Convince me of Continuationism.

[Radagast]

I missed this post
1800's or earlier !!!! That deserved multiple exclamation points. Why did you just put one? I mean, your point is that anything prior to 1897 MUST be dismissed as insignificant - including all the church fathers. That's the thrust of your big exclamation point, right?

No. It was the book from 1897 that was dismissing the church fathers.

The point is that if Christian commentators today and in the past (all the way back to the church fathers) agree on something except for the 1800s, then the 1800s were probably wrong.

What we can't take seriously from the 1800s is the idea "hey, this is modern."

 

[JAL]

The Expositor's Greek Testament is not a modern commentary. It was published in 1897. So the "modern exegetes" it is referring to are commentators from the 1800's or earlier!

As for the exegetes who dissent with me, are their arguments solid? I don't expect to have time to debate every verse - but if I overlooked a major one, let me know. First off, each writer of the NT CAN use words differently. For example I personally believe that Pauline Spirit-baptism means regeneration/sanctification, whereas Lukan Spirit-baptism stressed inspired-speech for witnessing (and thus prophetic utterance). Thus, verses outside of Paul's writing are not necessarily germane to the debate on Eph 2:20.

Here's one of your cited scholars:

Ephesians, A Handbook on the Greek Text (2009)
William J. Larkin (professor of biblical studies at Columbia Biblical Seminary)
This is not a subjective genitive in line with other Pauline usage (1 Cor 3:10; Rom 15:20; contra Eadie, 197), since that would confuse the figure making “Messiah Jesus” both foundation and keystone (cf. Lincoln, 153).


This comment doesn't seem utterly stupid to you? It does to me. The term "cornerstone" is ALREADY redundant - inherently so, because it is the first stone in the foundation - it therefore IS the foundation (the first part of it). Therefore Christ:
(1) Is the Cornerstone
(2) AND is the foundation.
Both are true DESPITE the overlap/redundancy. The redundancy is inescapable. And yet he argues:

"that would confuse the figure making “Messiah Jesus” both foundation and [cornerstone] (cf. Lincoln, 153)."

In other words, "Read the text in a non-redundant way" (even though such is impossible). How is that even an argument? And yet time and again, the scholars you cited are making this "argument" !!!!

Put yourself in my shoes. In my last post I argued that all the scholars are already gravitating toward "foundational apostles" and thus are somewhat biased. So when I see them using seemingly bogus arguments to support their claim, how do you expect me to react?

Redundancy/overlap doesn't invalidate a claim. I already cited David on his six-fold classification of the Lord. "The Lord is my rock, my fortress, an my deliver...my shield, my horn, my stronghold". Did I forget to mention Shepherd?

 

[JAL]

No. It was the book from 1897 that was dismissing the church fathers.

The point is that if Christian commentators today and in the past (all the way back to the church fathers) agree on something except for the 1800s, then the 1800s were probably wrong.

What we can't take seriously from the 1800s is the idea "hey, this is modern."

And that's YOUR big exclamation point? Is that all you've got?

 

[Radagast]

And that's YOUR big exclamation point? Is that all you've got?

You seem to have some serious anger issues.

 

[JAL]

Ephesians (2002)
Curtis Vaughan (professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
How are we to understand "the foundation of the apostles and prophets"? Are the apostles and prophets themselves the foundation? Or does the statement mean that the foundation is laid by them? Paul in another place says, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). However, since the relation of Christ to the building is in this passage expressed by another figure ("chief cornerstone"), it is probably better to think of the foundation as consisting of the apostles and prophets. (The context suggests that these are New Testament prophets, of whom more will be said later (cf.3:5; 4:11).) Christ, then, is chief cornerstone; apostles and prophets are the foundation; other believers are the superstructure.

Did you catch that? It's the same stupid "argument" - he's saying, "Don't take a redundant stance here".

 

[JAL]

You seem to have some serious anger issues.

Ad hominem. Ignored.
This is what happens when posters have no significant rebuttals. Meanwhile, I'll stick to the arguments.

