Convince me of Continuationism.

[swordsman1]

Um...nice try. Tell you what. Any buildings around you? Yank out the foundations and then report back to me on the impact.

William Booth is not the foundation of the Salvation Army. He was the founder of the Salvation Army. What was that you said about misuses of the English language? If the Salvation Army loses its foundation, it crumbles into ruins, as any building would.

Now you are committing yet another fallacy. Extending a metaphor further than it was intended.

 

[swordsman1]

And quote me where I said it happens automatically?

You said "the nature of discipleship is to replicate oneself". And then proceeded to give examples where every one of someones disciples became a prophet.

 

[JAL]

Well that is exactly what you wrote in post #442 among others. So who is lying?

Misextrapolation (lies). That post pointed out that the cornerstone is PART of the foundation and thus, as such, is just as much foundation as the rest of the foundation. It wasn't a commentary on the REST of the foundation, so much as it was a commentary on the cornerstone.

 

[JAL]

You said "the nature of discipleship is to replicate oneself". And then proceeded to give examples where every one of someones disciples became a prophet.

It has become perfectly clear what "extrapolation" means for you. Look, when I want you to extrapolate my views, I'll let you know, but don't expect to be any time soon, seeing how twisted your renderings are.

 

[JAL]

Now you are committing yet another fallacy. Extended an metaphor further than it was intended.

A building that has lost its foundation? Your God is evidently dirt-poor at creating and using metaphors. What was that you said about unnatural, confusing intepretations of the text? Of course, the whole issue disappears if we simply look at the CLEAR passages on foundation. But someone like Hoehner isn't going to do that - much easier to claim that Paul switched metaphors.

 

[swordsman1]

It has become perfectly clear what "extrapolation" means for you. Look, when I want you to extrapolate my views, I'll let you know, but don't expect to be any time soon, seeing how twisted your renderings are.

But I didn't extrapolate. That's how the plain reading of your idea reads.

 

[JAL]

Um....er....faithful does not mean mature.

Wow. Literally, in that passage, God lines up all the prophets in existence at that time and says, "You see these men? None of them measure up to Moses. That's why He CONSISTENTLY sees me face to face. That's why He consistently hears me speak in plain language."

And you see no inkling of maturity in that passage? What was that you said about incompetence in hermeneutics?

 

[JAL]

Still poor grammar. No one would naturally say "That's the entry of Sally", to mean Sally's entry. You would say "That's Sally's entry".

(1) All languages are different. In some languages it is considered idiomatically appropriate to use genitives of possession frequently, in other languages not so much.
(2) If we're talking about a team effort, genitives of possession are quite common.

"That was the entry of Sally, Tom, and Bob".
"That was the foundation of Bartlett and Son's"
"The foundation of the apostles and prophets"

But in no case would I say:

"That was the entry laid down on the table by Sally, Tom, and Bob".

 

[JAL]

In any case what you've described in this new example is the possessive genitive. A day or two ago you were arguing for subjective genitive (the foundation laid by the apostles as per Expositors Greek Testament). Have you changed you mind, and now it's the "Apostle's foundation". ie the foundation of which the apostles were built on? I can't debate you if you keep presenting a moving target. Which is it?

You're missing the point. EITHER interpretation is compatible with my view. There is no pressure on me to decide upon one or the other.

"The foundation of Bartlett and Son's construction company" (possessive genitive)
"The foundation laid down by Bartlett and Son's construction company" (genitive of originating cause)

Either reading is harmonious with my extrapolation (based on Paul's clear passages) that the foundation laid down is Christ, NOT the apostles and prophets. As that famous hymn chimes:

"The Church's One Foundation is Jesus Christ our Lord"

 

[JAL]

Either way there's no escaping the fact that the most natural way to understand "the foundation of the apostles", and the only option that doesn't causes any problems, is if the apostles are the foundation. Just as per the vast majority of scholars agree.

