quote by J.Jump:
"lthough I will admit up front that I have not studied this all the way out, just thinking about what is invovled I would say "that which is perfect" is not the Bible, but rather the kingdom.
The kingdom is not perfect, becuase neither the physical aspect of the kingdom nor the physical aspect of the kingdom has been established yet."
I can agree with this. Just recently this has came to my attention and makes perfect since. But we won't know it all till we get to heaven.
As far as the gifts of the Spirit... I still believe they are being manifested today in some churches.
I Corinthians 1:7 shows that gifts continue
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Link, May 2, 2006.
Page 11 of 15
-
The kingdom cannot be 'that which is perfect,' for there will be both saved and unsaved in the kingdom.
-
Tongues were a sign for the Jews, that is true.
There is no where in Scripture that says that the gifts of the Spirit will carry on into the Tribulation Period. Everything points against that fact. Here is why:
1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
--These "brethren" were the Christian believers at Corinth. The spiritual gifts were for the belivers. Certainly tongues were a sign for the Jews, but the gifts in general were for the church.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--Here is a list of the gifts. God set them in the church of Corinth. They were for the churches at that time.
First of all these gifts have ceased, so the Charismatics' point of them continuing is moot.
Secondly, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that they continue today, they certainly can't continue past the rapture. There is no church in The Tribulation Period. The are given to the Church not the unbelievers. God is going to pour out his wrath on this world in the Tribulation. There will be no spiritual gifts at that time.
Thirdly, they contend that the two prophets will have the spiritual gifts. That is false. There is no church. The spiritual gifts were given to the church. The gift of administration? What church will they administrate?
What does this verse say anyway:
Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Revelation 11:6-7 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
These are not the gifts of the Spirit.
Note: There is no speaking in tongues or interpretation thereof. There is no gift of teaching. There is no gift of helps, no gift of administration, etc. The so-called gifts are limited to prophecy and miracles.
In reality they are not the gifts of the Spirit at all. God simply gave them the power to do so. The gifts of the Spirit are given to the Church, and ceased long before this event.
DHK -
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Period? End of Thought? Begin New Point or Sub-Point?
1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Where is the specific Greek connector that makes Tongues, Knowledge and Prophecy a 'knowing in Part'? Or an 'In Part'?
Is it Tongues, Knowledge and Prophesy that which we know in part?
Or, is it how we as humans know only bits and pieces and can only relate to God in bits and pieces?
Note that only Prophecy is specifically stated as a known in part...
Tongues and Knowledge are not specifically included...
And, I am still not convinced that that which is perfect is the Bible.
And, as there is no specific scripture that specifically specifies that Bible as that which is going to be perfect...
Sorry, but, I can't concede this debate.
SMM -
Well that was because God was dealing with the nation of Israel as a whole nation. That period has been set aside, but it will return again as God will address the entire nation of Israel as a nation during the seven-year tribulation which means the kingdom and the Jews will be back in play.
There are Scriptures that speak to signs being manifested during that period.
Once the Jews are established as the head of the nation the kingdom will be complete. -
(ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) The word for Kingdom, Basileia is a feminine noun. The word for perfect is a neuter pronoun. When "that which is perfect" (something that is in the neuter gender) is come, then that which is temporary (temporary spiritual gifts) shall pass away. Christ is masculine. Kingdom is feminine. But there is a word referring to the Word of God that is in the neuter. Considering the context--God's revelation to mankind, it is the only natural fit. Why force some other meaning into the passage when revelation is the context? Telion (perfect or complete) is a neuter noun.
DHK -
DHK wrote,
The idea that Paul had a specific noun in mind, one that had to match the grammar of 'teleon' rather than a concept seems nonsensical to me. Your argument sounds to me like the type of reasoning about ancient Greek someone who spoke it would never make.
DHK wrote,
How do the witnesses in Revelation prophecy if not by spiritual gifts?
This is a tangent, but you said the idea of Christ being incomplete was absurd. Hebrews said He was made perfect through suffering. Does not have to do with the issue at hand, but I thought I'd mention it. -
Again Amen Link~ and your Greek professor was right.
G932
βασιλεία
basileia
bas-il-i'-ah
From G935; properly royalty, that is, (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively): - kingdom, + reign.
Maybe the strongs I got don't go into as much detail as DHK's Greek dictionary? -
Isn't it funny how some people have to go to the greek, or some obscure manuscript from thousands of years ago to prove their point, and yet they say the bible is the "perfect, spoken of in 1 Cor13-10?
So, by the way they use it, they prove with their actions that the bible is not what is spoken of in that passage.
