Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

notuptome · Dec 23, 2020

You are offended by the word of God. It is your rebellion to Gods word that cast great doubt on all that you say and do.

God does not evidence in you any kindness toward His word. Are you certain you want Gods presence withdrawn from you? Conviction of sin is not pleasant but it is an evidence of His presence.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Major · Dec 23, 2020

Artios1 said:

I have to say that your responce is very "subjective" and tells me that your answers are based more on what YOU persoannly want to do concerning Sign Gifts as compared to what the Greek will allow.

First of all, We do not need "Knowledge" about how a man gets to God when God has told exactly how to do that.

Secondly, Jesus Christ CAN NOT be the Perfect in 1 Corinthians as the original Greek Grammar does not allow such a translation.

The word in English, "PERFECT" is in the Greek... τέλειον and it does not mean 'perfect'. It can means 'complete/mature'.
Robert L. Thomas (Understanding Spiritual Gifts, page 123) says that as far back as 1974 he proposed the meaning of 'complete' or 'mature', instead of the more usual 'perfect'. He also points out (page 124) that 'perfect' is not a suitable opposite to 'partial' (ἐκ μέρους).
greek - 1 Corinthians 13:10 - What does "The Perfect" Refer to? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

Now, how could Paul be referring to The Perfect as "coming" when James referred to the Perfect in the "present" if they are both referring to the same ... The Word? Consider the example of a train that has 66 cars.

James writes about the revealed Word of God using the very same word "TELEOIS" in James 1:4, James 1:25; and James 1:17.

The cars that are already arrived at the platform. Paul writes about the time when all 66 cars will be available to Believers once the train has totally arrived at the platform. Paul can still be referring to the same train with his adjectival noun use of Perfect. In God's eyes His train has always had 66 cars. ;-)
What has always been is revealed once it has all come to the platform. God's Word is always Teleios.

Third and most importantly, the Greek word here, teleon is in the "neuter case." Based on that Greek gramatical fact, the
“the perfect” cannot refer to Jesus Christ.

The "New Testament" Anachronism:

Dave Miller, Ph.D, Apologetics Press : "... the exegete is forced to conclude that Paul’s use of “perfect” referred to the completed revelation or totally revealed New Testament Scriptures."

Causation vs. Correlation:

Robert L. Thomas, Understanding the Spiritual Gifts, pg. 130 - "... a completion of the revelatory gifts coincided1 with the completion of the New Testament".

greek - 1 Corinthians 13:10 - What does "The Perfect" Refer to? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

To say “that which is perfect is come” is a person, is to support strange and awkward grammar. Do you actually think that Jesus Christ would be called “that which is perfect?”

Do you actually think that Paul did not know who Jesus was and would call Him something in ONE Scriptures that he did not use anywhere else in all of his writings???? Does that make any logical sense at alll???

It is quite clear that this phrase when used in the Greek is referring to an inanimate object, not a person.

The phrase “that which is perfect is come” of 1 Corinthians 10:13 does not and CAN not refer to Jesus Christ or His return.

Major · Dec 23, 2020

mustaphadrink said:

Which one of the ELEVEN mentioned were YOU?

"Jesus said unto the ELEVEN".

Dino246 · Dec 23, 2020

notuptome said:

Roger, your comments about me are so far off the mark that they are laughable, and your warnings are simply irrelevant.

notuptome · Dec 23, 2020

Dino246 said:

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

There is no counsel against the Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

awelight · Dec 23, 2020

Dino246 said:

You said: True, but he also gave clear instructions for the use of the gift in v. 27-28, and stated, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (v. 39), which is exactly what many cessationists do today.

