Desire to discuss spiritual gifts with someone...

[carlos123]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the input. There's a lot to chew on there. It would not do it justice if I just up and spouted forth off the top of my head something in reponse. Maybe later tonight when I have had more of a chance to digest what you say.

Glad to know that you think differrently than I do though at least in some of what you say . I feel rather humbled that I am "talking" with someone who is writing a book but I guess I can't let that get to me or else I would become tongue tied .

Carlos

[carlos123]

Hi Steve,

Now that I have chance to read what you wrote in depth and at leisure I have a few comments .

First off I want to congratulate you on a well written piece covering the history of the "Baptism of the Spirit" and tongues following as a sign of it. Very pursuasive and obviously well researched.

I would like to highlight some things I think we would agree on based on Scripture....

1. Tongues are a known language not some gibberish that one can begin to practice by a loosening of the tongue or such. It is a gift given that allows one to speak in a tongue that they do not know. Supernaturally so.

2. Tongues are not neccessary as a sign of being filled or babtized in the Spirit. Indeed as you point out it is one of the lessor gifts. Love being the greatest.

3. It is not the norm for everyone to speak in tongues any more than for everyone to prophecy or have the gift of healing or any other gift. The body is made up of many parts and not every part has every gift at any one time that is given to any other part, at the same time.

If anyone thinks differently on any of these points please pipe up and express your viewpoint (with supporting verses of course) that we might discuss such at greater length.

Secondly a few observations Steve.

You mention quite a bit of history to back up your assertions. And certainly there is profit in that. But I think you would readily agree (I hope ) that history by itself is not a very relliable barometer of what God may want to do within His people. For after all, the history before the Reformation was such that one would have had to conclude that going to heaven involved paying for enough indulgences or else doing enough good works that one would have had a good chance of getting out of purgotary quickly entering heaven in short order.

Likewise the history of Israel at different points in time might have led us to conclude that God was not serious about prophesied judgements awaiting his people if they did not repent. For the people of Israel were often living in relative peace for quite some time before God's judgements came into play.

So if you don't mind Steve, and without discounting the possibility that history may indeed attest to the gifts not being around for today, I think it would benefit our discussion to leave history aside, for now, and focus exclusively on what is written in the words of the Bible. Then, on coming to agreement there, to then go back and retrace our steps through history to see why things may or may not have been in line with the understanding we have arrived at from the Scriptures.

There are so many points that could be picked as a starting point for discussion in what you wrote but I think I would like to discuss more fully your understanding of the "perfect" as found in 1 Corinthians 13, again if you have no objection.

You say that the gift of tongues "...was given with the understanding that it would pass away (1 Cor. 13:8)". Indeed that is what it says but from what I gather from your writing it seems pretty obvious that this passing away has already happened in your understanding. And is not something that will happen in the future.

Likewise you say that the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13 could not refer to the Second Coming of Christ since "...every word that is used in the NT to identify Jesus is a masculine word. "perfection" is a gender-neutral word.".

I was wondering if you could expand a bit on what you mean by saying that every word used in the NT to identify Jesus is a masculine word while "perfect" is a gender-neutral word. I must confess a bit of ignorance with regard to gender identification of Greek words and what that implies about the meaning. What you say may indeed be but I am not quite sure what you mean by these gender identifications. Can you give me some verses as examples?

Also do you believe that the "perfect" refers to the Bible? Such that, given that we have our Bible today, that it has already come and that therefore it would stand to reason that tongues has passed away? Is that the basis for your belief that tongues have passed away?

Carlos

PS. I just realized that this board is based in a time zone that is THREE hours later than where I am. No wonder people are signing off for the night around my supper time .

Edited July 13, 2004 by carlos123

[stevehut]

I was wondering if you could expand a bit on what you mean by saying that every word used in the NT to identify Jesus is a masculine word while "perfect" is a gender-neutral word.

I don't know a lot of Greek, but I do know a little Spanish (which is largely derived from Greek and Latin).

In Spanish, almost every noun has a masculine and a feminine form. A boy is a Ni

[carlos123]

Thanks Steve.

I will look up some info on that. I have several study aids that are among the best one can get regarding the Greek of the New Testament (The Word Study New Testament and the The Word Study Concordance).

