-

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh? I don't get your logic. 1 Cor 13:13 says "now" (the Greek "nuni"). So all that it has to mean is that right now we rely upon faith, hope and love. (Though in heaven I don't see any need to say we will not be hoping - see Rev 6:9-11 implies that they are still waiting (hoping?) for something(!)... Things aren't done until the new earth and the resurrection. Heaven is just a great pit stop.)
I can't say that I disagree with you... I just don't see what it is you're seeing. Please elaborate, brother.
 
If you are referring to me, Ben, I am just being annoying. I apologize. I am supposed to be writing a paper on Tyndale at the moment and I act weird late at night when I should be sleeping. For the record, I am a punctuated cessationist.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Huh? I don't get your logic. 1 Cor 13:13 says "now" (the Greek "nuni"). So all that it has to mean is that right now we rely upon faith, hope and love. (Though in heaven I don't see any need to say we will not be hoping - see Rev 6:9-11 implies that they are still waiting (hoping?) for something(!)... Things aren't done until the new earth and the resurrection. Heaven is just a great pit stop.)
I can't say that I disagree with you... I just don't see what it is you're seeing. Please elaborate, brother.

no problem. But I think it is foundational to conclude that, whatever it's talking about, it's not talking about heaven. Now, I gave a verse which I'm using to say that we will not hope in heaven after we have everlasting life, redeemed bodies, difinitive sanctification etc. So, if "hope" is one of the things that remain, and if hope will not remain in heaven, then this isn't talking about heaven. Agreed.

p.s. as a side note, I interpet Rev 6 preteristically.

[Edited on 11-30-2004 by Paul manata]

About quoting Rev 6 preteristicaly. Ok. I interpret it idealistically. :cool:

I do think that hope remains in heaven. (gasp!)
According to Tit 2:13, what is the blessed HOPE of the church?
Has it happened yet?
Do saints in heaven cease to be a part of the church?
It seems, then, that the saints in heaven are still awaiting the blessed hope. :cool:

I don't emphasize heaven the way some do. I emphasize the resurrection because for every one thing the Bible has to say about Heaven it has 10 or 15 things to say about the resurrection. The New Earth is what we are looking forward to. Heaven is just where we wait out the rest of salvation history. :scholar:
 
Ben, to clarify, I'm nearly certain that when people interpret 1 Cor. 13:8-10 as meaning Heaven, they are referring precisely to the Resurrection and the final state, rather than to the current state of deceased elect. That is basically the interpretation taken to avoid the inference that tongues and prophecy ceased at the completion of the canon - and the only way people can avoid that is by interpreting the chapter to be referring to the Resurrection, the Glorious Appearing, for then they can interpret the chapter as allowing for tongues and prophecy being in operation until then.

So in light of that, Romans 8:23 seems to confirm that there can be no existence of hope at that time, and thus that 1 Cor. 13 cannot be referring that time, which is the time to which non-cessationists take it to be referring. Furthermore, Titus 2:13 speaks of the blessed hope as being "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (emphasis mine), thus all the more confirming the end of hope's existence at that time, and thus further confirming the fact that 1 Cor. 13 cannot be referring to that time.
 
Well... what can one say when confronted with the Masters?

I just think they're slightly off here. After all, though their logic seems compelling and resonable, it seems to go against the logic of Paul in 1 Thess 4:13-18. Here the hope is clearly connected with the resurrection. Isn't it interesting that Paul doesn't comfort them about their deceased loved ones by saying that they'd see them in heaven? He specifically goes to the resurrection. I just think that there is ample evidence in Scripture that warrants my (though not only my!) understanding that we were not created to be disembodied spirits, and though heaven is immeasurably better than a fallen creation, our salvation has not been completed/perfected/finished until our bodies have been raised from the dust and we occupy the New Earth. Until that happens there is something promised that has not been received, and thus we have reason to hope - even when we're in heaven.

But I didn't want to sidetrack the conversation. I just don't think 1 Cor 13 really argues the cessationist point and I wanted you to prove that "the perfect" refers to the closing of the canon. That seems to be a highly interpretive conclusion. (Though, since I am a cessationist I would say this is an example of getting the right doctrine from the wrong text, so I'm not really hostile to your position, I hope that comes across.)

Here's the final word as to what will happen if I'm preaching and some dude stands up in the congregation babbling "bippity, boppitty, bo" or "Heed my word, for my word is the word of the Lord...": I'd promptly pull out my Colt .45 and drill that dude a hole in his upper chest cavity. :judge:
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Well... what can one say when confronted with the Masters?

