfect” is definited for us. The perfect law of Liberty.

All Scripture is profitable (with the closed canon) for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God will be perfect unto every good work. We conform to the image of Christ by obeying the mirror/glass/the Word (Bible). As we look in the mirror of the Bible, we conform more to the image of Christ by obeying it. So I propose that we do see Christ face to face but it when we look into the Bible glass/mirror by our obeying it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

Do you believe the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 are also gifts?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

I would agree with this statement, too. I believe a Christian can admit this truth but yet still not recognize that they don’t have these fruits in their own life.

 

[swordsman1]

For me the biggest proof that 1 Corinthians 13 is talking about the close of the canon in addition to knowing in part and that which is “perfect” and seeing “face to face” (mirror darkly) is James 1. It also talks about seeing one’s own face like in a mirror and it talks about “perfect,” too. This “Perfect” is definited for us. The perfect law of Liberty.

All Scripture is profitable (with the closed canon) for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God will be perfect unto every good work. We conform to the image of Christ by obeying the mirror/glass/the Word (Bible). As we look in the mirror of the Bible, we conform more to the image of Christ by obeying it. So I propose that we do see Christ face to face but it when we look into the Bible glass/mirror by our obeying it.

If you fancy a little bedtime reading, here is an good peer reviewed study of the main interpretations of 1 Cor 13:8-13 by R Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Do you believe the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 are also gifts?

No. They are personal attributes of the Holy Spirit that flow through a Spirit-filled person. These attributes are not gifts given to a person, but are retained by the Holy Spirit. For these attributes to show, a person has to be filled with the Spirit and allowing the Spirit to flow out through him. These are the evidence that he is truly converted to Christ.

The gifts of the Spirit are the Holy Spirit's tools of trade which are given, not to individuals, but to the whole body of Christ. Christians have the use of them for the particular role that the Holy Spirit chooses for them in the church. They are not there to enhance the believer's spirituality or reputation, but are there to strengthen and equip the church. A person who struts around saying, "I have the gifts, and soon I'll have all nine" is just a proud hypocrite that still needs to be converted!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I would agree with this statement, too. I believe a Christian can admit this truth but yet still not recognize that they don’t have these fruits in their own life.

The reality is that if they do not have the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, then they are still practising the works of the flesh, no matter how religious they appear to be. That means they are unconverted and still dead in their sins. When they slide down into hell, they will be with all the other unconverted religious people who thought they were the bees knees, not knowing that Jesus didn't know them, because they didn't press into God to make sure their conversion to Christ was complete and genuine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No. They are personal attributes of the Holy Spirit that flow through a Spirit-filled person. These attributes are not gifts given to a person, but are retained by the Holy Spirit. For these attributes to show, a person has to be filled with the Spirit and allowing the Spirit to flow out through him. These are the evidence that he is truly converted to Christ.

The gifts of the Spirit are the Holy Spirit's tools of trade which are given, not to individuals, but to the whole body of Christ. Christians have the use of them for the particular role that the Holy Spirit chooses for them in the church. They are not there to enhance the believer's spirituality or reputation, but are there to strengthen and equip the church. A person who struts around saying, "I have the gifts, and soon I'll have all nine" is just a proud hypocrite that still needs to be converted!

Yes. As I said in the post I just done - there is no middle ground - either a person is living the works of the flesh, or is walking in the Spirit with the fruits as evidence. A genuine convert to Christ cannot be both.

Although, I must say that we will always have a battle with the flesh and sometimes win and sometimes lose; but this doesn't mean that because we slip and fall sometimes that we are in a flesh lifestyle.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you fancy a little bedtime reading, here is an good peer reviewed study of the main interpretations of 1 Cor 13:8-13 by R Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

Thank you. Maybe in the morning.
God bless you brother.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The reality is that if they do not have the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, then they are still practising the works of the flesh, no matter how religious they appear to be. That means they are unconverted and still dead in their sins. When they slide down into hell, they will be with all the other unconverted religious people who thought they were the bees knees, not knowing that Jesus didn't know them, because they didn't press into God to make sure their conversion to Christ was complete and genuine.

