3 Arguments against Cessationism

Object 1

The following arguments against cessationism by Matthew Slick are clear and succinct. Of course these are not conclusive, but they do provide fodder for those within the cessationist camp.

So, sit back, take your time, and read them over. If you have further points to add or rebuttals to make, feel free to make them in the comment section below.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Experiential Calvinism and the Charismatic Gifts, by Matthew Slick – Founder and President of CARM (Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry)

For simplicity sake, I will state a standard objection to the perpetuity of the spiritual gifts and then I will give what I believe is a basic but sufficient refutation for that argument. All the verses quoted are listed in full at the end of this paper.

Argument 1:Since we have the Bible we do not need spiritual gifts. 1 Cor. 13:8-10 is usually quoted as scriptural support for the position.

The only place in Scripture that explicitly states when gifts will cease is 1 Cor. 13:8-13. In part it reads, “When the perfect comes the imperfect shall be done away with.” Some vigorously maintain that the “perfect” is the completed Bible and, therefore, the extraordinary gifts are no longer needed. If someone wants to believe that, fine. But I do not think these verses can be used to support cessationism. This is why.

Verse 12 says, “…then we shall see face to face.” The word “then” refers back to the phrase “when the perfect comes.” Since the only infallible interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, a quick examination of the way God uses the term “face to face” should help us understand this passage better.

The phrase is used throughout the Bible and usually means an encounter with a person. When God uses it in reference to Himself, it means a visual, personal encounter with Him (Gen. 32:30; Ex. 33:11; Num. 12:8; Duet. 5:4; and Jer. 32:4). Likewise in the New Testament. There it is also used in speaking of personal encounter (2 Cor. 10:1; 2 John 12; 3 John 14, etc.). “When the perfect comes…then we shall see face to face” seems, most logically, to refer a personal encounter; at least, that seems to be how God uses the phrase.

If the position is taken that the “perfect” is the completed Bible, how then do we encounter God in the same manner as the phrase suggests: an encounter with a person. Seeing Christ face to face occurs when He returns.

Another “then” is mentioned in verse 12: “then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” The word “then” again refers back to the phrase “when the perfect comes.” Again, we need to look at how the Bible uses words, this time, the word “know.” Scripture says that eternal life is to know God (John 17:3). Only the believer is known by Jesus (John 10:27; Gal. 4:8-9; Rom. 8:29). The unbeliever is not known by Jesus (Matt. 7:21-23). No where in the Bible does it say that an unbeliever is known by God. This is a salvific knowing; that is, it is a kind of knowing that God does of His people. He knows them and they are saved. The unbelievers are not known and are,

1

therefore, not saved.

It would seem most consistent with scripture to say that “…as I am fully known” would refer to a salvation relationship between Jesus and the Christian. At the return of Christ we (the ones known) shall know fully; we shall see face to face the One who is our Savior.

Also, we don’t “know” Jesus through the Scripture; we know about Him from the Scripture (John 5:39). Instead, we know Him by personal encounter (John 1:12; 1 Cor. 1:9) through the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. We don’t know fully right now, even though we have the Bible, because we still are corrupted by our sin nature. In our fallen state we can only see Christ through sin-clouded eyes. We see a reflection of Christ in the Word. When Jesus returns the reflection of the truth will pass to clear understanding (the way childish thoughts give way to mature ones) when we receive our resurrected bodies, no longer have to battle sinful flesh, and can see Him face to face because “we shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2).. “Then we shall know fully.”

The context of 1 Cor. 13:8-13 seems, to me, to show that the spiritual gifts will cease when Jesus returns. Interestingly, 1 Cor. 1:7 may be consulted here. It says, “Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.” (NIV) The Greek word here for “revealed” is apokalupsis. It means the apocalypse, the return of Jesus. In both this verse and 1 Cor. 13:8-13 the gifts, which aren’t differentiated as to which kind they are, are connected to the return of Christ, not the completion of the Bible.

Argument 2:Present day tongues are further revelation and must then be equal to Scripture and should be included in the Bible. But since the Bible is not to be added to, the gift of tongues (and therefore, the rest of the spiritual gifts) must no longer be valid.

This is a faulty argument because the Scripture itself recognizes inspired revelation that is not to be added to the Bible: “What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor. 14:26). Here, in the Corinthian church, revelations were given that were not made part of the Bible. This shows that there were, for a lack of a better word, “different” kinds of revelation: one from the prophets and apostles meant for canonization and another through the Spirit to be used in the church for edification–not canonization. So, in my opinion, for someone to maintain that revelation today is a threat to the Canon does not consider 1 Cor. 14:26, is not applying scripture properly here, and is being illogical.

Argument 3:There is such misuse of the gifts that they couldn’t possibly be real.

First of all, misuse of the gifts implies their existence. They couldn’t be misused if they did not exist. The only real position to be taken here would be that the use of the gifts really is no use, but is only fakery and self-deception.

First, it cannot be denied that the gifts are misused. I have heard manifestations of tongues, interpretations of tongues, and prophecy that, in my opinion, were not genuine. But I do not discredit the gifts based upon those experiences anymore than I would say the spiritual gifts are alive because I saw them used well and accurately. The final authority is the word of God. Experience does not make doctrine, the Bible does.

2

Second, it is not a sick child that needs discipline and correction; it is the active, energetic, exploring child that needs to be guided. This was so with the Corinthian church. They were using the gifts greatly but improperly and needed to be corrected.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now 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. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Regarding “Face to Face”:

Genesis 32:30 – “So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Exodus 33:11 – “The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.”Numbers 12:8 – “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”Deuteronomy 5:4 – “The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.”Jeremiah 32:4 – “Zedekiah king of Judah will not escape out of the hands of the Babylonians but will certainly be handed over to the king of Babylon, and will speak with him face to face and see him with his own eyes.”2 Corinthians 10:1 – “By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you — I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” when away!”2 John 12 – “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”3 John 14 – “I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name.”

Regarding “Know”

John 10:27 – “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.”Galatians 4:8-9 – “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God — or rather are known by God — how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?”Romans 8:29 – “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…”Matthew 7:21-23 – “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

(http://reformedandreforming.org/2009/12/03/3-arguments-against-cessationism/ 14.November2010)

3

Cessationism(Didn't we pass that sign already?)To the cessationist - see what signs and wonders are found below:

• Cessationism Described • Closet Cessationists • Yet, Why Not Signs? • the Intimite Infinite • Ephesians and the apostles' roles • The More Things Change... • Paul, to Corinth • For the Masters or the Masses? • New Jots and Tittles? • the Circus of Humbug • Why Some, Not Others? • Where Does This Take Us? • The Gospel, Front and Center • Expectancy • The Bride and the Groom • Why Bother With Us?

Home > Theology and Pneumatology > Cessationism

What Is Cessationism?Do we get gifts, and what gifts do we get?cessationism: the belief that certain spectacular works, gifts, signs, and happenings from God ceased with the apostles, or at the very latest, ceased with those they directly taught.These gifts and signs include such things as :

• spontaneous speaking in strange languages ('tongues') • prophecy, • miracles, • (otherwise-) impossible strings of 'coincidences', • healings, • special insight into a person's motives and purposes, • exorcisms, • any other 'power' activities in which God exercises power over the order of nature and mind,

through people. As the cessationist sees it, the Church and its members today can't get these miraculous gifts, because God has stopped giving them. Most mainline Protestants, and nearly all Fundamentalists, are 'cessationists', whether they are fully aware of it or not.There had been cessationists since the days of the Church Councils. But as a well-defined viewpoint, modern cessationism starts with John Calvin. Back in the days of the Reformation, the Vatican had sent Robert Bellarmine to win back the people who had joined the Reformed churches. One of Bellarmine's main methods was to point to wondrous signs done by loyal Catholics, and then ask, 'Where's your miracles? How is God working through you?' For a while, at least, Bellarmine was quite effective. Calvin knew he had to respond to that specific challenge. Calvin replied :"The gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the new preaching of the Gospel marvelous forever."

4

(*Institutes*, Battle translation, 1960, p.1467).He drew this from Augustine of Hippo, who wrote when commenting on one particular sign in Acts 2:4 :"In the earliest times, 'the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,' which they had not learned, 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.' These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away."Cessationism has several theological/philosophical forms:

1. God created the church in ways that included unusual or miraculous acts. Then when the church had taken some hold, God allowed it to manage itself using its own abilities. In this view, God no longer has an active role in its doings. Thus, any outward signs of spirit activity are presumed to be false, or can be explained as merely a natural event. The ancients claimed these as powerful acts of God because they didn't know any better, and we do. Such happenings would then have no spiritual or supernatural meaning, and God did not have a hand in them. This is most often held by those who speak of humankind's 'coming of age' (that we as a species have become grown-ups).

2. The fundamentalist-dispensationalist holds that God hasn't left us, but rather gets involved by guiding the human conscience and mind through the Scriptures, not by giving special gifts that stand out or go beyond normal human ability. We no longer need the flashy signs or the mighty acts to help us develop a well-rounded faith. Since it's so easy to use and abuse spectacle and miracle, God no longer uses them. The Biblical examples were a 'starter course' to get the church going, and after that there was no need for them. This view is also held by many ex-Pentecostals.

It would be easy for me to caricature cessationism. But it wouldn't be fair or truthful.Many of them took up the cessationist view as a way of opposing something well worth their concern :

• claims are made by those with a flighty and unchecked version of the 'gift of prophecy', a version that has often been used as a tool to grab peoples' money, to boost a preacher's ego, manipulate or control other people, or to teach a bizarre notion;

• spectacular and supernatural claims are used, especially by ordinary folks, as something to hide their fragile faith behind so they can avoid asking themselves hard questions.

• important decisions are made because of those who are superstitious, or who believe everything they're told, or are not entirely sane, or are just naïve.

• it's easy to lose track of the good news of Christ because of all the hullabaloo around the spectacular happenings. (Calvin expressed his cessationism in terms of this.)

They also look at the history of the church, and notice that such things generally died down after the first few generations of the church, as if God had decided not to give what we would call 'dramatic' acts. They then see divine reasoning in that pattern.Many cessationists :

• thoroughly believe that the Spirit is afoot in today's world and especially among followers of Christ;

• do not make rationalism, science, or the Bible into their god; • are not devotionally sterile; • believe that God has the power to heal people, teach people, give insight, etc. • believe that God actually does heal people, teach people, give insight, etc.., but chooses to

do it only through the ordinary, mundane, day-to-day things and through normal natural means.

That said, the largest group of those who are cessationist by belief are Reformed, Fundamentalist, or Rationalist.

5

Also, a lot of people say they are open to belief in the unusual or supernatural. If you asked them, most of them would admit the "possibility" of it, but, in effect, not the living reality of it. Truth be told, most people are practical or 'closet' cessationists. (Even many who attend Pentecostalist churches.) It hasn't happened to them or their loved ones, and (with some cause) they distrust people they know who say that it happened to them. This has little to do with a 'scientific worldview' -- most folks aren't that logical.Another reason is that they've been personally 'burned'. At some point in their lives, they found themselves hoping and/or praying for some act of power to come sweeping into their lives -- sometimes, they hoped in real desperation and need. But it didn't happen. Some of them are still paying a price they would not have had to pay if it did happen. Since they can't get themselves to dare shake their fist at God about it, they adapt their outlook and their thinking to the idea that God doesn't do that sort of thing anymore. Theirs is a cessationism born in travail. What's the matter with this picture?That all sounds good -- practical, wise, buttoned-down, religious. Except that in detail, it isn't quite true, at least not in the way it seems to be. (Not all of the points that follow apply to all cessationists, but each part applies to a different set of cessationist arguments, and thus are intended to add up.)The Intimate InfiniteFor one thing, the testimony of Scripture and the experience of Christians over two millenia is that God is intimately involved with the world, with the Church, and with each follower, withdrawing only from a person or society that shuts God out, or as a short-term strategy to remind us of that intimate presence by having us feel its absence. Indeed, the whole point of Christ's coming as the Christmas baby ('immanu 'el, God-with-us) was precisely that kind of closeness. This is the Christ who told us of God's care for the sparrow, and even greater care for us, the Christ who said he will be with us to the end, for whom the Spirit was sent among us all to keep us until his physical return. God has not ceased working in the world we're in.According to Acts chapter 2, what was given to the few (leaders, prophets, and such) is now breaking out all over the place, tongues to all the upper-room witnesses as both a sign and a characteristic of the beginning of the end of what was. The new era's mark is that the sons, the daughters (including the deacon Philip's), and even bondservants are doing strange and powerful things due to the poured-out Spirit. God will do whatever it takes to build up the Body and further the Kingdom, and that includes the spectacular, the unusual, and the powerful. God's there among us, unseen, to help preserve our freedom not just our survival, but on occasion does something visible as a reminder, something that acts like a glimpse of God's backside for us. Of course, there was the special role of the apostles, who were given authority by God to do many powerful things at any moment they deemed right, including healing. But they weren't the only miracle-workers. Indeed, Paul's discussion of gifts in 1 Corinthians presupposes that the letter's readers have gifts, some of which are unusual, and that they can be given even greater gifts. The Corinth congregation was not made up of apostles. So Paul's not speaking of gifts owned by apostles, but gifts given to and used by the whole Body and each part within it. The apostles' testimony had to remain after they were gone. That was the purpose of writing the Gospels and Acts. The Epistles were written as these apostle/witnesses did their apostolic duty. They and their role were about to pass from the scene, but new roles would arise in their place, some already foreshadowed in the Epistles. And those in the new roles were still being given the power to live in the Spirit.Ephesians 2:19-21Where did the idea that wonders ceased with the apostles come from? Part of it came when it was noticed that wonders were noticeably reduced within a generation after the last living apostle. (It may be that they just simply took place more quietly -- but that's for another argument.) Yet that by itself is not enough; we must ask, "What does Scripture say about it?" So the other part of it came

6

from an interpretation of Ephesians 2:19b-20 (NRSV) : "you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone." The problem with that is that the subject matter in this Ephesians passage is not wonders or gifts or exorcisms or signs. It is about the gathered believers as the Body of Christ -- that is, the church itself. And while it gives a special role to "apostles and prophets", what is it that makes them stand out most? It is that they are the most direct witness to God: the apostles, who were trained by Jesus, and the prophets, to whom God spoke. They are witnesses to the One who is special, the One in whom, according to v. 21, "the whole structure is joined together". Thus, if there are wonders, they are for and from Christ, who is with His followers today no less than He was then. The church didn't cease after the apostles, so why would this passage infer that wonders ceased with them? The important question then is, if Christ is still with us, are we still with Christ?The More Things Change...Most Christians think of the apostolic era as being so different from ours. They were living 2000 years ago, in their culture, in their lifetime, and so did Jesus. Technology was simple. Travel and communications were slow. But their worries, concerns, enjoyments, desires, questions and cynicisms were actually much like what we have today, just in a different mix. They needed the power of Christ's victory, and the comforts and gifts of the Spirit, to face up to the challenge. And God gave it to them. Today, in the Western world, the (grand-) sons and daughters of strong believers make up a majority that says it is 'spiritual but not religious'. A vague belief or interest in Jesus still exists among them, but He is not the Savior to them. They certainly don't believe in 'church', or 'doctrine', and they don't treat the primary sources we have about Jesus, the four gospels, as being accurate or helpful. In a sense, they're immunized against the very things their grandparents held dear and built their lives upon. Acts of power may prove to be important for breaking through, especially when done at the level today's people understand best -- to only one or a few, away from view of others, without the hype they so rightly distrust. We need the power, the comfort, the direction, and the signs from the Spirit today no less (and possibly more) than they did 2000 years ago. God gives them now too, occasionally in a mind-blowing way. But will we bother to read the signs?What About Paul and Corinth?Cessationists sometimes refer to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 as saying that the gifts have ended. But look closer at the context. Paul was telling us that the gifts will eventually end because "when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with" (v.10). Paul was not just speaking of the end of gifts, but of the end of all earthly matters, gifts included, keying on what will last, "faith, hope, and love" (v.13). All gifts and signs are "temporal" - earthly things made for life on earth in human society - even if their source is not. Like anything else found in life, the Spirit's gifts are made to work in a world where nothing lasts, where all is broken and partial in some way. Gifts, like all that is earthly, will be done away with when the perfect (or 'completed') comes, namely, the Kingdom of God in all its glory. Paul is also not saying they were given just for his time. He's talking about the character and nature of gifts. It's in the character and nature of faith, hope, and love to stay with us even beyond time itself; the character and nature of earthly life, no matter how great and wonderful, is that it does not. To argue that Paul is saying that the gifts are ending, one would have to say that time has already finished up, the Kingdom is in full force, we're in the new completed world, and we can now see God and God's truth 'face to face' instead of just 'in part' (v. 12). Yeah, riiiight. That's not how it is now -- but Paul insists it will be someday. And when that someday comes, the gifts of all kinds will no longer be needed, just as an adult doesn't need childish thinking, just as those looking into God's face have no need to look through a looking-glass. The signs will not be needed, because you're where the signs were leading you to. Jesus himself says the same thing about something as sacred to Him as marriage. For the Masters or the Masses?

7

Then, there are those who think that the spectacular gifts are only for the true spiritual masters, that they come through a special relationship with God that is beyond the realm of ordinary Christians. But in his letters to the Corinthians, Paul was writing to a divided, muttering body of people who still had a long way to go with their belief. Yet they had tongues and prophecy, and other extraordinary and ordinary signs and gifts. Also, the acknowledged spiritual masters in church history, such as Francis of Assisi and Theresa of Avila, would have recoiled at the idea of such spiritual elitism. They worked wonders, but did not think it strange that others would too, if God wanted them to. And, modern history has ample examples of the disaster that happens when people start following someone who seems to be closer to God than they could ever themselves be. God does not play the 'better than' game; all sorts of things are given to all sorts of people.New Jots and Tittles?Most cessationists also claim that any new miraculous sign, and in particular the gift of prophecy, is by its very nature a way of adding something to Scripture. But that would only be true if an authoritative or normative claim were being made for the miracle. (That is, the sign is what their teaching is to be authorized by or measured by.) There are well-known pentecostalist preachers who base some of their teaching on what is "revealed" to them, and such use is indeed this sort of serious error. But most other pentecostalists and charismatics refuse to make that claim. They use what they call the 'gift of prophecy' for guidance, not unlike what a scholar does by using scholarly books in studying the Bible, or when a student asks his/her mentor about it. All kinds of guidance are sifted by Scripture through the prayerful use of means of discernment. This is not because God may have gotten it wrong, but because it is so easy for us to get it wrong.Humbuggery?But, many ask, what about the fakery, the egotism, the abuse and warpage of real gifts? Isn't that reason enough to shun it? We must remember what kind of a creature we are dealing with here. To use an old-fashioned word, "sinful". God puts up a sign of the Kingdom, but we're the ones who turn the sign another way and point it to a circus of humbug. God knows we're sinful. But the Lord also refuses to give in to it. Our fell deeds do not stop God from working with us and through us. (If it were otherwise, there would not have been a Christ, and then where would we be?) Instead of not giving, our generous God gives, then holds responsible those to whom it is given, and also those who claim about its being given. A gift is there to help other people be better. A sign is there to give a glimpse of the power and the right-ness of living as citizens of the Kingdom. That sort of living is the responsibility. The body of believers, the church universal, has responsibility too, for discerning what is happening, and speaking truth to it. If we want to really grow up in our faith, we have to take hold of our responsibility rather than walk away from it.What of Those Who Need It?The biblical, theological, and sociological arguments for cessationism are not all that hard to counter. The difficult challenge is that there are some people -- not many, but some -- who really needed a miracle healing, or whose life could possibly change direction by a powerful sign, or who could be rescued from treachery by divinely-given insight into what other people are doing, and would be condemned to suffer without it. Many of them got such help, but many more others did not. You don't need to have cessationist beliefs to find yourself asking questions : Why wouldn't a loving God do something powerful for all of them? Is this a God of caprice, hoarding up scraps of divine rescue power and then just flinging them around randomly?A hard truth here is that true divine acts of wonder and power are intentionally rare, not common. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't see them as 'wonders'; we'd think of them the way we think of driving a car or clicking a mouse. God likes being hidden. It gives the creatures God loves more freedom to be a part of shaping the divinely-created world. God prefers to work "incarnationally" (that is, through materials and material beings like us). God doesn't have to work that way (as a Reformed believer would put it, "God is sovereign"), but chooses to do it that way, and that includes working wonders through us. In the Kingdom to come, God's power will be constantly in visible

8

action. Some signs of that Kingdom will show such power in action, right here, just because that's the way the Kingdom is. Since such moments are rare, not everyone will get it, because this world is not the Kingdom. And because God works through us, we have responsibility to take action as God leads us. Too many wonders block that responsibility; too few lets us doubt that we have anyone to be ultimately responsible to. Our responsibility is to act with the more ordinary gifts God has given us to personally build up those who could really use a sign of God's love.But that's just a partial answer. It still doesn't say why this one who needs it gets a wonder and not another. Another part of the answer is that God understands better than we do what is really needed. But there's still something missing, almost as if God's being let entirely off the hook, a feeling born of empathy for those who would be helped in a major way if something would happen. In a sense, this is tied into the question of God's role in human suffering. Suffering is widely recognized as one of the most impenetrable mysteries of life. Which means that, while I can puzzle out much of the picture, a full understanding of suffering is frustratingly beyond my grasp, or yours, or anyone else's. At least some part of it I just don't know, and there is good reason to doubt that I ever will in this lifetime. I can live with that mystery. There's no other way to live but to live with that mystery; as far as I can tell, that's true of all of us, including cessationists. Where does this take us?Let's look again at what Calvin said in response to Bellarmine. Calvin found his answer in one of the threads of Augustine's theology, in the idea that some signs needed to be done under the authority of an apostle. Calvin took that strand of Augustine's thinking, and expanded it beyond what Augustine was talking about, for the sake of the practical task of protecting the Reformation against its foes. In doing so, Calvin was standing against most of the Church's thinkers of the first three centuries, most of Eastern Orthodoxy, all Anabaptists, and some of the key sources for renewal of the Catholic church such as St. Bernard and St. Francis. (Even Augustine himself noted that some believers around his own city were indeed doing miraculous things.) Cessationism was just one part of Calvin's vast legacy to the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions, but it's one part which many churchgoers, including many Calvinists, have since come to question.Putting the Gospel front and centerCessationism seems so logical, so sensible. Yet, nothing in Scripture says that any kind of gift has ended, and the thrust of Scripture says it hasn't. Cessationists defend the idea that the wonders had to cease for the Gospel to take center stage, but in point of fact that didn't happen. What makes the Gospel take center stage is lives lived in its light, and this is itself a wonder and a miracle of the highest order in a world such as ours. And a goodly many of those wondrous lives took off from an unusual sign or experience or blessing. The Spirit who did this is still at work. According to the Scriptures, at the very start of the Church, at the time when the Gospel most had to be at center stage, signs and wonders and miracles and gifts were happening, in a way that clearly furthered the Gospel. It was both/and, not either/or. The same can just as well be true today. And I am convinced it is.ExpectationsMany Christians (the ones who are charismatics) go a step further. Since God gives the Spirit to all believers, we can trust that God will give us some sort of gift, whatever gift God wants us to have at the moment or in our life situation. And we can also trust that God will put it to use, with whatever level of force or drama or effectiveness is needed. In this view, one should expect (not demand or command) that powerful things are going to happen as people spread the gospel and live it out. These may even be dramatic and miraculous. It is foolish to underestimate God, for whom nothing is impossible. In a way, this teaching on 'expectancy' is right -- so long as you don't expect a specific thing done a specific way at a specific time. God works on God's agenda, not ours. Expectancy must be rooted in hope and trust, not certainty or command. Expect God to act -- in God's own way, for God's own purposes. There will be many times when our reach exceeds our grasp, but trying and

9

failing is itself part of the way we learn what God is up to.The Bride and the GroomThe relationship between God and the Church is that of betrothed lovers, Bride and Groom, not passing acquaintances or CEO-to-line-employee. The gifts are not at steady levels. Lovers are not always in the mood to accept each others' gifts. But the doors of love open wider again with time. Theologically, I can't limit God by saying that God mustn't be giving gifts today. I must watch, live through it, and learn. When I do I cannot come to any other conclusion that indeed God is lavishing all of the gifts upon our era. Some amazing and spectacular, many downright ordinary, some that we still haven't come to recognize as God's gifts, some I can't even imagine. But they are here. And we are to use these gifts to build each other up in faith, to uncover evil and falsehood, and to carry out the church's mission.The key thing isn't whether someone believes in power gifts or miracles. The most important matter is whether they put their trust in the God who gives such gifts.Why Bother Working in Us?A fair question.Many philosophers have asked a question that may be hard for the rest of us to honestly ask ourselves : Why would the Spirit be at work among a people as stubborn as humankind?It's a fair question, but one whose answer is ultimately rather simple : God's love. God sent Christ, and then the Spirit, because humankind is so disobedient. They were sent as God's way of handling our disobedience. The Holy Ghost will not get spooked off by our ways. Today's humans can shut the Spirit out of him/herself, but can't stop the Spirit from taking action in other ways and through other people, places, and things. There is, to be blunt, no reason why the Spirit would not or could not or does not give visions, miracles, prophecy, healings, and other ordinary and extraordinary gifts -- or at least no reason that wasn't also true in days of the apostles when the Spirit gave such gifts.God lives! Christ is risen! The Spirit is among us! How could great and impossible things not happen??back to top

"Given the dearth of explicit evidence, it strains credulity to postulate a point in time (whether the death of the last apostle, the end of New Testament canon formation, completion of the church, or whatever) that effects a dramatic mutation in the Spirit's person and work so that he is no longer the power-anointing, charismatic being he once was, but is now restricted solely to his inner-transforming work."D.A. Oss, in *Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Four Views*, ed. Wayne Grudem (IVP, 1996) p.271

(http://www.spirithome.com/cessatio.html 14Novmeber2010)

Prophecy and Tongues: A Compilation of the Best Cessationist Arguments

By Lee Irons

Although today's charismatic excesses have developed beyond the earlier practice of speaking in tongues into a veritable charismatic freak show (witness the ecstatic phenomena associated with the Toronto blessing), the more narrow issue of whether tongues are for today still needs to be addressed. I have not attempted to address the many other theological issues involved (such as the theology of the second blessing, the role of subjective experience in the Christian life, and so on). What follows is merely a compilation of the best Cessationist arguments demonstrating that tongues

10

and prophecy have ceased with the close of the apostolic age. By no means are these arguments original with me. I have relied heavily on the work of Richard Gaffin in Perspectives on Pentecost (1979), which I consider to be the best book on the subject. In fact, much of what follows is merely a simplified outline of Gaffin's arguments, and I quote him quite liberally. Other sources are also cited by way of corroboration and exposition.

Statement of the Cessationist thesis

Positive affirmations

A pivotal presupposition

The presupposition stated

The presupposition proved

The presupposition defended

Three Cessationist arguments

The argument from the closing of the canon

The argument from Ephesians 2:20

The argument from tongues as a sign

An agnostic note on I Corinthians 13:8-13

Sources cited

Statement of the Cessationist thesis

"Cessationism" is here defined as the thesis that some of the gifts (and their corresponding offices) described in the New Testament are ordinary and perpetual, while others were extraordinary and have accordingly been withdrawn from the life of the church with the close of the apostolic age.

Ordinary gifts/offices

(for justification of this three-fold classification, see Brown)

1. Pastors and teachers - Rom. 12:7; Eph. 4:11; I Tim. 3:1-7 2. Elders (gift of rule and government) - I Cor. 12:28; Rom. 12:8; I Tim. 5:17 3. Deacons (gift of serving, distribution, mercy) - Rom. 12:7-8; I Tim. 3:8-13

Extraordinary gifts/offices

(I Cor. 12:28-30; Eph. 4:11)

1. Apostles 2. Prophets (word of wisdom; of knowledge - I Cor. 12:8)

11

3. Evangelists 4. Distinguishing between spirits (I Cor. 12:10) 5. Tongues 6. Interpretation of tongues 7. Workers of miracles; healing ("faith" included here? I Cor. 12:9)

Note on the relation between gift and office

We cannot go into detail here, but it seems reasonable to assume that there is a close relationship between gift and office. In the case of the extraordinary gifts, it is not necessary to assume that an apostle was required to lay hands on every one who was given an extraordinary gift (though this did occur in some instances - Acts 8:17; 19:6; II Tim. 1:6). Rather, the charismatic endowment itself would have constituted one's ordination in such cases.

With regard to the ordinary gifts, the following picture emerges. In the Pastorals (which give us a glimpse of the order to be perpetuated in the church after the apostolic age), we see that qualifications (I Tim. 3:1-13), probationary testing (I Tim. 3:10), and ordination (I Tim. 5:22; Tit. 1:5) were becoming fixed elements in the setting apart of official leaders in the church who have gifts of teaching (pastor), rule (elder), or mercy (deacon).

In addition to such special offices, there is also the general office of all believers (Eph. 4:11-13). Since all in the body of Christ are gifted spiritually, each one may (and ought to) exercise his or her gifts "for the work of the ministry" and the edification of the body, without necessarily having to be ordained to a special office (Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:16; I Pet. 4:10-11).

Positive affirmations

Return to table of contents

The question is not whether Cessationists accept (or deny) the reality of the Holy Spirit's work in the lives of believers.

The Cesssationist position affirms that all believers possess "the gift" of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 7:37-39; Acts 2:38; I Cor. 12:13). All who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into the Holy Spirit.

It further affirms that the post-apostolic church continues to be blessed with various distributions of the Holy Spirit ("gifts") for the edification of the body of Christ through various forms of ministry (I Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11-16). Every believer has both "the gift" and "gifts." But not all believers have all the gifts, since they are distributed as God wills (I Cor. 12).

In addition, the Cessationist position does not deny the subjective, experiential aspect of the Christian life which may properly be regarded as one element of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. So profound and mysterious is the Spirit's work in the lives of believes that it may at times be "beyond words" (Rom. 11:33; II Cor. 9:15; 12:4; I Pet. 1:8), ministering to us at a level of our being that may seem to supersede our intellect. The Spirit ministers to us …

• by helping us to pray (Rom. 8:26-27; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20) • by pouring God's love into our hearts (Rom. 5:5) • by sealing us with a foretaste of heavenly glory (II Cor. 1:21f; Eph. 1:13f) • by sanctifying us (I Cor. 6:11; I Pet. 1:2) • by filling us with love, joy, peace, hope, etc. (Rom. 15:13; Gal. 5:22f)

12

• by quickening us with power to mortify the flesh (Rom. 8:13) • by testifying to our spirit that we are sons of God (Rom. 8:15f)

This list is certainly incomplete, and undoubtedly many of the above aspects of the Spirit's ministry overlap and become indistinguishable in actual experience.

Cessationists also affirm that, although every true child of God has the Spirit as a permanent gift (Rom. 8:9), the believer's subjective experience of the Spirit is variable. Hence it is possible to grieve and quench the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30; I Thess. 5:19), and, conversely, we are commanded to be filled with and to walk in the Spirit (Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:25).

A pivotal presupposition

The presupposition stated

Return to table of contents

"Tongues in the NT are always closely associated with prophecy and, when interpreted, are functionally equivalent to prophecy, as revelation from God which edifies others. In fact, tongues are a mode of prophecy." (Gaffin, p. 102) "We may even speak of the essentially prophetic nature of tongues, the difference being that tongues, unlike prophecy, require interpretation to be understood by others." (Gaffin, p. 80)

The presupposition proved

Return to table of contents

1. "A deliberate contrast between prophecy and tongues structures the whole chapter. This pair runs like a backbone down the body of almost the entire argument …. The pairing of prophesy and tongues that structures I Corinthians 14 ultimately roots in the fact that both are revelatory word-gifts." (Gaffin, pp. 56, 81). "What ties prophecy and tongues together, what they have in common that makes them comparable (contrastable) and explains their functional equivalence, is that both are word-gifts." (Gaffin, p. 58)

2. The interpretability of tongues (I Cor. 12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26-28) indicates that they are an intelligible communication from God. They must therefore be divine revelation. (This point is valid regardless of whether the tongues at Corinth were actually existing languages.)

3. According to I Cor. 14:5 ("he who prophecies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets"), interpreted tongues are functionally equivalent to prophecy. (Robertson, p. 27) "The fundamental inferiority or depreciation of tongues relative to prophecy apparently applies only to uninterpreted tongues and is removed when interpretation takes place." (Gaffin, p. 57)

4. "The inspired, revelatory character of tongues is also seen in the fact that by the Spirit 'one who speaks in a tongue … speaks mysteries' (I Cor. 14:2)." Cp. I Cor. 13:2. (Gaffin, p. 79) "This term 'mysterion' in the NT has a very specific meaning which inherently includes the idea of the communication of divine revelation." (Robertson, p. 23)

5. "In Acts we find indications of a definite association between prophecy and tongues." Acts 2:4 (cf. vv. 17-18, citing Joel 2:28ff); 19:6 ("they spoke in tongues and prophesied"). (Gaffin, pp. 81-82)

6. Careful exegesis of I Cor. 14:14 (see 2 b below) leads to the following translation: "For if I pray in a tongue, the Spirit in me [or, the spirit given to me] prays, but my intellect lies fallow" (NEB). Thus, one who speaks in tongues speaks words inspired by the Holy Spirit,

13

and that is the definition of prophecy. Cp. v. 2. (Gaffin, pp. 73-78) The presupposition defended

Return to table of contents

The fact that Scripture mentions other secondary uses of tongues does not undermine the fundamentally prophetic and revelatory character of the gift itself. The following three arguments have been used in an attempt to elevate other secondary uses of the gift of tongues and in this way to minimize or eliminate the prophetic/revelatory element:

1. "There is an exclusively Godward use of tongues"

2. "Tongues may have a nonrevelatory function"

3. "Tongues are for private edification"

1. An exclusively Godward use of tongues?

"In I Corinthians 14 Paul says that 'one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God' (v. 2) and that tongues involve 'praying,' 'singing,' and 'giving thanks' to God (vv. 14-17). An argument sometimes raised against the revelatory nature of tongues at Corinth is that this Godward direction of tongues is not the direction of revelation."

Response:

"Such an appeal … overlooks the Psalms and other doxological portions of Scripture. Are we to say that because they are addressed to God and not to men, they are therefore not revelation? On the contrary, with their Godward direction they are inspired revelation and recorded in Scripture in order that they may edify his covenant people, and this is precisely what (interpreted) tongues also are to do (v. 5)." (Gaffin, p. 80)

Return to "The presupposition defended"

2. Nonrevelatory tongues?

I Cor. 14:14 says: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." This text purportedly teaches that there is a nonrevelatory function for tongues as a sub-rational, non-conceptual expression of that which is deepest in the believer's spirit.

Response:

This view must take "my spirit" as a reference to the human spirit, and must place it in contrast with "my mind". But this is exegetically untenable for the following reasons:

• NT anthropology never pits man's "spirit" and "mind" against one another. The only dualism scripture accepts is that between the body and the spirit/mind/heart/soul, or between "the outer man" and "the inner man." The fact that Paul can speak of "being renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Eph. 4:23), shows that "spirit" and "mind" belong to the same basic semantic domain. Cp. also Mark 12:30. (Gaffin, pp. 74f)

• The word "spirit" in I Cor. 14:14 should not be interpreted anthropologically (as a component of the human psychology) but charismatically (as a reference to the gift given to each prophet by the Holy Spirit). This is an established usage: "The one who speaks in a tongue … speaks mysteries with [his] spirit" (v. 2); "since you are eager to have spiritual gifts" (lit. "spirits," v. 12); "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (v. 32); "to another, distinguishing between spirits" (I Cor. 12:10); "Do not believe every spirit, but test

14

the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (I Jn. 4:1); "the God of the spirits of the prophets" (Rev. 22:6).

Return to "The presupposition defended"

3. Private use of tongues for self-edification?

I Cor. 14:4 tells us that "he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself." Usually, this verse is quoted in connection with an anthropological interpretation of "spirit" in vv. 2 and 14 (which we have examined above and found wanting). The argument is that, although tongues must be translated if exercised in public, they are still spiritually beneficial to the individual when used privately ("If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God," v. 28).

Response A:

"Any private use of tongues is not a gift somehow separable from, in addition to, or independent of its public exercise together with interpretation, as if the gift of tongues is given to some for private use, to others for public use (with interpretation). Rather, any private use of tongues is a strictly ancillary, peripheral aspect of the gift; private tongues are an accompanying, subsidiary benefit enjoyed by the recipient of the gift (to be interpreted) with its distinctive revelatory function. Note that it is just the prayer-tongue and the praise (song)-tongue (vv. 14f), usually seen to be central to the private exercise of the gift, which stand under the repetition of Paul's command for interpretation (v. 13; cf. v. 5). The view which holds that tongues are given primarily for the personal prayer life of the believer and not for public exercise in the congregation, along with interpretation, can be said only to have completely inverted Paul's outlook in I Corinthians 14." (Gaffin, p. 83)

Response B:

It is precisely this non-intellectual, sub-rational aspect of inspired, ecstatic speech that made the gift of tongues so attractive to the immature Christians at Corinth. And it is precisely this aspect that Paul wants to control, limit, and minimize. It is true that he does not out-right forbid speaking in tongues (in fact, he forbids that it be forbidden - 14:39). But he does chide the Corinthians for their immature priorities (14:20), since they had exalted ecstatic utterance over intelligent, edifying speech (prophecy, interpretation of tongues). Paul allows this ecstatic gift, obviously, because it was a genuine gift of the Spirit for that time, but he demands that this gift be exercised in a guarded fashion, precisely because of the abuses that can arise due to its necessarily non-rational, ecstatic element. He limits it in three ways:

• Like prophecy, tongues are subject to evaluation and discernment of its content by fellow-prophets in the setting of the assembled church (I Cor. 12:10; 14:29). All purported inspired, ecstatic utterances must be judged to see whether they are "in accordance with the analogy of the Faith" (Rom. 12:6 - for exegesis see Gillespie, ch. 1). "Do not treat prophecies with contempt; test everything; hold on to the good" (I Thess. 5:20f; cp. I Jn. 4:1-3).

• According to Gillespie, the pneumatics at Corinth apparently believed that unintelligible, ecstatic utterance (glossolalia) was the chief validating sign of authentic intelligible speech (prophecy). "Those who were spiritual infants view [tongues] as the sine qua non of the work of the Spirit, indeed, as the confirming 'sign' of prophetic utterance." (Gillespie, p. 160)

• But in I Cor. 12:1-3 Paul counters this simplistic and immature evaluation of the importance of tongues. To paraphrase: "You know that evidences of ecstasy are an unreliable criterion of authentic divine inspiration because in your pagan past they led you to the dumb idols (v. 2). Therefore (dio) the genuineness of all prophetic utterances must be judged on the basis of

15

their material content alone (v. 3)." (Gillespie, p. 83) • This second limitation is closely related to the first, but adds another dimension: ecstatic

speech is not sufficient evidence that one is under the inspiration of the Spirit. • In keeping with the requirement that tongues be in accordance with the orthodox apostolic

gospel, Paul insists that they be translated in order that their orthodox content may edify the body. It is clear that such intelligent, rational, doctrinal edification is the only justification for exercising tongues in the assembly. If they cannot serve that purpose, they merely puff up the gift's possessor with pride, which is the opposite of love (I Cor. 13).

• Therefore, to argue that a private, self-edifying, nonrevelatory use of tongues should continue today would be to miss the central thrust of Paul's argument in I Cor. 14. For it is precisely this ecstatic, non-rational element which Paul insists must be made totally subservient to the public, testable, corporate, revelatory function of the gift. According to Paul, any nonrevelatory benefit of ecstatic speech is to be regarded as a secondary, ancillary side-effect of the gift's proper purpose and function, and therefore not something to be sought apart from that purpose and function.

• "The notion of nonrevelatory tongues, as the uninhibited vocalizing if the preconceptual, mind-less side of the personality … is not taught in I Corinthians 12-14, or elsewhere in the NT." (Gaffin, p. 81)

Return to "The presupposition defended"

Three Cessationist Arguments

Return to table of contents

A. The argument from the closing of the canon

B. The argument from Ephesians 2:20

C. The argument from tongues as a sign

A. The Argument from the Closing of the Canon

Return to table of contents

1. The apostolate was as much an unrepeatable, redemptive-historical event as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, because "the announcement of redemption cannot be separated from the history of redemption itself." (Ridderbos, pp. 12-15).

2. The apostolate was closed after the calling of Paul, since he states that Christ appeared to him "last of all" (I Cor. 15:8 - see Jones for detailed exegesis). The Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession has no exegetical foundation (Cullmann, pp. 207, 236).

3. The presence of the apostolate was a necessary condition for the production of the inspired New Testament scripture. "The redemptive-historical ground of the New Testament canon must be sought in [the] apostolic authority and tradition." (Ridderbos, p. 24)

4. Therefore, like the apostolate, the New Testament scripture is an unrepeatable, unique, and completed redemptive-historical event. "When understood in terms of the history of

16

redemption, the canon cannot be open; in principle it must be closed. That follows directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power of the apostles received from Christ… The closed nature of the canon thus rests ultimately on the once-for-all significance of the New Testament history of redemption itself, as that history is presented by the apostolic witness." (Ridderbos, p. 25)

5. The passing of the apostolate necessarily implies the closure of the canon of the New Testament.

6. For prophecy (including tongues-see "a pivotal presupposition" above) to continue on into subsequent sub-apostolic generations of the church, beyond the foundational period, would necessarily create tensions with the closed, finished character of the canon. In fact, such a continuation would exclude a completed canon in the strict sense. (Gaffin, p. 100).

7. Therefore, the prophetic gifts (prophecy, tongues, etc.) have been withdrawn from the church upon the closing of the NT canon.

B. The Argument from Ephesians 2:20

Return to "Three Cessationist arguments"

Return to table of contents

1. Technically, this is not a separate argument from the preceding one. It fundamentally relies on the same theological considerations (the uniqueness and temporary nature of the apostolate). However, it is still pedagogically useful to set this argument up separately, since it is based on an explicit proof-text rather than theological deduction alone.

2. "The decisive, controlling significance of Ephesians 2:20 (in its context) needs to be appreciated…. I Corinthians 14 … has a relatively narrow focus and is confined to the particular situation at Corinth. Ephesians, on the other hand, may well be a circular letter, originally intended by Paul for a wider audience than the congregation at Ephesus. More importantly, 2:20 is part of a section that surveys the church as a whole in a most sweeping and comprehensive fashion. Ephesians 2:20 stands back, views the whole building, and notes the place of prophecy in it (as part of the foundation); I Corinthians and the other passages on prophecy examine one of the parts from within. Ephesians 2:20, then, with its broad scope ought to have a pivotal and governing role in seeking to understand other NT statements on prophecy with a narrower, more particular and detailed focus…." (Gaffin, p. 96)

3. "Eph. 2:20 associates 'prophets' with the apostles in the activity of foundational witness or word ministry." (Gaffin, p. 93)

4. These "prophets" are not OT prophets, but the same prophets encountered throughout the NT (Acts 13:1f; 21:10f; I Cor. 12:28; 14:1-40; Eph. 4:11; Rev. 1:1-3). This is demonstrated by the fact that Eph. 3:5 uses the same phrase "apostles and prophets" in contrast with the OT revelation.

5. One Noncessationist scholar admits that if Gaffin's exegesis of Eph. 2:20 were correct it would indeed vindicate the Cessationist position. He attempts to evade the force of this argument, however, by interpreting the phrase to mean "the apostles who are also prophets" (Grudem, pp. 45-64). But this exegesis cannot be substantiated by any true grammatical parallel (Wallace), and Grudem's other supporting arguments have been answered point-by-point (White).

6. "Tongues are tied to prophecy and stand, so to speak, in its shadow. There is at least the suggestion in the chapter [I Cor. 14] that tongues have no place in the life of the congregation apart from their coexistence and correlative exercise with prophecy." (Gaffin, p. 58)

7. Even if the gift of tongues per se is not in view in Eph. 2:20, the evidence adduced under "a

17

pivotal presupposition" (above) forces us to conclude that insofar as tongues were interpreted they were functionally equivalent to prophetic utterance, and would therefore partake of the foundation of the church spoken of here.

8. Inherent in the foundation analogy is the idea that once the foundation has been laid, all other work is but building upon that foundation (I Cor. 3:10-15). When Paul identifies the apostles and new covenant prophets as the foundation of the church, he thereby asserts their unique, non-perpetual role.

9. Therefore, the gift of tongues was for the foundation of the church, and has consequently been "withdrawn from the life of the church along with prophecy and whatever other foundational gifts are bound up with the presence of the apostolate in the church." (Gaffin, p. 102).

C. The Argument from Tongues as a Sign

Return to "Three Cessationist arguments" Return to table of contents

1. Paul states that tongues as tongues (that is, apart from their revelational content when interpreted) were given as a sign of God's judgment against unbelievers (I Cor. 14:20-22).

2. In a way analogous to Jesus' parables (Mark 4:12), tongues were given primarily (but not exclusively) to harden Israel in unbelief. This function "is bound up inseparably with the decisive transition from old to new and final in covenant history, a transition which issues in the founding of the church." (Gaffin, p. 107)

3. Characteristic of the NT's use of the OT, Paul's citation of Isaiah 28:11-12 intentionally brings to mind the broader context of Isaiah 28, particularly, v. 16 ("Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed"). "In the NT this verse is prominent in the church-house passages; it is quoted in I Peter 2:6 (cf. v. 4) and evidently underlies the imagery of Ephesians 2:20 (cf. I Cor. 3:11). Christ as the church's foundation is the fulfillment of this prophecy. But it is also cited in Romans 9:33 (cf. 10:11), where it is applied to the offense taken by unbelieving Israel (cf. 9:31f) at Christ and the gospel. The judgment on Judah foretold by Isaiah, including God's alien speech, is fulfilled by the foundation-laying realized in Christ and the apostles (and prophets). The time of God's (once-for-all) activity of laying a foundation in Zion is also the time of terminal judgment on the unbelief in Zion provoked by that activity." (Gaffin, p. 108)

4. "Within this larger framework of prophecy and fulfillment, then, Paul's point in I Corinthians 14:21f is that tongues are the sign of God's judgment at the inauguration of the new covenant and the founding of the church. Tongues are the sign correlative with this (foundation-laying) activity which occasions (primarily Jewish) unbelief and the eschatological judgment attendant on it."

5. While we should not restrict tongues as a sign exclusively to unbelieving Jews (since I Cor. 14:22 seems to apply it to all unbelievers), it remains true that it was specifically Jewish unbelief that led to the abrogation of the old covenant order and the establishment of a new covenant foundation. Besides, we know from Acts 18:1-17 that Jewish opposition to the Gentile mission was quite strong in Corinth.

6. "It should not be overlooked that, whatever the significance of tongues as a sign, Paul clearly teaches that this function as a sign is an integral characteristic of tongues, present wherever the gift is exercised." (Gaffin, p. 109)

7. Therefore, since tongues as a sign belonged to a transitional period of redemptive history when the old Israel was being rejected and the new Israel was being founded, they are no longer needed today.

Return to "Three Cessationist arguments"

18

An agnostic note on I Corinthians 13:8-13

Return to table of contents

1. Some Cessationists, looking for the silver bullet argument against the continuance of tongues and prophecy, have attempted to identify "the perfect" with the completion of the NT canon. However, the better Cessationist exegetes admit that this interpretation cannot be sustained exegetically.

2. The coming of "the perfect" (v. 10) must coincide with the coming of Christ, for it is only then that we will know even as we are known (v. 12).

3. If this is admitted, are we then forced to the opposite conclusion - that tongues and prophecy will continue until the Parousia?

4. Not necessarily. "Paul might well have also mentioned inscripturation as a mode of revelation" which, like prophecy and tongues, is a "partial" mode of knowing God which will be superseded by "the perfect" at the Parousia. "But inscripturation has ceased. And if that be granted, then it is gratuitous to insist that this passage teaches that the modes of revelation mentioned, prophecy and tongues, are to continue functioning in the church until Christ's return." (Gaffin, p. 111)

5. "The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basis of other passages and considerations." (Gaffin, p. 111)

Sources cited

Return to table of contents

Brown, Mark R., ed. Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers. Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993.

Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.

Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979.

Gillespie, Thomas W. The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Grudem, W. A. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988.

Jones, Peter R. "I Corinthians 15:8: Paul the Last Apostle." Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985) 3-34.

Ridderbos, Herman N. Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. Second Revised Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988 (originally published 1963).

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993.

Wallace, D. B. "The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament." Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983) 59-84.

White, Fowler R. "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationists Exegesis." Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) 303-20.

(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dcrow/dcrc/articles/irons_cessation.html 14November2010)

19

R. Fowler White

The question of whether the NT gift of prophecy continues in the life of the church today came again to the attention of the evangelical world as a recent cover story in a leading evangelical periodical spotlighted developments among advocates for the gift's continuation.1 In the midst of that article, Wayne Grudem's book, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, was singled out as a standard reference among many leaders of the current prophecy movement.2 The work covers a large number of issues, but arguably none is more important than the treatment of the two principal texts related to the question of prophecy's duration, 1 Cor 13:10 and Eph 2:20. In a previous article,3 I compared Grudem's exegesis of 1 Cor 13:10 with that of cessationist Richard Gaffin and urged acceptance of Gaffin's contention that the question of the time of prophecy's cessation is not answered in that text, but will have to be settled by appeal to other passages and considerations. In this article, I turn again to Gaffin and Grudem, this time evaluating their positions on Eph 2:20, the passage that is chief among those "other" texts bearing on the question of prophecy's duration. This evaluation is warranted by the cruciality that the text has for each man's views and by the attention that each man has given to the other's exegesis of it.4 In addition, since Grudem's recent thought on the text moves beyond Gaffin's earlier discussion, a fresh assessment of Grudem's exegesis is in order. Our considerations begin with a review of Gaffin's interpretation.

I. Gaffin on Eph 2:20

If we wish to understand Gaffin's orientation to the interpretation of Eph 2:20, we must understand that for him this verse "ought to have a pivotal and governing role in seeking to understand other New Testament statements on prophecy."5 This role results from the fact that Eph 2:20 is part of a section that stands back, takes a sweeping and comprehensive look at the whole church-house, and notes the place of prophecy in its construction. Prophecy's place, of course, is in the foundation of the church, a place, according to Gaffin, occupied in association with but distinction from apostleship.6 Moreover, as foundational to the church, the prophets have a "temporary, noncontinuing function in [its] history, and so by God's design pass out of its life, along with the apostles."7

Before reaching this conclusion, Gaffin acknowledges that profhtwn in the text may describe the apostles and thus twn apostolwn kai profhtwn may express the meaning Grudem proposes, viz., "the apostles who are also prophets." This interpretation, Gaffin observes, "is possible grammatically and the apostles do exercise prophetic functions (e.g., Rom 11:25f.; I Cor. 15:51ff.; I Thess 4:15ff.; cf. I Cor 14:6)."8 Nevertheless, he urges that "a combination of considerations…is decisively against it."9 Those considerations may be summarized as follows.10

First, in Eph 4:11 Paul plainly distinguishes apostles and prophets as separate groups. Second, in 1 Cor 12:28, the only NT text outside Ephesians where apostles and prophets are mentioned together, Paul again clearly distinguishes between them. Third, Paul nowhere else designates the apostles, either individually or collectively, as "prophets," thus casting doubt on any proposal that he did so in Eph 2:20. Fourth and finally, since Paul nowhere else identifies apostles as prophets, an attempt

20

on his part to do so in Eph 2:20 would have been lost on his readers "without at least some word of explanation, especially since he goes on in the same context (4:11) to reinforce the conventional usage."11

For these reasons, Gaffin contends that Grudem's proposed exegesis of Eph 2:20 is "unlikely, even forced."12 Instead, a decisive edge must belong to the view that these words refer to the NT prophets in association with but distinction from the apostles.

II. Grudem on Eph 2:20

To understand the contribution that Eph 2:20 makes to Grudem's case for prophecy's continuation, we must see that for him the critical phrase in the text, tw qemeliw twn apostolwn kai profhtwn, means "the foundation of the apostles who are also prophets."13 Accordingly, in the context of Paul's comprehensive historical metaphor of housebuilding in Eph 2:19-22,14 v. 20 teaches that the apostles represent the only gift whose addition to the church ceased once God completed its foundation; that is, apostleship is the only gift whose presence in the church will have ended long before Christ's return. By his exegesis of Eph 2:20, then, Grudem disassociates NT prophets who are not also apostles from the church's foundation and urges us to see prophecy as a gift that has a continuing function in the church's history and life.15 The points Grudem offers in support of his view may be summarized as follows.16

First, the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun construction in the NT, as well as the likely meaning of that construction in Eph 4:11, permits us to interpret twn apostolwn kai profhtwn as meaning "the apostles who are also prophets."

Second, the NT portrays the apostles alone, and not the prophets also, as the recipients of the foundational revelation of Gentile inclusion in the church.

Third, the foundation metaphor in Eph 2:20, which signifies something finished before a superstructure is begun, fits best with Grudem's exegesis, in that new Christians who received the gift of prophecy would not be added to the church's unfinished foundation after its superstructure is begun, but to the church's superstructure as it is built on the finished foundation of the apostles.

Fourth, and again in relation to the foundation metaphor, the foundational role attributed uniquely to the apostles in Rev 21:14 is consistent with Grudem's view of Eph 2:20.

Fifth, Paul's focus on the universal church in Ephesians 2-3 would have predisposed the peers of the prophets in the local churches not to link them with the apostles in the foundation of the universal church in 2:20.

Sixth, in Ephesians 2-3 Paul fails to cite the purported inclusion of Jewish and Gentile prophets in the church's foundation, even though that idea would have been most pertinent to his argument for the equality of Jews and Gentiles.

Seventh, the unambiguous evidence in 1 Corinthians 12-14, 1 Thess 5:20-21, and several texts in Acts, according to which the non-apostolic prophets did not have a foundational role in the church, clarifies the apostolic identity of the foundational prophets in Eph 2:20.

Eighth, there is no record in either the NT or the post-apostolic writings indicating the existence of non-apostolic prophets who had a part in the universal church's foundation.

Ninth, as for Eph 4:11, the context and grammar make it clear that the prophets mentioned there relate to local churches, while those in Eph 2:20 relate to the universal church.

Tenth, as for 1 Cor 12:28, Paul does indeed distinguish between apostles and prophets there, but this one reference should not dictate the meaning of every reference, for example, Eph 2:20, where the words "apostles" and "prophets" appear.

Eleventh, though the apostles as a group are never designated prophets or any of the other

21

distinct ministries in the church, there is no inherent reason why they could not be called "prophets" in Eph 2:20, provided the grammar and context favor this exegesis.

Finally, the grammar and context of Eph 2:20 provide clear signals of Paul's intention to identify the apostles as prophets, preventing any possible confusion with the prophets of Eph 4:11.

Having argued his case from grammatical and contextual factors and defended it against Gaffin's objections, Grudem urges, "it seems best to conclude that Ephesians 2:20 means that the church is 'built upon the foundation of the apostles who are also prophets'."17

III. A Critique of Grudem's Exegesis of Eph 2:20

The exegesis of Eph 2:20 is clearly crucial both to Grudem's argument for prophecy's continuation and to Gaffin's argument for prophecy's cessation. It is crucial for Grudem because, if Gaffin's exegesis of 1 Cor 13:10 does indeed shift the debate over prophecy's duration to other passages and considerations, then Grudem's case for prophecy's continuation stands or falls with the exegesis of Eph 2:20. It is crucial for Gaffin because, if Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20 proves persuasive, then Gaffin's case for prophecy's cessation confronts an insurmountable obstacle. With these observations in mind, I wish now to evaluate Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20 and in so doing defend Gaffin's exegesis. To complete this twofold task, I shall take up Grudem's argumentation point by point.

1. The Semantic Range of the Syntax in Eph 2:2018

Despite his claims to the contrary, Grudem's exegesis is not at all compelling from a grammatical point of view. For one thing, Grudem interprets the syntax of twn apostolwn kai profhtwn without due regard for the fact that this construction involves plural nouns. As odd as it may sound, with the exception of Eph 4:11 (on which I shall comment below), Grudem fails to cite a single example of the construction in question in Eph 2:20: every one of the texts he adduces in favor of his exegesis is an example of a construction involving something other than two plural nouns.19

Even if Grudem were to correct this problem, his case would have another serious obstacle to overcome. The obstacle is that Grudem interprets the syntax of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in Eph 2:20 in a way which, as D. B. Wallace20 has demonstrated, has neither clear nor ambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even the one true grammatical parallel that Grudem cites (Eph 4:11, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) has been widely misunderstood because few exegetes have ever seriously investigated the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction. In fact, Wallace boldly challenges the exegesis of Eph 4:11 by Grudem and others, emphatically insisting "that such a view has no grammatical basis" in NT usage.21 According to Wallace's findings, the least likely interpretation of Eph 4:11 is that it means "the pastor-teachers, that is, the pastors who are also teachers"; more likely, it means "the pastors and other teachers."22

With the grammatical evidence favoring Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20 so noticeably lacking, we can give little or no credence to his conclusion that the translation "the apostles who are also prophets" is "just as valid [as the translation "the apostles and prophets"] and perhaps even more in keeping with New Testament usage."23 On the contrary, Wallace's study confirms that, while Grudem's exegesis is a theoretically possible meaning of the construction in question, it is nevertheless, statistically speaking, the least likely meaning of that construction. To be sure, non-statistical factors are relevant to this discussion and we shall consider them in the headings that follow. At this juncture, however, let us observe that the syntactical evidence is decidedly against Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20: statistically speaking, the most likely meaning of the text is that it represents apostles and prophets as two distinct groups united by their function as foundation

22

stones,24 that is, as two distinct gifts united in foundational, revelatory witness to Christ and the mystery revealed in him.25

2. The Apostles and the Revelation of Gentile

Inclusion Grudem asserts that the apostles were the sole recipients of the revelation of Gentile inclusion. This observation is basically an argument from silence: since the NT clearly affirms the apostles' reception of the revelation but is silent on the prophets' reception of it, we must conclude that only the apostles received it.26 The validity of Grudem's claim depends on whether he has established a burden of proof. In my view, he has not because he fails to consider the relationship between the oracles of Agabus and the revelation of Gentile inclusion. Grudem's only interest in these prophecies is to establish their edifying function and to challenge the claim that they possessed absolute divine authority.27 The prophecies of Agabus however are profoundly relevant for evaluating the prophets' relation to the revelation mentioned in Ephesians 3. In Acts 11:28, an oracle from Agabus, a prophet in the Jerusalem church (11:27), prompts the Greek disciples at Antioch to contribute famine relief for their Judean brothers and sisters (11:29). In other words, the prophet reports a revelation pertaining directly to that aspect of the mystery of Christ mentioned in Eph 3:6: his prophecy in effect occasions a cementing of the newly-established, foundational bond of fellowship within the church between Jews and Gentiles. Likewise, in Acts 21:10-11, Agabus reports a revelation relating directly to the progress of Paul's apostolic ministry to the Gentiles—again, the aspect of the mystery discussed in Ephesians 3.28 For all their relevance then to specific life situations and concerns in the early church, the prophecies of Agabus are nevertheless revelations with an undeniably direct and integral connection to the mystery revealed in Christ. Grudem therefore appears quite mistaken in his claim that the NT is silent on the prophets' reception of revelation(s) pertaining to the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church.

3. The Foundation Metaphor

Grudem objects to Gaffin's view of Eph 2:20 because, insofar as it implies that prophets would be added to the church's foundation after its superstructure had been started, the foundation metaphor would no longer signify something finished before a superstructure is started, but something subject to change thereafter. This objection, however, overlooks the fact that even Grudem's own "foundation of the apostles who are also prophets" was subject to change after the superstructure was begun. Before Pentecost Matthias was added to the foundation begun with Christ (Acts 1), and well after Pentecost Paul was added to it (Acts 9). While the church's foundation awaited the additions of Matthias and Paul to it, the building of the rest of the church was not held up—as Grudem's analysis of the metaphor suggests—until God completed its foundation. On the contrary, the rest of the church was being built on the foundation such as God had constituted it to that point. If it were otherwise, the addition of literally thousands to the church between Pentecost and Paul's conversion (e.g., Acts 2:41; 5:14; 6:7) would have no significance in terms of God's housebuilding activity in Ephesians 2.29

The foundation metaphor, then, did not carry the implications Grudem assigns to it and God's housebuilding work proceeded on a foundation to which others could be added.30 This scenario could be followed no doubt because all those who bore the foundational witness spoke with one voice concerning Christ and the mystery revealed in him.

4. The Apostles and the Foundation in Rev 21:14

Grudem appeals also to Rev 21:14, where consistent with his exegesis of Eph 2:20, John apparently attributes a unique foundational role to the apostles. This observation, however, has a number of problems.31 Perhaps most obvious is the fact that John's assertion is not as consistent with Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20 as it first appears. John, after all, assigns a foundational role only to (the)

23

twelve apostles. Even Grudem, however, would acknowledge that in Ephesians 2-3 Paul regards himself as a part of the church's foundation by virtue of his reception of the revelation of the mystery. So, on grounds other than Rev 21:14, Grudem knows of at least one apostle other than the Twelve who had a foundational role. I would take this concession a step further and contend on the basis of the considerations discussed in this essay that we know of still others who had a foundational role, that is, the NT prophets. Clearly, then, Rev 21:14 does not tell us the whole story about the church's foundation and therefore Grudem's appeal to it is inconclusive.

5. The Peers of Prophets in Their Local Churches

Grudem insists that Paul's focus on the universal church in Ephesians 2-3 would have prevented the peers of the prophets in local churches from associating them with the apostles in the foundation of Eph 2:20. But we must ask, why would the prophets' peers not make this association? Apparently, Grudem would have us simply presume that NT prophets would be linked with either the universal church or the local church; they could not be linked with both of these entities. Since Grudem's discussion at this point is more assertion than argument, one is left to surmise that this disjunction is rooted not only in what Grudem believes is Paul's exclusive focus on the universal church, but in what he insists is the non-foundational role of non-apostolic prophets in the rest of the NT. At any rate, as it stands here, Grudem's point resembles the argument that the apostles' correspondence cannot have perpetual importance for the universal church because it consisted of occasional writings addressed to local churches. Grudem would agree that such a view is based on a false disjunction. His discussion here, however, involves a similar false disjunction. At the same time, Grudem overlooks the fact that in Eph 2:19-22 Paul focuses not only on the universal church (in v. 21, pasa h oikodomh) but also on the local church (in v. 22, kai umeis [Gentile Christians, cf. vv. 13, 19]).32

6. The Missing Argument of Ephesians 2-3

Grudem claims that in Ephesians 2-3 Paul ignores the supposed inclusion of Gentile as well as Jewish prophets in the church's foundation, even though such an idea would have been most pertinent to his argument for the equality of Jews and Gentiles. Here again we find Grudem arguing from silence, and again the validity of his argument depends on whether he has established a burden of proof. I do not believe he has.

The chief difficulty with Grudem's analysis is that he fails to take adequate account of the relationship between Ephesians 2 and 3. To be sure, we can affirm with Grudem that Paul's concern in 2:11-22 is to demonstrate that through Christ God has brought about equality (fellowship) between Jews and Gentiles. But what is Paul's interest in 3:1-13? There Paul describes his ministry as a stewardship of preaching the mystery of Christ to the Gentiles, especially that aspect of the mystery which is the equality of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Paul's interest then is in defining his ministry to the Gentiles as it relates to God's work through Christ, a discussion of no little importance to his Gentile readers.33

Taking full account of Paul's focus in Ephesians 3, we see quite clearly why he ignores the importance of Gentile prophets in the foundation while advancing his argument: Paul is evidently more concerned to define the relationship between his preaching and the equality of Jews and Gentiles than he is to demonstrate further the truth of that equality. Moreover, it is not, as Grudem suggests, that Paul inexplicably ignores the Gentile prophets in the foundation while pursuing his argument; rather, it is that Paul ignores everyone in the foundation other than himself, except to identify himself with them as those to whom God had revealed the mystery. Suffice it to say therefore that Paul's overriding concern to magnify his own ministry explains why he "fails" to cite the foundational Gentile prophets as proof of the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church.

7. Explicit Passages on Prophecy by Non-Apostles

24

Grudem maintains that twn apostolwn kai profhtwn in Eph 2:20 must refer to one group since 1 Corinthians 12-14, 1 Thess 5:20-21, and certain Acts passages demonstrate clearly and explicitly that non-apostolic prophets did not have a foundational, that is, absolutely authoritative, role in the church. For this argument to have any force, we must first accept Grudem's assumption that Eph 2:20 is unclear and less explicit than other NT texts on prophecy. But, in view of our evaluation of Grudem's claims regarding Eph 2:20 in this essay, we can hardly accept his assumption. As for Grudem's exegesis of the passages in 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Acts, space does not permit a complete response, nor is there need to duplicate Gaffin's generally satisfactory discussion of that material.34 I would however add one point to Gaffin's consideration of the judging of prophecies.

According to Grudem, Paul's description of the judging of prophecies in 1 Cor 14:29 and 1 Thess 5:20-22 presupposes that each prophecy is a mixture of true and false elements. If this is the case, then clearly the judging process must involve sorting out the true and false elements in each oracle.35 This interpretation, however, is neither the only nor the best way to interpret the evidence.

Fundamentally, Grudem's exegesis turns on his assumption that the objects being judged (sorted) are the true and false elements in any one oracle. But let us take another look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5. In the Corinthians passage, the apostle looks at an individual meeting of the local church (14:26) and envisions a plurality of prophets speaking during any given meeting: "let two or three prophets speak" (14:29a). In the Thessalonians passage, Paul's commands are adaptable to an individual meeting of the local church or to the whole course of its meetings, but in any case he envisions a plurality of prophecies being heard: "do not despise prophecies" (5:20). Thus, whether Paul is contemplating the meetings of the local church individually or collectively, his instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5 presume that his readers would be hearing a plurality of prophets speaking their oracles.

My point in making this observation is that while Grudem reads Paul's words as preparing the churches to sort out the true and false elements in any one oracle, it is clearly more in keeping with Paul's very words to read them as preparing the churches to sort out the true and false oracles among the many oracles they would hear. To put it another way, while Grudem says that "[e]ach prophecy might have both true and false elements in it,"36 we should say that the many prophecies heard in the meetings of the local church might have both true and false prophecies among them.37

On the presupposition that the prophecies heard in the churches might have both true and false prophecies among them, Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 14:29 and 1 Thess 5:20-22 are manifestly consistent with the broader context of NT teaching on the subject of judging prophecies. According to that teaching, the churches judged prophecies in order to distinguish between true and false prophets (1 John 4:1-6; cf. Matt 7:15-20 with Matt 12:32-37 and 24:23-26). In line with this picture we find Paul citing standards by which the Corinthians and Thessalonians should judge oracles (1 Cor 12:3; 14:37; 1 Thess 5:21-22; 2 Thess 2:15).38 In fact, it is particularly noteworthy that Paul cites such standards for the Thessalonians at least in part to dispel the confusion caused among them by a deceiving prophetic spirit (pneuma, 2 Thess 2:2) from within their own number or the church at large.39

In the light of these factors, I would contend that for Paul, as for the rest of the NT, the judging of prophecies was a process of evaluating the prophets' words in order to pass judgment on the prophets themselves.40 Significantly, when interpreted in this way, the judging of NT prophets looks quite similar to the judging of OT prophets. To be sure, the preconsummate punishment applicable to false prophets in the NT differed from the death penalty prescribed for their OT counterparts.41

This difference aside, the NT criteria for sorting out true and false prophecy were identical to those in the OT. In sum, prophets in both Testaments were judged as to (1) their conduct (e.g., Jer 23:10-

25

15; Matt 7:15-23); (2) the content of their prophecies (e.g., Deut 13:1-5; Matt 24:23-27); and (3) the means of revelation (e.g., Num 12:6-8; 1 Cor 13:2, 9, 12; 15:51).42 Used in conjunction with the gift of discerning the spirits (1 Cor 12:10),43 these criteria enabled the church, like ancient Israel, to determine the ultimate source of the prophecies they heard (the Holy Spirit or some other source). I would therefore argue that Grudem has fundamentally misunderstood Paul's teaching on the judging of prophecies, and has thus transformed a standard apostolic, even canonical, directive into a Pauline idiosyncracy.

8. The Vain Search for Foundational NT Prophets

Grudem claims that the search for Gaffin's foundational NT prophets is a vain one and that in the absence of evidence for their existence, we should take seriously alternatives to Gaffin's exegesis of Eph 2:20. Grudem's claim here is only as strong as the arguments he previously advanced. As I see it, those arguments are either inconclusive or refutable, and thus one could argue quite plausibly that the prophets for which Grudem searches are in fact in the NT. Consequently, even if this argument has confirmatory value for those who already accept Grudem's conclusions, it has no positive value for those who reject them.

9. Apostles and Prophets in Eph 4:11

Contrary to Gaffin's appeal to Eph 4:11, Grudem insists that the context and grammar of that text make it clear that the prophets mentioned there are different from those mentioned in 2:20: the prophets of 4:11 had a (non-foundational) role in local congregations, whereas those of 2:20 had a (foundational) role in the universal church. This difference is not as clear as Grudem contends.44

First of all, we have already seen that Grudem's argument concerning the syntax of Eph 2:20 is tenuous at best. Indeed, far from disclosing that the prophets in 4:11 and 2:20 are different, the men…de construction of 4:11 only makes explicit what the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction of 2:20 implied, viz., the prophets are distinct from the apostles. This point is strengthened by the fact that the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in 4:11 (tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) does not function as Grudem says it does in 2:20.45

Second, what Grudem says about the contexts of 2:20 and 4:11 indicates that he has not seen the connection between the two. On the one hand, as I observed above (III. 5.), Grudem overlooks the fact that in 2:20-22 Paul assigns apostles and prophets a foundational role not just in the universal church (v. 21), but in local congregations as well (v. 22).46 On the other hand, Grudem really says nothing to counter Gaffin's observation that 2:20 and 4:11 are parts of a larger context, viz., 2:11-4:16, in which Paul discusses the church (universal and local) and its composition as the newly-created body of Christ.47 Within that larger unit, 4:7-16 expands on Paul's description of the church in 2:11-22 by pointing out the harmony of the differing gifts distributed by Christ in the body.48

Given this connection between the two sections, it is extremely unlikely that the prophets mentioned as foundation stones of the church in 2:20 are other than the prophets who contribute to its upbuilding in 4:11-12. In fact, in view of the larger context of 2:11-4:16, the prophets' specific role in the housebuilding work pictured in 4:7-16 would have to be none other than their foundational function described in 2:20.49

Clearly, then, contrary to Grudem's interpretation of the grammar and context of Eph 2:20 and 4:11, the prophets mentioned in those texts are the same, having a foundational role in the church universal and local.

10. Apostles and Prophets in 1 Cor 12:28

As for Gaffin's appeal to the distinction between apostles and prophets in 1 Cor 12:28, Grudem acknowledges that Paul does indeed distinguish between apostles and prophets there, but he protests

26

Gaffin's appeal by saying that 1 Cor 12:28 should not dictate our exegesis of Eph 2:20 or any other passage where the words "apostles" and "prophets" appear. This response, however, overreacts to Gaffin's argument. Gaffin is not advocating the interpretive "tyranny" of 1 Cor 12:28 over other texts: he is simply saying that 1 Cor 12:28, together with Eph 4:11, establishes a burden of proof for those who like Grudem would see something other than a distinction between apostles and prophets in Eph 2:20. It remains for Grudem to produce the evidence that shifts the burden of proof from himself to those who differ with him.

11. No Reason Not to Designate Apostles as Prophets

In this connection, Grudem argues that if (as Gaffin acknowledges) the apostles performed prophetic functions, and if the apostles Paul and John spoke of their personal prophetic activity, then there is no inherent reason why the apostles as a group could not be called "prophets" in Eph 2:20, provided the grammar and the context favor that interpretation. There are two significant problems with Grudem's discussion at this point.

First, Grudem attaches a crucial—and fatal—proviso to his claim. He says the identification of the apostles as "prophets" is reasonable, "provided the grammar and context favour this interpretation."50 We have already seen above that neither the grammar nor the context of Eph 2:20 favors his exegesis. By the lack of merit in his proviso, then, Grudem robs his point here of its intended force.

Second, the warrant for our identification of the apostles as prophets turns on the criterion by which we identify someone as a prophet.51 Though I cannot argue the point fully here,52 I would contend that since the NT customarily links spiritual gifts to the ongoing ministries and stewardships of some believers in distinction to others (Rom 12:4-6; 1 Cor 12:5, 28-30; 1 Pet 4:10-11), we should understand that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the term prophet applies to those believers who by virtue of their ongoing engagement in prophetic activity are distinguished from other believers.53

Using this criterion in evaluating the apostles' prophesying, we would have to say that their identification, individually or collectively, as prophets is based more on conjecture than proof. For instance, Paul certainly alludes to his own prophetic activity (1 Cor 14:6), but the evidence for his identification as a prophet in the conventional sense is inconclusive, first, because his prophesying does not appear as an ongoing ministry that distinguished him from other believers, and second and more importantly, because Paul invariably distinguishes himself from others by identifying his "gift" ("stewardship," "ministry," or "grace") as that of apostleship or its non-prophetic correlates.54

Moreover, that John (and arguably Peter) engaged on occasion in prophetic activity (Rev 1:3; 22:7; Acts 10:9-29) fails to meet the criterion above for identifying him as a prophet in the customary sense. Finally, apart from considerations of the grammar and context of Eph 2:20, it is pure speculation to argue that any of the other apostles met the criterion and could therefore be called prophets.55

In light of these considerations, it would seem wisest to say that the prophesying by NT apostles illustrates how God could make an exception to his customary practice and enable those who were not otherwise prophets to exercise the gift of prophecy temporarily on particular occasions (cf. Acts 19:6).56 We do not have sufficient justification to follow Grudem in designating the apostles as prophets, that is, as those whose ministry and stewardship in the body of Christ was that of ongoing engagement in prophetic activity.

12. No Need for an Explanation to the Readers

Grudem insists lastly that grammar and context would have obviated any need for Paul to explain his identification of the apostles as prophets in Eph 2:20 vis-à-vis his distinction between the two

27

groups in Eph 4:11. Our considerations of grammar and context, however, only corroborate Gaffin's conclusion: the sense Grudem attaches to the term "prophets" in Eph 2:20 would have been lost on Paul's readers without some word of explanation, especially since he goes on in Eph 4:11 to reinforce the term's conventional usage.57

IV. Conclusion

Wayne Grudem brought into focus just how important the exegesis of Eph 2:20 is to the debate over prophecy's duration when he wrote,

If [Eph 2:20 is] referring to all the prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches…then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique 'foundational' role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Dr Gaffin—we would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete.58

Of course, as it turns out, Grudem would persuade us to disagree with Gaffin. To this end, he offers counterarguments to Gaffin's interpretation, hoping that they will establish and defend his claim that tw'n ajpostovlwn kai profhtw'n in Eph 2:20 means "the apostles who are also prophets." But, as I have tried to show here, Grudem's case for his exegesis of Eph 2:20 is very weak. Virtually every facet of our examination either confirms or strengthens one's belief that Grudem's view is unlikely, even forced. In fact, given the serious flaws in Grudem's argumentation, we have every reason to endorse heartily Gaffin's conclusion that in Eph 2:20 the NT prophets are distinct from but united with the apostles in their function as foundation stones of the church. Indeed, recognizing the periodization of redemptive history implied in Eph 2:20 and its context, I would contend with Gaffin that the NT prophets had a "temporary, noncontinuing function in the church's history, and so by God's design pass[ed] out of its life, along with the apostles."59

Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia — WTJ 54 (Fall 1992) 321-330

Notes

1. M. G. Maudlin, "Seers in the Heartland: Hot on the Trail of the Kansas City Prophets," Christianity Today, 14 January 1991, 18-22

2. Ibid., 20. 3. R. Fowler White, "Gaffin and Grudem on 1 Cor 13:10: A Comparison of Cessationist and

Noncessationist Argumentation," JETS 35 (1992). After the acceptance of the 1 Cor 13:10 article and the present article for publication, at least three critiques of Grudem's views appeared: Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Reformed Response to Wayne Grudem (Memphis: Footstool, 1989); F. David Farnell, "Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem's Hypothesis," The Master's Seminary Journal 2 (1991) 157-79; and Robert L. Thomas, "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today," BSac 149 (1992) 83-96. Working independently, Gentry, Farnell, and Thomas reached conclusions similar to my own at certain points, but at others they choose not to respond to Grudem or do not give as compelling a response as could be given.

4. See R. B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979) 93-102, and W. A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988) 45-64. The importance each man attaches to the other's discussion of Eph 2:20 is seen in the following facts: (1) in personal conversation Gaffin has informed me that Grudem was a silent interlocutor of his (by means of Grudem's dissertation) during the writing of

28

Perspectives; and (2) Grudem calls Gaffin's discussion "the most careful statement of the position that Ephesians 2:20 applies to all prophets in the New Testament churches and shows that the gift of prophecy has ceased" (ibid., 314 n. 7).

5. Gaffin, Perspectives, 96. 6. Ibid., 95. Strictly speaking, for Gaffin the foundation of the church consists of Christ (Eph

2:20b; 1 Cor 3:11) and the apostles and prophets. The laying of the foundation (Isa 28:16) began with Christ (e.g., Matt 21:42-44) and concluded with the apostles and prophets as witnesses to Christ (e.g., Luke 24:44-48). See ibid., 91-93, 107-8. On the meaning of the much debated term akrogwniaiou in Eph 2:20, see, for example, J. Jeremias, "gwniva," TDNT 1.791-93; N. Mundle, "Rock, Stone, Corner-stone, Pearl, Precious Stone," NIDNTT 3.388-90; H. Krämer, "gwniva, akrogwniaiou," Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 1.267-69; and J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988) 1.7.44. Despite the attempts to defend the "keystone" interpretation first propounded by Jeremias (see, e.g., the recent effort by A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians [WBC 42; Waco, TX: Word, 1990] 155-56), the aggregate of the evidence favors the "foundation stone" interpretation.

7. Gaffin, Perspectives, 96. 8. Ibid., 93. 9. Ibid., 94. 10. For the full account of Gaffin's argumentation, see ibid., 94-95. 11. Ibid., 95. Gaffin acknowledges that "the gift [of prophecy] could be given temporarily on

particular occasions to those who were not prophets (cf. Acts 19:6)" (ibid.). But he notes that the "usage in Acts and Revelation as well as Paul makes plain that 'prophets' designates those who in their frequent or regular exercise of the gift of prophecy are a distinct group within the church" (ibid.; cf. ibid., 59). For a similar distinction, see E. E. Ellis, "The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts," in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce (ed. W. Ward Gasque and R. P. Martin; Exeter: Paternoster, 1970) 55-67.

12. R. B. Gaffin, Jr., "The New Testament as Canon," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate (ed. H. M. Conn; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 175.

13. Grudem, Prophecy, 57-63. 14. Ibid., 54. See also Gaffin, "The New Testament as Canon," 174. 15. Grudem, Prophecy, passim. 16. For the full account of Grudem's argumentation, see ibid., 49-62. 17. Ibid., 62. 18. Grudem's view of the syntax in Eph 2:20 is shared by D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy

(London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979) 139; H. Sahlin, " 'Die Beschneidung Christi': Eine Interpretation von Eph 2, 11-22," SymBU 12 (1950) 18; and E. Cothenet, "Prophetisme dans le Nouveau Testament," DBSup 8.1306-09.

19. Grudem, Prophecy, 50-51. The constructions in his examples involve either singular nouns, plural participles, plural adjectives, or a combination of a plural noun with a plural participle or adjective.

20. D. B. Wallace, "The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament," Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983) 59-84, esp. 70-79, 82-83. Wallace restricts his discussion to constructions in which the plurals refer to persons and, at the same time, expands it to include all substantives under the title "noun" (ibid., 61). He considers the theoretical and actual semantic range of the construction in five categories: (1) two entirely distinct groups, though united; (2) two overlapping groups; (3) first group subset of second; (4) second group subset of first; and (5) two groups identical. By personal correspondence Wallace has also informed me that in other work involving the construction,

29

he has broadened the scope of his research beyond the NT to include examples from the papyri. Among those examples, he reports that usage in the papyri is very much in step with that of the NT.

21. Wallace, "Semantic Range," 83 (emphasis Wallace's). Recall also Wallace's additional work on usage in the papyri.

22. Wallace argues that, if in the NT all pastors (= elders) were teachers but not all teachers were pastors, Eph 4:11 falls most probably under the well-attested category of "first subset of the second" and means "the pastors (= elders) and other teachers" ("Semantic Range," 83). Alternatively, we could look at 1 Tim 5:17 as a somewhat fuller picture of what Paul has in mind in Ephesians and explain Eph 4:11 as a shorthand reference to elders only: all elders rule (= are pastors), but not all elders earn their wages in the word and teaching (= are teachers; cf. G. W. Knight, III, "Two Offices and Two Orders of Elders," in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [ed. C. G. Dennison and R. C. Gamble; Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986] 29-30). Eph 4:11 would then fit Wallace's "second group subset of first" category and mean "the pastors and in particular teachers." This category would reflect well the implications of the syntax in 1 Tim 5:17 (the adverb malista introducing v. 17b). Still, we could subsume this latter suggestion under Wallace's categorization as simply a further explanation of "the pastors (= elders)." On poimena and associated terms, see the informative comments on Eph 4:11 by Lincoln, Ephesians, 250-51.

23. Grudem, Prophecy, 51. Had Paul really intended to express the idea Grudem attributes to him, Wallace's study suggests that the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction would have most likely involved at least one participle or adjective functioning as a substantive (see "Semantic Range," 75-78). For additional discussion of constructions more consistent with Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20, see D. G. McCartney, review of The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, by Wayne A. Grudem, WTJ 45 (1983) 196.

24. As an alternative, we could follow Wallace here. He applies the category "first group subset of second" to twn apostolwn kai profhtwn, since certain apostles have prophetic activity attributed to them ("Semantic Range," 82, esp. n. 66). The phrase would then mean, "the apostles and other NT prophets." This understanding of the syntax is certainly statistically more likely than Grudem's, but in my view it is less likely than the "distinct, but united" category on the non-statistical grounds discussed below under III. 11.

25. Gaffin, Perspectives, 95. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 304, 315 n. 29. D. A. Carson, one of Grudem's chief supporters, alleges that this exegesis results in "an anomalous use of 'prophets' in the New Testament" (Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987] 97). In response to this observation, we must first ask whether Carson would think the (non-apostolic) prophets' role in the church's foundation so problematic if he did not already accept Grudem's interpretation of their function elsewhere in the NT. We should note, secondly, that, unlike Carson's (Grudem's) alternative, at least our (Gaffin's) exegesis is not based on an anomalous understanding of the construction Paul employs in Eph 2:20.

26. Cf. Gentry, The Charismatic Gift, 32. 27. Grudem, Prophecy, 89-90, 96-102, 156. Curiously, nowhere in his discussion does Grudem

deal with Gaffin's comments on the relationship between the oracles of Agabus and the revelation of Gentile inclusion (see Gaffin, Perspectives, 98-99). On the accuracy of Agabus's oracle in Acts 21, see, for example, D. S. McWilliams, "Something New Under the Sun? Wayne Grudem on Prophecy," WTJ 54 (1992).

28. Gaffin, Perspectives, 99. The reference to the "one body" among the acclamations cited in Eph 4:4-6 may be a clue that the revelation of Gentile inclusion in the body in 3:6 (cf. 2:16)

30

is but one aspect of a larger revelatory matrix (excerpted in Eph 4:4-6), whose unity is, in Gaffin's words (ibid., 95), "nothing less than Christ in all his saving fulness (Col. 2:2f.), the gospel in all its aspects (Eph. 6:19; cf. Rom. 16:25f.)." It is also interesting to note that the revelations to Agabus exemplify the truths of the mystery of the gospel in a way analogous to Paul's rebuke to Peter concerning his hypocritical withdrawal from association with the Gentiles at Antioch (Galatians 2).

29. Cf. Gentry, The Charismatic Gift, 33-35. See n. 6 above. 30. The claim that God's housebuilding work proceeded on a foundation to which others could

be added does not necessitate the conclusion that his foundation-laying activity could continue as long as his work of building the superstructure (i.e., to the end of this age). On the contrary, as is clear from the case of Christ as the foundational cornerstone (Eph 2:20b; 1 Cor 3:11), foundationality applies to that which is both functionally determinative of the integrity of a house's superstructure and temporally (historically) initiatory and once-for-all, hence noncontinuing, in the course of a housebuilding work. By its very nature, then, the activity of laying the church's foundation could not continue as long as the work of building her superstructure, but must be preparatory to (at least the bulk of) that work. Moreover, once we grasp the epochal significance of the foundation-laying activity, attempts to identify its terminus ad quem become less important.

31. For a complete discussion of the problems with Grudem's appeal to Rev 21:14, see Gentry, The Charismatic Gift, 31-32. Gentry and I arrived independently at a common assessment of the specific problem cited here.

32. Cf., for example, R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1969) 116; Lincoln, Ephesians, 156, 158; and Bruce, Epistles, 306-7.

33. Cf. Lincoln, Ephesians, 170-72. 34. Gaffin, Perspectives, passim. 35. Grudem, Prophecy, 70-79, 104-5. See also Carson, Showing the Spirit, 95. M. M. B. Turner,

on whom Carson is dependent, writes, "The presupposition [of 1 Cor 14:29] is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff" ("Spiritual Gifts Then and Now," Vox evangelica 15 [1985]:16 [emphasis Turner's]). A similar position is taken by D. Atkinson, Prophecy (Bramcote, England: Grove Books, 1977) 13-14, 16-17.

36. Grudem, Prophecy, 78. 37. This proposal bridges the gap between Grudem and Gaffin on the interpretation of 1 Cor

14:29. It does justice to the implications (of sorting or sifting things) that Grudem sees in Paul's use of the verb diakrinw in 14:29 (ibid., 76-78); it also does justice to the connection that Gaffin sees between the exercise of discernment (diakrinw) in 14:29 and the gift of discerning the spirits (diakriseis pneumatwn) in 12:10 (Perspectives, 70; according to Gaffin, those with the gift led the judging process, but did not monopolize it). In addition, this proposal supports Gaffin's overall representation of the judging process as an activity designed to determine the source of prophecies (ibid., 70-71). On this latter point, cf. Hill, Prophecy, 133-35.

38. The confessional acclamations of Eph 4:4-6 may also be read as standards by which the Ephesians were to judge prophets and others with word gifts (2:20; 3:5; 4:11) and so distinguish between those who were speaking the truth (cf. 4:15) and those who were speaking false doctrine (4:14).

39. Commentators have consistently interpreted pneuma in 2 Thess 2:2 in terms of spurious prophetic activity, whether they explain the word as a reference to a false prophet or to an oracle from a false prophet. Paul clearly implies that the pneuma is spurious by linking it with a deceitful source(s) (2:2, mh ti umas exapathvsh) and a threat of deception (2:3, mh tis

31

umas ecapathsh). See the commentaries for more details. 40. The summary here reflects the description of Gaffin's view by Carson, Showing the Spirit,

95. Grudem's alternative, in which the process consists of judging prophecies instead of prophets (Prophecy, 75), involves a false disjunction.

41. Grudem maintains that this difference is to be explained by distinguishing between the authority of OT and NT prophecy, ignoring an explanation in terms of the shift from the old covenant to the new (Prophecy, 77-78). Regarding the OT penalty for seduction to false worship by means of false prophecy and its NT application in the excommunication of the unrepentant prophet, see V. S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991) 139-53, 289-310. We should remember that, even if the NT penalty for false prophecy differed from the OT penalty, false prophets from the NT era will receive the consummate form of the OT penalty (Matt 7:23; cf. 25:41). We should also observe that the absence of explicit NT threats of excommunication for false prophecy is not an adequate argument against excommunication's applicability (pace Carson, Showing the Spirit, 95). In the first place, explicit threats of excommunication for specific offenses are very rare in the NT; if we must rely on implication in other cases, then we may do so in the case of false prophecy. Secondly, such threats are certainly implied for false prophecy when Christ and the apostles admonish the churches in the strongest terms not to tolerate prophets whose instruction is evil or false and thus threatens to lead them astray (1 John 4:1-6; 1 Thess 5:22; 2 Thess 2:3, 15; cf. Rev 2:20-23). In this connection, Grudem's claim that the churches weighed a prophet's statements on a relative (i.e., graded) scale including good and less good, helpful and unhelpful, true and false (Prophecy, 76-77) seriously misrepresents the absolute polarity in the biblical standards between good and evil (1 Thess 5:21-22), the Spirit of God and the spirit of antichrist (the world), the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (1 John 4:1-6).

42. See, for example, R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX: Word, 1987) 144-45. My thanks to Dr. Dillard for reminding me of these continuities between the OT and NT approaches to prophecy. Though Atkinson does not notice the OT-NT continuities, see also his discussion of discerning false prophets in the OT (Atkinson, Prophecy, 9-10). Farnell ("Critique," 170-76) also makes some valuable points about Grudem's discussion of the relationship between OT and NT prophets.

43. Grudem may be right that the gift of discerning the spirits was not limited to testing the spirits of the prophets (Prophecy, 70-72). Still, his attempt to avoid a connection between that gift and the judging of prophecy in 1 Cor 14:29 is greatly overdrawn (D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983] 411 n. 185. Aune expressed this opinion in response to Grudem's article, "A Response to Gerhard Dautzenberg on 1 Cor 12:10," BZ 22 [1978] 253-70, but it remains relevant to Grudem's comments in Prophecy).

44. Cf. the conclusion reached independently by Farnell, "Critique," 168. 45. Wallace, "Semantic Range," 83. See n. 22 above. 46. This portrayal is consistent with the role of the Twelve who, though they were foundation

stones on which the church (universal and local) was built, were also elders in the local congregation at Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-6; cf. 1 Pet 5:1). A similar dual role for prophets is discernible insofar as the prophecies recorded in the NT pertained to localized, even individual, concerns and at the same time were integral to redemptive-historical developments involving the universal church. We have already seen these traits in the oracles of Agabus (see III. 3. above). The prophecies concerning Timothy (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14) are relevant here too. They were both fully binding on Timothy and providentially integral to the transition from the foundational era to the post-foundational era in the history of the church.

32

47. Gaffin, Perspectives, 94. 48. The verbal and conceptual parallels between 4:7-16 and 2:14-22 are apparent. For example,

the themes of housebuilding (temple building) and Christ's redemptive victory, already linked in 2:14-22, are again linked in 4:7-16 as Paul connects the distribution of gifts by Christ the triumphant Divine Warrior (note the citation of the Divine Warrior victory hymn [Ps 68] in 4:8) with the building of his body, the dwelling place of his Spirit (cf. 2:16, 18, 21-22). For additional parallels, see, for example, Lincoln, Ephesians, 231, 249, 261.

49. Cf. Gaffin, Perspectives, 94. 50. Grudem, Prophecy, 61 (emphasis mine). 51. On the criterion for identifying people as prophets, see Gaffin, Perspectives, 59, 93-95, and

Grudem, Prophecy, 197-98. 52. For instructive discussions of the relationship between gifts, ministry, and office, see Turner,

"Spiritual Gifts," 33-37 and especially H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (trans. J. R. De Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 438-46.

53. Gaffin, Perspectives, 59, 95, and Grudem, Prophecy, 197, 212. Note that Gaffin speaks of "frequent or regular exercise of the gift of prophecy" (ibid., 95), whereas I speak of "ongoing engagement in prophetic activity." The difference between my description and Gaffin's is intended to be stylistic, not substantive.

54. It is certainly beyond dispute that Paul consistently identifies his "gift" with functions other than prophecy (see Rom 1:5; 12:3; 1 Cor 3:5; Col 1:25; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11). Even in Ephesians, as he refers (evidently) to an occasion on which he was involved in prophetic activity (3:3-4) and links himself with prophets and apostles (2:20; 3:5), Paul nevertheless describes his gift-stewardship-ministry-grace only in terms of apostleship and its non-prophetic correlates (1:1; 3:2, 7, 8). On the NT picture of Paul's prophetic experiences, see Hill, Prophecy, 111-18, and Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 248-49. (The conclusion of Hill and Aune that Paul was a prophet is not inconsistent with my argument here [see n. 56]). It is worth pointing out that even if we were to conclude that Paul was a prophet in the customary sense, we would still be far from proving that this was so for all apostles.

55. Lest Grudem be found arguing that only some of the apostles—those who were also prophets—were the foundation of the church, his exegesis of Eph 2:20 requires him to affirm that all apostles were prophets. Apart from his arguments from the grammar and context of Eph 2:20, there is no evidence to corroborate Grudem's conclusion.

56. Gaffin, Perspectives, 59, 95. In personal conversation, R. B. Dillard has suggested that we may find OT examples of the occasional vis-à-vis ongoing exercise of the gift of prophecy in the patriarchs (Ps 105:15; Gen 20:7) and David (2 Sam 23:2; cf. Acts 2:30). The designation of, for example, Abraham as a prophet (Gen 20:7) clarifies the point being made here. The question is not whether Paul, John, and Peter could like Abraham be called prophets in the exceptional sense of those who once or from time to time engaged in prophetic activity, but whether they could be called prophets in the conventional sense of those whose stewardship or ministry was that of frequently or regularly engaging in prophetic activity.

57. Ibid., 95. 58. Grudem, Prophecy, 46. 59. Gaffin, Perspectives, 95-96.

(http://www.the-highway.com/cessation_White.html 14November 2010)

33

Cessationism versus Continuationism regarding the charismatic gifts

Content

INTRODUCTION

1. The Nine Gifts of the Holy Spirit 1. The Gifts of Inspiration 2. The Gifts of Revelation 3. The Gifts of Power

2. Various Forms of Cessationism 1. Strong Cessationism 2. Moderate Cessationism 3. Principled versus Emprical Cessationism 4. Cessationism - what it does not imply

3. The Ministry of an Apostle 1. The special meaning of apostolos 2. Apostleship and the Testimony of Christ's Resurrection

4. The Ministry of a Prophet 1. The force of the prophetic self-declaration 2. The uniform authority of prophets 3. The divine origin of true prophecies 4. Corollary from biblical observations 5. Foundational and non-foundational prophets

5. Canonicity and Sola Scriptura 1. Prophecy and Canonicity 2. Sola versus Prima Scriptura

6. Criteria of a True Prophet 7. The Purpose of Other Gifts

1. The Tongues and Interpretation 2. The Gifts of Power

8. Objections and the Cessationist Presuppositions ENDNOTES

CONCLUSION

IntroductionIn this article, we will examine the validity of the charismatic belief, whether the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit are still present in the Church of Christ. The charismatic belief affirms that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still present, and have never ceased to be in operation from the birth of the Church on the day of the Pentecost, cf. Acts 2, till now. The gifts will continue to exist until Christ's return. The charismatic belief is referred as the continuationist view, or Continuationism. The opposite view is known as the cessationist view, or Cessationism. We will show that Continuationism is wrong by examining the important arguments that are present in the issue.

In this paper, we have briefly touched upon restorationist views about Charisma (see Various Forms of Cessationism) which do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura, but we will deal mostly with forms of Cessationism that appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

The basic and underlying assumption for the article is that the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthian 12-14 are of a supernatural character. If one tended to interpret mentioned gifts, such as the gift of prophecy or gifts of healing, in a natural sense then it is quite a deviation in the use of these biblical terms from the rest of the Bible. A charismatic continuationist understanding of gifts is quite

34

correct, which is the very reason why we discuss this issue. The supernatural character of a true prophecy is grounded upon the fact that its direct source is God, who addresses the Church through His prophets, the bearers of the gift of prophecy. By that token, modern prophecies constitute new revelations from God, and as such opens up many issues pertaining to the question of open canonicity of the Bible, the validity of Sola Scriptura, etc. If the Corinthian gift of prophecy is understood in the natural sense then it would not raise any issues related to the canonicity of the Bible.

Cessationism presupposes the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is understood as a closed canon. The underlying theme of the article is the investigation of the logical relation between the charismatic continuationist view and the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is treated as a closed canon. The main target of Cessationist arguments is Continuationism that accepts the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scriptures is treated as a closed canon. Charismatic Continuationism is charged with inconsistency if it is committed to Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is understood as a closed canon. However, at the end of the article, we question the Cessationist presuppositions in order to see whether charismatic Continuationism is a viable position if the canon is assumed to be open. [Return to the Content]

A. The Nine Gifts of the Holy SpiritThe reason we should regard these gifts as supernatural is the mention of prophecy, healing and miracles. It is of course a possibility to regard other gifts, like faith and knowledge in a natural sense. But it is strange to regard knowledge as a gift. To be aware of some information does not require some special talent, unless the information in question is acquired through the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. Faith is not a gift unless it pertains to announcements of extraordinary events, e.g. moving a mountain. It is this supernatural quality of faith that Paul is referring to and which is confirmed by 1 Cor 13:2, "and though I have faith, so that I could remove mountains."

The assumption about the supernatural quality of the gifts will, therefore, be taken for granted in this article. Our most concern is the validity of the continuationist claim that these gifts are present in some individuals who are members of the Church.

What kinds of gifts are mentioned in 1 Cor 12-14? There are nine gifts grouped in three groups:

1. Gifts of Inspiration: tongues, interpretation and prophecy • Tongues were languages spoken by a speaker who had never learned these

languages. • Interpretation was an interpretation of a message given through the gift of tongues. A

speaker gave an interpretation of the message, through the Spirit, in spite of the speaker's lack of knowledge of the language in question.

• Prophecy was a speech in which God directly addressed the Church. 2. Gifts of Revelation: the word of knowledge, the word of wisdom and discerning the spirits

• The word of knowledge was an information acquired from the Holy Spirit • The word of wisdom was a supernatural guidance of the Spirit in the Church. • Discerning the spirits was a supernatural guidance of God in discerning the spirits.

3. Gifts of Power: gift of faith, gifts of healing and working of miracles • Gift of faith is the possession of a supernatural conviction pertaining to the

performance and announcement of miracles. The gift of faith should not be confused with two other kinds of faith, namely the saving faith (Eph. 2:8) and the fruit of faith (Gal. 5:22). Not every child of God has the gift of faith (to move mountains) but every saved child of God has the saving faith. A fruit of faith is one of the fruits of the Spirit in our daily life with our Lord, a fruit growing in our life. I understand it as a confidence in our Lord during our daily spiritual life, a belief that the Lord cares

35

for our daily needs. • Gifts of healing (notice plural) were gifts enabling supernatural physical healing • Gift of working of miracles was a gift possessed by an individual in the Church to

perform miracles. These nine gifts were present and manifested through the members of the Church in the first century. They were so common that every local Church had the manifestation of all nine gifts in the service. Even the Corinthian Church had all nine gifts in spite of the problems and immaturity present in the Church. If Continuationism is true, we would expect that any local charismatic Church have all nine gifts. However, only tongues, interpretation and the gift of prophecy dominate the charismatic scene. Other gifts are very rare to find. [Return to the Content]

B. Various forms of CessationismCessationism has various forms and can be differentiated in two kinds of classifications. The first clasification is with regard to the question of reemergence of gifts and the second classification is with regard to the types of justification of Cessationism.

With regard to the possibility of reemergence (reappearance) of the charismatic gifts, we differentiate two versions of Cessationism: (i) Strong Cessationism and (ii) Moderate Cessationism. With regard to the forms of justification of Cessationism, we make distinction between Principled and Empirical Cessationism. Both strong and moderate versions of Cessationism belong to the Principled forms of Cessationism, while some restorationist views belong to the empirical form of Cessationism.

In this paper, we will not deal with restorationist views about Charisma. In general, we have two types of restorationist views: (a) Restorationist charismatic view teaching that gifts ended between the second and fourth centuries AD, but reemerged at the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century, and (b) Restorationist Eschatological view teaching that gifts ended between the second and fourth centuries AD, but will reemerge during the Great Tribulation. The Restorationist Charismatic view is a peculiar charismatic position in that it is not a continuationist view. The Restorationist Eschatological view is practically the same as a moderate cessationist view, see below. Both restorationist views differ with below forms of Cessationism in that they do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura, but rather rely on a historical research of the early Church practises and doctrines of the Church Fathers. We have chosen to ignore the restorationist views for two reasons: (1) Restorationist views are semicontinuitionist because they do not offer a Principled reason why gifts have ceased, but take the cessation of gifts as a mere contingent historical fact; gifts could have continued if certain historical circumstances found place. (2) We are interested in the argumentative strength of invoking the principle of Sola Scriptura for the justification of Cessationism. Restorationist views, thus, would not offer us this kind of insight in that they do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura for accepting Cessationism.

1. Strong CessationismStrong Cessationism denies the possibility of reemergence of gifts on grounds of principle, that is, the denial is on a priori grounds; i.e. no matter what, even if we met prophets or healers who prophesied/healed in the name of Jesus, a strong Cessationist would deny the possibility of existence or reemergence of genuine God's prophets and healers in the post-Apostolic age, i.e. after the first century. A strong Cessationist would appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura, insisting on three propositions:

1. The Completion of the Canon of the Bible [pr. 1] 2. The Infallible and Sufficient Authority of the Bible [pr. 2] 3. The Perfection of the Scriptures to Guide the Church [pr. 3]

According to the strong Cessationist, a person with a gift of power is also a prophet because healing

36

and miracles are always signs associated with divine confirmation of the genuineness of a prophet, in the periods where God revealed new truths with respect to the doctrine. Given the above three propositions, a strong Cessationist would conclude that there would be no new prophets in the periods after the 1st century any more, as follows:

The Bible represents the complete revealed truth from God (pr. 1) capable of guiding God's people (pr. 3) as the infallible and sufficient authority for the Church (pr. 2). Therefore, there will not be new prophets guiding God's people any more.

A strong Cessationist might concede that prophecies might be useful in the guidance of the Church. Nevertheless, he will insist that the Church can be perfectly guided to reach right decisions if applying principles, teachings and examples of the Bible.[Return to the Content]

2. Moderate CessationismA moderate Cessationist would also deny the possibility of gifts on a priori grounds. He would deny the existence of manifestations of genuine charismatic gifts in the Church no matter what, even in the event of seeing apparent miracles or healing. However, a moderate Cessationist allows for the possibility of a new charismatic period in the future, when God would powerfully guide His people. This openness to the possibility of a new charismatic period is motivated by premillennialist eschatological expectations, where it is assumed that Christ's Second Coming will occur before the establishment of Christ's millennial kingdom on Earth. Within this premillennialist conceptual framework, the Great Tribulation is seen as a future period immediately preceding Christ's Coming. A moderate Cessationist would insist that the new charismatic period is possible only during the Great Tribulation for otherwise the genuine gifts would be in operation before the Tribulation, and, thus charismatic gifts could not be rejected on grounds of principle. Moderate Cessationism is compatible with all premillennialist positions (pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib and pre-wrath).

The moderate Cessationist understanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura is almost identical to the strong one. A moderate Cessationist would agree with all three propositions pr. 1-3, but with an important qualification: all three propositions are valid only in the post-Apostolic Age of the Church before the Great Tribulation, i.e. in the period after the first century until the days of the Great Tribulation. Thus, in practical terms, both strong and moderate Cessationism are the same. They differ only in eschatological terms, whether the gifts will reemerge in the last days immediately preceding the time of Christ's Second Coming. The strong Cessationist eschatological view is not a premillennialist, and, thus, does not share the premillennialist conceptual framework, such as the premillennialist view of the Great Tribulation as something belonging to the future.

Biblical grounds for moderate Cessationism is the reference to two powerful prophets of God, Rev 11:3-11. According to a moderate Cessationist, events described in Rev 11 are in the future, during the Great Tribulation. Moreover, a moderate Cessationist has a ready answer to the question why the Bible is so vague about the cessation of the charismatic gifts. The Bible is obscure on this point precisely because the gifts will reemerge during the Great Tribulation. They will absolutely end at the Second Coming of our Lord, at the end of the Great Tribulation.[Return to the Content]

3. Principled versus Emprical CessationismCessationism can be founded either a priori, on grounds of principle, or on a posteriori, i.e. on experience or empiria. Thus, we have two forms of Cessationism: (1) Principled Cessationism and (2) Empirical Cessationism.

Both strong and moderate versions of Cessationism belong to the forms of Cessationism on principle because they appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Their denial of the possibility of gifts is on a priorii grounds, or on grounds of principle. However, an empirical Cessationist denies

37

the possibility of charismatic gifts on empirical grounds because he does not immediately discard an apparent miracle, healing or prophecy as counterfeit. He will rather first investigate the genuineness of the manifestation of the charismatic gift in question.

According to an empirical Cessationist, there is no Christian group practicing genuine charismatic gifts because, if thoroughly investigated, many healings and other "miracles" would most certainly be shown to be false. In other words, an empirical Cessationist denial is based on experience coupled with the probabilistic expectation that apparent miracles, healings or prophecies are mostly improbable.

An example of empirical Cessationism is the Restorationist view of Charisma. In general, there are two types of restorationist views: (a) Restorationist Charismatic view teaching that gifts ended sometime between the second and fourth centuries, but reemerged several times in the history of the Church, and (b) Restorationist Eschatological view teaching that gifts ended sometime between the second and fourth centuries, but will reemerge during the days immediate to Christ coming. Both restorationist views differ with Principled forms of Cessationism in that they do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura, but rather rely on a historical research of the early Church practises and doctrines of the Church Fathers.

Another example of empirical form of cessationism is the view propounded by biblestudying.net. They have published a series of articles about charismatic gifts dealing with several issues concerning Charisma, such as the question of the timing of cessation of gifts. Their cessationist view is empirical because their denial of the continuation of the gifts is based on the historical research of early Church practices. Thus, their denial is on empirical grounds and not on grounds of principle, such as the appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

According to their historical study, "the charismatic gifts did indeed decline and were eventually lost sometime between the second and fourth centuries AD. An interesting thing about their Cessationist view is that it is a semi-Continuationist view; that is, the gifts could have continued until Christ's return, but instead ended "sometime between the second and fourth centuries AD." The conclusion of their historical study is as follows: "Thus, we must discard the doctrine that the gifts were supposed to pass away before Christ's return. Instead, we must accept the fact that the gifts were supposed to continue as a confirmation of sound doctrine until Christ's return but were lost as the Church deviated from that sound doctrine given by Christ to the apostles and by the apostles to the early Church of the first few centuries."

On the question of the reemergence of the gifts, they would agree with moderate Cessationists that the gifts will reemerge during the final days immediately preceding Christ's Second Coming. They unofficially call their view Conditional Cessationism because, as a spokesman for this view says, "The primary feature of our position is its assertion of the conditional nature of cessation and its positing that either a) continuation or b) cessation and restoration were possible." [From e-mail correspondence with Scott McPherson, a spokesman of this view]

In this article, the term 'Cessationism' will be referred to the Principled forms of Cessationism, i.e. either to a strong or to a moderate version of Cessationism, because these both forms of Cessationism share the same biblical ground for denying the charismatic continuationist view. The rationale for the empirical Cessationism is not the biblical arguments, but rather experience or observation of counterfeit miracles, healing and prophecies. Of interest are those disputes where Cessationism is founded upon grounds of principle and not on empirical observations of counterfeit miracles, fake prophecies and similar. Proving that some cases of miracles are counterfeit does not show that all cases of miracles are inauthentic. This article therefore does not cover the dispute between empirical Cessationism and Continuationism. In addition, we are more interested in biblical reasons figuring in the dispute than in historical reasons. Consideration of biblical data should be the decisive factor in the resolution of the dispute concerning charisma, notwithstanding

38

the overwhelming historical testimony we have for either the continuation or the cessation of the gifts in the early church.[Return to the Content]

4. Cessationism - what it does not implyA Cessationist denies the presence and manifestation of genuine supernatural charismatic gifts in our local churches. A Cessationist maintains that all nine gifts, mentioned in 1 Corinthian 12-14, are not present any more in local churches of the followers of Christ. However, we have to be clear on what the Cessationist view does not imply. A Cessationist does not deny that miracles can be seen in our churches. Neither does a Cessationist deny that God heals nowadays.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that God still speaks to His children. We, who are in Christ, have the Holy Spirit who guides us in our lives. We, as God's children, have a personal contact with our Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ. In our daily contact with the words of the Bible, we grow in His wisdom. God leads us when we read His words, which we do find in the Bible. In our prayer we can be guided by the Holy Spirit to think about certain things that will help us to grow in our spiritual life. In our spiritual growth, we also develop sensitivity to the inner voice of the Holy Spirit. God can influence our thoughts when we are in our prayer, because He is in us through His Spirit.

We are all baptized in His Spirit and we do not need tongues for the confirmation of that baptism. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, (...) and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:13) Thus, every child of God is a part of the Body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If we are in Christ, then we are baptized in His Spirit. To be saved is a sufficient condition for the baptism in God's Spirit. We do not need to have any supernatural gift confirming our baptism in the Holy Spirit. If tongues were condition for the baptism then it is strange that God says that we are all baptized in God's Spirit, but that not all speak in tongues, cf. 1 Cor. 12:13, 28-30.

The fact that we have God's Spirit leading us in our daily life implies that God does individually speak to us, that God can heal us and even perform miracles for our comfort. The crucial question is in which way God speaks to us. To repeat, a Cessationist strongly believes that God speaks to His children and that He can physically heal us when we pray to Him. Nevertheless, a Cessationist contends that God neither speaks through some special chosen prophets nor heals through some special chosen healers.

The next section deals with the first reason why we should reject the charismatic continuationist thesis.[Return to the Content]

C. The Ministry of an ApostleIf we maintain that every gift and ministry still exists in the Church of our century, as it was in the Church of the first century, then we must maintain that we do have apostles today. But this is simply false to maintain for the following reasons.

1. The special meaning of apostolosThe word "apostle" is one of the few Greek words, which is not translated in our English Bibles. Why did we not translate this word from Greek, which means a messenger, one who is sent, a delegate, one sent forth with orders? There are many other Greek terms for expressing the meaning of someone sent as a messenger (e.g. angelo, pempo and their derivates). Angelo is translated into English messenger only when it denotes an ordinary human messenger, but it is not translated when it denotes angels, i.e. nonhuman messengers. In the case when it refers to nonhuman messengers, the meaning of the term would not be correctly conveyed under translation. The same with the term 'apostolos'. It is not translated because the term has a special meaning, not easily conveyed in

39

languages that do not have the same concept of apostolos. ' apostolos' does not just mean an ordinary messenger, or some delegate. It is more than that. The following example will illustrate the significance of the term 'apostolos.'

In ancient times, when a king sent his apostolos to some distant town, the people of the town would regard the king's apostle as if the apostle was the king himself. They would bow to him and address him as if it was the king himself who sent him. The apostle had the authority of the one who sent him.

Thus, Jesus' apostles were messengers with Jesus' authority. They were the foundation for the Church of the New Testament, (with Prophets, cf. Eph. 2:20).

Both the Bible and many Greek Theological dictionaries confirm this perspective of the Apostleship. What comes clear in the exegetical study of apostolos, is that above all it applies to the group of men who held the supreme dignity in the primitive church. The force of apostolos is 'one commissioned' - it is implied by Christ. Rengstorf, in particular, has elaborated the theory that it reflects the Jewish shaluah, an accredited representative of religious authority, entrusted with messages and money empowered to act on behalf of the authority (for the idea cf. Acts. 9:2); also Gregory Dix and others renowned Greek scholars have applied ideas and expressions belonging to the shaluah concept (e.g. "a man's shaluah is as himself") to the apostolate.1 Kittel also connects the ministry of Apostleship with the Judaistic ministry of shaluah.

The legal institution of the shaluah, which is ancient but takes shape in the first century, involves commissioning with specific tasks and stress authorization. The legal element of giving and obeying orders is decisive. The person sent represent the sender, e.g. in betrothal, divorce, or purchase. Full adherence to the commission is presupposed. The applicable law is that of messenger, whose honoring or shaming is an honoring or shaming of the sender (1 Sam. 25:40-41; 2 Sam. 10:1-2). The person sent is as the person who sends.2

Saying that we nowadays have Christ's apostles around in our churches, will imply that we have persons who have the authority of Christ. [Return to the Content]

2. Apostleship and the Testimony of Christ's ResurrectionAnother important function of a Christ's apostle is that he was a Prime Witness of Jesus' bodily resurrection. The necessary condition for a person to be a Christ's apostle was that the person had seen the bodily resurrected Jesus in order to give the Prime Testimony for the truthfulness of our fundamental Christian belief. The only possibility for truthfulness of such kind of testimony was that the person had seen Jesus before His bodily death, witnessed (or knowing for sure) the fact of Jesus' bodily death and that He was able to recognize the bodily resurrected Christ, cf. Acts. 1:21-22. However today, if someone claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus, we are entitled to ask the person how he can know for sure that it is Jesus he has seen. How can a person nowadays recognize Jesus of Nazareth, who died on the cross 2000 years ago? It is obvious that the person has not seen Jesus while Jesus was walking in human flesh among us. If the person answers our question by saying that Jesus was seen in a vision, such a testimony is not reliable. The Testimony of Christ's bodily resurrection should be based on certain objective criteria enabling recognition of the resurrected Christ, and not on mere subjective criteria. A Testimony of an apostle should be of prime quality. The Testimony should have the highest quality or value as a Testimony for the fundamental Christian belief, fundamental in the virtue that the whole Christian faith is based on the Testimony for the truthfulness of the bodily Resurrection of our Lord.

The first century is, therefore, rightfully called the Apostolic Period in the History of our Church. At

40

that time in Judea there were at least 500 persons who had truly witnessed the appearance of the bodily resurrected Messiah, and many of them were appointed by Jesus to be Prime Witnesses for His resurrection. There were two kinds of apostles.

The first important group was the circle of the Twelve, and they were the foundation of the First Church in Jerusalem. However, also other persons were appointed as Prime Witnesses of our Lord in order to spread the Gospel throughout the whole Roman Empire. Jesus Himself appointed them, e.g. Paul. We know that at least there were 83 apostles, 12-1+70+Paul+Barnabas (Luk. 10:1 about 70 more apostles; Acts. 1:26 about Matthias' replacing Judas of Iskariot; Acts. 14:14, about Paul and Barnabas). But it is clear that the Twelve had a special role, especially seen in the light of Acts 1:26; probably because they were close to Jesus during His ministry before His death.

Anyway, all Apostles were the foundation for the continuing mission to spread the Gospel for the whole world. Christianity was spreading with an exponential rate in spite of the persecutions. Already at the end of the first century, Christianity was established in the whole Roman Empire and it was also already spread in other areas outside of the Roman Empire. I believe that Christianity began to be known in Ireland, Armenia, and even in some provinces of India. It is interesting that the Apostle Thomas, according to the Christian tradition, extended his apostolate into India, where he is recognized as the founder of the Church of the Syrian Malabar Christians, or Christians of St. Thomas. The origins of the Christians of St. Thomas are uncertain, though they seem to have been in existence before the 6th century AD.

Implied in the Apostleship is the commission to witness by word and sign (2 Cor 12:12) to the risen Christ and His completed work. This witness, being grounded in a unique experience of the incarnate Christ, and directed by a special dispensation of the Holy Spirit, provides the authentic interpretation of Christ, and has ever since been determinative for the Church. In the nature of things, the office of Apostleship could not be repeated or transmitted: any more than the underlying historic experiences could be transmitted to those who had never known the incarnate Lord and seen Him resurrected. Therefore, we do not have Apostles in our age after the 1st century A.D.

Given the considerations above, we can be sure that the apostolic ministry is not present in the Church any more. If some ministries are gone, then is it not plausible to assume that some gifts are gone as well, especially those gifts pertaining to the sign of the Apostleship, cf. 2 Cor. 12:12? [Return to the Content]

D. The Ministry of a ProphetWhat about the prophets, do we have them in the 21st century? There are three considerations that lead us to the Cessationist conclusion that the prophetic ministry ended at end of the 1st century.

1. The force of the prophetic self-declaration 2. The uniform authority of prophets 3. The divine origin of the prophecy

1. The force of the prophetic self-declarationA prophetic speech, or prophecy, is a first person utterance, spoken in the name of the Lord. A prophetic speech begins with a strong and authoritative declaration such as "and so says the Lord," signifying the divine character of the speech, i.e. that it is spoken in the name of the Lord. This means that a prophecy functions as God's message directly addressing the Church. Usually a prophetic speech begins with a strong declaration in order to emphasize the divine source of the speech, e.g. "and so says the Lord." Because a prophet begins with such a strong declaration, we should regard the speech as infallible. Thus, a prophet, through the verbal inspiration by God, directly speaks the words of God to the Church.

If we maintain that prophetic words do not present direct and infallible words of God, then the person in question is not entitled to say a first-person utterance in the name of the Lord by using a

41

strong declaration, for instance "and so says the Lord." If a person comes with such a strong prophetic declaration, e.g. "and so says the Lord." If a person comes with such a strong prophetic declaration, e.g. "and so says the Lord," and begins to speak in the first person in the name of the Lord, as if God were directly speaking to the Church, then we should surely regard the speech to be direct and infallible words of God; otherwise the prophetic speech act would be deceptive. In the biblical study of the ancient prophets of both the Old and the New Testament (Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Esaias, Jeremiah, Agabus, etc.), we observe the above practise of prophetic declarations among prophets. When ancient prophets delivered their prophecies, they spoke in the name of the Lord by introducing their speech with a strong prophetic declaration about the divine character of the speech, i.e. a declaration that the speech presents direct words and message of God by saying such as "and so says the Lord." [Return to the Content]

2. The uniform authority of prophetsThe second observation is that orally spoken prophecies were assigned the same authority as written acknowledged prophecies. Consider, for instance, the great prophets Nathan and Elijah. These two prophets were as great in authority as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Yet we do not have canonical books written by Nathan or Elijah. Although some prophets, such as Moses, were greater in the clarity and reception of God's revelation, that does not imply that they were greater in authority than prophets who had less clear revelations.

The New Testament writers also recognized and acknowledged the authority of the oral charismatic tradition that flourished in Judea in the last three centuries before Christ. Much of this oral prophetic tradition was not included in the canon of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they were recognized as authoritative as the written prophecies of the Old Testament.

For instance, Matthew and Judas referred to prophecies that are extra-biblical (outside the canon of the Bible). Here follows brief comments on the passages in question.

Matthew 2:23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene'. (Mat 2:23, my emphasis)

Notice that we are talking about spoken prophecies, referring to a charismatic prophetic tradition (notice plural "prophets"). The phrase "He shall be called a Nazarene" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that Christ's dwelling in the city of Nazareth is a fulfillment of a prophecy spoken by prophets. If the reference is to the written body of prophetic books of the Old Testament, then we should have found two or more prophetic books prophesying this event. We do not find any reference in the Old Testament.

There are some proposed solutions to explain Mat 2:23. They range from trying to find some word-play on "Nazarene" in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, to viewing this text as loosely "fulfilling" a conglomeration of the Old Testament passages that refer to a despised Messiah. For instance, the closest passages are Zec 3:8 and Zec 6:12. These passages talk about God's servant whose name is the Branch, but they are not prophecies saying "He shall be called the Branch." Besides, the expression is translated from tseh'makh, not resembling the phonetic "Nazareth". However, another word for branch phonetically similar to "Nazareth" is nay'-tser as used in Isa 11:1, "and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." However, Isa 11:1 cannot be the referred passage, as some commentators propose, e.g. John Gill. The wording is not the same and the meaning of the prophecy is not the same. Mat 2:23 is talking about the city of Nazareth, but Isa 11:1 talks about Christ's genealogical branch.

Matthew is drawing on oral tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as the ones he attributes to written prophecies of the Old Testament.

42

Jude makes two references to extra-biblical prophecies, v. 9 and vv. 14-15.

Jude 9Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan.

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

This incident is not mentioned in the Scripture, but has its source in some "extra-biblical" revelation in Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle. Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body.

This text provides another example of how oral charismatic tradition of the Old Testament carries the same authority as the written body of prophetic writings of the Bible. In other words, these two forms of prophecies have the same kind or form of authority, i.e. divine and infallible. In other words, both forms of prophecies are uniform in authority.

Given the above, any true prophetic speech carries the same authority as prophecies of ancient prophets of both the Old and the New Testament. Consequently, modern prophets, in the capacity of their office, would have the same authority as the ancient prophets of both Testaments of the Bible.

Jude 14-15And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

This passage is also found in the noncanonical book of 1 Enoch (1:9). Does it mean that 1 Enoch is a completely divine inspired book? One can at most say that the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) was written as a result of oral traditions that have preserved some of the true ancient extra-biblical prophecies.

3. The divine origin of true propheciesFrom the foregoing, we have observed the strong authoritative character of prophetic self-declaration and the uniform authority of prophets. Both these features are grounded upon one biblical fact: the origin of prophecies and revelation is divine. The prophetic declaration would lose its meaning unless its source is grounded upon true revelation and inspiration from God. Precisely because the origin of all true prophecies stems from God, all prophecies enjoy the same uniform authority.

Consequently, a spoken prophecy is, in principle, of the same authority as the written words of the Bible, provided that the spoken prophecy is genuine, i.e. have its origin in God. Therefore, if we assume that there are genuine modern prophets of God, then there would not be any distinction between the authority of their prophecies and the authority of the Bible. This observation prompts the question whether the presence of genuine modern prophecies/revelations would repudiate the sufficient authority of the Bible. This is the topic of the next part. [Return to the Content]

Corollary from biblical observationsFrom the examples above, it follows that God's revelations/prophecies outside the Scriptures of the Old Testament enjoyed the same authority as written revelations/prophecies in the Scripture. In practice, this means that the canon is not regarded as strictly closed as long as we have oral prophecies/revelations that enjoy the uniform authority of the canonical ones. If the canon is closed

43

then we should not accept any new revelations/prophecies. This question of closed canonicity and its bearing to the Continuationist thesis will be thoroughly investigated in the part E, Canonicity and Sola Scriptura.

The main point with the thesis of the uniformity of prophetic authority is that modern prophets would enjoy the same authority as the ancient prophets Jeremiah or Agabus, even if we did not literally add any new book to the canon. This point is reinforced with the observation about great prophets as Nathan or Elijah. These two prophets were as great as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Yet, we do not have books written by Nathan or Elijah.

A Cessationist's main motive in the denial of the continuationist thesis about charismatic gifts is that he is not prepared to accept the authority of new prophets. A Cessationist is not prepared to accept their authority precisely because it would commit him to the view that their authority is the same as the authority of biblical prophets as Jeremiah and John. [Return to the Content]

Foundational and non-foundational prophetsSome Continuationists, such as Wayne Grudem, make a distinction between two kinds of prophets, foundational and non-foundational prophets.3 The foundational prophets were those Apostles that were also prophets, while the non-foundational prophets would be prophets that were not among the Apostles. This distinction is significant in the dispute because a Continuationist, by appealing to this distinction, can avoid the conclusion that modern prophecies may have content with new doctrinal import. Only foundational prophets could come up with prophecies with new doctrinal import that serve as the foundation of the Church. Therefore, Wayne Grudem can readily agree with Cessationists that we no longer have foundational ministries such as the apostolic and prophetic ministries, as referrenced in Eph 2:20.4 These ministries ended at the beginning of the second century. Nevertheless, the gift of prophecy is still in operation because not all possessors of the gift of prophecy had the foundational ministry of a prophet. Thus, we have a distinction between foundational and non-foundational prophetic ministries. A non-foundational prophetic ministry would not involve prophecies with new doctrinal import and, as such, would not contribute anything to the foundation of the Church.

The two main arguments for maintaining this distinction between prophetic ministries are the following ones:5

1. The Greek grammar of the text of Eph 2:20, specifically the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun construction in the NT permits us to interpret ton apostolon kai profeton as meaning "the apostles and the apostles who are also prophets."

2. We are commanded to test prophecies, implying that a prophecy can have a mixture of both true and false elements. Consequently, such prophecies are fallible. This cannot possibly be said of prophecies given by foundational prophets; otherwise they would be fallible, and as such could not serve as the foundation of the Church.

We will only look into the first argument, while the second one is discussed in the section dealing about verification of prophets.

According to R. Fowler White's reply to Grudem's grammatical argument,

Grudem's exegesis is not at all compelling from a grammatical point of view. For one thing, Grudem interprets the syntax of ton apostolon kai profeton without due regard for the fact that this construction involves plural nouns. As odd as it may sound, with the exception of Eph 4:11 (on which I shall comment below), Grudem fails to cite a single example of the construction in question in Eph 2:20: every one of the texts he adduces in favor of his exegesis is an example of a construction involving something other than two plural nouns.

44

Even if Grudem were to correct this problem, his case would have another serious obstacle to overcome. The obstacle is that Grudem interprets the syntax of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in Eph 2:20 in a way which, as D. B. Wallace has demonstrated, has neither clear nor ambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even the one true grammatical parallel that Grudem cites (Eph 4:11, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) has been widely misunderstood because few exegetes have ever seriously investigated the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction. In fact, Wallace boldly challenges the exegesis of Eph 4:11 by Grudem and others, emphatically insisting "that such a view has no grammatical basis" in NT usage. According to Wallace's findings, the least likely interpretation of Eph 4:11 is that it means "the pastor-teachers, that is, the pastors who are also teachers"; more likely, it means "the pastors and other teachers."6

Another consideration is to compare Eph 2:20 with Eph 4:11 and 1 Cor 12:28, where there is also a mention of apostles and prophets together with other ministries and gifts. White notes "that 1 Cor 12:28, together with Eph 4:11, establishes a burden of proof for those who like Grudem would see something other than a distinction between apostles and prophets in Eph 2:20. It remains for Grudem to produce the evidence that shifts the burden of proof from himself to those who differ with him."7 White's position is strengthened by his discussion of Gaffin's observation that 2:20 and 4:11 are parts of a larger context in which Paul discusses the church.

Gaffin's observation that 2:20 and 4:11 are parts of a larger context, viz., 2:11-4:16, in which Paul discusses the church (universal and local) and its composition as the newly-created body of Christ. Within that larger unit, 4:7-16 expands on Paul's description of the church in 2:11-22 by pointing out the harmony of the differing gifts distributed by Christ in the body. Given this connection between the two sections, it is extremely unlikely that the prophets mentioned as foundation stones of the church in 2:20 are other than the prophets who contribute to its upbuilding in 4:11-12. In fact, in view of the larger context of 2:11-4:16, the prophets' specific role in the housebuilding work pictured in 4:7-16 would have to be none other than their foundational function described in 2:20.8

Some Continuationists, such as Craig Simonian, do not buy Grudem's argument. "If Paul wanted to speak of the apostles who were also prophets, he most likely would have used a construction that emphasized the point."9 Nevertheless, they would make a similar distinction between prophecies carrying a canonical weight from prophecies that do not.10 Craig sees in Moses as "an archetype of a unique strand of prophets which was ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah as indicated in the NT."11 Such archetype of prophets had a canonical authority and not all prophets were of that archetype. Other prohets received revelation via visions or dreams, and as such did not carry the foundational weight. Thus, a Continuationist do not accept the Cessationist premise of the uniform authority of prophets.

Craig cites several biblical observations supporting the distinction between canonical (foundational) and noncanonical (nonfoundational) prophets. Some of these biblical observations are reports of people who began prophesying after the Spirit of God had fallen upon them: e.g. Numb 11:25, when elders started to prophecy; 1 Sam 10, when Saul prophesied. In these biblical reports, we observe people who were not ordinarily prophets, but who spontaneously prophesied when the Spirit of God had fallen upon them. Craig notes that "what Saul prophesied was not recorded that day and it is likely that his prophesies lacked any lasting significance."12 Craig's additional objection against the Cessationist notion of the uniform authority of prophets is as follows:

We should also consider the breadth of OT Prophets. They would include prophetesses

45

such as Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Huldah (2 Ki 22:14), and Deborah (Judges 4:4). Had God called these women to be His authoritative messengers to Israel so that to disobey them was to disobey God Himself? Indeed, was Balaam, an enemy of God, to fill this position of Scripture-writer as he received infallible revelation from God in Numbers 11:6-24?! When Joel wrote his book which, of course, became part of OT canon, he prefaced what would follow with the words, "The word of the Lord that came to Joel." Here, Joel is speaking with canonical weight behind him. Now, representing the very words of God, he puts his life on the line. If he errs in his delivery of God's message, he should, according to Deuteronomy 18, be put to death. However, in his book he refers to an experience where God would pour out His spirit on all people ... and, as a result, "sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, and your young men will see visions" (Joel 2:28-29). Should these daughters and young men have been subject to death, as per Dt. 18:20, if they had spoken in error?13

Therefore, a Continuationist can maintain that not all prophets have a "canonical authority" by observing two strands of prophets in the OT and that this pattern continued in the NT.

If we are right in saying that there are, in fact, two strands of prophesy in the OT (both being revelatory yet not having the same function and authority), then it is likely that these two strands of prophesy would be presented in the NT as well. This would preserve the theological unity of prophesy in Scripture, as the Cessationists attest to, and would show that the function of NT prophesy itself not only had a canonical role but a community or congregational role as well.14

Continuationists that make such distinction would further contend that a prophecy given by a non-foundational prophet can contain both true and false elements, and for that reason the Scriptures command us to test prophecies, cf. 1 Cor 14:29, 1 Thess 5:20.15 Thus, a Continuationist concludes that modern prophecies do not represent an infallible source of authority for the Church and, as such, the principle of Sola Scriptura is not violated.

A Cessationists would have a different interpretation of biblical data and not reach the same Continuationist conclusion concerning the non-foundational authority of "lesser prophets." A Cessationist would concede that some prophets, such as Moses, were greater in the clarity and reception of God's revelation, but not conclude that they were greater in authority than prophets who had less clear revelations. A Cessationist would raise many questions concerning these "lesser prophets." Although there were occasions that the Spirit had fallen upon some persons, who were not ordinarily prophets, why would we suppose that their prophecies had a lesser authority? Were not their words spoken in the name of the Lord? Would not this imply that at the moment of their prophetic speech act, they were the very mouthpiece of God? Would not their word be infallible in the virtue of being God's word? If not, why would we call their messages as prophecies? How could they be entitled to speak in the name of the Lord, if their words did not carry the weight of divine infallible authority? If we allow that non-foundational prophets can give fallible prophecies, i.e. prophecies containing error, how do we distinguish these prophets who has spoken in error from false prophets who presumptuously speak in the name of the Lord? In the logic of prophetic self-declarations, we should treat a genuine prophecy as divine and infallible. A prophetic self-declaration does not carry any weight if we treated the spoken prophecy as human and fallible. So, to Craig's question, "Should these daughters and young men have been subject to death, as per Dt. 18:20, if they had spoken in error?", a Cessationist would answer that any person who spoke presumptuously in the name of the Lord is subject to death.[Return to the Content]

E. Canonicity and Sola Scriptura

46

When discussing the principle of Sola Scriptura in this context, it should be noted that the principle presupposes the closed character of the canon, that is, the body of the Holy Scriptures is closed and not open for new additions. Affirming Sola Scriptura is stronger than affirming the closed nature of the canon. One might accept that the canon is closed and deny Sola Scriptura, but not vice versa. For instance the Roman Catholic Church denies the principle of Sola Scriptura, but affirms that the canon is closed. Sola Scriptura presupposes the idea of closed canonicity because the principle makes sense only in a context where one raises the question of the sufficient and final authority of the Holy Scriptures qua an established and closed body of books. The historical background of the formulation of the principle was during the Protestant Reformation, when the central question was how authoritative is this body of Holy Scriptures: whether it is the only infallible and final authority for the Church. This question presupposed the view of the closed canon.

Would the principle of Sola Scriptura be false if the canon were open? Sola Scriptura would neither be false nor true. The very question of the sufficiency of the Bible presupposes the view of closed canonicity of the Bible. However, if the body of the Scripture was treated as growing, but not yet complete, then the already written books would be treated with the utmost respect and reverence, as holy and infallible words from our Lord, together with the living voice of the prophets and apostles. Therefore, the point of Sola Scriptura would be lost, and the point with the principle is that doctrinal truths are justified by appealing to an established and closed canon of the Holy Scriptures. The canon is not established as long as it is uncompleted. Consequently, Sola Scriptura would lose its meaning and point.

Would the presence of genuine modern prophecies/revelations repudiate the sufficient authority of the Bible? In order to investigate this question, we will deal with the following problems:

1. How does the Continuationist view relate to the canonicity of the Bible? 2. How does the Continuationist view relate to the principle of Sola Scriptura?

1. Prophecy and CanonicityAssuming that there are new prophets, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a distinction between the authority of God's words uttered through some modern prophet and God's words written in the Bible. If we follow the logic of the previous part, the answer is obvious: a prophetic self-declaration, the uniform authority of prophets and the divine origin of true prophecies makes the prophecy in question as equal in the authority with God's written words of the Bible.

Nevertheless, a Continuationist would not necessarily agree with such an answer. He would point out that every true prophecy given today has to be consistent with the Bible. The Bible has a greater authority, a Continuationist might say, because it is by the Bible that we test prophecies. It is not by modern prophecies that we test the Bible, but rather the other way around: prophecies are tested by the Bible. The Bible is the paradigm of true prophecies. Furthermore, every oral prophecy has to be tested and be verified, while this is not the case with the Bible.

Verification means, in this context, an evaluative conclusion by some reliable test that something is true. Falsification, on the other hand, means an evaluative conclusion by some reliable test that something is false. How would a prophecy be verified (or falsified) by the Bible? A Continuationist understands the test by judging the doctrinal content of a prophetic message with the teachings of the Bible. If a prophecy, by its content or implications, contradicts with the teachings of the Bible then the prophecy in question is false.

A Cessationist would object to the above charismatic account on the matter of verification of a given prophecy. A Cessationist contends that the Bible cannot provide a sufficient verification as long as we allow that God continues to speak through prophets. The Cessationist contention is thoroughly discussed later, but suffice to say that a prophecy consistent with the Bible is not necessarily inspired by God. It is even possible that demon-possessed persons can issue true prophetic utterances which are wholly consistent with the Bible; cf. Mark 3:11, Acts 16:18, demon-

47

possessed persons and persons with a spirit of divination have said true things about Jesus' and the apostles' ministries. The criteria of a true prophet is thoroughly discussed in part F, Criteria of a True Prophet. In the course of our discussion in part F, we will also show that a true prophecy (revelation) can also contradict with the established canon of the Holy Scriptures.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Bible provides a sufficient standard for testing prophecies. Would this establish that the Bible has greater authority? What is at most established is that the Bible is the most reliable source of knowledge of God's revelation, but not that it is greater in authority than other sources of God's revelation, e.g. new oral prophecies. The fact that the Bible is the most reliable source of knowledge of God's revelation is the result of it having been verified and testified. All prophecies and revelations in the Bible were also subjected to tests. After being verified as true revelations from God, they enjoyed great authority in the same way other noncanonical prophecies did. The point is that these other noncanonical prophecies could, in principle, also be included in the canon. The fact that they were not included does not mean they were second-rate prophecies. Nathan, Elijah and Elisha were great prophets, but their prophecies were not included in the canon. Prophecies from such great prophets would surely not be characterized as second-rate. Their prophecies could, in principle, be included in the canon, had they be written down and preserved. Therefore, given the Cessationist biblical observation of the uniform authority of prophecies, modern prophets would carry the same authority as Jeremiah or Apostle John, even if we did not add their prophecies as new prophetic books to the canon.

Thus, the fundamental problem of the Charismatic perspective is as follows:

Let us assume that we have tested a prophetic utterance and are certain that it is true: God is the source of the prophecy. Why should not this prophecy enjoy the same authority as the canonical prophecies of the Bible?

This is the fundamental problem for the charismatic continuationist perspective if we grant that the canon of the Bible is closed. This is not a problem for groups or churches that regard the Bible as an open canon, such as Latter-day Saints or Mormons. Mormons are quite consistent with their doctrine that the presence of new revelations and prophecies implies that the canon of the Bible is open. No wonder that they venerate their prophetic books with the same authority as the books of the Bible.

Some Continuationists misconstrue the Cessationist appeal to the closure of the canon as if Cessationists do not acknowledge non-canonical revelations and, then, try to show that the Bible makes clear of the existence of non-canonical revelations. [Don Codling, Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts, pp. 63-70]. However, the Cessationist question regarding non-canonical revelations is about their authority. The Cessationist appeal to the closure of the canon does not imply that Cessationists are blind for the existence of non-canonical revelations. The Cessationist point is rather that new prophecies and revelations would enjoy the same authority as the canonical prophecies and revelations of the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, non-canonical revelations could, in principle, be included in the canon, had they be written and preserved. The Cessationist main concern is how would modern prophetic speech differ in authority from the inspired speech of canonical prophets and apostles. [As an example of such Cessationist concern, see Richard Gaffin, "A Cessationist response to C. Samuel Storms and Douglas A. Oss," in: Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?, pp. 293-294 (Zondervan, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1996)]

[W]hat sense can there be in trying to maintain both a closed canon and the occurrence of inspired speech today? "Canon," after all, is not merely a literary designation or cataloging term. It carries connotations of authority. The "canon" is whether I find God's inspired word for today. If inspired speech continues today, then, as our canon, Scripture is not complete; no matter how highly we may otherwise view it, the Bible is but a part

48

of that canon. [Richard Gaffin, "A Cessationist response to C. Samuel Storms and Douglas A. Oss," in: Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?, pp. 293-294 (Zondervan, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1996)]

Another continuationist approach is to limit the scope of modern prophecies. A Continuationist might say that prophecies do not provide new doctrinal content. He would maintain that prophecies are more concerned with "edification, and exhortation, and comfort of the Church", cf. 1 Cor 14:3-5, 12. Given the limited scope of the prophecies, modern prophecies do not present an addition to the established canon.

The above continuationist approach is question-begging. "Why limit the Spirit's work?" a Cessationist would ask. Why would modern prophecies be different from the prophecies of ancient times? Edification of the church also involves doctrines of God, and there is no scriptural evidence that the gift of prophecy was so limited in its scope. The Old Testament prophecies are full of doctrinal import, and there is no reason why this would not apply to the New Testament prophecies.

All the evidence from the examples of prophetic ministry in the NT shows that it was entirely of a piece with OT prophecy in its character and form. The ministries of John the Baptist, Agabus and the John who wrote the Apocalypse alike comprise the classic unity of prediction and proclamation, of foretelling and forth-telling, and the same is true of Zechariah, Simeon and others.[L. L. Morris, "Prophecy in the New Testament," as the fifth section of the dictionary entry PROPHECY, PROPHETS in: New Bible Dictionary, (Intervarsity Press, Second edition, 1982), p. 985]

Christ's Church is built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles; no other foundation is allowed.

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. (Eph 2:20-21)

If we have the gift of prophecy in operation nowadays, then the prophetic foundation is in work today and was not completed by the end of the first century. Therefore, modern prophecies could, in principle, add a new doctrinal content to the Scriptures; new doctrinal elements not necessarily in contradiction with the Scriptures. [Return to the Content]

2. Sola versus Prima ScripturaThe principle of Sola Scriptura is the principle teaching that the Scripture is the sole infallible authority in the Church. The Scripture presents both the necessary and sufficient infallible authority in all matters pertaining to Christian doctrine and practise. Another formulation of the principle is as follows:

The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the leaders in the Church are subject to correction by the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final and infallible authority in matters of faith and practice.

For principled Cessationists, who reject Continuationism by appealing to the principle of Sola Scriptura, the main issue is the logical relation between Sola Scriptura and the Continuationist thesis. They contend that Charismatic gifts would represent a second infallible source of authority for the Church, and we therefore cannot consistently maintain Sola Scriptura as the only infallible authority for the Church. Rather, we would regard the authority of the Scriptures according to the

49

principle of Prima Scriptura.

The principle of Prima Scriptura is a principle teaching that the Scriptures is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, the principle acknowledges that there are other authoritative guides in the Church, such as tradition, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, etc. Prima Scriptura is unproblematic if one does not understand other guides as infallible. In this weak sense of the term, Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura are not necessarily contradicting each other. However, Prima Scriptura is problematic if understood in a stronger sense of the term. In the strong sense of the term, other authoritative guides are treated as infallible. The strong sense of the Prima Scriptura is problematic for principled Cessationists because it would contradict to Sola Scriptura. A principled Cessationist contends that a Continuationist view subscribes to the strong sense of Prima Scriptura. The crucial question is whether a Continuationist can insist on Prima Scriptura on biblical grounds instead.

