Convince me of Continuationism.

[JAL]

@swordsman1

Too much empty rhetoric in your posts. I don't have time for the nonsense. I will selectively respond - I'm not going to respond to every little bit of empty rhetoric, except perhaps to call it out as such from time to time.

 

[JAL]

It's not my fault that you cannot understand the plain meaning of scripture. But if you want me to spell it out for you....
(1) the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
(2) God
(3) One
(4) The same foundation

OK?

So your claim, per #4, is that today we still have a foundation to build on. That foundation consists of the apostles and prophets (as you said in #1) who do NOT EXIST anymore according to cessationism. So let me get this straight: We are building on a foundation that no longer exists.

Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of that position?

 

[JAL]

Yes, he is in Eph 2:20. That is what the verse says. To make it say Christ is also the rest of the foundation, you have to "read it into" the text. A classic case of eisegesis.

Um...er..That is not my READING of Eph 2:20. Gross misrepresentation (lies). Rather, the claim is that Eph 2:20 is ambiguous on foundation (regardless of its clarity on cornerstone) and hence we must look to the CLEAR passages on "foundation".

 

[JAL]

Hohner made no mention of cessationism. Nor is he known for being a cessationist.

Again, there are degrees of cessationism. I discussed this already. Most theologians are cessationists in the sense of limiting (independently) authoritative Direct Revelation to the early apostles.

Where exactly does Hoehner say Paul "suddenly changed" his usage of the word "foundation" in Eph 2:20?".Oh wait..don't tell me.....you were "extrapolating". Yep, we all know what that means.

That wasn't my claim that he is saying Paul changed it multiple times in the middle of a verse. Gross misrepresentation (lies). The point is that he says that Paul's usage of "foundation" changed.

Um...er....there is no mention of maturity in that passage.

Um..er..God says Moses was faithful in all my house.

You don't think the Corinthians were spiritually immature?

They were most DEFINITELY immature.

 

[JAL]

You are "extrapolating" again right? ie putting words in Thomas' mouth. I'm quite sure he never said that; but rather it was the church that was immature, not the gifts. I believe Thomas' argument (not mine) was that teleios should be translated as 'maturity' and the church gained a certain level of maturity when the canon was completed, and thus prophecy and tongues ceased.

Thomas is clear enough on this. The "immature" is done away. It came to a cease. What has ceased, in his view? The gifts! Prophethood! The definitive ministry of Christ! Yes, that DOES characterize Christ as immature, and it IS heresy. I'm sorry you don't like the implications of the bogus cessationist claims.

 

[JAL]

So where are the apostles? Where are the prophets? (according to the biblical descriptions of those gifts). They are nowhere to be seen. They ceased. You might give a different reason for their cessation than I would but that doesn't alter the fact that they ceased. So you too believe in cessationism. Maybe it was something to do with Paul saying they were the foundation of the church.

Again, the Cessationist claim is that the gifts ceased irrevocably. To equate me with that party is gross misrepresentation (lies).

 

[JAL]

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because God or anyone else has multiple descriptions in other unrelated scriptures, that here in Eph 2:20 it must mean Christ is both cornerstone and foundation, when it only states he is the cornerstone. Yet another fallacy of yours exposed.

Correct. And clearly it wasn't my argument that Eph 2:20 must mean such. (Here again, you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting me to create a strawman). My claim is that:
(1) Eph 2:20 is ambiguous.
(2) The passage CAN mean such (based on similar Scriptures such as the ones I've provided)
(3) The clear passages on "foundation" confirm PRECISELY such.

BTW, I remind you that I'm a materialist, as was the church father Tertullian. In such metaphysics, it is expected for Christ to manifest in multiple material forms. This "cup is the covenant in my blood". Huh? The cup? Not just the liquid inside it? Yes. He is the Body, the Blood, the Cup, the Bread, the Rock, the Water, the Cornerstone, the Foundation (I could go on and on and on). The Fire that radiates from the throne? That's Christ too.

"As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze."

And guess what - the throne that He sits on? That's Christ!

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1,

Cessationism is a bit weird, isn't it? I mean, the nature of discipleship is to replicate oneself. Moses was a prophet, he discipled Joshua, and we ended up with the prophet Joshua. Similarly Elijah spawned the prophet Elisha. Later the prophet Christ arrives on the scene, He disciples a dozen men, and we end up with roughly a dozen prophets. And he tells them to go and make disciples of all nations (continue replicating).

The cessationist assertion is that God wanted them to DISCONTINUE replicating. It's like claiming, "God certainly wanted a Moses, but He never really wanted a Joshua." Huh?

 

[JAL]

Your example of the word 'foundation' is poor grammar....

Gotcha. Where "poor grammar" doesn't mean "a violation of English grammar" but rather amounts to "a repudiation of swordsman1's position". All you're doing is expressing bias.

...To point out which builder laid a particular foundation you wouldn't naturally say "That is the foundation of Bartlett and Son". That is unnatural and confusing to say the least. If you wanted to be clearly understood you would say "That is the foundation LAID by Bartlett and Son". The same as Paul would have written if that was what he meant.

There is nothing unnatural and confusing about this. Picture yourself in an art contest. The spectators wander from table to table, examining the work. One of them stops at a table and says to you, "You did a really a good job here." You respond, "Sorry - that's not my piece. That's the entry of Sally." That conveys possession. The LAST thing you'd possibly say is,

"That's the entry laid down on the table by Sally".

That too is a valid statement - it's not a violation of English grammar - but it's rather unnatural. You're asking me to buy into a wholly unnatural reading of Paul, and I'm just not going to do it. You'll have to go sell your bridge to somebody else.

 

[swordsman1]

So your claim, per #4, is that today we still have a foundation to build on. That foundation consists of the apostles and prophets (as you said in #1) who do NOT EXIST anymore according to cessationism. So let me get this straight: We are building on a foundation that no longer exists.

Non-sequitur. Just because they are no longer alive doesn't mean they are no longer regarded as the foundation of the church. William Booth is the foundation of the Salvation Army. It is still going strong despite his death.

Um...er..That is not my READING of Eph 2:20. Gross misrepresentation (lies).

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

Rather, the claim is that Eph 2:20 is ambiguous on foundation (regardless of its clarity on cornerstone)

It's not ambiguous to the vast majority of Greek scholars who agree with me, and not you.

Again, there are degrees of cessationism. I discussed this already. Most theologians are cessationists in the sense of limiting (independently) authoritative Direct Revelation to the early apostles.

So in order to wriggle out of your blatant misrepresentation that Hohner "admits that Paul's other verses on foundation contradict cessationism", you now move the goalposts and give us a new definition of cessationism that no-one has ever heard of. Oh, how convenient for you.

That wasn't my claim that he is saying Paul changed it multiple times in the middle of a verse. Gross misrepresentation (lies). The point is that he says that Paul's usage of "foundation" changed.

So why claim he said Paul "suddenly changed". If he was referring to Paul's use of the word "foundation" in a different context, in different book, it is hardly a sudden change in the usage of a word. At the very least you were being dishonest.

Um..er..God says Moses was faithful in all my house.

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

They were most DEFINITELY immature.

So if I was right, then why is my claim that "the Corinthians were spiritually immature, yet they abounded in gifts" a "logical impossibility" ? Despite being immature they had plenty of gifted people in their church. Infinitely more than we have today and probably any other church in history. They were interrupting themselves with prophecies and the tongue speaking was disrupting the services. So your claim that gifts were usually only given to the spiritually mature is patently false.

 

[swordsman1]

Thomas is clear enough on this. The "immature" is done away. It came to a cease. What has ceased, in his view? The gifts! Prophethood! The definitive ministry of Christ! Yes, that DOES characterize Christ as immature, and it IS heresy. I'm sorry you don't like the implications of the bogus cessationist claims.

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.

 

[swordsman1]

Correct. And clearly it wasn't my argument that Eph 2:20 must mean such. (Here again, you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting me to create a strawman).

Well that was your argument for Christ being both cornerstone and foundation in post #464. Why make it, if it was non-sequitur?

There was no misrepresentation or strawmen. Are you just blindly throwing out false accusations in the hope some will stick?

My claim is that:
(1) Eph 2:20 is ambiguous.

To you maybe. To everyone else including the vast majority of Greek scholars it is crystal clear.

(2) The passage CAN mean such (based on similar Scriptures such as the ones I've provided)

Which is irrelevant if you can't prove that it DOES mean such.

(3) The clear passages on "foundation" confirm PRECISELY such.

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

BTW, I remind you that I'm a materialist, as was the church father Tertullian. In such metaphysics, it is expected for Christ to manifest in multiple material forms. This "cup is the covenant in my blood". Huh? The cup? Not just the liquid inside it? Yes. He is the Body, the Blood, the Cup, the Bread, the Rock, the Water, the Cornerstone, the Foundation (I could go on and on and on). The Fire that radiates from the throne? That's Christ too.

"As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze."

And guess what - the throne that He sits on? That's Christ!

Strawman. What's all that got to do with anything when we've already established that things having multiple descriptions in other scenarios is no proof that Christ is both foundation and cornerstone in Eph 2:20?

 

[swordsman1]

Cessationism is a bit weird, isn't it? I mean, the nature of discipleship is to replicate oneself. Moses was a prophet, he discipled Joshua, and we ended up with the prophet Joshua. Similarly Elijah spawned the prophet Elisha. Later the prophet Christ arrives on the scene, He disciples a dozen men, and we end up with roughly a dozen prophets. And he tells them to go and make disciples of all nations (continue replicating).

The cessationist assertion is that God wanted them to DISCONTINUE replicating. It's like claiming, "God certainly wanted a Moses, but He never really wanted a Joshua." Huh?

So now you are suggesting that anyone who becomes a disciple of Christ would automatically become a prophet? Silly suggestion, easily refuted by scripture.

 

[JAL]

So now you are suggesting that anyone who becomes a disciple of Christ would automatically become a prophet? Silly suggestion, easily refuted by scripture.

Automatically? What was that you said about twisted misextrapolations? You called them lies, right?

 

[swordsman1]

Gotcha. Where "poor grammar" doesn't mean "a violation of English grammar" but rather amounts to "a repudiation of swordsman1's position". All you're doing is expressing bias.

You haven't "got me" at all. You're simply spouting gibberish.

There is nothing unnatural and confusing about this. Picture yourself in an art contest. The spectators wander from table to table, examining the work. One of them stops at a table and says to you, "You did a really a good job here." You respond, "Sorry - that's not my piece. That's the entry of Sally." That conveys possession. The LAST thing you'd possibly say is,

"That's the entry laid down on the table by Sally".

That too is a valid statement - it's not a violation of English grammar - but it's rather unnatural. You're asking me to buy into a wholly unnatural reading of Paul, and I'm just not going to do it. You'll have to go sell your bridge to somebody else.

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".

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?

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.

 

[Albion]

Cessationism is a bit weird, isn't it? I mean, the nature of discipleship is to replicate oneself. Moses was a prophet, he discipled Joshua, and we ended up with the prophet Joshua.

Similarly Elijah spawned the prophet Elisha. Later the prophet Christ arrives on the scene, He disciples a dozen men, and we end up with roughly a dozen prophets.

To be clear, is Jesus just a prophet, like Elijah before him and the people that "the prophet Christ" then discipled himself?

 

[JAL]

Non-sequitur. Just because they are no longer alive doesn't mean they are no longer regarded as the foundation of the church. William Booth is the foundation of the Salvation Army. It is still going strong despite his death.

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.

 

[swordsman1]

Automatically? What was that you said about twisted misextrapolations? You called them lies, right?

You said discipleship is replicating your master. No misrepresentation there (you're lying again).

 

[JAL]

To be clear, is Jesus just a prophet, like Elijah before him and the people that "the prophet Christ" then discipled himself?

We know what prophetic replication looks like - plenty of precedents in Scripture. Cessationism is a torturous analysis of Scripture, because it violates biblically established patterns.

 

[JAL]

You said discipleship is replicating your master. No misrepresentation there (you're lying again).

And quote me where I said it happens automatically?