That which is perfect

[Boo]

I am definitely a believer, and I see the miracles of God every day. I have only to open my eyes and see the wonderous world He has made and admire the beauty of His creation.

I also know that He works His will according to His desires. He gave us all we need in order to believe. Now that scripture is the authority in our lives, we no longer need men walking around telling us what new revelations God is giving to us. Those revelations are now complete - in scripture. Nobody has to now prove that He is empowered by God to speak for Him - so we need no miracle workers.

God can still heal when it fits His plan - can still grant people with the ability to give the message in someone else's tongue. He, however, no longer needs to give those gifts as a sign for the people to know who to believe. We don't need to believe any man now - we have His Word.

I can believe without seeing God prove Himself or show his empowerment of any man as His prophet. This world needed those at one time, but not now.

[Watchman]

I realize that signs and wonders--miracles--were used to confirm the words of some in the NT; however, the gifts of the Spirit were not given so that believers would continue to believe. That is not found in scripture, nor is the idea that gifts and faith are mutually exclusive. God's gifts are irrevocable. The gifts of people to the church by Christ (Ephesians 4) and the manifestations of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) were given to build up the body. The idea that scripture would replace these irrevocable gifts is not found in scripture. It must be read into scripture and then "proven" via the odious method of proof-texting. Proof-texting is as backward a way to study as exists. One must start first with an idea they wish to "prove", and then concatenate out-of-context verses as "proof".

Nowhere does scripture refer to itself as "the mind of Christ". God gave gifts to His people, and those who deny those gifts apparently have decided they know better than the Creator how things should operate. Oh well...

Watchman

[HoboTone]

I realize that signs and wonders--miracles--were used to confirm the words of some in the NT; however, the gifts of the Spirit were not given so that believers would continue to believe. That is not found in scripture, nor is the idea that gifts and faith are mutually exclusive. God's gifts are irrevocable. The gifts of people to the church by Christ (Ephesians 4) and the manifestations of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) were given to build up the body. The idea that scripture would replace these irrevocable gifts is not found in scripture. It must be read into scripture and then "proven" via the odious method of proof-texting. Proof-texting is as backward a way to study as exists. One must start first with an idea they wish to "prove", and then concatenate out-of-context verses as "proof".

Nowhere does scripture refer to itself as "the mind of Christ". God gave gifts to His people, and those who deny those gifts apparently have decided they know better than the Creator how things should operate. Oh well...

Watchman

So, in other words; those here who claim there is no revelation outside of Scripture, are propagating a doctrine found outside ot Scripture.

[Watchman]

So, in other words; those here who claim there is no revelation outside of Scripture, are propagating a doctrine found outside ot Scripture.

That would be correct.

[Athanasius]

Did God heal you or some man.
If you had read my posts I have stated miracles occur.
IF you understand God, you would know in a instant he could remove all illness from earth.
Illness remains.
Why?

You already know the answer to that one, Epicurus. You're also forgetting -- what's your revised definition of faith?

[Colight]

You already know the answer to that one, Epicurus. You're also forgetting -- what's your revised definition of faith?

Post #200.
Instead of flashing that "revised" card.
Perhaps give us a answer as to why sickness remains.

[Colight]

I realize that signs and wonders--miracles--were used to confirm the words of some in the NT; however, the gifts of the Spirit were not given so that believers would continue to believe. That is not found in scripture, nor is the idea that gifts and faith are mutually exclusive. God's gifts are irrevocable. The gifts of people to the church by Christ (Ephesians 4) and the manifestations of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) were given to build up the body. The idea that scripture would replace these irrevocable gifts is not found in scripture. It must be read into scripture and then "proven" via the odious method of proof-texting. Proof-texting is as backward a way to study as exists. One must start first with an idea they wish to "prove", and then concatenate out-of-context verses as "proof".

Nowhere does scripture refer to itself as "the mind of Christ". God gave gifts to His people, and those who deny those gifts apparently have decided they know better than the Creator how things should operate. Oh well...

