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

[JAL]

I've only giving what the new testament has stated about your topic.

You base your post on prophesying being the indication of maturity. Yet the apostle Paul does not agree with you.

When you've addressed all the arguments on this thread, that statement might have some credibility. Until then...

 

[A_Thinker]

Then you missed the point of chapter 13, ..

1 Corinthians 13 focuses upon LOVE. I've found no believer, until today, who does not agree.

Is it your hope to convince me other wise ?

 

[A_Thinker]

Give me an example where I discounted Christ's words. That's what you accused me of.

"By this will all men know that you are my disciples ... if you have LOVE, one for another." John 13:35

Does that mean that Jesus was wrong when He said that love is a marker? One scholar pointed out (wish I had saved that reference), the only way to make sense of Jesus' words is that the Inward Witness must confirm that apparent love is real love, unfaked.

 

[JAL]

1 Corinthians 13 focuses upon LOVE. I've found no believer, until today, who does not agree.

Is it your hope to convince me other wise ?

We don't really need to quibble over whether love is a big theme in 1Cor 13. Even atheists know it is, because it gets read at lots of weddings.

This is surely more deflection. Clearly the point of my post was verses 8-12 at the center of the charismatic/cesseationist debate. Love is mentioned in many places in the bible (hence it's not really a monumental aspect of 1Cor 13 from the standpoint of theological debate) but 8-12 obviously has a very pivotal passage about the gifts.

See time and again, you ignore the main aspects of my objections. How telling. 100 posts deep, and you haven't commented on the arguments I made about solid food, as well as many other arguments.

 

[JAL]

I'm at work, not sure if I'll be able to check back very often.

 

[A_Thinker]

Scripture is not solid food!

Scripture is solid ground. Everything else is sinking sand.

You have an interpretational problem ...

You malign Paul's letters to the Corinthian church as milk, ... while simultaneously finding support for your particular interpretational twist in Paul's letters to the Corinthians.

So ... which is it ? Are the letters to the Corinthian church the basis for mature doctrine in the church ... or not ?

Further, Paul wrote to, at least 6 other churches, and to two trusted church brethren.

Yet you're not demonstrating support for your interpretation in these, possibly, more meaty scriptural communications.

Is it your contention that all that Paul wrote is milk ?

 

[JAL]

Scripture is solid ground. Everything else is sinking sand.

You have an interpretational problem ...

You malign Paul's letters to the Corinthian church as milk, ... while simultaneously finding support for your particular interpretational twist in Paul's letters to the Corinthians.

You conveniently ignored the fact that the early church father Chrysostom reached the same conclusion. More importantly you failed to provide an alternative resolution of that passage in Corinthians - and the two parallel passages at 1 Peter 2:2 and Hebrews 5, all of which I BEGGED you to address.

So ... which is it ? Are the letters to the Corinthian church the basis for mature doctrine in the church ... or not ?

Mature doctrine?

Further, Paul wrote to, at least 6 other churches, and to two trusted church brethren.

Yet you're not demonstrating support for your interpretation in these, possibly, more meaty scriptural communications.
Is it your contention that all that Paul wrote is milk ?

Now you're flatly contradicting yourself, right? Above you just chastized me for maligning one epistle as milk, implying it's all equally solid ground. Now you're back-pedaling by implying that some of Paul's other letters have the real meat? But Hebrews made the same distinction as 1cornthians on solid food as I've been pointing out! So then your solution apparently is, if I extrapolate it:
(1) Hebrews and 1Corinthians aren't very meaty, so evidently that's the babes milk
(2) But some of Paul's other letters (you said to 6 churches) have the real meat.
Hebrews isn't meaty enough for you, compared to the other letters? 1Corinthians isn't meaty enough for you, compared to other letters? Sorry that's a bogus distinction. In my view, all the epistles are of the same quality, albeit some are longer than others.

