Yes. “Completeness” is the antithesis of “in part”, so it is obvious these two quantitative expressions are related. Whatever ‘in part’ is referring to, almost certainly applies to ‘completeness’. That which is ‘in part’ is the practice of the gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge (v9), both of which are revelations from God. It follows therefore that ‘completeness’ would also involve revelation. “In part” refers to the fact that the revelation communicated by these gifts was partial or piecemeal. The corresponding “completeness”, as the counterpart to “in part” must then refer to a full or complete revelation from God. This can only be seen as the completed revelation God as preserved in the New Testament. At the time of Paul's writing the early church needed prophecy and words of knowledge to guide them in the faith in the absence of a New Testament. However when a church had a completed canon, it would no longer need the gift of prophecy to guide them. Thus, the completed canon would replace the partial prophecies and words of knowledge.
Really?
Let's see: the early church witnessed to the resurrection in the power of the Spirit, they made disciples, baptised them in the Holy Spirit and the believers spoke in tongues, there was prophecy and other gifts manifested - and they went out performing miracles, raising the dead and standing up to the authorities. The church grew quickly and was a great witness.
You say that after God's written word was produced/compiled, that prophecy, words of knowledge and tongues disappeared - and the church today is hopelessly split, in decline, generally speaking, a bad witness.
With gifts = life and growth; without some of the gifts, lifeless, fractious and dull.
Maybe that's just the problem; too many people believe certain gifts have ceased, or we have no need of them. We're certainly not the united body of Christ today; the church triumphant, driving out the powers of darkness and furthering the kingdom, as Jesus and the apostles did, are we? And yes, I am speaking generally; there may be some denominations, or isolated churches, are doing just that. They certainly seem to be in some other countries.
That scripture says it would cease .
Future - it doesn't say when.
and the overwhelming consensus in the Church from the witness of Church Fathers right up until the start of the pentecostal movement that tongues did indeed cease, I think is sufficient evidence.
The overwhelming evidence from Pentecostal, evangelical and charismatic churches today - and even on these forums - is that Christians speak in tongues and sometimes receive prophecies.
I think that is enough evidence - that, and the fact that Scripture does not give a time or date for these things ceasing.
So you believe everything you hear? How do you know they are not mistaken? Do you believe they received the Spirit subsequent to their salvation because they said so?
I don't believe
everything I hear, but I do tend to trust my fellow believers, God's children, until or unless I am given reason to suspect or question them.
Do you believe that the 'baptism of the Spirit' is something subsequent to salvation because they said so? Scripture says otherwise.
No it doesn't.
Some people become/became Christians before they were baptised in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was present at their conversion, or they would not have been able to be born again, John 3:3. That doesn't mean that they were baptised in the Spirit at the same time.
If I remember correctly, Denis Bennet, author of 9.00 in the morning, was a Christian, and clergyman for several years before being baptised in the Spirit. Some also say that that's what happened to John Wesley; before 1738 he was a clergyman, teaching, baptising, leading people to Christ but doing much of it in his own strength, after 1738 he was filled with the Spirit in a new way, or maybe for the first time, rode all over the country, preaching, led outdoor services and his ministry grew rapidly. Charles had received the Spirit a few days before, was healed of TB and immediately started writing hundreds of hymns. They were saved, and Christians before that however.
Do you believe they spoke in tongues as described in the New Testament? Scripture says otherwise.
No it doesn't.
There are several passages in Acts which talk of believers and Gentiles speaking in tongues; it doesn't say whether or not those tongues were recognisable languages.
How do you know it was New Testament tongues. Did it match the biblical description?
I've no idea - fact is though, neither have you.
I have certainly read testimonies of people who have spoken in tongues in a worship service, and unknown to them an unbeliever from the country whose language they spoke in, was present.
Again, the only description of tongues is Acts 2, where unbelievers heard the apostles speaking in their own language. Other times that tongues is mentioned in Scripture, there is no description of the sounds made or what it was like.
And in the absence of any re-definition, it must be presumed that the other instances of tongues are exactly the same as the first.
Why MUST it be assumed? Dangerous thing, assumption.
Because Paul is portraying an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We can tell this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the following verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had those gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail.
Agreed - but that doesn't mean that those gifts have ceased or not are unimportant.
He told the church in Corinth that he spoke in tongues more than any of them did, that it was important, but should be used in the right way, and with order.
He said that they should desire the gift of prophecy and that this was more valuable than tongues.
It wasn't private prayer, it was corporate prayer spoken in the congregation. It doesn't say it was a non-human language.
Paul says;
"if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful", 1 Corinthians 14:8.
Even if someone prays out loud in a tongue, it is a private prayer between their spirit and God.
It is not a public prayer unless everyone is listening, can understand what is being said and says "amen" to it. In my experience, people who are caught up in worship are focusing on God, praising him and listening to what he is saying to them - not eavesdropping on someone else's tongue to see if they understand it.
Where in scripture does it ever say prophecies come from a feeling?
Where in my post did I ever say that they do?
And if it is a false prophecy, as it would be if it was from a feeling, then clearly they do not have the gift of prophecy.
No, maybe not. That is not proof that the gift of prophecy does not exist though.
You may not be a teacher or evangelist - does that mean that these gifts don't exist? You may have never healed the sick; does that mean that Jesus didn't tell us to do this?
That was written when the gift was still active in the church, and even then there were false prophets around so they had to be tested.
In some sections of the church today - and in the church overseas - prophecy is active.
That some/many people don't recognise it could be why the church has little power today.
Because prophets, along with apostles, were only for the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20).
And yet the word Apostle means "sent", and we are all sent out by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel; some have the gift or prophecy today, but many more forth-tell the word of God - which is what prophecy is, it's not fortune telling - in sermons.