Watchman

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Thru the word, we have the thinking of Christ.
Thru the teaching ministry of the spirit we can understand those thoughts of Christ, these spiritual thoughts are thru the spiritual words of the doctrine of Christ.
This is why one must be in total fellowship with the spirit while in bible class.

[Athanasius]

Post #200.
Instead of flashing that "revised" card.
Perhaps give us a answer as to why sickness remains.

I'm not going to drop it until you revise your definition of faith (post #200 is not a revised definition). You've used it to argue against others in this thread, while blatantly ignoring the reality that it contradicts your own stated beliefs (see post #200). It's called a double-standard, and it's intellectually dishonest. It's as intellectually dishonest as trying to push me on answering the question of why 'sickness remains', when the question has absolutely nothing to do with my previous posts in this thread.

If that isn't clear enough, then your question is a red herring. It can wait, along with those objections of Epicurus and Euthyphro (get the hint?). If you really want to push it, then you can quote to me where I said that God would heal all illness, because this is the only valid reason you would have for bringing up the question. As I haven't said anything close to that, I've no problem not answering your question, until, at least, you revise your definition of faith to something other than 'lacking sight and sign'. I'm just really, really concerned for those faithless apostles and disciples who knew Jesus personally while he ministered on earth.

[Colight]

I'm not going to drop it until you revise your definition of faith (post #200 is not a revised definition). You've used it to argue against others in this thread, while blatantly ignoring the reality that it contradicts your own stated beliefs (see post #200). It's called a double-standard, and it's intellectually dishonest. It's as intellectually dishonest as trying to push me on answering the question of why 'sickness remains', when the question has absolutely nothing to do with my previous posts in this thread.

There is no contrast
Certain GIFTS have ended and miracles still occur at the Lords good pleasure.

That faith is to not be based on sight..
As I have shown thru Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I have shown... If we shrink in faith that is displeasing to God.. aka going for sight and show.

Heb 10:38
38 But My righteous one shall live by faith; And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

So now exactly what is your beef?

[Athanasius]

There is no contrast
Certain GIFTS have ended and miracles still occur at the Lords good pleasure.

That faith is to not be based on sight..
As I have shown thru Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I have shown... If we shrink in faith that is displeasing to God.. aka going for sight and show.

Heb 10:38
38 But My righteous one shall live by faith; And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

So now exactly what is your beef?

Here is your original claim:

We are ORDERED to live by faith( faith lacks sight and signs), to chase this visual signs is IMHO a violation of such order.

My 'beef' is your claim that faith 'lacks sight and signs'. As I stated previously, this is a different claim than saying we ought not to 'chase this visual signs'... And this claim I left alone. In your most recent reply, you're getting more at the second claim ('faith is not to be based on sight') than the first, and the second claim I don't have much of an issue with.

When you say, "faith lacks sight and signs" you (1) adopt a modern understanding of faith; (2) contradict what you obviously believe elsewhere. The faith of the immediate apostles and disciples of Christ did not lack 'sight and signs', they walked and talked with God. The faith of the Old Testament prophets and major characters also did not lack 'sight and signs'. The faith of many believers today does not lack 'sight and sign'.

For example, if you were to read or quote the rest of Hebrews 11:1 then you would not make the claim that faith is not 'based on sight' (did I point out yet that 'sign' is conspicuously missing in your latest post?). v. 7 "By faith Noah, when warned..."; v.8 "By Faith Abraham, when called..."; v.17 "by faith Abraham, when God tested him..."; v. 30 "By faith the walls of Jericho fell..." The in between verses go to support my point as well, but so does the Greek pistis, the word used for faith, which is very much unlike our English word 'faith'. These people communicated with God, their faith certainly wasn't made in the absence of anything, but in the very real presence of God.

As a result your interpretation and application of Hebrews 10:38 takes on a dimension other than what you seem to be suggesting. That is, it doesn't seem to be speaking of abandoning faith in favour of pursing something 'based on sight'.