And you're still ignoring key aspects of the argument. Paul said this meat came to him by direct revelation. The conclusion is solid. Again:
(1) We know that Paul gave the Corinthians Scripture (that epistle). And he called it babes milk.
(2) He denied them these other special revelations (solid food), due to their lack of maturity.
THEREFORE immersion in special direct revelations was a vital measuring stick in Paul's gauge of maturity.
(3) These are not written revelations. They are SPOKEN from one mature believer to another (look at verse 2:6 and the subsequent verses). Paul is talking about INSPIRED SPEECH (what I call prophecy), NOT about biblical exegesis, as 2:10-16 clearly indicate.

 

[JAL]

Scripture is solid ground. Everything else is sinking sand.

You have an interpretational problem ...

You malign Paul's letters to the Corinthian church as milk, ... while simultaneously finding support for your particular interpretational twist in Paul's letters to the Corinthians.

So ... which is it ? Are the letters to the Corinthian church the basis for mature doctrine in the church ... or not ?

Further, Paul wrote to, at least 6 other churches, and to two trusted church brethren.

Yet you're not demonstrating support for your interpretation in these, possibly, more meaty scriptural communications.

Is it your contention that all that Paul wrote is milk ?

And no comment on 2:15-16? Those verses drive the nail into the coffin, as far as I can see.

 

[A_Thinker]

Now you're flatly contradicting yourself, right? Above you just chastised me for maligning one epistle as milk, implying it's all equally solid ground. Now you're back-pedaling by implying that some of Paul's other letters have the real meat? But Hebrews made the same distinction as 1 corinthians on solid food as I've been pointing out!

My point is that YOU can't have it both ways.

You can't shade the letter to the Corinthians church as milk when it says what you don't like ... yet use portions of it to support beliefs that you agree with.

You conveniently ignored the fact that the early church father Chrysostom reached the same conclusion. More importantly you failed to provide an alternative resolution of that passage in Corinthians - and the two parallel passages at 1 Peter 2:2 and Hebrews 5, all of which I BEGGED you to address.

Neither pasage you mention above says anything about the gift of prophecy ... which is the focus of your posting.

P.S. Noone is saying our walk with Christ is NOT a walk of growth, where we start with spiritual milk ... and grow to partake spiritual meat. The point being made is that giftedness is not necessarily correlated with such growth. Obviously, the Corinthians were experiencing giftedness, as carnal as they were.

 

[A_Thinker]

And no comment on 2:15-16? Those verses drive the nail into the coffin, as far as I can see.

1 Corinthians 2:15-16 also says nothing about prophecy.

 

[JAL]

My point is that YOU can't have it both ways.

You can't shade the letter to the Corinthians church as milk when it says what you don't like ... yet use portions of it to support beliefs that you agree with.

So you read me as saying that Scripture, as babes milk, isn't true? That's an absurd reading of me and I think you know it. This is just deflection.

Neither pasage you mention above says anything about the gift of prophecy ... which is the focus of your posting.

For the millionth time, the core of my position is direct revelation. (Sigh). Again, you don't get to throw out the baby with the bathwater - no such easy escape - just because we disagree on whether the proper term for the direct revelations of 1Cor 2 is 'prophecy'. That's like saying, 'If you're not a Trinitarian, then you have no right to debate on whether God exists". Huh? The core point (God exists) can be debated on regardless. Likewise the core point (special revelation) can be debated on regardless. I noted this fact over and over and over and over again, so it looks to me like you're just deflecting.

P.S. Noone is saying our walk with Christ is NOT a walk of growth, where we start with spiritual milk ... and grow to partake spiritual meat. The point being made is that giftedness is not necessarily correlated with such growth. Obviously, the Corinthians were experiencing giftedness, as carnal as they were.

That's YOUR man-made doctrine. That 's not Paul's words regarding solid food. I'll go with Paul's view for the moment.

