Note: I had some dialogue with Mark Coppedge prior to the exchange posted here, but, honoring a request from Mark, that previous correspondence will be kept private.From: Mark Coppedge at mark@coppedge.com on 28 April 1999Dear Allan,
Reading your material tonight I have come to the conclusion that baptism is not the area of greatest disagreement between us, but rather the question of whether we are under the law or under grace.
You write that you use three primary methods of deciding on Biblical truth. One is by direct statement. Two is by approved example. Three is through an inferred conclusion, what you call a necessary conclusion. I do not agree that the third is a path to knowing something with absolute certainty. I do not think that our human mind is that discerning. Each of us will make those kinds of decisions about what we believe, but I don’t think that we can be completely sure that our inference is the correct one. [For details on these principles, see Allan Turner's article on How To Establish Bible Authority]
You use the example of the absent student with the general condition of many students being ill that day. The teacher is not out of bounds to conclude that her particular absent student is probably sick, but he could just as easily be at the dentist. If so, she is simply wrong in her inference.
Your example from Scripture is your belief that the Lord’s Supper is to be taken every Sunday. But in reading those same verses carefully, I would not make that same inference. It is possible of course that you are correct, but it doesn’t seem so to me.
A conclusion of mine from Scripture is that several men other than the 12 plus Paul were apostles. I believe that, at least, Barnabas, James the brother of Jesus, and Silas were apostles. However, though I am quite convinced of the truth of this, I am neither offended nor even surprised that you would not find the same inference. I have made other inferred conclusions that I suspect that you would also disagree with.
Still, I judge that you and I are in agreement on the issues that count as essential in either your view or mine. I have repented of my sins and asked for forgiveness, grace and salvation from the Lord. My whole family has been baptized in water as a sign of our repentance and our trust in the resurrected Jesus. We try our best to serve the Lord in spirit and in truth. We try to be always obedient to His words. We try to always be doers of the word and not hearers only. From your words, I believe that you would say the same of yourself and your family.
Because of the very great likelihood of disagreement between us over the exact meaning of words and context, I think that it would be unfruitful for us to engage in the sending of proof texts back and forth for our positions from inferences. I am not interested in debate or argument but rather discussion. Men seem to have this huge capacity for rationalizing the meaning of words in order to have them fit their preconceived notions. Certainly, I am no exception, hard as I might try otherwise.
It seems to me what might be a better approach, at least in the beginning, would be for us to stick to your first two methods, direct statements and approved examples. Even with these two there is certainly the chance of misunderstanding but I think considerably less so.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Godspeed,
Mark Coppedge
Reply from Allan Turner on 29 April 1999
Mark,
I'm delighted you've read my article on how to establish Bible authority. If the Bible teaches the three ways I've written about, and I'm convinced it does, then I don't know how I can ignore them. So, I don't think I want to be limited to just the first two, as you have suggested. If I thought it needful to make an argument from a necessary inference, I would want the liberty to do so. Of course, this would not mean that you are obligated to accept it as being a necessary conclusion. But, to deny that the Bible teaches by necessary inference/conclusion is a mistake, for it certainly does.
Having said this, I suspect we will have enough to keep us busy at the beginning with just the two methods you suggest, so I'm amenable to trying it your way. However, I'm concerned about your statement: “I am not interested in debate or argument but rather discussion.” I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure. So, I'll elaborate a bit. Debate and argument have gotten a bad rap in modern usage. Like you, I'm certainly not interested in a knock-down, drag-out, holier-than-thou, religious harangue. Nevertheless, a religious discussion by two people that disagree isn't going to be productive without some debate and argument, provided, of course, that such is done consistent with the rules of humane discourse. As you well know, words mean something, and if we can't debate and argue what the words actually mean, then I'm certainly not interested in proceeding any further. So, you'll have to tell me whether you agree with what I've just said.
Further, I don't yet know what we disagree on with reference to being under the law or under grace, so let me say as clearly as I know how that I do not believe the Christian is under the law of Moses, or any system of justification by perfect law keeping, but is, instead, under the grace provided in connection with the precious blood of Jesus Christ.