Cessationists don't forbid the use of tongues. We believe the Scriptures teach they are no more. These Spirit given abilities will return in the last days before the establishment of the Kingdom:

Act 2:17-18 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams: Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

Peter spoke these words to put the listeners in remembrance of Joel's prophecy, (Joel 2:28-32). What they were witnessing was a fore-taste of the coming Kingdom. If these gifts had not passed away, later in time, then why would this Prophecy of Joel speak of them starting up again. This creates a problem of logic for those who believe that these extraordinary gifts are still ongoing. These gifts, while they lasted, were a fore-taste of the Kingdom age. The Prophecy clearly shows two things:

1) That these gifts would pass away: 1Co 13:8 Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. This verse can not be referring to the Kingdom age, if it did, then Joel's prophecy would be incorrect. These extraordinary gifts will not pass in the Kingdom - indeed they will increase as never before. This prophecy must be harmonized with New Testament teachings. Therefore, Joel's prophecy, by any logical thought process, indicates a start up of that which has ceased. While this prophecy is primarily speaking of the future of the Israelite remnant, the principle is still the same; if it were not, then why would Peter use it, firmly standing in the church age? As I have already said, these extraordinary gifts were used to help authenticate the messenger and to give the early ministry the ability to give those listening a fore-taste of the coming Kingdom. In this way, the Apostles continued to do as Christ had done. During Christ's ministry on earth, He too gave a fore-taste of the coming Kingdom and the coming King.

2) That Pentecost is not the fulfillment of this prophecy because the other events mentioned in Joel's prophecy did not take place nor was the Spirit poured out on all that were listening. Also, these things in conjunction with verses 17 and 18 never took place at Pentecost:

Act 2:19-21 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day. And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. These events align with the other passages of Scripture, referring to the last days of the Great Tribulation.

You said: I disagree; Paul stated clearly that he who speaks in a tongue edifies (builds up) himself. Jude speaks of, "Building yourselves up in the most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit" (v. 20).

I agree, he did indeed say that but it was being contrasted with the edification of the assembly. Thus, the edifying of oneself was far less important than the edifying of all. This follows Biblical teaching that we are to put others ahead of ourselves.

You said: I don't hold to that idea at all; it's a violation of 1 Corinthians 12:30.

That again is good to hear. Criticizing someone for not being able to do something in Christ, is expressly forbidden. It destroys fellowship and does not demonstrate love or compassion. Additionally, criticizing someone over the lack of a "gift" should be seriously looked into - as to whether the one criticizing is even a true Christian. Paul expressly forbids "jealousy" and "separation" over any "gift".

awelight · Dec 23, 2020

presidente said:

The interpretation of tongues is for the edification of the assembly. But you can't have the interpretation of tongues without the words spoken in tongues. 'Divers tongues' is listed with interpretation of tongues among the gifts given to members of the body of Christ 'to profit withal' or... 'for the common good' in another translation.

Btw, the verse that follows is not 'just the opposite' of edifying the assembly. Tongues has multiple functions. Serving as a sign to unbelievers is only one of them.

Look at this in the broader context. Paul is explaining how tongues functions as a sign, fulfilling 'With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.' When unbelievers hear all speak in tongues their reaction, in Paul's example, is to say 'ye are mad.' Compare with the accusation of drunkenness in Acts 2.

Also, look at Paul's conclusion about what to do in church, nay, commandments of the Lord. He says when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Look at verse 26. Verse 27 and 28 specifically allow speaking in tongues and interpretation in church. Speaking in tongues combined with interpretation edifies the church and the Lord specifically allows it in church if done in an orderly manner in this passage.

I do wonder about your assertions. Have you bothered to sit down and read the passage carefully?

Notice 'except he interpret'. The passage encourages interpreting speaking in tongues, prophesying, or saying other edifying words to the congregation. (Also, notice the underlying assumption is NOT a church meeting where one pastor does all the speaking or even a group of elders does so, but members of the body of Christ do such things as prophesy and speak in tongues and interpret in church.)

It is conceivable that Paul was describing the types of things that could be said in an interpretation of tongues. Look at the context.

He does not say where tongues ranks when compared with leadership or service or other gifts. He spends part of chapter 12 instructing his readers not to despise other members of the body, which have certain gifts. So we should not do so with speaking in tongues or interpretation.