 

[JAL]

1 Corinthians 2:15-16 also says nothing about prophecy.

See my last post explaining (for the millionth time) why that semantic distinction is moot. So let's discuss what that passage DOES say, shall we, since you ignored my earlier argument about it (hence I have to keep repeating myself, and here I am at work). I won't even have time to repeat the arguments based on a parallel to 14:37 where Phillip Schaff admitted Paul's talking about inspiration (which I happen to call 'prophecy').

First the context. Starting at 2:6, Paul is telling the Corinthians about special revelations (solid food) for the mature, not for these immature 'babes'. His other word for 'mature' in that passage is 'spiritual'. He says they were not spiritual.

So he gave them Scripture (babes milk) - he couldn't give them more extraordinary revelations.

So what does it mean to be 'spiritual', then? What does it mean to be mature? At minimum, by Paul standards, it means someone who receives revelations more extraordinary than Scripture.

And we know it is true of Paul. For example, he "was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell" (2Cor 12:2) which he classified as "the surpassing greatness of the revelations(verse 7). You caught that, right? You can't share surpassing revelations with everyone.

As stated, then, a spiritual man is a man privy to extraordinary revelations. Therefore 2:15-16 drive the nail in the coffin - and that without even discussing the tie to 14:37.

"But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we [apostles] have the mind of Christ" (2:15-16

Thus the spiritual man is one who is so one-minded with the Lord - so infused with direct revelation - that he is beyond human correction. The passage clearly indicates that trying to correct a spiritual man is like trying to correct the Lord. No scholar, no theologian, no one who walks by exegesis could possibly achieve that level of perfect harmony with the Lord. This passage can ONLY be talking about someone abounding in direct revelation. And THAT, my friend, is Paul's gauge of spiritual maturity, like it or not.

P.S. Even though it's a moot point, I am well justified in regarding such a man as a prophet, as confirmed at 14:37. But the terminology isn't the core issue here - the core issue is direct revelation.

 

[JAL]

@A_Thinker,

Let me summarize things this way. There are two basic ways to look at Paul.
(1) He was nothing more than a kick-start for the church. He got extra revelations just because we needed someone to write the Bible. That level of direct revelation is unrepeatable.
(2) Or, God may have intended Paul as an exemplar for us all, as a bar by which we can measure our own maturity.

For 2,000 years, the church has been selling us option 1.

But when we examine what Paul actually said, he's seems to be at pains to steer our thinking to option 2.

 

[JAL]

31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

Oh sorry I had it my mind that 31b was words expressed at the end of chapter 13. My lousy memory has failed me again - and was partly influenced by a theologian (Howard Ervin) who regarded 14:1 as as a summary of 'the most excellent way' (and I still agree with him).

Anyway you cite here the whole of chapter 13 without much specific commentary. Not really all that helpful

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Looks like you're stressing 13:2 again, which I've addressed numerous times. It's moot for three reasons. It's hyperbolic (a logically impossible hypothetical) because:
(1) No one can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge.
(2) No Christian can be devoid of lov e (if you understand the new birth)
(3) My purview here is maturity - a superlative outpouring of direct revelation. God won't grant that kind of favor to a believer shortcoming in love/character (see Num 12). Thus maturity in the fruits and maturity in the charisms will temporally coincide as I repeatedly pointed out.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will fail; where there are tongues, they will cease; where there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Yes this is Paul's reiteration of the same argument adduced in chapter 2. This passage makes my case pretty much indubitable, it proves my position completely, as I demonstrated in a two-part exposition (post 58 and post 64). As I pointed out at post 64, this passage is so probative on the issue that even several prominent cessationist scholars found themselves forced to admit that Paul gauged spiritual maturity by prophetic maturity. I cited those scholars directly.

You haven't addressed that analysis.

 

[LightLoveHope]

You conveniently ignored the fact that the early church father Chrysostom reached the same conclusion. More importantly you failed to provide an alternative resolution of that passage in Corinthians - and the two parallel passages at 1 Peter 2:2 and Hebrews 5, all of which I BEGGED you to address.

Mature doctrine?

