You're not a prophet? Then you're not mature!

[S.O.J.I.A.]

If you say so. But tongues isn't mentioned in verse 14:1

but it is in the following 24 verses where the first verse is part of that context. are you gonna be this nitpicky?

That was one of his points. And?

and it has nothing to do with prophecy

(1) Chapter 2 is contrasting "We mature apostles" who, as spiritual men, DO speak all this Spirit-inspired speech
(2) Versus you immature Corinthian babes who, as immature/unspiritual men, are NOT privy to all this Spirit-inspired speech.

which does not necessitate prophecy. the one who speaks in tongues is also Spirit filled, but isn't doing prophecy. same with the one who does gifts of healing. and yes, people lacking the Spirit can't understand Spiritual things. their problem was they lacked the Spirit of God, not that they lacked the ability to prophesy. maturity isn't prophecy but rather one who lives by the Spirit.

We can certainly debate terminology here, if you really want to argue that most Spirit-inspired speech isn't prophecy.

i'll allow the scriptures to do that as 1 Corinthians 12 differentiates words of knowledge and words of wisdom from prophecy in the list of Spiritual gifts. all 3 are Spirit filled speech.

a pastor who is preaching isn't a prophet. he is rightly dividing the Word of Truth through words of knowledge and wisdom.

 

[topher694]

I think you're harping on irrelevant points. Virtually every opinion posted by any poster on this forum is presented as a fact. Some opinions are asserted more or less vigorously/apodictically depending on the poster's degree of felt certainty. I'm not sure whether we need to dwell on this point any further.

Ultimately I don't really assert anything as fact (see my signature). Even when I CALL it fact - which i do when I am vigorously defending my position and I feel very certain of my stance - my signature is always present as a disclaimer. By my own epistemology, one is fully warranted in asserting a 'fact' only if he has 100% certainty - at which point he would be warranted in asserting himself infallible on said 'fact'.

See above. Opining is not inherently a circularity. All proofs are ultimately circular in the sense of relying on foundational axioms to avoid infinite regress, but if we at least agree on the axioms (e.g. Scripture is inspired) we can proceed from there.
I don't recall dismissing it out of hand. I recall promising to demonstrate the correct reading of the passage, which I subsequently attempted as promised.
No as I recall, you raised an inherently epistemological issue. And I didn't shut you down, I merely expressed a preference to discuss it on another thread. I never said I would ignore you on this thread.

Yep, I'm harping on irrelevant points. You really just can't help yourself can you? Enjoy your "debate" I'm out. I'm off to church to immaturely preach and prophesy.

 

[JAL]

but it is in the following 24 verses where the first verse is part of that context. are you gonna be this nitpicky?

You seem stuck on a false dichotomy, namely that some aspect of prophecy enunciated in chap 14 necessarily precludes other aspects (such as maturity) being enunciated in chapters 2, 3, and 13. It doesn't follow.

maturity isn't prophecy but rather one who lives by the Spirit

This kind of statement pretty much invalidates your responses to me. I didn't say that maturity is prophecy. I said that maturity coincides temporally with mature prophecy, and with maturity in the fruits of the Spirit. They are all part of the package. I am not asking you to believe me but Paul.

and it has nothing to do with prophecy

Defined merely as foretelling?

Earlier I alluded to evangelism defined in the NT as prophetic utterance, as I argued at Post 179, Post 180, on another thread. And those were just my own arguments. In the past century a couple of scholarly books have covered several more exegetical arguments for this conclusion, see Stronstad's book The Prophethood of all Believers and especially Shelton's book, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. These scholars too (among others) find that the NT defines witnessing as prophetic utterance. As Shelton points out, the premier evangelist/witness in Christ's early days was John the Baptist, a prophet in the magnitude of Elijah. Surely prophecy isn't limited to foretelling.

which does not necessitate prophecy. the one who speaks in tongues is also Spirit filled, but isn't doing prophecy. same with the one who does gifts of healing. and yes, people lacking the Spirit can't understand Spiritual things. their problem was they lacked the Spirit of God, not that they lacked the ability to prophesy. maturity isn't prophecy but rather one who lives by the Spirit.

None of this negates the claim that maturity of prophecy coincides with spiritual maturity.

You are free to enrich my thesis. In fact that's what Paul did. At 1Cor 13, which I will cover later, he ALSO coincided maturity of prophecy with maturity of tongues and knowledge. That doesn't refute my conclusion, it just expands on it.

i'll allow the scriptures to do that as 1 Corinthians 12 differentiates words of knowledge and words of wisdom from prophecy in the list of Spiritual gifts. all 3 are Spirit filled speech. A pastor who is preaching isn't a prophet. he is rightly dividing the Word of Truth through words of knowledge and wisdom.

So the argument is:
(1) Teaching the Bible is the most common form of Spirit-inspired speech.
(2) Therefore Jal is wrong to assume that prophets orated the largest quantity of Spirit-inspired speech.

Are you talking about today's so-called 'pastors'? I see a lot of exegesis-based preaching but I personally don't believe it's Spirit-inspired speech. I mean they can't even agree on water baptism, so why should I presume them inspired?

Regarding point #2, it just seems crazy to NOT believe that the prophets orated the most Spirit-inspired speech. For example in the OT, if you wanted a Word from God, who did you consult? Some random preacher? Or a prophet? The answer is obvious. Full-time prophets abounded the most in inspiration, compared to ordinary believers. And I think it's pretty clear that prophetic gifting was a qualification for apostleship, part of the package. 1Cor 2 is dealing with apostles/prophets contrasted with the immature Corinthians.

 

[JAL]

Yep, I'm harping on irrelevant points. You really just can't help yourself can you? Enjoy your "debate" I'm out. I'm off to church to immaturely preach and prophesy.

I gave reasons for my assessment of your statements. You ignored them. Seems to me that when you claim I've ignored your points, it's just the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[topher694]

I gave reasons for my assessment of your statements. You ignored them. Seems to me that when you claim I've ignored your points, it's just the pot calling the kettle black.

I gave reasons for my assessment you said I was harping on irrelevant points. There's no kettle here, just the pot Mr. Black.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE,

I understand your concern that 1Corinthians 2 doesn't use the term prophecy explicitly. Here's why. In that chapter, the term spiritual (2:15, 3:1) is Paul's synonym for the maturity of himself and his fellow apostles/prophets contrasted with the immaturity of the Corinthians. The term prophet is needlessly redundant, and slightly less appropriate in this context because a prophet isn't necessarily mature. He needs to be a mature prophet to classify as 'spiritual' (mature).

In other words, you need to at least be a prophet to be eligible for the classification spiritual/mature found in chapter 2. After all, in post 34, as a follow up to post 8, I argued that chapters 2 and 3 thematize solid food as a plane of direct revelation higher than biblical inspiration itself. Grant me this much, that a man on such a plane qualifies - at minimum - to be called a prophet. And if you won't grant me that much, I can revise my formula to this, "In 1Cor 2, Paul equates the spiritual/mature man with someone endued with at least biblical inspiration or higher revelation."

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE:

Here I hope to finish my exposition of 1Cor 2, initiated at post 8 and post 34 and post 47.

“We [apostles and prophets] do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature” (2:6).

How precisely does Paul characterize this mature man? Paul’s synonym for mature is “spiritual” described as follows:

"He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we [apostles and prophets] have the mind of Christ" (2:15-16).


Did you catch that? By Paul’s own words, a spiritual man is so one-minded with the Lord that he is beyond human correction! According to the passage, attempting to correct a spiritual man is like trying to correct the Lord! Folks, if a man fitting that description doesn’t qualify in your view as a prophet, I can’t imagine who would!

Although chapter 14 isn’t really in my purview here, 14:37 is relevant to 2:15 because it's another commentary on the term spiritual.

“If anyone thinks they are a prophet, or spiritual, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (14:37).

Did you catch that? Did you notice the close juxtaposition of prophet and spiritual, as though synonyms of sorts? If the proximity itself doesn’t convince you, consider Paul’s logic. He is saying that when he writes a letter, anyone who happens to be a prophet, or spiritual, will automatically know that the words are inspired. The famous evangelical scholar Philip Schaff commented on this verse that what Paul is saying is, “inspiration will not deny inspiration”. That comment came from a conservative evangelical commentary! Thus the commentary is implying that Paul defines the spiritual man – the mature man – in terms of inspiration.

One thing is for sure – 14:37 flies in the face of reducing the definition of spiritual maturity to fruits of the Spirit sans spiritual gifts. You can’t be spiritual/mature and yet charismatically ungifted, if 14:37 has anything to say about it. And the commentaries seem unanimous on the existence of such a connotation of 'spiritual' at 14:37. Indeed I seem to recall, a few years back, of every commentary that I looked at, if it happened to treat 14:37 in any depth, it perceived ‘supernatural spiritual gifts’ in the term ‘spiritual’ (as opposed to just the fruits of the Spirit). In fact the NIV translation is quite illuminating because it actually substitutes the concept of ‘gifts’ for the word ‘spiritual’:


“If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (14:37, NIV).


Again, consider 12:1. The Corinthians were unspiritual. Paul didn’t want them to remain unspiritual. Therefore 12:1 opens with, “Now about spiritual things, brothers, I would not have ye ignorant.” He then proceeds with a list of charismatic spiritual gifts. Contrary to popular belief, Paul had no inkling of a spiritual maturity devoid of the charismata. And we'll find this same ideology reiterated in chapter 13, as I will show.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You seem stuck on a false dichotomy, namely that some aspect of prophecy enunciated in chap 14 necessarily precludes other aspects (such as maturity) being enunciated in chapters 2, 3, and 13. It doesn't follow.

I haven't a clue what you're even insinuating here. the point of your OP was that 1 Corinthians 14 proves you can't be a mature believer if you don't prophesy. the chapter says no such thing, nor does any of the other chapters you've named.

chapter 13 says all the Spiritual gifts are useless if not accompanied with love. nothing about prophesy being necessary for Spiritual maturity.

