That which is perfect

[BroRog]

That’s true.

I can see how that could make sense.

So you would say “when the complete message comes, the partial message (through the gifts of prophecy & knowledge) is done away with”?

Why do you suppose the American church looks nothing like the Corinthian church in terms of gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge? It sounds like these gifts were quite common in the first century (at least in the Corinthian church), yet in a vast number of American churches, they’re not.

I don't know. I don't agree with cessationism. I think the Holy Spirit still manifests himself in miraculous ways when he thinks it is necessary to do his job, which as Jesus said, is to convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgment; advocate for Jesus Christ; and help the Apostles do their job. I believe the Holy Spirit chooses the time and place to manifest himself and not necessarily on cue during a church service.

Having said that, neither am I convinced that the Holy Spirit is not a work in the vast number of American churches. Remember what Paul said at the beginning of 1Corinthians chapter 12:

12:1 Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, [you were] led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Before he launched into his discussion about the spiritual gifts he wanted to make a very important point, which is still valid today. We tend to think that if a church doesn't have a healing service, for instance, that church is not manifesting the gifts of the Spirit. But Paul says that even a preacher or a teacher who announces from the pulpit that Jesus is Lord, couldn't make such a claim if it wasn't for the Holy Spirit. So then, you might find a small church where the pastor has a good handle on the New Testament and he is leading people to the Lord and teaching his flock to follow Jesus as Lord and he is teaching them to have faith in Jesus and to anticipate his return in glory, I believe Paul would say that this pastor and his church are being led by the Holy Spirit, even if no healing is performed or tongues spoken.

[Athanasius]

I had to remove some of the verse information. I had it in the Original Manuscript with Strong's codes and definitions as well, but the system would not let me send that a message that long. You probably didn't need it anyway.

Thanks,

Thanks. And just so you know you can send multiple messages if necessary; just make sure they are formatted properly. I've no issue reading long messages.

[percho]

I know for absolute surety the perfect has not come, for there are two many posting that can't see anything in the glass but their face and me thinks it may be a bit fuzzy.

[LookingUp]

I don't know. I don't agree with cessationism. I think the Holy Spirit still manifests himself…

Well, if cessationism means one thinks the Holy Spirit does not manifest himself, then I don’t agree with cessationism either.

I believe the Holy Spirit chooses the time and place to manifest himself and not necessarily on cue during a church service.

Are you saying the Holy Spirit manifested himself “on cue” in the Corinthian church? (kinda confused by your comment)

Having said that, neither am I convinced that the Holy Spirit is not a work in the vast number of American churches.

The Holy Spirit is always at work. I’m guessing you misunderstood my question? (maybe?)

Just because a church doesn’t have anyone speaking in tongues, prophecy or a word of knowledge doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit is not active in that church. The vast majority of American churches don’t look like the Corinthian church did in terms of gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. Do you have an opinion as to why that is so?

[BroRog]

Well, if cessationism means one thinks the Holy Spirit does not manifest himself, then I don’t agree with cessationism either.

Right. The Holy Spirit still performs miracles and I see no reason why not.

Are you saying the Holy Spirit manifested himself “on cue” in the Corinthian church? (kinda confused by your comment)

No. But certain American churches and Pastors taught their flock "to expect a miracle" when they came to church. I once witnessed, for instance, a man who called himself "Brother Tillman" who supposedly was getting a word of knowledge from God while on TV and he put God on hold, saying something like "wait a minute God, I want to say one more thing to the audience." I couldn't believe it. But I realized that this kind of thing, i.e. putting God on hold, sounded plausible to those in his flock that accepted his same foundational assumptions about how the Holy Spirit "works." I would say that his flock didn't treat the Holy Spirit as a person but more like a force of power that can be directed to do our bidding.

I don't know exactly what the Corinthians thought, but I think we can make a couple of observations. First of all, it would seem that the Corinthians were the only Church where the manifestations of the Spirit, if in fact they were actual manifestations, was a problem. The gift of tongues, for instance, is only mentioned in the book of Acts and in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. He doesn't mention the gift in any other letter, not even in 2Corinthians. Second, the only gift that presented a problem for the Corinthians was the gift of tongues. Paul talks about the other gifts, but always in contrast to the gift of tongues. There was something about the gift of tongues that seemed to give the Corinthians fits. He didn't exactly tell the Corinthians to abstain from using the gift, but he put a heavy restriction on using it and encouraged them to prophecy instead. Something about how they were speaking in tongues, if it was speaking in tongues, was causing divisions in the church and seemed to be a matter of pride and self-serving ambition. Paul didn't have to tell any other church in all the world how to conduct a church service, making sure it is orderly and organized, and allowed for the use of the other gifts and each in order and for the purpose of moral training, enlightenment, encouragement, preaching the gospel, and other kinds of instruction related to Christian service. This seemed to be a unique problem for the Corinthians, and only for a short while before receiving his first letter.

