Jewish and Catholic Tradition

What is the role of tradition in religion? Is it positive or negative? In Jesus’ day, I think we have to say it was negative. I remind the reader that while Jesus, a Jew, walked the earth, he was living under the Law of Moses. Christianity, the religion he brought to the world, only began after his resurrection. In fact, without the resurrection there could be no Christianity. “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” (1 Cor. 15:17 NKJV)

Jesus had to deal with tradition while living under the Law of Moses with the Jewish leaders of the land. He and his disciples were constantly harassed by those who felt he and his followers were breaking the law of God. Those accusations were based on what – scripture or tradition? Obviously, on Jewish tradition, but one has to remember the Jewish authorities believed their tradition had God as its source, just as do the Catholics of our day.

Let us hear Jesus on the topic: “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.” But you say, “Whoever says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God’—then he need not honor his father or mother.” Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.’” (Matt. 15:1-6 NKJV, see also Mark 7:1-13)

The Pharisees were always watching Jesus for any transgression of their traditions, traditions which to them were equivalent in authority to the writings of Moses and the prophets. There would be no healing on the Sabbath, no plucking of grain to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath. The law of man-made tradition was made into the law of God, and they would hear of nothing else. Scripture alone was not enough. It had to be interpreted by those in positions of power within the religious community, which resulted in additions, subtractions, and perversions. Do you see any parallels in this to Roman Catholicism?

So that is where we were with tradition in the days when Jesus walked the earth. Jewish tradition continued to evolve with time. Judaism today is a religion far distant from the Law of Moses.

The apostle Paul spoke of tradition in some of his writings. In Gal. 1:14, he talks of his time before his conversion to Christianity when he was “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (NKJV) This would have been during the time when he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen to death, “And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” (Acts 22:20 NKJV) This is where a blind zeal for religious tradition can lead a man.

Paul further says, “Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” (Acts 26:10 NKJV) This, of course, was before his conversion to Christianity, but while he was enslaved to religious tradition.

After Paul’s conversion, in later life, he warned against tradition, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” (Col. 2:8 ESV) So, we have been warned.

But did not Paul speak positively about traditions? He did so in 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6. To the Corinthians, he said he praised them that they kept “the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (NKJV) To the Thessalonians, he said, “Hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV)

What are we to make of these statements? Just this, if Paul delivered the traditions to them, to the Corinthians, then that is what we would call teaching or doctrine as he spoke by the Holy Spirit being an inspired apostle. What else would you call it? A number of versions do not even use the word traditions here. The King James Version uses the word “ordinances,” the New Living Translation uses the word “teachings,” as does the Good News Bible, while the LITV (the Literal Translation) uses the word “doctrines.” It was not tradition in the sense in which men use the word today, but rather Christian doctrine that Paul delivered to them.

The same thing can be said for the 2 Thess. 2:15 passage where the NIV uses the word “teachings,” the NLT “the teaching,” the Good News Bible “truths,” YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) “deliverances.” The same can be said regarding the 2 Thess. 3:6 passage in that the same Greek word is used in all three passages, the word for traditions being in Greek the word “paradosis.” So the point to be made is that what Paul was speaking of was not traditions in the sense in which we normally use that word, but was speaking of his own spirit-inspired teachings he had delivered to those to whom he spoke or was writing to.

The apostle Peter also spoke of tradition. He speaks of “aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18 NKJV) as he spoke to the Jews of the Dispersion. One can surely see Peter was not speaking in an approving manner of the tradition they had accepted.

One can ask the question, one ought to, why should we blindly accept religious tradition – why? Is it because it cannot be wrong? Why can’t it be wrong? If it could be wrong in the first century, it can also be wrong in the twenty-first century.

Catholic Tradition

We turn now to tradition in Roman Catholicism. The reader likely already knows that with Catholics, tradition is on par with scripture in terms of having authority over one’s spiritual life. Traditional Catholicism has rejected the Bible alone as being a sufficient guide to eternal life. Furthermore, they have historically rejected the idea that a person unaided by the church can understand the Bible on their own. The church will tell you what it means. You can have a Ph.D. in biblical languages; you can be brilliant intellectually, but unaided by the church, you are helpless in discerning the true meaning of scripture. If you want to know what scripture means, you must listen to the church. They will tell you. What is a correct interpretation of a passage? Whatever the church tells you.