[Watchman]

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Thru the word, we have the thinking of Christ.
Thru the teaching ministry of the spirit we can understand those thoughts of Christ, these spiritual thoughts are thru the spiritual words of the doctrine of Christ.
This is why one must be in total fellowship with the spirit while in bible class.

You are equating the Word, who is Christ, with the scriptures...that dog won't hunt.

[Watchman]

The pov that states the manifestations of the Spirit negate faith is troubling. We can see the world God created...does that negate our faith in Him, or our belief of Him? No. We see the manifestation of His invisible power. Likewise, when someone is healed, given a word of wisdom or knowledge, etc., that is the manifestation, the result, of the Spirit's invisible workings through people. This is not a show-biz stunt. Yes, those exist, but to simply paint all as counterfeit is both incorrect and arrogant. The gifts were not given to establish belief, because they were given to build up the body of those who ALREADY believe. Gifts and living by faith are very compatible, if one truly believes the scriptures.

W

[Colight]

You are equating the Word, who is Christ, with the scriptures...that dog won't hunt.

The doctrine contained in scripture is the mind of Christ.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

[Slug1]

I can't help but think that, if I knew that God would heal anyone who I laid hands on and prayed for, I could go empty the hospital in our town. Would that not be a miracle? Actually, since I have done it, the hospital should be empty of those whom I have prayed for. Also, there are many "men of God" who go there every day and pray for those whom they visit.

This is something I've prayed to God about... why don't He heal EVERYONE in EVERY hospital where Christians go to pray.

Well... since in scriptures when multiple healing was done, it's more about those COMING to Jesus for healing, or coming to the Apostles for healing. So, for a person to GO TO those who need healing, the element of THEIR heart and THEM coming to Jesus for healing is missing.

So this may be a reason for God not prompting any given Christian to GO TO a hospital and heal everyone... who's gonna glorify God if THEY weren't seeking first. This seems to be the reason when that ONE or TWO in any given hospital are SEEKING and God decides it's time to answer... then a Christian is prompted by the Holy Spirit and they go as a servant of God and do whatever the Holy Spirit tells them to do and pray and the person is healed.

Perhaps, I am not aware of those scriptures that say that God heals only those we pray for in front of a congregation?

Perhaps with this attitude, which appears to be dripping with sarcasm based on your choice of words, God knows whats really in your heart?

I don't get it guys. Can we use God's gift of healing when we want to or not?

The Holy Spirit does the empowering so it's up to God when and where and how much.

If those with terminal illness are miraculously healed by laying on of hands, how is it that that event is never broadcast on the local news program? There are dozen's of Pentecostal churches here, but I never get to hear about or see any miraculous healings.

Christians have been testifying for years of healings... why is the NEWS needed? Is the news more reliable than those who God has used in the healing of others??

Let me ask you a question... the news broadcasts the killing of Christians when? There are Christians who are UNAWARE that their brothers and sisters out there in the world are being slaughtered due to faith in God. Some Christians may even hear this news but they ignore it, blow it off, disregard it... the SAME WAY Christians can read/hear a testimony and ignore it, blow it off, disregard it.

It happens all the time and this board is testament to that truth. People want to HEAR it on the news, as if that makes it believable. Yet, when they read testimony on this board... oh, yeah, cool... and they disregard it and KEEP harping about lack of healing or that healing DON'T really happen or they keep saying Christians don't need healing.

However, I have faith in God and follow Him as he leads me. I guess I don't need miracles to know and believe in God. Are we supposed to need them in order to have faith. If we were, I would not believe.

Same here, faith IN God... so when a prophet of God prophesied over me that in time God would call me to pray for healing over the sick... I had faith it was true and 8 months later, it became reality in my life as a servant of God. So if this prophecy had NOT come to pass yet in my life, I'd still HAVE faith in God BECAUSE faith isn't based on what God can/will DO, it's based on WHO GOD IS.

Having faith in God is all that is needed to also have the faith that God will USE that faith for His purpose(s) also.

