What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the eternal New Covenant age? Does the Holy Spirit still perform his charism-based ministries in the Church? Are all charisms of the Spirit capable of functioning today? In January/February of 2003, a brotherly debate was hosted by the moderator of the Covenant Eschatology Yahoo Group to address these questions and more. That dialogue between the editors of Preterist Cosmos and Preteristvision is now published here in its entirety. This is page two of the discussion.

(Editor's Note: The most current reply is always in black ink. Prior quoting indicated with the (>>) key and colored text)

1/26/03 - [Green's Response to PV]

>>[PV] Your belief that the charism of "gnosis" (13:8/12:8) was to cease at some time in history is impossible to defend in light of countless other passages concerning "gnosis" in the NT.

[Green] My belief is that "in-part" knowledge (i.e., knowledge that was still in process of being made known / revealed) was going to be abolished / done away. That kind of knowledge was to be done away at the coming of full knowledge (I Cor. 13:8-9,12), at the Parousia: "Until we all attain to the unity of the ....knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature Man...." (Eph. 4:13; cf. Isa. 11:9)

......

>>>>[Green] do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)?

>>>[PV] The Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is for the purpose of bringing many sons to glory under the New Covenant

>>[Green] I agree. Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)?

>[PV] Could you cite your scriptures, please, to support your line of questioning?

[Green] "In whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy Temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:21). Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)?

......

>>[PV] Also, 1 Cor 14:20 would then have Paul telling the Corinthians not to participate in revelatory gifts which "were the things of the child", for Paul commands "be not children, but be men" ("teleios" - "perfect"). This verse of 14:20 cannot make sense in your view, for you believe it was good and appropriate to be a "child" unto AD 70. But here, in the early 50s, Paul is telling them to stop being "children." This makes Paul a total babbler and fool for not allowing children to be children during the "child-phase" which was to last up to AD 70. Also, Paul becomes a babbler, for if being a "child" means "reliance on revelatory charisms up to AD 70," then why is Paul telling them to cease being children and become men in the 50s AD while also commanding them to CONTINUE the so-called "revelatory gifts"? This is all internally contradictory, and a failure of logic.

[Green] There is a biblical distinction between individual perfection and corporate (Body-of-Christ) perfection. Personal perfection was not an Age-changing, Church-changing, Administration-changing Event. Corporate perfection/maturity was such an Event. Mature, perfected-in-love, individual Christians lived as members in the not-yet-mature Body of Christ before 70, and according to Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; Col. 1:27; II Peter 1:19, those mature, perfected-in-love, individual Christians received the consummation of "Christ in you" at the time of Corporate Maturity (the Parousia). Those already-personally-mature Christians were "changed" in 70 (I Cor. 15:51-52). Therefore, there is no illogic, contradiction or inconsistency in saying that something happened to every member of the whole Body at "corporate maturity" (A.D. 70) that did not happen whenever individuals had reached their own personal maturities.

......

>>[Green] "In many times and in many ways of old, God spoke to the fathers in the prophets; in these last days [or "in the last of these days"] He spoke to us in the Son..." (Heb. 1:1-2). According to verse 1, the "last days" were the "last days" of those ages in which God "spoke in the prophets." That is the contextual sense of "last days" in verse 2. (And I agree there is an implied superiority of Christ over the prophets in the verses.)

>[PV] The writer of Hebrews is simply asserting the superiority of God's son who spoke at the time of the institution of the New Covenant. The superiority of Christ is being asserted. Nothing here is teaching cessationism of any kind.

[Green] Please demonstrate exegetically how this is incorrect: "According to Heb. 1:1, the 'last days' were the 'last days' of those ages in which God 'spoke in the prophets.' That is the contextual sense of 'last days' in verse 2."

......

[Green] 1. REGARDING YOUR TRANSLATION OF "KATARGEO" IN I COR. 13:8 AS "MADE USELESS," INSTEAD OF "DONE AWAY"

The context of I Cor. 13:8:

"[Love] endures all things; love never fails." (I Cor. 13:7b, 8a)

"Love never fails" is literally translated: "Love never FALLS."

"Love never falls," means that love always stands. It means that love "endures," as Paul had just said. "Never falls" is a negative reiteration of "endures." "Endures" = "never falls." Love can never be disestablished or removed from its constancy. Paul twice reiterated that, "Love never falls," when he said that love "endures," (I Cor. 13:7) and that love "abide[s]." (I Cor. 13:13)

Compare the contrast in I Peter 1:23-24 with the contrast in I Cor. 13:8,13:

"The flower FALLS [ekpipto], (I Peter 1:24) but the word of the Lord ABIDES [meno] forever." (I Peter 1:25)

"Love never FALLS [ekpipto]." (I Cor. 13:8) "But now ABIDE [meno] faith, hope, love..." (I Cor. 13:13)

Love never falls. Rather, like the Word of God, it stands/endures/abides. (I Cor. 13:7,13) "Love never falls" refers to love's endurance; it's "staying power." (This is why some translators have rendered I Cor. 13:8a to read, "Love never ends.")

Next, Paul contrasts the enduring/forever-standing quality of love with what was going to happen to "prophecy," "knowledge" and "tongues." As we can see, the context has already led us to expect an abolition/cessation.

I will leave the two instances of "katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 untranslated below, and we will see if the whole context reveals exactly what "katargeo" means in that verse:

"[Love] ENDURES all things." (I Cor. 13:7b)
"Love NEVER FALLS." (always endures/always stands) (I Cor. 13:8a)
But prophecy will be "KATARGEO," tongues will CEASE, and knowledge will be "KATARGEO." (I Cor. 13:8)
In-part prophesying and in-part knowing will be "DONE AWAY" ("katargeo") (I Cor. 13:10)
I "DID AWAY" ("katargeo") with childish things. (I Cor. 13:11)
Love ABIDES. (I Cor. 13:13)

The contrast:

1. "Love ENDURES..." (I Cor. 13:7)
2. "Love NEVER FALLS." (always endures/always stands) (I Cor. 13:8)
3. Love ABIDES (I Cor. 13:13)

Versus

1. "In-part" prophesying will be "katargeo" (I Cor. 13:8-11)
2. Tongues will "CEASE." (I Cor. 13:8)
3. "In-part" knowing will be "katargeo." (I Cor. 13:8-11

The implied, contextual definition of "katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 is self-evident. It means "done away"/"abolished." Furthermore, "katargeo" is parallel with, and grouped along with the word "cease" in I Cor. 13:8. In fact, "cease" is sandwiched between two instances of "katargeo," and thus leads us again to define "katargeo" as "done away." "Cease" does not correspond to "made useless," but "cease" is virtually synonymous with "done away"/"abolished." And "cease" and "done away" ("katargeo") are both set in contrast to "endures," "never falls" and "abide." If context means anything, "katargeo" means "done away" in I Cor. 13:8.

2. REGARDING YOUR DICHOTOMIZING OF "KATARGEO" IN I COR. 13:8-11:

Your system has forced you to make the word "katargeo" mean two different things in I Cor. 13:8-11. You have said that when it is twice used in I Cor. 13:8, it means "made useless" and not "done away." Then when it is twice used again in verses 10-11, it means "done away"/"abolished" (the "doing away" of immaturity, as you have said).

3. REGARDING YOUR PARAPHRASE OF THE WORD "CEASE" IN I COR. 13:8

Tongues were going to "cease," but your system forces you to re-word "cease" into "made as nothing."

4. REGARDING YOUR PARAPHRASES OF I COR. 13:9-10:

Your system also forces you to say that "that which is in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10 was "in part-ness" itself, and not in-part prophesying and in-part knowing. Since your interpretation does not agree with what I Cor. 13:9-10 actually says, you have been forced to paraphrase I Cor. 13:9-10 repeatedly so that the verses can be made to fit your system. Using the words of I Cor. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10. Here are the verses: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, that which is in part will be done away." (I Cor. 13:9-10)

5. REGARDING YOUR POSITION THAT PAUL WAS DISPARAGING THE CORINTHIANS FOR THEIR IMMATURITY IN I COR. 13:

Lastly, Paul's use of the word "WE" in I Cor. 13:9-10, 12 proves that he was not "disparaging" and being "pejorative" toward the Corinthians for being immature in I Cor. 13. Paul's use of "WE" shows that he was saying that the whole Body of Christ (including Paul himself) was prophesying "in part" and was knowing "in part." (I Cor. 13:9-10) It also means that the whole Body of Christ was seeing in a "dim mirror." (I Cor. 13:12)

Also, Paul uses "WE" and "I" interchangeably in I Cor. 13:12: "For now *we* see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now *I* know in part, but then *I* shall know fully just as *I* also have been fully known." (I Cor. 13:12). This indicates that Paul's "personal" illustration in verse 11 was to be applied to "WE," (i.e., the whole Body of Christ) and not simply to immature Christians.

[back to top of page]

1/26/03 - [PV's Response to Green]

>>[Green] My belief is that "in-part" knowledge (i.e., knowledge that was still in process of being made known/revealed) was going to be abolished/done away. That kind of knowledge was to be done away at the coming of full knowledge (I Cor. 13:8-9,12), at the Parousia: "Until we all attain to the unity of the ....knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature Man...." (Eph. 4:13; cf. Isa. 11:9)

[PV] First, I point out that Paul speaks of ALL knowledge in 13:2 as a possibility long before the Parousia. This can't make sense in your paradigm, for you say such wasn't remotely available until AD 70. Thus, Paul's point in 13:1-3 is nonsensical. From my perspective, Paul's mention of ALL knowledge makes total sense. Paul is showing that if any man have any charism in the fullest potential, such is made of no use apart from agape.

Next, nothing in 1 Cor 12-14 speaks about the Parousia. You are making "perfection" equate to something which comes at the Parousia, which is nowhere said in scripture. We need not guess what "the perfect" is in 1 Cor 13, for St. John has already interpreted 1 Cor 13 for us:

--COMPARE THIS--

1 Corinthians 13:4-8,10-11; 14:20 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails... when the perfect comes, the partial [imperfect] will be done away...when I became a man, I did away with childish things...Brethren, do not be children in your thinking...in your thinking be perfect

--TO THIS--

1 John 2:5-6,10 WHOSOEVER KEEPS HIS WORD, IN HIM VERILY IS THE LOVE OF GOD PERFECTED: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked...He that loveth his brother abideth in the light

--AND TO THIS--

1 Jn 4:8, 11-13, 18 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love....if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another... IF WE LOVE ONE ANOTHER, GOD DWELLS IN US AND HIS LOVE IS PERFECTED IN US. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit...HEREIN IS OUR LOVE MADE PERFECT...There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear...HE THAT FEARS IS NOT MADE PERFECT IN LOVE.

St. John has done the interpretive work for us, and we need only adopt his view of perfection in love as our own, and stop putting forth unbiblical ideas on this matter. St. John does not interpret 1 Cor 13 as speaking of some "corporate perfect." His view of 1 Cor 13 should be ours

Next, "In part" is the opposite of "perfect," and should be translated as "imperfect(-ly)". The use of charisms is imperfect (lacking, in part) to the extent that they are not done with love -- thus Paul's command: "Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14; cf. 1 Peter 4:8-10). In contrast to love, which is unfailing (13:8), the lesser charisms fail when the higher virtues are missing, as is stated explicitly in 1 Cor 13:1-3 and 2 Peter 1:5-10. Like Paul, St. Peter says that, without love, the charism of gnosis is "made barren and unfruitful" (2 Pet 1:5-10)

Next, "unity of the faith" (Eph 4:13) has to do with the schismatic element of the Church (Eph 4:1-6/1 Cor 12:12-30/1 Cor 3:3-7). The solution to this lack of unity of Eph 4:1-6 was NOT the Parousia (as your view would have it), but, rather, the charisms in the life of the Church (Eph 4:7-8,11-16).

Finally, you keep avoiding the fact that Paul is using three charisms in 13:8 to speak of all, contrasting them to the more excellent way of love. Therefore, if those three charisms have ceased (as you contend), then ALL charisms have ceased, and the Church's functioning is extinct. That your view mandates this is also proven by your view of Eph 4:13. Above, you interpret Eph 4:13 to speak of cessation of charisms. If that were true, then every charism in Eph 4:11 has ceased, and, by parallel reference, every charism of 1 Cor 12:28-30 and Romans 12:6-9 are extinct as well. The only way for you to be consistent is to argue that ALL the charisms are now extinct. But you are not arguing this--rather, you argue that only three charisms have gone extinct. Therefore, your position is internally inconsistent and invalid. Please respond to this.

......

>>[Green] "In whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy Temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2:21) Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)?

[PV] Sanctification by the Holy Spirit is to make sinners holy, obedient and fit for every good use of the Master:

1 Peter 1:2,22 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently

1 Thessalonians 4:2-7 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification

2 Timothy 2:20-22 Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

......

>>[Green] There is a biblical distinction between individual perfection and corporate (Body-of-Christ) perfection. Personal perfection was not an Age-changing, Church-changing, Administration-changing Event. Corporate perfection/maturity was such an Event. Mature, perfected-in-love, individual Christians lived as members in the not-yet-mature Body of Christ before 70, and according to Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; Col. 1:27; II Peter 1:19, those mature, perfected-in-love, individual Christians received the consummation of "Christ in you" at the time of Corporate Maturity (the Parousia). Those already-personally-mature Christians were "changed" in 70 (I Cor. 15:51-52). Therefore, there is no illogic, contradiction or inconsistency in saying that something happened to every member of the whole Body at "corporate maturity" (A.D. 70) that did not happen whenever individuals had reached their own personal maturity

[PV] This notion that some corporate whole would become magically perfect in love because of the Parousia is a concept entirely foreign to scripture. Rather, INDIVIDUALS come into the attributes of Christ by the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification and sanctifying ministries (i.e, through charisms) -- see Eph 4:11-16; 2 Pet 1:3-11. The state or health of the "body of Christ" as a whole is dependent upon the state of the body's individual parts (Eph 4:16; 1 Cor 12:12-30). You cannot apply "perfection in love and holiness" to a corporate whole as you are doing, for scripture doesn't speak in that manner. You're asserting presuppostions that must first be proved.