But even if true that perfect is gender neutral and such, I am not sure I follow the logic of thinking this proves that the perfect cannot be the second coming of Christ? Or conversely that this means that the perfect refers to the Bible? I know you haven't come out and said so Steve but do you believe that the perfect is the Bible? If not what else could it be such that tongues have passed away because the perfect has already come?

I will look up to see if other persons in the New Testament are referred to by both masculine and gender-neutral terms. Whether there is a definite correlation between referring to a man with masculine genders or not.

Incidentally I am not sure what the perfect is referring to exactly, though I do not believe that it refers to the Bible based on the context in 1 Cor 13 and do believe that it has not yet come (whatever it is). But I venture into as yet unsupported opinion .

Carlos

[carlos123]

Hi Steve,

I have done a bit of checking around and reading and it seems that the gender of words used in the New Testament is not as clear as might seem to be the case on first glance. In fact quite a bit of controversy sorrounds some recent attempts to create a translation that is more gender accurate (the TNIV). There are definitely differences of opinion as to the gender of various words in the context in which they are used.

It also seems evident that a word itself does not indicate it's gender apart from the context in which it is used. In other words the gender of a Greek word is not something that is in the spelling of the word itself. Rather it is revealed by the context of where a word is used and the words immediately preceeding the word in question.

So for example the use of the word "you" in this sentence "You went and saw your girlfriend and asked her to tell you what she thought of you as a man" is obviously masculine. While in the following sentence it is not clear at all what the gender of "you" is ..."You went to the store didn't you?".

Which leads me to conclude that basing one's belief about something like the meaning of the word "perfect" in 1 Cor 13 on gender alone is somewhat shaky and certainly not to be relied on authoritatively as being absolutely definitive in expressing God's understanding of the word. IF the gender of said word is not clear in the context in which it is used.

I do not believe that the gender should be used in trying to determine what Paul meant in 1 Cor 13. If one believes that "perfect" refers to Jesus then the gender most supported will seem to be masculine. If one believes it refers to the Bible then the gender most supported by the context will seem to be neutral as to to an inanimate object like a book. But neither one is definitive so that all might readily agree. It depends on one's view of what the verse is saying (whether in Greek or English or whatever language makes little difference) which leaves us no closer to believing a common truth than where we are now.

The Greek word translated as "perfect" in 1 Cor 13 is "telios". It is found in 19 verses in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 14:20 translates it as "men" in the KJ.

Ephesians 4:13 refers to a "perfect man".

Colissians 1:28 exhorts us to present every man "perfect in Christ".

Hebrews 5:14 translates it as "full age".

James 1:17 uses the word in reference to a thing. Namely a gift as in spiritual gift, ability, or similar.

James 1:25 refers to the "perfect law".

1 John 4:18 says "perfect love".

It seems evident that this word is not used exclusively in the neutral-gender in every instance where it used. Quite often it is used in the masculine sense. It may well be that Jesus is referred to exclusively in the masculine but since the word "perfect" appears to also be used in the masculine sense in certain verses I do not believe that the gender of the word "perfect" as used in 1 Cor 13 can be seen as absolutely definitive so as to base our understanding of what the "perfect" means on it's gender alone.

Am I making sense Steve? I hope so .

I propose that we look elsewhere other than gender to determine the meaning of the word "perfect" in 1 Cor 13. I think the context is a much better indicator of it's meaning than gender. What do you think Steve?

Carlos

Edited July 13, 2004 by carlos123

[stevehut]

1- I am not sure I follow the logic of thinking this proves that the perfect cannot be the second coming of Christ? 

2- Or conversely that this means that the perfect refers to the Bible? 

3- I will look up to see if other persons in the New Testament are referred to by both masculine and gender-neutral terms. 

1- Frankly, I am of the opinion that this interpretation was "created" by someone who was just a bit too eager to "prove" a pre-existing opinion.

2- The canonization of the Bible is one possibility, I think. I am open to other ideas, though.

3- That would not be useful to this discussion. Jesus, the Messiah, Son of God, is unique. The ordinary rules that apply to ordinary men, don't always apply to him.

[stevehut]

1- So for example the use of the word "you" in this sentence "You went and saw your girlfriend and asked her to tell you what she thought of you as a man" is obviously masculine.

2- basing one's belief about something like the meaning of the word "perfect" in 1 Cor 13 on gender alone is somewhat shaky

3- I do not believe that the gender should be used in trying to determine what Paul meant in 1 Cor 13.

