Cessationism discussion with Theonomy [Archive]

Gavin

March 27th 2003, 04:38 PM

Dear Glenn:

Thanks for your reply.:smile:

As I see it, the burden of proof falls to the one who claims that there were some specific instances of speaking in tongues and the gift of prophecy "throughout" church history. if there are credible examples, by all means present them

Why do you think the burden of proof falls on the continuationist? Your article claimed that it was a historical observation that the gifts ceased, so shouldn't you prove it if you claim it?

Nevertheless, I refer you this excellent article by Grudem on prophecy throughout the church age here (http://www.ephesians2.net/Articles/Grudem-HistoryProphecy.htm).

I don't think we should devote ourself to the teaching of anything not in Scripture. Do you?

I think this reading is supported by other texts I noted in that work. The Apostles (and prophets) are counted, along with Jesus Christ, as being part of the historical "foundation" of the church (Eph 2:20). Eph 3:5 confirms that the "apostles and prophets" refer to a NT phenomenon, not the OT prophets (i.e. Scripture).

I think my suggestion is also supported in In 2 Peter 3:2, where the teaching of the Apostles seems to be equated with the teaching of the "Lord and Saviour" Himself. There are no members of the church today who carry this kind of teaching authority, are there?

Okay, you are correct here. However, to what extent was the apostles teaching synonomous with Scripture? Considering that the vast majority of the apostles wrote no Scripture, and much of the New Testament was written by non-apostles, I remain unconvinced that the two are totally synonomous (and this may not be your position). Further clarification on this would be welcome.

That wasn't my point. My point is that Paul is showing an awareness of a fairly strict criteria of Apostleship.
Okay, understood.

An Apostles must be someone who had first hand historical knowledge of Christ, and here Paul is insisting that he himself has this firsthand lnowledge - "Haven't I seen the risen Lord?" This reading is also supported in Acts 1:21-22, where the Apostles make a historical connection with the ministryof Jesus a criteria for the selection of Judas' replacement.

I am not sure that historical connection with Jesus is necessary for apostleship. It depends on what you mean by this. If you mean simply that an apostle must be personally commissioned by Christ, fine. But if you mean that an apostle must be linked to Jesus' earthly ministry prior to his ascension, wouldn't the apostle Paul be an exception to that very rule?

So we are left the formor criterion, that you just had to be personally commissioned by Christ. And I see no reason why Jesus could not do this today, as he did with Paul.

This seems unlikely precisely because we know from this book that Paul's Apostleship was being undermined by some. Thus the reading which best fits the historical context is that Paul is pointing out that He has seen the risen Lord in order to defend his legitimate Apostleship.

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?"

So (by parralelism) are freedom and planting a church both criterions as well? Seems to me the rhetorical questions are related, but not necessarily criterion of each other, and that Paul was validating his apostleship does not prove otherwise.

It differs from the canon in the same way that the teaching of the word of God differs fromt he canon. The canon is a deliniated group of books containing teaching. The Apostolic tradition itself is what is encapsulated within the canon.

So because we have the completed apostolic teaching, we see face to face and fully know?

It seems to me that in order to say that there are Apostles functioning in the Church today, we must say that there are teachers who carry the very same authority as the New Testament. I cannot see how it could be otherwise.
I am primarily in favor of advocating the gifts of prophecy, healnig, and tongues for today, since I think their absence robs the church of needed spiritual power - however I am open to apostle existing today.

I think part of the issue is that the word apostle is used in different ways in the New Testament. For example, other people than the 13 (the twelve plus Paul) are called apostles in the New Testament.

I Corinthians 15:5-8 teaches that Christ appeared to "the Twelve . . . then to all the apostles" (and last of all to him), which implies that there were other aposltes besides these twelve.

Furthermore, Paul actually calls many of helpers "apostles" in the New Testament - Barnabbus (Acts 14:14, I Corinthains 9:6) and possibly Apollos (I Corinthians 4:1, 6, 9).

Further still, the circle of apostleship could not have been closed if there were false apostles (II Corinthians 11:13). One could not pretend to be an apostle if everyone knew who the only apostles were!

This in turn implies that while the 12 original disciples held a unique place of honor in God's sight ("the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb", Revelation 21:14), other apostles could still be added to the church to help lead it and make authoratative decisions.

So the question is rather complex. I think a strong case can be made that when the bible refers to "apostle" as a spiritual gift (Ephesians 4:11-13, I Corinthians 12:28-29), it is using the word in the more generic sense, not referring to the original 13 only. After all, it is pretty difficult to think of the original disciples as spiritual gifts along with speaking in tongues and encouragement and the like.

And this difference in usage may well imply difference levels of authority. Hopefully we can discuss this more thoroughly.

Hope I did not bore you with the length of this post!:thumb:

Gavin

CT292

March 27th 2003, 07:07 PM

Gavin wrote:
Nevertheless, I refer you this excellent article by Grudem on prophecy throughout the church age here

Gavin, I would refer you to Kenneth Gentry's book, The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy - A Reformed Response to Wayne
Grudem

See also the article, Unquenching the Spirit (http://www.credenda.org/issues/7-6thema.php).

Colin

Gavin

March 27th 2003, 08:07 PM

Colin,

Gavin, I would refer you to Kenneth Gentry's book, The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy - A Reformed Response to Wayne
Grudem

See also the article, Unquenching the Spirit.

Colin

I don't have access to the book, although hopefully I can get it someday. I will take a look at the article. I am still working through the u-turn article you sent me a while back.

Thanks again,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 31st 2003, 10:56 PM

For some odd reason, I did not get email notification that you had replied, Gavin, so please forgive my slowness in acknowledging it. I will get on to a response soon.

Glenn

Gavin

March 31st 2003, 11:52 PM

Glenn,

no problem and take your time. I am in no rush.

sincerely,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 15th 2003, 08:39 AM

whoops

After much ado, it has occured to me that I am supposed to be replying. I'm so sorry for this delay. i sat down today and put a response together. Jope you like it!

Glenn

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 15th 2003, 08:40 AM

Hello again Gavin.

Thanks for your response. See my replies below:

Why do you think the burden of proof falls on the continuationist? Your article claimed that it was a historical observation that the gifts ceased, so shouldn't you prove it if you claim it?
Nevertheless, I refer you this excellent article by Grudem on prophecy throughout the church age here.

As I see it, if anyone believes that there was a continuity of all the gifts, they must believe so because of evidence, or not at all. If there are instances of such gifts throughout history from Apostolic times onwards, they should be able to point to them. For the cessationist like me, there is nothing to point to, since what we’re claiming is that there was an absence of such gifts.

But lest it be thought that I’m just being lazy :smile: , I will set forth at least one piece of evidence that tongues and prophecy ceased very early in the church’s history. That evidence is this fact: With the apparent exception of Grudem and perhaps a few others, Pentecostal/charismatic theologians and historians admit that these gifts did indeed cease. In the article of mine that you disagreed with, I actually documented some examples, both charismatic and non charismatic. For the benefit of those observing this thread, it might pay to present some of that evidence again here. Church historian E. Glenn Hinson puts it like this when talking about tongues in the early church: “The first sixteen centuries… were lean ones indeed… If the first five centuries were lean the next were starvation years for the practice in Western Christendom and doubtful ones in Eastern Christendom.”

I am willing to acknowledge that on very few isolated occasions in the early centuries, some persons or groups made the claim to have miraculous ability of giftings in this area, but their testimony is highly dubious. For example, the Montanist sect of the late second century practised religious ecstasy including prophetic utterances through the lips of the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla. But this group has always been regarded as schismatic and deviant, in part due to the fact that their prophecies consisted largely of false predictions about the return of Christ and the location of the New Jerusalem, along with their extraordinary (perhaps Gnostic) asceticism and a zealous desire for martyrdom. By way of an aside, it is interesting to see neo-pentecostal writers revising history to exalt Montanism as a “Reform movement” restoring to the church a spirituality which it has immediately lost after the Apostolic era. The reason for this revision, it appears, is to provide historical validity to a position (Pentecostalism) that so clearly lacks it without such revisions. E.g. Charles E. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace: Contemporary Charismatic Renewal (London: Mowbrays, 1978), 149, or Eric Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy?” Pneuma 6:1 (1984), 67-78.

As Donald Dayton notes, many advocates of the charismatic gifts today are willing to grant that certain of the gifts stopped, and that what we are seeing today is an eschatological outpouring, an event of the last days (Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 26-28.). As the anecdotal saying goes – “these are the days of the Latter Rain.” Pentecostalism has, since its appearance in the 20th century, been almost universally associated with premillennialism and a highly futuristic view of eschatological prophecy, seeing the “last days” as a period of time just prior to Christ’s return (the “rapture”), a time where the Spirit would be poured out in fulfillment of the prophecies of Joel. But this entire approach is predicated on a very frank admission that the gifts – in particular, tongues and prophecy – ceased, and that we are now seeing their revival in the church.

I will make some comments on Grudem’s work at the end of this response.

Okay, you are correct here. However, to what extent was the apostles teaching synonymous with Scripture? Considering that the vast majority of the apostles wrote no Scripture, and much of the New Testament was written by non-apostles, I remain unconvinced that the two are totally synonymous (and this may not be your position).

Correct – that is not my position. Apostolic teaching was not synonymous with Scripture. Perhaps I could have been clearer. Scripture was written, Apostolic teaching was both verbal and written. But, as I think I was able to demonstrate, Apostolic teaching carried the same authority as that of Scripture – just like the teaching of Christ, and that was my point. Nobody has this authority today, and thus it follows that there are no Apostles today.

It is certainly true that the majority of Apostles did not contribute to the written body of Scripture. However, during the middle of the first century, the church did not have a New Testament, embodying the Apostolic tradition of teaching. Thus, even though they did not write Scripture, the Apostles were nonetheless very important to the early church. While the church did not have the written Apostolic tradition, they needed the living Apostles to convey that teaching to them.

I am not sure that historical connection with Jesus is necessary for apostleship. It depends on what you mean by this. If you mean simply that an apostle must be personally commissioned by Christ, fine. But if you mean that an apostle must be linked to Jesus' earthly ministry prior to his ascension, wouldn't the apostle Paul be an exception to that very rule?

The apostle Paul was met by the risen Lord in a way that other Christians of the New Testament after Christ’s resurrection were not – apart from those who were present with him prior to His ascension. Other than those who met Christ after His death and prior to His ascension, who else could have said “haven’t I seen the risen Lord?” Obviously I grant that having met Jesus is not sufficient grounds for a claim to Apostleship. But again, the New Testament gives strong grounds for saying that it is a necessary (even if not sufficient) ground. This is very obviously the case when the Apostles chose Matthias, and Paul seems to feel that it is important that his audience knows it to be true of him.

So we are left the former criterion, that you just had to be personally commissioned by Christ. And I see no reason why Jesus could not do this today, as he did with Paul.

I do think that’s too casual a reading of Paul, for the reasons I have given and because of what I am about to add.

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?" So (by parralelism) are freedom and planting a church both criterions as well? Seems to me the rhetorical questions are related, but not necessarily criterion of each other, and that Paul was validating his apostleship does not prove otherwise.

On the contrary, these things are indeed the Marks of an Apostle. Certainly spreading the Gospel and forming churches, and for practical purposes freedom was manifestly required. Paul here is showing how he is different from the others who are falsely claiming to be Apostles. Have they seen the risen Lord? No – so they are false. Are they involved in ministry that brings people to Christ? No – so they are false. I’ll concede that the “free” reference is not so simple, but there seems to be no obvious way of avoiding the fact that that Paul in this text is continuing in His defense of his genuine Apostleship over and against those false apostles.

So because we have the completed apostolic teaching, we see face to face and fully know?

Yes. Now, you might react in disbelief – how can we say that we fully know, and see face to face? Surely this refers to when Christ returns, and we know Him fully, even as He knows us. And so I must ask you: Do you think that at the moment Christ returns and we see Him, we will know God fully, even to the extent that He knows us? In fact, even a trillion years after we see Christ face to face – even then will we know God fully even as He knows us? I think you will agree that the answer has to be no. This means that this text does not mean what you seem to be suggesting. It doesn’t refer to our knowing God absolutely and fully when Christ returns and we see Him face to face.

The point you raise is certainly one that others have used confidently. I noted that Craig Blomberg makes this very same point. However, this point has not gone unanswered. One significant fact to note is that it isn’t clear that Paul means that we will see God face to face in this verse (even if he believed that we will see God at the consummation). The comparison is between seeing oneself dimly in a mirror, and seeing face to face (i.e. clearly). When we look into a mirror we do not see God – we see our own face. This comparison would make little sense if it meant “Now we see ourselves dimly as in a mirror, but then we will see God face to face.” The use of this comparison suggests that what is being referred to is an improved vision of ourselves, in a better, clearer mirror than that which we now possess, to use Paul’s analogy. Cessationist Myron Houghton comments on this saying of Paul’s: “ ‘Face to face’ describes the clear and direct revelation of oneself which believers today possess when they look into the mirror of the Scriptures, God’s completed revelation.” (Myron J. Houghton, “A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (1996), 353) Since “then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” comes immediately after the mirror analogy, and since it doesn’t say “then I shall know God as well as He knows me” (most would admit this is impossible, even in heaven), this is also quite capable of being seen as a reference to improved knowledge of oneself in the light of the revelation given through the apostolic tradition. Houghton acknowledges that this may seem fairly presumptuous. Do believers who have access to the revelation of the New Testament really know themselves as well as God Himself knows them? He replies: However, the problem does not go away if these words are interpreted eschatologically. In eternity, will believers really know fully just as they have been fully known? The answer to this question seems to be, “Yes, but only in some limited qualified sense.” If that answer is acceptable for the eschatological interpretation, then it ought to be acceptable for this writer’s “completed canon” view as well. (Ibid., 354)

Gordon Fee acknowledges this argument, but his “response” is illustrative of his approach to the subject:

It his perhaps an indictment of Western Christianity that we should consider “mature” our rather totally cerebral and domesticated – but bland – brand of faith, with the concommitant absence of the Spirit in terms of his supernatural gifts! (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 645, fn. 23)

Note the clearly circular nature of this argument. Fee implies that it is obviously wrong to think that maturity might involve the removal of these gifts, even though the text he is commenting on expressly says that when this maturity comes these gifts will cease. In other words, in response to an exegetical case for the view that when maturity comes, certain gifts will cease, Fee has said “but that must be false because it would imply that maturity would be present without these gifts.” Yes, that is what such an exegesis would imply, pointing that out is not a rebuttal! The rest of Fee’s statement consists of emotive condemnation (e.g. “cerebral, domesticated, bland”), and contributes nothing to his position but an ugly hostility towards those with whom he differs.

I think part of the issue is that the word apostle is used in different ways in the New Testament. For example, other people than the 13 (the twelve plus Paul) are called apostles in the New Testament.
I Corinthians 15:5-8 teaches that Christ appeared to "the Twelve . . . then to all the apostles" (and last of all to him), which implies that there were other aposltes besides these twelve.
Furthermore, Paul actually calls many of helpers "apostles" in the New Testament - Barnabbas (Acts 14:14, I Corinthains 9:6) and possibly Apollos (I Corinthians 4:1, 6, 9).

I think that this is your only real potentially strong argument on Apostleship. Elsewhere, I think it looks clear that the Apostles, with the prophets, had a unique historical function in establishing the church. I’ve pointed to a couple of texts where this appears to be made quite clear. I’ve also shown some evidence that there was a fairly rigid criteria for determining who was a genuine Apostle. I do not think you’ve presented a rebuttal of these claims. Yet you do here present what looks, initially, like a good counter argument.

The first thing to note is that there is nothing in my argument to prevent there ever having been more than 13 Apostles. I am inclined at the present time to think that there were only 13, but my case would certainly not crumble if it turned out that there were 20. My point is that they were a temporary institution.

Part of the difficulty in response arises because of the existence of more than one way of using words. In particular, the word “Apostle” is capable of at least two kinds of usage: literal (what the word literally means according to its linguistic derivation) on the one hand, and technical (how the word came to be conventionally used) on the other. For example, the literal meaning of glossa in Greek is “tongue,” the object in your mouth. But it is used to mean “language” as well, and this is a technical meaning. The word apostle in Greek literally means “sent one.” But it also picked up a technical meaning, to refer to a special group with a teaching authority that historically laid a foundation for the church (e.g. Eph 2:2). One way of making this distinction is to refer to apostles (lower case a) when the word has a literal meaning, and Apostles (upper case A) when it has a technical meaning. In other words, there were possibly numerous “sent ones” who were not Apostles, and so translation becomes a more tricky exercise, and one which will necessarily involve interpreting. Should a given example be translated as “Apostle,” or as something meaning “sent one”? It may not always be clear.

With regard to the specific texts you have referred to, I have some specific responses. Firstly, 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Surprising as it may seem, I am inclined to agree with Gordon Fee on this one (who in turn accepts the majority view of the commentators). He suggests that this appearance of Christ to “all the Apostles” refers to the Twelve plus a somewhat wider group who had been followers of Jesus during His earthly ministry, who came to be associated with the Apostolic ministry. Fee acknowledges that even this group, while not necessarily being limited to the twelve, had to met the criteria of having met the risen Lord, and these had been commissioned (perhaps by the Twelve, perhaps by the risen Lord) to proclaim the gospel and to plant churches. Fee connects this to Paul’s comments in 1Cor 9:1-2, seeing these (as I did) as a criteria of Apostleship. (Fee, 1 Corinthians, p. 732.) Fee is prepared to say that these other apostles did not share the authority of the twelve, who always held a special place, yet still met the criteria of having a unique and formative ministry in the church.

This line of argument employed by Fee (which I accept) would quite adequately explain the other references you cite. There may have been others outside the twelve who could in some sense be called Apostles. However none of this is to deny what I see as clear biblical teaching about the foundational role in history that Apostles played in the Church.

Further still, the circle of apostleship could not have been closed if there were false apostles (II Corinthians 11:13). One could not pretend to be an apostle if everyone knew who the only apostles were!

On the contrary, the fact that there were people who claimed to be Apostles who did not meet the criteria shows that there were criteria, and that it is possible to evaluate a person and ascertain that they did not in fact meet them. I haven’t suggested that every Christian in the first century knew the criteria. All I’ve said is that there were criteria, and that the Apostles met them.

So the question is rather complex. I think a strong case can be made that when the bible refers to "apostle" as a spiritual gift (Ephesians 4:11-13, I Corinthians 12:28-29), it is using the word in the more generic sense, not referring to the original 13 only. After all, it is pretty difficult to think of the original disciples as spiritual gifts along with speaking in tongues and encouragement and the like.

Why do you find this difficult? It doesn’t seem in the least bit odd to say that a certain number of people had a gifting which carried with it responsibility and authority, does it?

Now, to Grudem’s historical claims…. I was, to be quite honest, a little surprised to see them. Setting aside the Westminster confession of faith (which is really a piece of speculation, given that it is really a cautious and, I think, improbable interpretation of the wording), we have Spurgeon, Knox and Rutherford who, so it seems, believed that they practiced the gift of prophecy. What this means is that I will have to do a bit of digging in history. However, the fact that grudem was unaware of example slike this until people pointed them out to him suggsts that they are highly unusual (especially given the theological emphasis of Calvin and the Reformers in general – sola scriptura). But still, the accounts are there and I will look into them. I have also been made aware of an important response to Grudem by Kenneth Gentry, which I must look at as well. As with any claim, it must stand the test of Scripture.

I’d like to finish with a couple of questions for you Gavin:

Firstly, if you believe that there can be Apostles today, what exactly is such a person? What is their role and function?

Secondly, how can we defend the Apostleship of such people? Are there any criteria that we could use to show that there are indeed true Apostles?

All the best,

Glenn

Gavin

June 16th 2003, 01:31 PM

Glenn,

thanks for the reply.

As I see it, if anyone believes that there was a continuity of all the gifts, they must believe so because of evidence, or not at all. If there are instances of such gifts throughout history from Apostolic times onwards, they should be able to point to them. For the cessationist like me, there is nothing to point to, since what we’re claiming is that there was an absence of such gifts.

Your article claimed that it is a "historical observation" that tongues and prophecy ceased. So I still think the onus is on you to back up that claim. But I see your point and I will try to provide the evidence you want in what follows.

But lest it be thought that I’m just being lazy , I will set forth at least one piece of evidence that tongues and prophecy ceased very early in the church’s history. That evidence is this fact: With the apparent exception of Grudem and perhaps a few others, Pentecostal/charismatic theologians and historians admit that these gifts did indeed cease. In the article of mine that you disagreed with, I actually documented some examples, both charismatic and non charismatic. For the benefit of those observing this thread, it might pay to present some of that evidence again here. Church historian E. Glenn Hinson puts it like this when talking about tongues in the early church: “The first sixteen centuries… were lean ones indeed… If the first five centuries were lean the next were starvation years for the practice in Western Christendom and doubtful ones in Eastern Christendom.”

I disagree with this. I would say that the vast majority of charismatic scholars would not say that tongues and prophecy ceased as a historical fact. A few would, but no more (and probably less) than the number of noncharismatic scholars who would grant that they did not cease as a historical fact. In short, charismatic scholars who agree with Grudem about the gifts in the church age are the norm, not the expection.

See Richard Riis, "Tongues and other miraculous gifts in the second through nineteenth centuries, " or Ronald Kydd, "charismatic gifts in the early church, " or any other of the numerous charismatic defenses of this view.