It's AT this point where Christians get ALL BENT out of shape. When God wants to PUT into USE, that faith Christians SAY they have... well, when God wants to heal someone, there are less Christians who will ACTIVELY allow themselves to be used in such a way, DUE to their faith. Compared to those Christians who say they have SUCH GREAT faith, signs/wonders aren't needed and will say "NO" to the Holy Spirit when He's prompting them to pray over a person because God's will is that they be healed.

They HIDE behind this actual "lack" of faith and justify this lacking by saying... WE DON'T NEED signs/wonders to have faith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seems more like "such" great faith... actually makes them USELESS to God and His purposes because God's purpose(s) don't FIT... their great faith and WHERE God is actually LEADING them... also doesn't FIT their faith!! Especially when God leads a person into the "supernatural" where FAITH makes the supernatural... both possible and acceptable."

[John146]

Sure it does. Why else would he use an illustration in which he speaks about himself in the past tense?

I already told you. To give an illustration of two things that contrasted similarly to how the perfect contrasts with the imperfect and how knowing in part contrasts with knowing fully even as we are known. He clearly speaks in both the present and future tense in 1 Cor 13:9-10 and in both the present and future tense in 1 Cor 13:12 yet you deny that obvious fact.

That's right. And since he places himself as being a grown man, he has placed himself among those who fully know and he see himself as other see him.

No, he did not. That clearly could not have been his point since he clearly said "now I know in part" (1 Cor 13:12). That means he was saying he knew in part at the time he wrote that. There's no way around that, yet you are trying to get around it, anyway.

I didn't say it was a process. I said that he is already a mature Christian, who knows fully and sees himself as one who sees face to face.

What did he know fully exactly? Had he already arrived? Did he have nothing more to learn? What do you think of what he said here:

1 Cor 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Paul knew better than to claim he knew fully. He knew that he did not yet know fully and he knew it was only pride that would make someone think that about themselves. And, again, he said "now I know in part" so to try to say that he knew fully directly contradicts what he said about himself.

Full maturity yes; perfection no. The idea that "telos" meant "perfection" came from the Middle Ages, not from the First Century Greek speakers.

It's a waste of time to make statements like this. You have no proof of that. Our understanding of what that word means has to come from scripture and nowhere else. And the fact is that in scripture the word can refer to full maturity (but not necessarily complete perfection), something being completely finished, or it can also mean perfection and here are a couple of examples where it means perfection:

Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Was this written originally in Greek in the Middle Ages or in the first century? The word is translated as "perfect" here. Do you not think this is accurately translated? Is the Father not indeed perfect in every way?

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Do you think this verse is accurately translated? God's will is perfect, right?

So, there's no basis for trying to say that the word can't mean perfection or can't have anything to do with something becoming fully completed and/or perfected.

Why God? You are adding that.

We all add things that aren't actually specifically written in the text at times, so there's nothing necessarily wrong with doing that if we're only doing that to show the true context of the verse or passage in question. I showed you what I believe to be a related text that speaks of being known by God so it's not as if I had no basis for what I was saying.

Some of us are; others are not.

I was speaking in terms of being perfect and never sinning. If you think some have reached that goal then I would disagree. Even Paul himself did not claim to have attained that goal (Phil 3:12).

First of all, the issue isn't sin. Being a mature Christian doesn't mean you don't sin.

I didn't say that. But becoming a mature Christian is not what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 13:10-12. He said "when the perfect comes" so he was speaking of something that had not yet occurred.

Paul isn't asking his readers not to sin. He is asking his readers to have a more mature view of the spiritual gifts, which involves the practice of the spiritual gifts with love.

That was his message in 1 Cor 13:1-3, but not in verses 10-12.

Secondly, Paul isn't talking about knowing everything about everything. He is talking about knowing in the context of the spiritual gift of "knowledge", and the point he wants to make is this. If you don't know that you need to love others, you don't know enough.

How could he have been speaking in terms of knowing enough when he had earlier had written this:

1 Cor 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

We never know enough. We should continually strive to learn more every day. As soon as someone starts thinking they "know enough" they are being prideful and they "knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know".