You cannot combat tradition in Catholicism. Why not? Because the church has declared itself infallible in its teachings, and people blindly accept that. It is an easy way out of being personally responsible. The Catholic Church has made itself untouchable. You can no more combat it than you could Judaism in the first century. Masses of people died in Judaism despite Christianity, and masses will die in Catholicism despite Christianity.

Eve did not get a pass from God for being deceived, nor did the man of God, who, after prophesying against Jeroboam’s altar in 1 Kings 13, was then deceived by an old prophet and paid for it with his life. Should we hope for a pass if we allow ourselves to be deceived by man’s tradition, whether in Judaism or Catholicism?

There is an aspect of Catholic tradition that most people who are not Catholic are unaware of. In Catholicism, tradition does not mean what you naturally think it means. With most of us, tradition refers to what has gone on in the past and then been handed down. We assume then that in religion it would be what has been handed down through the ages from the first century. That would not be necessarily so; it seems to depend.

Get on the internet and search for a timeline on Catholic dogmas. When you do so, you will find lists giving the dates of when this and that dogma became official. There will be many of them crossing the span of the past two thousand years. If these various dogmas came from scripture or the first century, they would have been incorporated from the beginning of Christianity. They came from tradition, Catholic tradition. I bring this to your attention to make the point that Catholic tradition does not go back all the way to the beginning of Christianity. It jumps in wherever the powers that be want it.

Catholics disagree among themselves on the meaning of tradition. The traditional view separates tradition from scripture. In Catholicism, only by combining the two can you have the sacred deposit of faith, as some call it, or put another way, “the word of God.” Scripture by itself is only partial, only part of the word of God. The word of God in Catholicism requires both scripture and tradition for completion.

A second school of thought in Catholicism sees tradition as being whatever the church says it is. I know, I know, no Catholic would agree with this statement, but hear me out. With this second school of thought in Catholicism, all of Catholic tradition is already found in written scripture, but the church has to bring it out (by its interpretation). Thus, they can find in scripture things the average reader cannot even imagine – transubstantiation, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, purgatory, etc., things you need the church to help you find. Some describe Catholic tradition as being “living.” I would certainly agree with that, living and growing, and that is just the problem with it. Any doctrine in Catholicism has to be either from scripture or tradition, so pick your doctrine and tell us where its origin was.

Roman Catholicism is a religion separate unto itself. It is not Christianity. I have no problem saying it evolved out of Christianity, but it long ago ceased to be Christian. So, why are we surprised? Did not the same evolution from truth into error occur in Judaism? Even the New Testament teaches there will be and must be a falling away before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:3). The scripture teaches there will be a falling away, so let us not talk and act like it cannot happen.

Let me play the role of a Catholic for a moment. As a Catholic, I declare the Catholic Church to be the one and only church of the New Testament. I claim to believe scripture, so what do I do with 2 Thess. 2:3, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day (the last day – DS) will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”? (NKJV) It says my church will fall away, for after all, my church is the only true church, according to Catholicism.

I cannot say this passage refers to the Reformation. Why not? There is no one in Protestantism sitting “as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. 2:4). In fact, since Protestantism is so diverse and divided, it is hard to see how that could ever be. And, yet, believing what I do, remember I am putting myself in the shoes of a devout Catholic, how can there ever be a falling away in my church since the church is said to be infallible, full of the spirit of God? I cannot solve this dilemma for the Catholics. I am sure the Catholics will have an answer if pressed, and when they do, it will be said to be infallible, for you see that is the way it is in Catholicism.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Denominationalists' Attitude Toward Peter

The apostle Peter has taken a beating among denominationalists. I would feel sorry for him save for the fact that I would be feeling sorry for the wrong party in view of the fact he was an inspired apostle of God and his antagonists are but mere men, men without inspiration.

It was not always the way it is today. For at least a few hundred years after his sermon in Acts 2 he was honored by those who proclaimed faith in God and belief in Christ as the Son of God. Today, however, men who claim Christianity pretty much just ignore his sermon on the Day of Pentecost approximately two thousand years ago for they do not like what he said and they no longer believe it.

Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven by Jesus himself in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NKJV) He used those keys on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 for the first time, and he did so by preaching God's plan of salvation for man. I have never heard anyone argue against that point.

However, few denominationalists believe that what he said that day is bound in heaven and thus fight against both Jesus and Peter as well as the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke that day. Wow! Is there no one they will not take on?