 

[JAL]

The Expositor's Greek Testament is not a modern commentary. It was published in 1897. So the "modern exegetes" it is referring to are commentators from the 1800's or earlier!

Your longest citation is on a separate link. I'll address some of that as I can. Not much time!

"Second, the genitives have been interpreted in various ways. (1) Some think they are possessive genitives: "the apostles' and prophets foundation." But Ellicott has pointed out that this would mix up the Beué)tos, "foundation" and cKpoyovicios, "cornerstone." It states that the foundation belongs to the apostles and yet, on the other hand, Christ is the cornerstone, the main stone of the foundation. Therefore, Christ belongs to the apostles! "

The possessive genitive is consistent with my position, but he puts a big exclamation point to insinuate it's outrageous. Ridiculous. I gave the example of the construction contractor earlier. The contractor says:

"That's not my foundation. That's the foundation of Bartlett and Son's construction company. It's THEIR foundation."

Note that's possessive. Nothing wrong with that because he's not saying that Bartlett ultimately owns the dirt (God owns it). It's STEWARDSHIP.

So what's odd here is that even though the debate on the greek has focused only 2 of the 3 possibilities, the third one should never have been eliminated and fully supports my position. Here too, we see that stupid arguments are being used to rule out my position.

 

[JAL]

The Expositor's Greek Testament is not a modern commentary. It was published in 1897. So the "modern exegetes" it is referring to are commentators from the 1800's or earlier!

Out of time. My boss is waiting for me to join a company meeting. I'll cut to the chase. The biggest problem with that quote from Harold W. Hoehner:

He admits that Paul's other verses on "foundation" contradict cessationism, but he parries it by arguing that Paul probably switched metaphors. So he conveniently ignores all the CLEAR passages on Pauline "foundation" as to build his case on an ambiguous debate on the genitive preposition that has been haunting scholars for 2,000 years!

That is NORMALLY considered the opposite of sound hermenutics. (Anything is possible, but it's not the most PLAUSIBLE stance to take).

I rest my case.

 

[zoidar]

I am on the fence between Cessationism and Continuationism.
While I lean more towards Cessationism, I do consider the possibility that Continuationism could be true. My biblical case for Cessationism can be found here:

Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

Can you rebuttal the points I made in this thread?
Can you also make a good case for Continuationism?

It's the same Spirit given to us as to the apostles. Why would we then not have the same gifts?

Ephesians 4
1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

 

[Radagast]

It's the same Spirit given to us as to the apostles. Why would we then not have the same gifts?

I'd feel more optimistic about that view if there was even just one modern case of "sign gifts" that could be proved to be genuine.

 

[JAL]

I'd feel more optimistic about that view if there was even just one modern case of "sign gifts" that could be proved to be genuine.

Unfortunately revival isn't something easily elicited from God. Even Isaiah prayed for revival without seeing any fulfillment in his lifetime, despite walking in high favor with God.

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. Imagine the temptations continually dogging men of such power. The world is their oyster! If either Israel or the church had stayed on track, however - spawning godly children filled with the Spirit even from the mother's womb - eventually there would be a high incidence of spiritual maturity and, along with it, a proliferation of the gifts.

Maybe it's too late in history for God's plan to reach fruition. Nonetheless the important thing is to get back on track - more so for evangelistic reasons than "charismatic" reasons. Any paucity of revival seems to spell an enormous loss of souls.

The good news is, I don't think we need to work harder! I think we just need to work smarter! First and foremost, we need to change our attitude - we need to stop pretending that we know how to evangelize, how to run a church, how to raise our children, and so on. That's what Direct Revelation is all about - it is the humility that says, "God I need you to speak clearly to me because I don't have a clue what I'm doing."

Suppose you're a church leader and, in your mind, you've already convinced yourself that you know how to properly run the church. (And let's suppose your tactics are actually mistaken). Do you think God is ever going to pour out any gifts on your congregation? That would look like a seal of approval stamped on your faulty tactics! Most likely He will NEVER visit either revival or the gifts upon your assembly. And that's pretty much a summary of the last 2,000 years of church history, for the most part.