I am willing to acknowledge that on very few isolated occasions in the early centuries, some persons or groups made the claim to have miraculous ability of giftings in this area, but their testimony is highly dubious. For example, the Montanist sect of the late second century practised religious ecstasy including prophetic utterances through the lips of the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla. But this group has always been regarded as schismatic and deviant, in part due to the fact that their prophecies consisted largely of false predictions about the return of Christ and the location of the New Jerusalem, along with their extraordinary (perhaps Gnostic) asceticism and a zealous desire for martyrdom. By way of an aside, it is interesting to see neo-pentecostal writers revising history to exalt Montanism as a “Reform movement” restoring to the church a spirituality which it has immediately lost after the Apostolic era. The reason for this revision, it appears, is to provide historical validity to a position (Pentecostalism) that so clearly lacks it without such revisions. E.g. Charles E. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace: Contemporary Charismatic Renewal (London: Mowbrays, 1978), 149, or Eric Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy?” Pneuma 6:1 (1984), 67-78.

As Grudem's article illustrates, though, the evidence for the gifts stems not merely from heretical groups but also from some of the most respected and beloved champions of the faith ever.

I will give just one example here for the sake of space. Martin Luther was (in the modern sense of the term) a charismatic. Although disgusted by false and fanatical imitations of the miraculous gifts, Luther believed that all Christians had the ability to exercise the miraculous gifts. He said in a sermon on Ascension Day in 1522, "where there is a Christian, there is still the power to work these signs if it is necessary", and exactly a year later, in a sermon on Mark 16, added:

Therefore, we must allow these words to remain and not gloss them away, as some have done who have said that these signs were manifestations of the Spirit in the beginning of the Christian era and that now they have ceased. That is not right; for the same power is in the church still. And though it is not exercised, that does not matter; we still have the power to do such signs.

As Donald Dayton notes, many advocates of the charismatic gifts today are willing to grant that certain of the gifts stopped, and that what we are seeing today is an eschatological outpouring, an event of the last days (Donald Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 26-28.). As the anecdotal saying goes – “these are the days of the Latter Rain.” Pentecostalism has, since its appearance in the 20th century, been almost universally associated with premillennialism and a highly futuristic view of eschatological prophecy, seeing the “last days” as a period of time just prior to Christ’s return (the “rapture”), a time where the Spirit would be poured out in fulfillment of the prophecies of Joel. But this entire approach is predicated on a very frank admission that the gifts – in particular, tongues and prophecy – ceased, and that we are now seeing their revival in the church.

The "last days" view is a minority viewpoint in the charismatic circles I am involved in, and is not my own view. I see the "last days" period as inaugerated on Pentecost.

Correct – that is not my position. Apostolic teaching was not synonymous with Scripture. Perhaps I could have been clearer. Scripture was written, Apostolic teaching was both verbal and written. But, as I think I was able to demonstrate, Apostolic teaching carried the same authority as that of Scripture – just like the teaching of Christ, and that was my point. Nobody has this authority today, and thus it follows that there are no Apostles today.

It is certainly true that the majority of Apostles did not contribute to the written body of Scripture. However, during the middle of the first century, the church did not have a New Testament, embodying the Apostolic tradition of teaching. Thus, even though they did not write Scripture, the Apostles were nonetheless very important to the early church. While the church did not have the written Apostolic tradition, they needed the living Apostles to convey that teaching to them.

Okay, I can accept this. I have a few reservations about it, but it does not hurt my case because I am arguing that there exist two different ways that apostleship is used in the New Testament, and one has ceased while the other has not. See below.

[continued in next post]

Gavin

June 16th 2003, 01:51 PM

The apostle Paul was met by the risen Lord in a way that other Christians of the New Testament after Christ’s resurrection were not – apart from those who were present with him prior to His ascension. Other than those who met Christ after His death and prior to His ascension, who else could have said “haven’t I seen the risen Lord?” Obviously I grant that having met Jesus is not sufficient grounds for a claim to Apostleship. But again, the New Testament gives strong grounds for saying that it is a necessary (even if not sufficient) ground. This is very obviously the case when the Apostles chose Matthias, and Paul seems to feel that it is important that his audience knows it to be true of him.

I will also grant that apostles (in the technical sense) were specifcally appointed by Christ. But I still see now reason why Christ could not appear to people today as he did to Paul. But this point is, perhaps, moot, since I agree that apostles in the highly technical sense did in fact cease.

I do think that’s too casual a reading of Paul, for the reasons I have given and because of what I am about to add.

. . .

On the contrary, these things are indeed the Marks of an Apostle. Certainly spreading the Gospel and forming churches, and for practical purposes freedom was manifestly required. Paul here is showing how he is different from the others who are falsely claiming to be Apostles. Have they seen the risen Lord? No – so they are false. Are they involved in ministry that brings people to Christ? No – so they are false. I’ll concede that the “free” reference is not so simple, but there seems to be no obvious way of avoiding the fact that that Paul in this text is continuing in His defense of his genuine Apostleship over and against those false apostles.

I would say that your view in general tries to make things a bit too neat and tidy. Paul may be defending the genuity of his apostolic ministry in this passage, but he is not necessarily latching onto the only and universally accepted tests for apostolic genuity. His inclusion of his freedom in Christ (a blessing common to all believers) favors this sense. It may be the case that apostles arise who have not been called in exactly the same way Paul was.

But again I agree that apostles in the technical sense ceased.

Yes. Now, you might react in disbelief – how can we say that we fully know, and see face to face? Surely this refers to when Christ returns, and we know Him fully, even as He knows us. And so I must ask you: Do you think that at the moment Christ returns and we see Him, we will know God fully, even to the extent that He knows us? In fact, even a trillion years after we see Christ face to face – even then will we know God fully even as He knows us? I think you will agree that the answer has to be no. This means that this text does not mean what you seem to be suggesting. It doesn’t refer to our knowing God absolutely and fully when Christ returns and we see Him face to face.

The point you raise is certainly one that others have used confidently. I noted that Craig Blomberg makes this very same point. However, this point has not gone unanswered. One significant fact to note is that it isn’t clear that Paul means that we will see God face to face in this verse (even if he believed that we will see God at the consummation). The comparison is between seeing oneself dimly in a mirror, and seeing face to face (i.e. clearly). When we look into a mirror we do not see God – we see our own face. This comparison would make little sense if it meant “Now we see ourselves dimly as in a mirror, but then we will see God face to face.” The use of this comparison suggests that what is being referred to is an improved vision of ourselves, in a better, clearer mirror than that which we now possess, to use Paul’s analogy. Cessationist Myron Houghton comments on this saying of Paul’s: “ ‘Face to face’ describes the clear and direct revelation of oneself which believers today possess when they look into the mirror of the Scriptures, God’s completed revelation.” (Myron J. Houghton, “A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (1996), 353) Since “then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” comes immediately after the mirror analogy, and since it doesn’t say “then I shall know God as well as He knows me” (most would admit this is impossible, even in heaven), this is also quite capable of being seen as a reference to improved knowledge of oneself in the light of the revelation given through the apostolic tradition.

Now hold on here. If "face to face" and "know fully" won't be realized even after a trillion years in heaven, then when will they be realized? Ever? You seem to want to make the strength the language favor the idea of that they refer to simply Scripture; but the strength of the language leads to the greater, not lesser, event.

Yes, I do believe that belivers in heaven will see God "face to face". Every time this phrase is used in the LXX, it refers to theophany. See my debate with Apollos on this, my third post. I do believe that we will fully know in heaven, just as God knows us. I cannot see that the text allows us to any other conclusions. Certainly these events did not occur in the first century!

Houghton acknowledges that this may seem fairly presumptuous. Do believers who have access to the revelation of the New Testament really know themselves as well as God Himself knows them? He replies: “ However, the problem does not go away if these words are interpreted eschatologically. In eternity, will believers really know fully just as they have been fully known? The answer to this question seems to be, “Yes, but only in some limited qualified sense.” If that answer is acceptable for the eschatological interpretation, then it ought to be acceptable for this writer’s “completed canon” view as well. (Ibid., 354) ”

Gordon Fee acknowledges this argument, but his “response” is illustrative of his approach to the subject:

“ It his perhaps an indictment of Western Christianity that we should consider “mature” our rather totally cerebral and domesticated – but bland – brand of faith, with the concommitant absence of the Spirit in terms of his supernatural gifts! (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 645, fn. 23) ”

Note the clearly circular nature of this argument. Fee implies that it is obviously wrong to think that maturity might involve the removal of these gifts, even though the text he is commenting on expressly says that when this maturity comes these gifts will cease. In other words, in response to an exegetical case for the view that when maturity comes, certain gifts will cease, Fee has said “but that must be false because it would imply that maturity would be present without these gifts.” Yes, that is what such an exegesis would imply, pointing that out is not a rebuttal! The rest of Fee’s statement consists of emotive condemnation (e.g. “cerebral, domesticated, bland”), and contributes nothing to his position but an ugly hostility towards those with whom he differs.

You have a good point here that the maturity does come with the cessation of the gifts, not their presence, but I would be much more sympathetic to Fee's sentiments. In general, the western church is nowhere near "mature", irrespective of the question of gifts. But this is a bit of a tangent.

[continued in next post]

Gavin

June 16th 2003, 01:52 PM

Before I forget here is a link to one of those earlier cited works.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0913573094/spiritualwarfareA/002-5143372-5944812

Gavin

June 16th 2003, 02:25 PM

I think that this is your only real potentially strong argument on Apostleship. Elsewhere, I think it looks clear that the Apostles, with the prophets, had a unique historical function in establishing the church. I’ve pointed to a couple of texts where this appears to be made quite clear. I’ve also shown some evidence that there was a fairly rigid criteria for determining who was a genuine Apostle. I do not think you’ve presented a rebuttal of these claims. Yet you do here present what looks, initially, like a good counter argument.

To clarify my position: apostleship is used in different senses in the New Testament. This is supported by the contexts in which it is used together with the philology of the greek "apostolos" which originally meant simply "messenger" or "ambassodor". Philippians 2:25 uses the word in this sense, for example.

Sometimes aposlteship refers to the twelve disciples minus Judas plus Matthias and perhaps a few others such as Paul, and implies a degree of authority in leading the early church. I agree that apostles in this sense ceased. Other times the word simply refers to any messenger or ambassador for Christ. In this sense apostleship is a spiritual gift (I Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11) which did not contain the authority that the other sense did and continues today.

The first thing to note is that there is nothing in my argument to prevent there ever having been more than 13 Apostles. I am inclined at the present time to think that there were only 13, but my case would certainly not crumble if it turned out that there were 20. My point is that they were a temporary institution.

Of course, but what I am arguing for is not merely that there were more than 13 but that the word is used in two different ways.

Part of the difficulty in response arises because of the existence of more than one way of using words. In particular, the word “Apostle” is capable of at least two kinds of usage: literal (what the word literally means according to its linguistic derivation) on the one hand, and technical (how the word came to be conventionally used) on the other. For example, the literal meaning of glossa in Greek is “tongue,” the object in your mouth. But it is used to mean “language” as well, and this is a technical meaning. The word apostle in Greek literally means “sent one.” But it also picked up a technical meaning, to refer to a special group with a teaching authority that historically laid a foundation for the church (e.g. Eph 2:2). One way of making this distinction is to refer to apostles (lower case a) when the word has a literal meaning, and Apostles (upper case A) when it has a technical meaning. In other words, there were possibly numerous “sent ones” who were not Apostles, and so translation becomes a more tricky exercise, and one which will necessarily involve interpreting. Should a given example be translated as “Apostle,” or as something meaning “sent one”? It may not always be clear.

Exactly. You said it better than I could. And my contention is that when apostleship is used to refer to a spiritual gift it is the literal not technical sense.

With regard to the specific texts you have referred to, I have some specific responses. Firstly, 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Surprising as it may seem, I am inclined to agree with Gordon Fee on this one (who in turn accepts the majority view of the commentators). He suggests that this appearance of Christ to “all the Apostles” refers to the Twelve plus a somewhat wider group who had been followers of Jesus during His earthly ministry, who came to be associated with the Apostolic ministry. Fee acknowledges that even this group, while not necessarily being limited to the twelve, had to met the criteria of having met the risen Lord, and these had been commissioned (perhaps by the Twelve, perhaps by the risen Lord) to proclaim the gospel and to plant churches. Fee connects this to Paul’s comments in 1Cor 9:1-2, seeing these (as I did) as a criteria of Apostleship. (Fee, 1 Corinthians, p. 732.) Fee is prepared to say that these other apostles did not share the authority of the twelve, who always held a special place, yet still met the criteria of having a unique and formative ministry in the church.

Equally surprising, I may disagree with Fee in that he (and the majority of commentators) are mushing the distinction between the literal and technical sense of the word apostle. Nothing in I Corinthians 15 says anything about the authority of these other apostles.

This line of argument employed by Fee (which I accept) would quite adequately explain the other references you cite. There may have been others outside the twelve who could in some sense be called Apostles. However none of this is to deny what I see as clear biblical teaching about the foundational role in history that Apostles played in the Church.

You agreeing with Fee does nothing if you do not address the argument I will bring up below for why apostleship as a spiritual gift is probably not used in the more technical sense.

On the contrary, the fact that there were people who claimed to be Apostles who did not meet the criteria shows that there were criteria, and that it is possible to evaluate a person and ascertain that they did not in fact meet them. I haven’t suggested that every Christian in the first century knew the criteria. All I’ve said is that there were criteria, and that the Apostles met them.

They may have not known the criteria for being an apostle, but if there were only 13 aposltes, than people would surely know that! And I still think it would be ludicrous for people to fake being apostles if everybody knew who the real aposltes were. That would be like people faking an identity as congressmen today!

Why do you find this difficult? It doesn’t seem in the least bit odd to say that a certain number of people had a gifting which carried with it responsibility and authority, does it?

But spiritual gifts are different than offices to which Christ calls 13 people. Spiritual gifts are "manifestations of the Spirit" given across the church among a wide number of believers. They are general, not specific. Other gifts like administering, leadership, helping, serving, etc. are not offices to which a few people are called - they are general abilities that the Spirit gives.

From my debate:

So the question then becomes – in what sense is Paul using the term “apostle” in Ephesians 4:11? It will not do to go with Apollos and dogmatically insist that the word is being used in the more technical sense simply because that is allegedly the “primary sense” of the word. What after, is a “apostle” (in the highly technical sense) to speak of it as a spiritual gift, which by definition is a spiritual ability given by the Spirit, not an ecclesiastical office instituted by the risen Christ? What sense would it make to write to the lay people of the New Testament churches that God has given each of them spiritual gifts, some of which may be apostles? The thirteen were clearly not “spiritual gifts” per se. There were no apostles in Ephesus or Corinth at the time of Paul’s writing to them! Thus it is far more likely that the word is being used in the older, more generic sense of missionary, or messenger. “Messenger” as the definition of apostle fits in categorically with the other gifts mentioned, evangelists, administrators, pastors, etc., while the definition of apostle as “13 specific individuals called by Christ, twelve of whom were his original disciples”, to put it mildly, seems to be a very anomalous sort of gift.

Thus I think it highly more likely that when Paul speaks of apostleship as a spiritual gift he is using the more literal, general sense of "messenger." This view fits in with all the relevant evidence and favors the continuation of this gift.

Firstly, if you believe that there can be Apostles today, what exactly is such a person? What is their role and function?

An "apostle" is the same as a "messenger" or "ambassador" or "one who is sent on a mission". One who is gifted with this gift is presumably endowed with a special capacity for missions, leadership, proclamation of the gospel, etc. Just as one with a gift of "messengership" (i.e., apostleship) carries a message, one with the gift of leadership leads, one with the gift of showing hospitality shows it, etc. It is very simple and almost so obvious that it is overlooked. Aposltes today possess no authority on par with that of the writers of Scripture and do not even need to be called "aposltes" officially, any more than those with the gift of showing hospitality need to be offically dubbed "showers of hospitatlity."

Secondly, how can we defend the Apostleship of such people? Are there any criteria that we could use to show that there are indeed true Apostles?

Paul does not give us tests for testing spiritual gifts as he evidently thinks it will be apparent what spiritual gifts are rather obviously. No criteria really need to be presented with the spiritual gift of apostleship, since Scriptural truth is not at stake in their recognition (as it was in the technical apostles' recognition).

Whew! This is going unedited.

Blessings Glenn,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 16th 2003, 10:35 PM

Hi again Gavin, and thank sfor that response.

You have agreed that Apostleship in the technical sense ceased. Great! We're part way there. You will, of course, have to be rigidly consistent now, so that you don't say "Paul was an Apostle, and there are still Apostles today," since this would ignore the distinction we have both now agreed to make.

It will be obvious to any observer of the wider debate on cessationism that the question of cessationism rlates to the technical sense of "Apostleship." When it comes to the literal meaning of apostelo, my claim would be very simple: TRANSLATE the word. Refer to ambassadors or messengers, and not Apostles, since "Apostles" has a technical meaning. That is actually why the word came into the English language - because technical terms (e.g. "Apostle" or "baptism") are often words that have simply been transliterated in another language instead of translated (e.g. "ambassador," "dipping") because of the danger of simply taking their literal meaning when translated.

You say that Fee is "mushing" the defiition by including two different types of Apostle. But how do you know he is including two types? Nothing in the immediate text would suggest this.

And your objection to the view that the gift of Apostleship was a limited time appointment has some visible problems. If we can agree that the greek word could mean "Apostle" or "ambassador" then the gift could mean two things:

1.) It could mean the gift of being an Apostle, but you've agreed with me that this was a limited time thing, so there would be no disagreement there. I think this IS what it means, and so I conclude that the gift is no more. You don't think i means this, however.

2.) This leaves you with the other option - that the gift really refers to the gift of being an ambassador or "sent one." OK, but you must realise when you say this that you're saying nothing that the cessationist view would reject. Do cessationists believe that people today may ambassadors for Christ? Absolutely. If you take this option, you just have to appreciate the fact that when a cessationist says there are no Apostles today, he doesn't mean "ambassadors."

So I think that if you take the gift of Apostleship to refer to ambassadors, you have no reason to differ from the cessationist POSITION (even if you disagree with the cessationist understanding of what this gift is). It's just that you think this gif refes to messengers rather than Apostles, and it would be helpful when talking to cessationists to use the word "messenger" or "missionary" or something else to be clear that you're not actually saying there are Apostles today.

Now that we can agree that "Apostles" are no more (provided we can agree that "Apostle" as a translation of the Greek is a technical term), we can now turn to the question of Prophets. I'll turn back now to Ephesians 2:20. It says that the "Apostles and Prophets", along with Jesus, are the founation of the Church. Paul confirms in Eph 3:5 that he dos not mean Old Testament prophets, but prophets in his own day.

Since you agree that Apostles in this sense have ceased, what about Prohets? Do you think that they continue in the church, even after this foundation hs been laid?

Now, if you want to say "Ah, no, there are no more prophets in THAT sense, they have ceased. What we have now is people who offer teachings that need to be tested against Scripture," then could you explain how you are not a cessationist?

Glenn

Gavin

June 16th 2003, 11:48 PM

Hello Glenn,

You say that Fee is "mushing" the defiition by including two different types of Apostle. But how do you know he is including two types? Nothing in the immediate text would suggest this.

Well, my understanding of I Corinthians 15 is that the "other apostles" would be primarily those non-authoratative aposltes. But your point is well taken nonetheless, as Fee may not be taking I Corinthians 15 in that way.

2.) This leaves you with the other option - that the gift really refers to the gift of being an ambassador or "sent one." OK, but you must realise when you say this that you're saying nothing that the cessationist view would reject. Do cessationists believe that people today may ambassadors for Christ? Absolutely. If you take this option, you just have to appreciate the fact that when a cessationist says there are no Apostles today, he doesn't mean "ambassadors."

So I think that if you take the gift of Apostleship to refer to ambassadors, you have no reason to differ from the cessationist POSITION (even if you disagree with the cessationist understanding of what this gift is). It's just that you think this gif refes to messengers rather than Apostles, and it would be helpful when talking to cessationists to use the word "messenger" or "missionary" or something else to be clear that you're not actually saying there are Apostles today.

I can agree with this. :thumb:

Now that we can agree that "Apostles" are no more (provided we can agree that "Apostle" as a translation of the Greek is a technical term), we can now turn to the question of Prophets. I'll turn back now to Ephesians 2:20. It says that the "Apostles and Prophets", along with Jesus, are the founation of the Church. Paul confirms in Eph 3:5 that he dos not mean Old Testament prophets, but prophets in his own day.

Since you agree that Apostles in this sense have ceased, what about Prohets? Do you think that they continue in the church, even after this foundation hs been laid?

Now, if you want to say "Ah, no, there are no more prophets in THAT sense, they have ceased. What we have now is people who offer teachings that need to be tested against Scripture," then could you explain how you are not a cessationist?

My position is that the gift of prophecy is for today. My reasons for thinking so are as follows.

Within Scripture itself, there are different types of revelation. In the Old Testament, there are casual references to "companies of prophets" in various cities of the Old Testament (II Kings 2:3, 5, 7) which likely contain hundreds of prophets. Nothing of what these prophets did or said is recorded in Scripture. Similarly, there seems to be spontaneous and somewhat "charismatic" prophecies (in the modern sense of the term) in the Old Testament as an evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit on people (Numbers 11:24-25, I Samuel 10:9-11, 19:20). Turner calls such prophecies "invasively inspired charismatic praise or worship." These prophcies are not recorded in Scripture either.

When the Spirit is poured out on Pentecost in Acts 2, and throughout the rest of Acts, those on whom he falls frequently prophesy and speak in tongues (Acts 2:4, possibly 8:17, 10:46, 19:6). What was prophesied is not recorded. Other prophecies, dreams, visions, and other such revelatory phenomena in Acts (Acts 5:3, 8:26, 29, 9:10-12, 10:3-6, 10:19-20, 11:27-30, 16:6-10, 18:9-10, 21:4, 10-12, 27:23-24) contain not general soteriological revelation but rather personal and specific guidance "guidance that the advent of the canon would not render unnecessary" (Turner).

What is said about the gift of prophecy in I Corinthians 14 bears similar evidence to what is above. See especially verses 29-30. Prophecy seems in this sense to differ greatly from Scripture which contains general not specific guidance; theological, principial, not "personal" per se. So I would say the gift of prophecy (as opposed to what is in view in, say, II Peter 1:20-21 or Romans 16:26) is very different from Scripture and continues today as a sign of the Spirit's presence (Acts 2:17), for the edification of the church (I Corinthians 14:3), and for the personal and specific guidance of believers (e.g., Acts 21:10-11). It is clear that since prophecy is said to occur in relation to the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3, not all prophecy can be a threat to the closed canon.

What then, of Ephesians 2:20? There are a number of possibilities.

1) Paul could be referring to apostles in the technical sense and prophecy in the sense of Scripture (as opposed to the gift of prophecy as in I Corinthians 14) which cease once the foundational period of the church. This would not be a damper on my diaper since I believe the canon is closed and the Aposltes (note capital) are ceased. But I do think this is the most likely sense of the passage (see number three).

2) Paul could, as Grudem argues, be employing a hendiadys in Ephesians 2:20. The sense then would be "the apostles who were prophets" and would not bear to the question of the cessation/contuation of prophecy per se. A hendiadys is gramatically possible (and not unlikely) but neither necessary. Again this view would fit in with continuationism, but I do not bank much on it because there is really no way to know with certainty if that is what Paul is thinking here.

3) Regardless of what Paul is referring to in Ephesians 2:20, nothing in the verse demands cessationism, for the following factors.

a) Just because some of the prophets founded the church (along with apostles), that does not mean that they cannot contribute to the superstructure as well. Jack Deere has said, "the founding director of a company or corporation will always be unique in the sense that he or she was the founder, but that does not mean that the company would not have future directors or presidents." In noting the significance of the redemptive-historical structure of Acts, D. A. Carson helpfully points out, "Some gifts . . . function in Acts in ways particularly related to the inception of the messaniac age. But it does not follow that Luke expects them to cease once the period of inception has passed away." Ruthvin echoes this idea: "The NT sees these gifts as first and definitive, but certainly not unrepeatable."
In other words, the prophets role as founders of the church in no way excludes them from future activity in the church, because founders can and do contribute to the entire building. Gaffin's argument is a logical non sequiter - why should the founders of a building be unable to build on to the rest of the building? Because a person with a certain talent begins to a building, can people with similar talents not continue to build onto the building later?
Very probably Paul meant that the apostles and prophets were foundational to the church not in terms of sequence, but in terms of importance - that is, the importance of the message they bore, the gospel. You could say that American democracy is "built on the foundation of Presidents and Congressmen" - but this does not imply that people holding these titles will go away after the foundational period of America. That is beause the use of the analogy of the foundation of a building in this context is not sequential or temporal; it merely denotes the importance of these offices in the structure of American political ideology (regardless of what period they operate in). In the same way, apostles and prophets are foundational in terms of importance, not sequence, in which case they still "found" the church today.

b) This argument does not account for the next two verses of the passage, which use the present tense to refer to the construction of the superstructure of this building: "the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." Paul sees the apostles and prophets as foundational to the church, true, but he also sees the rest of the building growing (present tense), and having been joined together (past participle), in the time of the apostles and prophets. If the superstructure was being constructed and had been joined together during the apostolic age, the apostles and prophets were already contributing to the superstructure. So it is gratuitous to argue against their building onto the superstructure from this passage. The very action this argument claims that founders cannot do they are already doing in the next two verses! Apostles and prophets contribute both to the foundation and to the entire superstructure in Ephesians 2:20-22.

c) Thirdly, the inclusion of Christ into this group of founders as the "chief cornerstone" hinders cessationists' claims. As Ruthven remarks, "the cessationist argument by analogy collapses if Christ is not limited to the 'foundation' in Eph. 2:20." But clearly Christ's work in the church cannot be limited to the apostolic age! On the contrary, Jesus works actively to build his church until his return (Matthew 16:18), and is present with us "to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

In sum: Paul is not limiting any spiritual gifts to any time frames in Ephesians 2:20; he is standing back and looking at the church structure as a whole and reminding the Ephesians of their inclusion in this larger picture. Paul's emphasis is not on the sequence of church history and changes in the Spirit's activity from one period to another but on the overall make-up of the church, which from Paul's perspective in the first century had already risen to become a temple holy in the Lord. It is later, in Ephesians 4:11-13, in a context specifically set in discussion ff spiritual gifts, that Paul dates the duration of the spiritual gifts ("until" [13]): the complete maturity of the church in heaven (cf. I Corinthians 8ff.).

Let me know your thoughts at your convenience, Glenn, on this post or previous ones.

Take care,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 17th 2003, 02:51 AM

Gavin,

OK, we've basically agreed that the cessationists are right to say that there are no longer Apostles in the church (we do not agree on what Paul means by "apostle" in 1 Corinthians 12, but no matter, we agree in principle that there are no Apostles now). So prophecy....

You give several reasons why you think that the gift of prophecy did not end with the Apostolic era. I'll respond to what I think are the main ones, in the order that you presented them.

Firstly, you make reference to prophecy in the book of Acts, and you point out that is not recorded. I might be reading too much into your comments here, but that sounds something like an argument used by Grudem, who notes that in 1 Corinthians 14, not all prophecy is heard or recorded, thus it must be of a lesser authority than Scripture, since some of it could potentially be “lost” in the mist of time. I consider this argument to be very weak, since it would mean that much of Jesus’ own teaching is not as authoritative as Scripture, since a lot of it was never recorded.

What is said about the gift of prophecy in I Corinthians 14 bears similar evidence to what is above. See especially verses 29-30. Prophecy seems in this sense to differ greatly from Scripture which contains general not specific guidance; theological, principal, not “personal” per se.

Everything about 1 Corinthians 14 (as well as chapters 12 and 13) militates against this position. Paul’s emphatic and sustained line of argument is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are badly misunderstood if we think they are for “personal” benefit. On the contrary, they are intended for the building up of the body of Christ.

Secondly, no cessationist has ever claimed that prophecy is Scripture. Rather, as God’s spoken word it carries the same authority as Scripture, namely, the authority of God.

So I would say the gift of prophecy (as opposed to what is in view in, say, II Peter 1:20-21 or Romans 16:26) is very different from Scripture and continues today as a sign of the Spirit's presence (Acts 2:17), for the edification of the church (I Corinthians 14:3), and for the personal and specific guidance of believers (e.g., Acts 21:10-11).

None of these texts can contribute to an argument for the continuation of the gift of prophecy, since all of them deal with instances of prophecy during the formative stages of the church’s history. I don’t dispute for a moment that prophecy was exercised for these purposes (although I emphasis corporate benefit as opposed to individual private benefit). But texts that show the gift functioning in the early church context stop there. Whether the gift continued is another matter altogether.

None of these lines of argument really begin to deal with the cessationist argument. But you do not stop there, you do go on to address the case arising from Ephesians 2:20
1) Paul could be referring to apostles in the technical sense and prophecy in the sense of Scripture (as opposed to the gift of prophecy as in I Corinthians 14) which cease once the foundational period of the church. This would not be a damper on my diaper since I believe the canon is closed and the Aposltes (note capital) are ceased.
Well, Paul doesn’t refer to “prophecy” in Ephesians 2:20. He refers to “Apostles and Prophets.” I agree that it doesn’t refer to Scripture, it refers to living people in the New Testament era. Paul shows this to be the case later in the same book, in 3:5, “In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” So as a Pauline phrase, the “apostles and prophets” are a group of people in the New Testament Church.

2) Paul could, as Grudem argues, be employing a hendiadys in Ephesians 2:20. The sense then would be “the apostles who were prophets” and would not bear to the question of the cessation/contuation of prophecy per se. A hendiadys is gramatically possible (and not unlikely) but neither necessary. Again this view would fit in with continuationism, but I do not bank much on it because there is really no way to know with certainty if that is what Paul is thinking here.
I think you are wise not to rest any of your case on this argument, since you would then have to own the burden of proof to show this was a correct reading.

You close by offering three reasons why “nothing in the verse demands cessationism, for the following factors.” Nothing! That’s a pretty strong way to put it. Your arguments were as follows:

a) Just because some of the prophets founded the church (along with apostles), that does not mean that they cannot contribute to the superstructure as well.

I find that position somewhat ironic, given that you do accept that the Apostles were a temporary institution for the establishment of the church. Yet it looks very obvious that in Ephesians (both in 2:2 and 3:5) Paul is presenting Apostles and prophets as having the same role in Church history. Why choose one for an extra function beyond this, but not the other?

b) This argument does not account for the next two verses of the passage, which use the present tense to refer to the construction of the superstructure of this building: "the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." Paul sees the apostles and prophets as foundational to the church, true, but he also sees the rest of the building growing (present tense), and having been joined together (past participle), in the time of the apostles and prophets. If the superstructure was being constructed and had been joined together during the apostolic age, the apostles and prophets were already contributing to the superstructure. So it is gratuitous to argue against their building onto the superstructure from this passage. The very action this argument claims that founders cannot do they are already doing in the next two verses! Apostles and prophets contribute both to the foundation and to the entire superstructure in Ephesians 2:20-22.

You have already indicated that you don’t accept this argument. You do not actually believe the statement you have written, that “Apostles and prophets contribute both to the foundation and to the entire superstructure in Ephesians 2:20-22.” You yourself have already said that you agree that Apostles were a temporary institution. So what do you mean here – that Apostles and prophets do continue today? Have you changed your mind about Apostles?

I certainly agree that the structure of the church existed at the same time as the Apostles and prophets, but what could this possibly show? Once the Apostles had begun the foundational work in the church, the superstructure grows. Obviously the Apostles don’t ignore the church beyond this point – why would they? But nothing about this fact should indicate that there would be more Apostles and prophets to come. That’s really a non sequitur.

c) Thirdly, the inclusion of Christ into this group of founders as the "chief cornerstone" hinders cessationists' claims. As Ruthven remarks, "the cessationist argument by analogy collapses if Christ is not limited to the 'foundation' in Eph. 2:20." But clearly Christ's work in the church cannot be limited to the apostolic age! On the contrary, Jesus works actively to build his church until his return (Matthew 16:18), and is present with us "to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

Yes Christ is with us (by His Spirit) to the end of this age, no doubt there. But then again, Christ never dies, unlike Apostles and prophets. Yes He is still alive today, but the foundation that He laid was laid in the past, through His life, death, resurrection, ascension and sending the Holy Spirit. That, combined with the ministry of the Apostles and prophets, was the historical foundation of the church.

In sum: Paul is not limiting any spiritual gifts to any time frames in Ephesians 2:20; he is standing back and looking at the church structure as a whole and reminding the Ephesians of their inclusion in this larger picture. Paul's emphasis is not on the sequence of church history and changes in the Spirit's activity from one period to another but on the overall make-up of the church, which from Paul's perspective in the first century had already risen to become a temple holy in the Lord.

The very opposite is the case. Paul is looking at God’s unfolding work through His people. Go back just a few verses to verse 11, and read the whole paragraph, right through to 3:6. He starts out saying that once Jews and Gentiles were aliens, but now God has made us one body, one temple, which has its roots in the ministry of the Apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone. The consistent theme is that God though Christ has made us one, and that this message has been delivered through God’s holy Apostles and prophets. It is ALL about the historical unfolding of God’s dealings – his unrepeatable dealings, I might add.

All the best,
Glenn

Gavin

June 17th 2003, 01:41 PM

Hey Glenn,

Firstly, you make reference to prophecy in the book of Acts, and you point out that is not recorded. I might be reading too much into your comments here, but that sounds something like an argument used by Grudem, who notes that in 1 Corinthians 14, not all prophecy is heard or recorded, thus it must be of a lesser authority than Scripture, since some of it could potentially be “lost” in the mist of time. I consider this argument to be very weak, since it would mean that much of Jesus’ own teaching is not as authoritative as Scripture, since a lot of it was never recorded.

That was not really my argument. I think you must be confusing what I said with what Grudem has said. All I was trying to prove with reference to all those other types of prophecy is that not all prophecy is Scripture. Hence a contuation of non-scriptural prophecy does not threaten the closed canon. But no matter because you seem to agree with what I was trying to prove when you say no cessationist has ever claimed that prophecy is Scripture.

So can we agree that prophecy as a spiritual gift is categorically different from Scripture?

Everything about 1 Corinthians 14 (as well as chapters 12 and 13) militates against this position. Paul’s emphatic and sustained line of argument is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are badly misunderstood if we think they are for “personal” benefit. On the contrary, they are intended for the building up of the body of Christ.

I think you misunderstood me here. I was not saying that prophecy is personal as opposed to corporate - I entirely agree that prophecy should build up the corporate body of believers. I was using personal in the sense directed toward specific individuals in specific contexts. Prophecy is personal in that it is directed not toward the Christian believer in general, but toward "Frank Jones" regarding a specific decision he needs to make. I hope that is clearer.

None of these texts can contribute to an argument for the continuation of the gift of prophecy, since all of them deal with instances of prophecy during the formative stages of the church’s history. I don’t dispute for a moment that prophecy was exercised for these purposes (although I emphasis corporate benefit as opposed to individual private benefit). But texts that show the gift functioning in the early church context stop there. Whether the gift continued is another matter altogether.

Again, I was not arguing for continuationism per se but just trying to show a distinction between prophecy and Scripture. I feel quite misunderstood.

None of these lines of argument really begin to deal with the cessationist argument.

Which is because that is not what I was arguing against. To be obnoxiously redundant: I was arguing that prophecy and Scripture are different.

Well, Paul doesn’t refer to “prophecy” in Ephesians 2:20. He refers to “Apostles and Prophets.” I agree that it doesn’t refer to Scripture, it refers to living people in the New Testament era. Paul shows this to be the case later in the same book, in 3:5, “In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” So as a Pauline phrase, the “apostles and prophets” are a group of people in the New Testament Church.

Again, my view can be reconciled to this even though I disagree.

You close by offering three reasons why “nothing in the verse demands cessationism, for the following factors.” Nothing! That’s a pretty strong way to put it. Your arguments were as follows

Yes, I hold to that statement. I do not think any verse in the New Testament "demands" cessationism.

I find that position somewhat ironic, given that you do accept that the Apostles were a temporary institution for the establishment of the church. Yet it looks very obvious that in Ephesians (both in 2:2 and 3:5) Paul is presenting Apostles and prophets as having the same role in Church history. Why choose one for an extra function beyond this, but not the other?

But you are assuming that Paul is using "apostles" in the highly technical sense in Ephesians 2:20. That was my whole point in all that previous discussion, that we cannot assume that apostles always means this.

You have already indicated that you don’t accept this argument. You do not actually believe the statement you have written, that “Apostles and prophets contribute both to the foundation and to the entire superstructure in Ephesians 2:20-22.” You yourself have already said that you agree that Apostles were a temporary institution. So what do you mean here – that Apostles and prophets do continue today? Have you changed your mind about Apostles?

No - see above. Apostles in the literal sense found the church today.

I certainly agree that the structure of the church existed at the same time as the Apostles and prophets, but what could this possibly show? Once the Apostles had begun the foundational work in the church, the superstructure grows. Obviously the Apostles don’t ignore the church beyond this point – why would they? But nothing about this fact should indicate that there would be more Apostles and prophets to come. That’s really a non sequitur.

You are not addressing or misunderstanding my argument. Cessationists' whole case in Ephesians 2:20 is that the apostles and prophets cease once the foundational period closes. But the fact that the superstructure is already being built while the apostles and prophets are still alive shows that aposltes and prophets can indeed exist past the foundational period of the church. Paul is not thinking in sequential terms in this passage.

Yes Christ is with us (by His Spirit) to the end of this age, no doubt there. But then again, Christ never dies, unlike Apostles and prophets. Yes He is still alive today, but the foundation that He laid was laid in the past, through His life, death, resurrection, ascension and sending the Holy Spirit. That, combined with the ministry of the Apostles and prophets, was the historical foundation of the church.

That is a good rejoinder, but I am not sure how you would prove that the "foundational" aspect of Christ in the church is only in what he did while physically in a body.

The very opposite is the case. Paul is looking at God’s unfolding work through His people. Go back just a few verses to verse 11, and read the whole paragraph, right through to 3:6. He starts out saying that once Jews and Gentiles were aliens, but now God has made us one body, one temple, which has its roots in the ministry of the Apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone. The consistent theme is that God though Christ has made us one, and that this message has been delivered through God’s holy Apostles and prophets. It is ALL about the historical unfolding of God’s dealings – his unrepeatable dealings, I might add.

That is a good point, Glenn. The larger context does deal with a sequence of history.

Don't forget our discussion on the gifts in church history and I Corinthians 13. I posted in multiple posts so you might have missed those ones.

Best regards,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 18th 2003, 08:00 PM

Hi again Gavin

I’ll respond to the last post of yours, and then I’ll also offer some comments on your argument from 1 Corinthians 13.

Firstly, it appears that misunderstood your purpose at a couple of points. Your response to a number of my comments went along the lines of: “Again, I was not arguing for continuationism per se but just trying to show a distinction between prophecy and Scripture. I feel quite misunderstood.”

Well I’m sorry for not understanding you. But the fact is, I was quoting a paragraph where you did explicitly say:
So I would say the gift of prophecy (as opposed to what is in view in, say, II Peter 1:20-21 or Romans 16:26) is very different from Scripture and continues today as a sign of the Spirit's presence (Acts 2:17), for the edification of the church (I Corinthians 14:3), and for the personal and specific guidance of believers (e.g., Acts 21:10-11).
So I hope you’ll understand why it looked to me as though you were citing these texts to show that the gift of prophecy “continues today.” But OK, so you were only using them to show that prophecy isn’t Scripture. Well, that’s fine, since as you know, cessationism does not claim that prophecy is Scripture. Not every authoritative word from God became Scripture (for example many words of Christ never did). Only if prophecy was recorded, written and included in the body of texts that were canonised, would its message become part of Scripture. But the cessationist position is that the New Testament revelation came (in part) through prophets, as Paul says in Ephesians 3:5. This foundation laying was part of the historical founding of the church, just as the ministry of Christ was (Eph 2-3). Prophecy, like Scripture, and like Apostolic teaching, carries the authority of God, and thus has equal authority with Scripture.

Now, on to the other points…

Point 1: Prophets, Apostles, and the foundation of the church in Ephesians 2

You claimed, on the basis of Ephesians 2, that Apostles and prophets have a part in the ongoing life of the church (the “superstructure,” as you say) and not just the foundational role mentioned in 2:22. I pointed out he irony here, since you have conceded that the Apostles are no more, and because their role was foundational, they are no longer required, and nobody today can have that kind of authority.

But you don’t see a problem here, because as we agree, the Greek word translated “Apostle” can have a literal meaning (messenger, ambassador etc.) or a technical/conventional meaning (Apostle). One of the problems of a word’s having multiple meanings is that it becomes tempting to select a meaning that avoids theological difficulties for us (I know that I have been guilty of this at times). I hope you won’t be offended when I suggest that this is what you have done in this instance.

While we agree that the word apostolos is capable of a literal and non-technical meaning (i.e. “messenger” and not “Apostle”), we clearly do not agree about the general tendency of new Testament usage of the word. Although I realise it is not a proof that will convince you, I would point out that the translators of all of our english versions recognised that “messenger,” while possible, was generally not what the word was used for in the New Testament. In the NIV, NRSV, the KJV, and I suspect, any other translation you could lay hold of, the word is translated “apostle” on all but two rare occasions, in 2 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:5, where it is translated “messenger.” This difference in translation is intentional, to reflect the two kinds of meaning that you and I have discussed. But of course, as you will point out, the translators could just be wrong, pushing their interpretation by the way they translate. That can sometimes be the case, I will admit.

But consider these facts: In the ancient Greek literature outside of the New Testament, the word apostolos was not used of specially appointed leaders in the church (obviously), it was simply used in a literal way, to refer to a messenger. Thus, there was no concept of “the apostles.” And note that the term was actually very rarely used at all, since there are other words (eg angelos) which are far more commonly used. So as far as words go, apostolos was just not common. P. W. Barnett points this out:
The word apostolos… was used only infrequently in the Greek language prior to NT times… In classical Greek its use is more or less confined to seafaring contexts. Herodotus uses it twice for “messenger,” while the LXX has it only once, with the same meaning.
P. W. Barnett, “Apostle,” in G Hawthorne, R. Martin and D. Reid, A Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1993), 45.

As Barnett goes on to observe, however, the word appears no less than thirty-five times in the Pauline literature! Now, if the word only meant messenger (and I realise that neither of us are saying that), then we would expect it to be used maybe once – twice if we were lucky, in keeping with the frequency of the word in Greek literature generally. In fact, it is used twice where it clearly has this meaning, in 2 Cor 8:23 and Philp 2:5. However, why the truly massive amount of usage? It is obvious that the word has, generally speaking, taken on a new meaning (one that we have been calling a “technical” meaning) in the New Testament, one that has great importance for Paul’s understanding of the church. Now, there have always been ambassadors and messengers, both inside and outside of the church, and the word apostolos has rarely been used to refer to them, since there are better words. What then is this new thing Paul is referring to with his very frequent use of this term in the NT? What else but the Apostles (and not merely messengers)?

Your argument requires something to be true It requires it to be true that in Ephesians 2:20, Paul is in fact using the term “the apostles” to refer to people in the church in the present and future who would be given the gift of being messengers. But I submit, firstly, that the linguistic evidence against this claim makes it appear unbelievable. We would need very clear evidence on any given occasion to say that the word does not mean “Apostle,” but merely “messenger.” Can you think of another case where “the Apostles” means “the messengers”? Secondly I say that this is even more so given the context of Eph 2 and 3, which deals with the historic work of God bringing Jews and Gentiles together through the work of Christ, and that this message has been delivered authoritatively through the apostles and prophets. To your credit, you do acknowledge the strength of this argument.

And so I must ask for the sake of clarification – do you maintain that the people who, with the prophets, are part of the foundation of the church in Eph 2:20 are “messengers”? or do you agree that they are Apostles in the proper sense. If so, do you agree that there is a good case from this passage that the prophets, like the Apostles, have fulfilled their historic function?

In addition to the above, I should comment on the remarks of yours from another debate, which you quoted here:
What after, is a “apostle” (in the highly technical sense) to speak of it as a spiritual gift, which by definition is a spiritual ability given by the Spirit, not an ecclesiastical office instituted by the risen Christ? What sense would it make to write to the lay people of the New Testament churches that God has given each of them spiritual gifts, some of which may be apostles? The thirteen were clearly not “spiritual gifts” per se. There were no apostles in Ephesus or Corinth at the time of Paul’s writing to them! Thus it is far more likely that the word is being used in the older, more generic sense of missionary, or messenger.
If I understand the point, you seem to be saying that Paul was telling the church in Corinth that some of them could be “apostles.” But none of them were Apostles (technically), so he must have meant messengers. Note first of all that if Paul really does mean “messengers,” then his comments here could easily fit with a cessationist position, since all of us accept that people today could be messengers.

But note that the premise is incorrect – Paul doesn’t say that any of the people in Corinth could become apostles. It’s just not there. All he says (in 1 Cor 12:27-31) is that God has established firstly Apostles, then prophets, then teachers etc. in the church, and secondly he asks “are all Apostles?” No it’s just not the case that he says that any of them could be Apostles. In fact, Gordon Fee has brought something to my attention – the New Testament never refers to a gift of apostleship. I didn’t challenge your use of the term earlier, since I operate on a philosophy of only disagreeing where absolutely necessary, so as to not waste time on endless small issues. I don’t think that even if apostleship were a gift, that would show that it different from the Apostles with a capital A, so I just let it slide and granted it as true. But I will challenge it now. Where does the Bible refer to apostleship as one of the gifts? Certainly not in 1 Corinthians. Look at the list of gifts in 12:4-11
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
“Apostleship” is not there. When Paul asks later in the chapter, “are all Apostles?” there is no good reason to think that he mans that some of them could be Apostles. I’d go with Fee again, who says, “most likely with this word he is reflectn gon his own ministry in this church.” (Fee, First Corinthians, 620)

Point 2: The meaning of 1 Corinthians 13, and to teleion

As I hope I have made clear, 1 Corinthians 13 is by no means the major evidence in defence of cessationism. I get the distinct impression that many Charismatics seem to focus on it above all else, since it is the weaker evidence for cessationism. But nonetheless, I argued that some kind of case (albeit not the major case) could be made from this text.

As we know, there are two general kinds of use of this passage in 1 Cor. 13. Some (like you) say it means that all the gifts will continue until the utter perfection of the new heavens and earth arrives at the return of Christ. Others (like me) say that teleion does not refer to absolute “perfection” in this sense, but rather a stage of the church’s maturity. It is vitally important to note that I’m not saying (and I have never said, nor ever will say) that it means that the gifts will continue until the close of the canon. Such a notion seems implausible if for no other reason than that the comment would have made no sense to Paul, and it would have made the statement uninterpretable to Paul’s audience (since neither Paul nor his audience would have been aware of the future canonising work of the church). What I would limit myself to saying is that it means the gifts will continue while they are necessary, while the Apostolic teaching is still being laid down. As it turns out, the Apostolic teaching WAS later canonised of course, but that’s not what is in view in the NT itself. Rather what is in view is the establishing of the teaching tradition which would later BECOME canonised. I thought it might clarify things to stress this point, lest you think I’m calling the canon itself the “maturity” that teleion refers to.

I argued that the “face to face” and “knowing even as we are known” references refer to a knowledge that is brought about through the Apostolic teaching, rather than to a distant future sight and knowledge of God. You objected to this:
Now hold on here. If "face to face" and "know fully" won't be realized even after a trillion years in heaven, then when will they be realized? Ever? You seem to want to make the strength the language favor the idea of that they refer to simply Scripture; but the strength of the language leads to the greater, not lesser, event.
Yes, I do believe that belivers in heaven will see God "face to face". Every time this phrase is used in the LXX, it refers to theophany. See my debate with Apollos on this, my third post. I do believe that we will fully know in heaven, just as God knows us. I cannot see that the text allows us to any other conclusions. Certainly these events did not occur in the first century!

Well Gavin, I actually gave some arguments in support of my claims at that point. What was your rebuttal of them? It’s not enough to say “wait a minute.” I realise that you offered a couple of counter examples, which I will respond to here in regrds to the "theophany" language. But let’s recall, my specific arguments were as follows:
Firstly, it is not obvious that Paul is saying we will see God face to face. You say this is the language of theophany, but that’s actually not true. Whether or not it is the language of theophany depends absolutely on the object of seeing. If the object of seeing really is God, then OK, it may be seen as the language of theophany. But if the object of seeing were, say, Bob, then obviously seeing “face to face” would not refer to a theophany, since Bob is not God. In the Septuagint, for example the phrase is used on occasions where it is clearly not referring to a theophany. 2 Kings 14:8; 2 Chronicles 25:17; Jeremiah 32:4; Jeremiah 34:3, as well as in the New Testament elsewhere (2 Cor 10:1; 2 Jn 12; 3 Jn 14). So I must disagree that this is clearly the language of theophany. This is strengthened by the immediate context of 1 Cor 13. As I have pointed out, Paul is talking about looking into a mirror. How would it make any sense at all to say “now we see ourselves in a mirror, but in heaven we will see God face to face.” No, the contrast is between dim knowledge of something, and a future greater knowledge of that same something. That’s the argument I raised.

All Christians must be compelled to admit that they will never know God to the same extent that God knows us. Therefore “know fully” must be qualified in some way. But in what way? You say that we must favour the greater event – knowing God in the next life. But that is certainly not demanded by Paul’s use of teleion. Quite the contrary in fact. Paul uses the word in this form only three times altogether in 1 Corinthians, and on both other occasions it refers, not to perfection, but to a state of maturity.
2:6 “We do, however, speak a message wisdom among the mature…”
14:20 “Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.”

So the Pauline usage of the term does not favour the view that his reference is to the next life of perfection, but rather to a stage of maturity.

To your credit, you do acknowledge some of the strength the point.
You have a good point here that the maturity does come with the cessation of the gifts, not their presence, but I would be much more sympathetic to Fee's sentiments. In general, the western church is nowhere near "mature", irrespective of the question of gifts. But this is a bit of a tangent.
It might be true that in many ways the church is not mature (or it might be!). But in regard to having the revelation of God at its disposal, I think it is indeed mature. It might not always use the revelation of God wisely, and is in constant need of the wisdom of the Spirit of God, but the infant stages where we did not yet have this revelation are now forever behind us.

I would add one additional point to the above. If the text so clearly refers to the beginning of the age to come, then why does Paul expend energy pointing out that when tongues and prophecy have ceased, love will continue? Is that not obvious? Now, given the present strife and unloving nature of the conduct in the Corinthian church, it is easy to see why Paul needs to emphasis that love must be placed at the top of priorities in the present age, but why would he need to wax so eloquent in pointing out that love will remain in heaven?

While (as is obvious) I do think that 1 Corinthians 13 favours a cessationist view (and even though you don’t think it teaches this, you acknowledge the strength of the argument), I am aware that it is the kind of text that could never clinch the case. The possibility of using this text to refer to the beginning of the age to come (while I think that is incorrect) means that those who believe in tongues and prophecy today will always have an alternative way of explaining the passage, and vice versa. That is why I haven’t said much about the passage.

Best wishes,

Glenn

PS – I think this is the best continuationist/non-continuationist debate that I have seen on the net, don’t you agree? :smile:

Gavin

June 19th 2003, 02:47 PM

Glenn,

Thanks you for your very thoughtful, fair, and balenced post.

My comments:

So I hope you’ll understand why it looked to me as though you were citing these texts to show that the gift of prophecy “continues today.” But OK, so you were only using them to show that prophecy isn’t Scripture. Well, that’s fine, since as you know, cessationism does not claim that prophecy is Scripture. Not every authoritative word from God became Scripture (for example many words of Christ never did). Only if prophecy was recorded, written and included in the body of texts that were canonised, would its message become part of Scripture. But the cessationist position is that the New Testament revelation came (in part) through prophets, as Paul says in Ephesians 3:5. This foundation laying was part of the historical founding of the church, just as the ministry of Christ was (Eph 2-3). Prophecy, like Scripture, and like Apostolic teaching, carries the authority of God, and thus has equal authority with Scripture.

I can understand how you would interpret my comments as arguments for continuationism. I am glad that is clearer now.

Contrary to your statement, I would say that a decent number of cessationists would argue that prophecy is the same as Scripture. I think I can give Gaffin and MacArthur as examples - they have not actually written the exact words, "prophecy is Scripture," but I cannot help but infer that this is their position based on other comments they have made. I do not want to speak for them and I may be wrong in this. In any case, it is not your position, so it does not really matter.

It is not clear to me that prophecy, though clearly not Scripture, nevertheless carries the same authority as Scripture. I believe there are number of texts and other considerations which make this rather unlikely. May I introduce my case for the non-authoratative status of the gift of prophecy?

You claimed, on the basis of Ephesians 2, that Apostles and prophets have a part in the ongoing life of the church (the “superstructure,” as you say) and not just the foundational role mentioned in 2:22. I pointed out he irony here, since you have conceded that the Apostles are no more, and because their role was foundational, they are no longer required, and nobody today can have that kind of authority.

But you don’t see a problem here, because as we agree, the Greek word translated “Apostle” can have a literal meaning (messenger, ambassador etc.) or a technical/conventional meaning (Apostle). One of the problems of a word’s having multiple meanings is that it becomes tempting to select a meaning that avoids theological difficulties for us (I know that I have been guilty of this at times). I hope you won’t be offended when I suggest that this is what you have done in this instance.

Absolutely no offense taken, of course. If my interpretation of verse 21, especially the present tense of “rises”, is what leads me to suspect that the type of apostles depicted here are literal apostles, i.e. messengers, than that is not a “selection” but a deduction. Plus I think there are many other factors that lead to this conclusion.

My main problem with the passage at hand in regards to cessationism is that it seems to be speaking of prophets in a way that is different from the rest of the New Testament, and yet too many cessationists use Ephesians 2:20 as the controlling text for how we interpret New Testament prophecy at large. It seems to me a good deal fast and loose to define one’s entire theology of prophecy on this one verse (which in my view has its own ambiguities and uncertainties with regard to exactly how and in what sense apostles and prophets are foundational), when the rest of the New Testament presents in such non-foundational ways. For example, how were Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9 contributing to the unique once and for all foundation of the church? How were the anonymous disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:6) who spoke in tongues and prophesied laying the unrepeatable foundation of the church? How were Corinthians believers who prayed in tongues in private in the absence of an interpreter (I Corinthians 14:28) for the purpose of edification (I Corinthians 14:4) contributing to this foundation? This fact, combined with the ambiguities involved in Ephesians 2:20 such as verse 21, or the possibility of a hendiadys, or the multiple meanings of “apostle”, or whether “foundation” refers to sequence or importance, etc. lead me to question the thesis that all prophecy functioned only foundationally in the church.

While we agree that the word apostolos is capable of a literal and non-technical meaning (i.e. “messenger” and not “Apostle”), we clearly do not agree about the general tendency of new Testament usage of the word. Although I realise it is not a proof that will convince you, I would point out that the translators of all of our english versions recognised that “messenger,” while possible, was generally not what the word was used for in the New Testament. In the NIV, NRSV, the KJV, and I suspect, any other translation you could lay hold of, the word is translated “apostle” on all but two rare occasions, in 2 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:5, where it is translated “messenger.” This difference in translation is intentional, to reflect the two kinds of meaning that you and I have discussed. But of course, as you will point out, the translators could just be wrong, pushing their interpretation by the way they translate. That can sometimes be the case, I will admit

But just because the word is being translated as “apostle” does not mean that the translators had in mind the technical sense. The word is common enough to be translated as “apostle” and yet still carry that other sense of general messenger. For example, is Romans 16:7 (to name just one passage) using the word “apostle” in only the technical sense? Yet it is still translated “apostle” over “messenger.”

But consider these facts: In the ancient Greek literature outside of the New Testament, the word apostolos was not used of specially appointed leaders in the church (obviously), it was simply used in a literal way, to refer to a messenger. Thus, there was no concept of “the apostles.” And note that the term was actually very rarely used at all, since there are other words (eg angelos) which are far more commonly used. So as far as words go, apostolos was just not common. P. W. Barnett points this out:
“ The word apostolos… was used only infrequently in the Greek language prior to NT times… In classical Greek its use is more or less confined to seafaring contexts. Herodotus uses it twice for “messenger,” while the LXX has it only once, with the same meaning.
P. W. Barnett, “Apostle,” in G Hawthorne, R. Martin and D. Reid, A Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1993), 45. ”

As Barnett goes on to observe, however, the word appears no less than thirty-five times in the Pauline literature! Now, if the word only meant messenger (and I realise that neither of us are saying that), then we would expect it to be used maybe once – twice if we were lucky, in keeping with the frequency of the word in Greek literature generally. In fact, it is used twice where it clearly has this meaning, in 2 Cor 8:23 and Philp 2:5. However, why the truly massive amount of usage? It is obvious that the word has, generally speaking, taken on a new meaning (one that we have been calling a “technical” meaning) in the New Testament, one that has great importance for Paul’s understanding of the church. Now, there have always been ambassadors and messengers, both inside and outside of the church, and the word apostolos has rarely been used to refer to them, since there are better words. What then is this new thing Paul is referring to with his very frequent use of this term in the NT? What else but the Apostles (and not merely messengers)?

This is a helpful consideration, but all it proves is that the word has taken on a new meaning in the New Testament and is used very frequently. This frequency of use does not determine which sense the word carries in any given passage. That must be determined by context and other factors. It would be entirely natural for the word to increase in usage with regard to its literal meaning as “messenger” as well as increase in the new technical meaning, especially as “messenger” works quite well to describe a spiritual gift. Your comments are well taken, but not conclusive.

Your argument requires something to be true It requires it to be true that in Ephesians 2:20, Paul is in fact using the term “the apostles” to refer to people in the church in the present and future who would be given the gift of being messengers. But I submit, firstly, that the linguistic evidence against this claim makes it appear unbelievable. We would need very clear evidence on any given occasion to say that the word does not mean “Apostle,” but merely “messenger.” Can you think of another case where “the Apostles” means “the messengers”?

First, my argument does require that. I may be wrong in my understanding of verse 21 and yet my other comments above on the other functions of New Testament prophecy in the New Testament still apply.

But I do not think your argument is conclusive here. Why is “apostle” the proper translation unless there is clear evidence otherwise? That does not seem balenced. Romans 16:7 may indeed be translated “the messengers”, but even if not, that does not conclusively demonstrate what the sense of the passage is in Epehesians 2:20. What you have said may make “apostles” a more likely translation, but you have not proven conclusively that the other translation is “unbelievable” as you claim.

Secondly I say that this is even more so given the context of Eph 2 and 3, which deals with the historic work of God bringing Jews and Gentiles together through the work of Christ, and that this message has been delivered authoritatively through the apostles and prophets. To your credit, you do acknowledge the strength of this argument.

Yes that is a good point.

Gavin

June 19th 2003, 03:03 PM

And so I must ask for the sake of clarification – do you maintain that the people who, with the prophets, are part of the foundation of the church in Eph 2:20 are “messengers”? or do you agree that they are Apostles in the proper sense. If so, do you agree that there is a good case from this passage that the prophets, like the Apostles, have fulfilled their historic function?

My position is that I am unsure whether the apostles in Ephesians 2:20 are literal or technical. Verse 21 seems to favor the former; your comments on the historical significance of the inclusion of the Gentiles into God’s household, the latter. But either way my argument that “nothing in the passage teaches continuationism” still stands. Whether or not apostles is being used in the technical or literal sense is only one of many ambiguities in the passage (which should make us cautious of using this one text in isolation too heavilyu), and with the other evidence on prophecy in the New Testament considered, I conclude that the gift of prophecy in general operates in many non-foundational ways in the New Testament. Look for this evidence “the case for non-authoritative prophecy” in my next post.

In addition to the above, I should comment on the remarks of yours from another debate, which you quoted here:
“What after, is a “apostle” (in the highly technical sense) to speak of it as a spiritual gift, which by definition is a spiritual ability given by the Spirit, not an ecclesiastical office instituted by the risen Christ? What sense would it make to write to the lay people of the New Testament churches that God has given each of them spiritual gifts, some of which may be apostles? The thirteen were clearly not “spiritual gifts” per se. There were no apostles in Ephesus or Corinth at the time of Paul’s writing to them! Thus it is far more likely that the word is being used in the older, more generic sense of missionary, or messenger.”

If I understand the point, you seem to be saying that Paul was telling the church in Corinth that some of them could be “apostles.” But none of them were Apostles (technically), so he must have meant messengers. Note first of all that if Paul really does mean “messengers,” then his comments here could easily fit with a cessationist position, since all of us accept that people today could be messengers.

But note that the premise is incorrect – Paul doesn’t say that any of the people in Corinth could become apostles. It’s just not there. All he says (in 1 Cor 12:27-31) is that God has established firstly Apostles, then prophets, then teachers etc. in the church, and secondly he asks “are all Apostles?” No it’s just not the case that he says that any of them could be Apostles.

I don’t think you quite understood my point. I am not merely saying that Paul said they could be apostles, and they were not apostles, ergo apostles means messengers. That is not my argument. I am saying that apostleship in the technical sense is categorically different from spiritual gifts. Apostles in the technical sense are 13 specific people given an ecclesiastical office in the church. Spiritual gifts are spiritual abilities given by the Spirit, which evidence the Spirit’s presence (“manifestations of the Spirit”), to all believers, for the purpose of edification, etc. What sense would it make to say that God has given 13 men to the church at large to manifest the Spirit and to speak of these 13 specific individuals on par with general abilities like serving and teaching?

This point is even more clear when you consider the nature of other spiritual gifts and then compare them to the apostles in the technical sense. When Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, he mentions very general abilities such as serving, administrating, teaching, prophesying, etc. – a “messenger” fits in well with servers, administrators, etc. But how would 13 specific men fit in with these general abilities? What I am arguing for is that when the New Testament refers to apostleship as a spiritual gift, it is most likely using the word in a literal sense.

Furthermore, your statement that “– Paul doesn’t say that any of the people in Corinth could become apostles” is not quite accurate. Paul has already said that the Corinthians lack “no spiritual gift” in 1:7, so the church evidently possessed the gift of apostleship.

In fact, Gordon Fee has brought something to my attention – the New Testament never refers to a gift of apostleship. I didn’t challenge your use of the term earlier, since I operate on a philosophy of only disagreeing where absolutely necessary, so as to not waste time on endless small issues. I don’t think that even if apostleship were a gift, that would show that it different from the Apostles with a capital A, so I just let it slide and granted it as true. But I will challenge it now. Where does the Bible refer to apostleship as one of the gifts? Certainly not in 1 Corinthians. Look at the list of gifts in 12:4-11
“ 4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. ”

“Apostleship” is not there. When Paul asks later in the chapter, “are all Apostles?” there is no good reason to think that he mans that some of them could be Apostles. I’d go with Fee again, who says, “most likely with this word he is reflectn gon his own ministry in this church.” (Fee, First Corinthians, 620)

This is an interesting point. Storms and Deere (two charismatic scholars) have argued for the same thing, that apostleship is not a spiritual gift per se. Thus its cessation does not open the door for the cessation of other gifts like prophecy and so on. After all, the term charismata is never explicitly applied to apostleship.

Still, I think these conclusions are premature. The inclusion of apostles in I Corinthians 12:28-9 and Ephesians 4:11 pretty clearly implies that it is a spiritual gift, in my view, since it is placed in immediate juxtaposition with other spiritual gifts.

Glenn – please be patient, as I will try to comment on I Corinthians 13 and then give my case for the non-authoritative role of prophecy in the New Testament later on today.

Gavin

Gavin

June 19th 2003, 06:02 PM

PS – I think this is the best continuationist/non-continuationist debate that I have seen on the net, don’t you agree?

You are much easier to dialogue with than other cessationists I have corresponded with!

Gavin

June 19th 2003, 11:13 PM

Glenn,

Well its the end of the day and I have not gotten to the nonauthoritative nature of the gift of prophecy or I Corinthians 13. I will be out of town for a while. I will get back to you when I can.

all the best,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

June 23rd 2003, 08:20 AM

:hi: See ya when you get back. I wait with my breath held!:hi:

Gavin

June 30th 2003, 10:54 PM

Glenn -

I don't really have time to give an exhaustive rebuttal on I Corinthians 13, but here are a few quibbles.

In the Septuagint, for example the phrase is used on occasions where it is clearly not referring to a theophany. 2 Kings 14:8; 2 Chronicles 25:17; Jeremiah 32:4; Jeremiah 34:3, as well as in the New Testament elsewhere (2 Cor 10:1; 2 Jn 12; 3 Jn 14

None of these references contain the exact same Greek phrase that is in I Corinthians 13, prosopon pros prosopon. Every time that phrase appears (6 times in the septuagint) it refers unambiguously to theophanic encounters with God. See my debate, third post, for the references if you want them.

On this larger point, I maintain that it is unlikely that Paul has in mind a more general and impersonal kind of sight by "face to face". Only persons have faces. I cannot conceive of Paul telling the Corinthians that "then" (when the apostolic teaching is laid down, before canonization) we shall see "face to face." Given the context and common sense and process of elimination, God himself is the best candidate for the sight depicted in I Corinthians 13, in my view. We may end up just disagreeing here, which is fine.

Also, I do not see how reducing the teleion from the canon itself to the apostolic teaching that formed that canon solves any of the problems regarding the Corinthians perceiving Paul's point. Can you really see the Corinthians perceiving that by "then" Paul has in mind the completion of apostolic teaching? It seems a bit strained to me.

I disagree with your statement that All Christians must be compelled to admit that they will never know God to the same extent that God knows us.

Why should we consider it incredible that in perfection in heaven we should come to know God fully, just as he knows us fully? Moreover, if this is impossible in heaven, how much more would it be impossible after the apostolic teaching was laid down (before it was canonized)!

You write toward the end of your post,

I would add one additional point to the above. If the text so clearly refers to the beginning of the age to come, then why does Paul expend energy pointing out that when tongues and prophecy have ceased, love will continue? Is that not obvious? Now, given the present strife and unloving nature of the conduct in the Corinthian church, it is easy to see why Paul needs to emphasis that love must be placed at the top of priorities in the present age, but why would he need to wax so eloquent in pointing out that love will remain in heaven?

I would see things in an opposite way. Emphasizing the importance of something and merely arguing that it will continue to exist are two very different things. While it would be natural for Paul to emphasize love in the present age, it would be totally weird, as I see things, for Paul to argue that love will continue during the present age. Would it not be totally obvious that love will continue past the laying down of apostolic teaching? And conversely, I do not think it would be obvious that love would continue in heaven. I can see how some in the Corinthian church would think that tongues and such would continue in heaven, but love not, and Paul writes to address this view.

I will get to my case for the lower authority of NT prophecy if I can. Feel free to reply in the meantime. If you have read Grudem, thats good enough, because I would say just about the same thing as he does.

God bless,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 1st 2003, 04:38 AM

Today @ 03:54 PM

I will get to my case for the lower authority of NT prophecy if I can. Feel free to reply in the meantime. If you have read Grudem, thats good enough, because I would say just about the same thing as he does.

God bless,
Gavin

I'm preparing a response as we go. I'll wait for your next one so I can respond all in one go rather than multiplying postings. :smile:

Glenn

Gavin

July 1st 2003, 05:38 PM

Glenn,

okay, my case for the lower authority of NT prophecy in the works.

Gavin

Gavin

July 5th 2003, 12:18 PM

Acknowledging up front that I rely heavily on Grudem and Carson and others, I will now give my extremely condensed case for the lower authority of New Testament prophecy.

1) Prophecy in general cuts a very low profile in the New Testament. The Thessalonians have to be told not to despise it (I Thessalonians 5:20), and whenever it occurs in the Gospels and Acts, it is not used by the authoritative leaders of the church for the purpose of grandiose and exalted revelation, or even useful soteriological information, but merely as an evidence of the Spirit’s presence on ordinary lay believers. Nothing is recorded of what the believers said at Pentecost (Acts 2:4), which Peter understands as the fulfillment of the Judaic hope for the universalization of the Spirit of prophecy (Acts 2:26-21; cf. Joel 2:28-23). Similar occurrences of prophecy/tongues in Acts read along similar lines (10:46, 19:6, possibly 8:17): the revelation carries no authority or important information for guiding the church, but rather evidences the Spirit’s work among believers. These New Testament instances are reminiscent of similar occurrences in the Old Testament (Numbers 11:24-29, I Samuel 10:9-11, 18:10, 19:20, II Kings 2:3, 5, 7, I Chronicles 25:1, etc.). In short, prophecy in the New Testament in general is painted in a far different light than canonical Scripture: what is under discussion in II Timothy 3:15-17 is far different than what is under discussion in I Corinthians 14. If revelatory gifts were canonical, than Paul is guilty of encouraging the Corinthians to seek to be writers of Scripture (I Corinthians 12:31, 14:1, 12, 39), and urging them to add on to the canon at every meeting (I Corinthians 14:26)!

2) Several of Paul’s directives to the Corinthians make clear that prophecy as it was operating at the Corinthian church did not carry the same authority as Scripture.

I Corinthians 14:29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.” The word for weigh, diakrino, has been shown by Grudem and others to have the sense of “sifting the good from the bad.” Prophecy that is fully authoritative, such as Scriptural prophecy, need not be “weighed” by the Corinthian lay people.

I Corinthians 14:30: “And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.” Paul wants all the Corinthians to prophecy so they can all be edified (verse 31), so he allows one prophet to be interrupted by another. It is extremely difficult to imagine Paul allowing fully authoritative prophecy to be cut short in so lackidasical a manner.

I Corinthians 14:37: “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” If Paul viewed the Corinthians church as full of infallible prophets, this rhetorical question (the answer being clearly negative) would have no meaning.

I Corinthians 14:37-38: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted , let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” Here Paul emphatically places his own authority as an apostle over that of the Corinthian prophets. This point is most significant as Paul could not have done this if the prophets in Corinth were fully authoritative.

Finally, I Corinthians 11:5 leaves place for women prophesying in the church, while I Corinthians 14:34ff. commands women to have no place of authority in the church. If Paul viewed the prophecy in Corinth as fully authoritative, he would never allowed women to partake it in it.

3) Against the claim that all forms of prophecy ceased with the closure of the canon stands Revelation 11:3, which sees prophecy as part of the end times.

4) The prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21:10-11 calls for attention. By Old Testament standards, Agabus would have been stoned, for he is wrong in two key details. The Romans, not the Jews, bind Paul, and not to hand him over to the Gentiles, but to kill him with mob violence

5) Finally, the New Testament authors never view prophets as the successors of the apostles or the authoritative leaders of the church. Carson writes, “the silence is startling. If the gift of prophecy was considered equivalent in authority to that of Old Testament prophecy, and if it persisted throughout the New Testament era right into the midpatristic period, why, once the apostles had died, were the prophets not presented as the church’s bastion against false teaching, its source of light and information in the face of uncertainty?”

That is all I have for now. The ball is in your court. I await your replies.

Warmly,
Gavin

John Reece

July 5th 2003, 12:53 PM

Gavin,

:thumb:

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 6th 2003, 09:41 PM

Dear Gavin

An obvious danger in this kind of debate is that as more comments are made, our responses will get longer and longer in an attempt to cover everything. I’ll try to be concise.

Initial clarification on cessationism and prophecy

Contrary to your statement, I would say that a decent number of cessationists would argue that prophecy is the same as Scripture. I think I can give Gaffin and MacArthur as examples - they have not actually written the exact words, "prophecy is Scripture," but I cannot help but infer that this is their position based on other comments they have made. I do not want to speak for them and I may be wrong in this. In any case, it is not your position, so it does not really matter.
You may rest absolutely assured that it is not Gaffin’s view either. I haven’t read MacArthur so I can’t comment on him. But Gaffin quite clearly accepts that prophecy was occurring at the church in Corinth, and it wasn’t Scripture. It was verbal revelation. Scripture by definition is the recorded written word, not the verbal word. Even the words of Jesus were not Scripture. I have never read anything by any cessationist to suggest that prophecy is Scripture. I know we have agreed that it’s not my position, but be aware that it’s not the position of cessationists in general either.

More Comments on 1 Corinthians 13

I would, also make the following observations. You note (correctly) that the phrase used in 1 Corinthians ofr “face to face” is prosopon pros prosopon. You then state that this appears 6 times in the Old Testament, and it alays means a theophany. Here is a list of all the occasions in the AV where we find “face to face” in the Old Testament in cases that are clearly theophanic. I will list the verse, along with the Greek phrase found in the LXX. I’m quoting these straight from my LXX, so I invite you to open your copy and check them.

1. Genesis 32:30 (Jacob sees the LORD “face to face”) prosopon pros prosopon – Yes, you’re right about that one.
2. Exodus 33:11 (the LORD speaks to Moses “face to face,” like a friend) eponios eponio – No, not this time.
3. Numbers 14:14 (the LORD is seen “face to face” among His people Israel) ophthalmois kai ophthalmous – No, not this time.
4. Deuteronomy 5:4 (the LORD spoke with Israel “face to face” at Mt Horeb or Sinai) prosopon kata prosopon – similar, but no, not the same.
5. Deuteronomy 34:10 (Moses was unique because he knew the LORD “face to face”) prosopon kata prosopon – again, similar, but it’s not the same phrase.
6. Judges 6:22 (Gideon sees the angel of the LORD “face to face”) prosopon pros prosopon – Yes, that’s right, so that’s two thus far.
7. Ezekiel 20:35 (the LORD pleaded in the wilderness “face to face” with Israel) prosopon kata prosopon – close again.

So my question is – where is your evidence? Where are these 6 occurrences of prosopon pros prosopon in the Septuagint that show such a consistent connection between seeing God “face to face” in a theophany and the Greek phrase prosopon pros prosopon? I can find only 2. Moreover, I can see that it is not the only (or even the most common) phrase that is used to express this idea. So I must reject your claim that the appearance of prosopon pros prosopon in 1 Corinthians 13 proves that we are dealing with a theophany.

You add:
On this larger point, I maintain that it is unlikely that Paul has in mind a more general and impersonal kind of sight by "face to face". Only persons have faces. I cannot conceive of Paul telling the Corinthians that "then" (when the apostolic teaching is laid down, before canonization) we shall see "face to face." Given the context and common sense and process of elimination, God himself is the best candidate for the sight depicted in I Corinthians 13, in my view. We may end up just disagreeing here, which is fine.
Who said anything about impersonal knowledge? In my previous posts I have been referring to knowledge of ourselves, since Paul’s reference is to a “mirror” (esoptron). That seems to be to be the purpose of a mirror. We don’t see God when we look in a mirror, so surely He is not the most likely candidate.

You ask, Can you really see the Corinthians perceiving that by "then" Paul has in mind the completion of apostolic teaching?
We can – if we know what teleion means. Elsewhere in the letter it refers to a stage, not of total perfection, but of maturity. This, Paul meant that when a certain stage of maturity had been reached, tongues and prophecy would cease. It isn’t strained, it is a simply an approach that respects Paul’s own use of his terminology in the same letter. We have no choice but to let Paul define his terms, rather than simply select a meaning that fits our view of things. Do you agree that elsewhere in 1 Corinthians the term means mature and not perfect?

Now, it may well be that the readers would not have been able to say “ah, that means a stage in completion of the Apostolic teaching that would result in the formation of a canon.” That’s not the point. The point is that Paul tells them that a stage of maturity is coming when the gifts of tongues and prophecy will cease Moreover, that point need not bee seen as the return of Christ, as I have argued from the terms used in 1 Corinthians, as well as the function of Apostles, tongues and prophecy elsewhere (although we have yet to get to tongues).

And finally, in support of my view that teleion refers to a stage of maturity in this age and not to utter perfection in heaven, and to argue that “knowing fully, even as we are known” cannot be taken in the literal and perfect sense you’re suggesting, I commented that “All Christians must be compelled to admit that they will never know God to the same extent that God knows us.” You still disagree. You say:
Why should we consider it incredible that in perfection in heaven we should come to know God fully, just as he knows us fully? Moreover, if this is impossible in heaven, how much more would it be impossible after the apostolic teaching was laid down (before it was canonized)!
Some confusion has crept in here. I’m not saying “it will be impossible in heaven, but possible when the canon was formed.” I’m saying if you take it simply and literally to refer to us obtaining a PERFECT knowledge of God to the extent that He knows us, it can never EVER be achieved, in this age or the next. My point is that even people who think it refers to heaven must be forced to take it in some qualified sense. A human mind, no matter how sanctified, will always be finite, and God will always be infinite. We will never fully comprehend Him.

At least my suggestion about what “knowing fully” means is metaphysically possible. We can indeed see ourselves “as God sees us” through the Scriptures.

More Comments on Ephesians 2-3

You say that you are not sure whether or not the “Apostles” in Ephesians 2:20 are truly Apostles, or just messengers. You do say so far, however, that I have shown that Apostles is a “more likely translation.” You seem to take the stance that in general, either meaning is equally likely, unless there are clear contextual facts that force the meaning one way or the other. In other words, if a verse simply said “Look, there is John, an apostolos,” we wouldn’t know which meaning was more likely. While I agree that context must always be heard, I don’t think such a view adequately takes into account the relevant linguistic evidence that I cited. You say:
This is a helpful consideration, but all it proves is that the word has taken on a new meaning in the New Testament and is used very frequently. This frequency of use does not determine which sense the word carries in any given passage. That must be determined by context and other factors. It would be entirely natural for the word to increase in usage with regard to its literal meaning as “messenger” as well as increase in the new technical meaning, especially as “messenger” works quite well to describe a spiritual gift. Your comments are well taken, but not conclusive.
It may not be conclusive in itself, but I think it certainly builds up the preponderance of evidence in favour of a technical meaning more than you’re willing to concede. As I noted last time, the fact is that in ancient Greek messengers are referred to all the time, with all kinds of words. The word apostolos was just not a common word at all. Even in the New Testament, other words are used for messengers far more than apostolos is. In the AV, “messenger” occurs 5 times, and only once is apostolos used for this purpose. Every other time it is angelos. Likewise, “messengers” occurs 4 times, and only once is apostolos translated this way. The words “messenger” or “messengers” occur over a hundred times, but the LXX only once uses apostolos to convey this meaning. In other words, in Greek, apostolos is just not a likely choice if a writer wanted convey the idea of being a messenger. Especially when we consider that apostolos is used so often in the NT – 81 times! It just will not do to say “well numbers prove nothing, we need to look at the context.” Words actually do have meanings in and of themselves. It is also somewhat circular to say “to heck with the numbers, let’s use the context find out what the words mean,” since the meaning of the words will necessarily determine what the context is.

So I put it to you very simply: For any given occurrence of apostolos in the New Testament, the most likely meaning is Apostle, and not messenger. If the context makes this meaning unlikely or impossible, then OK, the other meaning can be considered. I agree that this is not a conclusive proof. Few proofs are. But I think the weight it adds to my position on the nature of the Apostles in Ephesians 2:20 is significant, and good evidence from this context would be needed to overthrow that. But the context as a whole does not do that, as we’ve agreed. You accepted that the overall context of this verse supported the historical function of the “Apostles” in the verse that I’m arguing for. You say there is a piece of evidence that threatens this conclusion, namely the present tense of verse 21. This verse, you note, says that the whole building is joined together in Christ and “rises” to become a holy temple. But it is just not clear why this means the work of the Apostles and prophets mentioned here would continue.

Moreover, the scholar you seem to agree with most strongly, Wayne Grudem, shares my observations of Ephesians 2:20. He yields to the evidence, and accepts that the “Apostles and Prophets” are indeed authoritative and foundational. Clearly this is fatal to the continuationist position, so Grudem gets around it firstly by expending great energy in claiming that Eph 2:20 refers ONLY to Apostles who were also prophets,” and secondly he made what was at the time a new move by hypothesising a second type of prophecy, namely one that was not quite as authoritative as the prophecy of those mentioned in Eph 2:20.

Continued in next post

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 6th 2003, 09:41 PM

The Authority of Prophecy

You now move on to your argument that prophecy is not necessarily authoritative. Clearly this is a very important aspect of your position. One major reason that we agree that the Apostolic ministry is no more is because of the authority held by the Apostles. Early on in this discussion, we agreed that nobody can have this kind of teaching authority today. If they did, their would have an authority on par with Scripture. So I think we probably agree on an underlying principle that no verbal ministry of any person today can have the same authority as God’s word. For this reason, it really is essential to your case that you can show that prophecy was not authoritative.

I turn to your five arguments.

1) Prophecy in general cuts a very low profile in the New Testament. The Thessalonians have to be told not to despise it (I Thessalonians 5:20), and whenever it occurs in the Gospels and Acts, it is not used by the authoritative leaders of the church for the purpose of grandiose and exalted revelation, or even useful soteriological information, but merely as an evidence of the Spirit's presence on ordinary lay believers. Nothing is recorded of what the believers said at Pentecost (Acts 2:4), which Peter understands as the fulfillment of the Judaic hope for the universalization of the Spirit of prophecy (Acts 2:26-21; cf. Joel 2:28-23). Similar occurrences of prophecy/tongues in Acts read along similar lines (10:46, 19:6, possibly 8:17): the revelation carries no authority or important information for guiding the church, but rather evidences the Spirit's work among believers. These New Testament instances are reminiscent of similar occurrences in the Old Testament !
(Numbers 11:24-29, I Samuel 10:9-11, 18:10, 19:20, II Kings 2:3, 5, 7, I Chronicles 25:1, etc.). In short, prophecy in the New Testament in general is painted in a far different light than canonical Scripture: what is under discussion in II Timothy 3:15-17 is far different than what is under discussion in I Corinthians 14. If revelatory gifts were canonical, than Paul is guilty of encouraging the Corinthians to seek to be writers of Scripture (I Corinthians 12:31, 14:1, 12, 39), and urging them to add on to the canon at every meeting (I Corinthians 14:26)!
There are two things here: A subjective leap and a grotesque straw man. Firstly it is not a logical step to say that since prophecy does not feature often or on a grand scale, but occurs among lay people, therefore it is not authoritative. The conclusion just doesn’t follow. Additionally, while I agree that it is evidence of the Spirit’s activity, it would seem unlikely that the Spirit conveys error or information that is not authoritative. Secondly, your comment about the canon does not address our debate. I am not claiming that spoken prophecy was part of the canon. I have already gone to some effort to respond to this misunderstanding with Apostolic teaching. Verbal revelation is not Scripture. However, it does carry the authority of God, as did the verbal teaching of Christ, which also was not Scripture.

2) Several of Paul's directives to the Corinthians make clear that prophecy as it was operating at the Corinthian church did not carry the same authority as Scripture.

I Corinthians 14:29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." The word for weigh, diakrino, has been shown by Grudem and others to have the sense of "sifting the good from the bad." Prophecy that is fully authoritative, such as Scriptural prophecy, need not be "weighed" by the Corinthian lay people.
You have assumed that what Paul has in view is the sifting between the good and bad parts of what is spoken in a genuine prophecy by a prophet. But this is not stated in the text. This is a key argument for Grudem, who says,
Paul’s statement, “Let the others evaluate” … indicates that Paul had in mind the kind of evaluation whereby each person would “weigh what is said” (RSV) in his own mind, accepting some of the prophecy as good and helpful, and rejecting some of it as erroneous and misleading.
While Grudem places great weight on them, it cannot go unsaid that the last three words (“what is said”) are not translations from the Greek text, but rather an interpretation of what is meant. Grudem himself knows this, as he freely concedes that the Greek simply says “let the others evaluate.” It is not, then, self-evident that what is being described as an evaluation of what a prophet says, sifting out the good from the bad. O Palmer Robertson responds to Grudem’s claim by pointing out how the term for “evaluate” (diakrino) can be used. [O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993), 99.] The basic meaning is to discriminate, and it is used to point out that God has made no discrimination among Jews and Gentiles, pouring out His Spirit on both (Acts 15:9). When rebuking believers in Corinth for taking each other to court, Paul says, “Isn’t there anyone among you who is wise enough to judge a dispute between brothers?” (1 Cor 6:8). James complains that Christians have “discriminated among themselves” by showing preference to the rich over the poor (James 2:3-4). Robertson suggests that “[m]ost frequently it is used to make a distinction among people,” rather than ideas or words (Ibid., 17). Whether we would follow this idea further and insist that it should always be read this way is doubtful, but also irrelevant. The point is, it certainly isn’t self-evident or even clear that 1 Corinthians 14:29 teaches that people must discern between the true and the false prophecies of a genuine prophet. The context envisaged by the verse you have quoted is that where there is more than one prophet speaking. If Roberton’s exegetical observation is given weight, it appears that the people who are able to discern should decide which prophets are genuine.
I Corinthians 14:30: "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop." Paul wants all the Corinthians to prophecy so they can all be edified (verse 31), so he allows one prophet to be interrupted by another. It is extremely difficult to imagine Paul allowing fully authoritative prophecy to be cut short in so lackidasical a manner.
I have actually responded to this argument in an earlier post, but I’ll do so again. The fact that a prophet might be interrupted, and thus we would lose the words he had to speak, does not even begin to imply that those words were fallible. Your argument here would make Jesus Himself fallible, since He said much that we have lost since it could not be recorded, and doubtless He was interrupted on many occasions. The verse simply shows us that the prompting of the Spirit needed to be submitted to.

It should also be said that even if your claim on this verse is right, all that it would show is that a person is mixing genuine prophecy with their own error. I’m sure you wouldn’t say the errors came from God, but you would say with me that the true prophecy did come from God.

I Corinthians 14:37: "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" If Paul viewed the Corinthians church as full of infallible prophets, this rhetorical question (the answer being clearly negative) would have no meaning.
Your meaning here is unclear, but my response would be that “the word of God” refers to the Gospel. In context it appears in the section dealing with the Corinthians wanting to be different by allowing women to speak. Paul is pointing out that all the Christian churches follow a different practice. The Corinthians are not an island on their won, the Gospel has gone to many others, who have started churches as well, and the Corinthians should conform.

I Corinthians 14:37-38: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted , let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." Here Paul emphatically places his own authority as an apostle over that of the Corinthian prophets. This point is most significant as Paul could not have done this if the prophets in Corinth were fully authoritative.
Not in the very least. Paul has already told the church to discern the people who claimed to be prophets. Here is a major criteria of that discernment. If the so called prophet is a person who does not submit to the Apostolic teaching, then that is proof that he is not a true prophet! True prophets accord entirely with the Apostles.

Finally, I Corinthians 11:5 leaves place for women prophesying in the church, while I Corinthians 14:34ff. commands women to have no place of authority in the church. If Paul viewed the prophecy in Corinth as fully authoritative, he would never allowed women to partake it in it.
Of all the texts you cite in this point, this last one is the only one that might make a strong point. Since it is the only text you cite that could lean this way, I think (before responding to your use of it) that it would be wrong to build such a significant stance (that prophecy is not authoritative) on such a slender piece of evidence.

But to respond, it has to be pointed out that there is just as much problem here for you as there is for me. The passage here tells us that women should not speak in church – they must be “silent!” and yet in ch 11 we read that they can prophesy! Whether it is authoritative or not, the problem is still there.

I’m not sure how you would get out of the problem, but I will suggest a way. There is a distinction between teaching/exposition, and prophecy. Prophecy is a sovereignly bestowed miraculous gift, and it might come to men or women during the period that prophecy functioned in the church, just like miraculous signs or any other special gift of that nature. But teaching is an ongoing office that will always be part of the church. It is normative, and as such it conforms to a regular and perpetual order until Christ returns. It is the role of men and not women.

You may or may not find this persuasive, but it would solve your problem and mine when it comes to this verse.

3) Against the claim that all forms of prophecy ceased with the closure of the canon stands Revelation 11:3, which sees prophecy as part of the end times.
I’m going to set this aside for now, since it isn’t about whether or not prophecy is authoritative.

4) The prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21:10-11 calls for attention. By Old Testament standards, Agabus would have been stoned, for he is wrong in two key details. The Romans, not the Jews, bind Paul, and not to hand him over to the Gentiles, but to kill him with mob violence
I wouldn’t be so quick to accuse Agabus of false prophecy. I think his prophecy was acceptably worded. It was the Jews who caused Paul to be bound and taken by the Romans. You might think this isn’t good enough to be called “true,” but I really don’t see why it isn’t.

I have just a couple of final comments on your position (or should I say Grudem’s position) on the authority of prophecy. Although I’ve made it clear that I am inclined not to accept it, I’d suggest that even if true, it could not show that cessationism is false. Grudem is forced to admit, for example, that the prophecy mentioned in Ephesians 2:20 did cease, and that all such authoritative revelation has ceased. Thus, he has to radically shrink the New Testament concept of prophecy down to a Christian simply saying “this is what I think, but I could be wrong – do you guys agree?” now, cessationists are quite happy for Christians to do that today, heck, I do it all the time. I’m simply up front and honest about what I’m doing. I admit that I’m just using my intuition. I don’t say “the Holy Spirit is inspiring me to say this.”

The bottom line is this. You just can’t say on the one hand that prophecy is the activity of the Holy Spirit, and yet at the same time say that this prophecy that comes from the Holy Spirit could be false. It could never be false, since God is infallible. For any utterance in the church of Corinth that turned out to be false, we have to admit that it was not a genuine prophecy.

At this point I’d like to keep a list of what we have managed to agree to so far, and where we still clearly disagree”

1. There are no more Apostles today (you agreed to this very early on)
2. You have not attempted to challenge my observation that there is no “gift of Apostleship” mentioned in 1 Corinthians, so I’m assuming you don’t have a problem with it.
3. The context of Ephesians 2:20 favours the view that the Apostles and prophets mention there were indeed part of the historical founding of the church (you’ve agreed that this is the case twice). Grudem accepts this meaning for 2:20, but says there is also another kind of prophecy (non authoritative).

Thus far we have not yet agreed on:

1. The timing of the “maturity” of 1 Corinthians 13. You say that the “face to face” reference shows that it is a theophany in mind, based on the LXX usage of the phrase. I question this, and maintain that the mirror analogy suggests otherwise.
2. The authority of prophecy. I say prophecy is authoritative, you say that it is not (necessarily).
3. The gift of tongues has not yet been defined and discussed, and we will come to it soon I am sure.

All the best,

Glenn

Gavin

July 7th 2003, 01:27 AM

Glenn,

You may rest absolutely assured that it is not Gaffin’s view either. I haven’t read MacArthur so I can’t comment on him. But Gaffin quite clearly accepts that prophecy was occurring at the church in Corinth, and it wasn’t Scripture. It was verbal revelation. Scripture by definition is the recorded written word, not the verbal word. Even the words of Jesus were not Scripture. I have never read anything by any cessationist to suggest that prophecy is Scripture. I know we have agreed that it’s not my position, but be aware that it’s not the position of cessationists in general either.

Okay, I can accept this. I imagine MacArthur would be the same as Gaffin on this. What you and MacArthur and Gaffin must grant, then, is that when charismatics speak of modern prophecy, it does not need to be added on to the canon (whether or authoritative or not). Just a minor point.

I would, also make the following observations. You note (correctly) that the phrase used in 1 Corinthians ofr “face to face” is prosopon pros prosopon. You then state that this appears 6 times in the Old Testament, and it alays means a theophany. Here is a list of all the occasions in the AV where we find “face to face” in the Old Testament in cases that are clearly theophanic. I will list the verse, along with the Greek phrase found in the LXX. I’m quoting these straight from my LXX, so I invite you to open your copy and check them.

1. Genesis 32:30 (Jacob sees the LORD “face to face”) prosopon pros prosopon – Yes, you’re right about that one.
2. Exodus 33:11 (the LORD speaks to Moses “face to face,” like a friend) eponios eponio – No, not this time.
3. Numbers 14:14 (the LORD is seen “face to face” among His people Israel) ophthalmois kai ophthalmous – No, not this time.
4. Deuteronomy 5:4 (the LORD spoke with Israel “face to face” at Mt Horeb or Sinai) prosopon kata prosopon – similar, but no, not the same.
5. Deuteronomy 34:10 (Moses was unique because he knew the LORD “face to face”) prosopon kata prosopon – again, similar, but it’s not the same phrase.
6. Judges 6:22 (Gideon sees the angel of the LORD “face to face”) prosopon pros prosopon – Yes, that’s right, so that’s two thus far.
7. Ezekiel 20:35 (the LORD pleaded in the wilderness “face to face” with Israel) prosopon kata prosopon – close again.

So my question is – where is your evidence? Where are these 6 occurrences of prosopon pros prosopon in the Septuagint that show such a consistent connection between seeing God “face to face” in a theophany and the Greek phrase prosopon pros prosopon? I can find only 2. Moreover, I can see that it is not the only (or even the most common) phrase that is used to express this idea. So I must reject your claim that the appearance of prosopon pros prosopon in 1 Corinthians 13 proves that we are dealing with a theophany.

Okay, I don't think you checked my debate on this, because I never listed the Numbers 14 verse. The part in my debate that I referred to listed all the other verses you have cited as the six I was referring to. Yes, I should have been more specific in stipulating that kata and pros are both used. If Exodus 33:11 uses eponios, then I am in error along with the scholars whom I relied on for this info (Grudem and others).

But Glenn, my point stands. Where is my evidence? My evidence is in the fact that everytime the word prosopon is used twice with a preposition in the middle in the LXX, it refers to theophany. Contrary to your statement, this is not my sole evidence, just as the infrequency of the word apostolos meaning messenger is not your sole evidence. But it is a consideration.

I feel that you are misunderstanding the cental thrust of my position when you summarize things as
1. The timing of the “maturity” of 1 Corinthians 13. You say that the “face to face” reference shows that it is a theophany in mind, based on the LXX usage of the phrase. I question this, and maintain that the mirror analogy suggests otherwise.

My "face to face" argument was only a small point in my larger argument on verse twelve. For example, even if I am wrong about "face to face" being theophany, I still maintain that to say we "know fully even as we are fully know" after the laying down of apostolic teaching is innappropriate.

The mirror analogy is not helpful to your purposes. When one sees oneself in a mirror, he already sees himself "face to face". The idea of seeing in a mirror is an analogy that is set in contrast to the face to face knowledge. "Face to face" knowledge must be greater than seeing yourself in a mirror - yet if "face to face" merely refers to seeing yourself clearly, then it is not greater but merely the same. Just because Paul compares them - seeing in a mirror and seeing face to face - does not mean they are the same type of thing. That is the point - they are contrasted.

You continue,

We can – if we know what teleion means. Elsewhere in the letter it refers to a stage, not of total perfection, but of maturity. This, Paul meant that when a certain stage of maturity had been reached, tongues and prophecy would cease. It isn’t strained, it is a simply an approach that respects Paul’s own use of his terminology in the same letter. We have no choice but to let Paul define his terms, rather than simply select a meaning that fits our view of things. Do you agree that elsewhere in 1 Corinthians the term means mature and not perfect?

Sure, it means "mature", but never in the sense that you are suggesting. When Paul uses it in 2:6 or 14:20, he is referring to mature people, not the maturity of apostolic teaching. It is used in a different way when put in the neuter singular in I Corinthians 13, conceivably devised as a contrast for the ek merous.

The issue has been muddied, but the bottom line is this:

"12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

There is no way that the Corinthians could have perceived that the "then" referred to the laying down of apostolic teaching. The laying down of apostolic teaching is totally foreign to the entire letter of I Corinthians, and the ideas of face to face sight and full knowledge are too weighty to apply to such an obscure event.

Again, see my debate here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showarchiv.php?s=&action=showarchiv&archivid=29), third post, if you want a full defense of my view.

[continued]

Gavin

July 7th 2003, 01:49 AM

On Ephesians 2, you spend all your time arguing that apostles should be translated as "the 13" more often than I think they should. But you are not addressing my argument regarding Ephesians 2:20. I have argued that even if the apostles in view there are technical apostles, the passage still does not teach cessationism.

Perhaps you could start by replying to this:

My main problem with the passage at hand in regards to cessationism is that it seems to be speaking of prophets in a way that is different from the rest of the New Testament, and yet too many cessationists use Ephesians 2:20 as the controlling text for how we interpret New Testament prophecy at large. It seems to me a good deal fast and loose to define one’s entire theology of prophecy on this one verse (which in my view has its own ambiguities and uncertainties with regard to exactly how and in what sense apostles and prophets are foundational), when the rest of the New Testament presents in such non-foundational ways. For example, how were Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9 contributing to the unique once and for all foundation of the church? How were the anonymous disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:6) who spoke in tongues and prophesied laying the unrepeatable foundation of the church? How were Corinthians believers who prayed in tongues in private in the absence of an interpreter (I Corinthians 14:28) for the purpose of edification (I Corinthians 14:4) contributing to this foundation? This fact, combined with the ambiguities involved in Ephesians 2:20 such as verse 21, or the possibility of a hendiadys, or the multiple meanings of “apostle”, or whether “foundation” refers to sequence or importance, etc. lead me to question the thesis that all prophecy functioned only foundationally in the church.

[continued]

Gavin

July 7th 2003, 02:30 AM

Now on the authority of prophecy.

There are two things here: A subjective leap and a grotesque straw man. Firstly it is not a logical step to say that since prophecy does not feature often or on a grand scale, but occurs among lay people, therefore it is not authoritative. The conclusion just doesn’t follow. Additionally, while I agree that it is evidence of the Spirit’s activity, it would seem unlikely that the Spirit conveys error or information that is not authoritative.

On the first point, differences in the nature of prophecy and Scripture do open possibilities for differences in the authority prophecy and Scripture. The evidence of prophecy in the New Testament is that it is part of the evidence for the giving of the universal Spirit of God to believers (Acts 2:21-26) for the purpose of edification (I Corinthians 14:3 and elsewhere). Are you prepared to admit that God gives everyone who recieves the Spirit and prophesies as much authority as Scripture. The way prophecy is presented does bear on its authority. Are you prepared to say that the four daughters of Philip had the same authority as the writers of Scripture? Or the Ephesians convets?

The point is, it certainly isn’t self-evident or even clear that 1 Corinthians 14:29 teaches that people must discern between the true and the false prophecies of a genuine prophet. The context envisaged by the verse you have quoted is that where there is more than one prophet speaking. If Roberton’s exegetical observation is given weight, it appears that the people who are able to discern should decide which prophets are genuine.

If what is being evaluated is the prophet himself, the verb krino would have been much more appropriate. Diakrino, even in the verses you cite, is not used for a decisive either-or judgement, but for sifting the good from the bad. Also, and more importantly, in verse 29 it is the actual prophecy that is being evaluated, not the prophet, just as in I Thessalonians 5:19 it is the prophecy which is being despised, not the prophet.

you continue,
The fact that a prophet might be interrupted, and thus we would lose the words he had to speak, does not even begin to imply that those words were fallible. Your argument here would make Jesus Himself fallible, since He said much that we have lost since it could not be recorded, and doubtless He was interrupted on many occasions. The verse simply shows us that the prompting of the Spirit needed to be submitted to.

Jesus may have been interupted, but that Paul shows so little concern for what is actually being said and so much concern that all the Corinthians get to partake still seems strange. I am willing to admit that this verse is a minor point - but can you really imagine Paul telling Isaiah to stop prophesying if he was interupted so someone else could do it and be edified?

Paul has already told the church to discern the people who claimed to be prophets. Here is a major criteria of that discernment. If the so called prophet is a person who does not submit to the Apostolic teaching, then that is proof that he is not a true prophet! True prophets accord entirely with the Apostles.

You miss the point. If the prophet in Corinth challenged Paul, why might he not say that Paul must be in accord with him, rather than vice versa? Paul is placing his authority over the Corinthians. That it is Paul's teaching that is the standard, and the Corinthian prophesying which is subject to that standard shows that Paul was in authority over them.

Your meaning here is unclear, but my response would be that “the word of God” refers to the Gospel. In context it appears in the section dealing with the Corinthians wanting to be different by allowing women to speak. Paul is pointing out that all the Christian churches follow a different practice. The Corinthians are not an island on their won, the Gospel has gone to many others, who have started churches as well, and the Corinthians should conform.

If the Corinthians were all receiving fully authoritative prophecy, then why need they consider what the larger church is doing? Why not be their own island? Why is Paul so condescending if these are prophets of the same stature as Jeremiah and Isaiah?

But to respond, it has to be pointed out that there is just as much problem here for you as there is for me. The passage here tells us that women should not speak in church – they must be “silent!” and yet in ch 11 we read that they can prophesy! Whether it is authoritative or not, the problem is still there.

Silence in the church clearly refers to a subdued authority, at least. I am sorry, but it really looks like you are dodging the issue here.

I’m going to set this aside for now, since it isn’t about whether or not prophecy is authoritative.

But it is. If authoritative prophecy cannot exist outside the canon, and prophecy clearly does exist after the canon, then clearly not all prophecy is authoritative.

I wouldn’t be so quick to accuse Agabus of false prophecy. I think his prophecy was acceptably worded. It was the Jews who caused Paul to be bound and taken by the Romans. You might think this isn’t good enough to be called “true,” but I really don’t see why it isn’t.

In my opinion, that does not pay close enough attention to the details of the text. But I may be pedantic in assessing it. I am fine with setting this point aside. I am actually somewhat sympathetic to your reading.

The bottom line is this. You just can’t say on the one hand that prophecy is the activity of the Holy Spirit, and yet at the same time say that this prophecy that comes from the Holy Spirit could be false. It could never be false, since God is infallible. For any utterance in the church of Corinth that turned out to be false, we have to admit that it was not a genuine prophecy.

The error (or shades of error) come in not from God being fallible, but from the prophet misinterpreting what God has infallibly shown.

Just a few other things:

2. You have not attempted to challenge my observation that there is no “gift of Apostleship” mentioned in 1 Corinthians, so I’m assuming you don’t have a problem with it.

I did challenge it. I wrote, This is an interesting point. Storms and Deere (two charismatic scholars) have argued for the same thing, that apostleship is not a spiritual gift per se. Thus its cessation does not open the door for the cessation of other gifts like prophecy and so on. After all, the term charismata is never explicitly applied to apostleship.

Still, I think these conclusions are premature. The inclusion of apostles in I Corinthians 12:28-9 and Ephesians 4:11 pretty clearly implies that it is a spiritual gift, in my view, since it is placed in immediate juxtaposition with other spiritual gifts.

I think you may have missed one of my posts back there.

The context of Ephesians 2:20 favours the view that the Apostles and prophets mention there were indeed part of the historical founding of the church (you’ve agreed that this is the case twice). Grudem accepts this meaning for 2:20, but says there is also another kind of prophecy (non authoritative).

See what I wrote above on Ephesians 2:20.

Blessings,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 7th 2003, 03:20 AM

Today @ 06:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141742#post141742)
Gavin:
Okay, I can accept this. I imagine MacArthur would be the same as Gaffin on this. What you and MacArthur and Gaffin must grant, then, is that when charismatics speak of modern prophecy, it does not need to be added on to the canon (whether or authoritative or not). Just a minor point.
This has always been the case, and I've always been aware of it. I have never sugested that authoritative prophecy today would add to the canon. but it would, however, have equal authority to Scripture.

Yes, I should have been more specific in stipulating that kata and pros are both used. If Exodus 33:11 uses eponios, then I am in error along with the scholars whom I relied on for this info (Grudem and others).

Grudem is indeed in error if he claims that this passage uses the same phrase as 1 Cor 13. the fact that he used it at all is troubling, since I can only assume that he must have checked the reference himself, Either he did, and wrote something that was ubtrue, or he didn;t check, and he made the claim up. Either way, I am troubled that he made this claim.

But Glenn, my point stands. Where is my evidence? My evidence is in the fact that everytime the word prosopon is used twice with a preposition in the middle in the LXX, it refers to theophany.
Given that the actual phrase from 1 Cor 13 appears only twice in the entire LXX, your point is not as impressive as it first sounded. Moreover, the literal meaning of "face to face" in English or Greek seems self-evidently not to require a theophany. All it requires is a face to face vision or encounter.

The mirror analogy is not helpful to your purposes. When one sees oneself in a mirror, he already sees himself "face to face". The idea of seeing in a mirror is an analogy that is set in contrast to the face to face knowledge. "Face to face" knowledge must be greater than seeing yourself in a mirror - yet if "face to face" merely refers to seeing yourself clearly, then it is not greater but merely the same. Just because Paul compares them - seeing in a mirror and seeing face to face - does not mean they are the same type of thing. That is the point - they are contrasted.
Dim vision of something (as through a im mirror) is being contrasted with clear vision. What is being contrasted is not the vision of two different things, but two different qualities of vision of the one thing. That is not a complicated observation, but a very simple one, based on nothing more than exactly what is stated (not simply inferred).

Sure, it means "mature", but never in the sense that you are suggesting. When Paul uses it in 2:6 or 14:20, he is referring to mature people, not the maturity of apostolic teaching.
Who claimed that it referred to the maturity of apostolic teaching? How cold teaching be mature at all? My claim is that it refers to a mature church, have had the foundational work completed.

There is no way that the Corinthians could have perceived that the "then" referred to the laying down of apostolic teaching. The laying down of apostolic teaching is totally foreign to the entire letter of I Corinthians, and the ideas of face to face sight and full knowledge are too weighty to apply to such an obscure event.
That's a summary of your position, but simply stating it like that doesn't make any of my argument less sound. I coulod just respond by saying "No, they are not too weighty, and 1 Cor 13 can indeed refer to a state of maturity in the history of the church," but assertion vs assertion is probably not a constructive way to respond to you. I've offered arguments for the conclusions that you say are obviously impossible. Telling me you don't find them likely will not take us anywhere.

You insist that I am just not respnding to your points. In particular, you seem sure that I have ignored this:
My main problem with the passage at hand in regards to cessationism is that it seems to be speaking of prophets in a way that is different from the rest of the New Testament, and yet too many cessationists use Ephesians 2:20 as the controlling text for how we interpret New Testament prophecy at large. It seems to me a good deal fast and loose to define one’s entire theology of prophecy on this one verse (which in my view has its own ambiguities and uncertainties with regard to exactly how and in what sense apostles and prophets are foundational), when the rest of the New Testament presents in such non-foundational ways. For example, how were Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9 contributing to the unique once and for all foundation of the church? How were the anonymous disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:6) who spoke in tongues and prophesied laying the unrepeatable foundation of the church? How were Corinthians believers who prayed in tongues in private in the absence of an interpreter (I Corinthians 14:28) for the purpose of edification (I Corinthians 14:4) contributing to this foundation? This fact, combined with the ambiguities involved in Ephesians 2:20 such as verse 21, or the possibility of a hendiadys, or the multiple meanings of “apostle”, or whether “foundation” refers to sequence or importance, etc. lead me to question the thesis that all prophecy functioned only foundationally in the church.

How could you think I have ignored all this? Firstly, any references to tongues in this quote haven't been addressed, sure, but we haven't got to tongues yet. I'm sure you don't think it wrong to take it one issue at a time. As for the individual cases of prophecy, well you need to see that they belong to a larger issue. IF Eph 2:20 refers to the only kind of prophecy in the NT, and IF I can successfully argue that your two-level view of prophecy is false, then those individual cases have indeed been responded to.

As to your last comment that you highlighted in bold, I have clearly end emphatically responded to your claims about the meaning of apostolos. You yourself have admitted that it looks like the sequential picture of the passage is the correct one. So I just don't know what else you want me to say about these comments of yours, I'm sorry.

Now we come again to the authority of prophecy.
Are you prepared to admit that God gives everyone who recieves the Spirit and prophesies as much authority as Scripture. The way prophecy is presented does bear on its authority. Are you prepared to say that the four daughters of Philip had the same authority as the writers of Scripture? Or the Ephesians convets?
Yes, I assumed that would be an obvious feature of my view. Although I need to be careful that you don't et the wrong impression - those people don't become infallible people. It just means that what they said when they prophesied was authoritative.

