Convince me of Continuationism.

[JAL]

If a prophecy today is genuine and truly of God (i.e. They are new words or a new form of communication from Him), then this should be added to the Bible because the Bible is a record of God's holy words. Most false prophets are not so bold to actually reprint the Bible with their false prophecies added to the back of the Bible, but that is unofficially what they are doing even if they don't print such a Bible to put their prophecies up on the same level as Scripture.

“And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken.” (Ezekiel 22:28).

I've already responded to that propaganda. No need to repeat myself. You just are in the habit of endlessly repeating assertions already refuted. I don't plan to keep repeating myself.

 

[JAL]

I asked for Continuationists to convince me of Continuationism. A few of them appeared to mock that idea. As if defending things from Scripture from their point of view is a futile task. This appears to be a theme so far. Mock the person or the idea of explaining Continuationism instead of providing answers with Scripture with love and respect.

Well I don't think I've resorted to mocking.

 

[JAL]

If a prophecy today is genuine and truly of God (i.e. They are new words or a new form of communication from Him), then this should be added to the Bible because the Bible is a record of God's holy words.

The problem here is that you seem to be more focused on your Agenda (refuting Continuationism) than the cogency of your position. So let's get some things straight.
(1) The notion of "new revelation" is an oxymoron. That concept doesn't make sense because the Bible already spans all possible topics on planet Earth. Direct Revelation can only hope to CLARIFY existing realities and existing revelation. You cannot therefore claim, "I don't accept prophecy today because that would mean revelation outside of Scripture". There is no such thing as "revelation outside Scripture". Even Paul didn't see himself as adding new revelation - his writings served to clarify previous revelations.
(2) If you deny that God can speak to use for the sake of clarifying existing revelation (point 1 just made), you seem to be denying Illumination altogether. What - you think that the most God is willing to do is repeat/regurgitate verses verbatim? Once you've admitted that God gravitates us toward conclusions, you've conceded that Direct Revelation IS for today.

 

[JAL]

@Bible Highlighter,

Here's a good passage to keep in mind:

"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit f of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, (Eph 1).

Paul wanted this for ALL believers. Just like he wanted 1Cor 14:1 (prophecy) for ALL believers. What we do NOT find Paul advocating for all believers is evangelism - he mentions it to Timothy, but NOT to the church as a whole.

Paul had a proper sense of priorities, unlike today's church. Direct Revelation is paramount - hence he placed it on the top rung of the priority ladder alongside love (1Cor 14:1).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong on all counts. Let's consider Eph 2:20. Here's a rebuttal of the cessationist position on that verse.

Heck - forget THAT rebuttal. Here's a simpler/shorter one. Paul defined a church like this:

"In the church God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then...." (1Cor 12:28).

Any ALTERNATIVE definition of a church did NOT come from Scripture. Thus the cessationist is SIMPLY LYING TO HIMSELF when he claims that his views are "based on Scripture". Period.

That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong - it IS theoretically possible that the biblical definition of a church expired (although that position appears to be total nonsense). But the point is that the cessationist's definition did NOT come from Scripture. He needs to be honest about where it came from. Either:
(1) He made it up
(2) Or, he got special understanding (Direct Revelation !!!!) from the Holy Spirit.

Notice that #2 means that prophecy (Direct Revelation) is INDEED for today.

In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus recommends animal sacrifice. That does not mean animal sacrifice is still in effect today.

As for your supposed rebuttal of Ephesians 2:20 (via the link you provided): Well, I read it, and this is merely not reading the text plainly and believing it in what it says (in a straightforward manner). Christ is the chief cornerstone of the foundation, and the saints were laid upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (who abide in Christ). In other words, Christ is the chief foundation, and the apostles and prophets are then laid next (as another top layer) as a part of that foundation before the building can be built.

