Is Sola Scriptura Guilty of Logical Inconsistency?

[Pedra]

No where does the BIBLE teach the infallibility of any men over the Word of God.

 

[~Zao~]

Paul says that what he writes should be regarded as the Lord's commands. Do you disagree with Paul? Do you only accept the words of Jesus in the four gospel alone and discount everything else?

Paul can be understood according to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. I disagree to his application of the letter of the law (if that was indeed him) but I agree completely with the spiritual application to which allegories as shadows are used to understand the former, therefore throwing a pebble of Christ on the ground for greed/pride/lust to trip over, not to mention the bus with whose your daddy written all over it.
Paul was a self acclaimed Pharisee. At best that’s all anyone can be or perhaps the worst.

 

[~Zao~]

But true biblical faith or biblical belief is unwavering faith or certainty. If not, it is not really faith or a belief or trust in God. Can you say that a believer's faith in Jesus is only based on a percentage of certainty? Is a person's faith in the Bible only based on a percentage of certainty? Mine isn't. I believe the Bible is 100% true. I believe Jesus is my Savior 100%. Are you saying that this is not the case for other true genuine born again believers and that is normal?

It would have to be a malleable faith that trusted that the lamp would continue to light the path. jm2c

 

[royal priest]

So then Scripture is clear enough? No need to worry, then? I take it, then, that you read Scripture infallibly? Fallibility was my concern, right?

Let's be clear. If exegesis left me 100% certain of my exegetical conclusions, then I would have to claim to be infallible on those conclusions. 100% certainty on a given question means that I basically can't even cogitate the possibility of being mistaken on that issue. Therefore I could only see myself as infallible, at that moment, on that issue.

So let's be clear. Does exegesis leave you 100% certain on some issues? If so, why then don't you claim infallibility on those issues? Tell us which issues you are currently infallible on - and I hope it includes the issue of how to properly evangelize, since 100 billion souls are at stake. That is WHY we need infallibility.

Scripture is inherently infallible and authoritative. The Bible is true whether I believe it or not. My conscience is not the determiner of truth, God's Word is. I recognize truth by examining the truth, not by deciding if it's the truth.

 

[JAL]

While God can work miracles directly Himself, I believe the miraculous gifts given to the apostles have ceased. I made some excellent points in Scripture to prove this.

Simply check out this thread here (to learn more):
Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

Thanks for reminding me of that thread. I actually was a participant who soundly refuted all your cessationist conclusions.

Besides, show me a people that are working exactly like they did in the early church days. You won't find them. At least, I have not found them. If you find them, let me know.

This was one of the unsatisfactory arguments addressed at length on that thread. To begin, it draws a conclusion based on empirical observation and therefore throws Sola Scriptura out the window. That's a methodological contradiction. Secondly it's like arguing, 'All the men in the trade of home-based forging of swords have died out. Therefore it's impossible for such forgers to arise in contemporary generations'. The conclusion simply doesn't follow.

Cessationism misconstrues the NT as a horrible instruction manual, it makes God look like an incompetent instructor. Why so? The NT is so highly saturated with charismatic manifestations that I could probably find 20 in the first chapter of Mark alone. The NT is mostly charismatic in emphasis - but all this became obsolete in 50 years? Why would a supposedly competent instructor SATURATE and DOMINATE Scripture with a concept doomed to perish in 50 years? Worse yet, the NT wasn't even widely circulated until 1500 years later. Most of the material was then 1500 years obsolete? Doesn't make sense.

Consider Pauls charismatic definition of a church:
'God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1 cor 12:28).

Cessationists do NOT accept Paul's definition because they think it's obsolete (so much for Sola Scriptura). Where then did they get THEIR present-day definition? It's man-made !!!! I fail to see how a rejection of Scripture constitutes Sola Scriptura.

They will respond, 'The gifts passed away per chapter 13'. That is NOT Paul's argument in 13 (quite the opposite actually) but even if that were the case, it would be PAUL'S job - not ours - to supply us with a new, updated definition of the church. A passing away of the gifts is no warrant for men formulating their own definition of a church and church government and shoving it down God's throat. That is eisigesis, not exegesis, and it's unsatisfactory behavior on the part of so-called 'advocates of Sola Scriptura'.

If God was wise enough to write an OT legal system valid for 1,000 years, why was He so incompetent as to write a NT document mostly obsolete after 50 years?

 

[JAL]

Scripture is inherently infallible and authoritative. The Bible is true whether I believe it or not. My conscience is not the determiner of truth, God's Word is. I recognize truth by examining the truth, not by deciding if it's the truth.

(Sigh). 250 posts in this discussion (starting from another thread), I have yet to see anyone post a clear exception to the rule of conscience. There are no exceptions.

 

[Not David]

@JAL I feel nothing productive has come out of this (and the other) thread.

 

[redleghunter]

(Sigh). 250 posts in this discussion (starting from another thread), I have yet to see anyone post a clear exception to the rule of conscience. There are no exceptions.

Truly?

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Paul can be understood according to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. I disagree to his application of the letter of the law (if that was indeed him) but I agree completely with the spiritual application to which allegories as shadows are used to understand the former, therefore throwing a pebble of Christ on the ground for greed/pride/lust to trip over, not to mention the bus with whose your daddy written all over it.
Paul was a self acclaimed Pharisee. At best that’s all anyone can be or perhaps the worst.

That to me is illogical. There is no point in believing the Bible if it is full of holes (i.e. it is a holey bible). The Bible is called the HOLY BIBLE because it is divine in origin.

Have doubts God's Word is divine?
Just check out my Blogger article here:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Besides, the Bible is either all true, or it's not true. I choose to simply believe all of God's Word (the Bible) even when it is something I don't like because I have too much to lose if I don't believe it. Also, some have suggested that the Pharisees obeyed the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Law, when this is not even the case. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they ignored the weightier matters of the Law like faith, love, justice, and mercy (See: Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42). So I have a problem when folks mention the spirit of the Law vs. the letter of the Law because it reminds me of this popular false statement that is not true.

Furthermore, we have to be born again not only by the Spirit, but we also have to be born again by water. The "water" is the Word of God (Scripture) (See: The phrase "the washing of the water of the Word" in Ephesians 5:25-27). For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. We have to receive God's Word as if they were the very words of God Himself.

"This is why we constantly thank God, because when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you welcomed it not as a human message, but as it truly is, the word of God, which also works effectively in you who believe."
(1 Thessalonians 2:13).

23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter 1:23-25).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's not that God's revelation in Scripture is insufficient. The problem is that I have no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it.

So if your interpretations of Scripture are fallible (as you stated here in the OP), then why should we trust your interpretation on Scripture that refutes Sola Scriptura?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thanks for reminding me of that thread. I actually was a participant who soundly refuted all your cessationist conclusions.

I don't believe you refuted my points with Scripture, but you can believe whatever you wish.

Thanks for reminding me of that thread. I actually was a participant who soundly refuted all your cessationist conclusions.
This was one of the unsatisfactory arguments addressed at length on that thread. To begin, it draws a conclusion based on empirical observation and therefore throws Sola Scriptura out the window. That's a methodological contradiction. Secondly it's like arguing, 'All the men in the trade of home-based forging of swords have died out. Therefore it's impossible for such forgers to arise in contemporary generations'. The conclusion simply doesn't follow.

So you can point me to a believer or believers who can heal 100% of the time?
You can point me to a believer whose prophecy is 100% true every time in regards to his future predictions?
Does your church follow the rules of 1 Corinthians 14 in regards to tongues?

Cessationism misconstrues the NT as a horrible instruction manual, it makes God look like an incompetent instructor. Why so? The NT is so highly saturated with charismatic manifestations that I could probably find 20 in the first chapter of Mark alone. The NT is mostly charismatic in emphasis - but all this became obsolete in 50 years? Why would a supposedly competent instructor SATURATE and DOMINATE Scripture with a concept doomed to perish in 50 years? Worse yet, the NT wasn't even widely circulated until 1500 years later. Most of the material was then 1500 years obsolete? Doesn't make sense.

It's not misconstruing the NT. The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;” (Ephesians 2:18-20). We are said to have access by one Spirit unto the Father that is build upon the “foundation” of the apostles and prophets. Being an apostle is a gift (See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). The qualifications of being an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ (See Acts of the Apostles 1:22-26). Paul said he met the qualifications as being an apostle because he had seen the risen Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:1 “…Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Paul called himself the “last prophet.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul says that God has set forth the apostles last (1 Corinthians 14:9).

Consider Pauls charismatic definition of a church:
'God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1 cor 12:28).

This verse proves my point on Cessationism because it talks in context about how the apostles and prophets are the foundation (that we are built upon).

Cessationists do NOT accept Paul's definition because they think it's obsolete (so much for Sola Scriptura). Where then did they get THEIR present-day definition? It's man-made !!!! I fail to see how a rejection of Scripture constitutes Sola Scriptura.

Paul says that all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness so that the man of God (not Timothy) may be perfect unto ALL good works (and not some good works). What need is there of anything else if ALL Scripture is profitable for being perfect unto ALL good works? There is no need of anything else. Yes, God is the natural revelator of Scripture, and He abides by His Word. For all Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD.

They will respond, 'The gifts passed away per chapter 13'. That is NOT Paul's argument in 13 (quite the opposite actually) but even if that were the case, it would be PAUL'S job - not ours - to supply us with a new, updated definition of the church. A passing away of the gifts is no warrant for men formulating their own definition of a church and church government and shoving it down God's throat. That is eisigesis, not exegesis, and it's unsatisfactory behavior on the part of so-called 'advocates of Sola Scriptura'.

The Biblical command to greet one another with a kiss is not applicable in most cultures of the world today. We also do not generally wear the same kind of clothes that they did. So yes, some things have passed away. We have to realize that we are in a different time than in the past, and things can change.

If God was wise enough to write an OT legal system valid for 1,000 years, why was He so incompetent as to write a NT document mostly obsolete after 50 years?

Because God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.

Cessationism misconstrues the NT as a horrible instruction manual, it makes God look like an incompetent instructor. Why so? The NT is so highly saturated with charismatic manifestations that I could probably find 20 in the first chapter of Mark alone. The NT is mostly charismatic in emphasis - but all this became obsolete in 50 years? Why would a supposedly competent instructor SATURATE and DOMINATE Scripture with a concept doomed to perish in 50 years? Worse yet, the NT wasn't even widely circulated until 1500 years later. Most of the material was then 1500 years obsolete? Doesn't make sense.

We can see that Paul was not able to operate in healing others like he did before in his prison epistles and pastoral epistles.

Consider Pauls charismatic definition of a church:
'God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1 cor 12:28).

Cessationists do NOT accept Paul's definition because they think it's obsolete (so much for Sola Scriptura). Where then did they get THEIR present-day definition? It's man-made !!!! I fail to see how a rejection of Scripture constitutes Sola Scriptura.

They will respond, 'The gifts passed away per chapter 13'. That is NOT Paul's argument in 13 (quite the opposite actually) but even if that were the case, it would be PAUL'S job - not ours - to supply us with a new, updated definition of the church. A passing away of the gifts is no warrant for men formulating their own definition of a church and church government and shoving it down God's throat. That is eisigesis, not exegesis, and it's unsatisfactory behavior on the part of so-called 'advocates of Sola Scriptura'.

If God was wise enough to write an OT legal system valid for 1,000 years, why was He so incompetent as to write a NT document mostly obsolete after 50 years?

Paul made a parallel about what the "perfect" is and it is tied with a mirror / Word of God. The other place that talks about this is in James 1.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Would you be able to show me without a shadow of a doubt how and why the Bible is 100% accurate and 100% true?