......

>>>[Green] "In many times and in many ways of old, God spoke to the fathers in the prophets; in these last days [or "in the last of these days"] He spoke to us in the Son..." (Heb. 1:1-2) / According to verse 1, the "last days" were the "last days" of those ages in which God "spoke in the prophets." That is the contextual sense of "last days" in verse 2. (And I agree there is an implied superiority of Christ over the prophets in the verses.)

>>[PV] The writer of Hebrews is simply claiming the superiority of God's son who spoke at the time of the institution of the New Covenant. The superiority of Christ is being asserted. Nothing here is teaching cessationism of any kind.

>[Green] Please demonstrate exegetically how this is incorrect: "According to Heb. 1:1, the 'last days' were the 'last days' of those ages in which God 'spoke in the prophets.' That is the contextual sense of 'last days' in verse 2."

[PV] The contrast is between the prophets vs. the Son of God, where the Son of God is said to be greater. That's the meaning of Heb 1:1-2. The writer of Hebrews is saying that he himself is in "the last days" period -- i.e., the Messianic generation at the end of the Mosaic Covenant age. Nothing in Heb 1:1-2 says anything about cessation.

......

>>[Green] 1. REGARDING YOUR TRANSLATION OF "KATARGEO" IN I COR. 13:8 AS "MADE USELESS," INSTEAD OF "DONE AWAY" The context of I Cor. 13:8:

"[Love] endures all things; love never fails." (I Cor. 13:7b, 8a)

"Love never fails" is literally translated: "Love never FALLS."

"Love never falls," means that love always stands. It means that love "endures," as Paul had just said. "Never falls" is a negative reiteration of "endures." "Endures" = "never falls." Love can never be disestablished or removed from its constancy. Paul twice reiterated that, "Love never falls," when he said that love "endures," (I Cor. 13:7) and that love "abide[s]." (I Cor. 13:13)

[PV] The meaning of "love never fails" is explained in 13:4-7, which shows it has nothing to do with some future exemption from disestablishment. The statement about the charismata being made null in 13:8-9 is to be compared against love's EFFICACY in 13:4-8. The contrast here is NOT one of duration in history, but of efficacy (as also stated in 13:1-3 and 2 Peter 1:3-10). Peter states that if the higher virtues of love are in a man, he will never fall, be barren, or unfruitful in the "epignosis" of Christ (2 Pet 1:8-10). This concept of being barren, unfruitful, and falling is the essence of imperfection and immaturity. It is the essence of the state of childhood in sanctification. Also, your view here forces the logical necessity that ALL charismata have ceased, and thus the Church's role, function, and members have all ceased.

......

>>[Green] Love never falls. Rather, like the Word of God, it stand/endures/abides. (I Cor. 13:7,13) "Love never falls" refers to love's endurance; it's "staying power." (This is why some translators have rendered I Cor. 13:8a to read, "Love never ends.")

[PV] Rendering "love never fails" as "love never ends" ignores the meaning given in the context itself. 13:4-8 explains what "love never fails" means, and it has nothing to do with the Parousia. It has to do with its superiority of efficacy in function compared to ALL the charisms of 1 Cor 12 (love is a more excellent WAY) -- this is the contrast Paul is seeking to demonstrate (see:1 Cor 12:31). Therefore, to maintain (as you do) that Love's great superiority was that it was to exist beyond the Parousia, you must also teach that ALL the charisms of 1 Cor 12 ceased at the Parousia. Paul is arguing that LOVE is greater than ALL the charisms of 1 Cor 12 (see:12:31). By trying to make gnosis, tongues, and prophesying cease while allowing for the other charisms of 1 Cor 12 to continue, you are defeating your own argument. In your view, Love is NOT then more excellent than all those charisms of 1 Cor 12 that you claim have continued! (because they have the precise same "staying power").

......

>>[Green] The implied, contextual definition of "katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 is self-evident. It means "done away"/"abolished."

[PV] It means "nullified," "made useless," "made of no effect," as detailed in 13:1-3 and also in 2 Peter 1:3-10 where Peter says that the lack of the higher virtues of love causes men to "fall", "be barren," "be unfruitful" in the knowledge of Jesus. Without the higher virtues of love, all the charisms of 1 Cor 12 in their greatest measure are "nothing," "of no profit" (1 Cor 13:1-3). The charisms are made useless and of no profit by the lack of love/maturity (1 Cor 13:1-3/2 Pet 1:3-10), not by the Parousia.

>>[Green] Furthermore, "katargeo" is parallel with, and grouped along with the word "cease" in I Cor. 13:8. In fact, "cease" is sandwiched between two instances of "katargeo," and thus leads us again to define "katargeo" as "done away." "Cease" does not correspond to "made useless," but "cease" is virtually synonymous with "done away"/"abolished." And "cease" and "done away" ("katargeo") are both set in contrast to "endures," "never falls" and "abide." If context means anything, "katargeo" means "done away" in I Cor. 13:8.

[PV] Paul says "whether there be...whether there be...whether there be...", by which he is speaking of the entire class of 1 Cor 12's charisms and contrasting them ALL against love (see 12:31). He is showing how they all come to nothing without the greatest virtues of love (13:1-3/2 Pet 1:3-10).

......

>>[Green] 2. REGARDING YOUR DICHOTOMIZING OF "KATARGEO" IN I COR. 13:8-11:

Your system has forced you to make the word "katargeo" mean two different things in I Cor. 13:8-11. You have said that when it is twice used in I Cor. 13:8, it means "made useless" and not "done away." Then when it is twice used again in verses 10-11, it means "done away"/"abolished" (the "doing away" of immaturity, as you have said).

[PV] Not so. Paul shows that the lack of love and maturity makes null the charisms of 1 Cor 12, even if the charisms are in their greatest measure (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul then states that the presence of love/maturity makes immaturity nullified, just as becoming a man makes useless the things of childhood. No "DICHOTOMIZING" is taking place.

And again, your definition of "knowing in part" is made impossible by Paul's reference to "all knowledge" in 13:2. To you, "knowing in part" equates to "not having all knowlege," and thus to some inferior state of the Church prior to AD 70. But Paul gives an example of HAVING ALL KNOWLEDGE in the 50s AD, and goes on to show how it is of no value if love is not present. Therefore your definition of "knowing in part" is all wrong. For how can Paul give an example of ALL knowledge prior to AD 70? And, Paul shows there in 13:1-3 that it is not "lack of knowledge" that is the immaturity being discussed. Instead, it is the lack of love EVEN WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE that is the immaturity, the imperfect. The solution to this immaturity is NOT to be found in waiting for the Parousia, but, instead, to do all things in love. Therefore the lack of love is the central aspect of the immaturity, not a lack of gnosis.

......

>>[Green] 3. REGARDING YOUR PARAPHRASE OF THE WORD "CEASE" IN I COR. 13:8:

Tongues were going to "cease," but your system forces you to re-word "cease" into "made as nothing."

[PV] I don't have to re-word it. I only have to understand it in the context. The "cease" of the tongue is explained in 13:1 and 14:6. It is the stopping of the gift's efficacy and profitability due to lack of love and proper utility. Is this not the precise problem Paul is addressing? Furthermore, the REASON for its ceasing to profit is expressly stated in 13:9 -- i.e., because the Corinthians were practicing the charismata imperfectly. They were not practicing the gifts in love and according to utility. So again, the gifts of Christ aren't imperfect (as your view has it); the Corinthians were imperfect.

......

>>[Green] 4. REGARDING YOUR PARAPHRASES OF I COR. 13:9-10:

Your system also forces you to say that "that which is in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10 was "in part-ness" itself, and not in-part prophesying and in-part knowing. Since your interpretation does not agree with what I Cor. 13:9-10 actually says, you have been forced to paraphrase I Cor. 13:9-10 repeatedly so that the verses can be made to fit your system

[PV] "In part" can be translated "imperfectly." 1 Corinthians 13:10 should read: "When perfection comes, imperfection will be nullified." This is explained further through the analogy of adults nullifying the imperfections of childhood (13:11). And, again, St. John leaves us no room to doubt what perfection in love (adulthood) means:

1 John 2:5-6,10 WHOSOEVER KEEPS HIS WORD, IN HIM VERILY IS THE LOVE OF GOD PERFECTED: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked...He that loveth his brother abideth in the light

1 Jn 4:8, 11-13, 18 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love....if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another... IF WE LOVE ONE ANOTHER, GOD DWELLS IN US AND HIS LOVE IS PERFECTED IN US. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit...HEREIN IS OUR LOVE MADE PERFECT...There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear...HE THAT FEARS IS NOT MADE PERFECT IN LOVE.

St. John shows us clearly that some "corporate adult" is not meant by 1 Cor 13.

......

>>[Green] 5. REGARDING YOUR POSITION THAT PAUL WAS DISPARAGING THE CORINTHIANS FOR THEIR IMMATURITY IN I COR. 13:

Lastly, Paul's use of the word "WE" in I Cor. 13:9-10, 12 proves that he was not "disparaging" and being "pejorative" toward the Corinthians for being immature in I Cor. 13. Paul's use of "WE" shows that he was saying that the whole Body of Christ (including Paul himself) was prophesying "in part" and was knowing "in part." (I Cor. 13:9-10) It also means that the whole Body of Christ was seeing in a "dim mirror." (I Cor. 13:12)

[PV] Paul includes himself because Paul was not without the necessity of sanctification unto love and maturity. In the example given in 13:1-3, Paul makes HIMSELF is the subject of nullification in matters of the charismata--NOT some corporate whole. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 13 applies to individuals. No one is exempt from sanctification. Not even Paul.

>>[Green] Also, Paul uses "WE" and "I" interchangeably in I Cor. 13:12: "For now *we* see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now *I* know in part, but then *I* shall know fully just as *I* also have been fully known." (I Cor. 13:12) This indicates that Paul's "personal" illustration in verse 11 was to be applied to "WE," (i.e., the whole Body of Christ) and not simply to immature Christians.

[PV] This argues nothing at all. A speaker may speak of an experience common to all his audience using "we," and then refer to himself. This is not unusual.

Also, Paul mentions "knowing as I am known," which also contradicts your view that knowledge was to cease. How can one know at the Parousia if knowledge was to cease? And, if you argue that "in part revelatory knowing" ceased when "full revelatory knowing" came at the Parousia, then you would also have to say that "in part prophesying" and "in part tongues" ceased when "full tongues", and "full prophesying" were ushered in by the Parousia -- which necessitates the continuation of those things. And, actually, the "knowing as I am known" Paul speaks of has NOTHING to do with a quantity of knowledge versus a lack of it (as your view would have it). Rather, this speaks having love and having it so recognized by God (cf 13:12 to 8:1-3)

[back to top of page]

1/30/03 - [Green's Response to PV]

>>[PV] Paul speaks of ALL knowledge in 13:2 as a possibility long before the Parousia. This can't make sense in your paradigm, for you say such wasn't remotely available until AD 70

[Green] We cannot interpret "all" literally in I Cor. 13:2 (cf. I Cor. 1:5; Rom. 15:14), because some mysteries and knowledge regarding the Kingdom remained hidden from the Church until the Parousia. (Matt. 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; I Thess. 5:1) "All knowledge" before the Parousia was necessarily "all knowledge" that could be known within the context of the "in-part" revelation (I Cor. 13:9-10) that the Church enjoyed before the full "Revelation" of Jesus Christ.

To "know fully" is to see God "face to Face," as the parallel statements in I Cor. 13:12 reveal: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to Face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully...." (I Cor. 13:12; Compare II Cor. 3:18). Other Scriptures reveal that this face-to-face, full knowing was to be realized at the Parousia: "....It has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is" (I Jn. 3:2).

Before the Parousia, the Church had not yet seen Him "as He is." (cf. Jn. 1:18; 6:46; I Tim. 6:16; I Jn. 4:12). It was through the eschatological, transforming work of the Holy Spirit, (II Cor. 3:18) that the Church attained unto the Parousia, and thereby came to "see" and "fully know" the indwelling Lord Jesus, "face to Face": "And they shall see His Face, and His name shall be on their foreheads" (Rev. 22:4; cf. Jn. 14:20; Col. 3:10).

......

>>[PV] You are making "perfection" equate to something which comes at the Parousia, which is nowhere said in scripture.

[Green]

--COMPARE THIS--

"I in them, and You in Me, that they may be PERFECTED [telioo] in unity, that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You loved Me." (Jn. 17:23)

--TO THIS--

"Until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a PERFECT [telios] man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4:13)

--TO THIS--

"....WHEN HE APPEARS, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM, because we shall see Him just as He is." (I Jn. 3:2)

Summary: The Church was "perfected" [telioo] in unity (Jn. 17:23; Eph. 4:13), and it attained to a "perfect" [telios] Man (Eph. 4:13), when it became "like Him" in His Parousia. (I Jn. 3:2) Conclusion: The Scriptures do teach "perfection" [telios] at the Parousia.

......

>>[PV] Finally, you keep avoiding the fact that Paul is using three charisms > in 13:8 to speak of all....

[Green] The "whethers" of I Cor. 13:8 neither prove nor disprove that Paul was using three charisms to speak of all. But since the Corinthians were abusing the revelatory gifts, it stands to reason that Paul was speaking specifically of the revelatory gifts. And, Paul's discussion of "prophecy" and "knowledge" did not end with a "random, representative" mention in verse 8. Rather, Paul elaborated on "prophecy" and "knowledge" specifically, and he also expanded on "tongues" at great length (I Cor. 14:1-33). There can be little doubt that Paul was talking about "prophecy," "tongues" and "knowledge" specifically

......