We need to pray and love all the more those in whom we may suspect that might be that way. Shine the light of the Lord ever so brighter.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No. They are personal attributes of the Holy Spirit that flow through a Spirit-filled person.

I respectfully disagree. Acts of the Apostles 2:38 says the Holy Ghost is a gift. Gifts are something you receive without earning it. We did not earn the love of the Spirit, we received that love as as a by-product of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Love is a part of who the Holy Spirit is. We receive the gift of love because God is love. You cannot separate the two.

These attributes are not gifts given to a person, but are retained by the Holy Spirit. For these attributes to show, a person has to be filled with the Spirit and allowing the Spirit to flow out through him. These are the evidence that he is truly converted to Christ.

The attributes of the Holy Spirit are a part of Him; And the Holy Spirit is a gift (Acts of the Apostles 2:38).

The gifts of the Spirit are the Holy Spirit's tools of trade which are given, not to individuals, but to the whole body of Christ. Christians have the use of them for the particular role that the Holy Spirit chooses for them in the church.

The gifts in 2 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 are different kinds of gifts that are given selectively to different members of the body. There is the gift of pastorship, teaching, etc. These are gifted to certain members of the body. No doubt about it. I see the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 as gifts given to all believers who are pure of heart because they are a part of the Holy Spirit who is a gift. You cannot separate the attributes from GOD.

They are not there to enhance the believer's spirituality or reputation, but are there to strengthen and equip the church.

Gifts are for edifying the body of Christ. They are not for reputation (as you said), but you are not exactly correct in saying that gifts do not enhance a believer's spirituality or walk with God.

It is written,

11 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we hence forth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" (Ephesians 4:11-15).

Verse 11 lists the different offices that are gifts by God. He gave some to be evangelists, pastors, teachers..... for..... verse 12 says: The perfecting of the saints. Work of the ministry (preaching and making disciples), and edifying the body of Christ.

A person who struts around saying, "I have the gifts, and soon I'll have all nine" is just a proud hypocrite that still needs to be converted!

Yeah, if a believer did that, they would be violating one of the fruits of the Spirit which is humbleness. So I agree. A genuine believer who abides in God would not do this. They can repent if they are being like that (of course). There is always hope.

 

[Righttruth]

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).

I don't think scripture shows about cessation. It is later tradition that shows.

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."

Our life should be based on faith with fruit, belief of grace with truth and worship with spirit and truth. Faith only, grace only and spirit only are counterfeit concepts!

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

You are right. I was thinking from a different angle.

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

This is where politics enter. Power and authority corrupts. That was exactly what happened with Christianity when emperor Constantine meddled with it.

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).

Can God be contained in some selected writings?

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.

Fruit of the Spirit need to be cultivated, they will 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.

No, the rich young ruler was asked to give up on that. God will not do that for us.

 

[Righttruth]

absolutly nothing here but erronious opinion.

2 Corinthians 12
16 But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.

 

[Alithis]

2 Corinthians 12
16 But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.

Are you calling yourself decietful by plucking that sentance out ...

 

[Righttruth]

Are you calling yourself decietful by plucking that sentance out ...

It is plain and clear. You want to insert words on your own?

 

[DamianWarS]

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?

you might want to try reading ch 12 to find more examples. and the Apostle's were flawed as everyone was.

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

it makes no difference... we preach in part, we help in part, etc...

"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.

it's called the resurrection, spiritually speaking we are in part

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.

I get it, and we have had this discussion at length before but semantics are not what this issue is and I really have no issue with it being either word even if "perfect" is the favoured translation. All of these sub-points are somewhat arbitrary to argue as they all inherit their meaning from the context which comes down to what does teleios mean. if it's the completion of the canon then this is the context and all the language immediately aligns with it. If it is an eschatological event then all the language agrees with it as an eschatological event without forcing anything.

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.

this has nothing to do with what a denomination accepts. I cannot accept it pointing to the completion of the canon because it is an irresponsible way of interpreting the text and a violation of sola scriptura as it stretches interpretation beyond the scope of scripture to verify it.

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.

I am reading the text based how the audience would receive it not based on how as 21st century believer would comb over history to find something to fit what this word is pointing to.

