 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
310
Pentecostalism, the Charismatic
and Faith Movements
Preliminary
Proof: When the Gifts Would Cease
Preliminary
Proof: When the Gifts Would Cease
Preliminary Proof: Counterargument
1
Preliminary Proof: Counterargument
2
Preliminary Proof: Counterargument
3
Preliminary Proof: Counterargument
4
Preliminary Proof: Conclusions
Preliminary Proof: Additional Commentary
Section 1 | Section
2 | Section 3 | Section
4
| Section 5
Introduction
to the Proof
Our previous survey sections established from the historical
record that eventually the charismatic gifts did indeed decline
and were eventually lost sometime between the second and fourth
centuries AD. However, the question now arises concerning
why the gifts were lost. Were they supposed to pass away?
Did God intend them to pass away? Or were the gifts lost as
a result of the Church's departure from sound doctrine even
though God intended them to continue?
We should not pass over these points too quickly. A large
portion of the debate regarding the cessation of the gifts
deals not only with whether the gifts disappeared in the historical
record, but also whether or not that disappearance was God's
intention or something that God did not intend. And if God
did not intend this disappearance but instead intended the
gifts to continue, what was it that could have caused the
gifts to disappear?
Additionally, the following proof is based upon the grammatical-historical
method of Bible interpretation. One of the underlying premises
of the grammatical-historical method is that passages of scripture
must be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of
the original author and original audience. Consequently, for
a doctrine to be correct, it must be compatible with the understanding
of the original author or speaker. For, if a doctrine or interpretation
of a passage is incompatible with the original understanding
of the author who wrote it, then according to the grammatical-historical
method such a doctrine or interpretation is incorrect. (There
are some exceptions with regard to certain types of prophetic
passages but since this is not a discussion of the grammatical-historical
method, we will leave that aside for the purposes of this
article.)
Now that the ground rules have been established, we can move
on to the actual proof. The proof below is a demonstration
that the charismatic gifts were supposed to remain until the
return of Christ no matter how many generations passed. Following
this initial proof is a series of counterarguments and the
supplementary refutations of those various counterarguments.
Included in the supplementary section is a more detailed explanation
of why the gifts did historically disappear, as our previous
survey sections demonstrate, when they were not meant to do
so until the return of Christ.
The Proof
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether
there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues,
they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish
away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But
when that which is perfect (5046) 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.
In 1 Corinthians 12-14, Paul describes the charismatic gifts
that were given to the Church. And Paul clearly asserts that
these gifts will pass away when the Church becomes mature.
According to Paul, when the Church became mature, it would
no longer need either the leadership or charismatic gifts.
Notice that in this passage, Paul uses the Greek word "teleios,"
which is translated as "perfect." Although there is more than
one definition for teleios (Strong's No. 5046), in 1 Corinthians
13 teleios clearly means "full grown, adult, of full age,
mature." This is evidenced by the fact that Paul speaks of
the Church being "teleios" at a point when it is no longer
child-like. So, we know that Paul is talking about the Church
coming to maturity.
And we know that the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14
were supposed to cease when the church became mature. This
is quite clear in 1 Corinthians 13 because Paul writes in
verse 10 that, "when that which is mature (teleios) is come,
then that which is in part shall be done away." And in verses
8-9, Paul specifically told us what it was that was done in
part. It was the prophecying, the speaking in tongues, and
the other charismatic gifts (although Paul does not list them
exhaustively.) So, when "maturity" came, the charismatic gifts
would cease according to 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.
Now, according to the Grammatical Historical Method, scripture
must be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of
the original author and the original audience. In that regard,
we all know that Paul, the other apostles, and the first generation
of Christians whom they discipled all believed and hoped that
Jesus could return during their lifetimes (Matthew 24:42-44,
Matthew 25:13, Mark 13:33, 35, Luke 12:37-40, Acts 1:6-7,
Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, 1 Thessalonians
5:2-6, 1 Peter 4:7, Revelation 3:3). Although, they were not
by any means dogmatic about this and also understood that
he might return after their deaths as well.
So, from Paul's point of view when he wrote about cessation
of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, there are two distinct
possibilities concerning the return of Christ. First, Paul
believed that Christ might return before the deaths of the
apostles and those they had laid hands on. Second, Paul understood
that Christ might return after the deaths of the apostles
and those they laid their hands on. And, given that Paul's
teaching regarding the gifts MUST be consistent with his own
understanding, Paul's teaching regarding cessation would have
to work for both of these two possibilities that existed in
Paul's understanding.
Or, in other words, our interpretation of Paul's teaching
regarding cessation cannot contradict Paul's understanding
that Jesus could return before the deaths of the apostles
and those they laid hands on nor can our interpretation of
his teaching contradict Paul's understanding that Jesus might
return after their deaths. A correct interpretation of Paul's
teaching regarding cessation would have to be compatible with
both of these two possibilities regarding Christ's return
since both possibilities were part of Paul's understanding.
Any interpretation of Paul's teaching regarding cessation
that contradicts one of these possibilities would be incorrect
since it would be incompatible with Paul's own understanding
at that time.
Now, that last paragraph is somewhat controversial and I hope
to explain it more momentarily.
But first, it is important to state that there is no scriptural
basis for rejecting the notion that each individual who had
received a gift would retain that gift for their entire lifetime
until their death. (That is not to discount the possibility
concerning whether or not people can become apostate from
the faith and lose any gifts that they had. This is not relevant
to the points currently under consideration so it is being
left out of this dialog.) What is relevant is that the apostles
would retain the gifts they possessed until their deaths.
