Speak in Tongues - essential :

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
No, the error is entirely yours. There is no such lexicon called the "BGAD" as you repeatedly call it. Clearly you are not the expert on lexicons you make yourself out to be.

Wikipedia - Bauer's Lexicon
The second edition, Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, was commonly known as BAGD (Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich–Danker). Danker published the third English edition in 2000. Given the extensive improvements in this edition (said to include over 15,000 new citations), it is now known as Bauer–Danker–Arndt–Gingrich (BDAG) or sometimes the Bauer-Danker Lexicon.
Now I see . . . I do indeed, I must have either had a bit of a dyslexic moment or that I went into hardcore-cessationist mode and blindly turned the obvious into something that was make believe; I wonder how often I have done this!
If you had pointed out my obvious typo as a typo, then I probably would have caught it a bit earlier.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Ah, the ad-hominem fallacy...YET AGAIN. How predictable.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Even though I think that I can easily go a bit over the top with some of my comments, though they do seem to be accurate; they come around as you tend to post your material without giving any ground in that you pretend (as I'm not really convinced that you believe most of what you say) that what you do say is deemed to be established fact by the majority of respected commentators, when in fact, most of what you say would undoubtedly embarrass most contemporary cessationists of our day. So it would be best to not say that you faithfully adhere to the proper rules of Hermeneutics when the only 'rules' that you apply are probably only found in a work by 'Mr. Bean'.

Now I fully appreciate that any defense of cessationism is akin to trying to defend the view that the world is flat or that the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East, but if you could manage to try and address the weaknesses in your worldview as weaknesses then serious dialogue can be had by all. But even here I understand that such honesty would see your world collapse so I suppose that you are in a bit of a bind.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Even though I think that I can easily go a bit over the top with some of my comments, though they do seem to be accurate; they come around as you tend to post your material without giving any ground in that you pretend (as I'm not really convinced that you believe most of what you say) that what you do say is deemed to be established fact by the majority of respected commentators, when in fact, most of what you say would undoubtedly embarrass most contemporary cessationists of our day. So it would be best to not say that you faithfully adhere to the proper rules of Hermeneutics when the only 'rules' that you apply are probably only found in a work by 'Mr. Bean'.

Now I fully appreciate that any defense of cessationism is akin to trying to defend the view that the world is flat or that the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East, but if you could manage to try and address the weaknesses in your worldview as weaknesses then serious dialogue can be had by all. But even here I understand that such honesty would see your world collapse so I suppose that you are in a bit of a bind.

So instead of renouncing your use of the ad hominem fallacy and attempting to refute the cessationist arguments, you respond with further ad hominem bad-mouthing and false accusations. What a surprise.

The fact is, as anyone who has followed this thread can tell, charismatic/pentecostal theology can easily be disproved from scripture, and when any attempt is made to defend their ideas from scripture they are forced to use exegetical fallacies and bad hermeneutics. And, as we have seen, any attempts to refute the cessationist position flounders at the first hurdle - that is if any attempt is made at all.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
exegetical fallacies and bad hermeneutics

And will we be subjected to definitions posted umpteen times of these two things,
as we have been subject repeatedly to definitions of AD HOMINEM?

Could I see the ad hominem fallacy defined ONE MORE TIME?

As if I didn't know long ago what it was...

There is no "hurdle" about refuting the cessationist position -- the whole position is FLAT AS A PANCAKE -- nothing to jump over
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
So instead of renouncing your use of the ad hominem fallacy and attempting to refute the cessationist arguments, you respond with further ad hominem bad-mouthing and false accusations. What a surprise.
As I have already mentioned, you do tend to leave yourself open to a bit of well directed disdain as you often reply to a post or to a key element within a post as if it was the first time that you have encountered it, when in reality you have come across the material on who knows how many occasions. Now I realise that you do this so that you can avoid engaging with the material in a meaningful manner but after a while it does become a bit monotonous, where your frequently reply with your complaint that I am using ad-hominen fallacies, where your complaint becomes even more monotonous as another poster has pointed out.

So if you at some stage choose to engage with Continuists through serious dialogue where you avoid using absurd comments that you are following sound principles of hermeneutics then we can maybe move on.

The fact is, as anyone who has followed this thread can tell, charismatic/pentecostal theology can easily be disproved from scripture, and when any attempt is made to defend their ideas from scripture they are forced to use exegetical fallacies and bad hermeneutics. And, as we have seen, any attempts to refute the cessationist position flounders at the first hurdle - that is if any attempt is made at all.
Oh yes, another opportunity for me to say that there are probably those who have been convinced on other threads that the world is flat and that the sun rises in the West. You need to realise that contemporary cessationism cannot be supported from within the Scriptures, which is something that most prudent cessationists of our day have acknowledged, which is why they have wisely moved away from shonky Biblical pleadings to an approach that is entirely philosophical, which is an approach that I know that I would like to engage with as it bears more relevance to contemporary cessationism.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
And will we be subjected to definitions posted umpteen times of these two things,
as we have been subject repeatedly to definitions of AD HOMINEM?