On that day in Acts 2 when those to whom Peter spoke "were cut to the heart (by Peter's sermon--DS), and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?'" (Acts 2:37 NKJV), Peter responded to them by saying, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) Their faith was evident by their asking the question.

Denominationalists say Peter could not have meant what the words he spoke seemed to be saying--baptism is for the remission of sins. Hmmm! I thought he was inspired; I thought the Holy Spirit fell on him and the other apostles that day prior to the sermon. If so, and I thought it was, I thought God was capable of saying what he meant to say. Have I been wrong? But then Jesus did say that "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mar 16:16 NKJV) Did Jesus promise in this Mark passage that he who is not baptized will be saved? Some seem to think so the way they preach and talk. The reality of Mark 16:16, according to their interpretation, is "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved."

But they would object and say I am misrepresenting them. They would say they never said that. Aren't things that are equal to the same thing equal to each other? If they say baptism does not save us, has no role in doing so, one can be saved without it, they are saying "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved" and they can object all day long if they desire but that is exactly where their doctrine leads them.

Poor Peter never did get it right his whole life. If only he could have received some counseling by today's Christians (?) who are in the know. In Acts 10:48 he is again commanding people to be baptized at the house of Cornelius. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (NKJV) The gall of the man, commanding a non-essential, but then if memory recalls correctly I believe that man Peter was inspired, was he not? Maybe it is not Peter who has the problem.

Sadly, many years later (approximately 30), Peter is still preaching error according to denominationalists for he goes so far as to say now for a second time that baptism is for salvation (Acts 2:38 & 1 Peter 3:21). He says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV)

I am in a minority but I think I will just go with Peter's misunderstanding and let the denominationalists go their own way. If they are saving a seat for me this coming Sunday it will be free for someone else's use. I am sure they are nice enough people and people who mean well but at my age I cannot afford to go along with the crowd. I want to go with Peter. I'll just take a chance that he knew what he was talking about and that God was able to use language plain and clear enough that a simpleton like me can understand. I will take him at his word.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Jesus Tolerance or Truth

Jesus' teaching on the narrow gate, a part of the Sermon on the Mount, is found in Matt. 7:13-14. The question being raised here is whether or not Jesus was being narrow-minded as he spoke of only one gate, of only one way, that would lead to eternal life. That is a pertinent question in the time in which we live, a time in which many are questioning Christianity, making accusations that it is exclusive and intolerant. Here is what Jesus said: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (NKJV)

As human beings, we sometimes believe and act upon wrong premises that can do us much harm. To use myself, as an example, I once believed and acted on the premise that if a person exercised faithfully and intensely he could eat anything he wanted and not have to worry about diabetes. I found out differently when I developed insulin resistance, but until the truth hit me squarely in the face, that was what I believed and the way I lived my life.

In America today, we have begun to think that the ultimate good is tolerance, and we are acting on that premise. We are so convinced that this is the case that we are closing our minds to other possibilities much like I had closed my own mind to the possibility of a man like me getting diabetes. Let me ask a question. Is tolerance of greater value than truth? Are we better off with a tolerant Jesus or a truthful Jesus? If we could have only one or the other, which would we be better off with?

A wholly tolerant Jesus would mean the end of justice, the end of righteousness. Would one want to live in a society that was totally devoid of justice? Could one live peacefully in such a society? How does one call heaven a place of joy if tolerance allows in the willfully lawless and rebellious, the evildoers and the vile, the unrepentant? God is indeed longsuffering, but he is not tolerant without end, nor would justice allow it.

If we believe Jesus was God's son, spoke by inspiration, and never sinned, then he spoke the truth about the two gates between which men must choose. There are only two and we all must choose one or the other and thus the corresponding path we will take to death's door and eternity. One must either accept what Jesus said as truth or else deem him a liar and no saint at all, let alone God and Savior. If Jesus is a liar, then you can forget about heaven and eternal life.

Jesus and Christianity are being challenged in America today by postmodernism, secularism, relativism, multiculturalism, feminism, humanism, Darwinism, atheism, nihilism, hedonism, by just about every "ism" you can think of. Our culture has changed so much in the last fifty years that today Jesus is no longer seen necessarily as good, as was the case in the days of my youth, but rather as one who is somewhat arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant. How dare he give us only an either/or alternative—his way or the highway.

