Of course, one scholar does not make an interpretation correct (and I never said it was) and they frequently disagree. But when the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS of commentators agree on a particular matter (such as the case of apostles ceasing) then you can more or less guarantee they are correct even without examining their expositions.
1) How are you measuring consensus? Can you substantiate this claim? How do you know the "overwhelming consensus" of commentators believe that the gift of apostleship ceased? Can you share the statistics?
2) Even if a majority of scholars agrees on something, that still doesn't guarantee you that they are right. Most biblical scholars used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe, until Galileo Galilei and subsequent scientists proved them wrong. Most scientists used to believe in classical / Newtonian mechanics, until Quantum Mechanics came along and proved them wrong, etc. The takeaway: scholar consensus / majority vote is no guarantee of truth.
You have to judge arguments on their own merits, regardless of who says them.
If many scholars agree on something, they must have very good arguments. Quote those arguments instead.
I only quoted Wayne Grudem because he is a very prominent CONTINUIST theologian so can hardly be accused of theological bias. I can quote a dozen more who agree with him if you wish. I am not aware of a single reputable theologian who claims that we still have apostles today.
I don't care if Wayne Grudem is continuist, cessationist or an atheist. I only care about the argument itself. I inspected the argument and it was fallacious.
Try reading it again. Grudem gives the scriptural reasons that apostles must be eye-witnesses of the risen Lord Jesus (under a. Qualifications of an Apostle)
Sure, I can concede that point of the definition if you want. I never questioned that point. As I said in my previous post, what is totally unjustified is the following claim by Wayne (quote):
It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today. [...]
Wayne is claiming that no one can see the risen Christ, which is completely false if you believe in an omnipotent God. Have you ever heard of Christophanies? Have you read/watched testimonies of Muslims who have had encounters with Jesus Christ? If Paul had a supernatural encounter with the post-ascension Jesus, if Stephen had a vision of the open heavens and saw Jesus Christ at the right hand of God, if Ananias was able to have an actual conversation with the Lord Jesus Christ (see Acts 9), what makes you think that Jesus Christ cannot show up supernaturally to people again? Are you really going to put God in a box like that?
The apostles and prophets as the foundation do indeed give support to the church. That doesn't mean they must be around today.
There is no reason to think that they
shouldn't be around either, and lots of reason to think they are quite useful and necessary. All the scriptures attest to the value and usefulness of prophets and apostles. Furthermore, the church is very much in need of sold-out servants of God like apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc. Have you ever heard of revivals? How can you have a revival without a critical mass of servants of God who are full of the Spirit and on-fire for God?
The church was built on their historic foundation. Notice the past tense in Eph 2:20. The fact that Jesus Christ was also part of that same foundation is further proof of their cessation. There is only one foundation underpinning a building, only one Jesus Christ, and only one set of apostles and prophets. On their foundation the church was built.
This reasoning makes no sense. By the same token, United States in its current form is historically founded on the efforts of dozens of Presidents and politicians over more than 200 years of history. Does that mean that U.S. Presidents have ceased? Does that mean that Politicians have ceased?
By the same token, our current scientific progress is historically founded on the efforts of hundreds of years of research by thousands of scientists. Does that mean that scientists have ceased? Does that mean that scientific progress has ceased?
Jesus Christ has not ceased. The body of Christ has not ceased. He's very much active today, and He can call whomever He wants to be a prophet, an apostle, an evangelist, a pastor, etc.
Don't put God in a box!
No it doesn't. There is no mention of Christ at all in 1 Cor 13. A far more plausible explanation of "completeness" is the completion of the NT canon. Rather than quoting the anonymous amateurs on StackExchange I will provide links to some peer-reviewed published expositions from far more reputable sources...
R. Bruce Compton (Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary)
Myron J. Houghton, (Professor of Systematic Theology, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, lowa)
Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University (1967-2015)
Andrew M. Woods (President of Chafer Theological Seminary)
Plus many more professors I could cite who support the canon view.
I'm afraid this might quickly degrade into a citation war. And probably none of us has the time to read through hundreds of pages. Instead, let's be more efficient and straight to the point. You know arguments. I know arguments. Let's debate arguments instead. I'll briefly summarize the reasons why I think 1 Cor 13 makes more sense under a "Christ's return" interpretation, and then you can respond with rebuttals if you so wish.
Let's read verses 8-12:
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known
When the perfect comes:
- We will have perfect knowledge (no more partial knowledge).
- We will see face to face (i.e. crystal clear, no more ambiguity, no more unclear, mysterious revelations).
- We will achieve full maturity (no more childish ways).
All these descriptions make perfect sense with the state of the universe after the return of Christ. When Christ returns and establishes his kingdom in a New Heaven and a New Earth, those resurrected to eternal life will:
- enjoy supernatural, glorified bodies (like the angels),
- be free from the flesh and its sinful tendencies,
- be able to literally see the Lord face to face,
- have an entire eternity to learn all the mysteries of the kingdom of God.
In contrast, under the 'closed canon' interpretation, these descriptions make no sense:
- Are we really seeing face to face now? Really? See this question: When shall we see “face to face”? 1 Corinthians 13:12
- Do we really have access to the full knowledge and understanding of the mysteries of the kingdom of God now? Do we really have answers to all the questions? Even with the Bible at hand, there are lots of disagreements, ambiguities, controversies, conflicting interpretations, mysteries about God, the spirit realm and even the physical realm that we currently have no clue about. Hundreds of denominations, sub-denominations, debates, disagreements. Even with the Bible at hand, there is no clarity. How come we have "perfect knowledge" when very clearly everybody has a different interpretation of Scripture and even scholars don't agree with each other? The very fact that we are having this discussion is a testament to the fact that we don't have perfect knowledge right now.
- Have we really achieved full maturity? Are we in glorified bodies now? Are we beyond the sinful tendencies of the fallen human nature? Are really going to call this "the perfect"? C'mon ...
Furthermore, the "Christ's return" interpretation fits perfectly with 1 Corinthians 1:7-8:
7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul explicitly encouraged the pursuit of spiritual gifts until .. what? Until the canon was complete? No!
Until the day of our Lord Jesus Christ!!!
The question of whom 1 Corinthians is addressed to can be answered by Paul himself in 1 Cor 1:1
"To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"
The letter addresses issues that were very specific to the Corinthian church. Eg, [...] So clearly it wasn't addressed to churches today. That doesn't mean churches today cannot make an application from the lessons Paul taught the Corinthians.
Of course the immediate addressees of the letter were the Corinthians, but letter has a clear application to all Christendom at large. Read 1 Cor 1:2 again:
"To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with ALL THOSE WHO IN EVERY PLACE call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Furthermore, 1 Cor 12 makes very clear that Paul is teaching principles that apply to
the entire body of Christ, i.e. the totality of all believers, not just the Corinthians:
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. [1 Cor 12:12-13, ESV]
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. [1 Cor 12:27-31, ESV]
Paul is talking about the body of Christ, the entire church, not just the Corinthians.
Whether tongues were withdrawn because of a lukewarm church or because God decided they were no longer necessary in light of a completed canon doesn't matter. The fact is they ceased, and they ceased under the control of God. Just as 1 Cor 13 says they would. The cessation of tongues is a historical fact. And I see nowhere in scripture that says once ceased, tongues would one day start up again.
1) How do you know tongues ceased completely? Evidence of decline is not the same as evidence of complete cessation. To prove complete cessation, you would need to be able to travel in time and verify that no one, at any time, ever spoke in tongues since the canon was closed until today. You can't do that. At best you can speculate.
2) Temporal decline followed by a resurgence at a later time of some manifestation of the Spirit is not something that should surprise us. There have been other periods in history where there have been (for example) no prophecies such as:
- 1 Sam 3:1 - And the boy Samuel ministered to the LORD before Eli. Now in those days the word of the LORD was rare and visions were scarce.
- The inter-testamental period of about 400 years between Malachi and Matthew.
Thus, the gifts of the Spirit are neither continuous nor uniform but always according to the will and discretion of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:11). A temporal decline is no proof of complete cessation.
Yes I do. It is recorded in infallible scripture - the ultimate source of truth.
[...]
As I thought.... not scientific proof, but rather 'claims'. ie charismatic hearsay. Does this account appear in any academic journals as a genuine independently verified instance of Xenoglossy? I'm sure linguistic scholars would be most interested if it is.
Applying your own standards: can you share a peer-reviewed scientific publication with independently verified evidence of Xenoglossy in the first century? Would you be so kind to provide scientific proof that the book of Acts chapter 2 took place? Can you even cite unbiased, secular historians affirming that Acts chapter 2 was a historical fact?
Well I have quoted numerous verses from scripture that state authentication as the reason for miracles. You have not provided one verse that says otherwise. Therefore I think it is safe to conclude that authentication is the only reason for miracles in the New Testament.
Sure, I can agree that that appears to be most common use case, but that doesn't mean they are no longer useful.
The church today has all the authentication by miracles it needs..... [...]
Are you sure about that ... ?
Also check out these testimonies:
