Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

I have lost count of the numerous times others kept throwing Galatians 1:8-9 at me, whenever I explained Galatians 2:7-9. that there is a gospel of the circumcision and a gospel of the uncircumcision.

John's gospel, as I have explained earlier in this thread here https://christianchat.com/threads/why-have-the-sign-gifts-ended.196068/post-4429813 , there are plenty of verses from him that linked born again to "obeying the commandments".

One thing for sure, you will not find salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross, apart from works in any of his writings.

I will refer you to the first section of @presidente's post #333. He said it well, and I see no reason to adapt it.

Exegesis makes sense out of what is in the text, and doesn't require that other ideas be added in. There is nothing nearby in the text to suggest that Paul is talking about the OT or NT either!

I know you will hear or see the truth of Gods word. You refuse to address scripture directly and hurl lofty sounding barbs at those who stand firm on biblical truth.

For the cause of Chrisst
Roger

One comment: Acts 15:37-39 explains why Paul did not want to take Mark along, but Paul's disagreement was with Barnabas, not Mark himself. It was not because they "couldn't get along".

You are resisting the Holy Spirit and not receiving the truth from the text. Perfect in the passage refers to complete not perfect in the modern English as in without flaw. You certainly know that and yet you persist in twisting Gods word to support a behavior which is not biblical.
Lovely now convince the rest of the Pentecostals of that simple truth. It will begin the journey to biblical truth about modern speaking in tongues.
I stand firmly against any who do despot to the word of God. Corrupt gospels and a church in rebellion against the Lord. The church has forsaken her mission and gone after false gods.

Show from the scriptures that what goes on in the Pentecostal church aligns with 1 Cor 12-14 and the book of Acts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You're the one throwing barbs.

He is not obligated to defend the Pentecostal church's claims or practices; only his own... which he has done so.

Would that be John 5:29?

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Thomas called Jesus 'My Lord's, but that does not mean there has to be more than one Jesus aso we can all say 'My Lord's. He can be mine and yours too. Paul's proclamation of good news can be ours too.

Acts 15 recorded an agreement about __Gentile___ circumcision. Paul himself circumcised the don of a Jewish mother. He went along with James' and the elders' request to provide f or the expenses of certain men in the temple to signify that he was not opposed to Jews circumcision their baby boys among other things.

that Agreement to excuse the gentiles was only reached after “many no small disputations”

And your opinion is far above the heights of heaven.
He has only recited the Pentecostal doctrines he has been taught. He cannot defend the indefensible. One who argues against God is not wise.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The same Gospel was preached to circumcised and un circumcised.

If it was the same, there would have been no need for the Jerusalem Council in the first place.

No, that is not true. Read Romans 4. The circumcised are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and so are the uncircumcised. Peter made the same point in Acts 15. The Gospel is not about whether to be circumcised or not. The discussion in Acts 15 is not about Jewish believers being circumcised.

Gentiles who sought to be circumcised because they did not trust in Christ were salvation were abandoning the Gospel.

You should be very careful how you throw around the name 'Holy Spirit.' You are the one who has accepted a system of arguments that leads you reject the operation of certain gifts of the Spirit. The text does not say what you assert.

The fact that 'telios' can be translated 'complete' does not prove your point. The word does not mean 'completed Bible.' That is the idea you are eisegeting into the text. Many serious theologians, even cessationists, recognize the serious problems with your point of view. One of the most well-known outspoken opponents of the operation of certain spiritual gifts in the church today is John MacArthur. He even argues that telios refers to the eternal state. Perfection, the complete thing, is coming. When it comes, Paul's speech, knowledge, and understanding when he wrote these scriptures will be like a child's in comparison to his speech, knowledge, and understanding. We still 'know in part.' If you knew fully then you would see the obvious error of what you are arguing, and how it is obviously inconsistent with the text of scripture. We still see through a glass darkly, now, and faith, hope, and charity still abide now.

If I remember correctly, you are a dispensationalist, so don't you believe that the two witnesses will prophesy in the end times? And don't you believe that these spiritual gifts that you interpret I Corinthians 13 to say had already been 'done away' will revive at some point during a future 7 year period so the two witnesses can prophesy? If so, that's really inconsistent. If they are done away when the perfect, comes, why try to argue they will come back, and if they will come back, why would that have to be during 7 years and not during a transitional period before it?

