Church Structure in Light of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40

[Ben_Leevey]

Church Structure in Light of 1 Corinthians 14 - Questions and Thoughts
Introduction
Hello brethren, and any visitors who may be seeing this post! I have researched and found one other post similar to this one on the Puritan Board, but I am not satisfied that a good conclusion was reached. I am very glad the @mshingler brought up the question, but I feel it was not explored deep enough in the thread. For anyone interested in reading over that thread, here is the link: 1Cor. 14 and corporate worship - mshingler.

This is an issue I have been studying in more depth for the last little while. I have been systematically studying through The Acts of the Apostles, and writing down every scripture I can find that may throw some more light on this. Then @Molls recent post on Cause and Effect Between Covenant Theology and Church Polity set me thinking about this in light of the Puritan Board. I would love to hear your thoughts and discuss!

Prerequisites
First, as this dialog begins, I want to remind everyone, the scriptures are our only authority here. Quotes from church fathers, or puritans are very desirable, but they carry no weight in themselves, but only in as much as they are flowing out of scripture. This can be an area we are very tempted to look at subjectively, in light of all that we have ever seen, rather than objectively, in light of the scriptures. May the LORD help us!
Also, I want to make very clear brethren, I'm not seeking to stir up strife with tis post. We should desire for our lives, in every part, to conform to the scriptures. I bring this out to build of the brethren, and not tear down. Though, it may serve to tear down the systems we are accustomed to.


Our Primary Scripture - 1 Corinthians 14:26-40
To my knowledge, the scripture which deals most comprehensively with this matter is 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. Certainly, I, and you will both jump around other places, but my thoughts are primarily flowing from here.

Context
So, if we rewind from verse 26, back into chapter 13, we see Paul defines love: vs 4-7 and culminates his argument concerning the supremacy of love with these words: "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13
Then in chapter 14 Paul gives a two pronged imperative singling out prophesy as a spiritual gift of particular desirability: "Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy" 1 Corinthians 14:1
Launching from here, Paul argues that speaking in tongues is of no benefit to the other brethren unless there is an interpreter, and he lays forth several guidelines in this area.

Finally, in verse 26 of chapter 14 his focus seems to broaden, from the way prophecy and tongues are handled in the church meeting, to the way the meetings are conducted in general. At this point we have those intriguing words: "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." 1 Corinthians 14:26 Paul is setting forth a principle for when brethren come together for worship, and in doing so he gives us an interesting look into how the Corinthian church was conducting their meetings.
Thoughts

1. What was going on in Corinth? Exactly what where they doing when they met?
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3] Firstly I'd like to dig into what the passage tells us about their meetings:[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3] "[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." 1 Corinthians 14:26-33
Here we see five elements. Three take front and center in Paul's arguments (prophecy[revelation], togues, and the interpretation there of). Two of these three are inseparably linked in their usefulness (tongues and interpretation). But the primary thing I want to point out here is the the cessationist point of view does away with all three of these primary focuses. Prophecy, tongues, and interpretation. So, for those of my brothers who hold the cessationist view to one degree or another, I must deal with this before we can dialog properly.[/SIZE]
Cessationism: A Brief Divergence:
I have only ever heard one scripture used to prove the cessationist viewpoint. That is: 1 Corinthians 13:8, "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." Now, in verse eight alone, we see a problem, with tongues and prophecy is listed knowledge. It seems that those who have what I've always assumed was Holy Spirit given knowledge, must have something else, because that passed away when prophecy and tongues did. But, if we look at the immediate context of verse 8, we will see even more compelling disproof of cessationism:

"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:8-12

Anyone reading the above portion of scripture with an open mind can see that Paul is not talking about the post apostolic period. But rather, about eternal glory, when we see "face to face" and no longer dimly as in a mirror.

And so, to return from that divergence, as I before stated we have five elements here, and if cessationism is invalid, then all five of these have potential to be the case today. Now, are prophecy and tongues often the case in the USA? No, certainly not, but I can say I have witnessed the first, on a very few occasions. And as for tongues, brothers serving in other lands have spoken to me of experiencing and witnessing tongues, The fact is, we don't need tongues here in the USA. We all speak English, whereas often the brethren abroad do have need of tongues. The LORD provides for the need.