Mark, I always enjoy a good Bible study, and I always look forward to learning something new on each occasion. I have rarely been disappointed. Therefore, if you want to engage in an on-going study of God's Word, then I believe such should be profitable to us both.
I await your lead.
Sincerely,
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 29 April 1999
Allan,
You said you wished to ask me questions. Ask away!
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 29 April 1999
Mark,
You could not have inferred that from my last e-mail. As I said, I'm ready to follow your lead. You suggested "under law or under grace," so I thought that's what we would discuss. Now, I'm really confused.
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 29 April 1999
Allan,
In your first [unrecorded—a.t.] email to me you said that you wanted to ask me about the gifts of the Spirit, and, I assumed, my practice of them. My views on the law and grace are plainly stated in my website, as I believe are yours. You seem plainly to believe in the doctrine of "sola scriptura" while I am very convinced that we should be led by the Spirit, not just the word. My article on the Holy Spirit and the one on Wisdom, plus the letter entitled Led By The Spirit show what I have been taught so far on this subject.
I am not trying to be difficult but right now I don't have questions for you.
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 29 April 1999
Mark,
I'm still trying to read some of your material and get some other things done right now. I don't have any particular questions either. Feel free to contact me when you want, and we'll just keep it private and informal until or unless either of us thinks otherwise.
Catch you later,
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 30 April 1999
Allan,
I thought you might be interested in reading this article in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary.
Mark
From Mark Coppedge on 3 May 1999
Dear Allan,
Just a note to ask you if you would mind my putting a link on my site to your essay on Calvinism. I think it is very well done and many might benefit from reading it.
I should have said the other day that the reason I didn’t have any questions for you was because I had read almost your entire website. I hope that you’ve had the opportunity to look at some of my articles as you said you might.
Because you had expressed an interest in the gifts of the Spirit, I passed along the link to the Bakers Evangelical Dictionary article. I feel that the author, who evidently does not practice the gifts, nevertheless gives a very balanced view of the pertinent Scripture with excellent explanations about the sense of the Greek words in the original manuscripts. In particular, he brought to my attention I Cor. 1:7-8, which shows clearly that Paul expected the gifts to last until the return of Jesus. Since these verses are in the same letter as the verses often used to justify the position of cessation of the gifts, I Cor. 13, it would seem to go a long way to invalidating the thought that “the perfect” Paul speaks of is the Bible. Since you feel the Scripture infers the cessation, you might wish to read this article.
Godspeed,
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 4 May 1999
Dear Mark,
By all means, please feel free to link to my critique of Calvinism.
I have printed out the Bakers article and intend to read it. The expression "in no gift" (KJV), according to R.C.H Lenski, "cannot refer to the special charismatic gifts of the early church but must point to the general gracious gifts of God with which the true believers are always duly endowed, the spiritual blessings of Christianity in general" (p. 33). I agree with him on this, so I don't think this passage is saying what you think it is.
Yours in service to Him,
Allan T.
From Mark Coppedge on 4 May 1999
Allan,
Why must it not refer to the charismatic gifts? For what reason from the words themselves or from the context is anything implied other than the gifts of the Spirit, especially since so much of the letter is specifically about them? Basically what you are saying is that you don't believe it speaks about the gifts because the statement read in a natural way contradicts your doctrine, so therefore it must not be read in a natural way.
Sincerely,
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 4 May 1999 Mark,
Man, that was quick. Why aren't you in bed?
No, basically what I'm saying is that read naturally I don't think it means what you think it means. Remember, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, and how one "naturally" reads 1 Cor. 13 seems to be your problem. Neither of us believe the Bible contradicts itself, so these must be harmonized. My interpretation, although it could be, does not have to be, dishonest, just an honest attempt to exegete the passage.
Incidentally, Lenski's "cannot" seems a bit overstated. In other words, the charismatic gifts may well be included. Still, I'm not convinced that these two verses are saying that the charismatic gifts would remain in the church "until" the second coming. I believe 1 Cor.13 would qualify the continued exercise of these particular gifts.
Allan T.
From Mark Coppedge on 4 May 1999
Allan,
I should have been in bed. Big thunderstorms here last night.
