PROPHECY
1. The gift of prophecy is listed as a bona fide spiritual
gift at 1 Cor. 12:10, 28 and Rom. 12:8 (Eph. 4:11)
2. The word is prophāteia and contains two
ideas in its MEANING.
A. The preposition, pro, means before, and refers either
to a time or a location idea.
B. The verb is phāmi and means to speak.
C. It thus refers to someone who -
1. speaks BEFORE as in authority over and in front of
an audience.
forth-telling
2. OR, speaks BEFORE as in teaching about some event before
it occurs.
fore-telling
D. It is the same word that translates the Hebrew word
for prophet, but the two are entirely different.
3. The word prophāteia also contains two ideas
in its FUNCTION.
A. The activity of speaking forth or teaching God's word,
which can be done by any believer. 1Chr. 25:2-3; 1 Cor. 11:4-5
B. The actual spiritual gift, which in turn has two ideas.
1. In the Old Testament, there was the OFFICE of prophet.
The OT prophet is never described as possessing a GIFT.
2. In the New Testament, there is the spiritual GIFT of
prophet.
3. Spiritual gifts were not provided until after the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus. Ephesians 4:7-11
4. The gift of prophecy is a pre-canon revelation gift
providing both divine viewpoint dogma and guidance for the early church.
A. Dogma: 1 Cor. 14:3
B. Guidance: Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11, Agabus
5. The prophecy gift was a foundational gift that functioned
in association with the apostles in order to provide the church with an
absolute standard for both doctrine and policy. Eph. 2:20; 3:5
6. It is listed as a bona fide spiritual gift at Romans
12:8 and 1 Cor. 12:8-10.
7. Once the doctrine of God (the doctrine conforming to
good worship, 1 Tim. 6:3) is provided verbally and ultimately in written
form, the revelation gifts, including prophecy, are
no longer functional. 1 Cor. 13:8
A. All doctrine is in written form.
B. All guidance is based on application of that written dogma.
8. This gift as an authority communication gift, was not
provided to women.
1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:12
A. CF. Acts 21:9, the verb prophāteuo is a present active participle
and should be translated, "who prophesied," rather than who were prophets.
The emphasis here is on TEACHING forth rather than the fore-telling idea.
Women can "prophesy" that is, TEACH, as long as it is not in an authority
function over a man. Notice that when PROPHETIC information was provided,
Agabus was employed rather than Philip's daughters (Acts 21:10).
These women had a TEACHING function but not the GIFT of prophecy.
B. In the Old Testament, women had limited
teaching authority.
Ex. 15:20; Jud. 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14-20; Neh. 6:14; Luke 2:36-38; Prov. 1:8
C. During the church age, women who teach
are to minister over other women and children. Titus 2:3-5
D. This does not mean that a woman cannot
teach Bible Truth to an adult man.
It means that she cannot function as a teaching authority in a formal
assembly of the local church.
---------------------
DIVINE REVELATION IS DISCONTINUED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE WRITTEN CANON
OF SCRIPTURE.
I. Concerning the gift of prophecy and
personal revelation: The presence of the gift of prophecy in the church did
not indicate that God would be giving revelation to everybody. The gift of
prophecy was a revelation communication gift for function in the early
church. It functioned in association with the apostle gift to provide God’s
new revelation for the church (Eph. 2:20; 3:5). 1 Corinthians 14 is the
primary passage to instruct the church about the function of this gift (and
some of the other temporary gifts) during the time it was operable. The
reason for this is that the Corinthian church was guilty of serious abuses
and misuses concerning these gifts. Paul’s words at 1 Cor. 14:5 are not
saying that everyone CAN have the gift, for that is impossible in light of 1
Cor. 12:29 (“not all have”). He is simply expressing a desire that everyone
would be a teacher of others and promote the edification of the church. That
is what the prophet really was. His job was not so much to give “prophetic”
information but “revelationary” information that was new for the church and
unknown in previous generations and thus, functioned as a teacher. (The
teacher, didaskalos, at 1 Cor. 12:28 and teaching, didache, at 14:6 - refers
to explaining that which has been revealed.) When he says, “I wish you all
spoke in languages” it was a reflection of the true purpose for the gift,
which was an evangelistic outreach to the nation of Israel only (1 Cor.
