Jump to content

Leon C. Essex

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Neutral

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You are quite right, of course. Paul's epistles will often change tack - in common with most letters. And indeed, chapter and verse were later additions. I see nothing in this passage, however, to indicate it should be read as anything other than one continuous text, so we agree there, too. He actually begins this topic at the start of 1 Corinthians 12, as a discourse on spiritual gifts, but for simplicity we could start at the end of that chapter - as that is the most pertinent section. Not at all sure why we would do that. There is already perfect harmony, and Paul is still very much on topic....the same topic. After graphically establishing the supremacy of a single fruit of the Spirit - love - over even the most radical expression of gifts, Paul then describes the temporary aspects of those gifts, and their incomplete nature. Verses 11 and 12 are absolutely consistent with the continuation of this theme, where Paul uses the analogy of childhood to emphasise the temporary and incomplete character of spiritual empowerment. The position that "In the first section Paul speaks of the completion of of the Scriptures ("that which is complete")" is really an unsupported assumption. There is no indication that 'the perfect' to which he alludes is scripture - it isn't even hinted at in the text. I have already made the points about who or what Paul would have considered perfect, and how incongruous it would be to suppose he thought that his writings (and that of others) would somehow enable him to see face to face, and know as he is fully known. There really doesn't seem to be any evidential basis for that interpretation - not in this passage, and not in the bible as a whole. I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on those 20-ish spiritual gifts, Ezra. There are some who believe those actually mentioned in this passage were merely representative of the gifts in general, and some who think Paul specifically selected them because they were the most abused and counterfeited gifts at Corinth. And then there is the partial cessationist position. Anyhow, thanks for your response - it was appreciated. I had hoped to get back to you last night, but it was 2 am before I finished writing back to enoob, and my mind was already wandering - as evidenced by the fact that at one point I attributed the book of Timothy to Timothy himself. Doh!
  2. Thanks for the response, enoob57 – interesting perspective and much appreciated! I feel I should likewise extend the courtesy of replying, though I’ll try to keep it brief: it’s getting late here, and – in any case – I don’t want to become a burden, or even a pain. This is a great passage about the efficacy of scripture. I won’t waste your time by banging on about minor issues. Rather, I’d just make the point that 2 Timothy was written well before the canon was complete, a fact which would seem to mitigate strongly against your proposition. After all, if your position is that the complete canon is the perfect which has the ability to make perfect, that would render Timothy’s statement inaccurate and presumptuous. Put simply, if he had shared the view that the full canon was the perfect to come – and that it was the full canon which conferred perfection – he would have been quite wrong to make that claim about the unfinished article….which he did. The bible’s power to equip, mature and inspire the Christian is well documented. It apparently already had that power in Timothy’s day, despite being incomplete. Timothy himself said so. He made no reference which would suggest that he believed there would be a cessation of spiritual gifts when the letters ceased – he never made that connection.
  3. Yes it does. "That which is perfect" = "That which is COMPLETE". And in the context of prophesies, tongues, and supernatural knowledge, it can only mean one thing -- the complete Bible. I hold no brief for the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, being - as it is - so irredeemably compromised by legions of false teachers, prosperity scammers and fake manifestations. There is such a lack of discernment in some quarters, that it is difficult to believe the Holy Spirit has led them into any truth, let alone 'all truth'. Earlier, I described the position that all Christians could or should speak in tongues as "a conjectural extrapolation at best - an assumption, rather than an inescapable conclusion drawn from an evidential base." I would say precisely the same about the idea that Paul was referring to the completion of the canon of scripture when he wrote of the perfect which was to come. I find it difficult to imagine that he was saying that the cessation of gifts would be triggered by himself and a few others finishing writing their letters....or that he would even think of those writings as the 'perfect' he was anticipating. Moreover, how exactly would the completing of these epistles enable Paul to "see face to face"? By what mechanism would those letters enable him to fully know, even as he is known? The truth is - even now with the inspired word of God - none of us 'fully know', do we? I am not aware of any other scripture which can be said to seriously support this concept - something, which if true, would be of huge import to the church. As it is, we have an interpretation of a single verse - an interpretation which would appear to be brought into question even by its own immediate context.