Also notice that Paul spoke in tongues more than all of his readers, so his attitude toward it is not negative. A theme that runs throughout the chapter is that speaking in tongues without interpretation does not edify the assembly, and the rules set down for it are for the context of the assembly.

Can you show me one verse in I Corinthians that indicates that there was either envy or strife about the gifts? Paul's correction here is related to their childish understanding. He apparently considered it childish for them not to realize that listeners had to understand what the message in tongues said by means of interpretation in order for it to be edifying to them.

This is very limited thinking, and not in line with scripture, that tongues as a sign is THE purpose of tongues. What do we do with the rest of what the book has to say about the topic? In chapter 12, tongues and interpretation are among the manifestations of the Spirit given 'to profit withal.' In Chapter 14, tongues edifies the speaker, and if it is interpreted, it edifies the congregation. In verse 26, tongues is allowed as a type of utterance that may be spoken 'unto edifying'. Verses 27 and 28 give instructions allowing interpretation of tongues in church. So why would only one part of the passage be THE purpose for tongues and not the others?

Tongues are a sign for unbelievers. For believers, tongues is one of the gifts of the Spirit. Tongues edify the speaker. One who gives thanks in the spirit, speaking in tongues, gives thanks well. Combined with interpretation, speaking in tongues edifies the assembly. I Corinthians 14 specifically allows it in church and commands 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.' So the church does have a use for speaking in tongues besides it being a sign to unbelievers.

Paul does not say that Corinthians who spoke in tongues considered themselves inferior to those who did not. Some Charismatics do believe in the 'initial evidence doctrine'-- that tongues necessarily accompany baptism with the Holy Spirit (seen as empowerment subsequent to salvation.) I do not agree with that, but I cannot say I have heard Charismatics criticize someone for speaking in tongues.

We have arrived at an impasse in this discussion. You responses to my post show that you don't even acknowledge the contrasts being drawn by Paul in this epistle. I can only rest in the hope that either you or I will be straightened out by the Lord on this Truth. One of things that disturbs me though, is the amount of energy that is put into the defending of tongues. Not so much in the defense of other gifts. The ability to speak another language is such a trivial thing as compared to Doctrine. The primary purpose of our being here on earth is to proclaim Jesus Christ as Savior and His Truth. Apart from Truth we can do nothing and we have nothing.

Dino246 · Dec 23, 2020

awelight said:

And by so doing, cessationists forbid them.

awelight said:

Honestly, I think you're contorting Scripture to justify your position. Peter's quotation was clearly an explanation that what they were witnessing was a fulfillment of the prophecy, for Peter said, "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel". Had he been speaking of a yet-future event, he would not have used a near indicative that is an obviously reference to the disciples' speaking in tongues in the hearing of the people.

I disagree with the foretaste view. Jesus said repeatedly that the Kingdom was then present. We as believers have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. We just don't experience the fullness of it in this life.

awelight said:

I disagree. I believe that the rest of Joel's prophecy referred to the end of the age, 70 AD. With regard to 1 Cor. 13:8, as others have mentioned on this thread, we do not yet know as we are known, and we do not yet see clearly rather than in a poor mirror.

I would caution you against using such phrases as "by any logical thought process"; that's a fallacy called poisoning the well, which makes discussion impossible because you have ruled out any consideration of alternatives. I can respect someone who disagrees, but not someone who dismisses.

awelight said:

The edification of the assembly is greater, but that does not make the edification of the individual meaningless. There is no possible way you can rightly interpret Paul's message to mean "Just don't speak in tongues".

jb · Dec 23, 2020

awelight said:

When you remove the gifts of the Spirit from the Body of Christ, like you (unsuccessfully) try to do, you end up with a dead formal tradition without a Living Christ, and like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, persecute those who do have a living faith and manifest the gifts of the Spirit to glorify a Living Saviour! Mark 3v28-30

Ascribing the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Devil, which is the usual thing cessationists like to do (to deal with the reality of them being in the Body of Christ throughout the whole of the age of Grace), you go FAR down the road to committing the unforgivable sin!