Now you're flatly contradicting yourself, right? Above you just chastized me for maligning one epistle as milk, implying it's all equally solid ground. Now you're back-pedaling by implying that some of Paul's other letters have the real meat? But Hebrews made the same distinction as 1cornthians on solid food as I've been pointing out! So then your solution apparently is, if I extrapolate it:
(1) Hebrews and 1Corinthians aren't very meaty, so evidently that's the babes milk
(2) But some of Paul's other letters (you said to 6 churches) have the real meat.
Hebrews isn't meaty enough for you, compared to the other letters? 1Corinthians isn't meaty enough for you, compared to other letters? Sorry that's a bogus distinction. In my view, all the epistles are of the same quality, albeit some are longer than others.

And you're still ignoring key aspects of the argument. Paul said this meat came to him by direct revelation. The conclusion is solid. Again:
(1) We know that Paul gave the Corinthians Scripture (that epistle). And he called it babes milk.
(2) He denied them these other special revelations (solid food), due to their lack of maturity.
THEREFORE immersion in special direct revelations was a vital measuring stick in Paul's gauge of maturity.
(3) These are not written revelations. They are SPOKEN from one mature believer to another (look at verse 2:6 and the subsequent verses). Paul is talking about INSPIRED SPEECH (what I call prophecy), NOT about biblical exegesis, as 2:10-16 clearly indicate.

1 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind.
2 Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,
3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
1 Peter 2:1-3

12 by this time you ought to be teachers
Heb 5:12

14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Heb 5

9 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding.
Col 9

The above verses are emphasising walking righteously, from the heart is everything. Without a clean heart and good conscience we are lost without direction.

We need to know Gods will and do it. Prophesy is the speaking out of Gods word and will for His people. But a prophet is only as good as his obedience to Gods commands, and if they fall into sin they will be judged. Our foundation is upon Jesus, our hearts being cleansed and purified, walking in obedience to Jesus, and out of this light will come the words of truth and the words of God.

If one is opposing walking in purity and holiness, everything else is lost. I have found those who emphasise prophecy are actually saying our walk does not matter compared to hearing the word of God through a prophet. The problem is we have Gods word, written down for us, and the prophets apply this to the body and the situation they see before them as commanded by God.

The danger is some aspire to speak in authority and power, while not knowing the heart of God whose words they are claiming to speak. It is much better to be silent than sin. God bless you

 

[LightLoveHope]

Oh sorry I had it my mind that 31b was words expressed at the end of chapter 13. My lousy memory has failed me again - and was partly influenced by a theologian (Howard Ervin) who regarded 14:1 as as a summary of 'the most excellent way' (and I still agree with him).

Anyway you cite here the whole of chapter 13 without much specific commentary. Not really all that helpful
Looks like you're stressing 13:2 again, which I've addressed numerous times. It's moot for three reasons. It's hyperbolic (a logically impossible hypothetical) because:
(1) No one can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge.
(2) No Christian can be devoid of lov e (if you understand the new birth)
(3) My purview here is maturity - a superlative outpouring of direct revelation. God won't grant that kind of favor to a believer shortcoming in love/character (see Num 12). Thus maturity in the fruits and maturity in the charisms will temporally coincide as I repeatedly pointed out.


Yes this is Paul's reiteration of the same argument adduced in chapter 2. This passage makes my case pretty much indubitable, it proves my position completely, as I demonstrated in a two-part exposition (post 58 and post 64). As I pointed out at post 64, this passage is so probative on the issue that even several prominent cessationist scholars found themselves forced to admit that Paul gauged spiritual maturity by prophetic maturity. I cited those scholars directly.

You haven't addressed that analysis.

If these forums teach us anything, many believers have a hard time knowing what the difference is between good and evil, to do good and avoid evil, of which they need to repent and come to the cross for forgiveness.

And often such believers believe they are speaking the word of God, desiring to condemn and identify those they believe are evil and destroying the testimony of the gospel.

So I agree those who are perfect, mature, can prophecy, speak forth Gods heart and truth to the situation at hand, but with so much apostasy and sin prevalent and accepted as if this is the gospel, it is hard to see the how.

