Wanted to add another comment, but got sidetracked with exams and holidays. Your argument about the perfect relating to knowledge may well be the best explanation of the Greek. Much of the walk-through of the Greek was probably unecessary though. I lost what your argument was, btw. Nevertheless, it does not make much sense to say that we have perfect knowledge, especially since Paul had imperfect knowledge, and we get much of ours from him.
@SaudaraLink Paul does not centrally speak of his own understanding as an individual. He speaks of the Church because the idea of the Church is a central idea of the context and the verbs reflect the plural "we." Only in verse 11 does Paul use a parenthetical allegory of his own understanding, which reflected his then present maturity of another category of maturity--something already fulfilled.
@SaudaraLink The "knowledge" I qualified was revelatory prophetic knowledge, not the Church member's knowledge. As the Church matures handling the Word of God, she does not need prophetic gifts--but that is not to say she doesn't still need the Word of God for sanctification! Indeed she does!
@Bibletouchstone Yet you have argued that I Cor. 13 is about complete knowledge rather than incomplete knowledge. If the church's knowledge were complete, how could it err in regard to knowledge? The question is, as believers, are we to add to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge, like those to whom Peter wrote, or can we say that we as believers have no need of adding to our knowledge because we know all things?
@SaudaraLink When Peter wrote his second epistle, they indeed had heard the Word preached and taught.The Word they had was not lacking in anything with respect to their election and godliness.If Revelation was written after 2 Peter then we can surmise their was still more phrophesy to further equip the saints for things that were soon to come--yet not immediately necessary to be known at that moment in history.Still,we don't confuse the completion of the canon w/the Church's liability to err.
@Bibletouchstone When Peter wrote II Peter, his readers, who likely did not have copies of the NT canon, had everything they needed for life and godliness. They had heard the word preached and taught. It sounds to me as if your knowledge is 'in part' just like the rest of us If knowledge were complete, why would believers ever disagree over doctrine Do you even agree over every point of doctrine with other Presbyterians, in your own church? Do conferences have unanimous votes on everything?
@SaudaraLink I am not a full-cessationist. Brother, surely there have been believers who have believed in prophetic gifts in all ages of the Church. It is debatable whether the gifts were widespread, especially in areas that had an established Christian community with the reading aloud of the Scriptures. Nonetheless, your final appeal to antiquity does not mop-up your exegetical fallacies. However, know that I do not cast you out, much more, I am forbidden to rebuke you.
@SaudaraLink There is indeed true knowledge that is "not included in the Bible". There is, however, no necessity for such things to be revealed in divers manners--especially if God has elected to keep them from us in the first place. As a Presbyterian, I hold that all things that He has revealed are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation. There is nothing lacking in my faith--I need no further witness than the Word of God.
Paul wrote, 'Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ' not that our knowledge would exceed his by reading.
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
Wanted to add another comment, but got sidetracked with exams and holidays. Your argument about the perfect relating to knowledge may well be the best explanation of the Greek. Much of the walk-through of the Greek was probably unecessary though. I lost what your argument was, btw. Nevertheless, it does not make much sense to say that we have perfect knowledge, especially since Paul had imperfect knowledge, and we get much of ours from him.
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink Paul does not centrally speak of his own understanding as an individual. He speaks of the Church because the idea of the Church is a central idea of the context and the verbs reflect the plural "we." Only in verse 11 does Paul use a parenthetical allegory of his own understanding, which reflected his then present maturity of another category of maturity--something already fulfilled.
Bibletouchstone 1 year ago
@Bibletouchstone You drift really far from what the text says here. Paul writes of his own understanding, as an individual, to illustrate the point.
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink The "knowledge" I qualified was revelatory prophetic knowledge, not the Church member's knowledge. As the Church matures handling the Word of God, she does not need prophetic gifts--but that is not to say she doesn't still need the Word of God for sanctification! Indeed she does!
Bibletouchstone 1 year ago
@Bibletouchstone Yet you have argued that I Cor. 13 is about complete knowledge rather than incomplete knowledge. If the church's knowledge were complete, how could it err in regard to knowledge? The question is, as believers, are we to add to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge, like those to whom Peter wrote, or can we say that we as believers have no need of adding to our knowledge because we know all things?
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink When Peter wrote his second epistle, they indeed had heard the Word preached and taught.The Word they had was not lacking in anything with respect to their election and godliness.If Revelation was written after 2 Peter then we can surmise their was still more phrophesy to further equip the saints for things that were soon to come--yet not immediately necessary to be known at that moment in history.Still,we don't confuse the completion of the canon w/the Church's liability to err.
Bibletouchstone 1 year ago
@Bibletouchstone When Peter wrote II Peter, his readers, who likely did not have copies of the NT canon, had everything they needed for life and godliness. They had heard the word preached and taught. It sounds to me as if your knowledge is 'in part' just like the rest of us If knowledge were complete, why would believers ever disagree over doctrine Do you even agree over every point of doctrine with other Presbyterians, in your own church? Do conferences have unanimous votes on everything?
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink I am not a full-cessationist. Brother, surely there have been believers who have believed in prophetic gifts in all ages of the Church. It is debatable whether the gifts were widespread, especially in areas that had an established Christian community with the reading aloud of the Scriptures. Nonetheless, your final appeal to antiquity does not mop-up your exegetical fallacies. However, know that I do not cast you out, much more, I am forbidden to rebuke you.
Bibletouchstone 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink There is indeed true knowledge that is "not included in the Bible". There is, however, no necessity for such things to be revealed in divers manners--especially if God has elected to keep them from us in the first place. As a Presbyterian, I hold that all things that He has revealed are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation. There is nothing lacking in my faith--I need no further witness than the Word of God.
Bibletouchstone 1 year ago