>>[PV] Above, you interpret Eph 4:13 to speak of cessation of charisms.

[Green] I don't interpret Eph. 4:13 to speak of cessation. I interpret Eph. 4:13 to speak of the attainment of the Church unto the Parousial "PERFECT" [TELIOS] Man. Paul also spoke of the coming of the "PERFECT" [TELIOS] in I Cor. 13:8. To paraphrase you: "St. Paul has done the interpretive work for us."

......

>>[Green] There is a biblical distinction between individual perfection and corporate (Body-of-Christ) perfection. Personal perfection was not an Age-changing, Church-changing, Administration-changing Event. Corporate perfection/maturity was such an Event. Mature, perfected-in-love, individual Christians lived as members in the not-yet-mature Body of Christ before 70, and according to Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; Col. 1:27; II Peter 1:19, those mature, perfected-in-love, individual Christians received the consummation of "Christ in you" at the time of Corporate Maturity (the Parousia). Those already-personally-mature Christians were "changed" in 70 (I Cor. 15:51-52). Therefore, there is no illogic, contradiction or inconsistency in saying that something happened to every member of the whole Body at "corporate maturity" (A.D. 70) that did not happen whenever individuals had reached their own personal maturity.

>[PV] This notion that some corporate whole would become magically perfect in love because of the Parousia is a concept entirely foreign to scripture. Rather, INDIVIDUALS come into the attributes of Christ by the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification and sanctifying ministries (i.e, through charisms) -- see Eph 4:11-16; 2 Pet 1:3-11.

[Green] Your either/or dilemma is unbiblical. The Body of Christ reached perfection when Christ came to inhabit it in the end of the age, AND individuals had come into the attributes of Christ by the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification and sanctifying ministries. As I wrote to you on 1/19:

"Through the 'perfection' of the individual members of the Church (which included the brothers at Corinth in I Cor. 14:20), the whole Body ('WE' in I Cor. 13:9,12) would reach 'perfection' at the Parousia (I Cor. 13:10), and would see God 'face to Face' in the New Jerusalem (I Cor. 13:12; Rev. 22:4) --thereby necessitating the abolition and cessation of that which looked forward to 'the perfect'; namely: prophecy, tongues and knowledge. (I Cor. 13:8)

......

>>[PV] The meaning of "love never fails" is explained in 13:4-7, which shows it has nothing to do with some future exemption from disestablishment. ....The contrast here is NOT one of duration in history....it has nothing to do with the Parousia.

[Green] I didn't say that "Love never falls" in I Cor. 13:8a referred specifically to love's duration beyond the Parousia. I said it refers to love's endurance; its "always standing" and abiding quality; its unmovable constancy. Then, with that quality established, Paul went on to say that prophecy, tongues and knowledge --in contrast to love which "never falls" / "endures"-- would be abolished and would cease. Here is what we know: "Love never fails" is literally translated, "Love never FALLS," which logically means, love always stands, which is a reiteration of the statement that immediately preceded it: "Love endures all things." Love always "remains" / "abides" because it cannot FALL.

Next, Paul stated that in contrast to love --which "endures" and "never falls"-- "tongues" were going to CEASE. And, prophecy and knowledge, like tongues, were also going to come to an end ("katargeo"). "Cease" is placed between two instances of "katargeo," proving yet again that "katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 definitely means "done away." And, "done away" and "cease" are both set in contrast to "endures" (I Cor. 13:137b), "never falls" (I Cor. 13:8a) and "abide" (I Cor. 13:13). In Mk. 13:13,25; Jms. 1:11-12; and I Peter 1:24-25, "EKPIPTO" ("FALL" from I Cor. 13:8a) is set in contrast to "HUPOMENO" ("endure" from I Cor. 13:7b) and "MENO" ("abide" from I Cor. 13:13), which confirms yet again that "NEVER FALLS" (I Cor. 13:8) = "endures" (I Cor. 13:7) = "abide" (I Cor. 13:13). From there, it irresistibly follows again that the contrast to "endures" / "never falls" in I Cor. 13:8 is "done away" and "cease." The evidence is pervasive and overwhelming. "Katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 means "done away" / "abolished":

"[Love] ...ENDURES all things. Love NEVER FALLS; but prophesies, they will be DONE AWAY; if tongues, they will CEASE; if knowledge, it will be DONE AWAY. ...But now ABIDE faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (I Cor. 13:7-8,13)

>>[PV] to maintain (as you do) that Love's great superiority was that it was to exist beyond the Parousia, you must also teach that ALL the charisms of 1 Cor 12 ceased at the Parousia.

[Green] It is not my position that, "love's great superiority was that it was to exist beyond the Parousia." According to I Cor. 13:8-13, love is superior to the revelatory gifts NOT ONLY because love is inherently greater than all other gifts, but ALSO because the revelatory gifts were "things of the child," AND because the revelatory gifts were "in part," AND because the revelatory gifts constituted seeing "in a dim mirror," AND because the revelatory gifts would be "done away" / "abolished" and would be caused to "cease."

......

>>[Green] 2. REGARDING YOUR DICHOTOMIZING OF "KATARGEO" IN I COR. 13:8-11: Your system has forced you to make the word "katargeo" mean two different things in I Cor. 13:8-11. You have said that when it is twice used in I Cor. 13:8, it means "made useless" and not "done away." Then when it is twice used again in verses 10-11, it means "done away" / "abolished" (the "doing away" of immaturity, as you have said).

>[PV] Not so. Paul shows that the lack of love and maturity makes null the charisms of 1 Cor 12, even if the charisms are in their greatest measure (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul then states that the presence of love/maturity makes immaturity nullified, just as becoming a man makes useless the things of childhood. No "DICHOTOMIZING" is taking place.

[Green] You interpret I Cor. 13:8 to mean that spiritual gifts are "MADE USELESS" (and NOT "done away") through a lack of love. Correct? You then interpret I Cor. 13:10-11 to mean that immaturity is "DONE AWAY" (and NOT SIMPLY "made useless") by the coming of maturity. Correct? How is that not two definitions in the same immediate context for the word "katargeo?"

......

>>[PV] ....And, Paul shows there in 13:1-3 that it is not "lack of knowledge" that is the immaturity being discussed. Instead, it is the lack of love EVEN WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE that is the immaturity, the imperfect.

[Green] Your "either/or" dilemma here is unbiblical. The coming maturity was to be in love AND in full knowledge: "Now I know in part, but then I shall know fully.... (I Cor. 13:12)

>>[PV] The solution to this immaturity is NOT to be found in waiting for the Parousia, but, instead, to do all things in love.

[Green] Your "either/or" dilemma here is unbiblical. The "solution" was to be found in doing all things in love AND in attaining unto the Parousia. (Phil. 3:8-11)

......

>>[Green] Tongues were going to "cease," but your system forces you to re-word "cease" into "made as nothing.

>[PV] I don't have to re-word it. ....It is the stopping of the gift's efficacy and profitability due to lack of love and proper utility. ....its ceasing to profit...

[Green] Read what you wrote. You proved the point: I Cor. 13:8: "Tongues ...will cease." Your "I-don't-have-to-re-word-it" version of I Cor. 13:8: The EFFICACY and PROFITABILITY OF TONGUES will cease. Your system forbids that "tongues ...will cease." Your system therefore forces you to re-word I Cor. 13:8. Your system will not let the words of Scripture stand on their own.

......

>>[Green] Using the words of I Cor. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10. Here are the verses: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, that which is in part will be done away." (I Cor. 13:9-10)

>[PV] "In part" ....should be translated as "imperfect(-ly)". ....1 Corinthians 13:10 should read: "When perfection comes, imperfection will be nullified."

[Green] "Ek meros" literally translated is, "in part" or "of a part" or "out of an allotment" or "out of an installment." Inserting the word "imperfection" in place of "that which is in part" in I Cor. 13:10 is not a "translation." It is yet another "paraphrase" (this one being on a par with the NIV). It is black-and-white wrong to say that "ek meros" SHOULD BE TRANSLATED AS "imperfect(-ly)." You have proven yet again that your system forces you to liberally "paraphrase" the words of Scripture so that they can be fitted into your system. And this is why you have consistently evaded this request:

USING THE WORDS OF I COR. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10. Here are the verses: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, that which is in part will be done away." (I Cor. 13:9-10).

......

>>[PV] And, if you argue that "in part revelatory knowing" ceased when "full revelatory knowing" came at the Parousia, then you would also have to say that "in part prophesying" and "in part tongues" ceased when "full tongues", and "full prophesying" were ushered in by the Parousia -- which necessitates the continuation of those things.

[Green] "Languages" were not "in part." Revelatory content was "in part." This is why Paul did not list "tongues" along with prophecy and knowledge in verse 9. And this is why "tongues" simply "ceased." Their cessation (passive) was the result of the "doing away" (active) of revelation.

"Full prophesying" (the continuation of prophecy) is not a necessary, or even possible, parallel to "full knowledge." Knowledge remains after its revelation is complete. But prophecy, by definition, cannot remain or continue after its revelation is complete. Where there's no more revelation of prophecy, there's no prophecy, because prophecy IS revelation. (This is why Paul did not include "prophecy" along with "knowledge" in verse 12.) When revelation was complete in 70, then remained "fulfilled prophecy."

......

>>[Green] "In whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy Temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2:21) Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)?

>[PV] Sanctification by the Holy Spirit is to make sinners holy, obedient and fit for every good use of the Master....

[Green] I agree. Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)?

[back to top of page]

1/31/03 - [PV's Response to Green]

>>[PV] ....Paul speaks of ALL knowledge in 13:2 as a possibility long before the Parousia. This can't make sense in your paradigm, for you say such wasn't remotely available until AD 70.

>[Green] We cannot interpret "all" literally in I Cor. 13:2 (cf. I Cor. 1:5; Rom. 15:14), because some mysteries and knowledge regarding the Kingdom remained hidden from the Church until the Parousia. (Matt. 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; I Thess. 5:1) "All knowledge" before the Parousia was necessarily "all knowledge" that could be known within the context of the "in-part" revelation (I Cor. 13:9-10) that the Church enjoyed before the full "Revelation" of Jesus Christ.

[PV] We are forced to interpret "all" literally in 1 Cor 13:2, first from comparing it to 1 Cor 1:5 and Romans 15:14, and next by comparing it to "ALL faith" and "bestowing "ALL my goods" in 13:2-3. There can be no question that Paul means "all," and it is the end of your argument to recoginze it--because this "all" was present DECADES BEFORE THE PAROUSIA. Paul is speaking of an "all knowledge" (all gnosis) that is a spiritual gift, and so we see that this "all knowlege" has nothing to do with the Parousia, for this "all knowledge" (gnosis) was manifested in their congregations decades before the Parousia--in the 50s AD (1 Cor 1:5/Rom 15:14). These gnosis passages speak of having this charism (and the other charisms) fully manifesting among their congregations, which takes us back to Paul's point...

Paul's point is as follows: while they may indeed have had these charisms manifesting in their greatest potential ("all knowledge" in 13:2, 1:5, Rom 15:14; and "all faith" and "bestowing all goods" in 13:2-3), without love they are "nothing," nullified, made useless. Without proper exercise of the spiritual gifts in love, they are "in part," and therefore may, in worse cases, be rendered "nothing," of "no effect," "stopped" (nullified). The Corinthians had all gnosis (the spiritual gift - 1 Cor 1:5). Even so, without love, they would still be lacking (i.e., "knowing in part," "prophesying in part"). Paul shows that without love present, the exercise of spiritual gifts could be made useless, stopped, made "nothing" (13:1-3,8-9). So, again, the "knowing in part" did NOT mean having "a lack of all gnosis" (as your view has it)--rather, it meant having ALL gnosis yet not exercised properly with love (13:2). This immaturity potentially renders the charisms "of no effect," "nothing."

Paul was trying to encourage the Corinthians to be perfect, and not at all waiting for AD 70 to accomplish this (1 Cor 14:20, 2 Cor 13:9,11). As Paul also said to the Thessalonians: "we pray night and day exceedingly that we might see your face AND MIGHT PERFECT THAT WHICH IS LACKING IN YOUR FAITH [not AD 70]...and the Lord make you to increase and abound IN LOVE one toward another and toward all...to the end that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness...for this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication; that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the lust of sensuality, even as the Gentiles who know not God....for God has not called us unto uncleanness, but to holiness" (1 Thess 3:10-13, 4:3-5,7). So here, as with the Corinthians, Paul is seeking to perfect that which is in part, the lacking. Paul is seeking their perfection in love and holiness.

......

>>[Green] To "know fully" is to see God "face to Face," as the parallel statements in I Cor. 13:12 reveal: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to Face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully...." (I Cor. 13:12; Compare II Cor. 3:18) ...this face-to-face, full knowing was to be realized at the Parousia.

[PV] To be LIKE HIM (i.e., to have been transformed into His Image in holiness and love) is to "see God" and know him "face to face," even as Moses:

Numbers 12:6-8: If your prophet is of Jehovah, in an appearance unto him I make Myself known; in a dream I speak with him; not so My servant Moses; in all My house he is stedfast; mouth unto mouth I speak with him, and by an appearance, and not in enigmas; and the form of Jehovah he beholdeth attentively

Deuteronomy 34:10: And there hath not arisen a prophet any more in Israel like Moses, whom Jehovah hath known face unto face

Matthew 5:8: Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

1 John 3:6: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth has not SEEN him, neither known him

1 John 4:12: No man hath seen God at any time [physically]. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, AND HIS LOVE IS PERFECTED IN US.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3: ...knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up; and if any one doth think to know anything, he hath not yet known anything according as it behoveth [him] to know; but if any one doth love God, this one hath been known by Him.