Could I see the ad hominem fallacy defined ONE MORE TIME?

As if I didn't know long ago what it was...


The reason I am happy to expose the ad hominem fallacy everytime it raises its ugly head (which is rather frequently in the case of some people here) is because it proves the person has lost the debate. Instead of being able to refute the argument they have to resort to bad-mouthing their opponents like a small child who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. Realising they cannot win the exegetical argument they resort to a propaganda war of words whereby they attempt to falsely discredit those who oppose their views and mockingly paint them in a bad light.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The reason I am happy to expose the ad hominem fallacy everytime it raises its ugly head (which is rather frequently in the case of some people here) is because it proves the person has lost the debate. Instead of being able to refute the argument they have to resort to bad-mouthing their opponents like a small child who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. Realising they cannot win the exegetical argument they resort to a propaganda war of words whereby they attempt to falsely discredit those who oppose their views and mockingly paint them in a bad light.
Okay, let's see if I can help you out by making things fairly simple, let's look at two very small verses in First Corinthians. As I have said before, way back in the 70's once the Evangelicals understood that the following passage speaks of the future establishment of the Kingdom of God it became the last nail in the coffin of cessationism. Once the old understanding had been discarded, this particular verse probably became the catalyst for the very sizable portion of Evangelicalism that was neither cessationist nor Continuist but who are deemed to be Open-but-cautious.

If as you try to maintain that it speaks of the Canon of the Scriptures (or similar), how would the various congregations in Corinth and Achaia have understood this verse when they had already heard 1 Cor 1:7?

13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

1:7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.​
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Okay, let's see if I can help you out by making things fairly simple, let's look at two very small verses in First Corinthians. As I have said before, way back in the 70's once the Evangelicals understood that the following passage speaks of the future establishment of the Kingdom of God it became the last nail in the coffin of cessationism. Once the old understanding had been discarded, this particular verse probably became the catalyst for the very sizable portion of Evangelicalism that was neither cessationist nor Continuist but who are deemed to be Open-but-cautious.

If as you try to maintain that it speaks of the Canon of the Scriptures (or similar), how would the various congregations in Corinth and Achaia have understood this verse when they had already heard 1 Cor 1:7?

13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

1:7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Ah, 1 Cor 1:7. One of the other straws charismatics/pentecostals often like to clutch in order to try and support continuationism.

First of all this verse clearly does not say all the gifts would continue throughout the church age until the revelation of Christ. Paul was directly addressing the Corinthians in this verse where it forms part of Paul's greeting to them where he lists various attributes the Corinthians possessed. One of those was they were not lacking in any of their gifts, another was they were patiently waiting for the return of Christ. There is no connecting "until" between the two. In fact most major bible versions clearly separate the 2 clauses with commas:

NASB "so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

NKJV "so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

ESV "so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

RSV "so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ;"

KJV "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Secondly, "you are not lacking in any gift" does not mean they possess all spiritual gifts. Grammatically it means they do not come short in any gift they do possess (See Fee). Even if it is taken as meaning the Corinthians had all the gifts, that doesn't mean that the universal church throughout all the church age would also have all the gifts. That is a non-sequitur.

Thirdly, it is doubtful Paul is even referring to spiritual gifts here, charisma here more likely meaning gifts of grace. Your beloved Thiselton takes this view as does the BDAG lexicon (please note the correct spelling of BDAG):

χάρισμα, ατος, τό (χαρίζομαι) that which is freely and graciously given, favor bestowed, gift (Sir 7:33 v.l.; 38:30 v.l.; Theod. Ps 30:22; TestSol; OdeSol 11:10; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 78 [twice]: γενέσεως δὲ οὐδὲν χάρισμα and δωρεὰ καὶ εὐεργεσία καὶ χάρισμα θεοῦ; SibOr 2, 54 θεοῦ χ.; Just., D. 82, 1; 88, 1.—Alciphron 3, 17, 4 [it is poss. that this comes fr. Attic comedy: Kock III p. 677]; BGU 1044, 4 [IV A.D.] of benefits bestowed. Other non-Jewish/Christian exx. of the word come fr. later times: BGU 551, 3; PLond I, 77, 24 p. 233; Sb 4789, 7; Achmes 4, 13; Nicetas Eugen. 6, 537f) in our lit. only of gifts of divine beneficence.

gener.,
the earthly goods bestowed by God D 1:5. The privileges granted to the people of Israel Ro 11:29. The gracious gift of rescue fr. mortal danger 2 Cor 1:11. The spiritual possession of the believer Ro 1:11 (χάρισμα πνευματικόν); 1 Cor 1:7; ISm ins; IPol 2:2. The gracious gift of redemption Ro 5:15f; IEph 17:2. τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος Ro 6:23.

