Hi,
I discovered this site by accident and was browsing it when I came across the following article:
The Cessation of the Sign Gifts by Prof. Thomas R. Edgar
I have grown up listening to the arguments he produced and remain totally unconvinced. So I joined in order to enter into some debate with him. I don’t know if he bothers reading what he wrote and what people say in reply, but I hope so.
I will not attempt to argue point by point the questions he raises against “sign” gifts.
I presume that he is a professor of Theology (I don’t know him other than through this article) so I want to query two statements he makes which are of a more theological bent:
The first is this:
“The only remaining possibility for giving credence to the modern charismatic claims would be to produce direct statements of Scripture that the apostolic phenomena will always be present in the church,…However, there is no specific biblical evidence such as this…”
He later says:
“No Bible verse specifically states that tongues, signs, and wonders will continue throughout the Church Age. “
It is these two statements I want to take to task.
Firstly some background:
It is a common part of the Apostle Paul’s writing style to open with a greeting and then a prayer. In these he often made reference to the issues he wanted to cover in more depth later on in the letter. Many commentators have noted this feature of Paul’s writings so I don’t feel the need to justify it. Edgar will no doubt be aware of it. Usually Paul found a positive way to commend his readers in these initial parts of his letters – especially if he was going to rebuke them later on.

Now in 1 Corinthians Paul does this. He is going to give a long discourse on the gifts (to use Edgar’s distinction) “sign gifts” in particular. (I personally disagree with this distinction but we won’t debate that). So in his opening remarks Paul commends them on their possession of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 1:7).

I have been in the situation where a church leader was so determined to put down a Charismatic or Pentecostal position that he denied that this verse was talking about the spiritual gifts of ch 12-14. But this was just churlishness on his part. Take an example:
Say I was a friend of yours and I regularly wrote you letters. So today I am writing you a letter. Firstly I give you some news, e.g. “Last Friday I went to the movies and I saw Titanic.” I may not say any more about that outing in the letter or what I thought of the movie. But later on in the letter (several pages later on) I write the following, “Oh by the way, when I was at the movies I ran into an old friend of yours….” And proceed to relate the encounter with an old mutual friend.
Now the natural assumption (and the correct one) is that I am referring to the time I went to the movies last Friday night. Without any other qualifying phrase that is the natural and correct assumption.
So the natural (and correct) assumption when Paul starts talking about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12 is that he is referring to the gifts he talked about in chapter 1.
In this it is not the responsibility of me to prove this point – it is the natural inference. Rather it falls on the shoulders of those who do not want to agree that Paul is talking about the same thing to justify their position. It would be interested to see how one could do this. My church leader just stated it as fact, but it seemed ridiculous to me at the time and it still does.
So what did Paul say about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 1.
Another bit of background:
Let’s look at the address of the letter:
1COR 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
and our brother Sosthenes,

1COR 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ
Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ- their Lord and ours:
( I am using the NIV simply because it is the version I have on computer and I am too lazy to type anything else out. I hope this is satisfactory. I personally believe all of the translators of all of the major versions have done a great job so I am not going to quibble about versions)
The letter is clearly addressed to:
(i) The church in Corinth.
(ii) And every other Christian who reads it. There seems to be no time limit on this. Of course we would not want to put a time limit on it, would we? If we begin to say “this was only for the early church” then we have just eliminated 1 Corinthians from our Bible and our preaching. I’m sure none of us would want to put ourselves in the position of saying that the great chapter on Love (1 Cor 13) – which is strategically placed in the middle of Paul’s discussion on spiritual gifts – is “only for the early church. So let’s not go down that road.
Then Paul begins his prayer. V7 is the verse that interests us in particular.
1COR 1:7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait
for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.


Now let us do a little exegesis. Remember I am assuming the translators have done a good job in rendering the meaning of the Greek into English, so we really have no need to be experts in Greek to see what it is saying. We just have to know how to read English.

(i) The Pronouns. Understanding the pronouns is vital to understanding the text. I’m sure you agree.

“you do not lack”
Who is the “you” here? Well the answer is in the address to the letter, “church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”

Sounds like it includes us doesn’t it? If it doesn’t then we are back into the argument I outlined above – how much of 1 Cor applies to us and how much doesn’t? Not a productive line of reasoning.

“as you eagerly wait” – the same “you” – the church in Corinth – and every other Christian.