14:21-22, “this people.”) Paul had a great desire for the salvation of his
Jewish kinsmen. However, this also is an impossibility in view of the fact
that “not all have the gift of languages do they?” It is accordingly
imperative to realize this verse expresses an “idealistic” desire on the
part of Paul but not a “realistic” desire (the same kind of comparison can
be made at Rom.10:1 with Rom. 11:25 - It is impossible for that desire to be
fulfilled). This does not make his writing suspect in any way, for he is
simply expressing his emotions while making an important point. “In the
church” the most important thing is edification through teaching (prophecy,
1 Cor. 14:18-19). Outside the church, the most important thing is evangelism
(languages). So, in view of the inescapable restrictions placed on
possession of the gifts at 1 Cor. 12:29-30, the desire of the church,
collectively (“you” plural at 1 Cor. 12:31 and 14:1) is for the FUNCTION of
the greater gifts in the church NOT the personal possession of any gift. Any
personal “seeking” after a gift is offset by 1 Cor.12:11 where it states
that the possession of a gift is determined by the distribution of the
Spirit “as He WILLS.” These gifts had a specific function in the early
church, a function that was totally fulfilled within that first century and
discontinued afterwards.
II. Concerning the continuance of such
“revelation” gifts: First there is no longer any need for them since the
church has been given all the “mystery” doctrine that God intended. I.E.,
the bible is complete and sufficient as provided by the divinely chosen
teachers in the first century. Specifically in the area of “things to come,”
Rev. 22:18 seems to address this quite clearly. Of course, it can be
rationalized a number of ways - so each one must be fully convinced in his
own mind, to what extent he wants to take the verse. Concerning additional
“doctrinal” revelation from God, Paul seems to address this by making ONLY
what has been communicated by the apostles authoritative for the church.
That is why what the Pope or any other church official, minister,
theologian, etc. says has no jurisdiction over the church. The Scripture,
therefore, being totally sufficient, any additional revelation, whether it
be organizational or personal, is quite unnecessary. Any such claim to
divine revelation always leaves in doubt the sufficiency of the scripture
and tends to elevate a person or organization to a level of divine authority
over others that leaves them questioning their own confidence in the Bible.
The only true test to any claim of divine revelation is “what has been
written.” Only what totally agrees with that written revelation of God is
reliable and even then it is simply superfluous. Anything that disagrees
with what has been written is obviously false. Anything that “adds” to what
has been written is unnecessary and unreliable. To claim the stamp of
“revelation from God” as the seal of truth concerning one’s viewpoint is
self-deceptive and misleading to God’s people (2 Tim. 3:13). The major
disparity with Roman Catholicism and True Christianity has historically been
sola scriptura (scripture only), balanced perhaps equally with sola fide
(faith only), vs. the “continuing” revelation passed on through the popes.
Today, the same disparity now exists between True Christianity and the
charismatics, etc; sola scriptura vs. “personal” dreams, visions and
messages from God. In fact, the move toward ecumenicism is even now rallying
around a common denominator between Catholics and Protestants, which just so
happens to be the charismatic phenomena. At any rate the only thing that
will move the believer to a stabilized foundation for growth, service and
the experience of true peace, joy and confidence, is the TOTAL reliability
and sufficiency of the 66 books of the bible as they exist in the original
languages.
III. Systematic Theology, by Lewis Sperry
Chafer, Vol. V, page 170. “The cessation of signs and wonders after the
first generation of the church has given occasion to counterfeit
manifestations. This cessation is not due to lack of faith or faithfulness.
The greatest of all saints, though like Abraham and Daniel, have not done
mighty works in this age. The usual belief that all supernatural
manifestations arise with God gives Satan the opportunity to confirm in the
minds of many his misrepresentation of doctrine. Without exception, those
manifestations of supernatural power which are acclaimed as Divine today,
appear in support of false or incomplete doctrine. As an example of this,
such manifestations as have published are found among people who receive not
enough of the truth respecting saving grace to believe that once saved is
always saved, and such limitation of doctrine devitalizes the gospel that it
becomes another gospel. Yet these misunderstandings are sealed in the minds
of many by what is supposed to be manifestations from God, though serving
really as a sanction to the perversion of doctrine.”