Of course, but Paul isn't talking about partial knowledge in terms of a lack of information. Bear in mind the subject of his discourse and the point he is trying to make about how to live the more excellent way, and his general critique of the Corinthians that some of them are causing divisions in the church. The difference between being an immature Christian and a mature Christian is the very specific knowledge that we are to love one another. Whatever knowledge you might have received from an Apostle or a prophet, or whatever, if you haven't heard or understood that we need to love each other, then what you know is only a part of the picture.

Sorry, but that just can't be what Paul meant since he clearly said "now I know in part". Yet you believe he claimed to know fully at the time. I just can't make any sense of that.

Now you are twisting what I am saying, and you have mischaracterized my position.

Not purposely. I apologize for my mistake. You have a unique view on this that is not easy to follow. You make words like "now" and "then" mean something different than what I feel they clearly mean in 1 Cor 13:10-12.

I thought I was clear

Don't we all think that about ourselves?

about my contention that Paul is not using the adverbs "now" and "then" to speak about time. So if I deny this why do you say that I have Paul saying "In the past I knew in part." (emphasis mine) You aren't being fair to me or my position.

Again, it wasn't on purpose. Are you aware that your particular view is quite unique? I would hope so. So, please bear with me as I try to understand your particular view better, okay? I've never seen it before.

In this context Paul is using the terms "now" and "then", not to indicate a change in time, but a change in circumstance.

Yeah, I just completely disagree with that. I'm not seeing that at all.

You seem to be hearing him say,

NOW = At the present time
THEN = A time after NOW (and specifically, a time well into the future at the Second Coming of Christ)

Yep. I think it's quite obvious that is what he meant.

I am hearing him say,

NOW = The initial circumstance before maturity
THEN = The subsequent circumstance after maturity.

Can you give me any other examples in scripture where those words (particularly the Greek words from which they were translated) are used in that way? I looked and couldn't find any. I think that severely weakens your case.

When he says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly . . ." you hear him saying, "For at the present time we see in a mirror dimly . . ."

Yep. Seems quite obvious to me.

But I hear him saying, "For initially we see in a mirror dimly, but subsequently, after maturity we see as if face to face.

Again, please give me an example from another verse where the Greek word arti (normally translated as "now" in that verse) can mean "initially" rather than "now" or "at this time". If you can't then I have no reason to believe it can mean that.

Do you not see this as adding to the scripture?

No, not at all. It's called interpreting the scripture, not adding to it as if I was purposely adding something to it. I understand that the words "by God" are not in that verse but I believe that is what it means. Should I question whether or not you are adding to the scripture every time you give an interpretation and you mention things that are not specifically stated in the verse or passage in question? That would be silly, right? It has nothing to do with anyone trying to add to scripture, it has to do with whether or not we are interpreting the text correctly.

You are adding the concept of being known by God, which isn't anywhere in the text or even implied by anything in the text.

Again, I understand that it's not specifically in the text, but I do believe it is implied and I should be able to interpret it that way without being accused of adding to scripture. Are we not allowed to look at other scripture to aid in our understanding of any given verse or passage? It seems like you have some kind of issue with doing that, as if every verse or passage must be interpreted in isolation from the rest of scripture. I disagree with that approach. If you disagree with my interpretation of the verse then that's fine. If you accuse me of purposely adding to scripture then that is not fine at all.

Sure. In the context, Paul is talking about being a mature Christian.

He certainly spoke about that at times, but not in 1 Cor 13:10-12. Complete perfection and full knowledge is something beyond becoming a mature Christian and are things that will only be attained at Christ's return when everything is made known and we are changed to have incorruptible and immortal bodies.

If people weren't able to grow into maturity as Christians, what would be the point of telling us to adopt a more excellent way?

I think you know that my point in this discussion is not to try to say that we are not able to become mature Christians so why ask me this question as if I ever said that people aren't able to become mature Christians? I just don't think that is what is in view in 1 Cor 13:10-12. Elsewhere, it's made clear that becoming a mature Christian is an attainable goal so I would never deny that.