I didn't say that maturity is prophecy. I said that maturity coincides temporally with mature prophecy, and with maturity in the fruits of the Spirit. They are all part of the package. I am not asking you to believe me but Paul.

"you're not a prophet, then you're not mature"

that's the title you wrote. you're being challanged on that point and are now back-peddling.

unless you want to say that your title was just click-bait.

Defined merely as foretelling?

that would be the definition scripture gives. there's also the act of speaking God's very words to the people, obviously(ie being God's mouthpiece).

FYI: one who is indeed a prophet can do other things that aren't prophetic, like eat locusts and wild honey, teach from the scriptures, and proclaim the gospel to the lost. everything a prophet does outside of foretelling events doesn't automatically become a prophetic action just because someone who is a prophet did it.

None of this negates the claim that maturity of prophecy coincides with spiritual maturity.

rather it negates your claim that if you're not a prophet, then you're not mature.

So the argument is:
(1) Teaching the Bible is the most common form of Spirit-inspired speech.
(2) Therefore Jal is wrong to assume that prophets orated the largest quantity of Spirit-inspired speech.

that's not the argument.

rather, it is:
1. teaching scripture properly requires a Spirit filled gift that is distinct from the gift of prophesy
2. therefore you don't need to be a prophet to be Spiritually mature or have the Spirit working effectively in you.

 

[JAL]

the point of your OP was that 1 Corinthians 14 proves you can't be a mature believer if you don't prophesy. the chapter says no such thing, nor does any of the other chapters you've named.

Verse 14:1 was a good start, but I've provided plenty of other verses to corroborate my thesis.

chapter 13 says all the Spiritual gifts are useless if not accompanied with love.

Consistent with my thesis.

nothing about prophesy being necessary for Spiritual maturity.

No? Chapter 13 doesn't tie prophecy to spiritual maturity? You're in for a real treat, then, when I start quoting even cessationist scholars on this very point.

"you're not a prophet, then you're not mature"

that's the title you wrote. you're being challanged on that point and are now back-peddling.

unless you want to say that your title was just click-bait.

The disconnect here is attempting to be precise - without writing a 1,000 page systematic theology textbook - on words that are nearly coterminous. Is 'mature prophet' enough to define spiritual maturity? Depends on how you look at it. From the standpoint of the temporal coincidence of maturity with mature prophecy, that's enough. On the the other hand if we take this to mean inspired utterances devoid of any fruits of the Spirit, it is not enough - or is it? Arguably yes, because such a deficiency is a logical impossibility. Meaning, God won't be foolish enough to MAXIMALLY endue a fruitless, immature Christians with the fullness of the gifts, regardless of any (purely) hypothetical to the contrary existing in chapter 13.

Without writing a 1,000 page textbook, then, I stand by my claim, that Paul defines spiritual maturity in terms of mature prophecy - because those two concepts temporally coincide, NOT because they are strictly coterminous. Thus while my words may be imprecise at points, I have not back-pedaled at all. I remain standing firm on the title of this thread.

that would be the definition scripture gives.

Prophecy is strictly foretelling?You confirm:

FYI: one who is indeed a prophet can do other things that aren't prophetic, like eat locusts and wild honey, teach from the scriptures, and proclaim the gospel to the lost. everything a prophet does outside of foretelling events doesn't automatically become a prophetic action just because someone who is a prophet did it.

Ok but prophecy involves Spirit-inspired speech, so what you are saying, then, is: Whenever the prophet was the oracle of God:
- If the words uttered were foretelling, it was prophetic ministry.
- If the words uttered were not foretelling, it was - what ministry?

That's a weird dichotomy. And you continue to ignore evidence that evangelism is prophetic utterance, where I provided links to such arguments.

But as I pointed out recently, this issue isn't really critical to my primary thesis. I said that for those who can't bring themselves to discern any prophetic ambiance in chapter 2, I would be happy to revise my thesis to something like this, "1Corinthians 2 classifies a spiritual/mature man in terms of a person privy to direct revelations at the level of biblical inspiration or even higher revelation."

And if you want to celebrate this compromise of mine as proof of major backpedaling, concession, and capitulation, you're free to cherish your 'victory'. But I don't think others will find it terribly relevant.

that's not the argument.
rather, it is:
1. teaching scripture properly requires a Spirit filled gift that is distinct from the gift of prophesy
2. therefore you don't need to be a prophet to be Spiritually mature or have the Spirit working effectively in you.

You're mixing apples and oranges. Let's take one point at a time here:

1. teaching scripture properly requires a Spirit filled gift that is distinct from the gift of prophesy

And yet Paul counseled to eagerly pursue the GREATER gifts (e.g. prophecy), thus clearly insinuating that a mere teacher isn't necessarily at the top of the spiritual ladder. He is typically NOT mature by Paul's strict definition. The real disconnect here is that for 2,000 years the church has bought into a very substandard definition of spiritual maturity and thus everyone is shocked beyond belief when I challenge their man-made definitions on exegetical grounds.

2. therefore...