IV. NEW REVELATION, by John MacArthur Question: “How would you reply to a
believer in the Charismatic movement who agrees that revelation cannot be
added to Scripture, but would still argue that God still gives words of
knowledge in the church for direction, as long as it falls in line with
Scripture?”
Answer: I think in answering a Charismatic there are a number of ways. My
book on the Charismatics goes into that in some detail, but revelation is
revelation. If a person says, “I am getting direct words of wisdom,
knowledge, [or] revelation from God,” then that equates with Scripture, in
the sense that it is the pure, unadulterated true revelation of God. So it
confuses the issue. We have, according to what Jude said, “A faith once for
all delivered to the saints.” We have according to what John writes in
Revelation, a revelation which does not permit addition, “If anything is
added, it shall be added to the person the plagues that are written in the
book.” The idea that God is giving revelation and that it is somehow not
equal to Scripture, or not on a par with Scripture poses some difficulties.
If it absolutely true and divine and from God, then it is divine
revelation. God reserved divine revelation for special times, which were
encompassed in the written word, and since that time revelation has ceased.
Let me give you an illustration of that. At the end of the Old Testament
era there was a 400 year period in which there was no revelation, and then
God spoke again--in the New Testament. So having a time period in which
there is no revelation is not new--when God completed the Old Testament He
stopped speaking, and then He spoke again in His Son, Hebrews 1 says. I
believe when He completed the New Testament, He ceased to give revelation,
and we have the “Once for all delivered to the saints faith.” Furthermore,
I would say to a Charismatic the same thing that they say to me all the time
whenever I've talked to them, “How do you know it's from God?” Inevitably,
they will say, “Well, we think it's from God,” because they can't know.
Why? Because it was very, very clear in the New Testament era who the
prophets of God were; who the Apostles of Christ were, and the Word came
through recognized authorities. Today, anybody and his brother might get a
revelation from God, and on what basis are we to assume it's from God? Is
it attendant with signs and wonders? Can they heal the sick? Can they
raise the dead? Can they cast out demons at a word; authoritatively like
Jesus and the Apostles did? Those were the signs of an Apostle. See,
anyone who had the ability to give revelation had to be accredited, and the
accreditation was, according to 2 Corinthians 12, the signs of an Apostle.
It was known to all who these people were or the fact that they were
Apostles or they were those who were associated with the Apostles. So I
think it is very, very important to understand that,
1. Revelation ceased.
2. Even when it was being given--not everybody got it. And it never was
something that God just passed out indiscriminately to all kinds of people.
So I think that those would be the approaches that I would take. I remember
reading a book that was published by one of the Pentecostal presses in our
country, in which it said this pastor was pleading for people to stop
standing up in churches and saying, “I have a Word from the Lord.” And he
said, “We know that it is from the Lord or it isn't, but we don't know how
to know which!” It is very confusing. This pastor gave an illustration of a
church that was in the process of calling someone to be their pastor, and
some lady stood up and said, “I have a Word from the Lord, 'This is the
man.'” Immediately it threw the church into chaos, because they didn't know
whether it was from the Lord or not. That's very typical, very typical. I
know very well a man who took me into his office, a very well-known
Charismatic pastor, and said, “God had given him a vision.” And he showed
me on a board the vision that God had given him for an area of the city,
which the Lord had set aside for him. Within five years that vision was
gone; that board had disappeared in the trash barrel somewhere and he had a
new one. This would be a man that everyone would assume if any body was
going to be able to know if he got a revelation--he might. But again, it is
very whimsical.
It is very frightening also to say you, “Have a Word from the Lord.” In
the Old Testament if you said you, “Had a Word from the Lord,” and it was
tested and found to be not from the Lord you were killed. And that's how
important the issue is. Because you can't have people running around loose
saying, “God told them this, and God told them that.” And so before anyone
would ever say anything like that, they would want to take very careful
stock of the issues at hand. Furthermore, are we to assume that somehow the
Spirit of God can't do His work, unless He gives revelation to some people;
unless He gives revelation indiscriminately to all kinds of people? I think
not. Furthermore, it seems to me of grave concern that those people who are
getting revelation, tend to be in a movement which is the most biblically
illiterate to be real honest with you. They don't know theology; they don't
know doctrine; they don't know how to interpret the Scripture very well.