If what is being evaluated is the prophet himself, the verb krino would have been much more appropriate. Diakrino, even in the verses you cite, is not used for a decisive either-or judgement, but for sifting the good from the bad. Also, and more importantly, in verse 29 it is the actual prophecy that is being evaluated, not the prophet, just as in I Thessalonians 5:19 it is the prophecy which is being despised, not the prophet.
The verses I used, however, showed that the verb used in 1 Corinthians 14 is in fact applied in general to people rather than ideas. Of course this involves sifting good from bad in those other verses - but not ideas, the exegetical evidence does not support this, as I showed last time. the sifting is betwen people in the other exampls I gave, and also in 1 Cor 14, where it speaks of sifting between people who are genuine prophets and those who are not. That's just what the exegetical evidence shows us. It doesn't work just to assert that this word wouldn't be the right word for this purpose. I've shown actual evidence from other cases to show that this word is indeed right for this purpose.

I pointed out that the fact that a prophet could be interrupted doesn't show that the prophet's words were not authoritative. You say:
Jesus may have been interupted, but that Paul shows so little concern for what is actually being said and so much concern that all the Corinthians get to partake still seems strange. I am willing to admit that this verse is a minor point - but can you really imagine Paul telling Isaiah to stop prophesying if he was interupted so someone else could do it and be edified?
Isaiah was an individual, and his context was not a group setting. If Isaiah were in a church setting with a group of other prophets, I am sure that he would not presume to give a prophecy that would fill 66 books! If Isaiah were in a church setting with a group of other prophets, then yes of course the same rules would apply to him. You oly find that idea odd because you don't believe New Testament prophecy had the same authority as the Old. Since I haven't yet seen good arguments for this view (and I've seen all of Grudem's arguments), it's not something I find odd.

You miss the point. If the prophet in Corinth challenged Paul, why might he not say that Paul must be in accord with him, rather than vice versa? Paul is placing his authority over the Corinthians. That it is Paul's teaching that is the standard, and the Corinthian prophesying which is subject to that standard shows that Paul was in authority over them.
Rest easy, I haven't missed anything, I just don't agree with your conlcusion. All the Apostles had already become Apostles. But new people were becoming prophets, and the church needed to be able to sift out the false ones - as they are instructed in 1 Cor 14. Paul was an Apostle before these Corinthians were prophets. If a new prophet taught something contrary to what the Apostles before him taught, then clearly he is a false prophet and should be ignored, which is exactly what Poaul said hould happen to him. There's nothing at all to say that the authority of genuine prophecy differs from the authority of Paul's teaching.

If the Corinthians were all receiving fully authoritative prophecy, then why need they consider what the larger church is doing? Why not be their own island? Why is Paul so condescending if these are prophets of the same stature as Jeremiah and Isaiah?
For exactly the same reason I just stated - If they thought that the Spirit was teaching them things through prophecy that were different from hat the church as a whole had received, then they were mistaken. Conformity to the prior Revelation of God is a test of prophecy.

Silence in the church clearly refers to a subdued authority, at least. I am sorry, but it really looks like you are dodging the issue here.
Firstly, it is obvious to you that I did not dodge the issue, since i went on to offer an explanation. But secondly, the problem Ineeded to resolve was a problem for you as well, since on the surfce of it, "silence" contradicts "takin part non authoritative prophecy." I not only helped my position by offering the explanation I did - I helped yours too.

I did challenge it. I wrote, “ This is an interesting point. Storms and Deere (two charismatic scholars) have argued for the same thing, that apostleship is not a spiritual gift per se. Thus its cessation does not open the door for the cessation of other gifts like prophecy and so on. After all, the term charismata is never explicitly applied to apostleship.

Still, I think these conclusions are premature. The inclusion of apostles in I Corinthians 12:28-9 and Ephesians 4:11 pretty clearly implies that it is a spiritual gift, in my view, since it is placed in immediate juxtaposition with other spiritual gifts. ”
My apologies. You responded by saying that you think it is implied. As you've seen, nothing essential to my case would be lost by saying that Apostleship was a gift, but it is significant that unlike the charismata such as prophecy, tongues etc, Apostleship is never called a gift. The ommission is significant. But I think we're done with Apostleship now :smile:

Blessings,
Glenn

PS. All good things must come to an end. After one, maybe two more posts on prophecy, I think we'll have to move on to tongues, so we can eventually finish this.

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 7th 2003, 05:32 AM

I meant to ask one further question Gavin.

This one isn't an argument, just a question. Can you give me an example of what contemporary prophecy might consist of, in your view? I don't just mean a broad definition like "edification," but examples. What kinds of thing does a contemporary prophet say - when he or she is giving genuine prophecy, that is? Any examples would be appreciated.

Glenn

Gavin

July 9th 2003, 01:09 AM

OK Glenn,

I am about ready to move on to tongues and other matters if you are. I will make a few brief replies, but it will be very selective, partly because some matters are irrelevant or just going nowhere, and partly because we need to move on. But if you feel I am unfairly dodging any issues or ignoring a point for some other purpose, bring it to my attention and I will respond.

On the authority of prophecy:

I argued that Paul places his authority over the Corinthians in 14:37-38. But you insist that
Conformity to the prior Revelation of God is a test of prophecy.

The reason this explanation begs the question, in my opinion, is that it assumes that Paul's letter is an already established, agreed upon, authoritative revelation. But of course the false Corinthian prophet would not grant this; he would question Paul's authority, which is the very thing Paul anticipates in verse 38.

You seem to recognize some of distinction between the authority of the apostles and that of the prophets when you write All the Apostles had already become Apostles. But new people were becoming prophets, and the church needed to be able to sift out the false ones - as they are instructed in 1 Cor 14. Paul was an Apostle before these Corinthians were prophets.

I understand you to be asserting that the reason for Pauls' authority was merely that he was already agreed upon to be an apostle while it was unclear which Corinthians were prophets yet. But the Corinthian church did not unanimously recognize Paul as a genuine prohet yet. Their skepticism of his stature based on his lack of worldy excellence and impressiveness rings out most clearly in his second letter to them where he is forced to a lengthy defense of his ministry (10-12), but hints of it surface in I Corinthians as well, in their disunity with only one of a number of factions following Paul (1:12), in their arrogance at his distance (4:18), in Paul's defense of his dealings with the Corinthians (3:10, 4:1, 15, etc.), in his reminder that he too has the Spirit of God (7:40), etc. Paul's letter would not, then, simply by assumed to be authoritative revelation by the Corinthians. Certainly one of the unruly prophets, eager for unjust advantage, could and evidently did challenge the authority and source of Paul's ministry.

The point is that this is not a case of previous revelation taking priority of later revelation: Paul's authority over the Corinthians does not rest upon the fact that he got revelation before they did, but on his apostolic call. If his authority were merely on his revelation being given sooner, then it would not be binding, as it is, for the Corinthian false prophet would challenge the genuity of Paul's call.

On women prophesying but not "speaking":

Firstly, it is obvious to you that I did not dodge the issue, since i went on to offer an explanation. But secondly, the problem Ineeded to resolve was a problem for you as well, since on the surfce of it, "silence" contradicts "takin part non authoritative prophecy." I not only helped my position by offering the explanation I did - I helped yours too.

I know you gave an explanation, but I still felt like you were dodging the issue. You basically said that it was a point in my favor, and then tried to answer it anyway, saying that I probably would not find your answer very convincing. It came across like you did not really believe what you were saying.

There is no problem for me in the passage, since I understand "silence" not to mean that women can never open their mouths after entering through the doords of a church, but rather to never speak in leadership or authority in the church. This interpretation is in harmony with the context (women being in "submission" in verse 34) as well as the rest of the New Testament (e.g., I Timothy 2:12) and is a widely held one today. So for women to speak non-authoritatively, but to prophecy, obviously supports my case.

The position you offered is still difficult to reconcile to your view that all types of revelation are of equal, infallibly binding authority, because such prophecy would inevitably be on par with "teaching" for the church. Prophecy on the same authority level as Scripture would surely be the greatest recource for teaching the church available to her. And this is what many cessationists claim that prophecy is for - to help give the foundational apostolic teaching for the church. But if women cannot teach at all, and yet can prophecy . . . you see the problem.

I find your statement ironic that it would be wrong to build such a significant stance (that prophecy is not authoritative) on such a slender piece of evidence.

The reason I find it ironic is because it is exactly what I have been saying about Ephesians 2:20. To take one verse, which has its own ambiguities and difficulties, and use it to justify so significant stance (cessationism), seems to me to not be the best summary of the New Testament evidence as a whole.

One more thing: you insist that all those who prophecy enjoy the same authority status as Paul or any of the apostles (while they prophecy, of course). May I ask, then, what is the purpose of the God giving full authority to the Ephesians converts? Why did they prophecy upon conversion? Are these brand new Christians the type of people whom God would give absolute binding authority while they are together?

In a related vein, how do you understand Joel 2:28-32 as cited by Peter in Acts 2:17-21? Are all Christians infallible prophets because they receive the Spirit of prophecy? Your view in my judgement overlooks what is implicit in prophecy in the narrative accounts of Acts.

On Ephesians 2:20:

you seem somewhat miffed that I would accuse you of overlooking my comments. Sorry, but I do not see that you have anywhere explicitly commented on that particulary post, nor replied to similar arguments on my part elsewhere.

Maybe restating what I was trying to communicate will help us. If and to the extent that you have already replied, if you would be so good as to direct that (those) reply (replies) to my attention, I would be most grateful.

In what I quoted above in that post I was trying to basically say the same thing that you said about women prophesying - that it is imprudent to make such a strong position on such a small basis (one verse). I would say that every other time the New Testament presents prophecy, it presents it in a non-foundational manner. Prophecy, I have argued heavily before, exists primarily for the edification of the church, which is a non-foundational purpose. It occurs among lay people, and in large crowds, arguably being prototypical to recieving the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:17-18), both of which continue beyond the foundational period. It is seen as part of the end times, which is beyond the foundation (Revelation 11:3), and so on. My point is not that Ephesians 2:20 is wrong while the rest of the New Testament, especially Acts and I Corinthians 12-14 is right; rather, that any theology of the New Testament gift of prophecy must not lean to heavily on Ephesians 2:20 while neglecting all the other data. Or worse, one should not read I Corinthians 12-14 through the lens of Ephesians 2:20, but rather given them equal weight.

As I tried to state in the emboldened sentence of that quoted paragraph, being cautious regarding Ephesians 2:20 is wise because of the many ambiguities concerning that passage. I listed five ambiguities:

1) verse 21 - the building is already rising past the foundation at the time of Paul's writing. If it is claimed that the apostles and prophets do not contribute to the superstrucure based on verse 20, the immediete context in verse 21 brings this thesis into question.
2) the possibility of a hendiadys, which given the second noun being anarthrous, is at the very least a real possibility.
3) the multiple meanings of “apostle”, which is a point you have replied to with some good points, but not conclusively outruled in my judgement.
4) whether “foundation” refers to sequence or importance. Again, if I said that American political ideology is based on the "foundation of congressmen and the President," I would not be arguing that these offices cease, but that they are important to American political ideology.
5) Christ's inclusion as the cornerstone in verse 20, whose activity in the church is hard to restrit to his earthly activity.

Now Glenn I admit that you have replied to some of these give points, some more than others - but I do not think you have established that that there are no ambiguities regarding the verse, nor am I aware of you answering my point about Ephesians 2:20 not being used in isolation. Thus my point as a whole on Ephesians 2:20 I think largely unaswered.

Gavin

July 9th 2003, 01:40 AM

Glenn, now for your question, and then we can move on, when you are ready.

Can you give me an example of what contemporary prophecy might consist of, in your view? I don't just mean a broad definition like "edification," but examples. What kinds of thing does a contemporary prophet say - when he or she is giving genuine prophecy, that is? Any examples would be appreciated.

I have not personally heard that many prophecies, but I can tell you what kinds of things prophecies may be used for based on what I find it used for in Scripture.

A prophecy may expose the secrets of a sinners' heart and thereby demonstrate to him to the greatness of God's presence in the church.

1 Corinthians 14
24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand[1] comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

A prophecy may also be used to communicate to a believer a specific piece of information that he/she needs to know - perhaps a warning for the future, a word of encouragement to persevere, a highly specific answer to a prayer, an assurance of forgiveness, etc.

Acts 21
10After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, "The Holy Spirit says, 'In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.' "

A prophecy, perhaps given concurrently with the laying on of hands, can confer a spiritual gift.

1 Timothy 4
14Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

A prophecy may do any of these things, or many other things, or may simply evidence the Spirit's presence and activity in the church, as at Pentecost and elsewhere. One person whom I think of as prophetically gifted today is Paul Cain. You can read some of the stories Jack Deere shares about him in Deere's interesting books. See especially the story at the very beginning of the _The Beginner's Guide to the Gift of Prophecy_ which records a powerful prophecy being given to Deere himself.

Also - I would ask John Reece, a member here. He is very experienced with many different parts of the church and has many interesting stories. He is also very wise and I am sure you will be enriched from hearing any stories of prophecies in his life or that he has heard he wants to share with you.

Blessings,
Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

July 11th 2003, 04:57 AM

Gavin

As with your posts, some points that we have touched on in previous posts are necessarily going to be missed, but I think both of us are aware that this is a necessary evil. Before moving away from prophecy and on to tongues, I do have a few further observations on your arguments and responses.

You still seem to think that my position on the authority of prophecy would open the door to some sort of insurrection at Corinth, and rogue prophets who could not be challenged, even by Paul. I have pointed out that this would not follow. I explained that any prophecy that went against prior revelation, or which conflicted with the message delivered by the Apostles, was evidence that the prophecy was false. After all, can you really imagine the Holy Spirit delivering a message through the Apostles, and then inspiring a prophecy that contradicted this? Of course not. And so it seemed quite sensible and uncontroversial for me to say
Conformity to the prior Revelation of God is a test of prophecy
But you do not see this as acceptable. You say that I have committed the fallacy if begging the question:
The reason this explanation begs the question, in my opinion, is that it assumes that Paul's letter is an already established, agreed upon, authoritative revelation. But of course the false Corinthian prophet would not grant this; he would question Paul's authority, which is the very thing Paul anticipates in verse 38.
But on more careful reflection you will see that I have not assumed this at all. I haven’t assumed that all the Corinthians accepted the genuine Apostolic role of Paul and thus the truth of his letters as handed on Apostolic teaching. Instead what I have assumed is simply that Paul’s letter in fact Apostolic teaching, and that this is the reason Paul is able to tell the Corinthians that if anyone thinks he is a prophet, he needed to be n accord with what Paul was teaching. It is obvious that not all the Corinthians already accepted Paul as an Apostle. That is why Paul spends so much energy defending his Apostleship, and then saying that conformity to the revelation of God given through the Apostles is a test of prophecy.

You end this section with what looks like a very strange argument when examined closely:
The point is that this is not a case of previous revelation taking priority of later revelation: Paul's authority over the Corinthians does not rest upon the fact that he got revelation before they did, but on his apostolic call. If his authority were merely on his revelation being given sooner, then it would not be binding, as it is, for the Corinthian false prophet would challenge the genuity of Paul's call.
How does that help? I could say “Oh no, if it were just a case of Paul having a higher call, an Apostolic call, then the Corinthian prophet could just deny the genuity of that call!” It is not a response. If in fact Paul is a genuine Apostle, then his teaching is authoritative, and any revelation that comes after through a prophet, can be tested against it. Obviously this does not imply that a genuine prophecy has less authority than an Apostolic word. It just means that since the One Spirit inspired them both, they must be in harmony.

In regards to the women speaking n 1 Cor 14, I can’t help but think that you’re unwilling to acknowledge a genuine exegetical problem, a problem which no more serves as an argument against my view than against your own. Whatever you’re view of prophecy, the text on the one hand says that women should be “silent,” and on the other hand it assumes they may prophesy. Like it or hate it, it is a difficulty for you – regardless of the authority of prophecy. Now, I offered a solution. My solution was that prophecy is not normative. It is a temporary phenomenon. The prohibition , I suggested, deals with the normative context. You completely blew off this response:
You basically said that it was a point in my favor, and then tried to answer it anyway, saying that I probably would not find your answer very convincing. It came across like you did not really believe what you were saying.
Firstly I never said it was a point in your favour. In reality what I said is this:
Of all the texts you cite in this point, this last one is the only one that might make a strong point.
In other words, none of the other texts you cited were such that they could contribute to your case, but this one could be used to make a point. Now, do I think that in the final analysis it does work in your favour? No. I have already said that it doesn’t by stating firstly that it is a problem for you and me, and secondly by proposing a solution to the problem – a solution that also shows why it does not pose a problem for prophecy being authoritative. And as for me not really believing what I was saying? Well, I suppose I can’t control the impressions that you come up with, but rest assured – that’s incorrect.

So in my view, once again to clarify, prophecy was never a normative thing to be part of the ongoing life of the church – it was a special work of the Spirit, whereas gender roles were, being rooted in the created order. But I see a gaping hole in your understanding of women and prophecy. You seem to see prophecy as inspired but not infallible messages for the edification – and I must presume – teaching and nourishing – of the church (edification does not occur in isolation, it must come through a spoken medium, and teaching seems a likely target). Yet you say that prophecy is normative and to continue throughout history as a normative thing. You also see the command for women to “be silent” as normative and ongoing. See – it is not me who is having it both ways, but you. You try to sneak around this Achilles’ heel in your view by saying,
There is no problem for me in the passage, since I understand "silence" not to mean that women can never open their mouths after entering through the doords of a church, but rather to never speak in leadership or authority in the church.
So tell me – when a prophecy is given by a woman, will it always be discerned to not contain any genuine words from God? You’ve said already that each prophecy is not necessarily authoritative, but must be weighed first, and the parts that are not from God can be sifted out. But now you agree with the traditional perspective that a woman cannot teach in a way that implies authority. Yet you say that even today, she can prophecy, and your view of prophecy is that at least some of it will be a word from the Lord. So now, doesn’t that genuine part, that word from the Lord within the prophecy, have any authority at all? Does not the Lord have authority? Surely the problem is inescapable without an impressive strain.

Finally, once more, you have repeated your insistence that I am just ignoring your arguments about Ephesians 2:20. I hope you’ll forgive me – but that is incredibly frustrating, especially given the way I explained recently just how I have responded after you made this assertion the first time. I can only wonder exactly what I would have to say before you would acknowledge that a response has been made. I’ll try yet again, based on the re-statement of your arguments.
I would say that every other time the New Testament presents prophecy, it presents it in a non-foundational manner. Prophecy, I have argued heavily before, exists primarily for the edification of the church, which is a non-foundational purpose. It occurs among lay people, and in large crowds, arguably being prototypical to recieving the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:17-18), both of which continue beyond the foundational period.
One thing you’ve just got to realise is that this is a non sequitur. I’ll list the features you’ve given me from the text of Scripture in this quote:
1. Prophecy exists primarily for the edification of the church
2. Prophecy occurs among lay people
3. Prophecy occurs in crowds
4. It is (arguably) prototypical to the gift of the Spirit

A prototype is an event that prefigures a greater event or a spiritual reality. Since prophecy in the NT does not precede the giving of the Spirit, I cannot accept 4. But quite apart from that error, none of the above even begins to suggest that prophecy does not carry divine authority, or that the message presented in prophecy does not convey the message that serves a foundational role in church history. Oh, you might be sure that “edification” rules out this function, but I’m not going to accept that unless you give some reasons for it. Why must a message lack this kind of authority and significance just because it is given to build up (which is what edify means) the church? On the contrary, it seems perfectly reasonable that the message that makes up the foundation of our historic faith should indeed be edifying to the church. So these aren’t reasons to adopt your view in any way. I find this frustrating, because it means a lot of words are being posted, but very few actual points are being made, and I need to go through all these words and explain why they’re just not contributing to your case before I can get to the actual meat of the issue.

It is seen as part of the end times, which is beyond the foundation (Revelation 11:3), and so on.
First off, I have no idea what you mean by “and so on.”

Now, I stated why I did not respond to this one yet. It does not specifically relate to whether or not prophecy is authoritative. You insist it does, I say it does not. But in any case, here is my response. The verse is:
And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth.

Now, if this is about the end times, then it does not follow that prophecy remains normative in the church right through to the end times. The verse itself says that this is divine intervention into history – “I will grant.” So even if prophecy is not normative, should God decide to intervene and give His two witnesses the ability to prophesy, where is the problem with that? The problem is yours – how can you possibly see the prophecy of Rev 11:3 as not authoritative?

I could argue that raptures happen in the church today, by pointing to the return of Christ in scripture. See? If it happens in the end times when particular supernatural events are taking place, then doe that mean it happens now? The error is clear, isn’t it?

But more importantly, you’ve adopted a highly controversial interpretation of Rev 11:3 in the first place. You’ve assumed that it describes events that are totally irrelevant to its first audience, events that are going to unfold on the world stage thousands of years later. But that’s unlikely. Consider chapter 12, the following chapter. That’s about the birth of Christ. Is that still in the future? To cut a long story short – there are no persuasive reasons to adopt futurism, and thus there are no reasons to think Rev 11:3 has anything to do with the role of prophecy in the end times (although as I showed, even if it did it still wouldn’t help you). So while you repeated this point, and typed it in bold as though it were an important point, it turns out to be nothing other than a time consumer. It does not contribute to Grudem’s view of the authority of prophecy and it does not contribute to a Pentecostal view of the continuity of the gift of prophecy.

Next, you say that I’m putting all my weight on Ephesians 2:20, and either overlooking all the rest or just forcing the rest to fit with Eph 2:20.

Try to see it this way. Imagine there are 100 verses in the NT. The last verse says “prophecy is authoritative, and is part of the historical beginning of Christianity, just like the Apostolic ministry.” In each of the 99 verses before that, we have a historical case of somebody prophesying. Now, let’s say we take this NT, and start debating about it. You say that the prophecies it mentions are not (necessarily) authoritative, and I say they are. I take the final verse as proof. You object to this. You say, “ah, but you’re just taking ONE VERSE, and using it as the basis for understanding the others!”