What we see here in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 is the use of these five elements (hymns, lessons, revelations, tongues, and interpretation) in an open floor type way. Interestingly enough we even see what looks rather like dialog in verses 29-31. We see the other prophets "weighing" what is said by the one. Then we see that a revelation may be made to one of those who is silent, and he should speak while the first becomes quiet.
2. In light of this should our worship services change, and if so, how so?
Now to the jugular of the matter. How does this affect us? Why shouldn't it affect us? One possible answer might be "Well, we're just seeing what they did not what we need to do." But if we use this argument, we really might as well do away with meeting on Sunday too, since we are nowhere given an imperative to meet on the first day of the week. We just see that church doing that. We are given an imperative to meet together, but why not once a month? Because we see a pattern in the scriptures, though we're give no imperative. And so, that argument falls apart. We should look at patterns in scripture (particularly the new testament) and strive to implement them.
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]And so, in light of the fact that we are to pattern ourselves after the patterns in scripture, I would conclude that our worship services [I]should [/I]reflect this passage. But then comes the question: "How How should they change?" And this is where some of my biggest questions lie. I am convinced they [I]need [/I]to change. But, how would the function of elders change? Would there still be a place for something like a sermon? And if so, what would that sermon look like in light of the scriptures?[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][B][U]What I Want to Ask You[/U][/B][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][B][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][B] [/B][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]So, I would desire the following kinds of feedback from you brethren:[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3] 1. Refutations of anything I have stated or implied.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3] 2. Thoughts on the outworking's of this.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3] 3. Scriptures that you can bring to bear one way or the other on any matters set forth above.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]Thank you in advance brethren![/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This passage arrives in the portion of this letter, from 1cor11:17, dealing with worship disorder. Therefore, one needs extra care in treating this passage, if looking for patterns of proper worship etiquette. What Paul may tell this church is likely to arrest and address particular problems, as it is to give a description of what ought to have been the case in Corinth since Paul's departure.

Second, it is necessary to distinguish the condition of the NT church in the apostolic period from the condition of the church in days after the "founding" era, and norms that must be unique to each in the physical absence of apostles.

My duties prevent a more detailed reply just now. But a word to the wise as I sign off: use of phrasing that claims the "clear" or "obvious" position before there has been any exchange of ideas may result in greater shame of face than a milder claim to start.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

This passage arrives in the portion of this letter, from 1cor11:17, dealing with worship disorder. Therefore, one needs extra care in treating this passage, if looking for patterns of proper worship etiquette. What Paul may tell this church is likely to arrest and address particular problems, as it is to give a description of what ought to have been the case in Corinth since Paul's departure.

Thank you for your thoughts @Contra_Mundum !

This is all very true, but if I understand correctly, it rather serves to strengthen rather than weaken the fact that we should seriously consider some changes in light of chapter 14 verses 26-30, because, even though he is correcting many areas in the way that the Corinthians are behaving when they meet he does not correct this, but rather builds upon it.

Second, it is necessary to distinguish the condition of the NT church in the apostolic period from the condition of the church in days after the "founding" era, and norms that must be unique to each in the physical absence of apostles.

I would have to ask where you are getting this from... do we see the scriptures make a distinction? Or are we making a distinction because we have wandered? Maybe, when I address cessationism, I should have addressed a wider scope.

My duties prevent a more detailed reply just now. But a word to the wise as I sign off: use of phrasing that claims the "clear" or "obvious" position before there has been any exchange of ideas may result in greater shame of face than a milder claim to start.

Thank you for this advice! I'll take it seriously and strive to be more open ended when I speak.

 

[paranymph]

I have only ever heard one scripture used to prove the cessationist viewpoint.

Wow, really? I advise doing some reading up on the topic, beyond MacArthur. For example: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/...4xzCoQ0gBL7Hc87yC_KuqCamtZ6VwcSKDnFUhsWarpIkg

Cessationism includes a biblical-theological argument seeing the purpose of the sign gifts as to validate apostolic preaching. We see this in places like Acts 2. Also consider Isaiah 28:11 and the context of 1 Cor 14:21.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Wow, really?