And because of that lack of content they fall into a mystical category,
because they are not able to carefully exposit the Word of God. Without
that content orientation they fall into the category of looking for an
experience. I'll give you an illustration of it. I was watching the
television program “Today” from “Church on the Way.” There was a guy
singing a song, and the song went like this, “When there are no answers
there is Jesus,” and he went on to say, “When there are no answers there is
Jesus.” I thought to myself, “What in the world does that mean?” Does that
mean that you can either go with a cognitive approach and find answers to
questions, or you can junk just that and grab Jesus? You see that is a very
mystical approach to truth. “Where there are no answers--there is Jesus?”
Wait a minute, that's abandoning the search - for an experience. The song
should say, “When you're looking for the answer - Jesus has it.” The Bible
has the answer, but it is a very experiential kind of milieu in which many
of those dear people exist. I think they substitute those revelations very
often for understanding. So I think there are a lot of ways to approach
that, and I don't say that with unkindness. I say it because I believe that
it is true and it is correct.
______________________________________________________
V. SOME DISCUSSION
Some discussion on the subject: RW: The
bible teaches that I cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God apart
from the indwelling presence of the Spirit. 1 Cor. 2.10f It does not teach
that the Spirit is going to “tell” me, “This is truth.” Verse 12 - Now we
have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God,
SO THAT we might know the things freely given to us by God. opp: It says
that the “natural man” cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God.
Earlier verses unequivocally states that we, if we are born again, ARE able
to receive the things of God -- through the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is
capable of teaching, and this is one of his roles on earth. And furthermore,
by my phrase “witness of the Holy Ghost,” I did not mean that you will be
“told” “This is truth.” I do not advocate listening to voices, but rather
listening to the inner witness, not audible voices. In fact Romans 8:14
states that as many as are LED by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God. This leading is by the inner witness, not audible voices.
RW: Yes, we have the inner witness of the Spirit. But that inner witness
will always operate in line with the revealed word as provided for us in the
66 books of the bible. And it WON’T be NEW or different information; not
even AMPLIFICATION.
We have the bible and must compare the bible with itself to confirm various
doctrinal positions. And then let someone agree or disagree with the written
word. (kind of like what the Bereans did to confirm the Messianic prophecies
about Jesus). BUT we will get no where when every one claims the witness of
the Spirit to confirm his particular position - when in actuality the Spirit
did not confirm anything at all.
opp: Agree with all of the above except your contention that the Holy Ghost
does not confirm anything.
RW: A person “feels” he is right and mistakes that to be the confirming
from the Spirit, when all it really is, is a strong emotional response to
what has been studied. There is nothing wrong with emotional responses at
all, but an emotional response does not constitute the Spirit’s “amen.”
opp: The witness of the Holy Ghost is not a “feeling.” It begins in the
spirit, not in the natural realm. You are a spiritual being, living in a
body, possessing a soul. References are there pointing to promises of the
leading of the Holy Ghost to truth.
RW: BUT here is the question - - - When you have dozens of people
“claiming” the witness of the Spirit - to whom do you listen? To the one
who agrees with the way you see it? And if you are convinced to change
your position on a verse, a passage, a subject, etc - it is because of
comparing scripture with scripture and becoming persuaded in your own mind
how to view that scripture. It is NOT because the Spirit has now all of a
sudden “changed” His witness to you on some subject. The Spirit indeed
ministers within us to quide and direct, BUT that guidance is always THROUGH
the instrumentality of the revealed word. Without the standard of the word
as a guideline, everyone can and DOES claim the witness of the Spirit to
support all kinds of doctrinal misunderstandings, theories and ideas. And
that is why I referred to 1 John 4.1ff. It is because there it gives us the
“standard” in one particular area of doctrine; the incarnation of Jesus
Christ. The standard is, acknowledging that Jesus Christ has come in
the flesh. This is a deity issue, and no matter what someone (a
spirit) claims with regard to the true nature of the Christ, if it is not
in line with “the Word (God) became flesh and dwelt among us (humanity),”
then it is not of God. So as we study the bible, it is the content of
that written revelation itself which confirms various doctrinal positions.