The very fact he has given us an alternative to the wide gate and broad way that leads to destruction is no longer seen as grace, but rather as a threat of violence if we do not choose it. Instead of being thankful that we have an option, not just of escaping from destruction but of partaking in a glorious, joyful eternal life, many of us end up murmuring and complaining.

It reminds me of what Paul said when he wrote to the Galatians. "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16 NKJV) Has Jesus become our enemy because he told us the truth about the two gates? A man tells us the truth, and we resent it. Many among us have decided to reject what Jesus has said as truth; we will deny it and refuse to accept it. We reject the New Testament.

Our problem is we want a third gate, one that is not difficult to enter and upon entering is easy to travel and leads to eternal bliss. Narrow gates, when posted on roads, lead to narrow roads, which are anathema in a society that prides itself on tolerance of everything man's imagination can devise.

We want broadmindedness in religion and morality, but if we had it, would we not think it to be somewhat of an anomaly? Broadmindedness does not work in math, chemistry, medicine, banking, or any other field of endeavor I can think of. We all want exactness in those things, and if we are not to have chaos, we must have it that way.

Narrowness is not equivalent to persecution, as so many think, but is rather a prescription for success, success for the reason that truth itself is narrow. Deviate from narrowness in obedience to traffic lights as you drive in the city, and you endanger not only your own life but the lives of others as well, and it will be just a matter of time until disaster strikes. Tolerance says let a man do it. Truth says your tolerance will get someone killed.

It has always amazed me that man tries to make himself out to be God and make the rules that govern life when he cannot make one hair white or black (Matt. 5:36) and is totally helpless when death's door opens. He thinks he can play God, make the rules, and knows better than what God has said, and then has the audacity to accuse God of arrogance. Perhaps a mirror would be helpful.

I have often asked myself the question why men do not believe or make an effort to live faithful lives. What is the answer? Is it unbelief based on the intellect, on the study of the evidence about Christ where the New Testament is found to be wanting, based on myth, fairy tales, and fantasy? Well, the apostles knew whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them after the resurrection, and if he did not, what was to be gained by becoming martyrs? None of them became rich televangelists. There was nothing to be gained if it was all a lie, based on falsehood.

People do not reject Christianity based on evidence. It is rejected, and no attempt is made to live the life, because the human will finds the broad way more appealing. The gate to that road is broad and easy to enter, the road is wide and easy to travel, everyone is accepted, there are no restrictions, no speed limits, no policing of it, any lifestyle is accepted, sin does not exist on it for sin is not in the vocabulary of those who travel it, at least not in their own lives. The Bible defines sin as "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4 KJV), the law of God. Take God out of the picture, and there is no sin. Men may come up with moral standards, but if history teaches anything, it is that there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to man making moral law.

It is a world without God, without foundation, without any hope other than that God may accept you in the afterlife despite the fact you rejected him your entire earthly life and did so of your own free will. He told us about this other gate and other way, but we said we would have none of it, and now, at the end of the way, we do not like where the road ends. All roads do eventually end; the road reaches its destination.

"The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; and my people love to have it so, but what will you do in the end?" (Jer. 5:31 NKJV)

What happens, in the end, is easy enough to explain. "God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." (Gal. 6:7-8 NKJV)

Two gates, two ways of life, two destinations, life's choices. Was Jesus being narrow? Jesus was being truthful; Jesus was giving grace. Jesus was as tolerant as truth would allow and showed truth to be the greater value. Grace, which one could argue is a godly form of tolerance, was shown in giving us the knowledge of the facts and in providing the way of salvation. All that remains is human choice, man's free will to choose. The human heart is revealed in the choice that is made.

One final word: there is no such thing as not choosing a gate. An "I will decide later" approach is in reality a failure to choose the narrow gate and thus puts you in the wide gate and broad way that the many are traveling. It is not hard to enter a wide gate; thus no real effort is required. A narrow gate is another matter. You only get in that gate if you want in and make an effort. The choice is ours, but Jesus has already told us which road the many will choose. We can go with the crowd or take the road less traveled.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

The End of New Testament Miracles

Have miracles ceased? They have if we are talking about the kind of miracles performed by Jesus, the apostles, and those possessed of spiritual gifts in New Testament times. The purpose of those miracles was to confirm that the word spoken was from God. Such confirmation was needed. Put yourself in the shoes of those living back then. Here one comes into your midst claiming to speak for God. Is he delusional, a madman? Is he a charlatan? Why should I give him the time of day?