Believing what the Bible says about spiritual gifts is not the same as going 'after false gods.' That's a messed up way of misinterpreting things.

I am part of a house church, not a Pentecostal denomination. But there are things about Pentecostals I can appreciate, just like I can appreciate certain things about Baptists, etc. As for whether what goes on in a Pentecostal church aligns with I Corinthians 12-14, it depends on which things and which churches. When it comes to tongues and prophecies, there are Pentecostal churches that allow for both in their meetings. In some of the churches, after a tongue given out in the congregation, someone else interprets. There are other churches where people pray in tongues 'en masse' with no interpretation and I do not agree with that practice.

But let us consider whether what goes on in your typical Protestant church and churches with historical ties to Protestantism, including Baptist and Pentecostal churches is Biblical. Where does the Bible teach to have one pastor preach one sermon every Sunday? I can't find that? Where does it say to have a hymn sandwich? That is a sermon sandwiched in between two sets of three hymns? I cannot find that.

I Corinthians 14 is the one long passage of scripture that tells us what to do in church. (Chapter 11 is kind of long tells us what _not_ to do with the Lord Supper). In I Corinthians 14, we see instructions on what to do in church. Regular members of the congregation speak and sing to edify each other. Verse 26 says, 'every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath an revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.' It doesn't say anything about a pastor speaking one sermon, but an elder teaching would be allowed if 'every one of you' is allowed to have a doctrine. There are specific instructions that allow for speaking in tongues and interpretation. The passage commands the church to 'let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.' In addition to that it says 'For ye may all prophesy one by one....' Paul writes that what he had written were 'commandments of the Lord' and implies it is universal church practice when he says, 'what came the word of God out from among you or unto you only has it come?'

So how many Baptist churches (or whatever kind of church you go to) actually do what the Bible teaches when it comes to church meetings?

The Biblical instructions are much more 'charismatic' in some ways than many Charismatic or Pentecostal church meetings. But many of these churches are closer in some ways because they do allow for some measure of obedience to the commandments of the Lord for church meetings that many other churches do not.

Or much discussion. That doesn't mean the apostles disagreed. Peter and James (I'm assuming the Lord's brother) both spoke in favor of Gentiles not having to be circumcised.

I agree with your point. Just from the context alone, it is difficult to determine exactly what the "that which is perfect comes" really is. The Greek word translated "perfect" (KJV, NASB - Could be translated: Perfect, complete or mature). Men over the years have taught it to mean: "The Lord", The Bible's full revelation completed", and "The maturity of the believer in the eternal state".

The meaning "The Lord", I believe should be rejected because of the Neuter Gender aspect of the text. The writer did not say: "that whom is perfect comes" but rather "that which is perfect comes" or "that which is complete comes". This would seem to be pointing us then to either the Bible or the Saints completion in eternity.

We agree on all this so far.

I reject the "completed Bible" view because it requires an untenable circular argument with regard to prophecy, which Scripture itself refutes. Someone who holds that the only prophecy that exists is that which became Scripture must ignore the fact that the prophecies uttered by Philip's daughters did not become Scripture, and that no word of prophecy uttered by any of the Corinthians became part of Scripture. Further, they must hoop-jump to explain how Agabus was recognized as a prophet before speaking a single word of prophecy. No cessationist (that I have challenged) has ever provided a coherent response to this challenge.

In contrast, someone who is not bound to such a restrictive view of genuine prophecy has no issue with prophecy spoken (or written) after the close of the canon; they understand that it was never intended to become part of Scripture.

That leaves us with the full maturity of the saint in the eternal kingdom, presumably after death. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of another explanation, but I have yet to hear of one.

Yes you are correct, the contentious argument was with Barnabas about Mark. I may have misspoke earlier. The point I was making though is that Paul would not entrust himself to Mark because of his unfaithful service to them in Pamphylia.

Act 15:37-38 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. But Paul thought it not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

If I may add some further commentary to this idea: some people take 'that which is perfect' in the KJV to refer to a substantive 'that'-- a physical object that is perfect. But the Greek is τὸ τέλειον which more literally be rendered 'the perfect' or 'the complete.' We are waiting for some kind of perfected/completed state or situation.