“our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed”
The “our” here thus is Paul, Sosthenes, the Church of Corinth and every other Christian.

So what Paul says here, and pretty plainly to, is that “the church does not, will not, lack any spiritual gift of the type later described in 1 Cor 12-14 until the “revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Now in order to overcome the obvious problem this verse creates for the cessation theory some interpreters argue that this “revelation of our LJC” refers to the finishing of the NT canon.
But I am sure that Professor Edgar will be abundantly aware that this is not a tenable interpretation. In every case in the NT where this phrase (or parallels) is used it always refers to the second coming of Christ. That is why the book of the Revelation is called that. If it means something different here then it is a novelty and, as such, we would expect Paul to indicate he is using it in a different way to how he normally uses it. In other words we are back to my illustration about the movies. Without additional clarification we are compelled to assume the common meaning.

So this verse would seem to be a complete contradiction of Professor Edgar’s claim that: “No Bible verse specifically states that tongues, signs, and wonders will continue throughout the Church Age. “
How specific does God have to be?
If you don’t think this is specific enough then let’s go to another scripture that teaches the same thing:

1COR 13:8 Love 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.

1COR 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

1COR 13:10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

1COR 13:11 When 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 childish ways
behind me.

1COR 13:12 Now we see but a poor 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.

1COR 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the
greatest of these is love.

Now this is the passage most interpreters of this ilk use to justify the belief that certain of the gifts were intended to pass away (at the end of the apostolic age?).
But let’s see what it says. Remember Paul is unlikely to contradict here what he said in 1 Cor 1:7 so whatever interpretation we derive here needs to be in agreement with the plain statement of 1 Cor 1:7.
In this passage Paul compares and contrasts two times and states. It would be helpful for us to draw this up as a chart: (Sorry, the chart lines didn't come through when I clipped into the site so I hope you can follow the comparison
Now Then
Imperfect Perfect
Know in part, Prophecy in part Will know perfectly even as
we are known
Is like childhood Is like adulthood
We see as in a dirty mirror Face to face
We have gifts like tongues Such gifts will pass away

Probably the key phrase in this comparison is found in v12: “then we shall see face to face.”
This is clearly talking about a personal encounter – we, as people, will meet another person – and that meeting will be face to face.
The group I grew up with argued that the “perfect” referred to in v10 was the coming of the completed canon of scripture, and with that the gifts passed away. But how do we see “face to face” with a book? That interpretation is untenable. The only thing we see “face to face” is other people.
So this passage is a second clear confirmation that the (sign) gifts will endure in the life of the church until the Second Coming. The double witness of 1 Cor 1:7 and 1 Cor 13:8-13 should be enough to satisfy any Bible student.

Especially in the face of the fact that there is NO scripture that says they will cease at any earlier time.
Edgar himself admits this in his next sentence: “Nor is there a verse that specifically states they will cease at the end of the apostolic age. However, this does not mean that one cannot take a position on this issue”.

I agree, one can take a position on the issue, and one must, because of these reasons:
(1) The scripture does actually say when the gifts will pass away – as I have just demonstrated – and it will be at the Second Coming.
(2) If we take a position otherwise then we take a position that is contrary to scripture so we are willingly taking a stand that is a deception. If we teach that then we are willingly teaching deception to others.
(3) If we deny the reality of the experience of Charismatics and Pentecostals then we automatically consign them into a basket which we label “deceived fanatics” – when in actual fact it may be we who are deceived. They may, in fact, be onto something that we should all be on to.
(4) If the experience of Charismatics and Pentecostals is right, if they are experiencing the gifts of the Holy Spirit, then by denying that these things are the gifts of the Spirit we are, by implication, calling them demonic deceptions AND then, by nature of the fact, we are committing a great sin against the Holy Spirit.

MATT 12:31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

MATT 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be
forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be
forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

MATT 12:33 "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad
and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.

These words of Jesus are in the context where certain Jews had said that Jesus’ actions were “of the Devil”. Jesus here counters this by claiming that his works were “by the Spirit of God”, but to call the works of the Holy Spirit the Devil’s works is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. In the context this has nothing to do with salvation but has everything to do with the demonstration of the Spiritual Gifts that Jesus routinely did.

A sombre thought.

I would hope Professor Edgar will respond to this.

John B.