of special gifts of a non-material sort, bestowed through God’s generosity on individual Christians
1 Pt 4:10; 1 Cl 38:1. Of the gift for carrying out special tasks, mediated by the laying on of hands 1 Ti 4:14; 2 Ti 1:6. Of the power to be continent in sexual matters 1 Cor 7:7. Of spiritual gifts in a special sense (Just., D. 82, 1 and Iren. 5, 6, 1 [Harv. II 334, 2] προφητικὰ χ.; Orig., C. Cels. 3, 46, 12; Hippol., Ref. 8, 19, 2) Ro 12:6; 1 Cor 12:4, 9, 28, 30,31.—S. in addition to the lit. s.v. γλῶσσα 3 also GWetter, Charis 1913, 168–87; EBuonaiuti, I Carismi: Ricerche religiose 4, 1928 259–61; FGrau, Der ntliche Begriff Χάρισμα, diss. Tübingen ’47; HHCharles, The Charismatic Life in the Apost. Church, diss. Edinburgh, ’58; APiepkorn, CTM 42, ’71, 369–89 (NT and Ap. Fathers); ENardoni, The Concept of Charism in Paul: CBQ 55, ’93, 68–80; TRE VII 688–93.—DELG s.v. χάρις. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.​

[I have highlighted the relevant parts in red (ⓐ general gifts of grace) and blue (ⓑ special gifts inc. spiritual gifts). This time I trust your ultra pedantic disposition will approve as I have now cited the full entry including all the irrelevant dross from classical antiquity.]​

I am not aware of any commentators who claim this verse is saying all spiritual gifts would continue until the return of Christ. Not even the pentecostal Gordon Fee uses this verse to argue for continuationism. So I am afraid you will have to try harder than that in order to refute cessationism, or rather as I suspect you will, deliver a barrel load of anti-cesssationist insults instead.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
This debate reminds me of those arguing with an atheist over the existence of God. Or an evolutionist over the creation.
Okay, now I'm finally back.
Even though the points that I am responding to are certainly very dated and that they reflect a form of cessationism that was both popular and commonplace up until the 1970's, there are undoubtedly those who are still caught up in a bit of a time warp, so hopefully when they read through my replies they will come to realise that the cessationist worldview is exactly that, a worldview and not a theological construct.
 
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

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
First of all this verse clearly does not say all the gifts would continue throughout the church age until the revelation of Christ.
Even though it was not my intent to say that 1 Cor 1:7 specifically says that the “gifts” will continue until the revelation of Christ, you have at least acknowledged by your post that you fully realise that Paul is pointing to the time of the Lord’s return, which was the purpose of my earlier post.

The point of my post, which you may or may not have missed, is that when the Christians throughout Achaia heard Paul’s letter for the first time that they would have connected 1 Cor 13:8 back with 1 Cor 1:7; though the perfect of 1 Cor 13:8 needs no further clarification beyond the plain meaning of the text.

Paul was directly addressing the Corinthians in this verse where it forms part of Paul's greeting to them where he lists various attributes the Corinthians possessed.
No one would argue against this.

One of those was they were not lacking in any of their gifts, another was they were patiently waiting for the return of Christ. There is no connecting "until" between the two. In fact most major bible versions clearly separate the 2 clauses with commas:

NASB "so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

NKJV "so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

ESV "so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

RSV "so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ;"

KJV "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Your focus toward the use by various translations of a comma or a semi-colon after any gift was strange as the translators would have only employed either a comma or a semi-colon as a breathing mark, so who cares if there is a comma there or not!

For what it’s worth, the major English translations such as the NIV, , Holman, NRSV, NAB, NJB, the NET Bible and the NLT (a translation??) do not include either a comma or a semi-colon so I would expect that most Western English speakers would not encounter a comma, but of course you would have already realised this. But as I said, it all counts for nought.
Secondly, "you are not lacking in any gift" does not mean they possess all spiritual gifts. Grammatically it means they do not come short in any gift they do possess (See Fee). Even if it is taken as meaning the Corinthians had all the gifts, that doesn't mean that the universal church throughout all the church age would also have all the gifts. That is a non-sequitur.
So ‘everything’ does not mean ‘everything’ or something along that line which means that I will have to succumb to the irresistible temptation to have a bit of a light-hearted dig at you by asking, does up mean up or down and is hot supposed to mean hot or cold?

As we are discussing the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11);
1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Faith
4. Healings
5. Powers (aka miracles)
6. Prophecy
7. Discerning of spirits
8. Tongues
9. Interpretation of tongues,
and particularly with the all too common cessationist hang-up with our ability to be able to pray in the Spirit, as we know that the various congregations throughout not only the Corinthian precent but with all the congregations throughout Achaia (Southern Greece incl. Athens) that they also prayed in tongues then we can be confident that this Manifestation of the Spirit was in operation, just as it is today.

