Convince me of Continuationism.

[Bible Highlighter]

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

I believe the KJV is my final word of authority. Everyone should have one because if they don't, they make themselves out to be God in creating their own version of the Bible to their own liking or preference.

 

[JAL]

I believe the English does not conflict with the original languages. Your interpretation went outside what the English said.

You accused me of misunderstanding the Greek (despite the majority of modern Greek scholars siding with me). That sword cuts both ways - why should we accept you as the world's foremost expert in English? Do you have a PHD in English grammar? Find me one single English grammar book indicating that an English genitive cannot be originating cause. The truth is, it happens in English all the time. I don't know what language you THINK you are the expert on here, but it certainly isn't English.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You accused me of misunderstanding the Greek (despite the majority of modern Greek scholars siding with me). That sword cuts both ways - why should we accept you as the world's foremost expert in English? Do you have a PHD in English grammar? Find me one single English grammar book indicating that an English genitive cannot be originating cause. The truth is, it happens in English all the time. I don't know what language you THINK you are the expert on here, but it certainly isn't English.

Yes, because you did not grow up in Bible times. It doesn't matter if you had 1 million Greek scholars siding with you. You and none of them have grown up speaking and writing Biblical Greek to know such a language with 100% certainty. Now, I am not against the original languages, but it should not conflict with what the English says in the King James Bible. Your interpretation changes what the King James Bible says (Which is a Bible that was established for hundreds of years long before the Modern Translations showed up).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You accused me of misunderstanding the Greek (despite the majority of modern Greek scholars siding with me). That sword cuts both ways - why should we accept you as the world's foremost expert in English? Do you have a PHD in English grammar? Find me one single English grammar book indicating that an English genitive cannot be originating cause. The truth is, it happens in English all the time. I don't know what language you THINK you are the expert on here, but it certainly isn't English.

As for understanding your Bible in the English: All you have to do is look up words in an older dictionary and compare that word with the context to see if it fits. Also, asking God for help on what it says is very helpful, as well.

 

[JAL]

@Bible Highlighter,

Here's an English scenario for you. Suppose a major building shifts a bit. The owner of the building calls up the contractor complaining, "I'm going to sue you for laying down a bad foundation."

Contractor replies, "You're barking up the wrong tree. That's not my foundation. If you recall, you decided to hire out an independent contractor just to build that foundation. That's the foundation of the Bartlett and Son's company"

That's a genitive of originating cause. It parallels "the foundation of the apostles and prophets". Notice that the foundation doesn't CONSIST of Mr. Bartlett and his sons (that would be an absurd reading). Rather it is a foundation LAID DOWN BY THEM.

As that scholar already warned us - that's the position of the majority of modern Greek scholars.

 

[JAL]

Yes, because you did not grow up in Bible times. It doesn't matter if you had 1 million Greek scholars siding with you. You and none of them have grown up speaking and writing Biblical Greek to know such a language with 100% certainty. Now, I am not against the original languages, but it should not conflict with what the English says in the King James Bible. Your interpretation changes what the King James Bible says (Which is a Bible that was established for hundreds of years long before the Modern Translations showed up).

Um...that's non-responsive. I was questioning your reading of the English KJV. You're still speaking Greek (pun intended).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Bible Highlighter,

Here's an English scenario for you. Suppose a major building shifts a bit. The owner of the building calls up the contractor complaining, "I'm going to sue you for laying down a bad foundation."

Contractor replies, "You're barking up the wrong tree. That's not my foundation. If you recall, you decided to hire out an independent contractor just to build that foundation. That's the foundation of the Bartlett and Son's company"

That's a genitive of originating cause. It parallels "the foundation of the apostles and prophets". Notice that the foundation doesn't CONSIST of Mr. Bartless and his sons (that would be an absurd reading). Rather it is a foundation LAID DOWN BY THEM.

As that scholar already warned us - that's the position of the majority of modern Greek scholars.

Again you and scholars have set up your own interpretation that goes outside the plain reading of the King James Bible.