 

[Albion]

It's the same Spirit given to us as to the apostles. Why would we then not have the same gifts?

That logic would say that every believer in history would have all the gifts.

Yet we know that this isn't the way God works.

There is plenty of testimony in Scripture about members of the church having different roles in the church but it all works together for a common goal, and that some people are chosen for certain tasks while others are not.

 

[JAL]

There is plenty of testimony in Scripture about members of the church having different roles in the church but it all works together for a common goal, and that some people are chosen for certain tasks while others are not.

Whoa, brother, not quite so fast. The apostles planted NEW churches. You know what that means, right? Typically a set of brand-new baby-believers spiritually immature! In THAT environment of spiritual immaturity, do you not understand why Paul's questions are rhetorical?

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" (12:29)

But was Paul counseling them to REMAIN immature? Look at verse 31:

"Now eagerly desire the greater gifts." (12:31, Calvin agreed with this rendering if I recall correctly).

Paul just gave you a scale of GREATNESS! Look at 14:5:

"The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues" (14:5).

So is the greatness limited to a chosen few? Is God a respecter of persons? Paul commands the ENTIRE CONGREGATION:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'], especially prophecy" (14:1)
"For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged' (14:31)
"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues" (14:39).

At every turn, the Cessationist hermeneutic simply can't hold a candle to the Continuationist hermeneutic.

 

[Carl Emerson]

.

It's the same Spirit given to us as to the apostles. Why would we then not have the same gifts?

Ephesians 4
1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

We do but the Spirit distributes as He wills... Paul confirmed that not all have all the gifts.

 

[Albion]

Whoa, brother, not quite so fast. The apostles planted NEW churches. You know what that means, right? Typically a set of brand-new baby-believers spiritually immature! In THAT environment of spiritual immaturity, do you not understand why Paul's questions are rhetorical?

You've just made a case for cessationism. The gifts were given for a purpose--establishing the church in an alien world--and when it was accomplished, the gifts gradually ceased to be a part of church life.

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" (12:29)

These roles are not among the enumerated "gifts of the Holy Spirit."

 

[JAL]

You've just made a case for cessationism. The gifts were given for a purpose--establishing the church in an alien world--and when it was accomplished, the gifts gradually ceased to be a part of church life.

Um...that argument backfires and thus becomes a case for Continuationism. Some cesstionists argue (in a rather tortured exegesis of 1Cor 13:8-12):
(1) The gifts were given unto the aim of achieving churchwide maturity.
(2) That goal was eventually reached in the early church
(3) Therefore the gifts vanished from them.
Don't you see why it backfires? Again, any NEW church planted today is beset with rampant immaturity. If the gifts automatically flourish as God's cure for immaturity, they would be flourishing all over the world today.

 

[JAL]

These roles are not among the enumerated "gifts of the Holy Spirit."

False. The immediate context makes it clear that verse 31 is alluding back to the list of charisms (gifts) just enumerated in the preceding verses. You're grasping at straws here, aren't you? What am I missing here? Didn't Paul refer to the same ministries as "gifts" in the Ephesians version:

"When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.” 9...11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers."

 

[swordsman1]

I mean, your point is that anything prior to 1897 MUST be dismissed as insignificant - including all the church fathers.

I never said that. You're lying (again).

(1) What is the foundation?

Eph 2:20 "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

(2) Who lays it down?

1 Cor 12:28 "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets,"

(3) How many times is it laid down?

Silly question. How many times do you normally lay a foundation?

(4) What are we building on today - meaning is the foundation still existing, still in place, for us to continue building on it? Or has it been removed wherefore the building is largely in ruins (for example a divorce rate of 50%)?

Matt 16:18 "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

I didn't check the date on that commentary, nor did I check whether contemporary opinion had shifted.

Of course you didn't.

For the last 500 years, the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars have been of the Sola Scriptura party - they deny the independent authority of Direct Revelation. As a result, they regard the early Apostles (capital-A) as uniquely foundational in the sense of being uniquely privy to authoritative Direct Revelation.