I just think they're slightly off here. After all, though their logic seems compelling and resonable, it seems to go against the logic of Paul in 1 Thess 4:13-18. Here the hope is clearly connected with the resurrection.

Of course hope is connected with the Resurrection - but that does not mean it will be present after the Resurrection, but rather that we hope for the Resurrection. Again, the Resurrection is the very interpretation of 1 Cor. 13 I have always heard non-cessationists attempt to give, so in dispeling that interpretation, I believe the cessationist position is in fact present in that passage.
 
Ben, answer Paul's question: Who hopes for what he has? What are you going to hope for in heaven?

Of course no one hopes for what he has.
What are we hoping (looking forward to) in heaven? The resurrection!
Again, perhaps I'm just not seeing how you are interpreting this passage. I just don't see how it is really relevant to the matter.
 
Wow, I log on for the first time in ages, and here is this discussion again...

Paul, did you read the article to the link I posted earlier in the discussion? The man there offers an explanation of why the Corinthians passage isn't the best argument...
 
Oh. I thought he backed himself up better than just that.

I don't really know the answer to what you are asking.
But I wonder, does this verse explain somewhat?
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. "

It seems that it could offer some explanation of hope "abiding"...
possibly more than can be made for having to believe that we do not see through a glass darkly, but face to face, knowing as we are known?

But I don't know, and I have no more computer time...
 
Paul, the coming of Christ is NOT heaven. You seem to have this assumption that going to heaven = perfect. Heaven is not "the perfect." The perfect is the New Earth. Until that happens there is something to be hopeful for. I fear you're basing a large case on minutia.

Yes, 1 Cor 13 is within the larger context of the use of spiritual gifts in the church, but don't forget the unique contribution of 1 Cor 13 to that message. Any interpretation of this chapter that does not highlight the ethical exercision of the gifts is in error.
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Paul, the coming of Christ is NOT heaven. You seem to have this assumption that going to heaven = perfect. Heaven is not "the perfect." The perfect is the New Earth. Until that happens there is something to be hopeful for. I fear you're basing a large case on minutia.

Ben, Paul clarified what he meant by "heaven" a few posts up:

Originally posted by Paul manata
We can establish other things later. If I address the issue of hope and heaven we can, *at least* say that it isn't talking about *after* heaven.

The post-Resurrection life certainly is "the perfect," and it is in Heaven as well, albeit another time-period in Heaven than the present one of deceased elect. So Paul is trying to say that we can surely at least agree that 1 Cor. 13 is not talking about the "final" Heaven, post-Resurrection Heaven.

And Paul, I'd be interested to hear your take on 1 Cor. 15:19, for it seems to raise a new possibility for the meaning of "hope."
 
Paul, would you do me a favor?
Just homor me and present a case for cessationism w/o reference to 1 Cor 13. I'm sure you can do it.
 
Chris, that is why the passage says "now we have..." You can argue that it refers to "now" (from the perspective of the time of the writing of those words) or now in a more general sense (i.e. all time between here and the new earth.
That "clarification" is hardly adequate. There is a big difference in "heaven" (where the apostle Paul now is) and the new earth (the final, perfected place where the apostle Paul will be).

But I'm done bantering about this. I sit uncomfortable with the fact that the artificiality of the interpretation of "the perfect" being presented by some in this thread is so apparent that many, many, many folks errantly think that cessationism is equally artificial. Look for a better argument, folks.
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Paul, would you do me a favor?
Just homor me and present a case for cessationism w/o reference to 1 Cor 13. I'm sure you can do it.

This thread has plenty of conclusive arguments for cessationism apart from 1 Corinthians 13, and that passage is certainly not absolutely necessary for the upholding of such a vital doctrine. Even so, right now we're discussing whether or not it can be used as such.

As you said, the current "Heaven" that the deceased elect are in is not "the perfect," and therefore 1 Cor. 13 can't be talking about it. Well, because of Titus 2:13's speaking of the blessed hope as being fulfilled at the Resurrection, and because of Romans 8:23, "the perfect" can't be referring to the "final" Heaven, either, since there will be no place for "hope" there, but 1 Cor. 13 speaks of "hope" remaining after "the perfect." So with the two options of the present Heaven and the final Heaven out of the picture for what "the perfect" refers to, with what are we left?