The Holy Spirit is always at work. I’m guessing you misunderstood my question? (maybe?)

Naw, I just didn't know how to answer it. But this didn't stop me from giving my opinion anyway.

Just because a church doesn’t have anyone speaking in tongues, prophecy or a word of knowledge doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit is not active in that church. The vast majority of American churches don’t look like the Corinthian church did in terms of gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. Do you have an opinion as to why that is so?

I don't know. As I say, I'm not even sure why the Galatian church or the Ephesian church or the Philippian church doesn't look like the Corinthian church, or any of the others for that matter. I suspect that the Corinthian experience was unique, but I don't know. I have no explanation for why the gift of tongues is only mentioned in the book of 1Corinthians or why other churches during that time didn't have a problem with it, or perhaps didn't experience the move of the spirit on a regular basis.

The Thessalonians didn't have a problem with the manifestation of the Spirit. They had a problem with sexual immorality, but not a misuse of the gift of tongues. The Galatians had a problem with judging others according to their religious beliefs, but they didn't have a problem with supernatural manifestations of the spirit. The Colossians had a problem with idolatry, but not with the gift of tongues. No body seemed to have this same problem and I don't know if this indicates otherwise universal mastery of the gift or universal absence of the practice.

[LookingUp]

BroRog,

Thanks for your reply. You gave me lots to think about. Great post.

[RollTide21]

Hi Watchman!

Although I feel I agree with most of your sentiments as found in the op.... I feel I must disagree with that which is bolded in the quote.... And here is why:

2Ti 4:2 LITV preach the Word, be urgent in season, out of season, convict, warn, encourage with all long-suffering and teaching.

Heb 4:12 LITV For the Word of God is living, and powerfully working, and sharper than every two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of both soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge of the thoughts and intentions of the heart;

These two scriptures alone show that the Word of God changes and perfects.... The One using it to do so is of course the Holy Spirit.... Because remember that we can't even desire to come to the Lord unless the Holy Spirit moves us.... So He is the driving force behind it all.... It is by the washing of the water of the word that we are sanctified and perfected (matured)....

Eph 5:26-27 LITV that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of the water in the Word, (27) that He might present it to Himself as the glorious assembly, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such things, but that it be holy and without blemish.

But this last scripture is one I really want you to see.... It makes it quite obvious the Word of God does a whole lot that I see you saying it doesn't do....

2Ti 3:16-17 LITV All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (17) so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work.


I am having a hard time understanding your points here.... I don't see how any maturing and completing.... Or any fruit bearing for that matter.... Can occur without the Word of God....

I am reminded of something my pastor says.... Too much Spirit and you will blow up.... Too much word and you will dry up....

The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to teach and cleanse and perfect us.... It is that simple.... He does not use Love for that.... Love is WHY He uses THE WORD to do that.... He loves us and wants us to love each other.... Yes.... But He does not use love to perfect us.... As shown in Ephesians.... He uses "The washing of the water in THE WORD"....

Where do you come to the understanding that any of those passages above...besides 2 Tim 3:16...is speaking of the Scriptures?

I assume this thread has moved long past this point, but...

[John146]

It seems like too big of a leap to say that “knowing in part” parallels “it doth not yet appear what we shall be” and that “know fully” parallels “we shall see him as he is” when Paul makes no such connection.

What does it mean to see "face to face"? We can't see Jesus "face to face" now, right? But at His return we will be able to see Him "face to face". So, I don't see why you think there can't be any connection between the two passages (1 Cor 13:10-12 and 1 John 3:2).

In verse 8, Paul says knowledge (& prophecy) will be done away. Paul places knowledge in the same “gift category” as prophecy and tongues. “…if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be done away.”

Right....

So, when Paul says in verse 12 that he “knows in part,” the “knowing” is in relation to the gift of knowledge.

Right...

“For we know in part and we prophesy in part” (v 9). What it appears we’ve got here is the gift of prophecy (of course, partial) and the gift of knowledge (also partial). It seems to me that these various gifts—prophecy, knowledge, tongues—we’re used to edify, guide and teach the first century church.

They were. But why can't they be used to edify, guide and teach the church today as well?

Whatever “the complete thing,” prophecy and knowledge would no longer be necessary when it came (v. 10).