Stop and think for a moment. James talks about how the poor are rich in faith (James 2:5). Now, do you think the poor guy is the one who will always have access to interlinear sources and who had money to go to a college to learn the original languages, etc.? No. Yet, the poor guy is rich in faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). You are not hearing the Word of God but you are reinventing your own version of it to fit what you want to be true. God's Word should change us and we should not change God's Word. But I am afraid you cannot see what I am talking about.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Um...that's non-responsive. I was questioning your reading of the English KJV. You're still speaking Greek (pun intended).

Nobody today truly speaks perfect Koine Greek or Biblical Greek like they did back in Bible times.

 

[JAL]

I quoted the verse because you boasted in a scholar.

It's all about consistency. If you're going to boast in the KJV, you're already boasting in scholars.

But thank you !!!! You've just conceded what I've been arguing for years - that the NT writers did NOT place their hopes in scholarship for understanding. They placed their hope in Direct Revelation! Let's backup 3 verses from the one you cited:

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit"

The Bible scholar SEES the text (such was Paul's state before getting saved) - but he overlooks the message! It's hidden from his sight pending Direct Revelation !!!!. Jesus put it like this:

"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Most of the church still doesn't understand all that transpired to Paul on the Road to Damascus - they think it was merely his coming to faith in Christ! By no means - it was a PARADIGM SHIFT. From that point onward, Paul transitioned from scholarly exegesis to Direct Revelation, from cessationism to Continuationism, and so on. Cessationists are still in the dark ages that Paul had long since left behind. And the Galatians made the same mistake - they had started to prioritize the written Word - the Law !!! - over Direct Revelation! And Paul called them fools for it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

“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).
(Note: Words in blue within brackets is my commentary to the text).

Paul is talking to the Ephesian believers when he says “ye” or “you-all.” He says that “ye [you-all] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” It does not say “you-all are building a foundation with the apostles and prophets.” The foundation has already been laid by both Jesus Christ (the chief cornerstone), and the prophets and the apostles.

Also, why would the text stress that Jesus is the chief corner stone here? It's because the text mentions how the prophets and apostles are a part of the foundation (of which the Ephesian believers are built upon).

You have to change the words “built upon” to “building with.”
But if you did that, the phrase “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” does not make any sense.”

 

[JAL]

@Bible Highlighter,

Honestly, I'm just tired. Just like times past, I refute your arguments time and again, and you don't directly address the real meat of my rebuttals. Instead you respond to tangents (strawman). I even gave you a real-world example of the English genitive in operation, and how it totally refutes your understanding of how English works, and you didn't even address THAT argument directly. So what's the point of debating with you? Clearly your mindset is, "I'm already convinced so don't confuse me with the facts!".

As I said, I'm exhausted, totally worn out on these kinds of debates where my rebuttals are never really addressed. I'll likely stop responding because I've got other priorities.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Bible Highlighter,

Honestly, I'm just tired. Just like times past, I refute your arguments time and again, and you don't directly address the real meat of my rebuttals. Instead you respond to tangents (strawman). I even gave you a real-world example of the English genitive in operation, and how it totally refutes your understanding of how English works, and you didn't even address THAT argument directly. So what's the point of debating with you? Clearly your mindset is, "I'm already convinced so don't confuse me with the facts!".

As I said, I'm exhausted, totally worn out on these kinds of debates where my rebuttals are never really addressed. I'll likely stop responding because I've got other priorities.

You have not refuted anything. You have not refuted what the King James Bible says. This is what you have to do in order for your belief to work. Many believers did not always have access to the Greek throughout history. So you would expect them to simply be in the dark until you and your favored scholars came into existence?

 

[JAL]

You have not refuted anything. You have not refuted what the King James Bible says. This is what you have to do in order for your belief to work. Many believers did not always have access to the Greek throughout history. So you would expect them to simply be in the dark until you and your favored scholars came into existence?

(Sigh). So where does the KJV explicitly say it is a "genitive of apposition" as opposed to a "genitive of originating cause" ? Clearly that is YOUR interpretation of the KJV.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In other words, your Bible version on Ephesians 2:20 would read like this....

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

Now, when I read the Continuationist Influenced Version of this verse, it does not make any sense. Why would Jesus Christ himself be the chief cornerstone if he is already the whole foundation mentioned? Why stress that he is the chief cornerstone? It makes no sense.