The only possible challenge to that case that I can think of is the mentioned reference to hope in 1 Cor. 15.
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Chris, that is why the passage says "now we have..." You can argue that it refers to "now" (from the perspective of the time of the writing of those words) or now in a more general sense (i.e. all time between here and the new earth.
That "clarification" is hardly adequate. There is a big difference in "heaven" (where the apostle Paul now is) and the new earth (the final, perfected place where the apostle Paul will be).

I explain in my above post why 1 Cor. 13 cannot be seen as referring to the "present Heaven" or the "final Heaven," with the admitted possible refutation of 1 Cor. 15.

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
But I'm done bantering about this. I sit uncomfortable with the fact that the artificiality of the interpretation of "the perfect" being presented by some in this thread is so apparent that many, many, many folks errantly think that cessationism is equally artificial. Look for a better argument, folks.

Well, if the "artificial" nature of our interpretation is "so apparent," as you say, then perhaps you're the one reading into the text. In other words, if your interpretation of the text automatically appears so incredibly and immediately obvious to you with next to no question or thought, perhaps you should check your interpretation for preconceived notions about the text.
 
Chris, your interpretation is forced and artificial. That is why most scoff at it. And rightly so. The blessed apostle is saying that the virtues of faith, hope and love remain with us and thus they are superior to any giftedness (or lack thereof) and therefore these things should be what we really pursue. That is the point of this passage. It isn't to argue when/if the virtues of faith, hope and/or love will no longer be virtues. Talk about missing the forest for the trees!

Argue against those non-cessationists on other grounds (like the purpose of prophecy/tongues being to give us revelation and the foundation of the church (the teaching of the apostles) is already given and thus the foundation has been laid, etc...)
But please leave the church's virtues alone!
 
I think your argument about the foundation being laid is sufficient. :)

The blessed apostle doesn't say THEN they will remain, he says NOW these things remain....

[Edited on 30-11-2004 by SolaScriptura]
 
I don't think your argument about the foundation being laid is sufficient. That is what this whole thread has been about. And in that bare statement you don't answer any of the issues raised in this thread: so the case is not made, simply stated.

(some of the issues raised...)

Prophecy in the NT functioned in three ways:
a) revelation (1 Cor. 14:30,31)
b) edification/exhortation (1 Cor 14:4)
c) prediction (Acts 11:28)

&

The significant thingabout Agabus is that all that is recorded about his ministry is predictive prophecy, though he is mentioned in the office of a prophet twice.

&

1 Cor 14:6 lists revelation and doctrine as distinct from prophecy. If prophecy always equalled revelation or doctrine, why the distinction? Also, there were others who prophesied about Paul's imprisonment at Jerusalem. These predictions are not revelatory in the sense of binding doctrine. We are bound to believe it now only because the fulfillment of the prediction was inscripturated. But precisely because of that, I believe Agabus & these others are significant, as an example of predictive, non-revelatory prophecy.


&

As to tongues, the same verse seems to indicate that the tongue speaking is useless unless it is involved in one of these activites. Some of them do not involve revelation.



How has knowledge vanished away?

I don't think the "œnow"-after argument holds, because Paul says "œnow" of "œnow" several times (in fact "œnow" is consistently used of "œnow" even though "œthen" is thrown in between). Why would he say "œthen" distinguished from now, and then "œnow" of "œthen" when "œnow" has already been used of "œnow" as opposed to then... it's very confusing.

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. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Can't hope be said to abide in that it does not fail? It comes to its ultimate realisation.
 
Originally posted by joshua
Yeah, it's pretty safe to say I'm Cessationist. I read MacArthur's [u:3ea134ef59]The Charasmatics[/u:3ea134ef59] several years ago...I thought it was great.

Very interesting subject. Funny you should mention MacArthur. I just recently borrowed the book you cite from a friend. I haven't started it yet.

It's interesting to me that MacArthur, who is a Cessationist, is supportive of the ministry of the Sovereign Grace churches and the books of Joshua Harris (I think I have his last name right). I've never read any of Harris' books and I don't know if he says anythings about the sign gifts in them, but I do know that they are in operation in the Sovereign Grace churches, at least they say they are and I have no reason not to believe them. I think they don't use gifts in their worship service, but only in their private devotions, but I might be wrong about that.

So why is MacArthur a supportor of these churches?

I do know that Sovereign Grace churches are Reformed in their theology, so obviously there is a connection there.

Does anyone know more about Sovereign Grace churches?
 
Actually, shortly after I first became convinced of the doctrines of grace, I had looked heavily into their ministry, and was planning on joining one of their churches, and perhaps even going to their seminary someday. Then I became enlightened...uh, I mean, then I became convinced of paedobaptism and cessationism :D.