Therefore nothing. Premise 1 was faulty, hence the conclusion 2 doesn't follow. But look how you mix apples and oranges:

2. therefore you don't need to be a prophet to be Spiritually mature or have the Spirit working effectively in you

Paul's standard of maturity is very idealistically high. Christians even remotely approaching that level of maturity will find the Spirit working VERY effectively in them, albeit not as effectively as with Paul.

 

[charsan]

Another nutty thread

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Verse 14:1 was a good start,

not when you pluck one verse away from it's context and claim you made a valid point.

No? Chapter 13 doesn't tie prophecy to spiritual maturity?

rather, it doesn't say that one can't be mature unless they prophecy.

Consistent with my thesis.

hardly,

that chapter would actually point out that one is not Spiritually mature if he doesn't have love as the gifts are rendered useless without it.

The disconnect here is attempting to be precise - without writing a 1,000 page systematic theology textbook - on words that are nearly coterminous. Is 'mature prophet' enough to define spiritual maturity? Depends on how you look at it. From the standpoint of the temporal coincidence of maturity with mature prophecy, that's enough. On the the other hand if we take this to mean inspired utterances devoid of any fruits of the Spirit, it is not enough - or is it? Arguably yes, because such a deficiency is a logical impossibility. Meaning, God won't be foolish enough to MAXIMALLY endue a fruitless, immature Christians with the fullness of the gifts, regardless of any (purely) hypothetical to the contrary existing in chapter 13.

Without writing a 1,000 page textbook, then, I stand by my claim, that Paul defines spiritual maturity in terms of mature prophecy - because those two concepts temporally coincide, NOT because they are strictly coterminous. Thus while my words may be imprecise at points, I have no back-pedaled at all. I remain standing firm on the title of this thread.

here, you're claiming to stand by the thread title but are arguing something different. if you want to say that Spiritual maturity means you will maximize the gifts, then I would agree. saying you're not Spiritually mature if you're not a prophet, that doesn't follow anything you're writing here.

Ok but prophecy involves Spirit-inspired speech, so what you are saying, then, is: Whenever the prophet was the oracle of God:
- If the words uttered were foretelling, it was prophetic ministry.
- If the words uttered were not foretelling, it was - what ministry?

That's a weird dichotomy. And you continue to ignore evidence that evangelism is prophetic utterance, where I provided links to such arguments.

i edited my response to include that the prophets spoke the words the LORD told them to speak to the people as far as giving instructions on how they were to live before Him which didn't include foretelling events. the was unique to the time when we didn't have an inspired canon to go to for what the LORD had to say to His people. in that time he used the prophets and apostles for this task. as Paul points out in 2 timothy 3:16-17, scripture is sufficient in instructing the believer on how to live a holy life pleasing to the LORD.

there were still Spiritually mature followers of Christ who were not prophets nor apostles and did none of this.

I would be happy to revise my thesis to something like this, "1Corinthians 2 classifies a spiritual/mature man in terms of a person privy to direct revelations at the level of biblical inspiration or even higher revelation."

it would be intellectually prudent for you to do so as saying that you can't be spiritually mature unless you're a prophet is patently false.

And yet Paul counseled to eagerly pursue the GREATER gifts (e.g. prophecy)

and i already pointed out that the context(which you have insisted on ignoring) of him making that statement in explained in the following 24 verses. he's comparing prophecy to tongues and saying that prophecy is more beneficial to the hearing audience as a whole because it doesn't require interpretation.

thus clearly insinuating that a mere teacher isn't necessarily at the top of the spiritual ladder. He is typically NOT mature by Paul's strict definition.

did you really just say that someone operating in the gift of teaching listed in 1 Corinthians 12:28 is NOT spiritually mature?

i'm not in the market for silly, you'll have to sell that somewhere else.

Paul's standard of maturity is very idealistically high. Christians even remotely approaching that level of maturity will find the Spirit working VERY effectively in them, albeit not as effectively as with Paul.

you're again arguing something other than the claim in the thread title which you said you stand by.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE:

Here I will tackle chapter 13. My earlier posts are relevant here (post 8 and post 34 and post 47, and post 49) because I see chapter 13 as a recapitulation of Paul’s argument begun at 2:6. Except in this chapter, he explicitly does tie the term prophecy to maturity. Two Greek terms found in chapter 2 conspicuously reappear here in chapter 13.

(1) The same Greek term for babes.

(2) The same Greek term for mature

Hence there can be little doubt that Paul, in chapter 13, is intent on driving home the same conclusions reached in chapter 2. His goal is predictably the same – to spur the unspiritual Corinthians on to a higher incidence of ‘spiritual things’ (12:1, 14:1) understood as ‘the greater gifts’ ( 12:31) in an effort to mature these babes. Even chapter 14, from start to finish, places prophecy on a pedestal.


Verses 13:8-11:


“Love never ceases. As for prophecies, they will cease; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what was in part will cease. When I was a babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things” (13:8-11).

He's not talking about the cessation of the gifts, but their maturation. The immature manifestations inevitably cease when replaced by mature embodiments. To make this very point, he creates a trio of three babe-activities, parallel to three gifts (tongues, prophecies, and knowledge). "When I was a [immature] babe,(1) I spoke like a babe, and (2) I thought like a babe, and (3) I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things."