Yes, really. But I am very open to hearing more!

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Wow, really? I advise doing some reading up on the topic, beyond MacArthur. For example: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/...4xzCoQ0gBL7Hc87yC_KuqCamtZ6VwcSKDnFUhsWarpIkg

Cessationism includes a biblical-theological argument seeing the purpose of the sign gifts as to validate apostolic preaching. We see this in places like Acts 2. Also consider Isaiah 28:11 and the context of 1 Cor 14:21.

Okay. So I can't afford to purchase the book you sent me the link to. But I see nothing to say that prophecies have ceased in either of the related passages you sent me. 1 Cor 14:21 does indeed state the purpose of tongues, with which I would heartily agree. It is primarily for unbelievers, not believers, and only has value to believers when there is an interpreter.

What argument whare you aiming at with these scriptures?

Also brother, you may already know this, but Spurgeon and almost all the puritans, and also other men we would respect including Martin Lloyd Jones where not cessationist.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I have a few minutes before I head to bed, so I intend to offer a few more comments.

Ben, you write about the importance of conformity to the scriptures, that in so doing "it may serve to tear down the systems we are accustomed to." True enough, but it seems to me you have begun where many biblicists do: pulling out your Bible and launching into its depths but not on any vessel renown for its seaworthiness, and not as a member of a seasoned crew; rather, as your own captain in spite of your youth and lack of experience, and with some apparent distrust of the opinions of others, and maybe even disdain for other boats in the water.

Another person might take time to investigate what, if any, are the biblical underpinnings of the church and worship structures and patterns of this or that tradition of long-standing. At least, it would inform the investigator what basis grounded those things in the minds of those who adhere to them. He might find that basis lacking, but it would inform his own progress of discovery. It might even encourage him to realize that others have gone before him in the way of learning, and their education prove for him a source for avoiding unprofitable directions and impractical mazes.

If you don't know the biblical basis (such as it may be) of this or that system, you are hardly in position to intelligently criticize it solely on account of the fruits of your independent research producing what seem to be contrary conclusions. Furthermore, your chosen method of research (not simply the source of the material) necessarily impacts the type and quality of your conclusions. You describe your method (slightly, perhaps not fully) this way: you study through The Acts of the Apostles (in this case), and write down every scripture you discern/suppose may increase your enlightenment on a given topic, here church/worship structure or pattern. At first blush, this method looks less like a "systematic" process, and more like a "prooftext" examination. If I were to guess, I suppose the NT epistles are thought in this method sufficient for making sense of the narrative. This presupposes the epistles (given a reliable translation) are minimally technical communications and relatively straightforward to comprehend.

Biblical narrative (which generally describes Acts as literature) is usually predicated on the rest of the biblical narrative, or at least as much of it as precedes it in time--which in the case of Acts is virtually all of it. Nevertheless, many NT Christians treat Acts as if it was a stand-alone document, and self-interpreting; often ignoring even the Gospels as background (excepting the death/burial/resurrection of Christ as predicate to apostolic preaching). It isn't obvious what prefatory mental architecture you bring to the text, or how you might decide what scripture in Acts is relevant and why. Nor is present the rules you follow to decide whether a given narrative description is positive, i.e. something that was approved and might still be approved for all time hence; or if the narrative description is negative, i.e. something that was factual though doubtful, or temporary at best, and unrepeatable.

Yet, for all that your presentation is not focused in Acts, but claims for a seminal text 1Cor.14:26-40. You lead into your presentation with a brief consideration of context. Context is quite important, but as I indicated in my prior post: study of any one portion of a letter should demonstrate familiarity with the whole letter, knowledge of its organization, and recognition of the reason behind the specific engagement of topic that is taken up in the focus passage. 1Corinthians is one of the longest epistles, has quite the complex structure, and was directed to address a litany of technical problems arisen in that church. Some deft "reading between the lines" is often required in order to seize on Paul's meaning, which result is that interpretations can differ at places even among the most skilled interpreters.