Seriously, though, their "main" church is Covenant Life in Gaithersburg, MD, close to D. C. It was pastored by C. J. Mahaney, who moved up to a higher position in the "family of churches" (they prefer not to be called a denomination), and Harris now pastors it. All of Harris' books are either on dating or the sin of lust, and I have read all of his except his latest, and he doesn't really get into theology. But he wrote an article in which he says that he considers Sovereign Grace churches to be Reformed, except for three rejections: cessationism, paedobaptism and church government. While they do not take their charismatism to the level of full-fledged Pentecostals (such as the tongues-as-exclusive-Spirit-baptism-evidence doctrine, or the "holy dancing" seen at so-called revivals), the use of the revelatory gifts is nonetheless a primary emphasis of theirs, and not just a side thing.

Robin Boisvert, a minister of pastoral care at Covenant Life, was one of the first pastors I talked to when I was first investigating the doctrines of grace. He was very helpful on explaning some key verses for me, and he sent me a copy of Packer's introduction to Death of Death. Furthermore, C. J. Mahaney does have a good book entitled The Cross-Centered Life, and I think Sovereign Grace Ministries can be beneficial in helping those with a Pentecostal background (like myself) begin to discover some of the tenets of Reformed theology. Even so, I could not in good conscience recommend them to anyone as a long-term church possibility, as they are basically Reformed Baptists who also heavily embrace the charismatic gifts and reject any form of church government beyond congregationalism.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Actually, shortly after I first became convinced of the doctrines of grace, I had looked heavily into their ministry, and was planning on joining one of their churches, and perhaps even going to their seminary someday. Then I became enlightened...uh, I mean, then I became convinced of paedobaptism and cessationism :D.

Seriously, though, their "main" church is Covenant Life in Gaithersburg, MD, close to D. C. It was pastored by C. J. Mahaney, who moved up to a higher position in the "family of churches" (they prefer not to be called a denomination), and Harris now pastors it. All of Harris' books are either on dating or the sin of lust, and I have read all of his except his latest, and he doesn't really get into theology. But he wrote an article in which he says that he considers Sovereign Grace churches to be Reformed, except for three rejections: cessationism, paedobaptism and church government. While they do not take their charismatism to the level of full-fledged Pentecostals (such as the tongues-as-exclusive-Spirit-baptism-evidence doctrine, or the "holy dancing" seen at so-called revivals), the use of the revelatory gifts is nonetheless a primary emphasis of theirs, and not just a side thing.

Robin Boisvert, a minister of pastoral care at Covenant Life, was one of the first pastors I talked to when I was first investigating the doctrines of grace. He was very helpful on explaning some key verses for me, and he sent me a copy of Packer's introduction to Death of Death. Furthermore, C. J. Mahaney does have a good book entitled The Cross-Centered Life, and I think Sovereign Grace Ministries can be beneficial in helping those with a Pentecostal background (like myself) begin to discover some of the tenets of Reformed theology. Even so, I could not in good conscience recommend them to anyone as a long-term church possibility, as they are basically Reformed Baptists who also heavily embrace the charismatic gifts and reject any form of church government beyond congregationalism.

Thanks for the very interesting and helpful post! Well, I guess I'm basically neutral on the cessationism, although I do heavily lean in that direction. I've certainly never spoken in tongues!

Your comment about them being helpful to those with a Pentecostal background is a good point. At least they will be in the Reformed camp, so to speak, kinda. I'll keep that in mind for anyone of Pentecostal leanings.

For me, infant baptism has alway been the problem in coming completely over to the Reformed way of thinking in its purest form. Naturally, I'm a Baptist! However, most of the Reformed Baptists I know have a healthy respect for the Reformed line of thinking on infant baptism. I would never make it a test of faith.

As far as church government? Ever see a Baptist business meeting? I think I could come to your side on that one VERY EASILY!!! ;)
 
I'm currently attending a pentecostal charismatic tongues visions prophesy etc school. During the chapels during wednesday the speakers often times speak in tongues. Myself being a cessationist, not only because of the idea of no more apostles and also the church has been established, but what would be the point, i do not see an applicability today to use these. We have the 'perfect'...

At any rate, how should i interpret what they are doing in the chapel services. By this i mean, are they posessed? I do not have this sort of discernment to tell what is going on. All i know is it makes no sense to me.

Also how can i try to refute these other teens that are caught up in this?
 
:ditto: to puritansailor (patrick) on pg. 1.