People speak of blind faith. The kind of faith the Bible demands of men is not blind faith but faith built upon reason, based on the word of God, confirmed by miracles. I believe not because I am naive and will believe anything and will buy bridges in deserts but rather because God said, "come now, and let us reason together." (Isa. 1:18 NKJV) I have done that--reasoning based on the word of God confirmed by miracles.

Why was the tomb of Jesus empty on the third day? Why could the Romans not find the body of Jesus? Why did they not even look for it? What profit was there to be had in preaching Jesus as did Peter and the other apostles if they knew they had stolen the body and hidden it? Was there money in it? Was there power? Was there security in doing so or danger? Why did those 12 men put their lives on the line to preach the gospel? Faith built on reasoning with the truth, a truth confirmed by the greatest miracle of all--the resurrection of Christ, is not emotionalism. The unbeliever cannot explain the empty tomb nor can they explain the lives of the apostles.

The word spoken, however, would have little effect upon men in a day and age when revelation was not yet completed, indeed was just beginning to be given, without miracles accompanying it. The people living in places like Asia (modern-day Turkey), Greece, and other remote locations knew nothing of Jesus originally. His life, his death, his resurrection were not broadcast over TV, all over the Internet, and were not in newspaper headlines. We have to put ourselves back in their time to understand what their situation was. When a man like Paul arrives in your village, the question is who is this man? What is he talking about?

The Bible thus says that after Jesus gave the Great Commission in Mark 16:15-16, the eleven, that soon became the twelve, "went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs." (Mark 16:20 NKJV) Paul spoke of the signs of an apostle. He said in speaking to the Corinthians, "In nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. 12:11-12 NKJV) In his first letter to them, the Corinthians, he says of his preaching that it was, "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:4-5 NKJV) "Power" is a reference to the miraculous.

The writer of the book of Hebrews also spoke of the same sort of thing, "God also bearing witness (with them--the speakers--DS) both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will." (Heb. 2:4 NKJV) So we clearly see the purpose behind miracles, signs, wonders, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the miraculous in general, when the word was being preached to people who knew it not.

The Bible also gives us a second reason or purpose for spiritual gifts in the New Testament church. After a person became convinced of the truth of the gospel and obeyed it, what then? He cannot order a Bible or New Testament from Amazon or AbeBooks or go to Wal-Mart and purchase one. Not only that, but the New Testament has not yet been given in its entirety.

The complete revelation of the New Testament, the Bible calls it the new covenant, occurred over the course of a few decades in the first century, not instantly in a year or two. The books were in the process of being written and delivered. How do the members of the church know how to live? How do they know right from wrong? The answer was spiritual gifts given by God for the purpose of instructing the church in righteous living.

Paul says of these gifts, "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all." (1 Cor. 12:7 NKJV) He is talking about spiritual gifts. Whatever your gift was (he gives a list of them in 1 Cor. 12:8-10, see also verse 28), it was to be used to profit everyone, not just yourself. "Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel." (1 Cor. 14:12 NKJV) Edification means to build up spiritually. "Let all things be done for edification." (1 Cor. 14:26 NKJV)

Understanding the purpose behind miracles and spiritual gifts helps one greatly in understanding a passage written by Paul found right in the middle of his discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14, a passage where he declares that there will be an end to spiritual gifts not when Christ comes again but before then. I refer to 1 Cor. 13:8-13.

"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:8-13 NKJV)

Let us note some things from this passage. Paul says plainly that prophecies will fail, tongues will cease, and knowledge (talking about miraculously given knowledge) will vanish. The question then becomes when. Can we find out? Yes!

Something will abide after these spiritual gifts have ceased. What will that be? Faith, hope, and love. What does that mean? Well, for one thing, it means that if hope still abides after spiritual gifts are gone, the spiritual gifts will be gone before Jesus returns, the second coming. We still "hope" after the gifts have vanished, but why am I hoping if Christ has already returned and I am now in possession of that for which I had been hoping? Once you have received that which you were hoping for, you do not continue to hope for it--there is no need. Do not let anyone tell you that spiritual gifts are going to last until Jesus returns. This passage destroys that false doctrine. One must understand that prophecy, tongues, and inspired knowledge as spiritual gifts were representative of all spiritual gifts in that all were to vanish, not just those three.