Most importantly, as Paul has connected the Greek charisma of 1Cor 1:7 with the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit then they are of course included within his broad application of the word, as per the following graphic that I have constructed:

Gifts (Charisma in 1 Cor).png


Thirdly, it is doubtful Paul is even referring to spiritual gifts here, charisma here more likely meaning gifts of grace. Your beloved Thiselton takes this view as does the BDAG lexicon (please note the correct spelling of BDAG):

χάρισμα, ατος, τό (χαρίζομαι) that which is freely and graciously given, favor bestowed, gift (Sir 7:33 v.l.; 38:30 v.l.; Theod. Ps 30:22; TestSol; OdeSol 11:10; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 78 [twice]: γενέσεως δὲ οὐδὲν χάρισμα and δωρεὰ καὶ εὐεργεσία καὶ χάρισμα θεοῦ; SibOr 2, 54 θεοῦ χ.; Just., D. 82, 1; 88, 1.—Alciphron 3, 17, 4 [it is poss. that this comes fr. Attic comedy: Kock III p. 677]; BGU 1044, 4 [IV A.D.] of benefits bestowed. Other non-Jewish/Christian exx. of the word come fr. later times: BGU 551, 3; PLond I, 77, 24 p. 233; Sb 4789, 7; Achmes 4, 13; Nicetas Eugen. 6, 537f) in our lit. only of gifts of divine beneficence.

gener.,
the earthly goods bestowed by God D 1:5. The privileges granted to the people of Israel Ro 11:29. The gracious gift of rescue fr. mortal danger 2 Cor 1:11. The spiritual possession of the believer Ro 1:11 (χάρισμα πνευματικόν); 1 Cor 1:7; ISm ins; IPol 2:2. The gracious gift of redemption Ro 5:15f; IEph 17:2. τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος Ro 6:23.

of special gifts of a non-material sort, bestowed through God’s generosity on individual Christians
1 Pt 4:10; 1 Cl 38:1. Of the gift for carrying out special tasks, mediated by the laying on of hands 1 Ti 4:14; 2 Ti 1:6. Of the power to be continent in sexual matters 1 Cor 7:7. Of spiritual gifts in a special sense (Just., D. 82, 1 and Iren. 5, 6, 1 [Harv. II 334, 2] προφητικὰ χ.; Orig., C. Cels. 3, 46, 12; Hippol., Ref. 8, 19, 2) Ro 12:6; 1 Cor 12:4, 9, 28, 30,31.—S. in addition to the lit. s.v. γλῶσσα 3 also GWetter, Charis 1913, 168–87; EBuonaiuti, I Carismi: Ricerche religiose 4, 1928 259–61; FGrau, Der ntliche Begriff Χάρισμα, diss. Tübingen ’47; HHCharles, The Charismatic Life in the Apost. Church, diss. Edinburgh, ’58; APiepkorn, CTM 42, ’71, 369–89 (NT and Ap. Fathers); ENardoni, The Concept of Charism in Paul: CBQ 55, ’93, 68–80; TRE VII 688–93.—DELG s.v. χάρις. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.​

[I have highlighted the relevant parts in red (ⓐ general gifts of grace) and blue (ⓑ special gifts inc. spiritual gifts). This time I trust your ultra pedantic disposition will approve as I have now cited the full entry including all the irrelevant dross from classical antiquity.]​
That's a good cut-and-paste, though as I said previously I do not see Paul's use of charisma in 1Cor 1:7 as only applying to the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit, but as the above graphic reveals Paul still connects them with charisma.

I am not aware of any commentators who claim this verse is saying all spiritual gifts would continue until the return of Christ. Not even the pentecostal Gordon Fee uses this verse to argue for continuationism. So I am afraid you will have to try harder than that in order to refute cessationism, or rather as I suspect you will, deliver a barrel load of anti-cesssationist insults instead.
On the contrary, one of the mistakes that I made when I began to scan in First Corinthians with the older commentaries in particular was that I unwisely decided not to bother with chapter one.

From the commentaries that I own on First Corinthians it would seem that they tend to agree that whatever Paul meant with his Eschatological use of charisma in 1Cor 1:7 in that these things would only conclude with the future establishment of the Lord's Kingdom. The works that I have by Morris, Barnett, Soards, Garland, Johnson and others say much the same thing so over the next few days I will have to scan their comments and compile them into a very useful PDF and post it onto the forum.