1 Cor 13:12 and then I shall fully know, as also I was known

This is all about sanctification unto perfection. The ones perfected by the Holy Spirit "know Him" and "see Him face to face" because they have been sanctified by Him, truly transformed into the love and holiness of Christ Himself (Rom 8:29/12:2/2Cor 3:18). No person sees God "face to face" because some full quota of theological understanding became completed at AD 70. Being "perfect" is having one's heart established unblamable in holiness (1 Thess 3:10-4:10), becoming like Christ in actual holiness and love--"to walk as he walked" (1 Jn 2:5-6/1 Thess 4:1-4). This is the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit through the charisms.

......

>>[Green] Other Scriptures reveal that this face-to-face, full knowing was to be realized at the Parousia: "....It has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is." (I Jn. 3:2)

[PV] The meaning of "seeing Christ as He is" in 1 John 3:1-2 is that they would see Christ as the victor over the antichrist jews, thus manifesting who were the true, victorious sons. It means nothing more. Let's sort this out properly...

1 John 3:1-2 --IS--> Romans 8:17-25

IMPLICATION: Since these two passages are exactly parallel to each other, we know that Paul interprets John for us with clarity.

[Q.] What does Paul anticipate to be revealed in Romans 8:17-25 that was not yet?

[A.] The "manifestation of the sons as the heirs" -- this was to occur when the sufferings at the hand of their enemies had ended and the Mosaic state was ended (Rom 8:17-25). While, indeed, the followers of Jesus were the sons already (1 Jn 3:2/Rom 8:14), the Day of Christ was to fully "manifest this" via the destruction of the enemies that were claiming to be the sons of Abraham/sons of God.

So, that is the meaning of 1 John 3:1-2. John says: "THE WORLD does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, WE are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is ... for whatever is born of God overcomes the world (1 Jn 3:1-2, 5:4). John is disputing the claims of the antichrist Jews. He is stating that only the obedient and orthodox ones are the sons, and the rest were the sons of Satan (1 Jn 2:29-3:19). Therefore, St. John is not talking about some delivery of "full gnosis," which you are designating as the meaning of "face-to-face." Rather, St. John is talking about what Paul is talking about in Romans 8:17-25. John is refuting the world's rejection of the true sons and asserting the impending revelation of their identity. St. John did not know what their victory over them would be like, but only that Christ's victory would be theirs (compare 1 Jn 5:4-5 to John 16:33). Their expectation was that "in his times he shall show who is the only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim 6:15). He showed this at his conquest over their enemies.

......

>>[Green] Before the Parousia, the Church had not yet seen Him "as He is." (cf. Jn. 1:18; 6:46; I Tim. 6:16; I Jn. 4:12) It was through the eschatological, transforming work of the Holy Spirit, (II Cor. 3:18) that the Church attained unto the Parousia, and thereby came to "see" and "fully know" the indwelling Lord Jesus, "face to Face": "And they shall see His Face, and His name shall be on their foreheads." (Rev. 22:4; cf. Jn. 14:20; Col. 3:10)

[PV] I believe this is incorrect exegetical work. The meaning of John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, and 1 Tim 6:16 has to do with the Hebrews' belief that no mortal could ever see Jehovah physically and continue to live:

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Your exegesis here would fully reverse this long-standing assertion about the nature of Jehovah's complete being, and mandates that we would all be physically dead after AD 70. The Parousia did NOT overturn Ex 33:20, 1 Tim 6:16, Jn 1:18, and 1 Jn 4:12.

......

>>[PV] You are making "perfection" equate to something which comes at the Parousia, which is nowhere said in scripture.

>[Green] The Church was "perfected" [telioo] in unity (Jn. 17:23; Eph. 4:13), and it attained to a "perfect" [telios] Man (Eph. 4:13), when it became "like Him" in His Parousia. (I Jn. 3:2) Conclusion: The Scriptures do teach "perfection" [telios] at the Parousia.

[PV] I have already shown that 1 Jn 3:1-2 is not related to this discussion, but specifically speaks of the "manifestation of the true sons" vs. the "antichrists" at Christ's conquest. 1 John 3:1-2 IS Rom 8:17-25, and St. John did not know what the victory over them would be like, but only knew that Christ's victory would be theirs (compare 1 Jn 5:4-5 to John 16:33). Their expectation was that "in his times he shall show who is the only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim 6:15). Christ showed this at his conquest over their enemies.

Now, I agree that Jesus speaks of perfection in "unity" for the Church, and I agree that Eph 4:13 also speaks of this. But what in what does this specific "unity" consist? Specifically, this "unity" hoped for was absence of schism among Christ's leaders and followers, and maturity in love and holiness among all disciples. To find out what this unity is...

--COMPARE THIS--

Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith

--TO THIS--

Eph 4:1-6 walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, BEING DILLIGENT TO PRESERVE THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT IN THE BOND OF PEACE. FOR THERE IS ONE BODY, ONE SPIRIT...ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD...

This "unity" is the unity of Christ's ONE body under the apostolic leadership, which was being threatened by sectarian divisions (1 Cor 1:10-13, 3:1-8, 12:14-31). Schism was rebellion against the unity of the apostles and their approved successors, the bishops (Titus 2:15-3:1). The threats against this "unity" were clearly identified:

"when you come together in the church, I hear that there are schisms among you; and I partly believe it. For there must also be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you" (1 Cor 11:18-19).

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for they would no doubt have continued with us, but they went out that they might be manifest that they were not of us" (1 Jn 2:19).

"Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30).

"...These filthy dreamers despise authority [Peter says: 'despise authority. Daring, self-willed...not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries'] ...Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and PERISHED IN THE GAINSAYING OF KORAH [i.e., rebellion against Moses and the elders, and, in this case, the apostles and the elders]. These are spots in your love feasts when they feast with you" (Jude 8,11-12).

So, Christ did speak of a perfection of unity of ONE body, which speaks of a unity of the leadership in the Church that was threatened during the Church's first generation (and since has been fully abandoned under the era of reformation protestantism). But to get back on track, Paul's discussion of perfection with regards to love (in 1 Cor 13) is best interpreted by St. John in 1 John 2:5-6 and 4:11-12, 17-18. I believe you are avoiding this because St. John ends the discussion, interpreting 1 Cor 13 for us. John's interpretation is plainly spoken:

1 John 2:5-6; 4:12,16-17 But whoever keeps his word, God's love has most assuredly been perfected in him. This is how we know that we are in him; he who says he remains in him ought himself also to walk just like he walked...If we love one another, God remains in us, and his love has been perfected in us....and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him. In this, love has been made perfect with us

St. John does NOT see 1 Cor 13's perfection in love as related to some perfected corporate whole at a fixed point in history due to the second coming. St. John sees 1 Cor 13's perfection in love as pertaining to individuals PRIOR TO the Parousia. Therefore, your view of 1 Cor 13 is untenable.

......

>>[PV] Finally, you keep avoiding the fact that Paul is using three charisms in 13:8 to speak of all....

>[Green] The "whethers" of I Cor. 13:8 neither prove nor disprove that Paul was using three charisms to speak of all. But since the Corinthians were abusing the revelatory gifts, it stands to reason that Paul was speaking specifically of the revelatory gifts. And, Paul's discussion of "prophecy" and "knowledge" did not end with a "random, representative" mention in verse 8. Rather, Paul elaborated on "prophecy" and "knowledge" specifically, and he also expanded on "tongues" at great length (I Cor. 14:1-33). There can be little doubt that Paul was talking about "prophecy," "tongues" and "knowledge" specifically.

[PV] The "whethers" of 1 Cor 13:8 show Paul was speaking of all the charisms, for Paul's entire argument is "Love vs. the charisms of 1 Cor 12," as explicitly stated:

1 Corinthians 12:31-13:3 ...earnestly desire the better gifts; AND YET A FAR EXCELLING WAY I DO SHOW TO YOU: If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don't have love, I am nothing. If I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but don't have love, it profits me nothing.

Paul there contrasts ALL the lesser charisms of 1 Cor 12 with the charism that excells them all--LOVE (12:31). He argues a cohesive case for love's surpassing excellency over the other charisms:

Tongues vs. Love --> without Love, tongues is nullified (13:1)

Prophecy vs. Love --> apart from Love, prophecy profits nothing (13:2)

Understanding all mysteries vs. Love --> apart from Love, all understanding equates to nothing (13:2)

All gnosis vs. Love --> apart from Love, all gnosis comes to nothing (13:2)

All faith vs. Love --> apart from Love, having all faith to accomplish great ends comes to nothing (13:2)

All benevolence and self sacrifice vs. Love --> apart from Love, these profit nothing (13:2

LOVE IS UNFAILING (13:4-8)!

but whether...Prophecies --> they shall become useless (13:8; cf 13:2)

whether...Tongues --> they shall be stopped (13:8; cf. 13:1)

whether...Gnosis --> it shall become useless (13:8; cf. 13:2)

In every case, love is being compared to the lesser charisms. And in every case, the lesser charisms are nullified, made nothing, made useless, and stopped, apart from proper exercise of love--EVEN IN THEIR FULLEST QUANTITY OR EXPRESSION. A lack of perfection in love is what may make the less excelling gifts "in part," and at worse, "null." In 13:8-9, Paul is simply restating 13:1-3, and he does so by briefly restating three charisms instead of the six to eight charisms he just went through in 13:1-3. Again, the argument is clearly stated: all the charisms of 1 Cor 12 vs. the all-surpassing excellence of the charism of Love.

......

>>[PV] Above, you interpret Eph 4:13 to speak of cessation of charisms

>[Green] I don't interpret Eph. 4:13 to speak of cessation. I interpret Eph. 4:13 to speak of the attainment of the Church unto the Parousial "PERFECT" [TELIOS] Man. Paul also spoke of the coming of the "PERFECT" [TELIOS] in I Cor. 13:8.

[PV] You clearly argued Eph 4:13 as support for cessation. You said:

"My belief is that "in-part" knowledge (i.e., knowledge that was still in process of being made known/revealed) was going to be abolished/done away. That kind of knowledge was to be done away at the coming of full knowledge (I Cor. 13:8-9,12), at the Parousia: "Until we all attain to the unity of the ....knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature Man...." (Eph. 4:13)

Dave, in placing 1 Cor 13:8-10 next to Eph 4:13, you argue here that the charisms would be done away at "the Parousia." First, neither passage says anything about the Parousia. You simply presuppose it. And next, if 1 Cor 13:8-9 did speak of the end of charisms at AD 70, then Eph 4:13 would also have to speak of the end of the charisms of 4:11 at that time, for the passages clearly give parallel lists of charisms [compare Eph 4:11 to 1 Cor 12:28-29], and they speak of their purpose in bringing about some "perfection," which you say took place at AD 70. If the "perfect" of 1 Cor 13 was achieved, then the goal of the charisms was achieved and, thus, ended (in your reasoning). And if the precisely parallel "perfect" of Eph 4:11 was achieved, then the goal of the charisms of Eph 4:11 was achieved, and, thus, ALSO ENDED. You can't argue this partial cessationist position. It is internally inconsistent. You surely believe the charisms for apostle and prophet have ceased (Eph 4:11), but you then maintain that charisms for pastor and teacher and evangelist have remained? This is inconsistent.

I, of course, believe the charisms are designed to bring about perfection OF SAINTS for effective work in ministry (Eph 4:12; Heb 13:21; 2 Tim 3:17, 2:21) in a united, non-schismatic Church (Eph 4:11-16). I don't deny that God still uses apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the Church today. You do. Why you deny these charisms is unclear, however, for there is no biblical case to adopt this position, nor does the weighty testimony of Church history support your view.

......

>>[PV] This notion that some corporate whole would become magically perfect in love because of the Parousia is a concept entirely foreign to scripture. Rather, INDIVIDUALS come into the attributes of Christ by the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification and sanctifying > ministries (i.e, through charisms) -- see Eph 4:11-16; 2 Pet 1:3-11.

>[Green] Your either/or dilemma is unbiblical. The Body of Christ reached perfection when Christ came to inhabit it in the end of the age, AND individuals had come into the attributes of Christ by the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification and sanctifying ministries. As I wrote to you on 1/19: "Through the 'perfection' of the individual members of the Church (which included the brothers at Corinth in I Cor. 14:20), the whole Body ('WE' in I Cor. 13:9,12) would reach 'perfection' at the Parousia (I Cor. 13:10), and would see God 'face to Face' in the New Jerusalem (I Cor. 13:12; Rev. 22:4) --thereby necessitating the abolition and cessation of that which looked forward to 'the perfect'; namely: prophecy, tongues and knowledge. (I Cor. 13:8)

[PV] Nowhere does scripture teach that "perfection" comes at the Parousia. Your argument is inherently weak based on this fact alone. Interpreting 1 Cor 13:9-12 as the "whole Body of Christ reaching perfection at the Parousia" must be rejected on the following grounds:

(1) Paul himself does NOT allow this application of his own words (compare 1 Cor 13:11 to 14:20). Paul's application of 13:11 is found in 14:20, where Paul tells the Corinthians to cease being children and become perfect (teleios)--and that in the 50s AD. Therefore 1 Cor 13:11 CANNOT mean what you say it means, for Paul commands that the child/man distinction of 13:11 be resolved PRESENTLY in Corinth by obedience to his command that they "be men" ("perfect" - see also 2 Cor 13:9,11). In context, their childish ways involved a variety of abuses, especially the abuses towards the charismata and schisms over them (1 Cor 12:14-31). So, Paul does not allow for the Corinthians to interpret this child/man distinction of 1 Cor 13:11 as something to be resolved by the Parousia. We have Paul's own interpretation on 1 Cor 13:11, and, therefore, must reject yours.