I am not afraid of a natural reading of I Cor. 13, as you can see from my article. I am glad to see you acknowledge that I Cor. 1:7-8 could certainly include spiritual gifts. That really seems a misnomer to me as every gift from the Holy Spirit, whether considered by us part of the Charismatic package or not, is a spiritual gift.
Why don't you feel that the 7-8 is a direct statement by Paul? What about Mark 16? This is a direct statement by Jesus as to what signs would follow believers. He gave no limitation as to time or circumstance. I thought that you claim to be guided first by direct statements, particularly those of Jesus. Why not this one?
Godspeed,
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 4 May 1999
Mark,
I said "charismatic" gifts in my email, as I'm trying to use precise terminology for the sake of our discussion. I do believe verses 7 and 8 are direct statements. In Mark 16, Jesus said "these signs" (charismatic gifts) would follow those who believed--they did, as verse 20 indicates. As I understand it, 1 Corinthians 13 tells me when they would cease.
Like you, I am claiming to be led by the Spirit—the direct statement, approved example, necessary inference have to do with understanding how His word teaches me. The Bible teaches that the Word is the tool the Holy Spirit uses to lead me (Ephesians 6:17). Incidentally, I do not teach or believe that this is the only way the Holy Spirit operates today, and I have chided some of my own brethren for thinking so, so make sure you paint me with the right brush.
A fellow student,
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 4 May 1999
Allan,
Do you think that Paul would contradict a direct statement by Jesus? Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why would He have made such a clear statement if He expected Paul to issue changes 25 to 30 years hence? Do you feel that Paul made other changes to the doctrine that Jesus gave? It is obviously a rhetorical question.
Certainly, there is no difference between the doctrine taught by Jesus and that of Paul. Such a difference would have made Paul a false prophet. Isn't it a bit dishonest intellectually to say on the one hand that Paul was a true prophet, one who had "the testimony of Jesus", and yet claim that something he wrote a few years later would negate an unequivocal statement by the Lord?
Also, exactly what is it about I Cor. 1:7-8 that makes you not believe it is for the charismatic gifts? You seem to acknowledge that he was probably referring to them, at least as a part of a complete package of gifts from God. What exactly is it about the language or the context here that makes you feel that the charismatic gifts should be excluded from his clear statement that the gifts (whatever they were) would last until Jesus returns?
Godspeed,
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 4 May 1999 Mark,
Okay, I'll say it again, "I'm not convinced that these two verses are saying that the charismatic gifts would remain in the church 'until' the second coming." The "until" is what you have to prove. You haven't. Second, "I believe 1 Cor.13 would qualify the continued exercise of these particular gifts." So, if that doesn't make sense to you, then, like the concept of necessary inference, you don't believe the principle of qualification is valid either. I don't know what I can do about that.
I'm not adverse to the charismatic gifts per se. I believe they were once exercised. I think I understand the purpose and duration. I think they have now ceased and this is/was God's decision.
You've clearly got an interpretation of Hebrews 13:8 that ties this statement in with the continued exercise of the charismatic gifts. Of course, I'm not required to believe your interpretation unless you can demonstrate to me that it's the right interpretation.
Specifically, I do not see the continued exercise of charismatic gifts as being essential to Christians being blameless "in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ." What would the exercise of charismatic gifts have to do with Christians remaining "in Christ," and therefore being found blameless on judgment day? Is there something about the exercise of a charismatic gift that makes one more holy than any other saint?
There clearly is a passage that says charismatic gifts were going to be done away (1 Corinthians 13:8-10), and I'll try to find what you've said about that passage on your site. Quite frankly, Hebrews 13:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:7-8 neither negate or contradict this passage. I believe you've read into the passages more than is there.
Sincerely,
Allan T.
From Mark Coppedge on 4 May 1999
Allan,
You didn't answer my question as to why Jesus would make the definitive statement He made in Mark 16 only to have Paul change the rules a few years later in I Cor. Is there any other place where you would say that Paul changed what Jesus said?
I cannot believe that Jesus made any statement about what His disciples should do that was only valid for a few decades. Nothing could be more out of character for Him. You're the detective. Would you believe that He would utter such a temporary thing?