With regard to 1Cor 1:7 speaking of how the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit will continue on until the Lord's return, Wayne Grudem in his book Prophecy (1988) p.233 states;

(c) A third reason why this passage refers to the time of the Lord's return can be found in a more general statement from Paul about the purpose of spiritual gifts in the New Testament age. In 1 Corinthians 1:7 Paul ties the possession of spiritual gifts (Greek charismata) to the activity of waiting for the Lord's return: 'You are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you await the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

This suggests that Paul saw the gifts as a temporary provision made to equip believers for ministry until the Lord returned. So this verse provides a close parallel to the thought of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, where prophecy and knowledge (and no doubt tongues) are seen, similarly, as necessary until Christ's return but unnecessary beyond that time.

1 Corinthians 13:10, therefore, refers to the time of Christ's return and says that prophecy will last among believers until that time. This means that we have a clear biblical statement that Paul expected the gift of prophecy to continue through the entire church age and to function for the benefit of the church until the Lord returns'.

This quote of Grudem's (1988) was read by millions soon after it was published and this and other quotes by Grudem, Fee and Carson of essentially the same year had a great impact on the Evangelical (non-Charismatic) world, where Grudem's material alone was probably enough to remove the old cessationist worldview from the pinnacle it once held.

So hopefully within the next week I will be able to compile a solid list of commentary on 1 Cor 1:7, which is what I should have known that I would have to do months ago.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Even though it was not my intent to say that 1 Cor 1:7 specifically says that the “gifts” will continue until the revelation of Christ, you have at least acknowledged by your post that you fully realise that Paul is pointing to the time of the Lord’s return, which was the purpose of my earlier post.

There is no arguing that Paul mentions the Lord's return in 1 Cor 1:7, as he does throughout his epistles. But he does not say that all spiritual gifts would continue until then.

The point of my post, which you may or may not have missed, is that when the Christians throughout Achaia heard Paul’s letter for the first time that they would have connected 1 Cor 13:8 back with 1 Cor 1:7; though the perfect of 1 Cor 13:8 needs no further clarification beyond the plain meaning of the text.

There is absolutely no reason to presume the 2 passages would be seen to be connected. If 1:7 had the word teleios in its description of the Lord's return, you would have a point, but it doesn't. Nowhere in scripture is teleios associated with the Lord's return. 1 Cor 13:8-12 speaks of the revelatory gifts being partial and being replaced by teleios. The Corinthians would thus have recognized that teleios in this context to mean completeness and not perfect, and so would not have linked it to the Lord's return which is never mentioned in 1 Cor 13.

Your focus toward the use by various translations of a comma or a semi-colon after any gift was strange as the translators would have only employed either a comma or a semi-colon as a breathing mark, so who cares if there is a comma there or not!

The comma in most major translations indicates they recognize that the Corinthians "not lacking in any gift" is a separate attribute and not dependent on them "waiting for the Lords return" as you suppose.


For what it’s worth, the major English translations such as the NIV, , Holman, NRSV, NAB, NJB, the NET Bible and the NLT (a translation??) do not include either a comma or a semi-colon so I would expect that most Western English speakers would not encounter a comma, but of course you would have already realised this. But as I said, it all counts for nought.

The only major version that does not include a comma or semicolon to separate the 2 clauses is the NIV which is of course the one you quoted. Amusingly you were thus also forced to quote the NIV rendering of 1 Cor 13:10 "but when completeness comes".

So ‘everything’ does not mean ‘everything’ or something along that line which means that I will have to succumb to the irresistible temptation to have a bit of a light-hearted dig at you by asking, does up mean up or down and is hot supposed to mean hot or cold?

everything? What are you referring to?

Most importantly, as Paul has connected the Greek charisma of 1Cor 1:7 with the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit then they are of course included within his broad application of the word, as per the following graphic that I have constructed:

Hold your horses. Where do you get the idea that charismata here must mean a 1 Cor 12 gift of the Spirit. Perhaps you are getting confused by the fact that the NIV has added the word 'spiritual' in it's rendering of the verse. The word 'spiritual' does not in fact appear in the original Greek and the NIV has no warrant for inserting it. As I previously quoted, the BDAG lexicon recognizes that charismata here should not be translated as spiritual gifts, and as your beloved Thiselton point out:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians By Anthony C. Thiselton
[Commenting on 1 Cor 1:7...]
The specific "gifts" in 1 Corinthians 12-14 are often called either spiritual gifts or charismatic gifts. But it goes against the grain of Paul's emphasis in the thanksgiving, as Chrysostom, Luther, and Barth in particular urge, to focus attention on the "religious experience" of 1 Corinthians 12-14 rather than on the generosity of God's sovereign gift of himself in a variety of ways as sheer, unmerited favor. Although "One cannot say whether it was Paul himself who brought χαρίσματα into use as a term for πνευματικῶν," there can be no question about the difference of emphasis here between Paul and some of the "gifted spiritual people" at Corinth.' Indeed, the everyday use of "gifted" in modern English helps to make the point. "Gifted" people may be tempted to think of themselves as a cut above others. But, Paul responds, how can this be valid if "gifted" means receiving a gift (4:7)? Bittlinger therefore comments with justice "The term charismata denotes the source of gifts, i.e., divine charis (grace) becoming concrete." It seems that the Corinthian church preferred to speak of spiritual gifts, or even "spiritual people" (12:1).