(2) St. John does not employ your application concerning 1 Cor 13's teaching on love and "perfect." There can be no question that 1 Jn 2:5-6 and 4:11-13,16-19 are authoritative, apostolic interpretations of 1 Corinthians 13. Therefore, we must accept St. John's application of 1 Cor 13 (which he applies to INDIVIDUALS) and reject your "whole body at AD 70" concept. We must accept St. John's interpretation as authoritative.

(3) Your statement that "The Body of Christ reached perfection when Christ came to inhabit it" is nowhere stated in scripture. In fact, the whole notion goes against the very concept of sanctification unto perfection taught in the New Testament writings (see: Mt 5:48; Lk 6:40; Col 4:12; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess 3:10-11/4:3-9; Rom 12:2,6-9; 1 Jn 2:5/4:11-12; Heb 5:12-6:1/13:21). Sanctification unto perfection in love and holiness explicitly comes through the Holy Spirit's ministries exercised in the Church (via charisms) with the submission of individual believers unto the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:2,22; Gal 3:3; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Thess 4:3-9; 2 Cor 3:3,6-11,17-18; Titus 3:5; 1 Cor 6:9-11). To say that some automatic realization of fullness in love and holiness came upon all citizens of the Church at AD 70 due to the Parousia violates the entire concept of "sanctification" and "perfection of saints" (not to mention it's not taught in scripture). There is no magic substitute for perfecting saints. Sanctification is a process for every individual to be transformed into the image of Christ (see: Rom 8:29/2 Cor 3:18/Rom 12:2/Heb 2:10-11). The procedure is clearly outlined in scripture, and has nothing to do with the Parousia. It has everything to do with the Holy Spirit's ministry under the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:12-18; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2; Eph 4:8,11-16).

(4) Nowhere does scripture teach that prophecy, gnosis, and tongues were "things that which looked forward to the perfect." Rather, they are part of the Holy Spirit's New Covenant ministry for the benefit of the Church--they are the the charisms instituted in the Body at the ascension of Jesus (Eph 4:8,11/Jn 7:37-39). When He ascended he gave gifts to men (Eph 4:8). At that time He set these charisms in the New Covenant Church as the specific members of His own body (1 Cor 12:27-30/Rom 12:4-8/Eph 4:8,11-12). There has been no dismemberment of the body, as your view necessitates.

......

>>[PV] The meaning of "love never fails" is explained in 13:4-7, which shows it has nothing to do with some future exemption from disestablishment. ...The contrast here is NOT one of duration in history....it has nothing to do with the Parousia.

>[Green] I didn't say that "Love never falls" in I Cor. 13:8a referred specifically to love's duration beyond the Parousia. I said it refers to love's endurance; its "always standing" and abiding quality; its unmovable constancy. Then, with that quality established, Paul went on to say that prophecy, tongues and knowledge --in contrast to love which "never falls" / "endures"-- would be abolished and would cease.

[PV] Your view here renders Paul's contrast in 13:8-9 irregular, incongruent, illogical.

First, we agree that 13:4-8 is a statement about love's nature--specifically, its surpassing EFFICACY, and NOT its duration in history. Now, since 13:4-8 is a declaration of Love's surpassing efficacy and excellency and not its duration in history, then Paul's contrast of it with the the lesser charisms in 13:8 must argue that the lesser charisms lack this same surpassing efficacy on their own. Therefore, the statement...

"Love never fails. BUT whether...prophesies, they shall be made useless; whether...tongues, they shall be stopped; "whether gnosis, it shall be made useless" (1 Cor 13:8)

...is a statement about qualities PRECISELY OPPOSITE to those ascribed to love in 13:4-7. Only in my view is this so. Your version renders the contrast entirely incongruent. Maintaining, as you do, that 13:8 says three charisms will become extinct at some future time is not a logical contrast to the declaration of love's surpassing efficacy as described in 13:4-7. There is no logical contrast there.

*CONGRUENT COMPARISON IN 13:8-9*
Love's unfailing EFFICACY vs. lesser EFFICACY of gnosis, tongues, and prophesying

*INCONGRUENT COMPARISON*
Love's unfailing EFFICACY vs. a TEMPORAL DURATION of tongues, prophesying, and gnosis

So, it is plain that your view renders Paul's contrast irregular, incongruent, and illogical in its very structure. My view not only preserves the logic in Paul's contrast, but, also, it is supported by the fact that the contrast made in 13:8-9 it is a clear re-statement of the contrast made in 12:31-13:3. The rendering of charisms as without profit and null in 13:1-3 is the same rendering of charisms as without profit and null in 13:8-19. All that in contrast to the unfailingness of Love. Love never falls. The lesser charisms may indeed fall, because they require growing maturity in the charism of love to keep them from being ineffectual.

......

>>[Green] "Cease" is placed between two instances of "katargeo," proving yet again that "katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 definitely means "done away." And, "done away" and "cease" are both set in contrast to "endures" (I Cor. 13:137b), "never falls" (I Cor. 13:8a) and "abide" (I Cor. 13:13)

[PV] "Stopped" is placed between two instances of "made useless/of no effect," all contrasted directly against Love's unfailing EFFICACY and inability to fail. Therefore, we know beyond all doubt that the comparison being argued is "Love's unfailing qualities vs. the failing potential of the lesser charisms," the exact point just argued in 12:31-13:3. The supreme nature of love is its surpassing, unfailing efficacy. Not so of the lesser charisms (12:31-13:3). None of this has to do with how long the charisms might exist in their duration in history. This is all a comparison of the excellency of charisms being contrasted to the greater excellency of love.

--COMPARISONS BETWEEN LOVE AND GNOSIS--

"to know Christ's love WHICH SURPASSSES GNOSIS that you might be filled with ALL the fullness of God" (Eph 3:19)

"we all have GNOSIS. GNOSIS makes arrogant, but love edifies." (1 Cor 8:1)

"If I have...ALL GNOSIS...but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor 13:2)

"Love never fails...BUT...whether GNOSIS, it shall become useless" (1 Cor 13:8)

......

>>[PV] ....to maintain (as you do) that Love's great superiority was that it was to exist beyond the Parousia, you must also teach that ALL the charisms of 1 Cor 12 ceased at the Parousia.

>[Green] It is not my position that, "love's great superiority was that it was to exist beyond the Parousia." According to I Cor. 13:8-13, love is superior to the revelatory gifts NOT ONLY because love is inherently greater than all other gifts, but ALSO because the revelatory gifts were "things of the child," AND because the revelatory gifts were "in part," AND because the revelatory gifts constituted seeing "in a dim mirror," AND because the revelatory gifts would be "done away" / "abolished" and would be caused to "cease."

[PV] Note the following points in response:

(1) the things of a child vs. man is explained in 1 Cor 14:20 as an issue for immediate resolution, not a resolution via the Parousia.

(2) Revelatory gifts are "in part" to the extent that they lack proper exercise in perfect love (1 Cor 13:2). Paul seeks to "perfect that which is lacking" by directing believers to increase in love (1 Thess 3:10,12-13/1 Cor 12:31,14:1). Peter does as well (2 Peter 1:3-9).

(3) "we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face" (1 Cor 13:12)

<--IS A QUOTE OF-->

"with [Moses] will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of Yahweh shall he see (Num 12:8).

Thus, one sees God "face to face" when one has been transformed into his very image by sanctification of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:29/2 Cor 3:18/Rom 12:2/Heb 2:10-11/Eph 4:13/1 Jn 2:5-6, 4:11-12). There is such thing as perfected men (James 3:2/Eph 4:14/Phil 3:15/1 Cor 2:6/Mt. 5:48/1Jn 2:5-6). Such is the end goal of sanctification.

(4) tongues being stopped, and gnosis and prophesying becoming useless, is equal to what is said in 13:1-3, and is contrasted to love which is unfailing in nature

......

>>[Green] You interpret I Cor. 13:8 to mean that spiritual gifts are "MADE USELESS" (and NOT "done away") through a lack of love. Correct? You then interpret I Cor. 13:10-11 to mean that immaturity is "DONE AWAY" (and NOT SIMPLY "made useless") by the coming of maturity. Correct? How is that not two definitions in the same immediate context for the word "katargeo?"

[PV] The absence of maturity in love can/does/will render the lesser charisms "null" and "of no profit" (1 Cor 13:1-3; 2 Pet 3:8-10). However, when maturity comes, it renders the immaturity or what is lacking "null" and "of no profit." As Paul says, "When I became a man, I MADE USELESS the things of the child."

......

>>[PV] Paul shows there in 13:1-3 that it is not "lack of knowledge" that is the immaturity being discussed. Instead, it is the lack of love EVEN WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE that is the immaturity, the imperfect

>[Green] Your "either / or" dilemma here is unbiblical. The coming maturity was to be in love AND in full knowledge: "Now I know in part, but then I shall know fully.... (I Cor. 13:12)

[PV] Having All gnosis was possible long before the Parousia (1 Cor 13:2/ 1:5/Rom 15:14). Gnosis is a spiritual gift experienced according to "portions" or "measures" or "allotments" (Rom 12:3,6; Eph 4:7,16; 1 Pet 4:10-11; 2 Cor 10:13; 1 Cor 13:1-3), and needing to be coupled with love to be anything (1 Cor 14:1; 1 Cor 16:14). This proportion is something the believer must exercise, and it matures in the life of the believer in love (2 Cor 10:15; 2 Pet 1:5-8, 3:18; Eph 4:15-16; 1 Thess 4:1). Which again brings us back to the meaning of knowing "in part" and prophesying "in part." With the believer's increasing maturity in sanctification, the proportion of the charism increases with love and the lack in the proportion is gradually reduced--the believer is then "full grown" (teleios), transformed into the very image of Christ (Rom 8:29/2 Cor 3:18/Rom 12:2/Heb 2:10-11/1 Jn 2:5-6/Eph 3:19). One exercises charisms according to whatever measure or proportion one presently has (Rom 12:3,6; Eph 4:7,15-16; 1 Pet 4:10-11; 2 Cor 10:13; 1 Cor 13:9). This measure is not static, but grows through the process of spiritual growth (sanctification).

For sure, the Corinthians were being enriched in all gnosis and utterance (1 Cor 1:5). The Romans were likewise blessed in this way (Rom 15:14). Even so, apart from love, having ALL gnosis equates to nothing (1 Cor 13:2). Therefore the need to have love is essential (1 Cor 13:1-3). This has nothing to do with the Parousia. It has to do with the theology of the Holy Spirit's charismatic ministry among Christ's members.

......

[Green] Read what you wrote. You proved the point: I Cor. 13:8: "Tongues ...will cease."

Your "I-don't-have-to-re-word-it" version of I Cor. 13:8 = The EFFICACY and PROFITABILITY OF TONGUES will cease.

Your system forbids that "tongues ...will cease." Your system therefore forces you to re-word I Cor. 13:8. Your system will not let the words of Scripture stand on their own.

[PV] "Pauo" = stop

"Katargeo" = come to nothing, be made of no effect, be rendered useless

In contrast to Love which never falls or fails, the lesser charisms of tongues, knowledge, and prophesying may come to nothing, be made of no effect, stop. These are "failings" or "fallings" (cf. 2 Pet 1:8,10).

......

>>[Green] "Ek meros" literally translated is, "in part" or "of a part" or "out of an allotment" or "out of an installment." Inserting the word "imperfection" in place of "that which is in part" in I Cor. 13:10 is not a "translation." It is yet another "paraphrase" (this one being on a par with the NIV). It is black-and-white wrong to say that "ek meros" SHOULD BE TRANSLATED AS "imperfect(-ly)."

You have proven yet again that your system forces you to liberally "paraphrase" the words of Scripture so that they can be fitted into your system. And this is why you have consistently evaded this request: USING THE WORDS OF I COR. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10. Here are the verses:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, that which is in part will be done away." (I Cor. 13:9-10)

[PV] I have not evaded it. You have not understood it:

***1 Cor 13:9-10***

For we know "in part" (see charism "parts and allotments" - cf. Rom 12:6; Eph 4:7,16; 1 Pet 4:10-11; 2 Cor 10:13; 1 Cor 13:1-3)

and we prophesy "in part" (see charism "parts and allotments" - cf. Rom 12:6; Eph 4:7,16; 1 Pet 4:10-11; 2 Cor 10:13; 1 Cor 13:1-3)

but when "the perfect comes" (cf. 1 Jn 2:5-6, 4:11-12,16-18; 2 Cor 13:9,11/1 Thes 3:10,12; 1 Cor 2:6; Eph 3:19, 4:12-16; Phil 3:15; Lk 6:40; Mt 5:48; James 3:2 -- also: Rom 8:29/2 Cor 3:18/Rom 12:2/Heb 2:10-11)

that which is in part will be done away. (cf. Lk 6:40; Mt 5:40; Eph 3:19; 4:13-16; 1 Jn 2:5-6; 1 Jn 4:12,16-18; 1 Cor 2:6; Phil 3:15; Jas 3:2).

SUMMARY: The exercise of ALL spiritual gifts is done according to "portions", "measures," "parts," "allotments" (see: Rom 12:3,6; Eph 4:7,16; 1 Pet 4:10-11; 2 Cor 10:13; 1 Cor 13:1-3). This allotment/part is something that must increase and abound in the life of the believer in love (1 Cor 14:1/12:31; 2 Cor 10:15; 2 Pet 1:5-8, 3:18; 1 Thess 3:12,4:1; Eph 4:16). The measure/proportion one starts with is not the measure one ends with--Christ grows within us. This is also why Paul says he wanted to visit the Thessalonians to "perfect that which was lacking in their faith" (1 Thess 3:10,12). That is why Paul said he wanted to visit Rome to impart spiritual gifts that the believers there might be established and that he might also receive edification from them too (Rom 1:9-12). That is why Paul told the Corinthians that, looking backward, his work among them enriched them in the spiritual gifts to confirm them and help them become blameless in holiness and love (1 Cor 1:4-9; Eph 1:4; Col 1:22; 2 Pet 3:14). This is all about the ministry of the Holy Spirit under a New Covenant, sanctifying men unto perfection in holiness and love.