4- It depends on one's view of what the verse is saying

5- Quite often it is used in the masculine sense.

6- I do not believe that the gender of the word "perfect" as used in 1 Cor 13 can be seen as absolutely definitive

1- I don't think that logic works here. Greek grammar is different from English. The gender status of "perfection" is neutral, regardless of the context.

2- Agreed. But my belief about the gift of Tongues is not based solely on this one verse. Take another look at my essay.

3- That's too bad. Grammar matters. The definitions of words matter. No matter what the book is.

4- Nope. I haven't given a personal view on this subject. "perfection" is a gender-neutral term. Period. Anyone who tells you differently is a fool.

5- Nope. Yes, it is used in reference to men, just as it was with Jesus. But that doesn't change the nature of the word.

6- I think you're trying too hard to prove a pre-existing opinion, bro.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

Hi,

If you really read into it in 1 Cor 13 about what Paul means by Perfection you will see that few verses later that Paul is speaking about the day when we enter in a gloifed state of perfection. Not in this life but the life to come but when we are face to face with God. You got to read it in context.

read verse 12.

1Co 13:10-12 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. (11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (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.

Think about it, in the next life we will not need healing because all sicknesses will be gone. We will not need Prophecy because we will be face to face with God. We not need any of the gifts because we will all be in a perfected glorified state face to face with God: Spirit, Soul and Body.

Clearly the perfect state is when we are face to face with God and have perfect knowlege according to vs. 12. At this point there will be no need for spiritual gifts to edify the church because at that point we will be completely edifed in our perfect glorifed state.

So perfection is speaking of a future event when we are face to face with God and perfected in our glorifed bodies. Not sure if this is speaking of the ressurection or upon our physical death but certainly we are not face to face with God and the church is definintly not in a perfected state. So therefore it is evident that the church still today requires edification which is the purpose of the Spiritual gifts.

To say that we do not need spiritual gifts is to say that the chruch no longer needs edification. It is the foot saying to the eye and the mouth we no long need you.

And we can not say that only certain gifts exist today because Paul in Chapter 12 says that we can not say that we only need certain gifts but the others we dont.

So to say that certain gifts ceased you would have to say that all Spiritual gifts ceased altogether and we are now perfect. But this is absolutly not the case and there is no proof or hint that teh gifts of the Spirit have or will cease in this life time. Actually if you read in Revelation you will see their will be prophets that call fire down from heaven. So you have to assume that the Gift of Prophecy is still here. You would have to go way out of your way and bend scriptures to say that Spiritual gifts have ceased.

Jason

[Jedi4Yahweh]

1. Tongues are a known language not some gibberish that one can begin to practice by a loosening of the tongue or such. It is a gift given that allows one to speak in a tongue that they do not know. Supernaturally so.

This is not always the case.

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Paul said when a man speaks in an unknown tongue or language he is not speaking to man but to God and nobody understands him. Therefore he is praying in a unknown tongue to God.

1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings.

There are two types of unknown tongues spoken of in the bible: One is a supernatural prayer language and the other is message of tongues in which requires an interpreter either someone who knows the spoken language or one who has the gift of interpretation.

2. Tongues are not neccessary as a sign of being filled or babtized in the Spirit. Indeed as you point out it is one of the lessor gifts. Love being the greatest.

If you do a study on being baptised or filled with the spirit you will see that there was always a supernatual utterance accompanied either in an unknown language or a prophetic word. Do a bible search and you will see.

Love is not a Gift of the Spirit but it is the natural Fruit of the Spirit. Paul is not saying that we should only seek love and forget the Gifts of the Spirit. What he is trying to say is that we are to use love with the Gifts of the Spirit. With out love those Gifts are pointless.

Paul says serveral times that we are to desire Spiritual Gifts and that we are not to forbid them.

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

The question is are we obeying this scripture?

[Guest gogoswing]

There is nothing wrong with pursuing the gifts of the Spirit because Paul the apostle tells us to in 1 Cor. 14:1, but the truth is not everyone has the gift of tongues(1 Cor.12:29-31).

The gifts are given by the will of the HOLY SPIRIT (1 Cor. 12:11), not by the will of man.

As far as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I was taught that it happens as soon as you are saved. I have yet to hear any real evidence that backs up the charismatic teaching of Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Edited July 14, 2004 by gogoswing