  4. Thank you for the clarification, Giller. I don't personally think that Acts 2:38-39 can be reasonably construed as anything other than (or in excess of) a promise that the Holy Spirit will be received by those meeting the conditions laid down by Peter. There is no specific suggestion about tongues of any description, and - while numerous gifts of the Spirit are mentioned subsequently - it would seem from Paul's writings that none of them were universally bestowed. As for Acts 10, I would fully expect those Gentile converts to manifest something to which Peter could immediately relate: both the context and Peter's character would seem to demand it. Further, that it would appear unlikely that their tongues were of the 'gibberish' type, as you put it. Lacking in any linguistic composition or cadence - and bereft of any accepted indicators of speech - such a display would hardly compel Peter to believe he was witnessing a re-run of Pentecost. You mention 'fake' tongues. I agree that this is common. Much of it is merely learned behaviour - unsurprising when people freely speak in tongues in front of seekers - lay hands on them - and then tell them to speak out the first thing that enters their minds. Where we might disagree, is that I suspect that the belief that every Christian should speak in tongues is - in large part - responsible for this practice. Yes, I can well believe this. We may make a judgment about such people based on discernment, or perhaps by comparing what they say with our own diligent study of scripture. But I would suggest the defining characteristic of those who have infiltrated the body of Christ for their own ends, is always a lack of humility. I was interested to read of your own experiences generally, though it was the remark about the preacher which really resonated. But going back to the subject in hand, I honestly can't see that scripture could substantiate a claim that all believers can (or should) speak in tongues. It is a conjectural extrapolation at best - an assumption, rather than an inescapable conclusion drawn from an evidential base. Yes, there were people at Pentecost who heard the disciples in their own languages. There was the incident in Acts 10, but - even taken together - they really don't make a case for universal glossolalia in the body of Christ.
  5. Just for clarification, are you saying that your understanding of this snippet of scripture is that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is not the Holy Ghost himself, but specifically that he would impart a particular gift (tongues) to everyone who was called? And - using your own distinction regarding "other" and "unknown" tongues, would this be the former (where people heard the disciples in known languages) or the latter "unknown tongues" - which was a gift which was apparently also unknown to Peter and the church at that time?
  6. I’ve enjoyed reading through this thread, and am grateful for the insights and information it contains. It’s an interesting subject. I don’t feel qualified to add much, but would just like to share a few thoughts on origins. The odds against spontaneous generation would seem to be astronomical – probably of a similar order to the chances of me winning the Kentucky Derby, whilst carrying the horse. These odds would then have to be multiplied by the chances of this ( presumably )single-celled life-form finding itself in an environment which can sustain its existence. The resultant figure would then be multiplied by the odds against it just happening to have reproductive ability, and again by whatever enormous odds against it (a) containing all the genetic information necessary to produce all extant or extinct life-forms, or (b) having the capacity to produce an almost infinite number of benign mutations. Unless, of course, there is some mechanism (as yet undiscovered) whereby additional information can be introduced to the gene pool….but I won’t be holding my breath on that one. When I come across those who actually believe these things happened, I am ashamed at the comparative paucity of my own faith. If I had but the smallest percentage of their faith, I’m sure I could move mountains while having my morning shave, and even shuffle around the continents over breakfast. While I cannot claim any detailed knowledge of matters biological, I certainly see some parallels in the world of physics, in which I take a somewhat closer interest. There is that same belief in an impossible series of events, the same desperation to attribute existence to anything – be it ever so absurd – rather than face the obvious conclusion that what we have could only be the result of a creative, intelligent and external power. And there is that same inability to address true origins: that infinitely small, infinitely dense point of matter which is said to have instigated the big bang must have had prior cause, just as the first single-celled life-form must have come from somewhere - and spontaneous generation can never be a viable proposition. In astro-physics, it appears that every time discoveries contradict previous understandings, someone will come up with an exotic new theory just to maintain the illusion that it all makes sense. The truth is, however, that the large majority of recent speculations – often portrayed as ‘fact’ – have little or no evidential base. Their only purpose seems to be to plug the holes which keep appearing in the accepted ‘truths’ of this discipline. And maybe to sell a few books! But wild speculation by scientists is nothing new , nor is it confined to physicists – one only has to pick up a copy of Walton’s “The Compleat Angler” to see that. Eminent men of the day claimed such things as whirlpools were caused by flatfish – more than acre in area – turning over. There were reports of killer frogs, and tench being born from the morning mist. Perhaps, as someone once said, “there is nothing new under the sun”.
×
×
  • Create New...