How widespread were the charismata in the NT church? Cessationists downplay Corinth as anomalous. Charismatics counter with Rom 12:6-8, Eph 4:11, 1 Thes 5:20, and various passages in Acts.
But this seems to be a neglected passage: 1 Cor 11:16. I take it Paul is referring to the custom of head-coverings. He suggests that's universal in the NT churches. Even if his statement is hyperbolic, he must still mean it's the norm rather than the exception.
However, Paul has indexed head-coverings to women who pray and prophesy in church. By parity of argument, the scope of the charismata must be commensurate with the scope of head-coverings. If the latter are universal or the norm, so must the charismata be. That implies the charismata were pervasive in the NT church(es).
That, of course, doesn't settle the question of charismata in the post-apostolic era.
You're really confused here.
ReplyDeleteThe *custom* of headcovering was universal. That doesn't mean the situations they were required in were. It's a universal custom for wives to submit to husbands, but that doesn't mean it's universal that women are married.
>>Paul has indexed head-coverings to women who pray and prophesy in church. By parity of argument, the scope of the charismata must be commensurate with the scope of head-coverings.
Simply false. Head coverings apply, as you quoted, to prayer as well as to prophecy. So even if your argument holds that the behavior must be universal if the head coverings are, you're missing that prayer itself was included, so we need not get into prophecy.
You seem desperate to not believe in head coverings. That's one issue we'll obviously disagree on, but your willingness to do such insane gymnastics to say we can only hold to head coverings if we hold to universal prophetic gifts is another issue entirely.
You're confused about what women praying in church has reference to. Do you imagine that just refers to reciting a corporate prayer in unison? If so, that hardly fits the context, or the parallel with prophecy.
DeleteYour final paragraph is a non sequitur. It attacks an argument I didn't make. You are so obsessed with head coverings that you just assume my post is about head coverings. Wrong. My post is about the charismata.
If I'm hermeneutically "gymnastic," you're hermeneutically quadriplegic. You're unable to draw the elementary distinction between type and token. Female submission is the type (i.e. principle) of which a head covering was the token (i.e. symbol).
DeletePeople like you are so fanatical that you insist on the perpetuation of the token long after it ceases to token the type. You imagine piety requires you to reproduce empty symbolism.
The truly obedient response would be to make cultural adjustments to the symbolism so that type and token match.
There are various ways to signal gender differentiation and corresponding role relations. Ways that are culturally recognizable.
BTW, what makes you presume that in 1 Cor, Paul would classify prophecy as charismatic, but prayer as non-charismatic? Given his pneumatology, does he not think the Spirit empowers Christian prayer?
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=c2x1LmVkdXxqYW1lcy1rZWxob2ZmZXJ8Z3g6M2IyN2Q3MTBhYWRiZjI3Nw
Deleteand...
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=c2x1LmVkdXxqYW1lcy1rZWxob2ZmZXJ8Z3g6Mjk3MDBkODEzNjFjNDRmOQ
Kelhoffer's _Miracle and Mission_ is also entirely online in his publication list towards the bottom:
ReplyDeletehttps://sites.google.com/a/slu.edu/james-kelhoffer/publications
5th chapter seems relevant....