Well, I am not going to refer to you personally here (because I don't want to make it personal). I will say what a person in general needs to do in order to trust the Bible 100% and to know it is accurate 100%.

First, in order for a person to trust the Bible 100%, they need to be broken with a godly sorrow over their sin and seek forgiveness of their sins with the Lord Jesus Christ and believe that He died and rose again three days later. They need to believe that His Word is holy and divine from the beginning. Meaning, they need to accept the truth that God's Word is trustworthy and perfect. They need to have an experience with God's Word in a powerful way. They need to accept God's Word as a holy revelation that touched their heart to their core. For a person not only needs to be born again spiritually by the Spirit, but they also need to be born again by water (Which is the Word of God - see Ephesians 5:25-27).

Second, a person who first comes to the faith needs to find the perfect Word of God and see that there are evidences backing it up that it is perfect. I believe the KJV is perfect and without error.

Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word:

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect:
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). This means there has to be one perfect Word of God for our world language today. If so, a person needs to find that perfect Word of God, and then it becomes an issue of a test of their faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations:
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

To learn more on this study, click on the following spoiler button:

Spoiler

In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.

In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?

Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).

"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).

This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),

"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).

Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.

The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!

Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).

In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.

But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?

Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).

So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!

Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.

So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.

For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.

Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).

#3. Biblical Numerics:
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.
Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):

Now, while I may not agree with Mike and Chuck on everything they teach in the Bible nor on the way they teach the Bible, but their teaching on Biblical numerics are amazing; I have found that they have made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the original languages (Chuck) and only in the King James (Mike).


#4. Men have lost their voice for tampering with God's Word.

The Bible warns us not to add to God's Word, otherwise the plagues that are written in this book (the Bible) will be added to us.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18).​

Many have said that this is only talking about the book of Revelation. But men have lost their voice for adding to God's Word (Which is a plague in another part of the Bible and not Revelation).

Check out these articles here:

Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show
Bible Correctors lose Voice


Concluding thoughts on the KJV vs. the Modern Translations:

I believe the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) is the Word of God for our world language (English) today. In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either. The Apocrypha was also not removed officially until 1885, too (Even though it was never regarded as Scripture by Christians).

From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.

Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.

In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).

This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.

Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.

For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

~ J.

 

[JAL]

So you can point me to a believer or believers who can heal 100% of the time?
You can point me to a believer whose prophecy is 100% true every time in regards to his future predictions?

Methodological contradiction. Advocates of Sola Scriptura have no right to make empirical arguments. What happened to doctrine based on the Bible alone?

You shouldn't expect to see any prophets right now. I sure don't. With doctrines like Sola Scriptura, cessationism, and an overall deemphasis of prophecy and direct revelation (to name just a few of the problems), the church has not provided a suitable environment for prophecy to flourish. That's what I would like to see fixed.

Does your church follow the rules of 1 Corinthians 14 in regards to tongues?

That's putting the cart before the horse. As today's churches are not proper apostolic churches, I'm not sure Paul's tongues-regulations properly apply to us. Let's work on recovering the apostolic church first, then we can talk about how to regulate it.

It's not misconstruing the NT. The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;” (Ephesians 2:18-20). We are said to have access by one Spirit unto the Father that is build upon the “foundation” of the apostles and prophets. Being an apostle is a gift (See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). The qualifications of being an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ (See Acts of the Apostles 1:22-26). Paul said he met the qualifications as being an apostle because he had seen the risen Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:1 “…Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Paul called himself the “last prophet.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul says that God has set forth the apostles last (1 Corinthians 14:9)...This verse proves my point on Cessationism because it talks in context about how the apostles and prophets are the foundation (that we are built upon).

Let's investigate a few important questions.
(1) What is the foundation?
(2) Who lays it down?
(3) How many times can it be laid?

The Greek phrase for 'foundation of apostles and prophets' can mean EITHER
(1) that the apostles and prophets themselves are the foundation
(2) OR that the foundation is something laid down BY them.

Here's what Paul actually said on the matter:

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1Cor 3:11).

Interesting. The foundation is here said to be Christ, not 'the gift of apostleship'.

Who lays it down? "According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation" (verse 10).

Thus the apostles and prophets LAY DOWN the foundation. Why? He just told you why! Because no one wants to live in a building whose foundation was laid down by a NOVICE. If that were God's will, it would make Him an IRRESPONSIBLE LEADER. Rather, he insists that the foundation be laid down by men of the highest expertise (apostles and prophets).

What does it mean exactly that Christ is the foundation, laid down by the apostles? If I had to speculate, I would guess it refers to an OUTPOURING of Christ. It's an endument of power (for instance the ability to confer giftings via the laying of hands), but such work must be done with proper RESTRAINT and WISDOM - with apostolic/prophetic expertise.

Moving on to question #3, How many times can it be laid? Paul claimed:

"It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation" Rom 15:20).

Therefore the foundation is REGIONAL. It needs to be laid afresh in EVERY REGION.

Cessationists equivocate on this issue. They'll say: "The apostles and the prophets were the foundation" (who are all dead now?). So now our building has lost its foundation? No wonder it has crumbled into ruins. The church is a mess today. Then they will reply, 'No we still have the foundation. They laid down the foundation once-for-all'

Well, which is it? Are the apostles and prophets the foundation? Or the ones who lay it down? Make up your mind, please, cessationists. I can't debate with you if you're a moving target.

 

[~Zao~]

That to me is illogical. There is no point in believing the Bible if it is full of holes (i.e. it is a holey bible). The Bible is called the HOLY BIBLE because it is divine in origin.

Have doubts God's Word is divine?
Just check out my Blogger article here:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Besides, the Bible is either all true, or it's not true. I choose to simply believe all of God's Word (the Bible) even when it is something I don't like because I have too much to lose if I don't believe it. Also, some have suggested that the Pharisees obeyed the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Law, when this is not even the case. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they ignored the weightier matters of the Law like faith, love, justice, and mercy (See: Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42). So I have a problem when folks mention the spirit of the Law vs. the letter of the Law because it reminds me of this popular false statement that is not true.

Furthermore, we have to be born again not only by the Spirit, but we also have to be born again by water. The "water" is the Word of God (Scripture) (See: The phrase "the washing of the water of the Word" in Ephesians 5:25-27). For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. We have to receive God's Word as if they were the very words of God Himself.

"This is why we constantly thank God, because when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you welcomed it not as a human message, but as it truly is, the word of God, which also works effectively in you who believe."
(1 Thessalonians 2:13).

23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter 1:23-25).

Paul is misinterpreted by those into the letter of the law
and correctly interpreted by those into the spirit of the law.

 

[JAL]

So if your interpretations of Scripture are fallible (as you stated here in the OP), then why should we trust your interpretation on Scripture that refutes Sola Scriptura?

Fallible doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong. Even as a fallible person, I can claim that water boils at high temperatures, and still be right about it. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 is 5, I'll say there is a flaw in your logic. I can do this as a fallible person.

Now it could be that I am the one in the wrong. But that's not likely, since I question simple and obvious logical problems much like challenging whether 2 plus 2 equals 5.

One thing I'm pretty sure about. Sola Scriptura is logically problematical, and the advocates need to admit that, as such, it is quite possibly not true. I'd say it's definitely not true, as far as I can see.

 

[JAL]

Paul says that all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness so that the man of God (not Timothy) may be perfect unto ALL good works (and not some good works). What need is there of anything else if ALL Scripture is profitable for being perfect unto ALL good works? There is no need of anything else. Yes, God is the natural revelator of Scripture, and He abides by His Word. For all Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD.

Profitable to whom? Paul didn't write that verse to the church. He wrote it to a 'man of God' named Timothy. The expression 'man of God' was an OT rubric for a prophet.