And they are correct.

Thus with basically EVERYONE IN HISTORY regarding the early Apostles as foundational (except me, it seems)

Yep, everyone except you.

there is an incredible pressure to read Eph 2:20 in that vein.

No, the reason scholars no longer agree with your interpretation is because it has been debunked. Not peer pressure.

This comment doesn't seem utterly stupid to you? It does to me. The term "cornerstone" is ALREADY redundant - inherently so, because it is the first stone in the foundation - it therefore IS the foundation (the first part of it). Therefore Christ:
(1) Is the Cornerstone
(2) AND is the foundation.
Both are true DESPITE the overlap/redundancy. The redundancy is inescapable. And yet he argues:

"that would confuse the figure making “Messiah Jesus” both foundation and [cornerstone] (cf. Lincoln, 153)."

The plain reading of Eph 2:20 proves you wrong.

"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."​

How can Christ be the rest of the foundation if he is only described as being the Cornerstone. Christ is the cornerstone who buttresses the rest of the foundation, the apostles and prophets. Just as it plainly says.

Your interpretation is nonsensical. If Christ is also the rest of the foundation it reads.....

'....built on the foundation of Christ, with Christ himself being the cornerstone'.​

The verse only makes sense if the cornerstone and the rest of the foundation are separate entities. Just as it reads. It can't be twisted any other way, despite your attempts.

I gave the example of the construction contractor earlier. The contractor says:

"That's not my foundation. That's the foundation of Bartlett and Son's construction company. It's THEIR foundation."

Your example uses bad grammar. It it should properly say

"That's the foundation LAID BY Bartlett and Son's construction company."​

A construction company would never say they own a foundation (as you have written it), they would say they laid or built a foundation.

If Eph 2:20 read "the foundation LAID BY the apostles and prophets" you might have a case. But it doesn't, so it can be dismissed. If Paul had meant "laid" he would have written "laid".

The biggest problem with that quote from Harold W. Hoehner:

He admits that Paul's other verses on "foundation" contradict cessationism

Where does Hoehner say other verses contradict cessationism? Or are lying again?

That is NORMALLY considered the opposite of sound hermenutics. (Anything is possible, but it's not the most PLAUSIBLE stance to take).

Right, so because the modern scholars don't agree with you, you accuse them all of using bad hermeneutics, something they are all thoroughly trained in and would cost them their jobs or severely damage their reputation if they got wrong. Yeah, sure.

Isn't it ironic that you earlier made a big song and dance about how modern scholars agreed with you, when in actual fact you were wrong and that vast majority actually disagree with you. Before you were hailing these 'modern exegetes', but now we know the truth and that they actually disagree with you have nothing but disdain for them. Such hypocrisy.

I rest my case.

Not much of one, is it.

 

[swordsman1]

The prophets tended to be the most mature - and therefore the most likely to exhibit miracles.

Wrong. A person was endowed with the gift of miracles because the Spirit determines they should have that gift, not because they are 'mature'.

1 Cor 12:11 "All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines."

God is too wise to put that kind of power in the hands of the spiritually immature.

Wrong. The Corinthians were spiritually immature, yet they abounded in gifts.

If either Israel or the church had stayed on track,

Maybe it's too late in history for God's plan to reach fruition.

Darn, us wayward humans have thwarted the plans of our Creator. What a weak and pathetic God he must be.

 

[swordsman1]

So is the greatness limited to a chosen few? Is God a respecter of persons? Paul commands the ENTIRE CONGREGATION:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'], especially prophecy" (14:1)
"For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged' (14:31)
"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues" (14:39).

Wrong. You are taking 1 Cor 14:31 out of context. Paul is not saying the whole of the Corinthian congregation was able to prophecy. The "all" in 1 Cor 14:31 is referring to the people mentioned in the previous 2 verses.

1 Cor 12:29 makes it absolutely clear that not everyone has the same gift.

At every turn, the Cessationist hermeneutic simply can't hold a candle to the Continuationist hermeneutic.

Seems to me the opposite is true.