 

[JAL]

As for your supposed rebuttal of Ephesians 2:20 (via the link you provided): Well, I read it, and this is merely not reading the text plainly and believing it in what it says (in a straightforward manner). Christ is the chief cornerstone of the foundation, and the saints were laid upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (who abide in Christ). In other words, Christ is the chief foundation, and the apostles and prophets are then laid next (as another top layer) as a part of that foundation before the building can be built.

Gotcha. Reading the text "in a straightforward manner" means agreeing with whatever YOU think it means. Nice. Whereas I addressed what Paul actually said - you'd do well to emulate that effort.

 

[JAL]

In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus recommends animal sacrifice. That does not mean animal sacrifice is still in effect today.

Thanks for bringing that up. Precisely my point. Excellent example - perfect basis for showing how utterly ridiculous is cessationism. The central question at issue here is this - is God a competent instructor? Is He capable of producing an instruction manual that lasts more than a couple of decades? One whose regulations are still applicable? Or is He too stupid to do that?

How long did animal sacrifices last? 1,000 years or so? I mean, that's your position, right? So I guess God isn't stupid.

Or is He? Because in the opinion of cessationists, Paul's definition of a church expired a few years after he wrote it down !!!!

Apparently, God was too incompetent an instructor - simply too stupid - to provide a longlasting instruction manual for the church.

The TRUTH is that Paul's definition of a church is based on Direct Revelation and therefore has ALWAYS been valid and always will be. The church should be ruled by people who hear God's voice clearly (prophets). Thus the terms "apostles" and "prophets" are just convenient terms for an ecclessiology that has ALWAYS existed. Far from being stupid, God actually laid down an approach valid for all generations. For example, the phrase "Obey my laws" is rarely used in Scripture - it's almost always "obey my voice" (about 50 times). The Hebrew word for voice is qowl, it appears 500 times in the OT, always in sonic contexts (no exceptions). The Hebrew word for "obey" ALSO means to "hearken unto a voice".

God's will has ALWAYS been Direct Revelation - His voice. That will NEVER change. Anything less would be obtuse. How are you supposed to know the specifics of Gods will, for example, without His voice?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Gotcha. Reading the text "in a straightforward manner" means agreeing with whatever YOU think it means. Nice. Whereas I addressed what Paul actually said - you'd do well to emulate that effort.

You said,

“The Greek phrase for 'foundation of apostles and prophets' can mean EITHER
(1) that the apostles and prophets themselves are the foundation
(2) OR that the foundation is something laid down BY them.”
Quote by: ~ JAL.​

I am pretty sure you did not grow up in Bible times speaking Biblical Greek. So this is not a native language to you whereby you can have any true and real authority to say you know it with 100% certainty. But we do know the English language.

Ephesians 2:19-20 says,

19 “Now therefore ye [you-all] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” (Ephesians 2:19-20) (Note: the words in blue within grey brackets is my commentary to the text).​

It says...

“ye [you-all]... are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” (Ephesians 2:19 a, Ephesians 2:20).​

One, you are not reading and believing these plain words in the English. There is no other way to interpret this plain reading than other than what it says in English. You had to go to the Greek and create some odd ball excuse to reinterpret the Bible that is already established in English.

Second, if we were to follow your logic here, if the Ephesus believers are not the foundation, then logic dictates that the Ephesus believers came before the prophets and apostles. They recruited themselves. They did not need any apostles to have faith in Jesus Christ. But that's not what the verse says plainly.

The apostles are the foundation (with Christ being the chief cornerstone) because they recruited teh Ephesus believers. They came before them.

 

[JAL]

You said,

“The Greek phrase for 'foundation of apostles and prophets' can mean EITHER
(1) that the apostles and prophets themselves are the foundation
(2) OR that the foundation is something laid down BY them.”
Quote by: ~ JAL.​

I am pretty sure you did not grow up in Bible times speaking Biblical Greek. So this is not a native language to you whereby you can have any true and real authority to say you know it with 100% certainty. But we do know the English language.