That which "is perfect" in the passage is the final total revealed will of Christ--the completed revelation of Christ--the New Testament in its totality of inspired teaching. Again, revelation was not all given in a single day or a single year. It was a matter of a gradual revealing of the truth over a few decades in the first century until all was given that was to be given. Perhaps reading 1 Cor. 13:10 will help you see this when read from another translation, "But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." (1 Cor. 13:10 ESV) Spiritual gifts were the partial, completed revelation was the "perfect."

One has to bear in mind that the word "perfect" often means "complete" in New Testament usage, and this passage is an example of it. The International Standard Version of the Bible translates 1 Cor. 13:10, "But when what is complete comes, then what is incomplete will be done away with." (ISV) The New Living Translation has it as follows, "But when full understanding comes, these partial things will become useless." (NLT) Full understanding came when full revelation was complete.

Another passage teaching the same thing is Eph. 4:11-15, "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head - Christ." (NKJV)

Note that apostles and prophets were to be only for a time--note the word "till" in verse 13. When would the "till" arrive? We can figure that out. We have enough information to do that. Note that when that time arrives, we will no longer be children tossed about by every wind of doctrine. This tells us that when the "till" comes, when "we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood" (Eph. 4:13 ESV), that false doctrine will still be taught but we will no longer be carried about by it. This means we are talking about a time prior to the return of Christ, for upon his return, false doctrine becomes a thing of the past. So again we prove that miracles, spiritual gifts, etc., are not to last until the return of Christ. They are gone before his return. So again, do not let anyone tell you that miracles and spiritual gifts are to last until Christ's return.

But one might object to this argument on the grounds that if this be true, then it would also eliminate evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Yes, it would--those miraculously qualified to do the work by being the recipient of a spiritual gift. One needs to bear in mind, however, that with the completed revelation of Christ to man, one no longer needed spiritual gifts to qualify or enable him for that work.

Also, beware lest you be led astray thinking that since what is called Christendom today is divided that "the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God" never arrived. Yes, that has been lost today, but that does not mean they never had it say back in 120 A.D. (just using that date as an example). Believe it or not, there was a time when things were not like they are today. Besides, there is a sense in which we all have the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. It is the Bible.

The unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God and how to obtain to mature spiritual manhood in Christ are found in the pages of the completed New Testament. Outside the New Testament, you can know nothing of or about Christ or of the faith aside from some Old Testament prophetic utterances. If you are carried about by false doctrine, you need not be. That is what you have a New Testament for--so you will not be led into false doctrine and can know the truth if you really want to know it.

What are the implications of miracles having ceased? Let me say to start that the implications are so great that some religious bodies will never accept it as fact for the simple reason it would destroy them as a religious body. If a religious group's very existence is dependent on the continuation of miracles, that is an exceedingly strong incentive to fight for them and argue for them and not accept New Testament teaching on the subject.

Remember, the purpose of miracles was to confirm the word. If you still want the world to believe you are a source of revealed authoritative teaching and preaching, teaching that cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament (emphasis here), received directly from God, then you must have miracles to confirm the word. You cannot have the Catholic Church without miracles, can you? If they want to hand down law and claim God's authority for it, then they have to have God performing miracles among them. No choice about it.

The Catholic Church claims authority and teaches many doctrines that cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament (I think they will agree with me on this). Why should any man believe them? There is only one reason--miracles. They must make the claim of miracles being performed among them and do their best to get people to believe they are genuine. They will never accept that miracles have ceased. If you are Catholic, logic requires that you believe in modern-day miracles. The miracles confirm that God is among them, approving of them and their teaching. They must have miracles to maintain their authority. They will have their miracles with no New Testament passages bothering them.

One must remember the Catholic Church believes authority resides with them and not solely with the New Testament. They are not willing to accept the New Testament alone as the final authority in religion. This is not news to anyone familiar with the Catholic Church.

Pentecostal groups have a different motivation. As far as I know, they have not tried to get humanity to think that God hands down law today through them, law not found in the New Testament, but they have misunderstood the New Testament. Their existence does depend on the continuation of miracles and spiritual gifts. All know this who know anything about them. If miracles have ceased, they are left high and dry, out in the cold, and have taught false doctrine. They must fight against what has been taught in this article. If miracles have ceased, as I have been teaching, then where does that leave Pentecostalism?

One must remember that doctrine does not exist in a vacuum. Every doctrine has implications. As we all from time to time examine our beliefs, we would do well to see where our thinking leads. We must accept the implications, for we really have no choice unless we are to throw all logic and reason out the window.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]