I am currently in Overland Park, KS until sunday visiting my fiance.
 
originally posted by mattbauer
At any rate, how should i interpret what they are doing in the chapel services. By this i mean, are they posessed? I do not have this sort of discernment to tell what is going on. All i know is it makes no sense to me.

Also how can i try to refute these other teens that are caught up in this?

They are in vioation of Rev. 22:18. God's word to us is complete. By claiming further revelation (tongues, visions, etc.) they are adding to the Bible. The warning at the end of revelation is very serious. I believe that it's showing that they're unregenerate.

If it isn't just "jibberish" and it's really supernatural, it's of satan not God. In either case, I'd run the other way!
 
Could this be a type of tongues different than the ones for prophecy?
Something for the private prayer closet that Paul spoke of? Some texts say groanings and utterances dont they?


Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
 
Originally posted by Richard King
Could this be a type of tongues different than the ones for prophecy?
Something for the private prayer closet that Paul spoke of? Some texts say groanings and utterances dont they?


Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

I'm not sure which version you are using, but the NKJV says with groanings "which cannot be uttered." Your version still carries some of the force though. The point? Tongues are uttered. They are spoken words. The Spirit's groaning in this verse is not uttered by us. There is no such thing in Scripture as a private prayer language or tongue. Tongues functioned in public worship, and were only allowed when interpreted.

1 Cor. 14 expressely teaches that tongues and prophecy function to "reveal mysteries" (see also Eph. 2:20-3:6). Paul uses "mystery" with a specific meaning in his epistles. It does not mean some riddle or secret which only a select few can figure out (like our modern usage). It is something hidden which is now revealed to all. The gospel is this mystery. Tongues and prophecy functioned for that purpose during the apostolic age. The Spirit was gifting men to reveal this mystery of the Messiah. Once that message was written down in the words of the prophets and apostles in our NT, the mystery was completely revealed. There was no more for us to know. The faith was once for all revealed. The witness and testimony of Christ was complete. Hence, the mystery revealing gifts are no longer needed.


Now, Matt, regarding your question:

Be very carfeul in how you judge your church. The charismatic movement is very broad and appealling and easily ensnares even faithful Christians. Growing up in it myself, I know that there is a diversity of folks there. There are sincere believers there who are simply caught in error, who so desire to know God and feel this is the way to experience Him. You will benefit from their fellowship despite this error so long as you study the Scriptures together. If you are going to remain in that Church, then these are the folks you need to find and grow with. There are also unbelievers there, caught up in the love of signs and wonders and intense emotional experiences. Be cautious of them.

Are these experiences genuine works of the Spirit? Certainly where the Word is preached God can and does work. But regarding these extraordinary expereinces, I believe they are not of the Spirit. You asked if it was demonic? I have certainly seen some experiences in folks, false prophecies and visions driving them to complete irrationality, which I would conclude as demonic in nature. But I do believe that most of these experiences are simply psychological, manipulated by a combination of a large imagination and the intense music and lively preaching. These things produce good feelings which people interpret to be God's presence.

But, being so young, you are not the one to correct your church. You are probably full of zeal, which is good. But take my suggestions here as one who has traveled this road already and made many mistakes in this regard. Use that zeal to study God's Word and pray to know God better. Especially pray for the fruits of the Spirit to grow in your life, particularly self control. Respect your elders. Do not get caught up in arguments. Never raise your voice. If you are discussing these things and the heat turns up, simply back off and offer to discuss them another time when the emotions are not so involved. Ask questions rather then challenging with propositions. I will tell you exactly how it's going to work for you if it hasn't happened already. Right now, you are launching off into adulthood. You are discovering many things on your own, wonderful things, and you will be zealous to spread the good news, and frustrated that no one is as enthusiastic as you about them. You will be tempted to challenge people's faith and condemn them for not seeing "the light" as you have. But before you speak, hold your tongue. Be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath. People are sanctified at different rates and ways. You must be patient in that regard with others. Seek humility, and seek to know Christ better. If you will remain in this church for now, then your actions will speak louder than words. Godliness is a stronger witness to the truth than the most skilled arguments.
:2cents:

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by puritansailor]
 
Patrick,

Do you really think that a true christian should remain in such a setting (charismatic church)?

What all false gospels hold in common is the adding of further revelation to God's revealed written word. I consider tongues speaking assemblies on the same level as Seventh Day Adventists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc. They all have additional revelation whether it's written or otherwise.

I agree with much of your advise to Matt. I don't believe that he should argue or cause an uproar. I do however, believe that if possible, he should leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top