There it is - the tired old argument of the genre: "If you can't prove YOUR position 100%, then mine is by default correct." You do realize that's a laughable form of argumentation, right? I can't prove anything 100% - I can't even prove that you exist. You certainly haven't proven anything 100%. Not even close - I've refuted your stance at every turn.

(I'm in a meeting but I'll comment more if I have time).

 

[JAL]

You said,

“The Greek phrase for 'foundation of apostles and prophets' can mean EITHER
(1) that the apostles and prophets themselves are the foundation
(2) OR that the foundation is something laid down BY them.”
Quote by: ~ JAL.​

I am pretty sure you did not grow up in Bible times speaking Biblical Greek. So this is not a native language to you whereby you can have any true and real authority to say you know it with 100% certainty. But we do know the English language.

The same ambiguity exists in English! Let's get back to the Greek, shall we? Here's what the Expositor's Greek Testament comments on Ephs 2:20:

"The gen. is variously understood as (1) the gen. of apposition = the foundation which is or consists in the Apostles; (2) the gen. of originating cause = the foundation laid by them; (3) the possess. gen. = “the Apostles’ foundation”—in the sense of that on which they built (Anselm, Beza, etc.), or as = that on which they also were built (Alf.). The choice seems to be between (1) and (2). The former has been the view of many from Chrys. down to Von Soden and Abbott, and is favoured so far by Revelation 21:14. But the second has the suffrages of the majority of modern exegetes (Rück., Harl., Bleek, Mey., Ell., etc.). It is more in accordance with 1 Corinthians 3:10 (although it is the worth of teachers that is immediately in view there), and more especially with Romans 15:20, where the Gospel as preached by Paul appears to be the “foundation”. Here, therefore, it seems best on the whole to understand the Gospel of Christ as preached by the Apostles to be the “foundation” on which their converts were built up into the spiritual house."

That's an authoritative source. According to the above:
(1) The majority of modern Greek scholars side with MY reading of the verse, not yours.
(2) My reading best fits with the OTHER statements Paul made about "foundation". And that was my argument. Any unclear passage should be understood in terms of those more clear. So I addressed the clear verses - and you simply ignored them. How convenient.

At what point will cessationists admit that Cessationism is just a cover-up for the embarassment that the church, historically, has failed to reproduce apostolic success. Jack Deere - a famous cessationist scholar who later turned continuationist - later confessed, "I was a cessationist because there were no miracles in my life and I needed an excuse to explain away my lack of NT spirituality" (that's a paraphrase because I don't have his exact quote handy).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There it is - the tired old argument of the genre: "If you can't prove YOUR position 100%, then mine is by default correct." You do realize that's a laughable form of argumentation, right? I can't prove anything 100% - I can't even prove that you exist. You certainly haven't proven anything 100%. Not even close - I've refuted your stance at every turn.

(I'm in a meeting but I'll comment more if I have time).

There is no use in replying to your points if you believe your English Bible says something different than the original languages. How do you even read the Bible with this kind of viewpoint? You can't. You have to try and read your Bible in the original languages (of which you don't really know). You will be fighting to understand the text instead of just sitting down and reading the text plainly and normally. Words are changed by you in order to fit what you want to be true. None would be the wiser with your interpretation on the original languages (Instead of just reading and believing the Bible in the English plainly).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The same ambiguity exists in English! Let's get back to the Greek, shall we? Here's what the Expositor's Greek Testament comments on Ephs 2:20:

"The gen. is variously understood as (1) the gen. of apposition = the foundation which is or consists in the Apostles; (2) the gen. of originating cause = the foundation laid by them; (3) the possess. gen. = “the Apostles’ foundation”—in the sense of that on which they built (Anselm, Beza, etc.), or as = that on which they also were built (Alf.). The choice seems to be between (1) and (2). The former has been the view of many from Chrys. down to Von Soden and Abbott, and is favoured so far by Revelation 21:14. But the second has the suffrages of the majority of modern exegetes (Rück., Harl., Bleek, Mey., Ell., etc.). It is more in accordance with 1 Corinthians 3:10 (although it is the worth of teachers that is immediately in view there), and more especially with Romans 15:20, where the Gospel as preached by Paul appears to be the “foundation”. Here, therefore, it seems best on the whole to understand the Gospel of Christ as preached by the Apostles to be the “foundation” on which their converts were built up into the spiritual house."

