Question about Gift of Prophecy

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I just prophesied, spoke God's message: Come out of Egypt.
I do not live in Egypt. I live in Australia. I guess your alleged message from God applies to people in Egypt only unless you're going to claim that it is some kind of spiritual Egypt.

Here is a message from God. It says Your prophets had nothing to tell you but lies; Their preaching deceived you by never exposing your sin. They made you think you did not need to repent. It is what God said in one of Jeremiah's prophecies.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
You want to say that they are the foundation - even though they are forever GONE (in your view). I just don't see how it could be God's will to remove the foundation from the churches. Destabilizing them? You keep replying, "But the foundation only needed to be laid once. That was enough." But the main bone of contention here isn't how many TIMES it needs to be laid but whether it is STILL IN PLACE. YOUR claim is that God removed it forever! When I complain about a building bereft of a foundation being unstable, you tell me I'm pressing the foundation-analogy too far. And yet such stability is the ONLY purpose of a foundation, so how could that POSSIBLY be pressing it too far?

Yet again you misrepresent me. I made no claim that the foundation has been removed. Those are words you are putting in my mouth, so you can disingenuously attack me over it. Classic strawman fallacy.

(1) First, it's a HUGE insult to God. What kind of father is so stingy as to limit His children only to those blessings that are STRICTLY NECESSARY? "How much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those that ask Him?" (Mat 7:11).

Cessationism is not a case of God limiting his children. It is a case of withdrawing a function after it has served it's purpose. Would you put diapers on a 10 year old child?
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
I don't think this argument is decisive whether Paul was alone or not, but he probably didn't lay the foundation alone. The reality is that we don't know how many apostles and prophets worked together laying down the foundation at Ephesus. Paul was there for several years, during which period God could have raised up numerous apostles and prophets to assist him. Certainly he wasn't the only one there with the gift of prophecy, for example: "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them [at Ephesus], the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied" (Acts 19:6).

I think you're assuming that laying the foundation is basically a one-day endeavor. Were that the case, Paul would not likely have sojourned there for several years.

This is the big flaw in your argument. It only works if you assume that the church in Eph 2:20 is the local church and each one needs local apostles and prophets to lay a fresh foundation in every new area. Without that assumption your claim that we need apostles and prophets today crumbles into dust.

However Paul is clearly referring to the wider universal church:

1. The plural apostles. Ephesus only had one apostle, Paul. Your way of trying to wriggle out of that one is to make the huge unwarranted assumption that there were other apostles involved in founding the church at Ephesus that we are not told about. Who were these mystery apostles who laid the foundation with Paul? Why are we not told about them? If they were converts of Paul as you suggest then how could they be founding apostles. Any convert at Ephesus must have been a stone built on Paul's foundation, not part of the foundation themselves. This desperate suggestion is simply clutching at straws.

2. If Paul was referring to the Ephesian's local apostles why did he describe them as "THE apostles" (tōn apostolōn)? Wouldn't it be more natural to call them "YOUR apostles" or simply "apostles"?

3. The group that is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is not the Ephesians alone. It is also the saints whom the Ephesians were fellow citizens with (v19). Those must be Christians outside of their church.

4. The building built on the foundation becomes the temple in which God's spirit dwells (v21-22). This can only be an allusion to the universal church, not a local assembly:

1 Cor 3:16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

2 Cor 6:16 For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yet again you misrepresent me. I made no claim that the foundation has been removed. Those are words you are putting in my mouth, so you can disingenuously attack me over it. Classic strawman fallacy.
YOU said that Paul HIMSELF (and the other apostles and prophets) ARE the foundation, NOT their teaching (well at first you seemed to vacillate but then you clarified). Those were YOUR words. Is Paul - the foundation - still here? If not, then the foundation (Paul and the rest) is GONE. You deny this extrapolation? Can anyone make sense of this? How can I have a discussion with someone who speaks in endless self-contradictory riddles? Agiain, make up your mind. WHAT is the foundation and is it still here among us today? K?
Cessationism is not a case of God limiting his children. It is a case of withdrawing a function after it has served it's purpose. Would you put diapers on a 10 year old child?
Right. It's not 'strictly necessary'. Much better to have exegetical chaos than infallible prophetic revelation.

Oh, and you just called the gift of prophecy 'infant diapers'. Extrapolating, even the Prophet Himself never rose above the level of diapers. That's heresy.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
'It doesn't say those unnamed apostles were any different from the other apostles'. Nothing in the text says they were foundational apostles who saw the risen Christ.

The text gives us no indication that they were any different from the other apostles. In the absence of any such distinction they must be presumed to be the same. Therefore the onus in upon you to prove otherwise.

'No doubt Barnabas was one of those unnamed apostles, but he was put on a par with Paul'. What you say about Barnabas as one of the unnamed apostles is an invention, an argument from silence that amounts to eisegesis.

Nonsense. If Barnabas wasn't one of those unnamed apostles then Paul was lying. He said "then to ALL the apostles".

'Paul said he was the last. So how can there be any further apostles after Paul?' 1 Cor 4:9 (KJV) states: 'For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men'. The NIV translates as: 'For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings'.

It is bad hermeneutics to transplant the meaning from one passage into another that is completely unrelated to the first. In 1 Cor 4:9 'last' or 'end of the procession' is referring to the social status of the apostles as a group. In 1 Cor 15 'last' is clearly the last in the chronological list of people who saw the risen Lord Jesus.

"He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."

Paul may be referring to the twelve apostles, but is more likely using the Greek word "apostolos" to mean "messenger / sent one", as it usually does.

No, apostolos does not normally mean 'messenger' in the NT. In the 80 or so times it is used in the NT it is referring to special divinely appointed apostles (ie the 12 + Paul + a few others). Only 3 times is it used in the wider sense (John 13:16, Phil 2:25, & 2 Cor 8:23 ) and in virtually every bible version those verses are translated as 'messenger' or something similar, not 'apostle'.

BDAG Lexicon
apostolos ἀπόστολος

of messengers without extraordinary status delegate, envoy, messenger (opp. ὁ πέμψας) J 13:16. Of Epaphroditus, messenger of the Philippians Phil 2:25.—2 Cor 8:23.

of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy (cp. Epict. 3, 22, 23 of Cynic wise men: ἄγγελος ἀπὸ τ. Διὸς ἀπέσταλται).
of prophets Lk 11:49; Rv 18:20; cp. 2:2; Eph 3:5.
of Christ (w. ἀρχιερεύς) Hb 3:1 (cp. ApcEsdr 2:1 p. 25, 29 T.; Just., A I, 12, 9; the extra-Christian firman Sb 7240, 4f οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς μόνος. Μααμετ ἀπόστολος θεοῦ). GWetter, ‘D. Sohn Gottes’ 1916, 26ff.
but predominately in the NT (of the apologists, only Just.) of a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys. Also Judaism had a figure known as apostle (שָׁלִיחַ; Schürer III 124f w. sources and lit.; Billerb. III 1926, 2–4; JTruron, Theology 51, ’48, 166–70; 341–43; GDix, ibid. 249–56; 385f; JBühner, art. ἄ. in EDNT I 142–46). In Christian circles, at first ἀ. denoted one who proclaimed the gospel, and was not strictly limited: Paul freq. calls himself an ἀ.: Ro 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1f; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Ti 1:1; 2:7; 2 Ti 1:1; Tit 1:1.—1 Cl 47:1. Of Barnabas Ac 14:14; 15:2. Of Andronicus and Junia (less prob. Junias, s. Ἰουνία) Ro 16:7. Of James, the Lord’s brother Gal 1:19. Of Peter 1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1. Then esp. of the 12 apostles οἱ δώδεκα ἀ. (cp. ParJer 9:20; AscIs 3:21; 4:3) Mt 10:2; Mk 3:14; Lk 22:14 (v.l. οἱ δώδεκα); cp. 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; Ac 1:26 (P-HMenoud, RHPR 37 ’57, 71–80); Rv 21:14; PtK 3 p. 15, 18. Peter and the apostles Ac 2:37; 5:29. Paul and apostles Pol 9:1 (cp. AcPlTh Aa I, 235 app. of Thecla). Gener. the apostles Mk 6:30; Lk 24:10; 1 Cor 4:9; 9:5; 15:7; 2 Cor 11:13; 1 Th 2:7; Ac 1:2; 2:42f; 4:33, 35, 37; 5:2,12, 18, 34 v.l., 40; 6:6; 8:1, 14, 18; 9:27; 11:1; 14:4; 2 Pt 3:2; Jd 17; IEph 11:2; IMg 7:1; 13:2; ITr 2:2; 3:1; 7:1; IPhld 5:1; ISm 8:1; D ins; 11:3, 6. As a governing board, w. the elders Ac 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4. As possessors of the most important spiritual gift 1 Cor 12:28f.Proclaimers of the gospel 1 Cl 42:1f; B 5:9; Hs 9, 17, 1. Prophesying strife 1 Cl 44:1. Working miracles 2 Cor 12:12. W. overseers, teachers and attendants Hv 3, 5, 1; Hs 9, 15, 4; w. teachers Hs 9, 25, 2; w. teachers, preaching to those who had fallen asleep Hs 9, 16, 5; w. var. Christian officials IMg 6:1; w. prophets Eph 2:20; D 11:3; Pol 6:3. Christ and the apostles as the foundation of the church IMg 13:1; ITr 12; 2; cp. Eph 2:20. οἱ ἀ. and ἡ ἐκκλησία w. the three patriarchs and the prophets IPhld 9:1. The Holy Scriptures named w. the ap. 2 Cl 14:2 (sim. ApcSed 14:10 p. 136, 17 Ja.). Paul ironically refers to his opponents (or the original apostles; s. s.v. ὑπερλίαν) as οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀ. the super-apostles 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11. The orig. apostles he calls οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀ. Gal 1:17;​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Scrooge

Active Member
Oct 27, 2017
35
9
57
Harrisburg Pa.
✟11,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is the Gift of Prophecy, and has it ceased?

Is it to be used in churches today?
Yes.
Let's take a look at the Written Word. Revelation and the Gift of the Gospel.....

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 12:17


Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Rev 14:12


And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 19:10
 
We keep the commandments of God through the faith in which we have, which is the Faith in which he has. That GOD through us does HIS will. This is our and HIS testimony, the witness of Jesus through God's indwelling Spirit; the Spirit of prophecy.

For we and our Father Yahovah GOD are one through the Body of Christ, the Temple of God. It is he that worketh in us both to will and do His good pleasure. He doeth the work and will lead us into all truth. This is the Spirit of Prophesy working in and through us. This what we keep and We Guard with our very lives.


This is the Gospel; This is why John and Paul through the Holy Spirit shared this.

 But ye have an unction (Anointing in the Greek) from the Holy One, and ye know all things. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:20, 26-27; Rom 1:17


And why Jeremiah, Moses and Paul prophesied.


Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ,the Word, all that GOD would have us be. HIS Commandments down from above: ) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ, the Word, all that GOD would have us be. HIS Commandments again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word (Christ; the Word, the commandments manifested in the flesh, Our flesh) is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, in thy heart, and in thy hand: that we may do it; this is, THE WORD OF FAITH IN WHICH WE PREACH.

And that is the Gospel, the Kingdom of GOD within you. For GOD hath said, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them." And HE shall be our GOD and we shall be HIS people, for it is GOD that works in us both to will and do HIS good pleasure. Christ (the Word, His Commandments, GOD's will ) in you the hope of Glory


Romans 10:6-8 and Deut. 30:11-14 are speaking the same premise as of that which is found in Hebrews 8:10,11 and Jeremiah 31:33. It is just worded different. The Gospel, the New Covenant theme is interwoven throughout the Holy Writ; written various ways.


His Spirit, the Spirit of truth, will guide us into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew us things to come. John 16:13


Each and every believer through the Faith that is through the Gospel of God have a direct link with the Father through His Christ and can and will prophesy through Word or action through GOD's Spirit. IT IS HOW WE EXIST AS CHRISTIANS. For it is certain in him we live, and move, and have our being. This is the Faith which is the testimony of Jesus; the Spirit of Prophecy in which we keep. For we as the Body of Christ proclaim, “My FATHER in me; HE doeth the works" And GREATER WORKS THAN THESE SHALL WE DO BECAUSE HE WENT TO THE FATHER. (Acts 17:28; John 14:10)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrettyboyAndy
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
There are 2 different types of apostles, those who are sent to preach the gospel as ambassadors.

ap-os-tel'-lo
From G575 and G4724; set apart, that is, (by implication) to send out (properly on a mission) literally or figuratively: - put in, send (away, forth, out), set [at liberty].
Total KJV occurrences: 133

And the Official calling, or office of an apostle.

apostolos
ap-os'-tol-os
From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.
Total KJV occurrences: 81

There is a biblical delineation between apostles that go into all corners of the world preaching the gospel, and the 12 apostles that worked miracles. This is akin to being called to be a pastor or a priest, as related to being the High Preist of God. Being high priest is an official office directly commissioned by God, as were the 12 Apostles.

Please see my previous post.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
(1) I don't see where he addresses my objection raised in post #311. Even if he's right that apostles and prophets are the foundation, we need such foundation today. I'm not going to waver on this point.

Their position as the foundation of the universal church hasn't been eliminated simply because they died. I can't see why that is so hard for you to understand. It is a historic position. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians he used the past tense "built", not "being built" or "will be built" as you would expect if was an ongoing activity.

(2) He objects that Christ shouldn't function as both foundation and chief cornerstone. However, he needs to take a hard look at Psalm 18:2 where Christ plays about six different roles, "The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer...my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold." Furthermore he's putting too much weight on the term cornerstone acknowledged to be rare and ambiguous in the literature.

The point is Paul's statement about would be rendered nonsensical if the foundation was Christ - '....built on the foundation [that being Christ], Christ himself being the cornerstone'. Why make a distinction if they are the same thing. It makes far more sense with Christ being the cornerstone who then buttresses the rest of the foundation (the apostles and prophets).

Ultimately his exposition strikes me as fairly weak. Why so? He wants us to make three HUGE leaps.
(A) Overlook the problem I raised in post 311. That's already a deal-breaker for me.

It is not a deal breaker when you realize Paul is referring to the universal Church, not individual local churches.

(B) Embrace a cessationist view of apostles without a HINT of such in the text. Another deal-breaker.

Where does he make any cessationist comments? Hoehner, as far as I am aware, is not known for advocating cessationism.

(C) Embrace a definition of foundation at Eph 2:20 contrary to Paul's other instances of the term (Rom 15:20; 1Cor 3:10-12). He argues that the instances differ, focusing mostly on 1Cor 3:12 because, he thinks, a man cannot be both the building itself (i.e. a stone in the temple) AND a builder as well. He's wrong. Living stones (1Pet 2:5) CAN be builders.

That is because they are all different contexts. 1 Cor 3:10-12 is about a believer's works; Rom 15:20 is about church planting; Eph 2:20 is about neither of those things. As he says "Ultimately, the interpretation of one passage cannot be imposed on another, especially when they are not addressing the same issue. "
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Is Paul - the foundation - still here? If not, then the foundation (Paul and the rest) is GONE. You deny this extrapolation? Can anyone make sense of this? How can I have a discussion with someone who speaks in endless self-contradictory riddles? Agiain, make up your mind. WHAT is the foundation and is it still here among us today? K?

That is a non-sequitur. Someone is still classed as the founder of an organization, even after they have died. William Booth was the founder of the Salvation Army - he was their 'foundation'. Did he stop being their foundation when he died, and the organization subsequently collapse?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do not live in Egypt. I live in Australia. I guess your alleged message from God applies to people in Egypt only unless you're going to claim that it is some kind of spiritual Egypt.

Here is a message from God. It says Your prophets had nothing to tell you but lies; Their preaching deceived you by never exposing your sin. They made you think you did not need to repent. It is what God in one of Jeremiah's prophecies.
All the prophets, even John the Forerunner, preached the same message: Come out of Egypt. Sure you can take Israel out of Egypt, but it's more difficult to take Egypt out of Israel. Were they not doing the things they did in Egypt, hankering after bread, when God had taught them man does not live on bread, but by words that come forth from His mouth? Did John not rebuke the Jews for not living lives as layed down by God when living in the Promised Land?

Are we all not living lives unworthy of a Separated People? The challenge is approaching. Do we have the resources to meet that challenge? Can we fight the battle, complete the tower? Are we even prepared to ask for terms of peace?
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is a non-sequitur. Someone is still classed as the founder of an organization, even after they have died. William Booth was the founder of the Salvation Army - he was their 'foundation'. Did he stop being their foundation when he died, and the organization subsequently collapse?
Unavoidable conclusion: the local chapter of the Salvation Army is built on the foundation, the teachings of William Booth.

Therefore, the local church is built on the Revelations of the NT apostles, and the OT prophets, all aligning with the plumbstone, Christ.

Therefore, when the local church grows, they should build carefully, with precious materials, material aligning with that same corner Stone, else their work doctrine, teachings and the outworkings (praxis) will be destroyed, as through fire, because the criteria used will be Scripture (Jeremiah 23:29). Is not God's words like a fire, a hammer that breaks even rocks?

Why does wrong teaching and practice survive in modern churches? They took the expedient step of not allowing judging, exposure to "fire", filtering using Scripture, as prescribed in 1 Corinthians 14:26, to protect the organization. The structure, denomination, has become more important than the principles of the founder. In the process perpetuating the error of wrong interpretation of those principles.

Checks and balances, people. Semper reformanda.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is the big flaw in your argument. It only works if you assume that the church in Eph 2:20 is the local church and each one needs local apostles and prophets to lay a fresh foundation in every new area. Without that assumption your claim that we need apostles and prophets today crumbles into dust.
That's silly. The ONLY basis for my argument is that a building needs a foundation. You're seriously challenging the validity of a tautology?
However Paul is clearly referring to the wider universal church:
1. The plural apostles. Ephesus only had one apostle, Paul. Your way of trying to wriggle out of that one is to make the huge unwarranted assumption that there were other apostles involved in founding the church at Ephesus that we are not told about. Who were these mystery apostles who laid the foundation with Paul? Why are we not told about them? If they were converts of Paul as you suggest then how could they be founding apostles. Any convert at Ephesus must have been a stone built on Paul's foundation, not part of the foundation themselves. This desperate suggestion is simply clutching at straws.
That's not a bad argument, but it's hardly apodictic. I can't cover all the possible holes in one short post but I'll take a stab at it.
(1) In my view the foundation is Christ (1Cor 3:10-12). In that sense, ALL the apostles and prophets are laying down the same foundation. Suppose I'm both a carpenter and a contractor. I build a house alone. Note the parallel:
(A) "Yours is a house built on the expertise of carpenters and contractors".
(B) "You are a church built on the foundation of apostles and prophets".
See? Your assessment is too facile.
(2) Even if Paul built Ephesus alone (actually he didn't), the plural flows better linguistically and is also more appropriate in a didactic epistle, since the plural is the normal state of affairs.
(3) Paul wasn't the first worker at Ephesus. Apollos was almost certainly an apostle (and others are mentioned as well in Acts). See this article demonstrating that Apollos was considered an apostle (some speculate that he even wrote the Book of Hebrews).
Apostle Apollos?
(4) Again, we just don't know long it takes to lay a foundation. Probably depends on how large a region is being targeted by God at that moment. How big a region in this case? I don't know, but Luke said, "this went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord." During those two years, God could have raised up any number of apostles and prophets to assist Paul in the work. You object that a convert can't be a founder, but 'founder' is YOUR term. The biblical concept, in MY understanding, is called "laying down the foundation." None of us know for sure all the specifics of what that entails and how long it takes.
(5) How long did the disciples walk with Jesus before they were appointed as apostles? There's a bit of ambiguity here, isn't it? Jesus appointed them to their role from DAY ONE. Your assumption that a new convert can't be appointed as an apostle is patently false. But I'll be generous here. Let's assume that the prophetic anointing at Pentcost officially marked them as apostles. So then, going by this generous standard, the criteria to become an apostle is twofold:
(A) Adhere to the tutelage of a prophet for at least three years and then:
(B) Receive a prophetic anointing.
So the question is, is it possible that even ONE of the Ephesians met both criteria? If such is even POSSIBLE, your analysis isn't apodictic. Turns out these Ephesians were DISCIPLES of the PROPHET John. They had been adhering to John's teaching for at least 20 years!!!! Then what did Paul do next? He gave them a prophetic anointing IMMEDIATELY! "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied" (Acts 19:6). Furthermore Luke can't cover all historical details in one book. Many similar enduements may have occurred when Paul and Apollos were initially in Ephesus.

2. If Paul was referring to the Ephesian's local apostles why did he describe them as "THE apostles" (tōn apostolōn)? Wouldn't it be more natural to call them "YOUR apostles" or simply "apostles"?
A didactic text establishes a paradigm for future reference. His language was appropriate for that purpose, whether he laid the foundation alone or with assistance.

3. The group that is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is not the Ephesians alone. It is also the saints whom the Ephesians were fellow citizens with (v19). Those must be Christians outside of their church.
You seem to be reaching here (maybe I'm overlooking something). In the global kingdom, all Christians are fellow citizens because we are under the same King. So?

4. The building built on the foundation becomes the temple in which God's spirit dwells (v21-22). This can only be an allusion to the universal church, not a local assembly:

1 Cor 3:16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

2 Cor 6:16 For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
Too facile. You're potentially mixing metaphors here, for one thing. Arguably a single individual human body is a temple in itself. (At least that's how I always understood those verses). To be on the safe side, I think we should stick with the 'foundation' texts as much as possible. Moreover any argument based on whether Paul was referring to the local or global church is likely to be facile, for two reasons:
(A) There is nothing to stop a writer from oscillating between both nuances.
(B) The local church is a subset of the global and, as a result, always alludes to the global in some ways.

Personally, I flat out disagree with you. I think Paul's most immediate focus at Eph 2:20 is the local Ephesian assembly although his words do indeed form a PARADIGM for all the churches. At the end of the day, however, I don't see why you're so convinced that the whole cessationist debate hinges on this question. For me, the main issue is whether today's leaders are trying to erect a building without a foundation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is a non-sequitur. Someone is still classed as the founder of an organization, even after they have died. William Booth was the founder of the Salvation Army - he was their 'foundation'. Did he stop being their foundation when he died, and the organization subsequently collapse?
We've been down this road before. That was NOT Paul's metaphor. Paul spoke of a BUILDING, with a FOUNDATION. And if you try to suggest that I'm pushing his metaphor too far, I'm going to remind you that it can't be too far because a foundation has only ONE purpose, namely to REMAIN PERMANENTLY as the support for a building. You can't just remove the foundation and expect the building to remain stable. You're changing Paul's metaphor because you don't like what he said.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
All the prophets, even John the Forerunner, preached the same message: Come out of Egypt. Sure you can take Israel out of Egypt, but it's more difficult to take Egypt out of Israel. Were they not doing the things they did in Egypt, hankering after bread, when God had taught them man does not live on bread, but by words that come forth from His mouth? Did John not rebuke the Jews for not living lives as layed down by God when living in the Promised Land?