Do you see the methodological error now? Obviously the NT is longer than 100 verses, but your counter evidence consists of cases, while my evidence consists of a principle that the New Testament lays down for understanding what those cases are. In such a situation, it is unavoidable that the explanatory text will be used to understand the case texts. Additionally, you haven’t successfully shown by using the cases, that the cases of prophecy in the NT do in fact violate the understanding of the general principle of Eph 2:20. So this criticism of yours must be set aside.

Additionally, it is question begging to say that I’m putting too much weight on Eph 2:20 and not taking seriously the evidence for your view that arises from passages like 1 Cor 14 (for example). It is question begging because it assumes that passages such as 1 Cor 14 DO offer reasons to reject my view of Eph 2:20. Now, this is obviously something we do not agree on. In fact, in light of the specific arguments you made from 1 Cor 14 which I responded to, I feel warranted in saying that there is nothing in such texts to overthrow the exegetical arguments I made from Eph 2:20. So it'’ just false to suggest that I’m not allowing other passages to be heard.

It is absolutely crucial to the very heart of your position that you can show that the understanding of Eph 2:20 I have offered is false. To this end, you have five points:

1) verse 21 - the building is already rising past the foundation at the time of Paul's writing. If it is claimed that the apostles and prophets do not contribute to the superstrucure based on verse 20, the immediete context in verse 21 brings this thesis into question.
2) the possibility of a hendiadys, which given the second noun being anarthrous, is at the very least a real possibility.
3) the multiple meanings of "apostle", which is a point you have replied to with some good points, but not conclusively outruled in my judgement.
4) whether "foundation" refers to sequence or importance. Again, if I said that American political ideology is based on the "foundation of congressmen and the President," I would not be arguing that these offices cease, but that they are important to American political ideology.
5) Christ's inclusion as the cornerstone in verse 20, whose activity in the church is hard to restrit to his earthly activity.

Although I have offered responses before, I will summarise myself here, in five points corresponding to your five.

1 – Yes, as I have said before, the church is already being built while the foundational period is still present. I have never claimed that the apostles and prophets do not also contribute to the superstructure while they are still around. Remember that the foundation was not laid overnight, and not all in one place. The building analogy is a neat tidy picture for what is a drawn out process. The point is that it is a historical chain of events. I argued on more than one occasion that the context demands this understanding. You are in no position to say I didn’t address this, since after I offered this argument, you accepted it. You said, That is a good point, Glenn. The larger context does deal with a sequence of history. Right. So we have already agreed that the context does show us that this is a historical unfolding, presenting the “foundation” as a stage in history, forming part of God’s unfolding work through His people. That’s water under the bridge now.

2 – The possibility of a hendiadys? Well Gavin, if you offer any arguments for a hendiadys, I will consider them. But you haven’t offered any at al, so what do you expect me to do? The burden of proof for that one rests 100% with you. However, I’d make a comment to consider while you prepare your arguments for a hendyadis. In my last post, while discussing the fact that Eph 2:20 is talking about Apostles and prophets as foundational and authoritative phenomena, I noted:
Moreover, the scholar you seem to agree with most strongly, Wayne Grudem, shares my observations of Ephesians 2:20. He yields to the evidence, and accepts that the “Apostles and Prophets” are indeed authoritative and foundational. Clearly this is fatal to the continuationist position, so Grudem gets around it firstly by expending great energy in claiming that Eph 2:20 refers ONLY to Apostles who were also prophets,” and secondly he made what was at the time a new move by hypothesising a second type of prophecy, namely one that was not quite as authoritative as the prophecy of those mentioned in Eph 2:20.

In other words, the hendiadys hypothesis was invented, not because the evidence supported it, but because it became theologically necessary in order to get Grudem’s view of continuity out of an impossible bind. This alone makes it extremely suspect, especially when no exegetical warrant can be given for it from Eph 2:20.

Secondly, the hendiadys hypothesis renders Paul’s use of terms in Ephesians highly inconsistent. Only shortly after referring to the Apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church, Paul goes on to say in 4:11 (NIV)
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers…
When Paul refers to Apostles and prophets in Ephesians, he is referring to different things. In fact, I can’t think of any case, whether in Ephesians or elsewhere, where Paul refers to an Apostle as a prophet. This holds elsewhere in the NT as well, as in Revelation 18:20 (NIV)
Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets!
Surely nobody is going to argue that this is a hendiadys, for example.

So the hendiadys theory contributes nothing to your case. There is no evidence for it, and at least some evidence against it. The reason I didn’t address your arguments for it is that you actually haven’t given any evidence for it yet.

3 – The possible multiple meanings of “apostolos.” Well I’m sure you’re not going to suggest that I haven’t addressed this one. I have offered linguistic evidence to show that we should see the meaning as “Apostle,” unless there is very strong evidence to show an abnormal meaning. Since there is none here, there’s no issue. The word in Eph 2:20 means “Apostle,” not merely “messenger.” Grudem concedes this important point, and I strain to see why you refuse to.

4 – Whether the reference to the foundation of the church refers to a sequence of events. I’m surprised that you mention this, since you conceded my point on this one, and you haven’t offered any strong reasons to reject this view since then.

5 – Christ's inclusion as the cornerstone in verse 20, whose activity in the church is hard to restrict to his earthly activity. As you already know, I have addressed this one as well. I said:
The very opposite is the case. Paul is looking at God’s unfolding work through His people. Go back just a few verses to verse 11, and read the whole paragraph, right through to 3:6. He starts out saying that once Jews and Gentiles were aliens, but now God has made us one body, one temple, which has its roots in the ministry of the Apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone. The consistent theme is that God though Christ has made us one, and that this message has been delivered through God’s holy Apostles and prophets. It is ALL about the historical unfolding of God’s dealings – his unrepeatable dealings, I might add.
Thus, the foundation that Christ laid here is a historic one. Allow the context to control your reading, and you’ll see that the particular work of Christ this text is referring to is His making Jews and Gentiles one through His prior ministry. In fact, it is after I made this point that you conceded my point. You quoted the above paragraph, and immediately after it you said:
That is a good point, Glenn. The larger context does deal with a sequence of history.

So I repeat – I have dealt with these points already. On the more significant points of the list in fact, you accepted the arguments I gave, and on the minor ones it does not appear that my arguments have been rebutted (although this is not to say that you ignored them).

Finally before I leave the arguments over prophecy, I asked for some examples of the kinds of things that might happen in genuine cases of contemporary prophecy. Instead you referred to some New Testament references to prophecy. Well, those cases are worth reading, I’m sure, but the reason I that I wanted to see what you think contemporary prophecy entails in practice, and more importantly, whether or not it differs in any significant regard from things like “encouraging the brethren” or “rebuking” or “teaching” or a host of other things that can be accounted for without reference to prophecy. It seems to me that to make it mean anything ore than that, you rob yourself of the ability to say that it’s not authoritative. For example, if you say that prophecy today is “a word from the LORD,” then in the same breath you have said it is authoritative. So I’m curious. You say that you’ve not experienced many cases personally. That’s OK, I don’t need many. What happened on these few occasions?

You can respond to the arguments contained in this post if you like. However, I’m pretty sure that by now any readers of this thread have a good idea which arguments they find more persuasive (and in any case, your post was the first). So I’m going to begin moving towards the issue of “tongues,” what it is and whether it is still with us. Since you have the most experience in this area I’m sure, feel free to kick us off.

Best wishes,
Glenn

Gavin

August 17th 2003, 11:25 PM

Glenn, I don't know if you are still interested in continuing, but I have been swamped for the last few weeks. Let me know if you would like to go on.

Gavin

Dr. Jack Bauer

August 18th 2003, 01:18 AM

Today @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188681#post188681)
Gavin:

Glenn, I don't know if you are still interested in continuing, but I have been swamped for the last few weeks. Let me know if you would like to go on.
To be honest i don't really mind either way. I have just launched into a PhD down here, so it's not like I don't have plenty of other things to do!

If you find that life is pretty busy, then I have no objection to leaving it there.

Best wishes

Glenn

Gavin

August 18th 2003, 03:41 PM

Glenn,

maybe we should let this one go for now, but I would like to keep the door open for future discussion if that is ok with you. I have enjoyed and profited from conversing with you.

Blessings,
Gavin

Gavin

August 22nd 2003, 06:04 PM

Glenn,

I hope you don’t mind, but I had some spare time on my hands, and I was thinking through your last post, and I wanted to reply. If you don’t want to reply, then that’s fine, I will just be doing this for my own benefit.

Okay, I won’t be able to reply to everything, but there a couple of crucial comments you made that I want to address.

On Revelation 11:3, you argue that this passage does not teach that prophecy will continue in the church age. You write,

Now, if this is about the end times, then it does not follow that prophecy remains normative in the church right through to the end times. The verse itself says that this is divine intervention into history – “I will grant.” So even if prophecy is not normative, should God decide to intervene and give His two witnesses the ability to prophesy, where is the problem with that? The problem is yours – how can you possibly see the prophecy of Rev 11:3 as not authoritative?

I could argue that raptures happen in the church today, by pointing to the return of Christ in scripture. See? If it happens in the end times when particular supernatural events are taking place, then doe that mean it happens now? The error is clear, isn’t it?

Now if you will look carefully at my comment, Glenn, you will notice that I never once argued that Revelation 11:3 teaches continuationism. I agree with you that nothing in this verse demands that prophecy must exist in the church age.

What I wrote was:

It is seen as part of the end times, which is beyond the foundation (Revelation 11:3), and so on.

I wrote “and so on” because I had already made my point on this verse earlier on in our discussion, and I was merely alluding to it here. Earlier I wrote in my post on the non-authoritativeness of prophecy:

3) Against the claim that all forms of prophecy ceased with the closure of the canon stands Revelation 11:3, which sees prophecy as part of the end times.

You see, Glenn, my point about Revelation 11:3 is that not all prophecy stands in tension with the closed canon and bound up authority of Scripture. I am not arguing (from this verse, anyway) that prophecy must exist in the church, so for you to argue against that is a straw man and frustrating. I am arguing that principially prophecy existing after the canon (whether authoritative or not) is not a problem for the biblical writers. Thus this point is not a waste of time, but you misunderstanding my argument is.

Next you say that my interpretation of the passage is “highly controversial” because you think that a futurist understanding of the verse is irrelevant to its original audience. So are you suggesting that the events depicted in Revelation 11 have already occurred?

Lets look at the passage in context:

5If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here." And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
13At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
14The second woe has passed; the third woe is coming soon.

So let me ask you, for clarification before I offer a full argument, if you are really prepared to argue that all of these events occurred in the first century. Because that is what it looks like you are suggesting.

In sum: Revelation 11:3, though it does not prove that prophecy must exist throughout the church age, proves that prophecy can exist after the closure of the canon without damaging the unique authority status of the Bible. Otherwise the witnesses are false prophets.

On a side note, I do accept that the witnesses will certainly be prophesying with a degree of authority. My position is not that all prophecy is equivalently non-authoritative, but that any given prophecy may lie anywhere on the spectrum of authority, depending any number of variables. Some prophecy becomes canonized and is totally inerrant and authoritative, while other prophecy is given for specific situations at specific times and is never canonized. Given the large semantic rubric of the word “prophecy,” such that Peter can understand speaking in tongues in Acts 2 to fulfill Joel’s oracle about prophecy (cf. Numbers 11:29), or that Luke can refer to the Ephesians prophesying on reception of the Spirit along with speaking in tongues, some “prophecy” may not be authoritative at all, but merely encourage believers and evidence the Spirit. (Before you argue that this is a non-sequiter because it deals with cases rather than principles, see below.)

On Ephesians 2:20, you write:

Try to see it this way. Imagine there are 100 verses in the NT. The last verse says “prophecy is authoritative, and is part of the historical beginning of Christianity, just like the Apostolic ministry.” In each of the 99 verses before that, we have a historical case of somebody prophesying. Now, let’s say we take this NT, and start debating about it. You say that the prophecies it mentions are not (necessarily) authoritative, and I say they are. I take the final verse as proof. You object to this. You say, “ah, but you’re just taking ONE VERSE, and using it as the basis for understanding the others!”

Do you see the methodological error now? Obviously the NT is longer than 100 verses, but your counter evidence consists of cases, while my evidence consists of a principle that the New Testament lays down for understanding what those cases are. In such a situation, it is unavoidable that the explanatory text will be used to understand the case texts. Additionally, you haven’t successfully shown by using the cases, that the cases of prophecy in the NT do in fact violate the understanding of the general principle of Eph 2:20. So this criticism of yours must be set aside.

Your first paragraph there does not sum up the evidence very fairly. Ephesians 2:20 does not say that “prophecy is authoritative, and is part of the historical beginning of Christianity, just like the Apostolic ministry.” Its says the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. You cannot leap from one to the other. One is your interpretation, while the other is what the passage says. Your interpretation may be valid, but you cannot assume that it is and then use the two interchangeably to support your argument, as you appear to do here.

Moreover, the verse I dealt with were from I Corinthinans 14 as well, which contain principles, not merely cases (assuming for the moment that it is illegitimate to argue from cases in the first place).

In any case, my main point here is that the cases of prophecy in the New Testament are relevant for determining the authority of prophecy. For example, suppose (hypothetically) I wanted to argue that tongues speaking is never understood by those around who happen to hear it. Suppose I based this argument on I Corinthians 14:2: “for anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” Suppose, further, that you replied that this could not be the case, because in Acts 2 the onlookers understood the tongues at Pentecost (“when they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.”) and that I had therefore made a premature and hasty (perhaps reductionistic) judgement. Suppose, finally, that I replied: but you are relying on cases in which tongues occurs, whereas I am relying on “a principle that the New Testament lays down for understanding what those cases are.” Do you see the methodological error in relying only on principles in the epistles rather as opposed to cases in the Narrative books such as Acts?

So I ask you, Glenn (and I sincerely desire an answer): are you prepared to admit that God gave fully authoritative, innerant revelation to the 12 Ephesian converts in Acts 19:6 when they spoke in tongues? What reason would God have for doing this? Why would God give fully authoritative revelation to Philips’ four daughters? They could not speak authoritatively for the church because they were females (under either of our interpretations of I Corinthians 14), and nothing of what they said is recorded in Scripture. Are you willing to grant that Moses actually wished that all the Lord’s people would become prophets in the fully authoritative sense (Numbers 11:29)? Are you prepared to admit that everyone who speaks in tongues upon interaction with the Spirit, which is not a rare occurrence among God’s people in light of Acts 2:17-21, is on the same authority status as the apostle Paul?!?

You continue,

Additionally, it is question begging to say that I’m putting too much weight on Eph 2:20 and not taking seriously the evidence for your view that arises from passages like 1 Cor 14 (for example). It is question begging because it assumes that passages such as 1 Cor 14 DO offer reasons to reject my view of Eph 2:20. Now, this is obviously something we do not agree on. In fact, in light of the specific arguments you made from 1 Cor 14 which I responded to, I feel warranted in saying that there is nothing in such texts to overthrow the exegetical arguments I made from Eph 2:20. So it'’ just false to suggest that I’m not allowing other passages to be heard.

Well of course you feel warranted in saying that nothing in I Corinthians 14 contradicts your view of Ephesians 2:20. If it did, than it would not be your view. We clearly disagree on things in I Corinthians 14 such as what is being tested in 14:29, the prophecy (as in I Thessalonians 5:19) or the prophet, how to understand the tension between women prophesying and 14:34-37, the implications of the spontaneity of prophecy in 14:30, etc. So you saying that you feel justified in concluding that I am wrong and you are right is completely unhelpful for fruitful discussion.

On my five ambiguities in Ephesians 2:20 and your replies:

1 – Yes, as I have said before, the church is already being built while the foundational period is still present. I have never claimed that the apostles and prophets do not also contribute to the superstructure while they are still around. Remember that the foundation was not laid overnight, and not all in one place. The building analogy is a neat tidy picture for what is a drawn out process. The point is that it is a historical chain of events. I argued on more than one occasion that the context demands this understanding. You are in no position to say I didn’t address this, since after I offered this argument, you accepted it. You said,
“ That is a good point, Glenn. The larger context does deal with a sequence of history. ”

Right. So we have already agreed that the context does show us that this is a historical unfolding, presenting the “foundation” as a stage in history, forming part of God’s unfolding work through His people. That’s water under the bridge now.

Okay, me agreeing that the larger context deals with the sequence of history is nowhere near me agreeing that Paul is definitely thinking in sequential terms in the sense that you think he is (the cessationist sense) in this verse. I was making a small concession, and you are blowing it out of proportion IMO.

But even so, your reply does not address my point. The apostles and prophets are not merely contributing to the superstructure while they happen to still be around – not carefully what Paul says. “In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” Paul views the temple as already complete upon the time of his writing this! The superstructure has not merely begun: it has been finished and is already “joined together” and a “holy temple in the Lord”. He is therefore not thinking in sequential terms in the cessationist sense you adopt, but is speaking of the apostles and prophets foundational work in terms of importance. Nothing could be less important to Paul in Ephesians 2:20 than delineating a framework of different periods of spiritual gifts throughout church history.

2 – The possibility of a hendiadys? Well Gavin, if you offer any arguments for a hendiadys, I will consider them. But you haven’t offered any at al, so what do you expect me to do? The burden of proof for that one rests 100% with you. However, I’d make a comment to consider while you prepare your arguments for a hendyadis. In my last post, while discussing the fact that Eph 2:20 is talking about Apostles and prophets as foundational and authoritative phenomena, I noted:
“ Moreover, the scholar you seem to agree with most strongly, Wayne Grudem, shares my observations of Ephesians 2:20. He yields to the evidence, and accepts that the “Apostles and Prophets” are indeed authoritative and foundational. Clearly this is fatal to the continuationist position, so Grudem gets around it firstly by expending great energy in claiming that Eph 2:20 refers ONLY to Apostles who were also prophets,” and secondly he made what was at the time a new move by hypothesising a second type of prophecy, namely one that was not quite as authoritative as the prophecy of those mentioned in Eph 2:20. ”

In other words, the hendiadys hypothesis was invented, not because the evidence supported it, but because it became theologically necessary in order to get Grudem’s view of continuity out of an impossible bind. This alone makes it extremely suspect, especially when no exegetical warrant can be given for it from Eph 2:20.

Secondly, the hendiadys hypothesis renders Paul’s use of terms in Ephesians highly inconsistent. Only shortly after referring to the Apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church, Paul goes on to say in 4:11 (NIV)

Scripture Verse:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers…

When Paul refers to Apostles and prophets in Ephesians, he is referring to different things. In fact, I can’t think of any case, whether in Ephesians or elsewhere, where Paul refers to an Apostle as a prophet. This holds elsewhere in the NT as well, as in Revelation 18:20 (NIV)

Scripture Verse:
Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets!

Surely nobody is going to argue that this is a hendiadys, for example.

So the hendiadys theory contributes nothing to your case. There is no evidence for it, and at least some evidence against it. The reason I didn’t address your arguments for it is that you actually haven’t given any evidence for it yet.

Well, you knew Grudem’s evidence, all the examples he gives of similar article noun KAI noun constructions which are hendiadys’, so I did not think it necessary to rehash. Your criticisms of him are the typical ones, and fairly strong. But it is illegitimate for you to question Grudem’s motives and claim that he “invented” it out of theological necessity.

I suppose my view is that the hendiadys is possible but unlikely. I say possible because just because Paul is referring to different people in 4:11 does not mean that this cannot be a hendiadys here. Again your argument is strong, but inconclusive in and of itself. The same with the reference to Revalation 18:20. In terms of our debate, though, I will drop the point.

Next,
3 – The possible multiple meanings of “apostolos.” Well I’m sure you’re not going to suggest that I haven’t addressed this one. I have offered linguistic evidence to show that we should see the meaning as “Apostle,” unless there is very strong evidence to show an abnormal meaning. Since there is none here, there’s no issue. The word in Eph 2:20 means “Apostle,” not merely “messenger.” Grudem concedes this important point, and I strain to see why you refuse to.

Sure, you have addressed it, but your arguments were not conclusive. You overstate, even on the basis of the linguistic evidence you bring to the table, the unlikelihood of apostolos meaning messenger. You basically say that we must translate the word every time as apostle unless we have strong reason not to. This is simply not true. The NT uses the word in both senses enough for there to be uncertainty on how to translate it in other instances such as Ephesians 2:20. The evidence is not as strongly in your favor as you would like it to be, bluntly put.

4 – Whether the reference to the foundation of the church refers to a sequence of events. I’m surprised that you mention this, since you conceded my point on this one, and you haven’t offered any strong reasons to reject this view since then.

It is unfair for you to say I conceded this, see my point under 1 up there. I never conceded it. All I said was that the “larger context” deals with sequence. I did not say anything about this particular verse, or sequence in what sense. This point of ambiguity stands.

Finally for your question:
Finally before I leave the arguments over prophecy, I asked for some examples of the kinds of things that might happen in genuine cases of contemporary prophecy. Instead you referred to some New Testament references to prophecy. Well, those cases are worth reading, I’m sure, but the reason I that I wanted to see what you think contemporary prophecy entails in practice, and more importantly, whether or not it differs in any significant regard from things like “encouraging the brethren” or “rebuking” or “teaching” or a host of other things that can be accounted for without reference to prophecy. It seems to me that to make it mean anything ore than that, you rob yourself of the ability to say that it’s not authoritative. For example, if you say that prophecy today is “a word from the LORD,” then in the same breath you have said it is authoritative.

Okay, here is one example. Jack Deere starts out his book with it, _Surprised by the Voice of God_. A young man comes into Deere’s office. Deere repeatedly sees the word pornography flash through his mind. He ignores it but it does not go away, so he brings it up, and the man repents, etc. You can read it here. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310225582/ref=lib_rd_ss/102-7510006-5349750?v=glance&s=books&vi=slide-show#reader-link

Just click on “table of contents 1” and then read each subsequent page.

Gavin