Godspeed,
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 4 May 1999
Mark,
You said, "It is obviously a rhetorical question." And you then gave the answer, therefore, I didn't think I was obligated to answer. It couldn't and wouldn't happen. I know it and you know it.
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 4 May 1999
Allan,
I am not trying to bother you, but please tell why you don't think vs.7-8 are valid to the charismatic gifts. The statement must be valid for something or Paul wouldn't have written it. You should be able to explain to me what it is in the chapter or elsewhere in the context which makes you so certain it is incorrect to read it as it seems to be written, about "gifts". I understand that you disagree with me as to the meaning. I am just wondering why.
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 4 May 1999
Mark,
Yes, I should be able to, but apparently I can't. Furthermore, I don't assert that it is incorrect to read the passage as it is written. Why do you even say so? If the charismatic gifts are included, and I conceded that they may be, 1 Corinthians 13 qualifies them and says they would cease, and this has nothing to do with a contradiction.
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 5 May 1999
Allan,
This question is not rhetorical. I really would like to know why you believe Jesus would say one thing and Paul would nullify it a few years later.
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 5 May 1999
Mark,
Once again, I don't think Paul would.
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 5 May 1999
Allan,
Then what is it that you're saying?
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 5 May 1999
Mark,
Not what you say I'm saying.
Allan
From Mark Coppedge on 5 May 1999
Allan,
Your whole belief rests on the assumption that the "perfect" is the canon. If it is not, if it is Jesus, then there is no difference between the two statements.
Both say that the gifts will continue until Jesus returns. Because this is the way I believe, I don't have to say that I Cor 13 'qualifies' vs. 1:7-8 nor does it annul Mark 16. I do not have to argue, as you do, that Paul's letter overrides the direct statement of Jesus.
Both passages in I Cor. give a consistent thought when read in a natural way, that the gifts will last until the Second Coming. Remember, it is a single letter. Would you have written a police report in which you said the suspect did "A" until 1998 and then later in the report have said, the suspect did "A" until 1992. Wouldn't you have changed the report to reflect the more accurate information? Surely on a matter of such importance as the spiritual gifts Paul would have written accurately. Especially so since one of the main themes of the letter was to instruct the Corinthians about the gifts.
There are practical problems with believing the canon is the "perfect" also. First of all, which version gets the nod? I'm sure you are quite familiar with all of the controversy surrounding the multitude of translations. Secondly, the printing press wasn't invented until a few hundred years ago. For about 1500 years, there were simply far too few copies of the canon available for men to have been able to read it for themselves. Besides that, the manuscripts were only in Latin or Greek. Besides that, most people simply couldn't read anyway. The gifts were and still are necessary for our correct understanding of God's will. Or would you have preferred the Catholic understanding, that only the priests were qualified to read and teach the Scripture?
Godspeed,
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 5 May 1999
Mark,
Am I the only one required to answer questions in this discussion? Seems to me that you ought to be answering at least some of my points. Anyway, you cite a passage, interpret it in light of your position, then ask me a question about the passage in light of your interpretation and then say that my answer set up a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, therefore, I must be wrong. If my answer says there is a contradiction, then my answer is wrong, but I don't think there is a contradiction, and I have said so repeatedly.
Let me illustrate what you do. You cite Hebrews 13:8, interpret this to mean that Jesus is saying the charismatic gifts would not be done away with during the Christian dispensation. Then, you cite 1 Corinthians 1:7-8, interpret it to be saying that the charismatic gifts would continue "until" or "up through" the Lord's return, and this, you say is consistent with Hebrews 13:8, and then you say that I interpret 1 Corinthians 13 in a way that has Paul contradicting Jesus and even what Paul himself wrote at the beginning of his letter, and then you assert that I've got a problem because I believe the bible contradicts itself. You then throw in Mark 16 about the signs following those who believe, interpreting this to mean that they would follow them right up until the Lord's return. I pointed out that verse 20 is the demonstration of this, but that's not enough for you. Because I will not concede to your interpretation that the Lord was talking about these signs continuing until His second coming, you assert that I'm ignoring or contradicting scripture. Not hardly! I'm just not agreeing with your interpretation. And, if you want to try and convince me that your interpretation is correct, then you ought to be working more diligently demonstrating to me why it is, in fact, the correct interpretation.