......

>>[PV] And, if you argue that "in part revelatory knowing" ceased when "full revelatory knowing" came at the Parousia, then you would also have to say that "in part prophesying" and "in part tongues" ceased when "full tongues", and "full prophesying" were ushered in by the Parousia -- which necessitates the continuation of those things.

>[Green] "Languages" were not "in part." Revelatory content was "in part." This is why Paul did not list "tongues" along with prophecy and knowledge in verse 9. And this is why "tongues" simply "ceased." Their cessation (passive) was the result of the "doing away" (active) of revelation.

[PV] ALL the charisms may be "in part" or "in toto" (1 Cor 13:1-3) in a believer -- i.e., they have a measure, proportion or allotment (cf. Rom 12:6; Eph 4:7,16; 1 Pet 4:10-11; 2 Cor 10:13; 1 Cor 13:1-3). This is also why Paul could speak of the charisms being also found in their greatest measure of "ALL" long before AD 70 (1 Cor 13:1-3). Nevertheless, having any measure of the charisms or "ALL" yet without love would be nothing (no measure, no allotment, no part, null). So, love must be present for the charisms to be "anything," or of any use. Thus the command to pursue love and the rest of the charisms together (1 Cor 14:1/12:31; 2 Pet 1:3-10)

......

>>[PV] Sanctification by the Holy Spirit is to make sinners holy, obedient and fit for every good use of the Master....

>[Green] I agree. Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)? (Eph 2:21)

[PV] The state of Christ's corporate body is not "one" when its members are in schism (1 Cor 12:20-30). It is only by the Holy Spirit's New Covenant ministry of perfecting saints for works of service that the body parts may edify one another in love, preserving the health and unity of the whole (Eph 4:16; 1 Cor 12:24-27). Any failure among the body to grasp the Holy Spirit's ministry and promote the "perfection of saints" causes the whole body to suffer (1 Cor 12:24-26). Such is the very nature of the Church. The Church is a living, eternal organism that can be in a state of oneness or not in a state of oneness, depending on the workings of the individual members that comprise the body (1 Cor 12:20-31; Eph 4:11-16).

[back to top of page]

2/04/03 - [Green's Response to PV]

>>[Green] We cannot interpret "all" literally in I Cor. 13:2 (cf. I Cor. 1:5; Rom. 15:14), because some mysteries and knowledge regarding the Kingdom remained hidden from the Church until the Parousia. (Matt. 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; I Thess. 5:1)

>[PV] We are forced to interpret "all" literally in 1 Cor 13:2, first from comparing it to 1 Cor 1:5 and Romans 15:14, and next by comparing it to "ALL faith" and "bestowing "ALL my goods" in 13:2-3...

[Green] You ignored Matt. 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; I Thess. 5:1. Also, "all faith" in I Cor. 13:2 can't be meant absolutely literally, unless we want to say that Paul spoke of the possibility that he could have "all faith" and that everyone else in the world would have NO faith, because Paul had it "all." And not even "all my goods" (possessions / belongings) needs to be taken absolutely literally, unless we want to insist that giving "all" has to include giving away the clothes off of one's body and then going about naked. (Lk. 14:33) As the Scriptures you ignored prove, "all knowledge" in Rom. 15:14; 1 Cor 1:5; 13:2 is to be taken in a limited / unfulfilled / "in part" (I Cor. 13:9) context.

......

>>[PV] 1 John 3:1-2 --IS --> Romans 8:17-25

[Green] That's fine, except there was a future dimension not only to being "revealed" as the true sons (Rom. 8) , but ALSO to becoming "like Him" (I Jn. 3:2; cf. Rom. 8:29). As other Scriptures confirm:

LIKE HIM AT THE PAROUSIA: "And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the Image of the heavenly." (I Cor. 15:49)

LIKE HIM AT THE PAROUSIA: "...We shall all be changed..." (I Cor. 15:51-52)

LIKE HIM AT THE PAROUSIA (change of the covenants): "But we all ...are being transformed into the same Image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." (II Cor. 3:18)

LIKE HIM AT THE PAROUSIA (completion of the Church as God's Temple): "Until we all attain to ...a mature Man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4:13)

LIKE HIM AT THE PAROUSIA: "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; Who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the Body of His glory...." (Phil. 3:20-21)

There is no way we can divorce these "like-Him" Parousia-prophecies from I Jn. 3:2, or from each other --not without doing violence to the Scriptures. The Church was becoming "like Him" and was not yet fully "like Him." It would be "like Him" in the future, specifically, "when He appear[ed]." (I Jn. 3:2) When the Lord came to inhabit His Church at the fall of the earthly house, He "changed" the Church, conformed it to His "Image," and "transformed" its body unto His own, consummating the sanctification-process so that the eschatological Church attained to the "perfect Man," to "the fulness of Christ." The Body thus completed the process of becoming "like Him" when He was finally "made known" in 70.

......

>>[PV] Nowhere does scripture teach that "perfection" comes at the Parousia.

[Green] The Church attained unto "perfection" in the Ministration of Life just as the Church's Forerunner had attained unto "perfection" after He had suffered, died and risen from the dead. (Lk. 13:2; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28)

The Church attained unto "perfection" when the "perfect" Tabernacle (Heb. 9:11) came down from out of Heaven (Rev. 21:2,10) and clothed her. (I Cor. 15:53-54; II Cor. 5:2,4)

The Church attained unto "perfection" along with the "perfected" old-testament saints when all of God's people, living and dead, inherited the Promise in 70. (Heb. 11:40)

The Church attained unto "perfection" when it was "perfected in one" and thereby brought the world to the realization that God loved the Church. This happened at the subjugation of the first-century Jews, as a comparison of Jn. 17:23 and Rev. 3:9 reveals: "....That they may be perfected in one, that the world may know that You ....loved them...." (Jn. 17:23), and "Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie-- behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you." (Rev. 3:9)

The Church attained unto "perfection" when it had grown into the "Perfect Man" / "fulness of Christ" / Temple of God / Dwelling of God. (Eph. 2:21- 22; 3:17; 4:13)

......

>>[PV] Your statement that "The Body of Christ reached perfection when Christ came to inhabit it" is nowhere stated in scripture.

[Green] The question is, How could the Temple / Body of Christ NOT have reached perfection / maturity when Christ Himself came to inhabit it at the end of the age?

......

>>[PV] ...Eph 4:13...neither passage says anything about the Parousia. You simply presuppose it.

[Green]

--COMPARE THIS--

"Until we all attain ....to a mature Man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4:13)

--TO THIS--

"In whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2:21)

--TO THIS--

"In whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." (Eph. 2:22) --TO THIS-- "....So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith...." (Eph. 3:17)

The attainment of the eschatological Church to the "Perfect Man" and "fulness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13) can not be separated, severed or divorced from the Church becoming God's completed Temple / Dwelling in 70.

......

>>[PV] ...Paul tells the Corinthians to cease being children and become perfect (teleios)--and that in the 50s AD.

[Green] Yes. How else would the whole Body become a Perfect Man (i.e., transformed, i.e, conformed, i.e., changed, i.e., "like Him") if not through the sanctification-perfection of the individual members?

......

>>[PV] ...Paul's application of 13:11 is found in 14:20...

[Green] That's fine. I have no problem with saying that I Cor. 14:20 is the "personal / practical application" of "the eschatological goal / promise" in I Cor. 13:11.

......

>>[PV] Paul was speaking of all the charisms, for Paul's entire argument is "Love vs. the charisms of 1 Cor 12," as explicitly stated:

1 Corinthians 12:31-13:3 ..earnestly desire the better gifts; AND YET A FAR EXCELLING WAY I DO SHOW TO YOU......

Paul there contrasts ALL the lesser charisms of 1 Cor 12 with the charism that excells them all--LOVE (12:31).

[Green] Yes, we generally agree on I Cor. 3:1-3. We disagree about I Cor. 13:8-9 being a restatement of I Cor. 3:1-3.

......

>>[PV] In 13:8-9, Paul is simply restating 13:1-3...

[Green] Continuationism makes Paul appear to do so, by:

1. Re-translating "katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 as "made useless"
2. Re-working "cease" (I Cor. 13:8) to mean the "stopping of the efficacy and profitability of tongues"
3. Using "katargeo" in two different senses in the same immediate context ("made useless" in I Cor. 13:8 and "done away" in I Cor. 13:10-11)
4. Paraphrasing "that which is in part" as "immaturity" / "imperfection" in I Cor. 13:10
5. Individualizing and de-historicizing the prophecies of I Cor. 13:8,10,12.

By such means, I Cor. 13:8ff is massaged into reading like a reiteration of I Cor. 13:1-3. The continuationist system turns I Cor. 13:8-12 into an exegetical "obstacle course" because it rejects the simple, straightforward, face-value, grammatical meaning of the Scripture and replaces it with tendentious re-translations, paraphrases and equivocations.

......

>>[PV] First, we agree that 13:4-8 is a statement about love's nature--specifically, its surpassing EFFICACY, and NOT its duration in history. Now, since 13:4-8 is a declaration of Love's surpassing efficacy and excellency and not its duration....

[Green] As you know, we do not agree that I Cor. 7b-8a is merely a statement about love's "efficacy":

"....[Love] endures all things; love never falls." (I Cor. 13:7b-8a)

As has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt so as to satisfy any unbiased mind, the above Scripture speaks of love's "abiding" / "enduring" / "always-standing" quality; and it is set in marked contrast to the "katargeo" and cessation that immediately follows in verse 8b.

......

>>[PV] To say that some automatic realization of fullness in love and holiness came upon all citizens of the Church at AD 70 due to the Parousia violates the entire concept of "sanctification" and "perfection of saints" ....There is no magic substitute for perfecting saints.

[Green] As I have made clear repeatedly, I do not hold to some kind of "automatic," "magic" "substitute for sanctification." You know that I do not divorce or sever the sanctification-process from the "change" / "transformation." The Lord returned to _consummate the sanctification-process by making His habitation in the Spirit-sanctified Church.

......

>>[PV] There has been no dismemberment of the body, as your view necessitates.

[Green] Gifts are not members of Christ's Body. Believers are members of Christ's body. The abolition of revelatory gifts did not result in the damnation-dismemberment (Matt. 18:7-9) of any members of Christ's Body

......

>>[PV] "Stopped" is placed between two instances of "made useless/of no effect"....

[Green] As though that solves any of the exegetical problems of continuationism in I Cor. 13:8-13. "Stopped" does not correspond to "made useless." "Stopped" does correspond to "done away." And, "endures" (I Cor. 13:7), "never falls" (I Cor. 13:8) and "abide" (I Cor. 13:13) are all opposites of both "stopped" and "done away." (I Cor. 13:8

......

[Green] You interpret I Cor. 13:8 to mean that spiritual gifts are "MADE USELESS" (and NOT "done away") through a lack of love. Correct? You then interpret I Cor. 13:10-11 to mean that immaturity is "DONE AWAY" (and NOT SIMPLY "made useless") by the coming of maturity. Correct? How is that not two definitions in the same immediate context for the word "katargeo?" Using the words of I Cor. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10. I have made this request eleventy-one times now (give or take), and you have done nothing but evade it with paraphrases and with lengthy expositions of your paraphrases. Please, either fulfill the request or admit that the continuationist system is powerless to do so. Here's the request again: Using the words of I Cor. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10?

......

>>[Green] Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)? (Eph 2:21)

>[PV] The state of Christ's corporate body is not "one" when its members are in schism (1 Cor 12:20-30). It is only by the Holy Spirit's New Covenant ministry of perfecting saints for works of service that the body parts may edify one another in love, preserving the health and unity of the whole (Eph 4:16; 1 Cor 12:24-27). Any failure among the body to grasp the Holy Spirit's ministry and promote the "perfection of saints" causes the whole body to suffer (1 Cor 12:24-26). Such is the very nature of the Church. The Church is a living, eternal organism that can be in a state of oneness or not in a state of oneness, depending on the workings of the individual members that comprise the body (1 Cor 12:20-31; Eph 4:11-16)

[Green] Your evasions are endless. Please, either answer the question or simply admit that the continuationist system is unable to answer it forthrightly. Here's the question again: Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)? (Eph 2:21)

......

>>[PV] I don't deny that God still uses apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the Church today. You do. Why you deny these charisms is unclear...

[Green] As you know, I do not deny that God still uses evangelists, pastors and teachers today

......

>>[PV] You clearly argued Eph 4:13 as support for cessation. You said: "My belief is that "in-part" knowledge (i.e., knowledge that was still in process of being made known / revealed) was going to be abolished / done away. That kind of knowledge was to be done away at the coming of full knowledge (I Cor. 13:8-9,12), at the Parousia: 'Until we all attain to the unity of the ....knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature Man....' (Eph. 4:13)"

[Green] Yes, I "argued Eph. 4:13 as support for cessation."

No, Eph. 4:13 does not "speak of cessation."

Neither the cessation nor the continuation of the gifts in Eph. 4:11 is implied in Eph. 4:13. It does not follow that, "If 1 Cor 13:8-9 did speak of the end of [revelatory] charisms at AD 70, then Eph 4:13 would also have to speak of the end of the charisms of 4:11 at that time..."

>>[PV] You can't argue this partial cessationist position. It is internally inconsistent.

[Green] What is inconsistent is arguing the continuation of revelation after all things have been "perfectly" fulfilled.