The text in view falls, as previously stated, in the portion of the letter dealing with disorder in worship. You wrote as a kind of "thesis" statement concluding your introduction, "Paul is setting forth a principle for when brethren come together for worship," which is chased by the following assertion: "and in doing so he gives us an interesting look into how the Corinthian church was conducting their meetings." It might well be the case that Paul was describing the goings-on at a typical Corinthian church meeting; I tend to think he was rehearsing back to the church matters as they were reported to him by Chloe's people by mouth, or in the church's letter to him. I also tend to think his terms exclude a considerable amount of the disturbance, as it boils the issues down to matters that he can address in writing, as he attempts to help the leadership he left in place reassert its authority and control over proceedings.

Now, I think you may be able to see that though a description of Corinthian worship was indeed described by Paul, yet there fall out (at least) two different regards for that picture presented. On the one hand, your view holds "the use of these five elements (hymns, lessons, revelations, tongues, and interpretation) in an open floor type way" is typical and normative, both for Corinthian worship activity and presumably for the present. On the other hand, the view I hold regards the manner in which the Corinthians expressed themselves using any/all of those five elements (and perhaps others not mentioned) as deviant and contrary to apostolic norms.

In vv27-29 Paul imposes restrictions on who may speak (declaratively) in worship, the number of speakers, and the manner of those speeches. There is no description included in this passage as to how those speakers took to the podium, or were designated to take the speaker's position. Thus, it is a matter of conjecture (based on conclusions and convictions obtained elsewhere, in the pages of Scripture or outside it) as to whether the gathering allowed speeches on a first-come basis (until the limit was reached); or whether the promotion of this or that speaker, how, when, the order, etc., was properly under the control of the church's leadership. You may opine it was the former; but where would you go in the Bible to show such a description of the conduct of religious meetings, OT or NT? The notion that vv29-31 contain or refer to "dialog" is eisegetical, a reading into the text.

For my part, I see there is concern here over disorder; I see Paul asserting authoritative control; I recognize he appointed elders in every congregation to oversee the orderly conduct of church business after the rule he established, a pattern he alludes to in 1Cor.11:16; I see in the NT worship patterned according to established synagogue manners, which pattern Jesus himself observed, where practice did observe clear lines of authority and authorization to speak. I think the idea of an "open floor" is wishful thinking arising from quarters where structure is frowned on ideologically, where formality is viewed as manners imposed upon a more primitive and less structured format. It is the idea of an evolution of worship norms, going from pure and simple to complex and decadent; therefore, reform improvement would (according to this notion) resume the assumed primitive, anti-authoritarian original.

Again, there is no hint in the Bible of an unstructured church organization starting with Jesus and his apostles; but the NT church displays a high degree of organization from the start in the pages of the NT. True worship has always obtained some measure of order and structure from God himself, as the Bible clearly indicates. God is only approachable on his terms, not man's; and God graciously gives us his own patterns. There are elements in 1Cor.14:26-40 from which we can derive divine counsels, as we integrate what Paul is actually saying into a full-blown theology of worship, taking into account the move from the miraculous founding era into the era of ordinary providence where we've lived for centuries. The NT church of Paul's day did not yet have the NT. Instead, they had prophets conveying to the NT people of God NT revelation, revelation of Christ; all which continues today as preachers take the NT (with the OT) now in our hands and preach it for the edification of the NT people of God, as Paul writes: is the designed effect of NT revelation, 1Cor.14:26.

The Corinthian church of the founding era had serious problems in its worship conduct. It is unwise to refer to gleanings from Paul's corrections to them as a normative pattern. There is no comparison between what we glean in 1Cor.14 and a biblically informed conviction respecting the sabbath-ordinance as it applies today (please see your own Confession, ch.22, paras. 7&8).

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Thank you for your reply brother. I realize it must have taken you a while to compile.

I had a very good conversation with one of the elders in my church, and if I where to redirect my original post I would have aimed less at saying that 1st Corinthians is the pattern and more at saying we're not given a specific pattern. And thus, why do we all, in the west here, follow one? Is it left over from the Catholic church?

