 |

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: Counterargument 1
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
Counterargument
No. 1 - Paul Didn't Know or Understand the Timing of Maturity
and Cessation.
The basis of this counterargument is that if Paul himself
didn't have any idea about the timing of cessation then Paul
could teach things about cessation that were incompatible
with his own understanding of when Christ could return. Or
in other words, if Paul was not aware or observant enough
to pick up on the fact that what he was teaching about cessation
contradicted his understanding in other areas, then his contradiction
of his own understanding is acceptable.
This argument wreaks havoc on the grammatical-historical method
because its basis is that the Holy Spirit could teach things
through Paul that Paul himself did not understand or was unaware
of and which would contradict his own perceptions. Once this
door is opened, the grammatical-historical approach goes right
out the window. What's to stop someone from coming up with
a view concerning the timing of the rapture that is incompatible
with Paul's prior understanding at the time and then claiming
this view is valid since the Holy Spirit was teaching something
through Paul that he himself didn't understand. They might
go on to argue that the incompatibility of their interpretation
with Paul's understanding at the time is acceptable because
Paul was unaware of or unmindful of the contradiction.
But Paul's doctrine had to be systematic. Or, in other words,
Paul's theology had to work as a coherent system. Each part
had to work as a collective whole. Paul's understanding in
one area could not contradict what he taught in another area.
If Paul's understanding contradicted his teaching, then Paul's
understanding cannot be used to determine what he did or did
not teach and the whole grammatical-historical method of interpretation
is undone. Furthermore, if Paul's systematic understanding
was self-contradicting then all of Christianity is in jeopardy
because that would indicate that the entire faith was incoherent
from the beginning including in the mind of one of its own
scripture writers and most prominent early leaders.
From Paul's perspective, Paul understood that Jesus could
return in his own lifetime and the lifetime of that first
generation. His understanding of how cessation would occur
and what would trigger it would necessarily have to work with
that possibility. Any relationship between cessation and maturation,
which did not work with that possibility could not have been
Paul's teaching for the very reason that it was not compatible
with what was for Paul a very real and even defining possibility
in his theological understanding.
This counterargument by its very nature destroys the grammatical-historical
approach. As such, this argument must be rejected or the grammatical-historical
method must be rejected. But rather than accept this argument,
we should instead accept the fact that Paul understood his
own teaching, understood the implications of what he was teaching,
and understood how what he was teaching related compatibly
with other issues that he taught and believed. In other words,
we must uphold that Paul's teaching regarding cessation had
to be compatible with his perception that Christ could return
during the life of the apostle or that first generation. In
short, the original proof still stands.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |