Now you are committing yet another fallacy. Extending a metaphor further than it was intended.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
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.
And quote me where I said it happens automatically?
Misextrapolation (lies). That post pointed out that the cornerstone is PART of the foundation and thus, as such, is just as much foundation as the rest of the foundation. It wasn't a commentary on the REST of the foundation, so much as it was a commentary on the cornerstone.Well that is exactly what you wrote in post #442 among others. So who is lying?
It has become perfectly clear what "extrapolation" means for you. Look, when I want you to extrapolate my views, I'll let you know, but don't expect to be any time soon, seeing how twisted your renderings are.You said "the nature of discipleship is to replicate oneself". And then proceeded to give examples where every one of someones disciples became a prophet.
A building that has lost its foundation? Your God is evidently dirt-poor at creating and using metaphors. What was that you said about unnatural, confusing intepretations of the text? Of course, the whole issue disappears if we simply look at the CLEAR passages on foundation. But someone like Hoehner isn't going to do that - much easier to claim that Paul switched metaphors.Now you are committing yet another fallacy. Extended an metaphor further than it was intended.
It has become perfectly clear what "extrapolation" means for you. Look, when I want you to extrapolate my views, I'll let you know, but don't expect to be any time soon, seeing how twisted your renderings are.
Wow. Literally, in that passage, God lines up all the prophets in existence at that time and says, "You see these men? None of them measure up to Moses. That's why He CONSISTENTLY sees me face to face. That's why He consistently hears me speak in plain language."Um....er....faithful does not mean mature.
(1) All languages are different. In some languages it is considered idiomatically appropriate to use genitives of possession frequently, in other languages not so much.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".
You're missing the point. EITHER interpretation is compatible with my view. There is no pressure on me to decide upon one or the other.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?
Agree on what? A building without a foundation? That is YOUR nonsense. I'm pretty sure most of the scholars, when pressed, will backpedal claiming that the WORK of the apostles was foundational (notably the writing of the NT). Thus the apostles LAID DOWN some kind of foundation that we are standing on today. And that's what makes them a moving target.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.
What was that you said about incompetence in hermeneutics? The same word, used by the same writer, cannot be a commentary on the other usage?They are from different books in different contexts, therefore irrelevant.
That wasn't my claim at all (lies).So your claim that gifts were usually only given to the spiritually mature is patently false.
Not necessary to quote anything. Your inability to comprehend Thomas isn't my issue. Look at verse 11.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.
Misextrapolation (lies). That post pointed out that the cornerstone is PART of the foundation and thus, as such, is just as much foundation as the rest of the foundation. It wasn't a commentary on the REST of the foundation, so much as it was a commentary on the cornerstone.
Therefore Christ:
(1) Is the Cornerstone
(2) AND is the foundation.
A building that has lost its foundation? Your God is evidently dirt-poor at creating and using metaphors.
You're missing the point. EITHER interpretation is compatible with my view. There is no pressure on me to decide upon one or the other.
"The foundation of Bartlett and Son's construction company" (possessive genitive)
"The foundation laid down by Bartlett and Son's construction company" (genitive of originating cause)
Either reading is harmonious with my extrapolation (based on Paul's clear passages) that the foundation laid down is Christ, NOT the apostles and prophets. As that famous hymn chimes:
"The Church's One Foundation is Jesus Christ our Lord"
Wow. Literally, in that passage, God lines up all the prophets in existence at that time and says, "You see these men? None of them measure up to Moses. That's why He CONSISTENTLY sees me face to face. That's why He consistently hears me speak in plain language."
And you see no inkling of maturity in that passage? What was that you said about incompetence in hermeneutics?
Not necessary to quote anything. Your inability to comprehend Thomas isn't my issue. Look at verse 11.
"When I became a man, I put away baby things."
Ask yourself of Thomas:
Which baby things - which immature things - got put away? Prophethood! The definitive ministry of Christ!
If prophecy did NOT get put away, then it still exists for us today! So Thomas has left himself with two options:
(1) Either insist that prophecy, knowledge, and tongues are the "baby things" that got put away (that's his position)
(2) OR admit that this passage does NOT put them away - which is Continuationism!
That wasn't my claim at all (lies).
My claim is that superlative outpourings - a superabundance - of Direct Revelation and charisms are limited to the mature and therefore, accordingly, the Corinthian epistle, beginning in chapter 2, guages spiritual maturity on charismatic abundance - by PAUL'S standards of maturity (your problem is that you have in mind traditional low standards). And I linked you to a six-part series demonstrating so (which you refused to read). Wherefore the Corinthians, being immature, could NOT have been charismatically superlative.
@swordsman1,
Let's cut to the chase. Let's consider a reading of 1Cor 13:8-12 that DOES make sense. This passage was covered in my six part series on 1Corinthians : Post 7, and Post 33, and Post 46, and Post 47, and post 52, and post 58. The following material is from part 5 (which is Post 52).
Although my argument at 13:8-12 is more weighty when demonstrated to begin in 1Corinthians 2 (that's where the six-part analysis begins), it nonetheless singlehandedly devastates cessationism. Here in chapter 13, Paul picks up on the same themes belabored in chapter 2. Note the following in regard to these two chapters:
(1) Both use the same Greek term for babes.
(2) Both use the same Greek term for mature
Thus here too, he is driving the immature Corinthians unto maturity. Verses 13:8-11:
“Love never ceases. As for prophecies, they will cease; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what was in part will cease. When I was a [immature] babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things” (13:8-11).
He's not talking about the cessation of the gifts, but their maturation. The immature manifestations inevitably cease when replaced by mature embodiments. To make this very point, he creates a trio of three babe-activities:
(1) I spoke like a babe, and (2) I thought like a babe, and (3) I reasoned like a babe.
This is a parallel to the three gifts in view here:
(1) Tongues (2) Prophecy (3) Knowledge
And he reflects, "When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things."
Simply follow the threefold parallel to its logical conclusion. In what sense did the three babe-activities cease? Did the babe stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning? No! He merely matured in those three things. In other words, he can be classified as mature only insofar as:
(1) He has matured in speaking.
(2) He has matured in thinking
(3) He has matured in reasoning.
The threefold parallel is perfectly clear. The believer can be classified as mature only insofar as:
(1) He has matured in prophecy
(2) He has matured in knowledge
(3) He has matured in tongues
And in part six of that series, I even cited cessationist scholars to the effect that such is Paul's argument here.
This proves what I alleged earlier: Superlative giftings and premium-grade Direct Revelation (a superabundance of these) are exclusively the province of the mature (see Num 12:6-8). You can be said to abound in maturity only to the extent that you abound in prophecy, knowledge, and tongues. That is the SAME principle articulated by Paul in chapter 2, albeit paraphrased here.
This entire epistle is a compass. It points the way to maturity - it points to the prophethood of Christ. THAT is what we properly seek to emulate (not put it away as an embarassing relic of immaturity and stunted growth). Notice the very next verse following that passage:
"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'], especially the gift of prophecy" (14:1)
That's what it means to be spiritual. That's what a spiritual man does. That was the import of chapter 2, and here in chapters 12, 13, and 14, the message is the same.
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?