I Corinthians 13:8-11 (RSV) Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.  For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;  but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
These verses are often used by Protestants (often Baptists and/or dispensationalists) to prove that the charismatic gifts are not for today; that they have long since ceased. I have always thought it was one of the poorest, weakest examples of biblical exegesis that I have ever seen, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic. It seems that — for some Protestants — so many things are to “cease,” but I see precious little biblical indication of that.
Miracles are to cease, gifts are to cease, the institutional Church became corrupt and ceased to exist up to the time of Luther, etc.? I just think it is plain silly. Unless the Bible clearly indicates such a state of affairs, we are to assume that the biblical model of Christianity and the Church is normative for all times.
Granted that miracles were greater in apostolic times, but that is not the same as saying they were to cease altogether. What would the point of that be? Why should God remove all the blessings and roles which He had foreordained for each of us to play? But let’s get to our passage, I Corinthians 13:8-11:
13:8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
The dispensationalists neglect a very important point — one so simple it can be overlooked: if tongues supposedly cease with the coming of Scripture, then so does knowledge! That reduces the whole argument to absurdity. Paul is talking about the consummation of all things and the end of the age, as we shall see shortly. So they falsely interpret the “perfect” or “complete” and then apply a double standard as to what will cease and what won’t (according to their preconceived biases).
13:9-10 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;  but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
Again, the “perfect” is the next life, being with God, enjoying His presence in heaven for eternity. The dispensationalist interpretation is a forced, novel, bizarre one. I shall quote from a Protestant commentary as to Paul’s meaning here:
Love . . . is eternal by nature (1 Jn 4:16), unlike the gifts, which are designed for the present life. Prophecy and tongues will be unnecessary in the immediate presence of God. Knowledge, human and divinely revealed (cf. 12:8), will be superseded by fuller light and understanding. ‘When the perfect comes’: not perfection in quality so much as totality; i.e., full knowledge about God. ‘The imperfect’, the partial (cf. Je 31:34), that which is characteristic of our present experience. (Eerdmans Bible Commentary, edited by D. Guthrie, reprint of 3rd 1970 edition of The New Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 1068)
In fact, it destroys the authority of Holy Scripture because now we ourselves (in the final analysis) arbitrarily pick and choose what is “for us today” and what ceased in the early days of the Church. One simply can’t consistently interpret the Bible in such a fashion. Some dispensationalists — true to their own false premises — even go so far as to say that the Sermon on the Mount is not normative for Christians today, but rather, was intended for the Jews alone.
As far as the “perfect” being the Bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case in the passage itself. It is a gratuitous assumption, an eisegesis, and a preconceived notion with no objective support. Besides, there was no formulated New Testament at the time Paul wrote this. That took until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage: a Catholic council, approved by the pope.
So the dispensationalist has no leg to stand on here. He either has to ignore the historical facts concerning the development of the New Testament canon, or he has to acknowledge Catholic ecclesial authority in order to even have his own Bible. The case collapses of its own weight in either scenario. And it makes no sense on other grounds, since “knowledge” didn’t cease due to the Bible!!!!
13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
In other words, The present life (compared to the next) is analogous to immaturity and maturity in this life. That is made more clear by the following verse:
13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
I have always thought it obvious that this refers to the next life. This is the context of the “perfect” appearing. It’s not the Bible; it’s heaven! If the Bible alone was sufficient to make everything so clear, then why do the Protestants who appeal to it as the final authority (i.e., apart from the Church and continuous apostolic tradition) find themselves unable to reach common accord on a variety of issues? Their own history amply disproves the current thesis.
Quoting from the same commentary:
. . . in the next life, we shall see ‘face to face’ (cf. 1 Jn 3:2). Similarly with ‘knowledge’: partial ‘now’, perfect ‘then’ — even as God’s knowledge of each Christian is perfect already. (Guthrie, ibid., p. 1069)