It strikes me those who desire to exercise such prophetic gifting need to demonstrate their good fruit and their wisdom from God, as there are too many false prophets who speak from a dark heart.

So I was wondering what is your feelings upon purity, holiness and a righteous walk?

 

[A_Thinker]

Looks like you're stressing 13:2 again, which I've addressed numerous times. It's moot for three reasons. It's hyperbolic (a logically impossible hypothetical) because:
(1) No one can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge.
(2) No Christian can be devoid of lov e (if you understand the new birth)
(3) My purview here is maturity - a superlative outpouring of direct revelation. God won't grant that kind of favor to a believer shortcoming in love/character (see Num 12). Thus maturity in the fruits and maturity in the charisms will temporally coincide as I repeatedly pointed out.

So ... now YOU strive to render Paul's words of none effect ...

You haven't addressed that analysis.

I don't have to address the whole of your analysis. To determine that your analysis is not consistently supported by scripture is sufficient.

I am not a cessationist.

I favor views that I find are supported by scripture, which I don't find your analysis to be.

One further question however ... what is Paul telling us about our attitude towards scripture in the text quoted below ... ?

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

 

[JAL]

So ... now YOU strive to render Paul's words of none effect ...

If you aren't specific in your objection, there's nothing I can respond to.

I don't have to address the whole of your analysis. To determine that your analysis is not consistently supported by scripture is sufficient.

This is the attitude, "I'm already convinced, don't confuse me with the facts."

I am not a cessationist.

I'm opposed to cessationism too. Precisely my point, right? When I hold a position so cogent that even my most determined opponents in a debate find themselves forced to concede all my main conclusions, it's likely an exegetically strong position. Can you boast the same? If so, cite the scholars as I did. Because this kind of thing is rare.

I favor views that I find are supported by scripture, which I don't find your analysis to be.

Of course not. You just admitted you don't want to read and address it.

You're worried about my analysis of Scripture? Really? Sir, you have no idea how logically impregnable my position is. I don't need Scripture to support my position - I gave you plenty, but that's just icing on the cake. My position is essentially tautological and thus irrefutable, in fact it holds true regardless of which religion is the true one. I'll explain.

In any religion, the major concern is human welfare. We want to save both ourselves and the world. Since 100 billion people have lived and died since the world began, there's a lot at stake here, we cannot afford to risk making mistakes in evangelism (we can't even afford the risk of assuming it's okay to make mistakes). Exegesis is fallible. As a result, the pursuit of infallible revelation (guiding our evangelism for example) must be our top priority (what I refer to as the pursuit of prophecy - see 1Cor 14:1). Indeed Pentecost is an excellent prooftext that true evangelism must be prophetic inspiration (see Post 179, Post 180 on another thread). Now suppose I'm wrong. Suppose we don't need infallible revelation/prophecy. The problem sir, is that with 100 billion souls at stake, I need to be infallibly certain that we do not, in fact, need it. Either way, then, I have an obligation to prioritize the pursuit of infallible revelation (1Cor 14:1). Anything less is insanity. And since God knows it's insanity, He has little choice, if He is good, but to uphold that endeavor. (Of course if God isn't good, religion is futile anyway).

Note this logic is impregnably true for all monotheistic religions. So I don't even need to prove that the Bible is true to make my case.

One further question however ... what is Paul telling us about our attitude towards scripture in the text quoted below ... ?

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

You want to be sure that you've understood this verse correctly? You'd better prioritize the pursuit of infallible revelation. In fact I'm pretty sure that you are misunderstanding it.

 

[A_Thinker]

When I hold a position so cogent that even my most determined opponents in a debate find themselves forced to concede all my main conclusions, it's likely an exegetically strong position. Can you boast the same?

My objective is not to boast ...

 

[JAL]

My objective is not to boast ...

I'm just citing scholarly support for my position. Any theologian worth his salt will do the same.