Does I Corinthians 13 teach certain gifts ceased with the closing of the canon?

This is possibly a radical departure from the popular pro and con views. But I think people fail to differentiate between Joel's Gift of the Holy Spirit and Jesus' Baptism of the Holy Spirit. In brief, all believers receive the gift of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. But only those in the two outpourings, and those whom an apostle laid hands on received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues.
And the Baptism of the Holy Spirit ended with the death of the apostles. Being replaced with NT scripture.

Paul said we knew in part with tongues and prophecy. But now scripture thoroughly furnishes us.

The bible is way more than a book. The bible is the inspired word of God given to the church. The bible is given that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto good works.

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

What God has given is sufficient or complete and supplies all we need to know God and to know ourselves as God wants us to know.

Are you saying that neither Paul nor the Corinthians knew God when Paul wrote I Corinthians? Paul wrote about knowing in part versus knowing fully. Paul knew God... but he knew in part, as we all do now.



Like us, believers in the first century were saved, were being saved and will be saved.


Partial knowledge will be replaced with complete knowledge. John says that we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. We still await the salvation from heaven when Christ returns.


If our knowledge is complete, why do you disagree with basic historical doctrines of the church regarding Christ's return and the resurrection of the dead? Either the knowledge of the church is incomplete or your knowledge is incomplete.

Look at this quote from Judges,
And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

Your adding the words 'unity in love.' Paul wrote about coming to the full measure of the stature of Christ.



In I Corinthians 13, Paul writes about that which is in part being done away. He wrote that now we know in part, but then we shall know as we are fully known.

Paul does not say that the gift of knowledge will be done away with. Partialness of knowledge will be done away with. Knowing in part will be replaced with knowing fully. And he does not say that this will happen when love comes. He says at the end of the chapter that love already abides. Being perfected in love is a good and necessary thing, but that is not what Paul is talking about in I Corinthians 13. Paul's point when he says if he speaks with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love.... is not that tongues is unnecessary when there is love. Gifts must be exercised with love. He is exhorting them to love and explaining that the one who exercises gifts without love is nothing and is profited nothing. You are reading a strange idea into the passage that just is not there.

Since Paul likely did great miracles his readers does not, was that somehow proof that he lacked love? Jesus did great and powerful miracles. Would you criticize our Lord or His love? Greater love hath no man than this, than that a man lay down His life for His friends.


No, he does not say that. That is nearly as convoluted as the posts of our resident poster of convolution.

This is exactly what Eph 4 says:



Do you think John's readers were perfected in love, but since John himself was not, Jesus gave Him a book of prophecy? Prophecy is a gift, after all? Do you think Jesus doing miracles is a reason to doubt His love? Your strange theory can lead to some very bad conclusions. You are not understanding Paul's argument. You read your own theory into the text.

So now someone has to believe just as you do (have all knowledge, supposedly) to be a part of the church?

Let me ask you a question. If this is the case, is there anyone on the planet besides yourself who is a part of the church? That would make it very easy to love everyone else in the church as much as you love yourself.

So you believe Paul and Peter resurrect is real not figurative,

How do you know, what verse in the bible tell the story that Paul and Peter was resurrected and life for 1230 days (you believe 1230 days is figurative). Than murder

I give you Example in matt 13

Jesus give parable
, soil in matt 13 is figurative for human.

You say 1230 days in rev 11 If figurative, for what?

We know how gospel wrote don't we

Say the gospel of John.

John is witnesing what Jesus teach during His ministry oN earth. Than John wrote of what he SAW.

Not in the book of revelation. John SAW a visions or message from the angel

Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

It say wich must shortly come to pass.

To me the book of revelation is not happen yet when the angel talk to john

But you believe Paul and Peter die and resurect in the first century and prophecy before angel asking John to wrote or canonized the book of revelation?

Can you explain in detail what the cronology was?

Revelation also talks of things that happened to set stage for things that were to happen shortly

Rev 12:7Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

will the above happen in the future?

I don't know when that happen, because that verse not say when.

But rev 1:1 say that what angle tell to John in the book of revelation is shortly to come, mean not happen yet when the angel talk to him. And we have to Remember 2000 years ago the bible say I am coming back soon and now after 2000 years He is not coming yet

So the word shortly in revelation 1 can be 2000 years.

Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:



But my question is, you believe Paul and Peter was resurrect and prophecy before Canon, where that story from? In what book and verse in the bible?

I don't know when that happen, because that verse not say when.

But rev 1:1 say that what angle tell to John in the book of revelation is shortly to come, mean not happen yet when the angel talk to him. And we have to Remember 2000 years ago the bible say I am coming back soon and now after 2000 years He is not coming yet

So the word shortly in revelation 1 can be 2000 years.

Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:



But my question is, you believe Paul and Peter was resurrect and prophecy before Canon, where that story from? In what book and verse in the bible?

I forget to quote a verse that say I am coming back soon

Revelation 22:12-13 New International Version (NIV)
Epilogue: Invitation and Warning
12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Rev 12:7 are things that happened long before Revelation was written.
Yes, Paul and Peter resurrected- i have given you a verse twice, look at it.

I think you need to read some scriptures that you did not read, and also meditate on the ones you did.

The Corinthian former pagans Paul addressed in I Corinthians were likely not hanging around Jerusalem in the time described in Acts 2, or in Cornelius' house nearly 2000 km away. Yet Paul taught them that the Spirit gives gifts to the saints like the word of wisdom, word of knowledge, prophecy, healings, the working of miracles, etc., as he wills.

The Bible does not teach that scripture is all that is needed to thoroughly furnish us. It says that all scripture is given that the man of God might be thoroughly furnished, not that it is all that one needs to be thoroughly furnished. Give an atheist the Bible and he is not thoroughly furnished. He is not even a man of God. 'Man of God' is used as a near equivalent of 'prophet' in some Old Testament texts.

You can give a soldier a rifle so that he might be thoroughly equipped, but if you haven't given him a helmet or uniform, yet, he's not thoroughly equipped.

If you give someone a Bible, he's not thoroughly equipped unless he has faith and the grace of God in his life.

I also notice that some cessationists seem to get confused with the verse, wrongly thinking it says 'scripture is all that is given that..the man of God... thoroughly equipped. Instead of 'All scripture is given...'

The scriptures that say to covet to prophesy, and despise not prophesyings are profitable for doctrine also.

If II Timothy 3 were saying that scripture was all a man of God needed to be thoroughly equipped, then why was II Timothy 4 written? Timothy would have had all he needed at that point. Cessationists who use this as a prooftext use it to mean things that neither Paul or Timothy would have interpreted it to mean. Paul also exhorted Timothy to remember prophecies spoken over him to fight a good warfare by them.

In scripture, the Baptism came only in the two outpourings or through an apostles hands.

You can prove this in trying to find other ways to no avail. But in the same outpouring all believers receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I could say, "In the Bible, salvation only came to..." and then make a list of every individual or group of individuals the Bible indicates were saved. That's the same sort of reasoning, and it would lead to very bad doctrine.

I could say, "In the Bible, only Jesus and the disciples" (and whoever else mentioned) "ate fish. Therefore you shall not eat fish."

You are reading scripture with an a priori assumption that you should seek to limit the outpouring of the Spirit to certain events. Were all the people present at these two outpourings to whom John said, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire"? Peter quoted from Joel that in the last days, the Lord will pour out of His Spirit upon all flesh. He did not just say two outpourings. Your a priori assumption to limit outpourings of the Spirit contradicts prophecy and the teaching of the apostles.

Also, we see in the epistles that gifts and manifestations are given as the Spirit wills in I Corinthians. I Corinthians 14:13 tells the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret. It doesn't say to wait around for some apostolic hands to come to town to be laid on him. Timothy received one gift through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders.



Your line of reasoning here would lead to a really poor pneumatology. Paul wrote to the Romans that the love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

This youtibe below is in Indonesian.
But I try to tell this story in english. This girl was muslim, she dream about Jesus and accept the Lord. Her muslim family sad, they ask her to do a ritual call rukiyah, ( deliverence) because muslim think that a person that she meet in a dream was an evil spirit. She refused doing that ritual because she believe the person she meet in her dream was God, Jesus not demon, but her uncle Said just do It, If He realy God, Nothing Will happen, He Will protect you.

The process was about an hour and Nothing happen, she was ok.

Some people here may think devil pretend to be Jesus come to her in a dream and ask her accept Jesus.

Why devil ask her to accept Jesus? Devil do not like people come to the Lord isn't It?

All believers have the Holy Spirit. But the baptism happened in the first century through two outpourings or through an apostles hands. And ended with the death of the apostles. Scripture replaced tongues (the Baptism) with perfect (Complete) knowledge where tongues and prophecy were only in part.

If your knowledge is perfect and Paul's was incomplete, you would understand Paul's doctrine more fully than Paul did. Can you honestly say that you have never read Paul's writings at one time, come back to them later and gained some new insight that Paul clearly had when he wrote the epistle? Would you think Paul's knowledge of the mystery of Christ in about 54 AD was so little in comparison with yours, that it was like a child's understanding and yours was like an adult's? Your interpretation would put you in a superior position to the apostle Paul.

1 Cor 13:8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
[/quote[

Look at the word 'now.' 'Now we see only a reflection as in a mirror,,," and "Now these three remain: faith hope and love...' Love is 'now', in 54 or AD or so, as it is now. It was there 'now' when the spiritual gifts were active, along with hope and faith.

The passage does not say that love replaces spiritual gifts. We are to walk in love now, as the Corinthians were when Paul wrote the epistle. All Christians are to be made complete in love.

In this passage, the characteristics of knowledge was that it passed away and that it was in part. When completness comes in, knowledge will be full. We will know fully.

Do you believe people are now speaking in tongues in part but when the perfect comes they will speak in tongues in full?