We do have some “cut and dry” standards to always apply to all the teachings
that float around. And one of the key passages for that as you well know is
1 John 4.
opp: The Word of God is still the standard by which we stand, but the Holy
Ghost it is who reveals revelations. I have already stated that the Holy
Ghost will NEVER witness to a “truth” contrary to scripture. The scriptures
remain the standard no matter who the witness is, however, sometimes the
understanding of the scriptures come by revelation of God (through the
Spirit) where we were wrong before.
RW: Whoops! And who witnessed to the person when he was wrong before?? When
he was absolutely convinced that “this is right” or "This is how the Spirit
has led me." And now the Spirit has led me in a different direction - -
- Or maybe he simply compared scripture with scripture and
determined that his previous position had failed to consider this or that
verse. And the standard for determining which is right is found in the
scripture.
opp: True, but revelation will come from the Holy Ghost. That is how the
Bible was written. The H.G. remains a verifiable witness to the truth.
RW: And who might I ask, gets to claim that witness for “their” truth?
---------------------
rgw: Everybody and his brother (and his sister, too) claim they are being
led by the Spirit - - or that the Spirit is “telling” them this or that - -
and not everyone is right.
rgw: God knew exactly what He was doing when He preserved His word in
written human languages. Words have meaning . . .
opp: But men's words are not self-revelatory, and human languages are not
perfect.
rgw: Perfect is not the issue. Sufficient- is the issue. I suggest that God
thought the Hebrew and Greek languages were sufficient to communicate
accurately, efficiently and sufficiently what He intends for us to know of
Him. There is no MAGIC in the words. The value is in the spiritual truths
“behind” the words; represented by the words. One can possess the words and
not understand the truths behind them. BUT there is no other source for
those truths other than the means of communication God has chosen to express
them – I.E., human language. One should not “worship” the words - but one
should recognize that they carry a “revelation” unknown apart from those
words. We should depend on the guidance of the Spirit, for He helps us as we
compare scripture with scripture to arrive at the full picture of God’s
plan. But the Spirit does not operate independent from God’s written word.
Therefore - accurate translation is important.
opp: Still, there is only one true map, with one true north, and one true
path indicated. If an additional path or “north” has been drawn in, or if a
different map is offered, it is the work of an enemy.
rgw: I accept this. When we are bound by the parameters of natural human
communication, there is much less room for disagreement . . . .
opp: Yes, in our timidity and faithlessness it is certainly safer. In a
tender expression of fatherly love and patience, God's word is adapted to
the weakest in faith, which includes all of us to a greater or lesser
degree.
rgw: I disagree. God’s word is the channel by which we come to know His
reality. Yes, we can know “of” Him through the creation around us - but
there is no intimacy and there is no “map” until God puts His wisdom into
human language.
opp: When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the waves of Galilee, only
Peter undertook to step from the boat in emulation of the Master, and he
soon fell beneath the waves. However, although Peter had been safely bound
by the parameters of the boat, Jesus did not rebuke Peter for attempting to
transcend those safe parameters.
rgw: The parameters of the boat are not to be equated with the parameters of
God’s written word. 1 Cor. 4:6, Now these things, brethren, I have
figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you
might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might
become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” 1Ths. 2:13, And for
this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the
word of God’s message, you accepted {it} not {as} the word of men, but {for}
what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who
believe. 2Ths. 2:15, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the
traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter
from us. Concerning additional “doctrinal” revelation from God, Paul seems
to address this by making ONLY what has been communicated by the apostles
authoritative for the church. That is why what the Pope says has no
jurisdiction over the church; or a Joseph Smith, Ellen White, Mary Eddy,
Charles Russell, Jim Jones, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, or
any “Tom, Dick or Harry” believer.
opp: And yet, as John pointed out with powerful discernment, God can even
use wicked men to prophesy spiritual truths. John 11:49-52. Now, the
fact that a wicked man may speak truth according to the Will of God will not
excuse him, for his wickedness will still condemn him at the last day.
rgw: This is not relevant in that it was not NEW revelation that was
communicated. It was simply a reflection of what had been taught in the Old
Testament concerning the sacrifice of Messiah. Any time someone “claims”
revelation from God - If it is in conformity with what has been written -
then it is superfluous. If it is “different” than what has been written - it
has no value.