I do observe that you speak as if the Corinthian method of conducting their services, as laid forth by Paul might be less than desirable. I would very much like to know why you would think this? You speak of the church's being primitive and undeveloped, not having the new Testament. The big thing that would come into my mind, as a question here would be "If they where doing this, though unadvisable, because the new testament hadn't thrown more light on it, then how come nowhere in the new testament (that I can think of) is more light shed on this?"

I would love to hear you thoughts of this!

 

[Alexander Suarez]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][B][U]What I Want to Ask You[/U][/B][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][B][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][B] [/B][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]So, I would desire the following kinds of feedback from you brethren:[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3] 1. Refutations of anything I have stated or implied.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3] 2. Thoughts on the outworking's of this.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3] 3. Scriptures that you can bring to bear one way or the other on any matters set forth above.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=5][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]Thank you in advance brethren![/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

Good day Benjamin,

If you are open to listening to audio recordings, my current minister recently worked through 1 Corinthians 14 in two sermons and its implications for the public worship assembly. It might help give you a different perspective to your approach on 1 Corinthians 14.

Part 1: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/331241318107376
Part 2: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/47241732197395

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you for your reply brother. I realize it must have taken you a while to compile.

I had a very good conversation with one of the elders in my church, and if I where to redirect my original post I would have aimed less at saying that 1st Corinthians is the pattern and more at saying we're not given a specific pattern. And thus, why do we all, in the west here, follow one? Is it left over from the Catholic church?

I do observe that you speak as if the Corinthian method of conducting their services, as laid forth by Paul might be less than desirable. I would very much like to know why you would think this? You speak of the church's being primitive and undeveloped, not having the new Testament. The big thing that would come into my mind, as a question here would be "If they where doing this, though unadvisable, because the new testament hadn't thrown more light on it, then how come nowhere in the new testament (that I can think of) is more light shed on this?"

I would love to hear you thoughts of this!

I have limited time, but I'll briefly try to answer.

We will probably disagree, but as I think our worship pattern is driven by our doctrinal convictions, it follows that biblical religion (from its earliest expressions) being singular in essence while varied in expression is capable of accurate derivation from the sacred writings. This is a Reformation conviction. Our fathers in the faith from that period were diligent to labor in the word of God to explain their removal of false worship-accretions that marked Roman Catholic practice from our worship, and to justify that which they retained as belonging to the ordinance of Christ.

So, we're on different pages when it comes to the question of whether or not we can from the Bible come up with a set of elements which must, if varied in order or emphasis on any given Lord's Day, be kept pure and entire.

I don't believe the church on the whole is doing "one" thing, in the west or over the world; and I think that's not right. I'm not referring to a single liturgical rite, but to a lack of commitment to 1) a common principle, and 2) to keep the limits prescribed by the word. There is a limit to the amount of variety one should find in Christian worship, from the USA to India and everywhere in between. But actually, worship in the west is a free-for-all, and a smorgasbord of options, many which are but will worship.

Perhaps surprisingly, I think Rome's history of inventions from the middle ages is reflected in the many fresh inventions of these latter centuries.

My final comment before I have to run is: I'm not favoring every notion of a primitive church scene, in fact I'm critical of the idea that the 1st century Corinthians might have been lax because that's the nature of "undeveloped" religion. No, they were under apostolic organization. However, they did not yet have the NT complete in hand. Hence, the "logic" of prophets and speakers with supernatural revelation to aid the NT church in its infancy, until it had the NT word written, and could stand alone with the word's assistance.

 

[MW]

Anyone reading the above portion of scripture with an open mind can see that Paul is not talking about the post apostolic period. But rather, about eternal glory, when we see "face to face" and no longer dimly as in a mirror.