Selah,
Tam -
But, Tam, didn't you hear the argument that the Greek for 'Prefect' doesn't mean perfect but rather complete? :D
(I didn't buy it either.)
SMM -
I wrote,
There are thoughts and themes that go throughout epistles. It is obvious that Paul did not write his epistles with a Greek outline. Some people say his writing is more of a rabinnical style, and compare it to an onion with layers that get pealed off until he gets to the center. Paul does not just deal with one topic in one section. He will mention a topic while discussion another issue, and get back to it. In Romans, Paul mentions the issue of the Jews in chapter 2, and keeps on talking about Israel in later chapters like 9, 10, 11, and 15.
"So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:"
Ephesians 4 tells us that God gave us prophets until we all come into the unity of the faith unto the full measure of the stature of Christ.
We also see two witnesses prophesying in the book of Revelation and references to Babylon killing ___prophets___. If prophets are still around at the end, then it makes no sense to say that the perfect has already come.
The Bible certainly does NOT call tongues carnal. In fact, it calls it a gift of the SPIRIT. The apostles spoke in tongues. There is no hint in the epistle that the problem in I Corinthians with tongues came about because the tongues speakers were seeking attention. They were childish in their understanding and did not consider that uninterpreted tongues did not edify other. But there is no indictment of their motivation for speaking in tongues-- that their motives or selfish or that they were attention seekers.
This is your own bias that you are eisegeting into the passage. Paul spoke in tongues 'more than ye all' when he wrote this epistle. So if Paul was describing speaking in tongues as childish, he was describing his current state.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
^^^^^^
When the perfect comes, Paul would know fully as he is fully known.
Notice the contrast--now we see through a glass darkly, but THEN face to face.
So now, we have the Bible, which is like looking in the mirror you argue. So if the word is the mirror or glass here, you still have 'the perfect' coming at a later date, after the word.
If the quote in James is your 'biblical basis' for saying 'the perfect' is the scripture, that actually argues against your position.
Tongues with interpretation had a function in regard to believers, though it was not to serve as a sign to us. If you argue that tongues ceased because they were no longer needed as a sign, tongues had other uses, so if they weren't needed as a sign, that does not mean tongues would cease. It is like saying knife's ceased when they stopped mass production of buggy whips after cars started to be manufactured. After all, you need a knife to cut off the end of the buggy whip handle when you are done with it, so since we don't have buggy whips, we don't have knives. The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are other uses for knives.
Also, it makes little sense to read tongues into the passage that says that if someone curses the Lord, that he is not speaking by the Spirit. Suppose you theorize that someone had actually cursed Christ in Corinth while pretending to be functioning in a gift--which is quite a leap that the passage does not support, but a theoretical possibility. Suppose this happened. If it had happened in tongues, no one would have understood, and Paul would have been referring to an occurence they did not even know about. There is no reason to think that people were cursing Christ in tongues in church.
It makes more sense to see Paul contrasting pagan spiritual manifestations with true Chrsitian ones. Do you think believers speaking by some spirit would have cursed Christ? Isn't it more likely that pagans did such things with their false gifts, and that the Christians were confessing that Jesus is Lord?
Your idea that all gifts ceased is a rather extreme view, one that most cessationists I have encountered do not believe.
2. Nothing in either the Isaiah passage or Paul's passage say anything about this referring to Jews before 70 AD. You are making some kind of Preterist type argument without holding to Preterism-- strange.
3. 'Israel' is a people-group. Israel was Israel during the Babylonian captivity. They have not ceased to be Israel. Notice that the verse even says 'This people' not this 'Legally recognized state.
There is nothing in eithr the Acts 2:14-16 or Acts 2:36 passages that indicate that these passages apply specifically to 'first century Jews.' In the first passage, Paul is speaking to a specific crowd of people, but the passage is 'profitable for doctrine' for us. You are eisegeting.
I Corinthians 14:26 does not say that tongues was only for a sign for the specific Jews who had crucified Christ. When Christ was about to be crucified, the crowd said, 'let his blood be on us and on our children.' It is likely that some of Peter's listeners in Acts 2 were not in the crowd that shouted this out to Pilate.
In the OT, God held the nation of Israel collectively responsible for sins, allowing other soldiers to die when Achan stole goods that were to be destroyed. God held the nation responsible. Generations later, God held the nation responsible for breaking covenant with the Gibeonites.
quote:
You have not shown where scripture calls all the I Corinthians 12 gift 'signs.' Just because it makes sense to you to call them signs does not mean scripture uses the term that way.
My position is this. Paul did the signs of the apostles. There are two ways I can see this can be interpreted.