Agree on what? A building without a foundation? That is YOUR nonsense. I'm pretty sure most of the scholars, when pressed, will backpedal claiming that the WORK of the apostles was foundational (notably the writing of the NT). Thus the apostles LAID DOWN some kind of foundation that we are standing on today. And that's what makes them a moving target.
(1) They'll start by identifying the apostles and prophets as the foundation.
(2) And then when pressed, they'll insinuate that they LEFT BEHIND, on our behalf, the foundation on which we build today.

That's EXACTLY what you did with your William Booth analogy!

 

[JAL]

They are from different books in different contexts, therefore irrelevant.

What was that you said about incompetence in hermeneutics? The same word, used by the same writer, cannot be a commentary on the other usage?

 

[JAL]

So your claim that gifts were usually only given to the spiritually mature is patently false.

That wasn't my claim at all (lies).
My claim is that superlative outpourings - a superabundance - of Direct Revelation and charisms are limited to the mature and therefore, accordingly, the Corinthian epistle, beginning in chapter 2, guages spiritual maturity on charismatic abundance - by PAUL'S standards of maturity (your problem is that you have in mind traditional low standards). And I linked you to a six-part series demonstrating so (which you refused to read). Wherefore the Corinthians, being immature, could NOT have been charismatically superlative.

Let's just take a look at ONE passage in that epistle (and this passage wasn't even mentioned in the six-part series, as I recall) to get a sense of the premium that Paul places on charismatic power:

"Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?"

Empirically demonstrated power - he implies that it's empirical because he will "find out" when he comes to visit them, whether they have it. But notice the DEFINITION of the Kingdom. He DEFINES the kingdom of God as being a matter of charismatic power.

"20For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power."

Got a question for you. Has the definition of the "kingdom of God" changed? Cessationism certainly fosters that conclusion.

 

[JAL]

I am quite sure he said no such thing. His argument is the immature (church) has changed to the mature, just a child matures into a man (1 Cor 13:11).

But go ahead and prove otherwise. Give us the citation. If you can't, it proves you are lying.

Not necessary to quote anything. Your inability to comprehend Thomas isn't my issue. Look at verse 11.

"When I became a man, I put away baby things."

Ask yourself of Thomas:

Which baby things - which immature things - got put away? Prophethood! The definitive ministry of Christ!

If prophecy did NOT get put away, then it still exists for us today! So Thomas has left himself with two options:
(1) Either insist that prophecy, knowledge, and tongues are the "baby things" that got put away (that's his position)
(2) OR admit that this passage does NOT put them away - which is Continuationism!

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1,

Let's cut to the chase. Let's consider a reading of 1Cor 13:8-12 that DOES make sense. This passage was covered in my six part series on 1Corinthians : Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58. The following material is from part 5 (which is Post 52).

Although my argument at 13:8-12 is more weighty when demonstrated to begin in 1Corinthians 2 (that's where the six-part analysis begins), it nonetheless singlehandedly devastates cessationism. Here in chapter 13, Paul picks up on the same themes belabored in chapter 2. Note the following in regard to these two chapters:
(1) Both use the same Greek term for babes.

(2) Both use the same Greek term for mature

Thus here too, he is driving the immature Corinthians unto maturity. Verses 13:8-11:

“Love never ceases. As for prophecies, they will cease; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what was in part will cease. When I was a [immature] babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things” (13:8-11).

He's not talking about the cessation of the gifts, but their maturation. The immature manifestations inevitably cease when replaced by mature embodiments. To make this very point, he creates a trio of three babe-activities:
(1) I spoke like a babe, and (2) I thought like a babe, and (3) I reasoned like a babe.

This is a parallel to the three gifts in view here:
(1) Tongues (2) Prophecy (3) Knowledge

And he reflects, "When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things."

Simply follow the threefold parallel to its logical conclusion. In what sense did the three babe-activities cease? Did the babe stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning? No! He merely matured in those three things. In other words, he can be classified as mature only insofar as:
(1) He has matured in speaking.
(2) He has matured in thinking
(3) He has matured in reasoning.

The threefold parallel is perfectly clear. The believer can be classified as mature only insofar as:
(1) He has matured in prophecy
(2) He has matured in knowledge
(3) He has matured in tongues

And in part six of that series, I even cited cessationist scholars to the effect that such is Paul's argument here.

This proves what I alleged earlier: Superlative giftings and premium-grade Direct Revelation (a superabundance of these) are exclusively the province of the mature (see Num 12:6-8). You can be said to abound in maturity only to the extent that you abound in prophecy, knowledge, and tongues. That is the SAME principle articulated by Paul in chapter 2, albeit paraphrased here.

This entire epistle is a compass. It points the way to maturity - it points to the prophethood of Christ. THAT is what we properly seek to emulate (not put it away as an embarassing relic of immaturity and stunted growth). Notice the very next verse following that passage:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'], especially the gift of prophecy" (14:1)

That's what it means to be spiritual. That's what a spiritual man does. That was the import of chapter 2, and here in chapters 12, 13, and 14, the message is the same.

 

[JAL]

Clearly, there is no hint of cessation anywhere in that passage - only maturation. Therefore it CANNOT be postulating a cessation of the gifts. It can ONLY be envisaging their maturation.

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1

You pretended it was such a huge victory finding a shift in scholarly opinion of the genitive nouns at Eph 2:20. You keep harping on it even though, clearly, the earlier 1897 majority favoring MY reading was far more significant because I alone espouse an unqualifiedly anti-cessationist position. It's typically EASY to find scholarly support for the popular views. Much more significant to find it for unpopular views.

Let's set aside Eph 2:20 for just one milisecond. What about cessationism on the whole? What are scholars saying about it today? Most biblical scholars of today, according to this pastor (who holds a Doctorate of Ministry from Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary), stand opposed to cessationism - this appears to be a recent shift in opinion:

 

[swordsman1]

Misextrapolation (lies). That post pointed out that the cornerstone is PART of the foundation and thus, as such, is just as much foundation as the rest of the foundation. It wasn't a commentary on the REST of the foundation, so much as it was a commentary on the cornerstone.

You're lying again. You plainly said....

Therefore Christ:
(1) Is the Cornerstone
(2) AND is the foundation.

A building that has lost its foundation? Your God is evidently dirt-poor at creating and using metaphors.

No, the problem is not God being poor with metaphors, it is you fallaciously extending them beyond their intended use.

You're missing the point. EITHER interpretation is compatible with my view. There is no pressure on me to decide upon one or the other.

"The foundation of Bartlett and Son's construction company" (possessive genitive)
"The foundation laid down by Bartlett and Son's construction company" (genitive of originating cause)

Either reading is harmonious with my extrapolation (based on Paul's clear passages) that the foundation laid down is Christ, NOT the apostles and prophets. As that famous hymn chimes:

"The Church's One Foundation is Jesus Christ our Lord"

So you're sitting on the fence again. Last time you did that and I refuted your argument you shifted the goalposts (after the goal was scored ) by saying oh that was only "one facet" of your thinking and instead had the gall to accuse me of misrepresenting you! That was when I left the thread in disgust at your blatant dishonesty.

Let me know when you've stopped moving the target and made up your mind on your interpretation of Eph 2:20. Then we can continue discussing it. Otherwise you're wasting my time.

 

[swordsman1]

Wow. Literally, in that passage, God lines up all the prophets in existence at that time and says, "You see these men? None of them measure up to Moses. That's why He CONSISTENTLY sees me face to face. That's why He consistently hears me speak in plain language."

And you see no inkling of maturity in that passage? What was that you said about incompetence in hermeneutics?

There is still no mention of maturity in the verse you quoted, not even an "inkling" which you have now pathetically downgraded you assertion to.

I don't think you even know what the word hermeneutics means.

Not necessary to quote anything. Your inability to comprehend Thomas isn't my issue. Look at verse 11.

"When I became a man, I put away baby things."

Ask yourself of Thomas:

Which baby things - which immature things - got put away? Prophethood! The definitive ministry of Christ!