I have an open mind to the Scripture and I can see quite clearly he is referring to the present activity of prophecy within the apostolic church. And you would see it too if you looked at it "face to face." We all presume upon a great fact, and that is the full revelation of God's saving purpose in Christ, which we have in the New Testament Scriptures. These unfold to us the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises. They did not have this in the apostolic church. They were dependent on continuing revelation to show them the significance of what Christ had done to introduce a new order of things. Every time we appeal to Scripture (the perfect) we are effectively declaring that the former means of revelation have ceased (the imperfect prophecies, tongues, and words of knowledge).

Throughout Corinthians Paul has located himself within the trajectory of redemptive history and has clearly demarcated his ministry as a transitional period, 1 Cor. 2:6-10; 10-11; 4:8-13, and this transition was moving towards what he called "the perfect." Within this transitional period the Corinthians are referred to as "children" in 3:1-2. In 13:11 he uses the state of childhood to describe that which is imperfect. He uses the state of manhood to describe the perfect as what is most desirable. In 14:20 he takes up the allusion of children which he used in 13:11, and says "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." The word he uses for "men" here is not the same as 13:11. It is akin to the word he has used for the "perfect" throughout the letter, including 13:10. By the use of these terms Paul is pinpointing the cessation of the charismata as something that is yet to take place among the Corinthians themselves.

When Corinthians is placed within its New Testament context the picture becomes even clearer. Christ is the Prophet who was to come. This marks the last days of God's covenanted word to Israel. God has poured out His Spirit as He promised to do in the last days. He gave signs and wonders and various gifts to demonstrate this and authenticate the messengers of Christ. The purpose of these gifts was to confirm the word which they have preached and written. Even within the New Testament itself this came to be looked upon as a past event which belonged to an earlier generation, Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:4; Jude 17. All this is finally concluded with a word of warning not to add to the prophecy of that book which stands last as "the revelation of Jesus Christ," Rev. 22:18.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Good day Benjamin,

If you are open to listening to audio recordings, my current minister recently worked through 1 Corinthians 14 in two sermons and its implications for the public worship assembly. It might help give you a different perspective to your approach on 1 Corinthians 14.

Part 1: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/331241318107376
Part 2: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/47241732197395

I will! Thank you brother!

I have an open mind to the Scripture and I can see quite clearly he is referring to the present activity of prophecy within the apostolic church. And you would see it too if you looked at it "face to face." We all presume upon a great fact, and that is the full revelation of God's saving purpose in Christ, which we have in the New Testament Scriptures. These unfold to us the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises. They did not have this in the apostolic church. They were dependent on continuing revelation to show them the significance of what Christ had done to introduce a new order of things. Every time we appeal to Scripture (the perfect) we are effectively declaring that the former means of revelation have ceased (the imperfect prophecies, tongues, and words of knowledge).

Throughout Corinthians Paul has located himself within the trajectory of redemptive history and has clearly demarcated his ministry as a transitional period, 1 Cor. 2:6-10; 10-11; 4:8-13, and this transition was moving towards what he called "the perfect." Within this transitional period the Corinthians are referred to as "children" in 3:1-2. In 13:11 he uses the state of childhood to describe that which is imperfect. He uses the state of manhood to describe the perfect as what is most desirable. In 14:20 he takes up the allusion of children which he used in 13:11, and says "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." The word he uses for "men" here is not the same as 13:11. It is akin to the word he has used for the "perfect" throughout the letter, including 13:10. By the use of these terms Paul is pinpointing the cessation of the charismata as something that is yet to take place among the Corinthians themselves.

When Corinthians is placed within its New Testament context the picture becomes even clearer. Christ is the Prophet who was to come. This marks the last days of God's covenanted word to Israel. God has poured out His Spirit as He promised to do in the last days. He gave signs and wonders and various gifts to demonstrate this and authenticate the messengers of Christ. The purpose of these gifts was to confirm the word which they have preached and written. Even within the New Testament itself this came to be looked upon as a past event which belonged to an earlier generation, Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:4; Jude 17. All this is finally concluded with a word of warning not to add to the prophecy of that book which stands last as "the revelation of Jesus Christ," Rev. 22:18.

So brother, has the "perfect" come?

I have limited time, but I'll briefly try to answer...

Okay! Thank you for this. Could you go a little more into what parameters scripture sets around our worship meetings?