Unless of course you just read your Bible plainly here that 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 KJB).
(Note: Words in blue within brackets is my commentary to the text).
​

See, it makes sense now. The Ephesian believers were built UPON (and NOT WITH) the foundation of the apostles. This explains why the text then follows up by saying that Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. It is stressing how Jesus is the ultimate foundation here.

Anyways, words usually have a basic meaning when we read them. If this is not the case, then nobody could understand each other.

 

[JAL]

Paul is talking to the Ephesian believers when he says “ye” or “you-all.” He says that “ye [you-all] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” It does not say “you-all are building a foundation with the apostles and prophets.”

As expected. You continue to argue against conveniently fabricated positions (strawmen) instead of addressing MY position and MY arguments. With you, it's always a pretense of rebuttal and never an actual rebuttal.

Also, why would the text stress that Jesus is the chief corner stone here? It's because the text mentions how the prophets and apostles are a part of the foundation (of which the Ephesian believers are built upon).

Lovely. Without realizing it, you are now chastising Paul for putting a bit too much emphasis on the essentiality of Christ's role in the success of the church. In your view he should have toned it down a lot more. David didn't tone it down. He said,

"The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer...my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold"

Here David ascribed to the Lord about six distinct roles. But you would have us chastise Paul for ascribing a mere two roles to the Lord (foundation and chief cornerstone) ?????

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ephesians 2:20 means what it says. It is up to you to accept what it says or not. If you don't accept what it says in the plain English, we are done talking. I cannot force a person to believe the Bible in what it plainly says.

 

[JAL]

In other words, your Bible version on Ephesians 2:20 would read like this....

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

Um...No. If I lay down a foundation, I would later comment, "We then built ON the foundation." No one would say, "We then built WITH the foundation." ? ???

Again, with you it is always a fabricated position that you argue against, not your opponent's position.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Psalms 11:3 says,
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

 

[JAL]

Psalms 11:3 says,
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

Excellent point. YOUR claim is that the apostles and prophets were the foundation? (Oh that's right, you don't actually TAKE a position. Cessationists are conveniently a moving target on this question).

So if the prophets and apostles ARE the foundation - and they are now gone/destroyed - then we are in dire straits!!! Per the verse you just cited!

But if the foundation is something that the experts (apostles and prophets) lay down afresh IN EVERY REGION (as Paul argued, but you ignored those verses), then we still need such experts (apostles and prophets) to lay it down today.

(1) So what is the foundation?
(2) Who lays it down?
(3) Do we still have it today?

Give me straight answers - I've had enough of moving targets.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I believe the Spirit can still guide a believer into all truth whereby they would not have any need that any man would teach them (1 John 2:27). This is not to say that God still does not use human teachers, but it is saying that a believer can have the anointing of the Holy Spirit to know all things.

I believe this applies to the believer today in guiding the faithful follower of Christ into what His Word (the Bible) alreadys says. The Bible is pretty big. It says a lot. God can surely guide our life by the Bible in many unique ways. I know. I have experienced this for myself many times. So I do not have any need for any new communicated message via a vision, dream, a prophecy, or a new holy book, etc.; I have a complete Bible. His Word is enough and God has talked to me many times using His Word. To go outside His Holy Word is to simply add to His Word. For Revelation talks about how we are not to add to the prophecy of this book. Revelation ends the book we know as the whole of the Bible. So we cannot add words to the Bible.

This to me is one of the biggest proofs for Cessationism.
For the moment we say prophecy is still in effect, is the moment we must add another holy book or writing to the Bible (When that would be adding to God's Holy Word).

Your first paragraph I agree with.

Your second paragraph definitely not - His word is NOT restricted to the Bible, although He often chooses to speak in this way. His Word did not stop speaking through creation. Receiving the still small voice speaking to our spirit is NOT adding to the Bible.

You know much of this argument dissolves when you serve Him on the front line...

There will be a voice behind you saying "this is the way walk ye in it..." Not that supermarket - this one and BOOM there was a bomb in the other one.

When I mention living legions of the faith like Jackie Pullinger, Canon Andrew White and others there is SILENCE !!!

Try taking your no gifts theology where they work for Him and you wont last 5 minutes.

Your last paragraph is a nonsense - you are restricting His Word to the Bible, yet His Word lives in us and guides us as the Bible says.