---------------------
THE WRITTEN TEXT
rgw: A better translation at 2 Tim. 3:16, is, “All Scripture is God-breathed
. . .” (theopneustos).
opp: And man-recorded and translated.
rgw: And man makes mistakes. But God Himself has preserved in the original
languages through the various manuscripts, an accurate and sufficient copy
of His inspired word. ALL believers are indwelt by the Spirit, but NO
believers since John the apostle was “inspired” - as in being given the very
words of God from the Holy Spirit.
opp: And yet by that same Spirit, they plead with God with “groanings that
cannot be uttered.” Romans 8:26. Will God not answer these groanings?
How? With words? With other groanings? Does the Spirit initiate
conversation with the living God for a vain purpose? If God answers, is He
restricted to answering via bits of pre-recorded scripture, like the liquid
filled “fortune balls” of the 60s that gave answers via a floating
four-sided die?
rgw: If He answers - it will be “in conformity with” that pre-recorded
scripture. That is, the answer will not be in violation of it or contrary to
it. If someone claims that God told them, Jesus is coming back on May 31,
(which has happened) then that person is NOT hearing from God - for to make
such a claim violates the very words of Jesus, “no one knows the DAY or
hour.” But given your scenario, it is correct. God has chosen to LIMIT His
word for us today in the written canon. There is no “revelation” from God
beyond that.
opp: “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation
19:10. When I gained my testimony of Jesus Christ, it wasn't an intellectual
conviction based on an exegesis of critical koine Greek verb-forms in
comparison with their translations in the KJV versus the RSV. It was
because the Holy Spirit revealed Jesus Christ to me in a living, immediate,
and profound way that at once convicted me of my sins and gave me
indescribable hope and joy that I could be forgiven and live with him
forever.
rgw: All “in conformity” with what has been written. I do not have to QUOTE
John 3:16 to teach someone that God loves them and they need to believe in
Jesus. But my gospel message MUST express the truths of John 3:16 or else I
give a false gospel.
opp: That was surely revelation from God, and it was surely “ new” to me
when it came. I thank God in my every prayer for that revelation and for
how it is renewed in my life every day!
rgw: Perhaps you mistake “revelation” for “conviction.” God uses the truths
of the gospel to CONVICT the soul of the unbeliever so that He can make the
decision he needs to make - trust in Christ as savior. That gospel message
can be communicated “literally” from the Bible or it can be communicated in
one’s own dialect and nomenclature - but the “content” of the message must
be in conformity with the written word.
opp: Christians who have made the Bible the foundation of their worship have
fallen into the same subtly disguised snare that caught the Pharisees whose
focus on the Torah would not permit them to accept the revealed, living
Jesus Christ who walked among them.
rgw: The Pharisees “distorted” what had been written. That was their
problem. It was not because they gave undue preference to the writings. For
those who listened objectively to the teachings of Jesus saw the message of
God (Nicodemus - John 3). Jesus did not de-emphasize what had been written.
He made them look at the WHOLE message of what had been written and to
reject what “man” had added.
opp: Because he didn't “fit” within their focus, they excised him just as
they would a troublesome emendation to the text.
rgw: Because their “focus” was wrong - not what had been written. They saw
ONLY the letter of the law; not the love and mercy which was also taught in
the law.
opp: But just as Jesus could not be kept within a tomb, the Holy Spirit
cannot be contained within a book. When God puts the question to us, ought
we not choose life? 2 Corinthians 3:6.
rgw: Paul is not minimizing the written word (not even the law, for the law
is holy, just and good), but he is placing the law in its right perspective.
We must “internalize” the law - not keep it outside. When we internalize it,
the love and mercy of the law changes our character. If we fail to do that -
we will become “religious” rather than “Christian” and “spiritual.” If for
salvation, one looks only to the letter of the law, then that person is
seeking righteousness by works and will only go deeper into debt (Rom. 4:4).
If after being saved, one looks only to the letter of the law rather than
the issues of love and mercy, then he relegates himself to a life of slavery
and frustration as he shuts himself off from God’s wonderful blessings for
finding peace and joy in life. That is why Paul emphasizes - love PLUS
knowledge at 1 Cor. 8:1. Knowledge all by itself - puffs up. But love PLUS
knowledge - edifies.