Simply follow the parallel to its logical conclusion. In what sense did the three babe-activities cease? Did the babe stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning? No! He merely matured in those things. In other words, his own personal maturity is now defined by – or at least has temporally coincided with – his maturity in the three activities/gifts. Paul’s analogy thereby functions here as a brilliantly coined recapitulation of his argument in chapter 2.


In my next post, I’ll cite some observations made by cessationist scholars on chapter 13.

 

[JAL]

rather, it doesn't say that one can't be mature unless they prophecy.

Nor is the word 'Trinity' found in the Scriptures but that's the weightier interpretation it seems to me. Look, at some point we have to draw conclusions because Scripture isn't explicit on all matters - for example it certainly isn't explicit on your claim that prophetic utterance is limited to foretelling.

hardly,

that chapter would actually point out that one is not Spiritually mature if he doesn't have love as the gifts are rendered useless without it.

Again, 1Cor 13:2 is expressed merely in terms of hypotheticals, some of which is even hyperbole, unless you really think that a man can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge. As I define MY theology, that hypothetical is a logical impossibility which, while exaggerated to convey a point, is not decisive (read this as has no bearing) on whether maturity coincides with mature prophecy.

here, you're claiming to stand by the thread title but are arguing something different.

No, what I'm doing is making a provisional argument. I stand by the title of this thread. But for those who cannot accept it in its strictest literal wording, I claim to still be able to defend a similar position invested with all the same core elements (e.g. direct revelation), which is good enough for my purposes here. In other words, if we Christians cannot agree on everything, we can at least try to find some core points of agreement. That's not back-pedaling. It's diplomacy.

if you want to say that Spiritual maturity means you will maximize the gifts, then I would agree.

Excellent. This sounds very similar to my claim that maturity coincides with charismatic maturity. I see you are not willing to specifically concede 'prophetic maturity' but I'll take what I can get.

saying you're not Spiritually mature if you're not a prophet, that doesn't follow anything you're writing here.

Sure, if your definition of a prophet is restricted to foretelling. Hence the provisional position noted above, for those like you who cannot accept my thesis at face-value.

i edited my response to include that the prophets spoke the words the LORD told them to speak to the people as far as giving instructions on how they were to live before Him which didn't include foretelling events. the was unique to the time when we didn't have an inspired canon to go to for what the LORD had to say to His people. in that time he used the prophets and apostles for this task. as Paul points out in 2 timothy 3:16-17, scripture is sufficient in instructing the believer on how to live a holy life pleasing to the LORD.

I don't think that's the sense of 2 Tim 3. And it wasn't written to the church but to an individual 'man of God' (a prophet) named Timothy. As far as what Paul actually commanded the whole church, it was this, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

there were still Spiritually mature followers of Christ who were not prophets nor apostles and did none of this.

Sure, by your standards of maturity. Not by Paul's strict definition.

it would be intellectually prudent for you to do so as saying that you can't be spiritually mature unless you're a prophet is patently false.

Then I think you've missed the point of chapter 13:8-11. See my recent post on this.

and i already pointed out that the context(which you have insisted on ignoring) of him making that statement in explained in the following 24 verses. he's comparing prophecy to tongues and saying that prophecy is more beneficial to the hearing audience as a whole because it doesn't require interpretation.

The exhortations to seek the greater gifts are for the whole church (12:31, 14:1), not just for tongues-speakers.

did you really just say that someone operating in the gift of teaching listed in 1 Corinthians 12:28 is NOT spiritually mature? I'm not in the market for silly, you'll have to sell that somewhere else.

Ok this is just sensationalism. You're trying to create a sense of wild indignation and shock as a debating tactic. It's incendiary. That's like shouting, 'You mean to tell me that a person can speak in tongues by the Spirit of God and still be immature? Ridiculous! Outrageous claim' And yet that was precisely the state of the Corinthian speakers-in-tongues - immature.

Yes my claim is outrageous by YOUR standards of maturity comparatively low by Paul's high standards, sorry to tell you. Basically you are shoving your standards down Paul's throat. You're not even open-minded to the possibility that Scripture uses the term 'mature' in a more strict sense than what you initially suspected. And that tunnel-vision is just silly.

you're again arguing something other than the claim in the thread title which you said you stand by.

You might want to read up on Charles Finney's effectiveness as an evangelist. This man was not a prophet, in my view. I guess you're just not understanding my position very well.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Nor is the word 'Trinity' found in the Scriptures

dude please,

I didn't ask for verbatim text. there is no explicit or implicit text to substantiate your claim.

Again, 1Cor 13:2 is expressed merely in terms of hypotheticals, some of which is even hyperbole, unless you really think that a man can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge. As I define MY theology, that hypothetical is a logical impossibility which, while exaggerated to convey a point, is not decisive (read this as has no bearing) on whether maturity coincides with mature prophecy.

the point is you can excel in all the gifts and still be useless without love. it seems prophecy isn't seen as important to Paul as you insist he is claiming compared to having love.

I see you are not willing to specifically concede 'prophetic maturity' but I'll take what I can get.

you'll get what you can actually substantiate, which doesn't include saying one isn't spiritually mature if they don't prophecy.

I don't think that's the sense of 2 Tim 3. And it wasn't written to the church but to an individual 'man of God' (a prophet) named Timothy.

dude wut?

if I tell someone in a letter that that no one will smoke in my house that's only going to apply to the person i wrote it to? he made a factual statement about scripture to timothy that the whole church is to view scripture as.

Not by Paul's strict definition.

which you have yet to substantiate outside of simply claiming it to be true based purely on fiat.

Then I think you've missed the point of chapter 13:8-11.

which is preceded by Paul saying these gifts were worthless without love.

next...

The exhortations to see the greater gifts are for the whole church (12:31, 14:1), not just for tongues-speakers.

excellent job missing the point,

it's greater because it has the ability to have a greater impact on the church as a whole then speaking in a language no one can understand, thus not being able to edify anyone as it's personal to the tongue speaker unless they're accompanied by an interpreter. this is all explained in those 24 proceeding verses you utterly refuse to read.

And yet that was precisely the state of the Corinthian speakers-in-tongues - immature.

citations needed

Yes my claim is outrageous by YOUR standards....

forget about my standards, your standards, or anyone else's. none of what you're saying is in the bible(God's Word, the only standard that matters!)...period. you have not substantiated any of your claims through scripture. 1 cor 14 isn't talking about maturity or that you have to have this or that certain gift from the Spirit in order to be spiritually mature. 13 isn't saying it, 2 isn't saying it, nor 3; explicitly or implicitly.

it ain't there buddy. if you want to talk to yourself then keep going as you're going. if you actually want to convince another person outside of yourself of your position, you're gonna have come up with some more compelling exegesis.

this will conclude my responses to this thread. feel free to have the last word.

 

[JAL]

This last post looks like the easy way out - the easy escape. Basically what you're saying is, "If you can't prove your position 100% apodictically true, I don't have to accept it."


I can't give you an absolute proof of anything. I can't even prove that you exist. All I can do here is try to show my interpretation of Paul more plausible in terms of what he actually said (not in terms of your preconceived theories about maturity).




But if you are trying to go further than that - if you're trying to suggest that nothing I said had any hint of Paul in it, then I think you're in plain denial. Heck even one verse - 14:1 - constitutes some kind of support for my position, if we're really being honest here. Look back where I cited Chrysostom and Phillip Schaff in statements dramatically supporting what I stated. And I can cite numerous evangelical scholars on points foundational to my position – and more of that to come. To use your own words:

If you want to say that Spiritual maturity means you will maximize the gifts, then I would agree.

You do realize that concession is about 50% of my thesis, don’t you?

dude please,


I didn't ask for verbatim text. there is no explicit or implicit text to substantiate your claim.

There’s plenty – again, not in an apodictic sense (impossible) but in the sense of, time again, plausibly capturing the contexts (Spirit-inspired speech and/or prophecy) where Paul thematizes key terms such as ‘spiritual’, ‘mature’, and ‘babes’

the point is you can excel in all the gifts and still be useless without love. it seems prophecy isn't seen as important to Paul as you insist he is claiming compared to having love.

(Sigh). Strawman after strawman. I’m not talking about ‘excelling’ – especially not by your low standards. I’m talking about a superlative outpouring of the gifts by divine fiat. Upon a Christian completely devoid of character and love? Not going to happen It’s a logical impossibility because God isn’t a fool.


If you want to stake your whole position on a logically impossible hypothetical, it lacks credibility. How can a Christian be devoid of love in the absolute sense? Do you have any concept of the new birth as Paul understood it? Apparently not. Your entire ‘rebuttal’ of me rests upon a logically impossible caricature ruled out by the new birth – and ruled out by Numbers 12 where immature prophets are excluded from Moses-style superlative revelation. If you are not of maximal character – if you are not of maximal love – you don’t get maximal revelation. The two temporally coincide. Numbers 12 is (yet another) excellent prooftext for my position.

you'll get what you can actually substantiate, which doesn't include saying one isn't spiritually mature if they don't prophecy.

Right. Gotcha. What I can substantiate. And by that you mean what I can prove 100%. Again, I can’t even prove that you exist, so let’s not be silly here.

dude wut?

if I tell someone in a letter that that no one will smoke in my house that's only going to apply to the person i wrote it to? he made a factual statement about scripture to timothy that the whole church is to view scripture as.

There are so many problems with that reading, I hardly know where to start. Scripture is sufficient? You do realize he was referring to the OT, right? So we don’t need the NT? And where does it say ‘sufficient’ or ‘efficacious’ – does it not merely say ‘profitable’?

dude wut?

if I tell someone in a letter that that no one will smoke in my house that's only going to apply to the person i wrote it to?

Poor analogy. A ‘man of God’ (a prophet) such as Timothy has special insight to understand the scriptures. Find a better analogy, for example where a man is called upon to master a book written in Chinese. Would that apply to everyone? Does everyone have the special insight needed to comprehend Chinese?


If Scripture is so ‘sufficient’ why does verse 14:1 even exist? If anything, Scripture is sufficient in the sense of pointing us all in the needed direction – the pursuit of prophecy.


Face it. Protest all you like, 2Tim 3 wasn’t commanded to the church. It was commanded to a ‘man of God’. Verse 1Cor 14:1, on the other hand, was addressed to the whole body.

which you have yet to substantiate outside of simply claiming it to be true based purely on fiat.

Right. Substantiate. Prove it 100%. What have you substantiated lately, may I ask? You certainly haven’t substantiated that I’m wrong.

which is preceded by Paul saying these gifts were worthless without love.

Strawman, for the millionth time.

excellent job missing the point

I think you just missed mine, actually.

it's greater because it has the ability to have a greater impact on the church as a whole then speaking in a language no one can understand, thus not being able to edify anyone as it's personal to the tongue speaker unless they're accompanied by an interpreter. this is all explained in those 24 proceeding verses you utterly refuse to read.

And for the millionth time, I agree on that point. You seem to have a penchant for arguing facts not in dispute.

citations needed

For what? That the Corinthians were immature? Really? Paul’s numerous references to babes in chapters 3 and 13 haven’t been a clue on this point so far? Wasn't it enough that he couldn't even speak to them in the desired Spirit-inspired speech (prophecy) for their lack of maturity (as he argued all the way from 2:6 to 3:2)? What more citations do you need, 'dude' ? Such prophecy (solid food) is for the mature - Paul said it, Hebrews said, Peter said it,and Chrysostom confirmed it. You're the odd man out here.

forget about my standards, your standards, or anyone else's. none of what you're saying is in the bible(God's Word, the only standard that matters!)...period. you have not substantiated any of your claims through scripture. 1 cor 14 isn't talking about maturity or that you have to have this or that certain gift from the Spirit in order to be spiritually mature. 13 isn't saying it, 2 isn't saying it, nor 3; explicitly or implicitly.

Right. Substantiation. I haven’t substantiated anything 100%. Gotcha.

it ain't there buddy. if you want to talk to yourself then keep going as you're going. if you actually want to convince another person outside of yourself of your position, you're gonna have come up with some more compelling exegesis.

I’ve already cited scholars who agree with me on all my foundational points. Some of them back-pedal at the last minute, but that just affords me an opportunity to confirm my conclusions. And if they had continued to pedal forward over the centuries, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[topher694]

dude please,

I didn't ask for verbatim text. there is no explicit or implicit text to substantiate your claim.



the point is you can excel in all the gifts and still be useless without love. it seems prophecy isn't seen as important to Paul as you insist he is claiming compared to having love.


you'll get what you can actually substantiate, which doesn't include saying one isn't spiritually mature if they don't prophecy.



dude wut?

if I tell someone in a letter that that no one will smoke in my house that's only going to apply to the person i wrote it to? he made a factual statement about scripture to timothy that the whole church is to view scripture as.


which you have yet to substantiate outside of simply claiming it to be true based purely on fiat.



which is preceded by Paul saying these gifts were worthless without love.

next...


excellent job missing the point,

it's greater because it has the ability to have a greater impact on the church as a whole then speaking in a language no one can understand, thus not being able to edify anyone as it's personal to the tongue speaker unless they're accompanied by an interpreter. this is all explained in those 24 proceeding verses you utterly refuse to read.


citations needed



forget about my standards, your standards, or anyone else's. none of what you're saying is in the bible(God's Word, the only standard that matters!)...period. you have not substantiated any of your claims through scripture. 1 cor 14 isn't talking about maturity or that you have to have this or that certain gift from the Spirit in order to be spiritually mature. 13 isn't saying it, 2 isn't saying it, nor 3; explicitly or implicitly.

it ain't there buddy. if you want to talk to yourself then keep going as you're going. if you actually want to convince another person outside of yourself of your position, you're gonna have come up with some more compelling exegesis.

this will conclude my responses to this thread. feel free to have the last word.

Wise... Dare I say, mature, move. It's not worth it.

 

[JAL]

Wise... Dare I say, mature, move. It's not worth it.

So precious little interaction with the verses...Meanwhile I'll keep pointing out what Paul actually said.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE:

Here I cite several cessationist scholars who concede all my main points at 13:8-11. In all the critical areas, they read Paul here the same way I do – they concede that Paul defines maturity as maturity in prophecy, knowledge, and tongues. This will be fun. I promised a treat. Shall we?

First a brief recap. At Post 58, I showed how 13:8-11 defines maturity as maturity in prophecy, tongues, and knowledge.


“Love never ceases. As for prophecies, they will cease; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what was in part will cease. When I was a babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things” (13:8-11).


Again, the baby didn’t ‘really’ cease from those activities – he only matured in them. Several cessationist scholars agree, and concede here an endless cycle known as “relative maturity”. How so? Relative to the immature Corinthian babes, Paul was mature (2:6-3:2). Yet here he describes himself as immature! He says he is still prophesying only “in part” like the babe! Why? Because relative to Christ, he was still a babe, which means he needed to mature even more in prophecy to become a man. And when he becomes a man, he will still be a babe relative to Christ. Hence the cycle continues – endlessly. As Robertson and Plummer put it in their commentary, “The emancipation from childish things occurred as a matter of course, and [the cycle] continues”.