Agree. I can see how one might think prophecy wasn't necessary today, even though I would disagree, but what about knowledge? Why would that not be necessary today?

The gift of prophecy and the gift of knowledge are revelatory gifts, and revelation is God’s word.

Who reveals God's word to us? Is He still around today? Of course He is, so then why would He have ever stopped giving those particular gifts?

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that since the “partial thing” refers to prophecy/knowledge which is revelation, then the “partial thing” should be defined as the “partial revelation.”

You tell me that Paul didn't make the connection that I'm making, but where did he make the connection that you're making here? Where did he define prophesying in part and knowing in part as being the "partial revelation" of God's word?

When the complete thing comes, “partial revelation” will be done away. And so I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the complete thing is the “full revelation.”

I don't find it reasonable at all since I don't see anywhere where Paul speaks of prophesying in part and knowing in part in that sense.

For now we see in a mirror dimly (partial revelation), but then face to face (full revelation). Now I know in part (partial revelation), but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known (full revelation).

I’m hoping I gave a satisfactory explanation above.

In terms of explaining your view so that I can understand it? Yes, it's satisfactory. In terms of being convincing to me that what you're saying might be true? No.

The “knowing in part” is the gift of knowledge. Before the completed Scriptures, the body of Christ shared gifts with one another to edify, guide and teach. After all was complete, the gift of prophecy and the gift of knowledge were no longer necessary for the purposes they once were during the first century church (imo).

Why do you say that?

If we want to share a "prophetic utterance" or word of knowledge, many Christians now have the Scriptures to provide that.

What if scripture isn't entirely clear about something? Then what? Is there no place for anyone to step in with a gift of prophecy or knowledge to help clarify the scripture for us?

I hope I explained this more completely above. When Paul speaks of “knowing fully” he is speaking of having the full revelation of God.

Can you show that in the context of what he said in 1 Cor 13? I'm not seeing that.

It seems Paul had ongoing revelations from God (2 Cor. 12:1, 7). “…I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord” and “…because of the surpassing revelations …”.

I believe God can choose to speak through believers even today, although we certainly don’t see it in American churches the way it is described in the NT (I don’t really know about churches outside of the U.S). Scripture replaced the need of prophecy and knowledge in terms of specific revelatory function. But that doesn’t mean that God can’t speak through believers for other reasons.

I hope I’ve made myself a bit clearer at this point. The phrase “know fully” is the equivalent to having the complete revelation of God’s word.

Yes, you've made your view more clear but I just disagree with it. But thanks for clarifying your view. At least we don't have to take any more time explaining each other's views. That's a good thing.

[LookingUp]

What does it mean to see "face to face"?

If my interpretation is correct, it's another way of saying to "fully know" which means to have the complete revelation of God.

We can't see Jesus "face to face" now, right? But at His return we will be able to see Him "face to face". So, I don't see why you think there can't be any connection between the two passages (1 Cor 13:10-12 and 1 John 3:2).

I’m not saying there can’t be, but Paul never makes that connection for us; we have to make an assumption.

Agree. I can see how one might think prophecy wasn't necessary today, even though I would disagree, but what about knowledge? Why would that not be necessary today?

The same reason a word of knowledge won’t be necessary in the eternal kingdom. If the canon is truly complete, God’s plan of redemption has been fully revealed. There is nothing more to reveal in regards to that particular plan.

Who reveals God's word to us? Is He still around today? Of course He is, so then why would He have ever stopped giving those particular gifts?

God will be around in the eternal kingdom and God will reveal things to us during the eternal kingdom, but there will be no need for those particular gifts. Do you agree?

You tell me that Paul didn't make the connection that I'm making, but where did he make the connection that you're making here? Where did he define prophesying in part and knowing in part as being the "partial revelation" of God's word?

He didn’t. But if one agrees that prophecy is revelation, then “prophecy in part” is “partial revelation.” Taking that into the next verse, one can reasonably conclude that “the complete thing” is “the complete revelation.”

I don't find it reasonable at all since I don't see anywhere where Paul speaks of prophesying in part and knowing in part in that sense.

If Paul didn’t believe that prophecy was the revelation of God, what did he think it was?

Why do you say that?

If they were necessary, I would think they’d be observable activities within the vast majority of churches.

What if scripture isn't entirely clear about something? Then what? Is there no place for anyone to step in with a gift of prophecy or knowledge to help clarify the scripture for us?

I don’t know that it’d be called a prophetic utterance or word of knowledge, because it’s not a “new” revelation; it’s a clarification of a “previous” revelation of God's plan.

Can you show that in the context of what he said in 1 Cor 13? I'm not seeing that.