Are we all not living lives unworthy of a Separated People? The challenge is approaching. Do we have the resources to meet that challenge? Can we fight the battle, complete the tower? Are we even prepared to ask for terms of peace?
That's a long way of saying "it's metaphorical - Egypt being a metaphor for worldliness and coming out of her being a metaphor for becoming holy" but that message is not a message from God given to you to preach to the world. It's a theological thought drawn from the scriptures. Your brief statement "Come out of Egypt." is as prophetic as my statement "Their preaching deceived you by never exposing your sin. They made you think you did not need to repent" but I did point out that I was quoting Jeremiah while you did not point out that you were quoting Joshua. (see Joshua 5:5). So fundamentally you did not personally receive a word from God by any supernatural means all your post did was quote some words from the bible but you wrote "I just prophesied, spoke God's message" either that is a joke or it is something else written for some other purpose wherein the words are misleading.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Their position as the foundation of the universal church hasn't been eliminated simply because they died. I can't see why that is so hard for you to understand. It is a historic position. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians he used the past tense "built", not "being built" or "will be built" as you would expect if was an ongoing activity.
Is Paul the foundation (your position) still here? No. Then we have a building without a foundation. See my last post.
The point is Paul's statement about would be rendered nonsensical if the foundation was Christ - '....built on the foundation [that being Christ], Christ himself being the cornerstone'. Why make a distinction if they are the same thing. It makes far more sense with Christ being the cornerstone who then buttresses the rest of the foundation (the apostles and prophets).
I gave two rebuttals to this conclusion. You reassert the accusation without addressing either rebuttal. Very professional.
Where does he make any cessationist comments? Hoehner, as far as I am aware, is not known for advocating cessationism.
He seems to insinuate the cessation of the apostles. That's all I was referring to.
That is because they are all different contexts. 1 Cor 3:10-12 is about a believer's works; Rom 15:20 is about church planting; Eph 2:20 is about neither of those things. As he says "Ultimately, the interpretation of one passage cannot be imposed on another, especially when they are not addressing the same issue. "
Yes, I'm well aware that he SAYS that - it's an obvious fact and very convenient to the conclusion he wants to draw. But as responsible exegetes, we need to favor the most PLAUSIBLE position. For example when you reach a conclusion that suggests a building without a foundation, it's high time to abandon ship.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nonbinding revelation nevertheless is either true or false and those who claim to speak it or those who claim to write it are either publishing the truth or they are publishing lies. Being revelation implies that it is comes either from God or from somebody else. When a prophecy does not come true, when its predictions do not play out in God's creation then the prophecy is false. If you maintain that prophecies which do not come true are "from God" then you accuse God of authoring falsehoods. God cannot lie. That is a fact of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Cessationism is not a case of God limiting his children. It is a case of withdrawing a function after it has served it's purpose. Would you put diapers on a 10 year old child?
To reiterate. Firstly, I've been charging cessationism with the heresy of deprecating prophecy (and by extrapolation the Prophet) as childish/immature. Secondly, if the prophetic gift is childish, the writings of the apostles are also childish/immature as well.

Here I want to introduce a third problem. My point of departure is Romans 13:10, "Love does no harm to its neighbor." Is God a hypocrite? No. Therefore it must be His DESIRE to steer the Christian in ways devoid of needless and painful side-effects to his neighbors. What kind of MECHANISM could so steer the Christian? Exegesis? As we'll see, the prophetic gift, far from being mere diapers, is the only conceivable mechanism capable of minimizing side-effects.

Side-effects occur because the world is too complex for the human mind to foreknow/anticipate all of them. Exegesis can't solve that problem. How can the average Christian know for 100% sure, for example, whether his bug spray, hair spray, or car wax will cause cancer in someone as it leaches into the water supply? And sometimes it's just an issue of a difficult decision. Political leaders are often corrupt. How can a soldier, therefore, be 100% sure whether he should obey his commanders's order to drop a bomb on Hiroshima?

Earlier (post 243) I argued that 100% certainty is both the necessary and sufficient criteria for prophetic utterance. That same mechanism - clear, infallible revelation from God - is PRECISELY what we NEED to avoid side-effects. I don't see any way to avoid this conclusion. To suggest that God isn't committed to propagating this mechanism throughout the church is to imply that He frankly DOES NOT MUCH CARE whether those 200,000 individuals in Hiroshima live or die. In a nutshell, it implies that God is evil. But Paul would beg to differ. Paul was CONVINCED of God's goodness, that is, His desire to universalize prophetic revelation (1Cor 14:1).

So I must perforce dissent with your assessment of the prophetic gift as mere diapers. If it was good enough for Paul, and good enough for Christ, it is probably good enough for me as well.
 
Upvote 0

Wordkeeper

Newbie
Oct 1, 2013
4,285
477
✟83,580.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's a long way of saying "it's metaphorical - Egypt being a metaphor for worldliness and coming out of her being a metaphor for becoming holy" but that message is not a message from God given to you to preach to the world.

Wrong. The message to the world is to follow their Creator, abandon Mammon:

Acts 17:29-30
29“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

Matthew 28:19-20
19”Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Luke 14:33
33So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.

Hosea 11:1
1When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

Matthew 2:15
15where he stayed until the death of Herod. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my Son."

Repent, is meta noia, often mistranslated as "being sorry for your sins" but actually means "change mind". God wants us to change our minds, from serving self, Egypt, chasing gold and silver, to serving Him.

It's a theological thought drawn from the scriptures. Your brief statement "Come out of Egypt." is as prophetic as my statement "Their preaching deceived you by never exposing your sin. They made you think you did not need to repent" but I did point out that I was quoting Jeremiah while you did not point out that you were quoting Joshua. (see Joshua 5:5). So fundamentally you did not personally receive a word from God by any supernatural means all your post did was quote some words from the bible but you wrote "I just prophesied, spoke God's message" either that is a joke or it is something else written for some other purpose wherein the words are misleading.
The message is to repent. You mistranslated it as “feel sorry for your sins and ask for forgiveness”. Your prophecy is made of straw and hay, a wrong choice of Scripture. God's word is like a fire a hammer that breaks even stones. It has burned up your work. Of course, the New Covenant is gracious and merciful, so there is no death sentence hanging over you, but your prophecy is burned up and you survive, but as through fire.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is the big flaw in your argument. It only works if you assume that the church in Eph 2:20 is the local church and each one needs local apostles and prophets to lay a fresh foundation in every new area. Without that assumption your claim that we need apostles and prophets today crumbles into dust.

However Paul is clearly referring to the wider universal church:

1. The plural apostles. Ephesus only had one apostle, Paul. Your way of trying to wriggle out of that one is to make the huge unwarranted assumption that there were other apostles involved in founding the church at Ephesus that we are not told about. Who were these mystery apostles who laid the foundation with Paul? Why are we not told about them? If they were converts of Paul as you suggest then how could they be founding apostles. Any convert at Ephesus must have been a stone built on Paul's foundation, not part of the foundation themselves. This desperate suggestion is simply clutching at straws.

2. If Paul was referring to the Ephesian's local apostles why did he describe them as "THE apostles" (tōn apostolōn)? Wouldn't it be more natural to call them "YOUR apostles" or simply "apostles"?

3. The group that is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is not the Ephesians alone. It is also the saints whom the Ephesians were fellow citizens with (v19). Those must be Christians outside of their church.

4. The building built on the foundation becomes the temple in which God's spirit dwells (v21-22). This can only be an allusion to the universal church, not a local assembly:

1 Cor 3:16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

2 Cor 6:16 For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
I decided to take another look at this. You're convinced that Paul's main focus wasn't the local Ephesian Church.

The Expositor's Greek New Testament details a controversy on this passage. The expression πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή could either mean 'the whole building' (possibly the global church) or 'every building' (every local church). The commentator opted for the latter. I would therefore read it like this (just my opinion):

"In him every (local) building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit" (Eph 2:21-22)

So it looks like Paul is here defining the global church as a set of local buildings and then identifying Ephesus as one of many. The English Revised Version (and American Standard Version) read like this:

"in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord"

The commentary's rationale is that Paul's omission of the article 'the' has an incontrovertible significance in Greek here. It thus does not say 'the whole building' but rather 'every building.'

How can a temple be multi-building? If your house needs another bedroom, you can build an addition. At some point you have to join the buildings of course. In Paul's imagery, Christ Himself is arguably the material used to join the buildings.

Again, I don't think this aspect is crucial to the debate. The metaphor would also succeed as one huge global building for which each local set of apostles lays down some foundation and then builds upwards upon it.
 
Upvote 0