 

[MW]

So brother, has the "perfect" come?

It has. Phil. 3:15, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."

 

[Ben_Leevey]

This is speaking of a very different perfection. Also, how would you handle when Paul says this, speaking of when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will pass away:
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12

Paul is saying he shall fully know, as he is fully known. But (unless I misunderstand you brother) you are saying this "perfection" comes after the apostolic period. If this is so, what Paul is saying doesn't make sense. On the other hand, if Paul is speaking of eternal glory, it makes a LOT of sense.

 

[MW]

This is speaking of a very different perfection.

Read the passage. Paul moves from Old Testament external privilege to the attainment of the knowledge of Christ. Anyone with eyes to see will observe it is the same transition.

Also, how would you handle when Paul says this, speaking of when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will pass away:
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12

We see in the clear and full revelation which is given us in the New Testament.

Paul is saying he shall fully know, as he is fully known. But (unless I misunderstand you brother) you are saying this "perfection" comes after the apostolic period. If this is so, what Paul is saying doesn't make sense. On the other hand, if Paul is speaking of eternal glory, it makes a LOT of sense.

It makes "perfect" sense in light of the fulness of revelation which has come through Jesus Christ, which is given us in the New Testament. So also Eph 3:3-6, Paul's knowledge in the mystery of Christ was not made known in other ages "as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." And what is that? "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." There is transition leading to perfection, and we enjoy that perfection.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

We see in the clear and full revelation which is given us in the New Testament.

But... Paul died before the new testament was complete, yet he says he will see this perfection.

It makes "perfect" sense in light of the fulness of revelation which has come through Jesus Christ, which is given us in the New Testament. So also Eph 3:3-6, Paul's knowledge in the mystery of Christ was not made known in other ages "as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." And what is that? "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." There is transition leading to perfection, and we enjoy that perfection.

So did Paul not enjoy this perfection? And when did he start? And how do tongues and prophecy tie into an understanding of the gentiles place in redemption. Paul doesn't even talk about this in 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[MW]

But... Paul died before the new testament was complete, yet he says he will see this perfection.

So did Paul not enjoy this perfection? And when did he start? And how do tongues and prophecy tie into an understanding of the gentiles place in redemption. Paul doesn't even talk about this in 1 Corinthians 13.

Again, he positions himself at a point of transition. 1 Cor. 4:10, "We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised." In 1 Cor. 13 he says "we" will see face to face. It is collective.

The point is not that 1 Cor. 13 is speaking of the Gentiles, but of a transition. The Gentiles' acceptance was just another part of the transition. The point is you have to read the New Testament from the perspective of the writers and readers. You assume completion when you read it. But back then it was still in process of being completed. We now accept the Gentiles' place. But the word of prophecy was necessary to establish it.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Again, he positions himself at a point of transition. 1 Cor. 4:10, "We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised." In 1 Cor. 13 he says "we" will see face to face. It is collective.

The point is not that 1 Cor. 13 is speaking of the Gentiles, but of a transition. The Gentiles' acceptance was just another part of the transition. The point is you have to read the New Testament from the perspective of the writers and readers. You assume completion when you read it. But back then it was still in process of being completed. We now accept the Gentiles' place. But the word of prophecy was necessary to establish it.

The huge problem brother is that the New Testament was unfinished when Paul died and yet he says he himself will see this perfection:
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12

 

[MW]

The huge problem brother is that the New Testament was unfinished when Paul died and yet he says he himself will see this perfection:
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12

Why is he alternating the I and the we? It is obviously collective. He is an apostle of the church. Everything he does and suffers is for the church. He is concerned with the state of the church.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Why is he alternating the I and the we? It is obviously collective. He is an apostle of the church. Everything he does and suffers is for the church. He is concerned with the state of the church.

Yes. But you cannot ignore the fact that he clearly says he himself will participate in this. (Well, I guess you can, but not logically).

 

[MW]

Yes. But you cannot ignore the fact that he clearly says he himself will participate in this. (Well, I guess you can, but not logically).