If partial knowing/prophecy is partial revelation then fully knowing is full/complete revelation.

[RollTide21]

The doctrine contained in scripture is the mind of Christ.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

Where do you get that the doctrine contained in Scripture is the Mind Of Christ? Paul says:

11 For who knows a person’s thoughts(S) except their own spirit(T) within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit(U) of the world,(V) but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom(W) but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God(X) but considers them foolishness,(Y) and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit(Z) makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[d](AA)

But we have the mind of Christ.

Paul's "we" is referring to Corinthian Believers. First of all, if the Mind of Christ can only be obtained through Scripture, then Paul's statement "we have the mind of Christ" would be absurd, since Scripture wasn't complete.

Secondly, and most obviously, this statement is a summation of Paul's point that we each have the indwelling Spirit of Christ. He's telling us that we understand with the Spirit and therefore "have the mind of Christ". He's not saying we WILL have the Mind of Christ when I finish my letters and when Peter, John, and James finish their epistles and letters. He's saying we DO have the Mind of Christ.

Scripture itself refutes that Scripture gives us the Mind of Christ.

[RollTide21]

Hi Boo,

I'm usually interested in what commentators, etc, have to say about the scriptures. But I take all their writings with a grain of salt. Sometimes they help me understand the pov's of others. I believe extra-Biblical writings have their place, but one that is a very distant second to the scriptures themselves. The Holy Spirit can, and does, use whatever we have in front of us to teach us, but we must be quietly attentive to Him in order to learn...at least, that's a rumor I heard Balaam was spreading! Your point, though, is well taken. I've learned far more from prayerfully reading scriptures that I've learned from other people's writings.

BTW, I don't know your political views, but I'd say you have put the POTUS in an appropriate group of historic figures...just sayin'.

It's the focus that's off. The FOCUS of our study.

We try to focus on what the Scripture "is saying" (in general) rather than on how it applies to our circumstances within the context of our own personal journey with Christ.

The funny thing is...preachers...even ones who are extremely focused on "proper doctrine"...generally do a good job of at least TRYING to communicate Scripture to a congregation in its proper context. Preachers that I have heard take a passage of Scripture, determine what lesson it is trying to convey, and present it to the congregation in terms of how it might apply to them. THAT is the proper focus of Scripture. How does it enrich the life of the Believer? What words of Spiritual Wisdom did Paul have that can help me in our job situations? In a struggle with alchohol? In a marriage or with our children? What tools does it give us to better WALK with Christ?

When the focus of Scripture becomes about establishing ideas and piecing concepts together, we take our focus off of maturing our walk with Christ and, under the guise of establishing "Truth", we turn Scripture into solving of a puzzle.

[John146]

If my interpretation is correct, it's another way of saying to "fully know" which means to have the complete revelation of God.

Huh. To me, seeing face to face seems like an odd way of referring to having the complete revelation of God.

I’m not saying there can’t be, but Paul never makes that connection for us; we have to make an assumption.

Is that wrong to do that? You are making an assumption that he was speaking of the full revelation of God, right? He never says that specifically.

The same reason a word of knowledge won’t be necessary in the eternal kingdom. If the canon is truly complete, God’s plan of redemption has been fully revealed. There is nothing more to reveal in regards to that particular plan.

Where does it say that the gift of the word of knowledge was given specifically for the purpose of revealing God's plan of redemption? Are you saying you think that is the only purpose of that gift?

God will be around in the eternal kingdom and God will reveal things to us during the eternal kingdom, but there will be no need for those particular gifts. Do you agree?

Yes, but what's your point? Won't most, if not all, of the other gifts not be necessary anymore as well?

He didn’t. But if one agrees that prophecy is revelation, then “prophecy in part” is “partial revelation.” Taking that into the next verse, one can reasonably conclude that “the complete thing” is “the complete revelation.”

Do we really have "the complete revelation"? I know that the Bible contains everything we need to know right now, but does it contain complete explanations of everything there is to know? If it did then there would be nothing left to learn that isn't explained fully in scripture, would there? Do you think everything there is to know is fully explained in scripture? Is there nothing that is a mystery to us at this point? Do you know exactly what we will be doing for eternity on the new earth once that time comes? Does scripture tell us everything there is to know about angels?

If they were necessary, I would think they’d be observable activities within the vast majority of churches.

Why do you say that? Were they even "observable activities within the vast majority of churches" in the first century? I doubt it. They are special gifts that are only needed in certain situations and that was true in the first century as well. Take speaking in tongues, for instance. Would you expect to see that gift manifested in "the vast majority of churches"? If everyone in a church speaks the same language what would be the point of someone speaking in tongues in that church?