What I want you to do is demonstrate why these passages say what you think they say—this stuff about reading them in a "natural way" is not going to cut it. You're interpreting them and you know it. Perhaps you have interpreted them correctly, but if so, then you ought to be able to demonstrate that you have. I'm not the only one forced to deal with the possibility of a contradiction, and you well know it. If your interpretation is wrong, then you have the scriptures contradicting themselves as well. You and I both don't think such a thing is possible, so our goal in our study together is to get to the meat of this discussion. Please assume that, like you, I just want to know what the truth on this subject is.
Yes, I do think 1 Corinthians 13 is central to this discussion. If it is not saying what I believe it to be saying, that these charismatic gifts would be done away with and cease during the Christian dispensation, then show me why my interpretation is incorrect. I read one of your explanations on your web site (don't know if it is the only one) and found it unconvincing. So, I'm asking you to tell me what the passage is saying, that is, what "done away," "cease," and "fail" mean? in the context.
Yes, I am aware of the problems of translations, but be careful here, please. If James called it "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25) and Paul said it was able to make the man of God "perfect" or complete (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then the completed or "perfect" word, in contrast to those things that were "in part" (i.e., those things associated with the charismatic gifts), could very well be what is under discussion, and you well know it. Incidentally, where, in the immediate context, is there a referral to the Lord's second coming? It is not there, as you know. You have to read it into the passage. So, why is it okay for you to do this, but wrong for me? I'll be waiting for your exegesis of the passage.
Allan T.
From Mark Coppedge on 5 May 1999
Allan,
I see no contradiction in Scripture, only in your doctrine. I do believe that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In Mark 16, He made a clear, unequivocal statement. It is not a doctrinal controversy to me.
I give you my sincere testimony that all of the signs He spoke of in Mark 16 have been present in my life for many years. I pray in tongues every day. My family has experienced His protection many times. I have seen several people healed. Many times I have been present when demons were cast out. I have walked for a long time by the specific guidance of the Holy Spirit, in my everyday life with my everyday problems. It is not some intellectual or theological game to me. I specifically trust in the risen Jesus to provide for my family. He is my banker, my insurance agent, my doctor, my lawyer, my financial consultant, and my teacher. I walk by faith, miracle to miracle, every day. I hear His voice. The Lord speaks to me every day, in words, whenever I am still enough to listen. The proof of His guidance is before me always. I know other men and women who live as I do, by faith, practicing the gifts every day.
Since I also know that men like you are highly unlikely to believe me, I try and explain as well as I am able what He has shown me. If my writing is unconvincing, forgive me. I will pray to do a better job of it. I pray that everyone find a walk such as mine.
I believe that you are an honest and sincere Christian man. You feel you are seeking the truth with all of these theological interpretations. But your doctrine in this matter is a doctrine of unbelief. It is the doctrine of a Pharisee, trying to justify why he can't believe. I know this statement is highly offensive to you, but you should look closely at how you are in reality rejecting Scripture. Your defensiveness tells me that I have cut close to home with my questions.
You are hanging the world on your assumption that "the perfect" is the canon. It hangs by a slender thread indeed! If you are wrong, your whole argument falls down. If you are correct, Paul is in the position in I Cor. 13 of changing, modifying, and effectively nullifying an explicit statement by Jesus. Jesus just did not give casual or temporary teachings of this nature. It is just not so, not here or anywhere else.
The only "Perfect" is Jesus Christ. There is no contradiction in Scripture. There is no conflict between Jesus' instructions and Paul's teachings, not from Mark 16 or anywhere else. Paul modified nothing. Jesus' statement about the signs that will follow believers is just as valid today as when He walked the earth.
Your brother in Christ,
Mark
Reply from Allan Turner on 6 May 1999
Mark,
Thank you for your time. If you ever decide to have a two-way, give and take discussion, get back with me.
Allan T.