Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.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!
And that's YOUR big exclamation point? Is that all you've got?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?
Did you catch that? It's the same stupid "argument" - he's saying, "Don't take a redundant stance here".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.
Ad hominem. Ignored.You seem to have some serious anger issues.
Your longest citation is on a separate link. I'll address some of that as I can. Not much time!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: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!
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?
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.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.
That logic would say that every believer in history would have all the gifts.It's the same Spirit given to us as to the apostles. Why would we then not have the same gifts?
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?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.
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.
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.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?
These roles are not among the enumerated "gifts of the Holy Spirit.""Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" (12:29)
Um...that argument backfires and thus becomes a case for Continuationism. Some cesstionists argue (in a rather tortured exegesis of 1Cor 13:8-12):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.
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:These roles are not among the enumerated "gifts of the Holy Spirit."
I never said that. You're lying (again).I mean, your point is that anything prior to 1897 MUST be dismissed as insignificant - including all the church fathers.
Eph 2:20 "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."(1) What is the foundation?
1 Cor 12:28 "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets,"(2) Who lays it down?
Silly question. How many times do you normally lay a foundation?(3) How many times is it laid down?
Matt 16:18 "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."(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%)?
Of course you didn't.I didn't check the date on that commentary, nor did I check whether contemporary opinion had shifted.
And they are correct.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.
Yep, everyone except you.Thus with basically EVERYONE IN HISTORY regarding the early Apostles as foundational (except me, it seems)
No, the reason scholars no longer agree with your interpretation is because it has been debunked. Not peer pressure.there is an incredible pressure to read Eph 2:20 in that vein.
The plain reading of Eph 2:20 proves you wrong.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)."
Your example uses bad grammar. It it should properly sayI 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."
Where does Hoehner say other verses contradict cessationism? Or are lying again?The biggest problem with that quote from Harold W. Hoehner:
He admits that Paul's other verses on "foundation" contradict cessationism
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.That is NORMALLY considered the opposite of sound hermenutics. (Anything is possible, but it's not the most PLAUSIBLE stance to take).
Not much of one, is it.I rest my case.
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.
If either Israel or the church had stayed on track,
Maybe it's too late in history for God's plan to reach fruition.
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.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).
Seems to me the opposite is true.At every turn, the Cessationist hermeneutic simply can't hold a candle to the Continuationist hermeneutic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?