That's an authoritative source. According to the above:
(1) The majority of Greek scholars side with MY reading of the verse, not yours.
(2) My reading best fits with the OTHER statements Paul made about "foundation". And that was my argument. Any unclear passage should be understood in terms of those more clear. So I addressed the clear verses - and you simply ignored them. How convenient.

At what point will cessationists admit that Cessationism is just a cover-up for the embarassment that the church, historically, has failed to reproduce apostolic success. Jack Deere - a famous cessationist scholar who later turned continuationist - later confessed, "I was a cessationist because there were no miracles in my life and I needed an excuse to explain away my lack of NT spirituality" (that's a paraphrase because I don't have his exact quote handy).

Again, did you grow up in Bible times speaking and writing Biblical Greek? No. So please do not act like you intimately know that language.

It's very telling when you have to change the words in the English in your Bible in order to make your belief fit or work. The English does not conflict with the original languages. But believe as you wish. I just cannot take you seriously if you disregard God's Holy Word as it exists today.

 

[JAL]

There is no use in replying to your points if you believe your English Bible says something different than the original languages.

Um...Most English Bibles have places of disagreement. They can't all be perfectly correct on all verses. Hence we have to go back to the Greek and Hebrew on issues of dispute. This is Hermeneutics 101.

 

[JAL]

Again, did you grow up in Bible times speaking and writing Biblical Greek? No. So please do not act like you intimately know that language.

You're being silly. I cited a scholar. I cited his ENGLISH rendering of the text. If you are unwilling to take seriously the English words of scholars, then you need to throw away your English Bible !

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Um...Most English Bibles have places of disagreement. They can't all be perfectly correct on all verses. Hence we have to go back to the Greek and Hebrew on issues of dispute. This is Hermeneutics 101.

Here are 30 reasons showing that the KJV is the pure Word of God for today.

30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today (Update: KJVO Posters Only)

 

[JAL]

Here are 30 reasons showing that the KJV is the pure Word of God for today.

30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today (Update: KJVO Posters Only)

Oh I see. You do honor English - but only when it is convenient for you in a debate.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You're being silly. I cited a scholar. I cited his ENGLISH rendering of the text. If you are unwilling to take seriously the English words of scholars, then you need to throw away your English Bible !

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

 

[JAL]

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

One of my favorite verses. You do understand that verse is referring to Spirit-inspired words, right? Prophetic utterance. And back it up to verse 6 where Paul initiated that discussion. He said the Corintians weren't privy to these prophetic utterances because God intended them for the spiritually mature. Which is exactly where we still are as a church today. Hence the paucity of prophecy.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh I see. You do honor English - but only when it is convenient for you in a debate.

I believe the English does not conflict with the original languages. Your interpretation went outside what the English said. So you destroy the standard of how God's Word exists today. You set yourself up as a person who needs to reinterpret God's Word today so as to fit your belief. For if obviously if Ephesians 2:20 sounded like it was in defense of Continuationism, you would not be seeking to jump through hoops in trying to change the text in what it says in the English.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One of my favorite verses. You do understand that verse is referring to Spirit-inspired words, right? Prophetic utterance. And back it up to verse 6 where Paul initiated that discussion. He said the Corintians weren't privy to these prophetic utterances because God intended them for the spiritually mature. Which is exactly where we still are as a church today. Hence the paucity of prophecy.

I quoted the verse because you boasted in a scholar.