Go back to chapter 2 and note the change from "I" to "we." Paul's mind as an apostle is concerned with the collective interest of the church. While in chapter 2 observe what he says of a revelatory nature concerning things that are "unknown." 1 Cor. 2:9-10, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." This is the wisdom that he speaks among them that are "perfect."

It may be that because you do not see face to face you will not be able to see what I am saying about the completion of revelation. The openness to prophecy will close one's eyes to the perfection of what we now have.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Go back to chapter 2 and note the change from "I" to "we." Paul's mind as an apostle is concerned with the collective interest of the church. While in chapter 2 observe what he says of a revelatory nature concerning things that are "unknown." 1 Cor. 2:9-10, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." This is the wisdom that he speaks among them that are "perfect."

It may be that because you do not see face to face you will not be able to see what I am saying about the completion of revelation. The openness to prophecy will close one's eyes to the perfection of what we now have.

Ya, brother, you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Paul can't mean the church collectively when he says "I". That's not logically possible.

 

[MW]

Ya, brother, you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Paul can't mean the church collectively when he says "I". That's not logically possible.

It is all a matter of perspective, I suppose. If you are not willing to look at the way he speaks of revelation and perfection as a whole you will be at a disadvantage when looking at this particular instance.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

It is all a matter of perspective, I suppose. If you are not willing to look at the way he speaks of revelation and perfection as a whole you will be at a disadvantage when looking at this particular instance.

Can you tell me how Paul can not be talking specifically about himself when he says "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." using the word I?

 

[MW]

Can you tell me how Paul can not be talking specifically about himself when he says "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." using the word I?

It is context. On your understanding I can see why you could not read it any other way. But if you consider the other point of view, if Paul is speaking about revelation, then obviously the reference is not literal, but to be understood in terms of his relationship to the church as an apostle. The personal reference itself determines nothing. It means what it means in context.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

It is context. On your understanding I can see why you could not read it any other way. But if you consider the other point of view, if Paul is speaking about revelation, then obviously the reference is not literal, but to be understood in terms of his relationship to the church as an apostle. The personal reference itself determines nothing. It means what it means in context.

So, can you give me an example in a situation totally separate from scripture, of when someone would use "I" in this way?

 

[MW]

So, can you give me an example in a situation totally separate from scripture, of when someone would use "I" in this way?

Why go outside Scripture? Is it really that difficult to comprehend? Consider 1 Thess. 4:17, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Does it matter that Paul will not be alive when the Lord comes again? He is speaking collectively.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Why go outside Scripture? Is it really that difficult to comprehend? Consider 1 Thess. 4:17, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Does it matter that Paul will not be alive when the Lord comes again? He is speaking collectively.

This is different. You are mixing collective speech with specific speech. Collective speech can include the speaker. But if someone says I, it can't include those he's speaking to, unless you can give me an example (outside of 1 Cor. 14) where this is the case.

 

[MW]

This is different. You are mixing collective speech with specific speech. Collective speech can include the speaker. But if someone says I, it can't include those he's speaking to, unless you can give me an example (outside of 1 Cor. 14) where this is the case.

The very verse in question mixes them up. 1 Cor. 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."

We are way off track. If the imperfect and perfect have to do with revelation, it is reasonable that Paul would speak in this way. Personal knowledge is irrelevant. Again, your objection is owing to your unwillingness to follow the argument through. Hence you are trying to make this one statement determinative of the whole context. Try looking at it objectively.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

The very verse in question mixes them up. 1 Cor. 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."

We are way off track. If the imperfect and perfect have to do with revelation, it is reasonable that Paul would speak in this way. Personal knowledge is irrelevant. Again, your objection is owing to your unwillingness to follow the argument through. Hence you are trying to make this one statement determinative of the whole context. Try looking at it objectively.

Maybe I'm failing to look at it objectively brother, but I rather think it might be the other way around.

I fear many brethren cheat themselves out of so many promises with cessationism.

You are right, Paul references both himself, and the brethren as a group, but that doesn't mean we can say he is referencing the group when he references himself.

Brother, when you look at it objectively, does it look like Paul is saying he himself will know fully?