Gift, for Paul, draws attention to the free, generous, giving of the Giver instantiated in the noun Xópic, grace, and the verb xopiopia, freely give. In 1 Cor. 7:7 such a gift (χάρισμα) takes the form of contentment in vocation to the celibate life, or, as Luther defines it, the gift of chastity.' There is no suggestion in these contexts that such "gifts" need to be "spontaneous." (On this, see our exegesis of 12:8-10 and parallels.)

From the commentaries that I own on First Corinthians it would seem that they tend to agree that whatever Paul meant with his Eschatological use of charisma in 1Cor 1:7 in that these things would only conclude with the future establishment of the Lord's Kingdom. The works that I have by Morris, Barnett, Soards, Garland, Johnson and others say much the same thing so over the next few days I will have to scan their comments and compile them into a very useful PDF and post it onto the forum.

I would surprised if any of those commentaries say 1:7 implies that all spiritual gifts would continue until the Lord's return. I know for a fact Morris doesn't.

With regard to 1Cor 1:7 speaking of how the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit will continue on until the Lord's return, Wayne Grudem in his book Prophecy (1988) p.233 states;

(c) A third reason why this passage refers to the time of the Lord's return can be found in a more general statement from Paul about the purpose of spiritual gifts in the New Testament age. In 1 Corinthians 1:7 Paul ties the possession of spiritual gifts (Greek charismata) to the activity of waiting for the Lord's return: 'You are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you await the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

This suggests that Paul saw the gifts as a temporary provision made to equip believers for ministry until the Lord returned. So this verse provides a close parallel to the thought of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, where prophecy and knowledge (and no doubt tongues) are seen, similarly, as necessary until Christ's return but unnecessary beyond that time.

1 Corinthians 13:10, therefore, refers to the time of Christ's return and says that prophecy will last among believers until that time. This means that we have a clear biblical statement that Paul expected the gift of prophecy to continue through the entire church age and to function for the benefit of the church until the Lord returns'.

With regard to the continuist Wayne Grudem, it is not surprising to see him make this claim about 1:7, as the whole of his book is an attempt to show that prophecy continues today (or rather a new definition of prophecy). Therefore he has to clutch at every straw he can to try and show that 1 Cor 13:8-13 is referring to the Parousia.

He makes a number of errors here:
  • Paul does not say the gifts continue "until the Lord returned" in 1:7 as he makes out. The word "until" is not present. He is adding his own preconceived idea to scripture. The most it says is that the Corinthians were not lacking in any gift AND IN ADDITION they were also waiting for the Lord's return. There is no dependent link between the two.

  • He unwarrantedly assumes that because Paul said this to the Corinthians, it must automatically apply to all believers.

  • He incorrectly assumes that charismata is exclusively referring to spiritual gifts.
Of course there are many other errors in his book. For instance he makes the claim the "the foundation of the apostles and the prophets" in Eph 2:20 was referring to one and the same people, which has been widely refuted by other commentators; as does his claim that Agabus made mistakes in his prophecies where he verges on blasphemously calling the Holy Spirit a liar.

This quote of Grudem's (1988) was read by millions soon after it was published and this and other quotes by Grudem, Fee and Carson of essentially the same year had a great impact on the Evangelical (non-Charismatic) world, where Grudem's material alone was probably enough to remove the old cessationist worldview from the pinnacle it once held.

The continuist D A Carson doesn't see this verse as implying all spiritual gifts would last until the Lord's return. His only mention of this verse in his book Showing The Spirit is: "In the first chapter, Paul assures the Corinthians that they do not lack any “spiritual gift" as they wait for the Lord’s return (although one wonders if the reference to the Lord’s return is a not-too-subtle reminder that even such spiritual wealth is nothing compared with the glory that is to come[1:7])."

Similarly the pentecostal Gordon Fee does not claim that 1:7 supports the continuation of all spiritual gifts. The most he is prepared to say about the reference to the Lord's return is that it was a reminder of the Corinthians' "overrealized eschatological understanding of their existence":

The First Epistle to the Corinthians - Gordon D. Fee
7. This clause functions to bring closure to the point that has been made thus far, namely, Paul's gratitude for their Spirit giftings, which serve as God's confirmation both of the gospel itself and Paul's preaching of it in Corinth. But by adding the eschatological note at the end, Paul also now attempts to set their present giftedness in the proper eschatological perspective of "already/ not yet."”