1. One is the the signs of an apostle were the suffering, etc. he endured as described in the passage, and were accompanied by signs, wonder, and mighty deeds.
2. The other is that signs, wonders, and mighty deeds were the signs of an apostle. Scripture shows that God granted that non-apostles do signs at times. Stephen and Philip did signs. In Hebrews 2, they that heard the Lord did signs, but the passage does not say that this was restricted to the apostles.
And you have not demonstrated that I Corinthians 12 gifts are the same thing as an apostle.
If you are trying to argue that I Corinthians 12 are only for apostles, surely you realize that you are contradicting scripture. Paul himself wrote about regular believers receiving these gifts. So don't try to interpret the passage in a way that does not even make sense in the light of the rest of scripture.
It makes sense, if one holds to interpretation 2, above, to insist that if someone is an apostle, he will do signs, wonders, and mighty needs. It does not make sense to try to make the verse say that only apostles can/could do signs, because the passage does not _demand_ this interpretation, and this interpretation contradicts other scripture.
-edifying the church
-'authenticating' ('bearing witness' is the more scriptural way of saying this)
-sign to the Jews.
The Bible doesn't say all the gifts are signs to unbelievers. And it does not refer to I Corinthians gifts as 'signs' in reference to believers.
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two problems here. The Bible does not teach that all spiritual gifts going on today are fraudulent. Do you teach your congregation? Is that fraudulent, or do you do it without any grace from the Spirit? Think about the implications of your argument for yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you teach, are you a fraud, or do you teach without any grace from the Spirit to aid your teaching?
And it is sad that you teach your congregation doctrine not based on scritpure like the following, "I teach my congregation that all the spiritual gifts have ceased and if any person claims to have them they are frauds. "
You basically admitted earlier that you don't have any scripture for the other gifts ceasing besides the ones mentioned in I Corinthians 13. You have not a shred of scripture for teaching that gifts as a whole have ceased, and yet you teach the idea has doctrine. Shame on you.
Notice that there are charismata in Romans 12.
-
Everyone has to remember, weather or not gifts are done away with, when the end of time has come we will not need these gifts for we have a greater gift. God. He is our gift in life The Word of God will live on forever here and eternaty. No one will have need of gifts of the physical world. Right now in this world we have gifts given to us by our Father to be able to live here in this fleshly world. No two people are given the same gift. The gift that each has from God nurchers us in our everyday life. you may not know what that gift is until God shows you your gift, but it is a gift all the same. given to you by God for His Glory, not yours. You must learn to nurture that gift to bring praise and Glory to God. Weather in church or in life. AMEN
-
The problem is this there seems to be a lof of Christians who decide to Praise and Worship based on whether the weather is fair or adverse.
Briguy, DHK, Link and I agree on probably 80% of our doctrines. Possibly more...
We do occaisionally get into a good 'head-to-head' in areas where we disagree. Like this one.
I allow that Cessasionists have the right to Administrate and Limit whatever Giftings they desire in their own local congregations...
And, I would never knowingly violate their Local Standards unless it was a crucial Salvation Issue...
Unfortunately, some Cessasionists do not allow for those of us who believe the Gifts continue to Administrate them a bit more liberally within our own local assemblies...
This can make some of our discussion a bit 'hot'.
But, usually we do remember that we are Fellow Believers in the Finished Work of Christ...
And, though we disagree... We generally still Love One another in the Lord...
Though, admittedly, sometimes in making our points it may not seem so...
SMM -
Once the Jews are established as the head of the nation the kingdom will be complete. </font>[/QUOTE]I know that this is in a way a totaly different topic, but how is "unsaved people" going to be in the kingdom? I was taught strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Now where is the scripture that would say that there will be unsaved in the kingdom? -
Part of the problem is that most of Christendom equates the kingdom with eternity or heaven. The kingdom of Christ is not the same thing as eternity. After this age that we are currently living in there will be a 1,000-year age where Christ rules the earth. After that period is over Satan will be loosed for a season to deceive folks again. There will be some that are deceived and some that aren't.
-
music4Him,
Read Matthew 13 the parable of the wheat and the tares. In the millenial kingdom, there will be both saved and unsaved. Wheat and Tares. -
Oh well I was talking about this kingdom.
Matt. 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
And this is why I can't see the unsaved dwelling in the kingdom.
Psa 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. -
24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
But gather the wheat into "my barn"... His kingdom. The tares don't go into the barn but are burned. (I also understand the harvest as being the resurrection.) -
harvest is not the resurrection, read on. farther down, the Lord explains what it is. Harvest is the end of the world.
Page 11 of 15