Wow. What a great discussion. It is REALLY encouraging to see Christians discussing this typically controversial topic with love, grace, and kindness.

I must say that this is an area which has often puzzled me--but not to the point where I've really studied it in the Scriptures myself. I guess my interest was piqued again when about a month ago a lady was visiting our church and we got to talking about "cessastion" and how there are churches beginning to spring up who are "reformed" doctrinally (Calvinistic), quite conservative, and yet practice the gifts mentioned in this discussion. I confess that I have often been strongly against these gifts in particular because of my exposure to the misuse (and likely false use) of these gifts, but I had never really given them any serious consideration as gifts that could be used profitably today.

I intend to do a more through investigation of these Scriptures, but I do have one question. Regarding interpretation, in order for tongues to be used properly for the edification of the assembly, does there not need to be an interpretation? Also what about Paul's restrictions of 2 or 3 at the most speaking in tongues at a given meeting, one at a time, with interpretation? That doesn't seem to be the modern practice.

I wonder if part of our difficulty in understanding how these gifts can be used properly today comes from the fact that we don't actually meet together the same way as the early church. For most denominations, we have a liturgy that has everyone divided up into different Sunday Schools,one man preaching a sermon, a set time to sing, pray, sit down, stand up, give the offering, etc. and I'm not talking about Anglicans or Lutherans--I'm talking about Baptists, Pentecostals, Brethren, your "denomination" here. I'm wondering if the "tradition" that we've had for hundereds of years isn't necessarily Biblical, but merely traditional. I'm not saying it's all bad or wrong, but I wonder if we met in a less rigidly structured ways, if the Spirit would have more freedom to move the meeting the way He wants it to go--not the way our program says it's going to go.

repenter's

_________________
Ron Bailey

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (1Co 14:29-31 KJV)

I'm still trying to describe the context. Can you imagine this happening in the usual 21st century church meeting? Just imagine the kind of intimacy and ease of fellowship that is necessary for one man to stop in the middle of what he is saying because he sees that another brother has received a revelation.

First of all we have to sweep away all sense of decorum and etiquette such as we expect in the cathedral or mega-church or the great preaching centres where 'Saint AWT' preached so faithfully. This meeting is not being 'conducted from the front'. In fact, there is nothing resembling the function of the brother who is 'responsible for this evening's meeting'. There seems to be no expectation that the 'elders' will step in and add a corrective. In fact, the elders seem to be invisible when the 'whole church gathers together' in Corinth. Campbell Morgan prefered to 'conduct' the whole meeting, which he saw as a preliminary to the preaching 'I prefer to whet my own sword' was his phrase.

And why this specific reference to '2 or 3'? This is so unlike the New Testament to prescribe so precisely. (I am not doubting its authenticity, but am just trying to get into the 'spirit' of this meeting in Corinth). Let me say what I think is happening, and I freely admit that part of my reasoning is having seen it happen frequently in the church of which I am a member.

In an 'open' meeting where there is no order of service or principal preacher scheduled it is very possible for one man to dominate a meeting, particularly if the Corinthian disease of self-centredness is endemic to that gathering. It would be very easy for one, high profile, prophet to take the meeting wherever he wanted to take it. This might be efficient but it is not how an 'open' meeting is intended to function. We may have experienced this in public prayer meetings where one person dominates the praying; it may seem profoundly ‘spiritual’ but it has a dampening effect on everyone else.

Is there a 'rule of thumb' to help prevent this happening? Do you know the phrase 'rule of thumb'? Here is a web definition; An informal rule or guide-line which enables you to choose a correct answer in most situations. Howevr, a rule of thumb is a simplification and cannot be relied on to provide the correct solution in all situations. Use with care!. A guideline, but not an absolute science, that’s the idea. Here’s a rule of thumb for such a meeting; tell those gathering that their contributions must be limited to 2 or at most 3. That will make it difficult, if not impossible, for one person to ‘railroad’ the meeting. (I am presuming that these contributions are relatively brief) He may set the direction by his ‘prophecy’ and ‘give it a further push’ in the direction he thinks it should go, but then he has to wait to see if others feel the meeting should go in that direction. If something is revealed to another the meeting may take an entirely different direction.

The Corinthian letter is written to answer a question relating to the manifestation of the Spirit in meetings of the whole church gathered together. In such a context several ‘prophets’ might be in attendance. If so their contribution is to be governed by a ‘rule of thumb’, and the other ‘prophets’ are to ‘discern’. If the ‘contributors’ are sensitive to each other and not just rushing to take the lead, they will be able to see if others have something to share. And Paul would have had no time for the brother who interrupted another by saying ‘I just had to share, I felt the compulsion of the Spirit’… his response would have been what he says here And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (1Co 14:32 KJV)

This follows a statement where he says ye may all prophesy, one by one. Some have thought that he is contradicting himself here, but they have not noticed that the ‘rule of thumb’ is aimed at ‘recognised’ ministries, ie the prophets, whereas the ‘all may prophesy’ is referring to the gift of prophecy rather than the regular function of a prophet. If we want to be absolute literalists about this then we should limit the ‘prophets’ but not flow of prophecy within the meeting.

Then we will need to look at the use of tongues in a meeting…

_________________
Ron Bailey

This whole section of the scripture is a fascinating glimpse into the church at its beginnings. There is nothing else like this anywhere in scripture or history. We are witnessing a genuine New Testament church at work. It is not perfect. As Spurgeon once wisely said 'if you find a perfect church, whatever you do don't join it, you are bound to spoil it'.

The church at Corinth is in desperate trouble, the 'gifts of the spirit' are being used to enhance personal reputation and profile, but... and this is the wonder of it, Paul never advocates non-use but he does insist upon right-use.

In the light of the previous couple of posts we need to keep in mind the purpose of these next 3 chapters. First Paul must correct attitude and motivation, and then lay down some 'ground rules' for combined meetings consisting of several house-churches.

He starts the section by saying, Now concerning spiritual things, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant. (1Co 12:1 WEB). I have used this version to make an important point, 1 Corinthians never speaks about ‘spiritual gifts’. Paul uses the phrase ‘the spiritual xxx-es’. ‘spiritual’ is an adjective and it is in the plural but the final noun is not used. I think the WEB has caught the sense of it. The earlier part of his list of questions has had to do with ‘practical’ ‘earthly things’ now he turns to ‘spiritual matters’.

What is the overall purpose of this chapter? Is it to show the one-ness of the body which operates in diverse ways. In opposition to the Greek notions of fierce personal independence and action Paul is insisting that each ‘member’ must always be mindful of its larger purpose; the building up of the body. The joint-meeting is not an opportunity for a personal ‘workout’ it is a demonstration of the fact that ...in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1Co 12:13 ASV). This is a powerful challenge to us today. ‘baptised into one body’ is ‘ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα’, ‘we all into one body’. The Greek preposition ‘eis’ in this context has a sense of purpose within in it, it means ‘towards’. Paul is telling the Corinthians that one purpose of ‘baptism in Spirit’ was to bring many into one. If a central purpose of the Spirit is to bring individuals into corporate entity it shows how treacherous it is to use the things of the Spirit to define my individuality. To use a ‘spiritual thing’ to proclaim my uniqueness is in direct opposition to the Spirit’s intention in giving it. Anyone who speaks of ‘my ministry’ or ‘my gift’ has completely missed the point of 1 Corinthians 12.

Paul speaks in Chapter 12 of ‘differences’. To compare the verses in three different versions will give a better sense;
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (1Co 12:4-7 NASB)
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. (1Co 12:4-6 ASV)
But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all. (1Co 12:4-6 Darby)

The word ‘diversities’ is a word used in English grammar; diaeresis (US diereses). The dictionary definition is as follows; a mark (as in naïve) over a vowel to indicate that it is sounded separately. But it is more than that; although each letter is sounded separately, each letter has impacted upon the other and modified it so that naïve is pronounced nigh-eve. I had some thoughts on this a while ago; In a "diaeresis" each vowel affects the other to the degree that neither is what it would have been without the other. Each makes its distinct contribution but the two are one in effect. The sum is greater than its parts. So also in the church; there are identifiable distinctions but if they separate out in individualism the church looses the particular riches of combination and harmony. I like the word distinctions, which is Darby's choice in his translation. The word and its cognates is used in Lu 15:12, 1Cor 12:4,5,6,11. The first of these is the division of the father's wealth for the younger son (the prodigal).

If you prefer a musical illustration, these are not the single notes of a melody but the combined notes of a harmony where each note does not rob its companion of any value but wonderfully enriches it. The Corinthians were set on showing their prowess in ‘solo’ performances.

One last thought for this posting. Paul refers to all these ‘distinctions’ as the manifestation of the Spirit. This time I like the Good News Bible, which I think has caught the sense well; The Spirit's presence is shown in some way in each person for the good of all. (1Co 12:7 GNB) These ‘distinctive spirituals…’ are the way in which the Holy Spirit reveals Himself in the gathered church. These spiritual ‘things’ are not ‘things’ at all, they are the means by which the Holy Spirit reveals Himself and His presence. This underlines the Corinthian tragedy of a people who used these ‘manifestations’ to say ‘look at me’, ‘look at me’.



For further thoughts on a related theme please see Lar's The Corporate Vessel thread, and this quotation from T Austin-Sparks in particular It is an astonishing understanding that Paul has concerning the Body. You have only to stand back from these things as you read them, and feel this is either something amazing, or else impossible. Many have surrendered to the latter conclusion.
.

_________________
Ron Bailey

have just been reading "azusa street by frank bartleman" if u want to get a great picture of what or how maybe the early new testament church ran in the book of acts this is great,also a book called snakes in the temple goes into that there was no pastors leading churches in the bible but that all the office roles did aswel as deacons or elders were overseers

_________________
scot

_________________
Farai Bamu

...sorry again, that last one was "Jimm" not "IRONMAN"

_________________
James Gabriel Gondai Dziya