And those the apostles laid hands on would retain those gifts
until their own deaths. This fact is backed up unequivocally
by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus' joint testimony that "many"
Christians still practiced the charismatic gifts including
prophecy, tongues, healing, and others in their own day, some
50 years or more after the death of the last apostle. Clearly,
Christians who had the gifts were not losing them during their
lifetimes either when they became mature or otherwise. Instead,
they were continuing to practice the gifts until their own
deaths.
Now, we again emphasize that in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul clearly
teaches that the gifts will cease when the Church becomes
mature. The question arises of whether or not that maturity
will be reached at the return of Christ or at some other time
prior to Christ's return. On this point, the grammatical historical
method demands that, as Paul taught it, the Church would reach
maturity at the return of Christ and at no time sooner. Here's
why.
Consider again that it was Paul's understanding that Christ
could very well return BEFORE the deaths of the apostles and
those they had laid hands on. Since this was Paul's understanding
when he wrote about cessation, his teaching that the gifts
would cease at maturity would have to be compatible with this
understanding. If his teaching regarding cessation is not
compatible with this understanding, then Paul's teaching was
either inconsistent with his own understanding or the Holy
Spirit was teaching through Paul something that Paul himself
did not understand.
But the premise that the Holy Spirit taught something through
Paul that he himself did not understand would undermine the
entire grammatical historical approach to scripture. If such
a premise were true, we could no longer expect to be able
to interpret scripture in light of the author's understanding.
Now, let's assume for the sake of argument (a reductio ad
absurdum argument) that Paul understood maturity would be
reached, not at the return of Christ, but at some other point
in time prior to the return of Christ. Let's say that the
Church reached maturity during the lifetime of the apostles
before the apostles died. If Christ came back before the deaths
of the apostles or those that they had laid hands on, then
the gifts would not cease at maturity. Every believer with
a gift would retain that gift until their own death even if
maturity had already occurred for the Church. And furthermore,
if Christ returned before their deaths, then the gifts would
continue until the return of Christ at which point they would
cease at Christ's return and their cessation would have nothing
to do with the maturity of the Church. This would contradict
Paul's teaching that the gifts would cease when the Church
became mature. So, we can see that assuming the Church would
reach maturity before the return of Christ poses some possible
problems with Paul's understanding that Christ could return
in their lifetimes and his assertion that the gifts would
cease at maturity.
Nevertheless, Paul clearly taught that the gifts would cease
when the Church reached maturity. So, the only way that the
gifts could cease when the Church reached maturity IF Christ
returned before their deaths was if maturity in Paul's view
occurred AT the return of Christ and NOT BEFORE. In that way,
the gifts would cease at maturity even if Christ returned
during the lifetime of the apostles and those they laid hands
on. If maturity is defined as any other point in time prior
to the return of Christ, then the gifts would not cease at
maturity (IF Christ returned during the lifetime of the apostles
and those they laid hands on). Instead, if maturity is defined
as any other point in time prior to the return of Christ AND
Christ came back in the lifetimes of the apostles (and those
they laid hands on), then the gifts would continue after maturity
all the way to Christ's return. And, as a result, Paul's teaching
that the gifts would cease when the Church became mature would
be an inaccurate teaching since the gifts would continue after
maturity all the way to the return of Christ. In such a scenario,
the cessation of the gifts, would not result from the church
becoming mature (as Paul clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians
13), but instead would be the result of Jesus' return.
Since, Paul's teaching regarding cessation must be compatible
with his own understanding at the time he wrote that teaching,
Paul's understanding of when the Church would become mature
would have to be compatible with both the possibility that
Christ would return before the death of the apostles (and
those they laid hands on) as well as the possibility that
Christ might return after their deaths.
Paul's understanding of when maturity would occur and its
relationship to the cessation of the gifts must work with
Paul's understanding of both possibilities that Christ could
return before their deaths or after. In the case where maturity
is defined as a point prior to Christ's return AND Jesus returns
in their lifetimes, then the gifts would not cease at maturity.
They would continue AFTER the church had reached maturity
all the way to the return and would cease because of the return
and not because of the maturation of the church. Therefore,
the view that maturity would occur prior to Christ's return
is not compatible with Paul's understanding that Christ could
return before their deaths. The only interpretation of how
Paul viewed maturity that works for both possibilities regarding
Christ's return is the interpretation that maturity would
occur AT the return of Christ and NOT BEFORE. For, if Paul
saw maturity as occurring at the return of Christ, then the
gifts would pass away at maturity no matter if Christ returned
before or after the death of the apostles and those they laid
hands on. To conclude otherwise is to force a separation between
the maturity of the Church and the cessation of the gifts
that would contradict both Paul's understanding and his teaching
on this matter.
This demonstrates that the theory that maturity would occur
at any point prior to the return of Christ would not work
with Paul's understanding that Christ could return before
the death of the apostles and those they laid hands on. And
if the theory that maturity would occur prior to the return
of Christ is incompatible with Paul's understanding that Christ
could return before their deaths, then this theory must be
rejected because the grammatical historical method demands
that any correct interpretation of a passage of scripture
must make sense in accordance with the understanding of the
original author and audience. If this is the case then we
must adopt the alternate position that Paul taught that both
the maturing of the Church and the cessation of gifts would
occur AT the return of Christ and NOT BEFORE. This is the
only interpretation of Paul's teaching regarding cessation
that is compatible with his own understanding that Jesus Christ
could return before the apostles or that first generation
of Christians died. Therefore, it is the only interpretation
regarding cessation that is compatible with the grammatical
historical method.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |