Question about Gift of Prophecy

[swordsman1]

Why did Paul mention the cornerstone at all (assuming that we're translating the word correctly, as you continue to ignore the fact that this word is too infrequent and ambiguous in the literature for us to build any doctrine on).

Your claim is that he mentioned it to clearly distinguish the apostles from Christ. That's an understandable concern. However, there's another possible reason for mentioning it. The term foundation, by itself, is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily convey, in a given context, the foundation of a BUILDING. In my view, Paul's way of solidifying his metaphor was to mention the cornerstone. And since Christ is the foundation (my view), it wouldn't make much sense to elevate something OTHER than Christ to the (higher) status of cornerstone. Therefore Paul has Him playing both roles.

Another far-fetched idea. Can you supply some commentaries that support it?

 

[JAL]

Another far-fetched idea. Can you supply some commentaries that support it?

Never planned to. Just my opinion, but I don't see it as particularly unreasonable.

 

[JAL]

Of course this passage insinuates the cessation of apostles and prophets if they are the foundation of the Church. That is the inescapable conclusion.

A conclusion that at least SOUNDS diametrically opposed to Paul's metaphor hardly strikes me as 'inescapable'. When's the last time you heard a building contractor say, "Good works guys! You did a great job erecting that building. Now that it's stable, feel free to go ahead and yank out the foundation." Huh?

If Paul wanted to convey something temporary, he could have used a different metaphor, for example one based on scaffolding, defined as:
"a temporary structure on the outside of a building, made usually of wooden planks and metal poles, used by workers while building, repairing, or cleaning the building."

Once the building is finished, the scaffolding is removed. I think Paul could have found a different metaphor, if he wanted to convey transience.

 

[swordsman1]

Thanks for the citation as it strengthens my case. Earlier I had already suspected Hoehner of a bit of legerdemain in support of his agenda, and this citation only confirms it. Note he says there are INSTANCES where omission of the article is accepted in Greek (such as abstract nouns) - but this scenario is NOT one of those instances! As the other commentary attested! Notice he never actually explicitly PLACES this scenario in a NAMED CATEGORY of the acknowledged instances because it is NOT. I mean, if you were trying to prove a point, wouldn't you explicitly assign it to one of the well-known and named categories? This is legerdemain, and the other commentary practically called it unconscionable. His REAL basis for the conclusion is a THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT - the structural argument preceding the grammatical remarks. Ok, well if we go that route, in my mind the structural discussion only serves to raise another doubt. Note verse 22:
"And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."
If Paul was referring to one global building in the preceding verse, why mention here that you too are a dwelling - a building? The passage makes more sense if:
(1) Verse 21 defines the church as a set of local buidings and then:
(2) Verse 22 identifies Ephesus as one of those buildings.
Sorry but you've only confirmed my case. Yes you can cite 50 Bible translations that disagree with me, but how many of those scholars support apostolic continuation? There might be some bias in their conclusions.

Heohner is not being deceitful. You have misread his commentary. He points out there are other instances, outside of abstract nouns and proper nouns, where the anarthrous contruction can also be translated "all" or "whole". He gives 5 examples: "all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26), "all creation" (Col 1:15), "all flesh" (Acts 2:17; Rom 3:20), and "all the house of Israel" (Acts 2:36). These are ordinary nouns just like "building" in Eph 2:21.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Daniel B. Wallace p253
E. Absence of the Article
9) With a Pronominal Adjective
Nouns with πᾶς, ὅλον, etc. do not need the article to be definite, for either the class as a whole ("all") or distributively ("every") is being specified. Either way, a generic force is given to such constructions.​

Do you seriously think 99% of bible translations have got it wrong?

 

[JAL]

Heohner is not being deceitful. You have misread his commentary. He points out there are other instances, outside of abstract nouns and proper nouns, where the anarthrous contruction can also be translated "all" or "whole". He gives 5 examples: "all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26), "all creation" (Col 1:15), "all flesh" (Acts 2:17; Rom 3:20), and "all the house of Israel" (Acts 2:36). These are ordinary nouns just like "building" in Eph 2:21.

I'm not sure that Greek scholars would lump all these nouns together. What exactly is the house of Israel? Is it a house? And notice the preposition SUBSEQUENT to them, e.g. "of the earth". The only one that strikes me as DEFINITELY ordinary is "all flesh" - which arguably supports MY position, viz. each and every flesh.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Daniel B. Wallace p253
E. Absence of the Article
9) With a Pronominal Adjective
Nouns with πᾶς, ὅλον, etc. do not need the article to be definite, for either the class as a whole ("all") or distributively ("every") is being specified. Either way, a generic force is given to such constructions.​

Do you seriously think 99% of bible translations have got it wrong?

I wouldn't be the first to assert that 99% of bible translations got something wrong. Consider Galatians 3:4, for example. As far as I know, 99% of the versions cast it as something negative such as "suffered all these things" whereas Gordon Fee argues convincingly for "experienced all these [charismatic] things."

In other words Paul seems to be admonishing them, "Having experienced all these wonderful signs, miracles, and revelations from the apostles, why are you regressing to a law-based, exegesis-based lifestyle?"

I could develop this thesis further in Galatians 3 but I'll stop there for now.

 

[swordsman1]

I wouldn't be the first to assert that 99% of bible translations got something wrong. Consider Galatians 3:4, for example. As far as I know, 99% of the versions cast it as something negative such as "suffered all these things" whereas Gordon Fee argues convincingly for "experienced all these [charismatic] things."

In other words Paul seems to be admonishing them, "Having experienced all these wonderful signs, miracles, and revelations from the apostles, why are you regressing to a law-based, exegesis-based lifestyle?"

I could develop this thesis further in Galatians 3 but I'll stop there for now.

Just because one commentator suggests that 99% of bible versions have got a translation wrong doesn't make it so. The proof is if their Greek scholars agree with him and change their translations to suit. Has that happened?

When at least a proportion of them start agreeing with you and change their translation to "every building" then we can begin to take your proposal seriously. Until then, into the theological dustbin it goes.

 

[swordsman1]

A conclusion that at least SOUNDS diametrically opposed to Paul's metaphor hardly strikes me as 'inescapable'. When's the last time you heard a building contractor say, "Good works guys! You did a great job erecting that building. Now that it's stable, feel free to go ahead and yank out the foundation." Huh?

If Paul wanted to convey something temporary, he could have used a different metaphor, for example one based on scaffolding, defined as:
"a temporary structure on the outside of a building, made usually of wooden planks and metal poles, used by workers while building, repairing, or cleaning the building."

Once the building is finished, the scaffolding is removed. I think Paul could have found a different metaphor, if he wanted to convey transience.

As is your habit, you are extrapolating too much. Just because Paul used the metaphor 'foundation' to picture those who established the Church, doesn't mean every aspect of that metaphor has to slavishly apply, such as what would happen if the foundation was removed. William Booth could be said to be the 'foundation' of the Salvation Army. Did it collapse when he died? No, because by the time he died it was well and truly established. The same applies to the Church. It is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Did the Church collapse when they died?

 

[JAL]

Just because one commentator suggests that 99% of bible versions have got a translation wrong doesn't make it so. The proof is if their Greek scholars agree with him and change their translations to suit. Has that happened?

When at least a proportion of them start agreeing with you and change their translation to "every building" then we can begin to take your proposal seriously. Until then, into the theological dustbin it goes.

That's a pretty dangerous attitude. On that basis:
(1) Paul should have held to the teachings of 99% of bible scholars of his day.
(2) Jesus should have done the same.
(3) The Reformers were mistaken to challenge the majority views.

Ultimately I am accountable to God. It won't suffice to tell Him on judgment day, "I had no choice but to follow the majority!" Luther's counsel is apropos:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

 

[swordsman1]

That's a pretty dangerous attitude. On that basis:
(1) Paul should have held to the teachings of 99% of bible scholars of his day.
(2) Jesus should have done the same.
(3) The Reformers were mistaken to challenge the majority views.

Ultimately I am accountable to God. It won't suffice to tell Him on judgment day, "I had no choice but to follow the majority!" Luther's counsel is apropos:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

A random guy on the internet hardly carries to same weight as Paul, Jesus or a Reformer. But if you think 99% of Greek scholars have got it wrong, good luck to you in trying to convince them to change their translations.

 

[JAL]

As is your habit, you are extrapolating too much. Just because Paul used the metaphor 'foundation' to picture those who established the Church, doesn't mean every aspect of that metaphor has to slavishly apply, such as what would happen if the foundation was removed. William Booth could be said to be the 'foundation' of the Salvation Army. Did it collapse when he died? No, because by the time he died it was well and truly established. The same applies to the Church. It is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Did the Church collapse when they died?

Sadly enough, your spectacles are so tainted that you can't see the ruins. It's incredibly tragic that most Christians, like you, have so low a view of God as to imagine that the institutions of today are anything close to what He intended. Sin, divorce, dysfunctionality, sickness, broken hearts, broken relationships, division, confusion, addictions, depression, evangelistic impotence, felony Christians in prison - all these are rampant. For fear of insulting God, I'm reluctant to classify any of these institutions as 'churches'.

The RUINS persist (at least we have that much) only because Christ is DETERMINED to have a harvest. The Father simply will not allow His shed blood to go to waste.

 

[JAL]

A random guy on the internet hardly carries to same weight as Paul, Jesus or a Reformer. But if you think 99% of Greek scholars have got it wrong, good luck to you in trying to convince them to change their translations.

Good luck to you trying to convince the charismatic movement of cessationism.

 

[Acts2:38]

Looks like I hit a nerve again.

So when Jesus "bashed people over the head" he was not being very Christ-like?

As far as convincing people of my position I must have had some success because I was invited to lecture at a Bible College.

Why is it you think every reply in response to your post is "hitting a nerve"? I am actually quite relaxed and happy. I also wish you no harm or malice.

Jesus was not contentious like you have seemed to be thus far. I had no "nerve hit", just merely confronted you on an un-christian like behavior.

Lastly for this posts reply, being invited to a lecture from other people that believe similar or exactly like you, is not convincing people. Convincing people is finding someone who does not believe as you do and turning them completely around to your thoughts and ideas. Totally different than speaking to those who already have the same thoughts or close to them.

That comment is paternalistic. But don't scratch your head for too long as you will get splinters.

I still find this interesting and I am curious how you have come to this conclusion. You have never really supported any of your arguments thus far and have basically told people to place their trust in just your opinion on the matters. No evidence what so ever. Maybe you can finally explain yourself starting here? Also, explain how IF my response are paternalistic like you say, how yours are not? Or anyone else here for that matter?

The one that is having a hard time discerning a miracle is you.

You won't convince the barren that produce children after prayer that it is not a miracle.

Your comment is cynicism at its worst.

No, just a simple reading of scripture. I find that my reading comprehension is just fine in this.

Prayer is a spiritual blessing. The scripture tells us to ask and we will receive. It also tells us everything is according to His will. This is not a miracle. "Ask and you shall receive" is due to spiritual blessings for those in Christ.

Might I also suggest not using more words that you are not grasping on. I have no self interest, and I am not being a skeptic. I have shown scripture and explained understanding from the bible.

I have read this passage in English and Greek and neither say the perfect is the canon of scripture.

And yet you still provide no evidence or explanation as to why or how you come to this conclusion. Noted.

1Co 12:22 In fact, we cannot get along without the parts of the body that seem to be the weakest.

1Co 12:25 He did this to make all parts of the body work together smoothly, with each part caring about the others.

1Co 12:31 I want you to DESIRE the best gifts. So I will show you a much better way.

Nowhere does it say the gifts will cease. he said to DESIRE the best gifts. he did not say "DESIRE the best gifts until the canon of scripture is complete."

And you have conveniently ignored this verse....

1Co 14:1 Love should be your guide. Be eager to have the gifts that come from the Holy Spirit, especially the gift of prophecy.

Note that love is a guide, not a replacement.

This book is also BEFORE the gospel has "come". So of course they were to "be eager" to have the gifts. Of course they were to "desire the best gifts" at that point in time. Because once "that which is perfect comes", those gifts will cease.

Again, in the case you have missed the above remark, provide some evidence or explanation as to why you think "that which is perfect" is not the gospel.

Another couple questions are, do you believe the gospel is perfect? And do you believe it is the only authority?

Wrong again. He was referring to the prophecies of the Old Testament as those verses you quoted had not been written when he said that and distributed to the churches.

Again you missed the point. The point to mentioning that scripture, is to tell everyone that the gospel is perfect. Which is also what 2 Timothy 3:16 tells you as well. I don't know how else I can get this across to you. If you cannot understand this part of plain scripture, then how can I help with the main point we are discussing?

 

[lincomen]

Peter calls Paul a prophet. Have you checked your bible carefully?

Can I have that scripture verse please?
Thanks!

 

[Qvashti]

Can I have that scripture verse please?
Thanks!

https://bible.org/seriespage/10-peter-and-paul-2-peter-314-16

 

[GingerBeer]

Can I have that scripture verse please?
Thanks!

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
(2 Peter 3:14-18)
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(2 Peter 1:16-21)
Paul writes scripture says Peter and scripture is called prophecy by Peter therefore Paul writes prophecy and hence he is a prophet.

 

[OzSpen]

In scripture there is prophecy - there is no old testament prophecy versus new testament prophecy that's a figment of your theology it is not what God says you will never find a verse or a passage that teaches it.

Is there an Old Covenant and a New Covenant? Or, is that a figment of my imaginative theology?

 

[OzSpen]

I see many people divided on this issue, I would say nearly all who post on here are born again believers, I don't see how so many people could be led astray if it is not real. I do not have the gift myself, but I would say focus should be on the giver of the gift.

I am still unsure great points on both sides

The Giver gives gifts and we need to acknowledge the gifts as God has taught in Scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

You keep saying that there is some distinction between new testament prophecy and old testament prophecy but you cannot show any difference. Have you never read how Saul was among the prophets? Don't you grasp that old testament spoken prophecy was either true or false even if it was never written down and never incorporated into the canon of scripture yet even what was not written was either true or false just as it is under the new covenant because it is the same God who reveals and who sends prophets to speak (or write) his revealed truths. God does not lie. Prophecies that fail are false because they are lies even if they are wrapped up in pious claims and Christian terminology.

Nearly all of today's alleged prophets tell lies.

Ginger,

You don't seem to be reading my posts where I provide the evidence of the difference between OT and NT prophecy. Please go back to #363 where I explained this difference.

If you come back with no difference between them, I won't reply to them as you are not listening to what OT and NT Scriptures state. Instead, you seem to be imposing your will on the text, which is called eisegesis.

Oz

 

[Episaw]

Jesus was not contentious like you have seemed to be thus far. I had no "nerve hit", just merely confronted you on an un-christian like behavior.

Lastly for this posts reply, being invited to a lecture from other people that believe similar or exactly like you, is not convincing people.

Prayer is a spiritual blessing. The scripture tells us to ask and we will receive. It also tells us everything is according to His will. This is not a miracle. "Ask and you shall receive" is due to spiritual blessings for those in Christ.

And yet you still provide no evidence or explanation as to why or how you come to this conclusion. Noted.

Comment 1. Jesus was not contentious. No of course not. He just upset all the religious leaders of the day.

Comment 2. I was not invited to a lecture from other people. I was the lecturer.

Comment 3. So someone being raised from the dead because someone prayed for them is not a miracle?

Comment 4. So the scripture which I quoted is not evidence even though it makes it clear it is?

I know one thing that is clear. Like a typical cessationist, you twist and turn every scripture to make it support your unbiblical position and if there isn't one, you will drag one out of the blue and put your spin on it to make it say what you want it to say and prevent it from saying what it does say.

From your comments particularly the one that someone praying for a miracle and it happens is not a miracle, suggests to me that cessationism is a spirit of denial and it is not from God.

 

[Acts2:38]

Comment 1. Jesus was not contentious. No of course not. He just upset all the religious leaders of the day.

Agreed. However, I was pointing out to your posts directed to many people including myself that were indeed contentious. Hence me saying "Christ-like" behavior parts. Even indirectly calling someone "stupid" is being contentious (you did this to another poster here).

Comment 2. I was not invited to a lecture from other people. I was the lecturer.

Yes, I know. You told me that already before. I will again refer to what I said before about this part in the prior post.

Comment 3. So someone being raised from the dead because someone prayed for them is not a miracle?

Yes, someone being raised from the dead is a miracle. However, this does not happen anymore. No one goes up to someone who has died, lays hands on them, and then they awake. This just doesn't happen. No one walks on water anymore. No one heals cripples just by a touch anymore. Miracles are ceased.

Comment 4. So the scripture which I quoted is not evidence even though it makes it clear it is?

The only scripture you put down was reciting what I had said about 1 Cor. 12, a point in which you missed and I had to reexplain. Please quote where you have actually placed scripture before me other than what I had just mentioned.

I know one thing that is clear. Like a typical cessationist, you twist and turn every scripture to make it support your unbiblical position and if there isn't one, you will drag one out of the blue and put your spin on it to make it say what you want it to say and prevent it from saying what it does say.

Yet time and time again, you cannot answer one single question I have placed before you. Time and time again, you cannot place before me any support for your argument. And again, time and time again, you deflect and insult.

Look, the insults are not making me angry if that is your intention. I am more than happy to discuss this topic with you regardless of your actions. It is just a little hard to get any further when you cannot answer the questions before you and/or even support your own argument.

So, if we can't move any further than this, I will go ahead and take my leave. If you can answer what questions I have posed, and even support your own argument, I would be very much obliged to continue this discussion.

Thank you for your time thus far.