I don’t know that it’d be called a prophetic utterance or word of knowledge, because it’s not a “new” revelation; it’s a clarification of a “previous” revelation of God's plan.

Where are you getting the idea that "a prophetic utterance or word of knowledge" has to be a "new revelation"? Why can't those also be clarifications of "old" revelations or "new" revelations related to the timing or some other aspect of the fulfillment of "old" revelations? For example, Paul wrote about a falling away occurring at some point (2 Thess 2:3). Couldn't someone give a prophetic utterance or word of knowledge that the falling away is happening now or will happen soon or something along those lines?

If partial knowing/prophecy is partial revelation then fully knowing is full/complete revelation.

Sure. That would have to be true or else what would partial knowing or partial prophecy mean? So, I agree with you there. But I don't see that we have full/complete revelation yet. There are plenty of things that scripture gives little to no details on that we can't possibly know fully until the return of Christ. One of those things that we don't know fully is "what we shall be" (1 John 3:2) and another thing we don't know fully is what it will be like to "see Him as He is" ("Him" = Christ - 1 John 3:2). I just can't see the complete canon of scripture as being the fulfillment of "that which is in part" being "done away". We still look through a glass, darkly, and know in part today. How else do you explain all the disagreements and many different interpretations of scripture? If things have been fully revealed then why isn't there more agreement among us in our interpretations of scripture?

[Watchman]

One idea has come up repeatedly in this discussion, and it is this: we have the full revelation of God's plan, so what else do we need to be saved? The problem with that idea is that there is way more to God's plan than just saving us. He wants to make us like Him. He wants to form Christ in us. Some call this progressive sanctification. Others call it spiritual maturation. Whatever term is used, it involves those who are already saved. So yes, there is way more each of us needs to know than is included in the scriptures.

W

[Boo]

One idea has come up repeatedly in this discussion, and it is this: we have the full revelation of God's plan, so what else do we need to be saved? The problem with that idea is that there is way more to God's plan than just saving us. He wants to make us like Him. He wants to form Christ in us. Some call this progressive sanctification. Others call it spiritual maturation. Whatever term is used, it involves those who are already saved. So yes, there is way more each of us needs to know than is included in the scriptures.

W

Needs to know? I would think that "want to know" is more correct. I want to know when Saul actually decided that Jesus was the Messiah. I want to know what kind of great fish swallowed Jonah. I want to know if the serpent in the Garden of Eden walked around on legs or flew. I want to know the real reason that Jesus commanded us to be Baptized.

Of course, since I have not yet learned to live according to the total message of scriptures, I have not yet progressed into needing to know more than is revealed there. What we have been given seems to me to be enough to guide us to Jesus and the Kingdom of God. I don't think it is a matter of lack of information - I think it is a lack of accepting the truth.

Perhaps you can give me an idea of something that we need to know that is not given to us via scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

[Watchman]

Needs to know? I would think that "want to know" is more correct. I want to know when Saul actually decided that Jesus was the Messiah. I want to know what kind of great fish swallowed Jonah. I want to know if the serpent in the Garden of Eden walked around on legs or flew. I want to know the real reason that Jesus commanded us to be Baptized.

Of course, since I have not yet learned to live according to the total message of scriptures, I have not yet progressed into needing to know more than is revealed there. What we have been given seems to me to be enough to guide us to Jesus and the Kingdom of God. I don't think it is a matter of lack of information - I think it is a lack of accepting the truth.

Perhaps you can give me an idea of something that we need to know that is not given to us via scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Hi Boo,

Very good words. There are many things about which I want to know, and you've mentioned some of them. The point of the post is to contrast the difference between the plan of redemption (which many view as 'how to get to heaven') versus having Christ formed in us. The bolded part above--did you mean that as scripture and His guidance, or as scripture and His guidance both via scripture and by other means?

We are told that the Lord orders our steps (Psalm 37:23) Steps denote works and orders denotes both timing and sequence. Paul supports this in Ephesians 2:10 when he tells us our Father prepared, ahead of time, good works in which for us to walk. Since each person occupies a different place in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:18), the path through this life is different for each of us. Each person's path--the good works, their timing, and their sequence--is not listed in scripture. We cannot walk this path by reading and doing what we find in scripture. The only way we can walk in the path that glorifies our Father and that forms Christ in us is to walk by the guidance of the Spirit. He can guide us through the scriptures in many situations, through nature, interactions with others, through art, through music--through most any medium we can encounter--and directly, Spirit-to-spirit.

blessings,

Watchman