In the hands of a prophet, Scripture is consistently profitable for instruction. In the hands of a fallible Sola Scriptura scholar, exegesis is potentially a recipe for disaster.

The Biblical command to greet one another with a kiss is not applicable in most cultures of the world today. We also do not generally wear the same kind of clothes that they did. So yes, some things have passed away. We have to realize that we are in a different time than in the past, and things can change.

You're mixing apples with oranges. Even if I were to agree with you that a proper apostolic church has no holy kiss (and I don't see why I should), such a minute distinction is no comparison to the monumental claim of the extinction of the early church governmental system.

I've seen quite a few historic cultural minute changes in the USA, but we still have the president, the senators, the representatives, and the supreme court. The founders managed to create a government lasting several hundred years - but God's regime became obsolete in 50 years? You seriously want me to entertain that? Please.

 

[JAL]

It's not misconstruing the NT. The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus.

This is forced language. You're trying so hard to force your cessationism down Paul's throat that you torture his metaphor and end up with gibberish. How so? Paul speaks of one foundation on which the building is built. Here you are speaking about building a foundation on top of a foundation?

This kind of torture is the inevitable result of an ideology that simply doesn't fit the text.

 

[JAL]

God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.

Authentication doesn't corroborate cessationism but rather continuationism.
Show a Bible to a Muslim. Tell him to read what Paul wrote. He will respond, 'Who is Paul? Why should I believe Paul?' He's going to ignore you.

Try it again, but this time around, show him some miracles first. NOW you've got his attention, because you've authenticated the message. Authentication is needed in every generation, for purposes of evangelism. And when you insinuate that God refuses to do it, you're simply casting aspersions on Him, as though he doesn't want all men to be saved via the power of authentication. Whereas I would claim that the lack of miracles is OUR fault, it is due to OUR misbehavior over the centuries. It's not God's fault.

And not just the unbeliever - even the believer needs authentication. Picture a new convert of today. Which church should he join? Catholic? Orthodox? Episcopalian? Lutheran? Should he take a wild guess? The true leaders and churches needs to be authenticated in some form or fashion.

Moreover, a considerable amount of scholarship has challenged the assumption that all miracles were for the sake of authenticating the apostles. Cessationists would like to think so, as they hope to use this as a basis for their doctrine of extinction. But Jesus often healed the sick out of compassion, not so much to 'authenticate the apostles'. Also Stephen performed miracles, and he was not even an apostle.

Again, there is much scholarly refutation available on these points. I don't have all that material in front of me right now, but I do have some arguments of my own, as will be seen.

 

[JAL]

God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.

What about evangelism? Has that ceased too? Because it's easy to demonstrate that Scripture defines evangelism as prophetic utterance, as a number of scholars have come to gradually acknowledge over the past century. Here's one argument to that effect - and I can supply several:

Jesus stated:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What does a witness do? In large part, he testifies. He SPEAKS. Simple question. Were the disciples mute up to this point? I mean, here He claims to give them power to speak!!!! Wow. Gee thanks God, but I thought they already had that capability?


In a nutshell, the text doesn't even make sense unless what He had in mind was Spirit-inspired speech - prophetic utterance - "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

Now let's look at the FULFILLMENT OF Acts 1:8. Was it in fact inspired speech, as predicted? Was it indeed prophetic utterance?

When the Spirit fell, the 120 began speaking Spirit-inspired utterances in other languages. Peter called it the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy." Notice that Joel did NOT say, 'And they just MIGHT prophesy." No. Those who partake of THIS kind of outpouring SHALL prophesy. Sorry but if you haven't prophesied (I for one certainly haven't) you still haven't tasted of the type of Spirit-baptism thematic to Acts.

Moreover, Acts is encharged with LAYING DOWN A PARADIGM OF EVANGELISM FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. The cruciality of Pentecost, then, is that God - unless He is an incompetent instructor - HAD to be at pains to make Pentecost - as a sort of birthday for the modern church age - the DEFINITIVE EXAMPLE of evangelism for all generations.