Such a lie will have to be answered for before the Throne of Christ at His Second Coming! 2Cor 5v10

presidente · Dec 23, 2020

Major said:

What a bizarre strawman argument. Is your argument that to teleios in Greek would have to agree with Christ's name in gender or something like that? Think of 'to teleios' as a noun phrase. It is a concept. It doesn't have to agree in gender with some other word that it conceptually refers to, if that is your angle. I get the impression that I am reading someone who doesn't know how Greek language works (or how human language works if it isn't in English) who pretends to know a lot more than he does.

I was just reading today that first year Greek students should know that tios followed by a participle modifies the participle, as in 'these signs shall follow them that believe'. Another case would be John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" The article/pronoun translated 'he' in 'he that believeth in me' does not refer to Jesus either.

Some posters are aware of this but use KJV terminology to refer to phrases in well-known passages, reading into them a broader understanding of the words in the passage. Paul writes about believers being 'perfect', even himself, in some passages. One sense of the word has to do with being 'perfect' in the resurrection. I Corinthians also leads up to a discussion of the believer and the state of the believer in the resurrection at the return of Christ. Let us consider that, and also verse 1:7 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And also Paul's use of 'perfect' here:

11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

What you write is wrong and the verses you site show that. Verse 4 is about patience having its perfect work and the readers being perfect and entire. Verse 17 mentions a perfect gift.

Verse 25 mentions the 'perfect law of liberty.' James is likely a very early epistle. James already called the 'law of liberty' perfect. The Bible was still being written when Jude wrote Jude, but he said that the faith was 'once delivered to the saints.' Where does the Bible ever indicate that we are waiting for the word to become perfect?

As much as a fundy as I am about the Bible, you are eisegeting a particular stream of Protestant thought into the passage. There is no indication in I Corinthians 13 that Paul has the Bible in mind. The Bible did not turn Paul's speech, thoughts, and understanding from that of a child to that of an adults. It certainly did not make your understanding of spiritual things, or mine, light years beyond Paul's when he wrote the epistle. Most of us learn from Paul's writings the more we study them-- things that Paul clearly understood.

What this proves is that some commentaries contain poor reasoning in places. The idea that 'that which is perfect' would occur before the eschaton is probably a Montanist idea, developed my Montanists who thought prophesying ceased with Montanus and the two women who worked with him. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History records Miltiades challenge to Montanism written 14 years after Montanists death. He argued that the gift of prophecy was still with the church, since the apostle said that the gift would continue until the Lord returned. This was probably the early church interpretation of I Corinthians 1:7 and/or chapter 13 that he was referring to. He challenged Montanists to produce someone with the gift. This would have been third century.

And of course Irenaeus wrote about brethren prophesying, speaking in tongues, healing, having foreknowledge, casting out demons and raising the dead in his own day. He was late 2nd early 3rd century. The

Martin-Lloyd Jones made a really good point about your interpretation of I Corinthians 13.
"What the apostle is, of course, dealing with in I Corinthians 13 is the contrast between the highest and the best that the Christian can ever know in this world and in this life and what he will know in the glory everlasting. The ‘now’ and the ‘then’ are not the time before and after the Scriptures were given, because that, as I have said, puts us in a position entirely superior to the apostles and prophets who are the foundation of the church and on whose very work we have to rely. It is inconsistent and contradictory—indeed there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense." - Lloyd-Jones, Martin, Prove All Things, Banner of Truth Trust, London, p. 26.

John Calvin's commentary on I Corinthians 13 classifies your interpretation as 'stupid'... or 'foolish' depending on the translation.

Maybe someone thinks that 'that which is perfect' refers to Christ, rather than the coming of Christ or the resurrection, or the age He brings. But who exactly is this?

And where do you get that to teleion refers to an 'inanimate object.' Are you reading a substantive 'that'... as in a physical object.. into 'THAT which is perfect' in the KJV? It translates 'to teleion' as that whole phrase.

Is 'the good' in Romans 2:10 an inanimate object? The verse uses τὸ ἀγαθόν, which translates in a hyperliteral way as 'the good.'