Cessationist Robert Thomas concedes to “the relative maturity that is implied in the illustration of v. 11 as well as the absolute maturity that is depicted in v. 12” (Robert L. Thomas, Tongues…Will Cease, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 17:2 (1974), p. 86). Twenty years later Thomas approvingly cited Robertson and Plummer as affirming that the verb kathvrghka (“I ceased from baby things”) is a relative maturity such that the cessation recurs with each new level of relative maturity (see Robert L. Thomas, 1Cor 13:11 Revisited: An Exegetical Update, Masters Seminary Journal, Vol 4:2 (1993), pp. 187-203).


Virtually quoting Thomas verbatim, cessationist Farnell postulates a “relative maturity implied by the illustration in verse 11 as well as the absolute maturity depicted in verse 12” (F. David Farnell, When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 150:598 (1993), p. 195). Again, “In verse 11, a relative maturity is signified, while verse 12 indicates an absolute maturity…[The relative maturity] is constantly changing and increasing” (ibid, p. 193). Thus, “Pauline usage of [mature] never conveys the idea of absolute perfection” (Ibid.). Cessationist Houghton sees the babe-analogy the same way, namely as relative maturity (relative perfection) continually in progress (Myron J. Houghton, A Reexamination of 1Corinthians 13:8-13, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 153:611 (1996), pp. 349-350). JFB comments on 1Cor 2:6: ‘Perfect‘ is used not of absolute perfection, but relatively to ‘babes.‘

When those scholars alluded above to ‘the absolute maturity in verse 12’ they simply meant that the seemingly endless cycle of relative maturity (maturation in prophecy) ends at some point in history per the cessationist view (for example with the advent of the NT canon). Until then, however, Paul is clearly defining maturity in terms of mature prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. For example cessationist Robert Thomas asked, “By what criteria may maturity in the body of Christ be gauged?…The criterion before Paul in 1Corinthians 13, however, centers in knowledge, tongues, and prophecy...for special revelation and [miraculous] signs for verification of this revelation (cf. Heb 2:3-4).” Likewise Gentry admits that “the mature” [at verse 9] is the quantitative escalation of “partial” prophecy, knowledge, and tongues properly defined as revelatory experiences (Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Reformed Response to Wayne Grudem (Memphis: Footstool, 1989), p. 54).

The word quantitative in that last citation refers to the babe prophesying only “in part” (verse 9) until, as a mature man, he can prophesy in full. These cessationist scholars are conceding that the quantitative nature of the Greek phrase “in part” (ek merou) can only construe maturity as a quantitative escalation (fullness) of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues. Thomas concedes that “in part” (ek merou") anticipates quantitatively increasing “degrees of revelatory understanding…This is quantitative, not qualitative.” Likewise the cessationists Houghton, Farnell, Weaver, and Bellshaw all concede that same quantitative concept.

Ok so at this point all these cessationists have admitted that Paul gauges maturation by quantitative increases in prophetic revelation. How then do they back-pedal? They claim that this cycle of relative maturity came to an end with the advent of either (A) churchwide maturity or (B) the appearance of the NT canon.

Option-A doesn’t work because the church consists of individuals who need to mature. There is no churchwide maturity in a plenal sense encompassing new converts. Option-B fails because the whole passage anticipates maturity in terms of a quantitative escalation of prophecy. What these scholars want to argue is that NT-exegesis now provides the needed quantitative increase in revelation. That doesn’t make sense. How can the cessation of prophecy – the replacement of it with the NT canon - fulfill the anticipated quantitative increase of it? After all, NT-exegesis (scholarship) isn’t direct revelation. This passage is dealing with direct revelation (otherwise cessationists wouldn’t feel any need to debate it). How can NT-exegesis constitute the expected quantitative increase in direct revelation? That’s pure nonsense.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In a nutshell, 1Corinthians doesn't value gifts for gifts' sake but for maturity's sake.

There are the gifts of the Spirit, there is also the FRUIT of the Spriit and the Fruit is only produced by a mature tree. If the tree does not produce fruit then it is not a fruit tree it is firewood.

 

[JAL]

There are the gifts of the Spirit, there is also the FRUIT of the Spriit and the Fruit is only produced by a mature tree. If the tree does not produce fruit then it is not a fruit tree it is firewood.

Correct. Nonetheless Paul's marker for spiritual maturity is prophetic maturity. I developed this argument gradually across the following posts: post 8 and post 34 and post 47, and post 49 and post 58 and finally 64.

As I told another poster, while it is hypothetically true that a love-less believer plenal in the gifts is worthless, such a state of affairs is a logical impossibility. God won't grant superlative revelation to the immature - not even if they are established prophets (see Numbers 12).

Thus the objection based on 13:2 carries no weight here. Its purpose is to convey the eminence of love, and it does so, well enough, via hyperbole.