P.S. Sorry to disappoint my Pentecostal brethren, but I don't see the gift of tongues in Acts. Just the gift of prophecy. For two reasons:
(1) The gift of tongues as defined in 1Cor 14 requires the gift of interpretation (at least for public orations). No interpreter is present in Acts.
(2) Luke wrote in the tradition of the biblical historians - a tradition which emphasized prophets, not the gift of tongues. If Luke - suddenly out of the blue - were to radically spring upon us a heretofore undocumented gift, we'd expect a chapter EXPLAINING and DEFINING it for us. Otherwise his readers would feel totally lost. Therefore tongues is NOT what he had in mind. Paul, on the other hand, provides us one whole chapter on this previously undocumented gift, as one would expect, so his readers aren't totally lost.

In the next post, I'll show the 2nd biblical proof that evangelism is prophecy

 

[JAL]

God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.

Here is a 2nd biblical proof that Scripture defines evangelism as prophetic ministry:

The OT prophet was sometimes called a seer - a see-er - meaning one who sees visions. "Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions,your old men will dream dreams." Please bear this fact in mind, as the discussion proceeds.

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What's a witness? The Greek word there in Acts 1:8 occurs some 120 times in the NT. By and large, it regularly carries the same meaning that we ascribe to "witness" in English today. Specifically:

A witness – a witness in court for example - is someone who has seen and heard a reality and then testifies (“witnesses”) about it. He bears witness to what is seen and heard. An unacceptable witness is one too far distanced from the event to have witnessed it with precision-like pinpoint accuracy. An excellent witness, therefore, is one who beheld it in face-to-face proximity. Now what precisely is Acts wanting men to witness about? Christ. “Ye shall be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). They are witnesses of Christ! Therefore, if the risen Christ has never appeared to a person face to face, he or she is not a witness - not a witness of Christ, and certainly not a witness of His resurrection. In a nutshell, he is not an evangelist.

Christ's choice of the term 'witness' was neither coincidental nor accidental. He could have selected from among a multitude of alternative terms for evangelism. Instead, He chose the term "witness". He chose to define the evangelist as someone who has seen and heard Him, and then bears witness to others of what was seen and heard. Still not convinced? Take a hard look at Acts 22:14-15 where God's plan for Paul was that he:

“see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (22:14-15, KJV).

And again, “I have appeared [visibly and audibly] unto thee [Paul] for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will [later] appear unto thee” (26:16, KJV).

Clearly, this is traditional OT prophetic ministry manifesting again in the NT - this kind of ministry is the work of a 'seer' as noted above. Recall that a seer is a see-er of visions. And such nuances resonate fairly strong in other verses of Acts. For example we are told that all the OT prophets bore witness to Christ (Acts 10:43).Here's a good list of verses alluding to witnesses of His resurrection and so forth (Lk 1:2; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 40-41; 13:31; 14:3; 22:18; 23:11; 26:16). Such verses typically refer to people who eye-witnessed the risen Christ. Commenting on Acts 2:32, for example, Robertson's Word Pictures states: "Peter claims the whole 120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Co 15:6)."

Similar comments can be found at Adam Clarke's commentary on Acts 2:32, as well as Albert Barnes' Notes, and John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

And we also find some corroboration in other books of the Bible. Scholars Lake and Cadbury intimated that Paul's ministry of witnessing was unmistakably a prophetic ministry in the same sense that Rev 19:10 claims that "The testimony [witness] of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy". Those scholars wrote:

"Paul was to bear witness…and therefore he must receive the Spirit, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (K. Lake and H.J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Part 1. Vol 4 (London: Macmillan, 1933), p. 104).

In other words, the Scripures make it pretty unambiguously clear that evangelism is prophetic ministry.

Notice how Revelation is pretty clear that witnessing is prophetic ministry: "I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days…[until] they shall have finished their witnessing" (11:3, 7; cf. 1:2, 19:10, 22:9).

So you claim that the gifts are dead. Evangelism is dead? Really?