The clause itself is a result clause" that modifies the confirming word that has just preceded (v. 6),' so that the clauses of that passage and this one together recapitulate by way of historical reminder what was said in the immediately preceding clauses (vv. 4-5). Thus, "I thank God for the 'grace' bestowed on you (v. 4), in that God'enriched you with specific gifts of the Spirit (v. 5), just as historically it worked out in your midst by God's confirming our testimony about Christ (v. 6) so that you came short in no Spirit gifting (v. 7).”

It is not certain what precisely is intended by "you do not lack any spiritual gift." The verb "lack" ordinarily takes a genitive for its object and in that case would mean, as the NIV has it, that they potentially have at their disposal all the gifts of God. But here the verb is modified by a prepositional phrase, as in the beginning affirmation (v. 5, "in every way"), and therefore could mean that they do not come short, either in comparison with others or with normal expectations of Christians who have the Spirit, in any of the gifts that they do possess. Although many prefer the latter option (because of the grammar),' it is more likely that the syntax here is influenced by the earlier phrase ("enriched in every way").' Thus the clause merely repeats in a negative way what was already affirmed positively. This also means that the word charisma ("spiritual gift"), which could be seen to refer more broadly to the gracious gift of redemption," is, as in that earlier affirmation, to be understood more specifically to refer to those special endowments of the Holy Spirit' taken up in some detail later in the letter (chaps. 12-14; cf. Rom. 12:6).

But thanksgiving for present gifts is not the final - nor the only - word. For Paul such gifts are ever to be realized in the context of "eagerly awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Indeed, there is perhaps a correlation between the contemporary church's general loss of such "graces" and its general lack of eager expectation of the final consummation. It should be noted here that even though Paul's theological perspective is thoroughly eschatological, a comparison of this thanksgiving with that of his earliest letter (1 Thess. 1:2-5) indicates that an eschatological note is not a necessary element in the Pauline thanksgivings (in fact it occurs in later letters only in Philippians and Colossians).'

Why, then, this additional note about the coming of Christ? It may of course mean nothing more than that such a concern is ever present with the apostle himself, since salvation for Paul was primarily an eschatological reality, begun with Christ's coming and to be consummated by his imminent return. But it is also probable in this instance that that ever present concern is heightened by the Corinthians' own apparently overrealized eschatological understanding of their existence, which for them was related in particular to their experience of the "spiritual gift" of tongues (see on 13:1). Paul's gratitude for their giftedness, therefore, includes a reminder that they still await the final glory, since it seems to be the case that some among them do not have such eager expectation (see on 4:8 and 15:12).

What they eagerly await' is "for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed." where Paul returns again to the threefold "name" used above in the salutation (v. 3, and only once more in this letter - in the opening appeal v. 10). Although Paul ordinarily speaks of Christ's return in terms of his "coming" (parousia), in an earlier letter (2 Thess. 1:7) he has also referred to it as Christ’s "revelation" (apokalypsis). In the present case the choice of nouns is probably less dictated by any nuance of ideas between "coming" and "revelation" than by the general sense of the entire paragraph, which has God as its subject. Thus God will consummate the ages by the final "revelation" of his Son; it is this final christological revelation that the Corinthians are being reminded they yet await.

8. With this clause Paul finally brings to a conclusion this now long sentence (that began in v. 4). He does so by elaborating on the eschatological note struck at the end of the preceding clause (v. 7), now in terms of what it means for the Corinthians themselves. It is noteworthy that the language of this clause resembles that of the prayer found in his earliest letter (1 Thess. 3:13). It is possible, therefore, that the clause is intended to function very much like the prayer-reports in the other thanksgivings - however, with the significant difference that this is a strong affirmation, not simply a wish prayer." Paul is here confident that God will indeed "confirm" them to the end.

Significantly, he makes this affirmation by repeating the verb "to confirm," which appeared in the preceding metaphor (v. 6). Thus, instead of his usual "God will strengthen, or establish, you," Paul says that in the same way that God first "guaranteed" our testimony to Christ while we were with you, God will also' "guarantee" or "confirm" you yourselves "to the end." That this is a purposeful repeating of the preceding legal metaphor (v. 6) is further evidenced by the word "blameless," which carries the sense of their being guiltless (with reference to the law) when appearing before God at the final judgment because Christ's righteousness has been given to them." Finally, the use of the phrase "on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" also points to the final judgment. The OT eschatological expression "the day of the Lord" (see Amos 5:18-20; Joel 2:31) is appropriated by Paul and made christological. It is still "the day of the Lord," but "the Lord" is none other than Jesus Christ (see also 3:13-15; 5:5; cf. 1 Thess. 5:2).