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Do you think that means God renders to those who work 'the good'-- like a physical object? Surely it is a more abstract concept than that. You are arguing for something that cannot be supported by the words in the passage.

It refers to perfection, literally translated 'the perfect.' When the perfect comes, the in part shall be done away.

You seem to be trying to find some other word in Greek that matches in terms of gender. Maybe you studied Greek grammar, but I do not think you know how the language works together with the grammar and do not really grasp semantics. It's good if you have studied some Greek grammar, but do not pretend to know more than you do. The word of God is holy, and teaching error based on knowing just enough Greek to be dangerous is not good for other believers.

presidente · Dec 23, 2020

awelight said:

I wonder why you put so much effort into attacking tongues. I defended speaking in tongues because that was the gift under attack. If it were prophecy or interpretation of tongues or some other gift, I would defend that, too.

I can see contrasts drawn by Paul in the epistle, but I think you are missing the overall argument. Paul is not against tongues. He wants the Corinthians to interpret tongues so that others can be edified, and to engage in other edifying speech, such as prophesying, but also teaching, etc. I get the impression that Paul probably valued prophesying slightly higher than tongues and interpretation, maybe even teaching also, considering how he ranked certain gifts. You seem to be reading the epistle with a prejudice against tongues and with a preconceived idea that certain gifts are not for today.

presidente · Dec 23, 2020

Major said:

But he said it ABOUT 'them that believe'--- 'them believing' where 'them' refers to the participle, the verb which follows.

mustaphadrink · Dec 24, 2020

Major said:

Red herring.

Guojing · Dec 24, 2020

mustaphadrink said:

How about the promise about sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes, Matthew 19:28, do you consider yourself as a recipient of that promise too?

iamsoandso · Dec 24, 2020

presidente said:

I agree tongues it seems are an issue everyone seems to draw themselves to when the sign gifts are much more than just tongues. Look at other things than just tongues like prophecy and see if anyone can tell how long or if ever the Chinese or Russians will take to realize that Edward Snowden is pretending to have defected with a lot of information when he delivered a lot of misinformation instead.

echoChrist · Dec 24, 2020

iamsoandso said:

I heard a view that the gift of tongues was so they could interpret a language they didn’t understand I have to study this more haven’t got to it.

iamsoandso · Dec 24, 2020

echoChrist said:

Bare in mind that God the Almighty confused mans tongue at Babel and when he gives the gift that unravels them it is also his will.

echoChrist · Dec 24, 2020

iamsoandso said:

I like that

Major · Dec 24, 2020

mustaphadrink said:

Not in any way whatsoever. Just a simple straight forward question based on the context of Mark 16:14.

Mark 16:14.........
"Afterward he appeared unto the ELEVEN as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe;

The "THEM" in verse #17 is the ANTICEDANT of the ELEVEN in verse 14,

That is Greek Grammar and is not open for translation or interpretation, it simple it what it is.

Now then....the question still stands and is valid to ask.

WHICH ONE OF THE ELEVEN WERE "YOU'?????

Major · Dec 24, 2020

echoChrist said:

Actually the gift of Tongues was about HEARING and not speaking at all.

People speak in tongues today who simply do not know what the Bible says and do it because someone said to do it.

"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." -Acts 2:7-11

Notice the phrase in Acts 2:11, "our tongues." The crowds heard the Apostles preach in their own native tongues, not some unknown heavenly jibber jabber. There was NEVER any heavenly languages spoken that no one understood and required an interpreter. There is a drastic difference between Biblical tongues and the heretical speaking in tongues of the Assemblies of God churches.

The "speaking in tongues" which the Assemblies of God and the Pentecostals foolishly practice are UNKNOWN tongues, not anything found on earth. Supposedly, those unknown tongues can only be interpreted by ONE spirit-filled member of the congregation. The Apostle Paul speaks common sense to us Corinthians 14:19...

"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

Senior Member

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Active member

Active member

Active member