'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'.

so the KJV got it wrong and has gotten everyone on board in the wrong direction. You better not tell that to the OP, he will not appreciate that sentiment. translations favour perfect but playing the mighty kjv corrupted us all card is a poor argument.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Do you believe the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 are also gifts?

Fruits are not gifts.

Fruits are outcomes of God in us. Gifts are to prepare each individual for ministry.

 

[swordsman1]

you might want to try reading ch 12 to find more examples. and the Apostle's were flawed as everyone was.

There are no other representative examples of gifts. If you are thinking of 1 Cor 12:29-30 then Paul is duplicating the gifts from the previous verse which was one of the 4 gift lists, not a selection of example gifts which represent all the others.

and the Apostle's were flawed as everyone was.

But it doesn't say "flawed" it says "in part". You are in error saying "in part" means imperfect. And it is hugely presumptuous to say the 2 revelatory gifts are representative of all the gifts. And you are clearly wrong in saying it is the person who is "in part", when "we" does not even appear in the Greek. "We prophesy in part" means their (Paul & the Corinthians) prophecies were only partial revelations from God.

it makes no difference... we preach in part, we help in part, etc...

It makes all the difference. "in part" does not mean imperfect. "Preach in part" makes no sense unless it is quantitative eg you stop preaching part way through a sermon. "Help in part" is quantitative.

In any case I thought you said it was we who are in part, not the gifts? You are contradicting yourself.

it's called the resurrection, spiritually speaking we are in part

But we do not disappear at the resurrection. We are changed.

1 Cor 15:51-52 We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.​

Presumably if it is not the gifts that disappear, do they continue on into eternity? There will be evangelising in heaven? Giving will be necessary in heaven? Healing will be necessary in heaven? Mercy will be needed in heaven?

this has nothing to do with what a denomination accepts. I cannot accept it pointing to the completion of the canon because it is an irresponsible way of interpreting the text and a violation of sola scriptura as it stretches interpretation beyond the scope of scripture to verify it.

Sola scriptura only applies to doctrine. The completion of the canon is not a doctrine, it is an easily provable fact. Even before the canon was complete it could easily be deduced. Only apostles can write scripture, so when the last of them died the canon would be complete. In any case the completion of the canon is demonstrated elsewhere in scripture:

• Apostles were only for the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20). Once the foundation was completed and the last apostle died there can be no more scripture.
• It says in Jude 3 that "the faith" (the sum of apostolic teaching) was given "once for all", in the same way that Christ died “once for all” (Heb 9:26).
• Paul told Timothy not to expect further apostolic teaching, but to "guard the good deposit" already received. (2 Tim 1:13-14).

so the KJV got it wrong and has gotten everyone on board in the wrong direction. You better not tell that to the OP, he will not appreciate that sentiment. translations favour perfect but playing the mighty kjv corrupted us all card is a poor argument.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation, including the antiquated KJV, simply because not everything in Koine Greek can easily be translated into English. Teleios with it's 3 meanings being a perfect case in point.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Fruits are not gifts.

Fruits are outcomes of God in us. Gifts are to prepare each individual for ministry.

Is the Holy Spirit a gift?
Acts of the Apostles 2:38 says... yes.
Are not the attributes of the Holy Spirit a part of the Holy Spirit who is our gift?
Does not Scripture say, “God is love?”
Is not love one of the fruits of the Spirit?
So yes, love (which is an attribute of God) is a gift because God is love and the Holy Spirit is said to be our gift.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Is the Holy Spirit a gift?
Acts of the Apostles 2:38 says... yes.
Are not the attributes of the Holy Spirit a part of the Holy Spirit who is our gift?
Does not Scripture say, “God is love?”
Is not love one of the fruits of the Spirit?
So yes, love (which is an attribute of God) is a gift because God is love and the Holy Spirit is said to be our gift.

The Holy Spirit is part of our inheritance. He is a gift from Christ, but since every believer gets the indwelling Holy Spirit I do not look at that as one of the Gifts of the Spirit.

It is a gift in the traditional sense that we do nothing to deserve it, like grace, in that sense it is a gift.

But since your thread seemed about the gifts of the Spirit, then I would think you would rather not get into overly basic doctrine.

But it seems this thread has no focus. So I think I'll find some other threads that have a focus.