What is remarkable is that Paul should express such confidence about a community whose current behavior is anything but blameless and whom on several occasions he must exhort with the strongest kinds of warning. The secret, of course, lies in the subject of the verb, "he" (= God)." If Paul's confidence lay in the Corinthians themselves, then he is in trouble. But just as in later passages (5:6-8 and 6:9-11), in Paul's theology the indicative (God's prior action of grace) always precedes the imperative (their obedience as response to grace) and is the ground of his confidence.

Not all, however, are agreed that the subject of the pronoun "who" is "God." In fact the most natural antecedent is "our Lord Jesus Christ," which immediately precedes it." Nonetheless, good reasons exist for thinking that Paul intended "God" as the subject. First, because God, to whom Paul is giving thanks, is the implied subject of all the passive verbs in the paragraph. Second, and in particular, God is the implied subject of the prior occurrence of the verb "confirm" (v. 6), thus indicating that God is also the one who will confirm the Corinthians themselves at the end. Third, in the final exclamation, God again is acknowledged as faithful in bringing all of this to pass.

Thus even though Paul is concerned to remind the church that they have not yet arrived, at the same time he holds out before them his great confidence that by God's own action they will indeed make it in the end. Consequently, by means of thanksgiving Paul redirects their confidence from themselves and their own giftedness toward God, from whom and to whom are all things.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
This debate reminds me of those arguing with an atheist over the existence of God. Or an evolutionist over the creation.

I know what you mean. Despite repeatedly pointing out what the truth of scripture says about tongues, some people would still rather believe the foolish and unbiblical ideas of the charismatic/pentecostal movement. Unable to refute the biblical evidence, it's teachers have to resort to making imagined defamatory insinuations and mocking slurs against cessationists instead - just like atheists do against Christians.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I know what you mean. Despite repeatedly pointing out what the truth of scripture says about tongues, some people would still rather believe the foolish and unbiblical ideas of the charismatic/pentecostal movement. Unable to refute the biblical evidence, it's teachers have to resort to making imagined defamatory insinuations and mocking slurs against cessationists instead - just like atheists do against Christians.

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The foolishness of God there is referring to "Christ crucified". There is nothing "of God" in the ideas and practices of the charismatic movement. It is just foolishness, without any biblical basis and thus not "of God".
 
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

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
The foolishness of God there is referring to "Christ crucified". There is nothing "of God" in the ideas and practices of the charismatic movement. It is just foolishness, without any biblical basis and thus not "of God".

You don't seem to believe in anything supernatural, even though God is a supernatural triune being. Is that true? Is my perception of you correct? What about an answer to prayer. I remember once on the radio listening to John MacArthur say "we should pray to God, but He answers us through His Word." Is that your stance also? If not, can you testify to an answered prayer, that wasn't, "no."
 
Upvote 0

Traveling teacher

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2017
993
499
64
Belton
✟31,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No one who is born again can really be 100% cesationist

All these are gifts of the Holy Spirit
Teaching
Preaching
Music and worship leader
Helps
Gifts of mercy
Hospitality. Visit the sick and elderly
Benevolence....giving
Heallings
Prayer ministry
Encouragement
Evangelism....missions
Deacon helps duties
Administration...."...................

You would wipe out 99.99%. of the local church
There woudnt be anyone left in church
If you were truly 100%. Secastionist

Also if you believed all speaking in tongues was not fom God. You would have to label the following groups
False Christians

Assemblies of God entire denomination
All non denominational,charismatic churches
....around 30% of the American church
Majority of Chinese underground church is charismatic
Thats 100 million Christians????
All the top leaders of the Catholic church who recognize the charismatic movement inside the catholic church
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The only major version that does not include a comma or semicolon to separate the 2 clauses is the NIV which is of course the one you quoted. Amusingly you were thus also forced to quote the NIV rendering of 1 Cor 13:10 "but when completeness comes".
Sorry, this was such a silly remark that I simply did not have the inclination to go through with the rest of your post; how strange, now you are deciding which versions are major or not. . .
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
No one who is born again can really be 100% cesationist

All these are gifts of the Holy Spirit
Teaching
Preaching
Music and worship leader
Helps
Gifts of mercy
Hospitality. Visit the sick and elderly
Benevolence....giving
Heallings
Prayer ministry
Encouragement
Evangelism....missions
Deacon helps duties
Administration...."...................

You would wipe out 99.99%. of the local church
There woudnt be anyone left in church
If you were truly 100%. Secastionist

Also if you believed all speaking in tongues was not fom God. You would have to label the following groups
False Christians

Assemblies of God entire denomination
All non denominational,charismatic churches
....around 30% of the American church
Majority of Chinese underground church is charismatic
Thats 100 million Christians????
All the top leaders of the Catholic church who recognize the charismatic movement inside the catholic church
Hi, even though I agree with the sentiments of your post, I would be inclined to see only healings as being a Manifestation of the Spirit, the others tend to be either Offices, natural talents or fruits of the Spirit, but again, it was still a good post in my view.
 
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