If prophecy did NOT get put away, then it still exists for us today! So Thomas has left himself with two options:
(1) Either insist that prophecy, knowledge, and tongues are the "baby things" that got put away (that's his position)
(2) OR admit that this passage does NOT put them away - which is Continuationism!

Cite where Robert Thomas says prophecy is immature. You are putting words in his mouth. He said no such thing. Is there any end to your dishonesty?

 

[swordsman1]

That wasn't my claim at all (lies).
My claim is that superlative outpourings - a superabundance - of Direct Revelation and charisms are limited to the mature and therefore, accordingly, the Corinthian epistle, beginning in chapter 2, guages spiritual maturity on charismatic abundance - by PAUL'S standards of maturity (your problem is that you have in mind traditional low standards). And I linked you to a six-part series demonstrating so (which you refused to read). Wherefore the Corinthians, being immature, could NOT have been charismatically superlative.

You never made that clear in your original statement to which I responded, which was....

"The prophets tended to be the most mature - and therefore the most likely to exhibit miracles. God is too wise to put that kind of power in the hands of the spiritually immature. "​

And I proved it wrong. God gave prophecy in abundance to a spiritually immature church.

Now you're backpedalling and moving the goalposts after the goal was scored.

Yet more blatant dishonesty.

 

[swordsman1]

@swordsman1,

Let's cut to the chase. Let's consider a reading of 1Cor 13:8-12 that DOES make sense. This passage was covered in my six part series on 1Corinthians : Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58. The following material is from part 5 (which is Post 52).

Although my argument at 13:8-12 is more weighty when demonstrated to begin in 1Corinthians 2 (that's where the six-part analysis begins), it nonetheless singlehandedly devastates cessationism. Here in chapter 13, Paul picks up on the same themes belabored in chapter 2. Note the following in regard to these two chapters:
(1) Both use the same Greek term for babes.

(2) Both use the same Greek term for mature

Thus here too, he is driving the immature Corinthians unto maturity. Verses 13:8-11:

“Love never ceases. As for prophecies, they will cease; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what was in part will cease. When I was a [immature] babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things” (13:8-11).

He's not talking about the cessation of the gifts, but their maturation. The immature manifestations inevitably cease when replaced by mature embodiments. To make this very point, he creates a trio of three babe-activities:
(1) I spoke like a babe, and (2) I thought like a babe, and (3) I reasoned like a babe.

This is a parallel to the three gifts in view here:
(1) Tongues (2) Prophecy (3) Knowledge

And he reflects, "When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things."

Simply follow the threefold parallel to its logical conclusion. In what sense did the three babe-activities cease? Did the babe stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning? No! He merely matured in those three things. In other words, he can be classified as mature only insofar as:
(1) He has matured in speaking.
(2) He has matured in thinking
(3) He has matured in reasoning.

The threefold parallel is perfectly clear. The believer can be classified as mature only insofar as:
(1) He has matured in prophecy
(2) He has matured in knowledge
(3) He has matured in tongues

And in part six of that series, I even cited cessationist scholars to the effect that such is Paul's argument here.

This proves what I alleged earlier: Superlative giftings and premium-grade Direct Revelation (a superabundance of these) are exclusively the province of the mature (see Num 12:6-8). You can be said to abound in maturity only to the extent that you abound in prophecy, knowledge, and tongues. That is the SAME principle articulated by Paul in chapter 2, albeit paraphrased here.

This entire epistle is a compass. It points the way to maturity - it points to the prophethood of Christ. THAT is what we properly seek to emulate (not put it away as an embarassing relic of immaturity and stunted growth). Notice the very next verse following that passage:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'], especially the gift of prophecy" (14:1)

That's what it means to be spiritual. That's what a spiritual man does. That was the import of chapter 2, and here in chapters 12, 13, and 14, the message is the same.

I've already refuted your bizarre interpretation of 1 Cor 13:8-13 back in this thread. I don't intend to revisit it now knowing, as I do, that it is full of holes.

Let's just summise by observing...

How many of the dozens of scholars commenting on 1 Cor 13 agree that the gifts completely cease when "the perfect" comes, never to return? All of them.

How many even entertain your position? None of them.