[back to top of page]

2/05/03 - [PV's Response to Green]

>>[PV] We are forced to interpret "all" literally in 1 Cor 13:2, first from comparing it to 1 Cor 1:5 and Romans 15:14, and next by comparing it to "ALL faith" and "bestowing "ALL my goods" in 13:2-3....

>[Green] You ignored Matt. 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; I Thess. 5:1.

[PV] Paul means "ALL" of the full power and potential of each of the charisms listed in 1 Cor 12, as he explicitly states in 13:1-3. "All faith" in 13:2 has nothing to do with AD 70, but, rather, has to do with the full power and potential of that charism, requiring expression in love. "Bestowing all goods" has nothing to do with AD 70, but, rather, has to do with the full power and potential of that charism, requiring expression in love. LIKEWISE, "all gnosis" (1 Cor 13:2) has nothing to do with AD 70, but, rather, has to do with the full power and potential of that charism, needing expression in love. This truth, of course, undercuts your entire premise and effectively ends your argument. You have misunderstood the meaning of "all gnosis" as some total quantity of all revealed facts laid out between AD 30 and AD 70 that would not all be known until AD 70--thus, "all gnosis" was not possible until AD 70 in your view. That, I maintain, is a major error. Rather, "all gnosis" in 13:2 is a SPIRITUAL GIFT, and spiritual gifts are expressed by individuals in various proportions, parts, allotments (Rom 12:6/1 Cor 13:9/Eph 4:7,16), always requiring expression in love.

Adopting your view on this point--namely, that "all faith and all gnosis DOES NOT really speak of the full measure of that charism"--renders nonsensical Paul's whole line of argumentation in 13:1-3. Paul's argument in 13:1-3 relies on the premise that one could indeed have "ALL" (a full measure) of the individual charisms listed in chapter 12--e.g., "all faith" and "all gnosis." This is fully supported in 1 Cor 1:5 and Romans 15:14 as well, where the full power and potential (full measure) of individual charisms are acknowledged and affirmed, long before AD 70. In sum, I ignored your citations because they are unrelated to the discussion.

>[Green] As the Scriptures you ignored prove, "all knowledge" in Rom. 15:14; 1 Cor 1:5; 13:2 is to be taken in a limited / unfulfilled / "in part" (I Cor. 13:9) context.

[PV] Rather, Rom 15:14 and 1 Cor 1:5 contextually support the meaning of "all gnosis" in 1 Cor 13:2 as a charism expressed in its "full measure and potential" (see also: Rom 12:3,6; Eph 4:7,16). You went fishing outside of the context of Paul's discussion to try to insert unrelated texts into 1 Cor 13 where they don't belong. Had you stayed in the context of the passage and the direct parallels you would have found the answers were already provided.

......

>>[PV] > 1 John 3:1-2 --IS --> Romans 8:17-25

>[Green] That's fine, except there was a future dimension not only to being "revealed" as the true sons (Rom. 8) , but ALSO to becoming "like Him" (I Jn. 3:2; cf. Rom. 8:29).

[PV] You have St. John contradicting himself in 1 John, for, at 3:2, St. John says: "it does not yet appear what we shall be." If this is speaking of "the perfect" of 1 Corinthians 13, then we have serious problems with our beloved, CONFUSED, disciple: John says before and after 3:2 that he clearly knew what 1 Corinthian 13's "perfection" in love was, and what it looked like when attained:

1 John 2:5-6 whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

--AND--

1 John 4:12,18 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us....perfect love casts out fear...the one who fears is not perfected in love.

St. John, in 1 John 2:5-6 and 4:11-19, clearly speaks of men that attained to that which is perfect before AD 70. Those are interpretive passages of 1 Cor 13 that argue my case for me. St. John says many men attained "the perfect" spoken of in 1 Cor 13:10. John clearly knew what the perfection of 1 Cor 13 looked like. So how can you argue that St. John was telling his flock in 3:2 that he did NOT know what perfection was? This is a total contradiction.

Moving on ... as for the grant of eternal life, this was made available at the Parousia (1 Cor 15:49, 1 Cor 15:51-52), experienced specifically in the resurrection of the dead ones of Hades who at that time exited and went into the Father's heaven of 2 Cor 12:2-4, Mt 6:20, 5:34, 5:45 and 6:9.

......

>>[Green] LIKE HIM AT THE PAROUSIA (change of the covenants): "But we all ...are being transformed into the same Image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." (II Cor. 3:18)

[PV] This transformation spoken of in 2 Cor 3:18 is plainly not "at the Parousia." Rather, that transformation is clearly stated to be by the New Covenant ministry of sanctification BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, through charism-based ministries:

2 Corinthians 3:6,11,18; 4:1 [God] also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life....For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious...[and] we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are being changed into the same image from glory to glory, EVEN AS BY THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD. Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not

This was not a yet-future "transformation at the Parousia," as you stated. It is the transforming of individuals by the charismatic ministers and ministries of New Covenant believers. The direct parallels of Rom 8:29/12:2/Heb 2:10-11 also show that this transformation was one by the Holy Spirit through the charismatic ministries, conforming many into brothers of Jesus, the firstborn son (Rom 8:29/Heb 2:10-11). Remember, sanctification unto that which is perfect is performed by the Holy Spirit through the sanctifying charisms (2 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2,22).

......

>>[Green] LIKE HIM AT THE PAROUSIA (completion of the Church as God's Temple): "Until we all attain to ...a mature Man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4:13)

[PV] Again, not some single corporate whole "at the Parousia." Rather, many children growing up into Him (vv.14-15) via the charismatic ministries of the Holy Spirit (vv.11-12) so that children in the faith become perfected:

"and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; FOR THE PERFECTING OF THE SAINTS FOR THE WORK OF MINISTRY...that...we should not be children...but, speaking the truth in love may GROW UP into him in all things."

This "growing up into him in all things" is the PROCESS of sanctification by the Holy Spirit through the charism-based ministries set in the Church by Jesus Christ at his ascension (Eph 4:7-8; 1 Cor 12:18,28).

......

>>[Green] The Church attained unto "perfection" in the Ministration of Life just as the Church's Forerunner had attained unto "perfection" after He had suffered, died and risen from the dead. (Lk. 13:2; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28)

[PV] None of those verses say the Church as one corporate entity entered one single perfection "at the Parousia." The concept is foreign to scripture, foreign to 1 Cor 13. It is your unproven, unbiblical presupposition concerning sanctification. In fact, let me point out that Heb 2:10-11 is parallel to Romans 8:29/12:2, and these are all undeniably individual applications

......

>>[Green] The Church attained unto "perfection" when the "perfect" Tabernacle (Heb. 9:11) came down from out of Heaven (Rev. 21:2,10) and clothed her. (I Cor. 15:53-54; II Cor. 5:2,4

[PV] None of those verses say the Church as one corporate entity attained one single perfection "at the Parousia." The concept is foreign to scripture, and especially foreign to 1 Cor 13. It is your unproven, unbiblical presupposition concerning sanctification. The "perfect tabernacle" of Heb 9:11 is the place Christ ascended to AT HIS ASCENSION (cf Heb 9:11 to 9:23-24). It speaks of the Father's transcendent heaven of 2 Cor 12:2-4, Matt 6:20, 5:34, 5:45 and 6:9; the place that Christ ascended to in Acts 1:11; the Father's house where there are many rooms (Jn 14:2).

......

>>[Green] The Church attained unto "perfection" along with the "perfected" old-testament saints when all of God's people, living and dead, inherited the Promise in 70. (Heb. 11:40)

[PV] That verse does not say the Church as one corporate entity attained one single perfection "at the Parousia." It is your unproven, unbiblical presupposition concerning sanctification. The "perfect" of Heb 11:40 is the same "perfect" of Heb 13:20-21 and 10:14, both of which mention sanctification unto perfection by the Spirit (be sure to compare Heb 13:20-21 to 1 Peter 1:2,22.)

......

>>[Green] The Church attained unto "perfection" when it was "perfected in one" and thereby brought the world to the realization that God loved the Church. This happened at the subjugation of the first-century Jews, as a comparison of Jn. 17:23 and Rev. 3:9 reveals:

"....That they may be perfected in one, that the world may know that You ....loved them...." (Jn. 17:23)

[PV] We already noted that Jn 17:23 was Christ's prayer for the disciples of Jesus to have unity and love, as is mentioned in the direct parallel passage found at Jn 13:34-35 and elsewhere at Eph 4:1-6,13. This meant that the schisms among the churches were to be resolved so that all the Church operated under one apostolic leadership in love. This is a strong argument for the Catholic/Orthodox view of the nature of the Church, BTW. The "disunity" was clearly the schismatic factions of the early congregations mentioned in Eph 4:1-3, 1 Cor 1:10-13, and 1 Cor 12:14-28.

......

>>[Green] The Church attained unto "perfection" when it had grown into the "Perfect Man" / "fulness of Christ" / Temple of God / Dwelling of God. (Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; 4:13)

[PV] None of those verses say the Church as one corporate entity attained one single perfection "at the Parousia." The concept is foreign to scripture, and especially foreign to 1 Cor 13. On the very face of it, Eph 3:13-21 is not a statement concerning a single corporate whole. Rather, it is clearly about the people at Ephesus being able to, "in their hearts," comprehend with all saints the breadth, length, depth, and height--to know the love of Christ which surpasses even gnosis. This was to be done by the "strengthening with might by the Holy Spirit in their inner beings" -- i.e., via the sanctifying, charism-based ministry of the Holy Spirit. NOT by the Parousia.

......

>>[PV] Paul tells the Corinthians to cease being children and become perfect (teleios)--and that in the 50s AD.

>[Green] Yes. How else would the whole Body become a Perfect Man (i.e., transformed, i.e, conformed, i.e., changed, i.e., "like Him") if not through the sanctification-perfection of the individual members?

[PV] You must make a choice here, Dave, and stop offering a hidden, dual meaning in one sentence. The "perfect that sees face to face" in 1 Cor 13:10-12 must see this either...

(1) at the Parousia

--OR--

(2) LONG BEFORE THE PAROUSIA, as the product of the New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit in love

You cannot continue to make 1 Cor 13:10-12 mean both. I have pointed out that Paul already decides for us which is correct, for Paul shows us clearly at 1 Cor 14:20 that his own application of 13:10-11 was NOT about some perfection bestowed upon one corporate entity at the Parousia, but was instead a perfection demanded of the Corinthians decades prior (14:20/2 Cor 13:9,11). Since 1 Cor 14:20 is Paul's apostolic interpretation of 1 Cor 13:10-11, and since Paul's interpretation of 13:10-11 gives it individualized and immediate application, we must abandon as error your view that 1 Cor 13:10-11 should be interpreted as "the entire Church being a man that sees face to face at AD 70." You cannot have 1 Cor 13:11 mean two different things. You clearly believe that the "man that sees face to face" speaks of the whole body at AD 70. Paul clearly shows us it does not (cf. 1 Cor 14:20).

......

>>[PV] Paul's application of 13:11 is found in 14:20.....

>[Green] That's fine. I have no problem with saying that I Cor. 14:20 is the "personal / practical application" of "the eschatological goal / promise" in I Cor. 13:11.

[PV] You've sold the farm. 1 Corinthians 14:20 is THE application of 1 Cor 13:10-11. Period. Your attempt at proposing dual meanings is futile. The specific mention of "manhood (teleios) and the ceasing to be children" --which you claim speaks about a corporate whole at AD 70-- MUST BE interpreted personally and with no mind toward AD 70, as Paul himself demonstrates in 14:20. We must adopt St. Paul's covenantal view (cf. 2 Cor 3:6-4:1) and abandon your corporate/eshchatological view.

......

>>[PV] .....Paul was speaking of all the charisms, for Paul's entire argument is "Love vs. the charisms of 1 Cor 12," as explicitly stated:

1 Corinthians 12:31-13:3 ...earnestly desire the better gifts; AND YET A FAR EXCELLING WAY I DO SHOW TO YOU......

Paul there contrasts ALL the lesser charisms of 1 Cor 12 with the charism that excells them all--LOVE (12:31).

>[Green] Yes, we generally agree on I Cor. 13:1-3. We disagree about I Cor. 13:8-9 being a restatement of I Cor. 3:1-3

[PV] The "allotment" of the charisms mentioned in 13:8-9 is to be compared with the full amount of the same charisms discussed in 13:1-3 (i.e., "all faith," "all gnosis, bestowing "all goods"). Again, the "in part" / "out of an allotment" mentioned in 13:8-9 is also mentioned in Romans 12:6, Eph 4:7, and Eph 4:16. Charisms come in various "measures," "proportions," "allotments." One may have ALL faith to move mountains, or one may have only a little faith--i.e., a lesser portion, part, measure, allotment, ration.

......

>>[PV] In 13:8-9, Paul is simply restating 13:1-3....

>[Green] Continuationism makes Paul appear to do so, by: 1. Re-translating "katargeo" in I Cor. 13:8 as "made useless"

[PV] "Made useless" is the meaning of "katargeo," and this "made useless" is earlier described as "nothing" and "of no profit" concerning the same charisms at 13:1-3. There is no way around this. The meaning is specifically and logically contrasted with Love's "unfailing superiority" described in 13:4-8.

>[Green] Continuationism makes Paul appear to do so, by: 2. Re-working "cease" (I Cor. 13:8) to mean the "stopping of the efficacy and profitability of tongues"

[PV] This precise meaning was given to us at 13:1. This meaning is also plainly, logically contrasted with love which "never falls." Since "love never falls" does NOT mean "ends at AD 70," then the contrast made with tongues stopping also cannot refer to AD 70.

>[Green] Continuationism makes Paul appear to do so, by: 3. Using "katargeo" in two different senses in the same immediate context ("made useless" in I Cor. 13:8 and "done away" in I Cor. 13:10-11)

[PV] Not two different senses. Paul, in a straighforward manner, states that just as the charisms may be brought to nothing by immaturity, so also the maturity in love brings to nothing the immaturity--just as "manhood makes useless the things of the child" (13:11/14:20)

>[Green] Continuationism makes Paul appear to do so, by: 4. Paraphrasing "that which is in part" as "immaturity" / "imperfection" in I Cor. 13:10

[PV] For added clarity and for your benefit, I showed that the "prophesying out of an allotment" ("ek merous") of 13:9 is the same as Romans 12:6 and Eph 4:7,16:

Romans 12:6 "having charismata differing according to the grace given us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith" (Rom 12:6)

Ephesians 4:7,16 "unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ... the whole body [is] joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, ACCORDING TO the effectual working in the measure of every part"

So, there are measures, proportions, allotments, rations of each charism across the entire range of charismata.

>[Green] Continuationism makes Paul appear to do so, by: 5. Individualizing and de-historicizing the prophecies of I Cor. 13:8,10,12

[PV] In no case do we see a corporate or non-New Covenantal application for those passages. Rather, we see St. Paul individualize them (in 1 Cor 14:20/2 Cor 13:9,11), and we see St. John individualize them as well (in 1 Jn 2:5-6 and 4:11-19).

The cessationist system is untenable at every point in its exegesis of 1 Cor 13. Cessationism's entire thesis against the Holy Spirit's continuing gifts--and all the related damage that comes with this thesis--is based on nothing more than a flawed interpretation of a single bible verse.

......

>>[PV] First, we agree that 13:4-8 is a statement about love's nature--specifically, its surpassing EFFICACY, and NOT its duration in history.

>[Green] As you know, we do not agree that I Cor. 7b-8a is merely a statement about love's "efficacy":

"....[Love] endures all things; love never falls." (I Cor. 13:7b-8a)

As has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt so as to satisfy any unbiased mind, the above Scripture speaks of love's "abiding" / "enduring" / "always-standing" quality; and it is set in marked contrast to the "katargeo" and cessation that immediately follows in verse 8b.

[PV] All unbiased minds can see that "love never fails/falls" is the grand summation of 13:4-7. It is clearly a statement of love's efficacy. Therefore, the less excellent charisms must lack those precise qualities described in 13:4-8, as is logically mandated by Paul's contrast. None of this has anything to do with AD 70. Rather, it all has to do with experiencing the New Covenant powers of the Spirit within the high-ranking virtues of the Love of Christ, and being thus sanctified unto that which is perfect.

......

>>[PV] To say that some automatic realization of fullness in love and holiness came upon all citizens of the Church at AD 70 due to the Parousia violates the entire concept of "sanctification" and "perfection of saints" ....There is no magic substitute for perfecting saints

>[Green] As I have made clear repeatedly, I do not hold to some kind of "automatic," "magic" "substitute for sanctification." You know that I do not divorce or sever the sanctification-process from the "change" / "transformation." The Lord returned to consummate the sanctification-process by making His habitation in the Spirit-sanctified Church.

[PV] Your concept is held presuppositionally, but not scripturally. The "corporate sanctification" concept even fails on sheer logic, as illustrated by the following question: What could be a single, corporate "Spirit-sanctified Church" beyond AD 70 that lacks the unity and holiness in love required of the first saints to be deemed a "Spirit-sanctified Church"? Could an unholy and schismatic body today be the same "perfect Church"? Certainly not. So, if rampant schism and unholiness could not have constituted the "perfect Spirit-sanctified Church" at AD 70 (cf.1 Cor 12:24-28), then why could it be thus after AD 70? Did the Parousia release all the members of the body from having to uphold the necessity to be united under one leadership and perfected in holiness and love? Could such really be the one "Spirit-sanctified Church" after AD 70? God forbid. Yet such illogic is produced by the cessationist view.

......

>>[PV] There has been no dismemberment of the body, as your view necessitates.

>[Green] Gifts are not members of Christ's Body.

[PV] They are, as Paul so plainly states:

1 Corinthians 12:14,18,28,31 For the body is not one member, but many...and now God set the members, every one of them, in the body, as it hath pleased him...God hath set some in the church: first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues...covet earnestly the best gifts....

The gifts are clearly the members of Christ's body, set in the Church by God himself. Your view requires the dismemberment of the body via the discarding of key body parts: gnosis, prophesying, tongues, apostle. And in fact, your view mandates the dismemberment of all the charism members--not just three or four.

......

>>[Green] How is that not two definitions in the same immediate context for the word "katargeo?" You evaded the question.

[PV] You evaded the answer. Paul states that just as the charisms may be made useless by immaturity, when perfection in love comes it makes immaturity useless, just as "adulthood makes useless the things of the child." It is very straightforward.

......

>>[Green] Using the words of I Cor. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10. I have made this request eleventy-one times now (give or take), and you have done nothing but evade it with paraphrases and with lengthy expositions of your paraphrases. Please, either fulfill the request or admit that the continuationist system is powerless to do so. Here's the request again: Using the words of I Cor. 13:9-10, please tell me what, exactly, were said to be "in part" in I Cor. 13:9-10.

[PV] I have said this before. Multiple times. I showed that the "prophesying out of an allotment" ("ek merous") of 1 Cor 13:9 is the same as Romans 12:6:

Romans 12:6 "having charismata differing according to the grace given us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith"

There are measures, proportions, allotments, rations of each charism across the entire range of charismata, all needing to be expressed within the greatest charism of "agape" (love). Your apparent frustration with me here is evidently generated due to a lack of familiarity you have with the subject matter of charisms, and not to evasions on my part.

......

>>[Green] Your evasions are endless. Please, either answer the question or simply admit that the continuationist system is unable to answer it forthrightly. Here's the question again: Do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is no longer for the purpose of constructing the New-Covenant Temple of God (the Church)? (Eph 2:21)

[PV] Your suggestion of "evasions" is a polemical accusation without any merit. All along you have PRESUPPOSED that sanctification was something to be applied to a corporate New-Covenant Temple of God. And you continue to presuppose that the sanctification verses we are discussing are to be applied to a single corporate entity--but this is an unsubstantiated claim. You need to make a case for your position instead of merely presupposing it. I have argued a clear, substantiated case that sanctification's purpose is to make many men mature in love and holiness, so that Christ himself is fully grown in them by a transformation process within them. This transformation into the image of Christ is not spoken of as sanctification of a single corporate entity, but rather is a work of the Spirit creating "many brethren" of Jesus, the firstborn son (Rom 8:29/2 Cor 3:18/Heb 2:10-11/Romans 12:2/Eph 3:19/1 Jn 2:5-6).

So, do you agree that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification continues for the purpose of forming Christ in "many brethren," Jesus being the firstborn among them (Rom 8:29/Heb 2:10-11)? If yes, why do you argue that the means to achieve that end have changed? I argue that the means used to bring men to perfection in the first century are the same today--the process is bound within the terms of the New Covenant itself. On the contrary, you argue that the means necessary to bring men to perfection have changed, no longer requiring at least four members of Christ's body: gnosis, prophesying, tongues, apostle. (In fact, this "partial cessationist" position is internally inconsistent and fully indefensible.)

......

>>[Green] As you know, I do not deny that God still uses evangelists, pastors and teachers today.

[PV] Here again, you are showing us this inconsistent "partial cessationism." You say the charismata given at the ascension --which, according to Eph 4:8-12, included "apostles/prophets/pastors/teachers/evangelists"-- are now lacking two of those. Presumably, the two are lacking BECAUSE "the perfect came at the Parousia and the goal was achieved." If so, this same reasoning eliminates the need for ALL charisms spoken of in Eph 4:11, for they were ALL working together on the very same task. You do great violence to scripture by doing away with two charisms in Eph 4:11 and not all five.

Additionally, this list of five charisms is parallel to the lists shown in 1 Cor 12:28-30 and Rom 12:6-9. They are all one class of charisms, and Paul gives no power to "line-item veto" whichever ones we might arbitrarily wish to eliminate.

[back to top of page]

2/07/03 - [Green's Response to PV]

>>[PV] Look closely, Dave:

(1 Corinthians 12:14,18,28,31) For the body is not one member, but many...and now God set the members, every one of them, in the body, as it hath pleased him...God hath set some in the church: first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues...covet earnestly the best gifts....

The gifts are clearly the members of Christ's body... Your view requires the dismemberment of the body via the discarding of key body parts: gnosis, prophesying, tongues, apostle

[Green] I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you interpreting I Cor. 12:27-28 to mean that (1) "miracles" is a member of the Body, and that (2) "healing" is another member of the Body, and that (3) "helps" is another member of the Body, and that (4) "governments" is another member of the Body, and that (5) "tongues" is another member of the Body, and that (6) an individual believer is also a member of the Body?

[back to top of page]

2/07/03 [PV's Response to Green]

>>[Green] I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you interpreting I Cor. 12:27-28 to mean that (1) "miracles" is a member of the Body, and that (2) "healing" is another member of the Body, and that (3) "helps" is another member of the Body, and that (4) "governments" is another member of the Body, and that (5) "tongues" is another member of the Body, and that (6) an individual believer is also a member of the Body?

[PV] Yes. 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 [ALL] teaches that the charism-offices are the members of Christ himself, and that diversities and varieties of these charism-offices (members) are given to each man to profit--the Spirit bestows member-offices to each (12:7,11). The total of the charism-offices are Jesus Himself (12:12). The charism-offices are what provide all body functionings ("seeing," "smelling," "hearing" etc. - 12:14-18). The charism member-offices of Christ were set in the body by God:

(1 Corinthians 12:14,18,28,31) For the body is not one member, but many...God set the members, every one of them, in the body, as it hath pleased him...God hath set some in the church: first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues...covet earnestly the best gifts

......

>>[PV] Above, you interpret Eph 4:13 to speak of cessation of charisms

>[Green] I don't interpret Eph. 4:13 to speak of cessation. I interpret Eph. 4:13 to speak of the attainment of the Church unto the Parousial "PERFECT" [TELIOS] Man. Paul also spoke of the coming of the "PERFECT" [TELIOS] in I Cor. 13:8.

[PV] Where do you see a "Parousial perfect" in any of these texts? It's not there. Rather, the "perfecting of saints" is in view, and this is explicitly said to be done THROUGH charism-based ministries--i.e., THROUGH the ascension-gifts Christ set in the body at His ascension (Eph 4:8/1 Cor 12:18,28). The Parousia does not perform this work, the charismata ministries do. Additionally, those ministries exercised in love were expected to repair the disunity (schism/rebellion against ordained authorities) that was rampant in the Church (cf. 4:13's "unity" to 4:1-6, 1 Cor 1:10-13, 3:1-5, 12:14-28).

......

>>[PV] You clearly argued Eph 4:13 as support for cessation. You said:

"My belief is that 'in-part' knowledge (i.e., knowledge that was still in process of being made known / revealed) was going to be abolished / done away. That kind of knowledge was to be done away at the coming of full knowledge (I Cor. 13:8-9,12), at the Parousia: 'Until we all attain to the unity of the...knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature Man....' " (Eph. 4:13)

>[Green] Yes, I "argued Eph. 4:13 as support for cessation." No, Eph. 4:13 does not "speak of cessation."

[PV] She's either pregnant or she's not pregnant. If the Eph 4:11-16 passage "does not speak of cessation," why do you think you may use it as "support for cessation"? Isn't this just another admission that the scripture doesn't teach cessationism?

......

>>[Green] Neither the cessation nor the continuation of the gifts in Eph. 4:11 is implied in Eph. 4:13. It does not follow that, "If 1 Cor 13:8-9 did speak of the end of [revelatory] charisms at AD 70, then Eph 4:13 would also have to speak of the end of the charisms of 4:11 at that time..."

[PV] I would first point out that neither Eph 4:11-16 nor 1 Cor 13 say anything concerning the Parousia. In fact, the "perfect man that sees" (1 Cor 13:10-12) is NOT something attached to the Parousia, as Paul so plainly shows in 1 Cor 14:20 and as St. John tells us in 1 Jn 2:5-6/4:11-19.

I would further point out that, since Eph 4:7-8,11-16 is the clear parallel to 1 Cor 12:27-13:12, therefore it MUST follow that, "If 1 Cor 13:8-9 did speak of the end of [revelatory] charisms at AD 70, then Eph 4:13 would also have to speak of the end of the charisms of 4:11 at that time..."

In fact, we know you interpret it as such, for you interpret Eph 4:11-16 as the ceasing of "apostle and prophet" charisms. Yet, at the same time, you try to retain "teacher, evangelist, and pastor" charisms which are mentioned in the same sentence. Therefore, you are an inconsistent cessationist. You plainly use each of these two passages to speak of the ceasing of certain charisms listed in each. In the Eph 4:11-16 passage, you teach the ceasing of the apostle/prophet charisms, and in 1 Cor 12-13 you teach the ceasing of tongues, gnosis, and prophesying charisms. This is inconsistent, for if the apostle and prophet charisms of Eph 4:11 ceased because the "parousial perfect" came at AD 70, then so must have the teacher/pastor/evangelist charisms ceased at that time, for they are listed together in 4:11 as all working to achieve the same "Parousial perfect" (in your view). Therefore, if the "Parousial perfect" was achieved, then the five charisms that were working to attain "Parousial perfection" indeed attained their mission and are no longer necessary (in your paradigm). Thus they have ALL ceased. You are an inconsistent cessationist.

Perhaps here we can wrap up our discussion on charisms and the Holy Spirit. I've enjoyed it very much, and appreciate your willingness to dialogue in this forum. So far as I can tell, we've each presented our views clearly and defended them accordingly. I trust this dialogue has been profitable to all and will serve as a springboard for many future discussions on the role of the Holy Spirit in this eternal age (the NT's "age to come").

[back to top of page]