Does the Scriptures teach one of these principles? The Continuationist Prima Scriptura is not a coherent principle with respect to the gifts of inspiration and gifts of revelation. The arguments from the force of the prophetic self-declaration, the uniform authority of prophets and the divine origin of true prophecies show that there cannot be a "first" or an "above all" source of divine revelation. Revelation is revelation; they have the same divine infallible source. A teaching that is incoherent cannot be true. Consequently, it cannot be a principle derived from the teachings of the Scriptures. Note also that the three above cessationist principles are taught by the Scripture. Thus, Prima Scriptura, with respect to the charismatic gifts, is implicitly denied by the Scripture.

Does the Bible support the idea of Sola Scriptura? The Scriptures teach us implicitly about the sufficient authority of the Scriptures. 2 Tim 3:16-17 teaches that the Old Testament is inspired by God and is capable of guiding us.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The New Testament teaches us that we shall respect apostolic teachings, either oral or written, cf. 2 Thess 2:15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In other words, the Bible teaches us implicitly that our only authority is God's revealed word, be it through prophets or apostles. So, if we do not have prophets or apostles any more, it follows that we only have their writings as their authority. Given 2 Tim 3:16-17 and 2 Thess 2:15, both the OT and the NT is our authority. In other words, we have the truth of Sola Scriptura.[Return to the Content]

F. Criteria of a True ProphetA Continuationist maintains that the Bible is sufficient for testing truthfulness of prophecies. There are three main reasons why the Bible is not sufficient for the testing purposes.

1. A prophecy consistent with the Bible is not necessarily inspired by God. It is even possible that demon-possessed persons can issue true prophetic utterances which are wholly consistent with the Bible; cf. Mark 3:11, Acts 16:18; demon-possessed persons and persons with a spirit of divination have said true things about Jesus' and the apostles' ministries.

2. New revelations and prophecies could add new doctrinal content to the Scriptures, not necessarily in contradiction with the Scriptures, or provide an authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. Given such a supposition, the principle of Sola Scriptura would not be a valid

50

principle anymore, and by that token, the Bible could not provide sufficient ground for testing new prophecies.

3. Given the observation of the uniform authority of prophets, new verified prophecies and revelations have the same authority as the established canon of the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, new revelations can contradict the established canon. Paul's new revelation about the ritual laws of the Mosaic Pact, namely, that they were abolished with Christ's fulfillment of the Law, would not have been accepted had it been insisted that the established truths of the Old Testament were sufficient for testing new revelations. Therefore, the prophetic word is on the same footing as the words of the Bible.

Continuationists insist that the Bible is a sufficient guide in testing new prophecies.16 A Cessationist might counter by asking: "How did the early Christians, in the period of the formation of the New Testament, test prophecies given the fact that the churches at that time did not have all the books of the New Testament in their possession?" It is obvious that using the Holy Scriptures was not a sufficient guide, but that other methods of discernment were also employed. Furthermore, did not God give new revelations about the doctrine at that time given the fact that the New Testament was not complete, such as the doctrine of the obsolesce of the Old Ritual Mosaic Law, justification by faith, etc.? Therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that these new revelations were conveyed through prophecies as well. If it were granted that prophecies given in the first century could contain new doctrinal content (which is a very plausible interpretation given all the biblical data in its support), why would not modern prophecies have this as well? Why would the fact that we have the complete Bible of Holy Books be a reason for limiting the scope of modern prophecies? God's sovereign Spirit, who inspired ancient prophets, is the same one that would inspire modern prophets as well, if the gifts had not ceased.

We have to examine what the Bible says about testing the prophets. Let us first begin with Paul's relevant instruction found in 1 Cor. 14:29, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."

The Scriptures command us to test prophecies, cf. 1 Cor 14:29, 1 Thess 5:20, but do they imply that a prophecy can be a mixture of both true and false elements, as Grudem would say?17 It is odd to say that a prophecy given by a genuine true prophet, i.e. a prophet who was inspired by God's spirit, can be a mixture of both false and true statements. How can a prophet be entitled to declare "and so says the Lord" and utter false statements, as if the Lord were a liar?

According to the Cessationist perspective, we are commanded to test prophets by observing their fruits, and this would involve both their words and actions, cf. 1 John 2:18-19 with 1 John 4:1-6, Matt 7:15-20 with Matt 12:33-37 and Matt 24:23-26. According to 1 John, false prophets could be in the Church trying to deceive the elected. Thus, Paul instructed Corinthian Christians to test the prophets. As White notes,

But let us take another look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 ... In the Corinthians passage, the apostle looks at an individual meeting of the local church (14:26) and envisions a plurality of prophets speaking during any given meeting: "let two or three prophets speak" (14:29a). ... his instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 ... presume that his readers would be hearing a plurality of prophets speaking their oracles.

My point in making this observation is that while Grudem reads Paul's words as preparing the churches to sort out the true and false elements in any one oracle, it is clearly more in keeping with Paul's very words to read them as preparing the churches to sort out the true and false oracles among the many oracles they would hear. To put it another way, while Grudem says that "[e]ach prophecy might have both true and false elements in it," we should say that the many prophecies heard in the meetings of the local church might have both true and false prophecies among them.18

51

We have to be clear on the meaning of the word "prophet" and the "gift of prophecy," as it is used in the Bible. A prophecy does not necessarily mean to foretell the future. Nevertheless, a prophecy has a supernatural quality and it is not an ordinary speech. The sign of a prophetic utterance, as a confirmation of its divine origin, was usually to give information such that a prophet could not possibly acquire it in a natural way. The main point with this ministry was that God spoke directly to the Church. The biblical notion is that God speaks directly through such person to edify, to exhort or to teach something of importance to the Church. But edifying, exhortation and admonishing the Church could be done also through simple preaching or teaching by teachers and preachers. So, some distinction existed between edifying the Church through a prophecy and edifying the Church through simple teaching or preaching. What was the distinction? The distinction consisted in the peculiarity of God's speaking. God spoke directly His words through the prophet, while through a teacher/preacher He spoke indirectly.

Therefore, the gift of prophecy has a supernatural element in the virtue of God's direct way to speak with His people through such a gift. God spoke directly through prophets to His people, otherwise it is meaningless for a prophet to declare "and so says the Lord." A prophet gave a direct speech of God, otherwise he was not entitled to announce a prophetic self-declaration in the name of the Lord.

How should we test such a prophet? How did Corinthian Christians understand Paul when he wrote to them "let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge"? They could not use the scriptures for testing purposes because in that time they had not the whole New Testament complete. They had only some gospels and a few other letters by Paul. How could they use the Bible as a sufficient test when the canon of the New Testament was not yet complete? They could not. How could they judge then? The answer is very simple: they judged a prophecy by the supernatural quality of the prophetic utterance. This test was strong and very reliable. If we use this test then many modern prophecies spoken in the name of our Lord would easily be revealed as empty speeches. This test has a biblical basis. The Bible tells us very clearly how we should test prophets.

But the prophet who shall presume to speak a word in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, "How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?" when a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:20-22)

To repeat our question: "when Paul said to the Corinthians that they should judge prophets (1 Cor 14:29), how would they judge when they had not the whole Bible?" But they surely knew how to test a prophet by their knowledge of Deut. 18. On the basis of Deut. 18, they tested a prophet by observing whether what was said would be fulfilled. Let the Scripture interpret the Scripture. Thus, we cannot apply 1 Cor. 14:29 to mean that we nowadays shall test a prophet only by the Bible. A false prophet can even speak totally consistent with the Bible, but speaking through another spirit. However, prophesying in the name of the Lord about something that will not be fulfilled would expose a prophet who speaks presumptuously in the name of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18 precisely guarantees this. [Return to the Content]

G. The Purpose of Other GiftsWhat about the non-revelatory gifts, such as the gift of tongues and the gifts of power? How would these gifts violate the principle of Sola Scriptura?

We will briefly touch upon the question of other gifts, whether they have also ceased after the

52

completion of the canon. The Gifts of Revelation will not be discussed here because much of what was said about the gift of prophecy is equally valid for the Gifts of Revelation. We will examine the question of other gifts by examining the purpose of these gifts. If their purpose was fulfilled then they have obviously ceased at the fulfillment of their purpose.

1. The Tongues and InterpretationThe tongues and interpretation were closely associated gifts of inspiration. Interpretation has its place only if the tongues are in operation. To repeat the definition of the gift of interpretation from the section dealing with the Gifts of Inspiration.

Interpretation was an interpretation of some message given through the gift of tongues. A speaker gave an interpretation of the message, through the Spirit, in spite of the speaker's lack of knowledge of the language in question.

Thus, we see that interpretation would have ceased if the purpose of the tongues have come to their end.

Why did God give tongues to the early Church and what were those tongues? A person spoke in tongues when the speaker could praise and pray to God in a language the speaker had not previously learned to use. Therefore, this gift was also supernatural, as other gifts mentioned in 1 Cor. 12-14. This sign was very common in the early Church. The important truth about the gift of tongues can be read in 1 Cor. 14:21-23.

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. (1 Cor. 14:21)Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1 Cor. 14:22)If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? (1 Cor. 14:23)

In the exposition of 1 Corinthian 14:22 I am greatly indebted to G.-F- Rendal and his book I Speak in Tongues More Than You All. G.-F- Rendal says something interesting in his exposition:

In 1 Corinthian 14:22 the Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, tells us that the sign of speaking in tongues was not for believers, but for unbelievers. Then he turns around in the very next verse and says just the opposite! On the surface it looks as though the Holy Spirit is contradicting Himself when He says, "If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" No one ever untangled this inextricable paradox for me. It is true that if the non-believers of verse 22, 23 and 24 are indiscriminately from Israel or from the Gentiles, the contradiction remains. But the problem disappears if you accept that Paul had two kinds of non-believers in view.

1. The non-believers of verse 22 are identified in verse 21. Verse 21 has its reference to Isaiah 28:11-12. Therefore, the expression "this people" from "I will speak unto this people" is referring to the Jews. The sign was for them.

2. The others, non-believers of verse 23, the unlearned ones who do not understand, were men of the common people, and not this people. In other words, they were Gentiles from the city of Corinth. The sign of tongues was not for them. That is what the Holy Spirit is saying here.

This exposition erases the contradiction and confirms that the sign of tongues was reserved for this people, the Jews, in order to bring them to believe that the Gentiles were grafted into the body of

53

Christ which is the Church. Thus, the gift of tongues had a twofold purpose:

1. Tongues were a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (28:11-12) 2. To indicate that the Gentiles were grafted onto the body of Christ

That is why God did not choose another supernatural sign, e.g. the gift of invisibility or tele-transportation, as the common gift among the children of God. Because of the gift of tongues Peter could understand that Cornelius had been accepted by God, even if Cornelius was not a Jew, cf. Acts 10:44-48. Jews could understand, through tongues, that the Gentiles were also saved if they believed in the truth of the Gospel. Both of these purposes had already been fulfilled by the end of the first century. Isaiah 28:11-12 had been fulfilled, since Caiphas, the high priest at the time, did not accept Jesus' messiahship. The Temple was then destroyed in 70 AD. It became an acceptable truth that other nations could be saved in Christ. Gentiles in the beginning did not know this fact, and it was necessary that the first converted Jews understood the truth and to encourage the Gentiles to accept Christ. Nowadays it is a widespread and accepted truth that everyone, no matter nationality, can become a Christian. As early as the first century AD, Christians were established in other countries, outside the boundaries of Israel. Speaking in tongues only made sense where Jews were present because the sign was for them. Recall that it was a Jew who demanded signs but a Greek who sought after wisdom, ("For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom", cf. 1Cor. 1:22.

Given the fact that the twofold purpose of the gift of speaking in tongues was fulfilled at the end of the first century, a principled Cessationist concludes that the gift ceased once its purpose had been realized.

The second reason for the belief that tongues had ceased has to do with the prophetic dimension of tongues. The gift of speaking in tongues and the gift of prophecy belong to the same type of gifts, namely to the Gifts of Inspiration (tongues, prophecy and interpretation). As such, God speaks directly through the speaker. So, in some sense, speaking in tongues are prophecies as well when the gift of interpretation is in operation. Therefore, the gift of speaking in tongues ended at the same time when the gift of prophecy ended. Since prophecies came to its end after the completion of the Bible, we do not have anymore gift of speaking in tongues. Moreover, the whole idea of the Charismatic movement is that God is manifesting His Grace through the gifts of the Spirit in the same way He did in the Apostolic period. Anyway, if some gifts are not present in the Church nowadays, e.g. gift of prophecy, why should we then expect that the gift of speaking in tongues is present at all? The problem is readily seen in the third reason below.

A third reason has to do with the universal manifestation of charismatic gifts. The Churches in the apostolic days had manifested all occurrences of the nine gifts, distributed among many persons in the Church. Every gift was like a member of the body, so every gift was important, for edifying the Church. If gifts did not yet end, then why do not all nine gifts manifest in the local charismatic (Pentecostal) churches? Personally, I have only seen tongues and "prophecies", (gifts that is very easy to fake), but never a person who has the gift of healing. Unless gifts ceased indeed, then every Church should manifest all nine supernatural gifts, as was the case in every apostolic Church in the first century. Even the Church of Corinth had all nine gifts of the Spirit, in spite of the immaturity of many members in the Church. The point is that we should either have all gifts manifested in equal measure, or none at all. [Return to the Content]

2. The Gifts of PowerAccording to principled Cessationists, as we have noted in addressing the strong Cessationist perspective, a person with the gift of power is also a prophet. This is because healings and miracles were always signs associated with the divine confirmation of the genuineness of a prophet in periods when God revealed new truths with respect to the doctrine.

54

Miracles and healing were first and foremost signs of apostleship and prophethood and should always be seen in the context of the formation of new doctrines, cf. Acts 2:43, 2 Cor 12:12. God always used miracles and healing to establish a prophet who came with radically new revelations. In the apostolic period of the Church, the Gifts of Power were expected to be made manifest in order to establish new prophecies and revelations in the formation of the doctrines and practices of the Church. The Church in the apostolic period was still young, and the doctrines were not yet fully formed. By the end of the first century, the Church was well established and had a completed canon of Holy Scriptures, and was no more in need of the Gifts of Power.[Return to the Content]

H. Objections and the Cessationist PresuppositionsAn objection against Cessationism, worth mentioning, is that the Bible does not tell that gifts of the Holy Spirit will come to their end before Christ's Second Coming.

It is true that the Bible does not say clearly that prophecies shall end. Even if 1 Cor. 13:8 speaks about the cessation of gifts, it does not say clearly when this will happen. Why does not the Bible tell us more clearly that gifts will end after the death of the last apostle? There are two reasons, assuming that Cessationism is true (here it is quite legitimate to assume that Cessationism is true because the charismatic objection is targeting the coherence of Cessationism, and thus, we have to evaluate it within the framework of Cessationism).

1. If God cease to inspire His children with His spirit of prophecy then His children would stop to prophecy by themselves. God does not need to instruct His children that we should stop prophesying in His name, since a genuine child of God would not give a prophetic speech verbally not inspired from God. We do not need an explicit instruction from the Bible that prophecies will end, since we would not presumptuously give a prophetic utterance unless the message were given directly from God. Because of this obvious fact, it is superfluous for God to give such instructions in the Bible. The laws concerning prophethood involve the danger of speaking presumptuously in the name of our Lord. Indeed, it is a grave sin of speaking presumptuously in the name of our Lord.

2. From the standpoint of Moderate Cessationism, gifts will reemerge at the days imminent to Christ's Second Coming. A Moderate Cessationism is subscribing to a premillennialist view where there will be first a period of great tribulation before Christ's Coming. According to a moderate Cessationist, throughout the history of the communication between God and Mankind, there were periods of silence. A period of silence is a period where there is no prophetic activity. We are now living in a period of silence. However, a Moderate Cessationist contends that the current period of silence will end during the Great Tribulation. God will again send prophets, but in the days of the Great Tribulation. Given the Moderate Cessationist view, it is understandable that the Scriptures do not tell exactly when the gifts will end.

Cessationism presupposes the principle of Sola Scriptura where the body of Holy Scriptures is treated as a closed canon. The next objection addresses exactly this presupposition: why should we accept the principle of Sola Scriptura and the closed canonicity of the Bible?

A Cessationist concedes that the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Bible is treated as a closed canon, cannot be proven in non question-begging terms. It is matter of a choice between, (A) accepting that God still reveals His Holy Will through prophets and (B) insisting only on the sufficiency of the Bible. However, a Cessationist would point out that neither a Continuationist have biblical grounds in denying cessationist presuppositions. The point is that a Continuationist have no clear proof texts for Continuationism. Moreover, a Cessationist contends that it is safer to choose the cessationist alternative (B) than the continuationist (A).

It is much a serious error in accepting new prophecies if the cessationist thesis is true, than rejecting

55

new prophecies if the cessationist thesis is wrong. Given a Cessationist's conviction about the strong authority of prophecies, i.e. their authority is equal to the authority of the Scriptures, a Cessationist is not prepared to accept the authority of modern prophets. A Cessationist, therefore, chooses to reject them in his fear of not degrading the authority of the Scriptures. Now, if the cessationist choice is wrong, then it is not so serious compared to the possibility of choosing wrongly the charismatic alternative, given the fact that many Christians who have prophesied in the name of Jesus will end in Hell. Jesus warns us about multitudes of lost charismatic Christians.

Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Mat 7:22-23)

Notice that Jesus talks about a large group of charismatic Christians because it is about people who practice charismatic gifts in the name of Jesus. Among this group is also people who falsely prophesied in the name of the Lord. Prophesying falsely is also a form of iniquity because it breaks the Law of Moses concerning prophethood, i.e. it is a grave sin to speak presumptuously in the name of the Lord. It is interesting that they believed that their prophecies were true, for otherwise why would they appeal to their prophetic ministry ("have we not prophesied in thy name?")? Nevertheless, they were never gifted with the genuine gift of prophecy because they were never saved; Christ's emphatic statement "I never knew you (v. 23)" shows that they never belonged to Christ. Their prophecies and miracles were not a result of the genuine charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, for how is it possible that someone have the gift of prophecy or the gift to perform miracles, but is not saved? Moreover, it is difficult to point out which large group of people satisfies the criteria of Mat 7:22-23, unless we concede that Mat 7:22-23 refers to modern Christian charismatic movement.

A Cessationist would not be lost for doubting new prophets if he lives a righteous life in Christ, respecting His words as revealed in the Scriptures. However, even if we assume that Continuationism is true, gifts cannot guarantee salvation (cf. Mat 7:22-23), while obedience to the Lord's moral teaching, living in His righteousness by walking in His Spirit, guarantees our salvation even if we wrongly insist on the sufficiency of the Bible. [Return to the Content]

ConclusionWe have seen that charismatic Continuationism is not a viable position if it is committed to the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is understood as a closed canon. Charismatic Continuationism is likewise problematic even if the Cessationist presuppositions are denied because the Continuationist presuppositions are not clearly taught by the Bible. We are then confronted with the hermeneutic choice between open canonicity or sufficiency of the closed canon. It has been shown that the Cessationist choice is much more prudent.

Charismatic Continuationism would have been attractive if there were still apostles who manifest the signs of apostleship. If there were such apostles, the open canonicity of Scriptures together with the charismatic continuationist view would be more plausible. It is either all or nothing. Most Charismatics are in between, not totally consistent. Few would say that we have such apostles. So, if the ministry of apostleship has ended, why then insist that we still have prophets in the Church? [Return to the Content]

ENDNOTES1 A. F. Walls, the dictionary entry APOSTLE: New Bible Dictionary, (Intervarsity Press, Second edition, 1982), p. 59. [Back to the text]

56

2 the dictionary entry Apostolos: Kittel's Greek Theological Dictionary [Back to the text]

3 Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, in his exposition of Eph 2.20 [Back to the text]

4 Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today [Back to the text]

5 Wayne Grudem gives twelve reasons for the distinction in his exposition of Eph 2:20. R. Fowler White's article "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20 - In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis" discusses Grudem's twelve arguments. We do not have much space to dwell on all Grudem' twelve reasons, but are considering only two of these that we deem as worth mentioning. [Back to the text]

6 R. Fowler White, "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20 - In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis," part III. 1. "The Semantic Range of the Syntax in Eph 2:20." White's quotation of D. B. Wallace, "The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament," Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983) 59-84, esp. 70-79, 82-83. See also footnotes 20, 22 commenting on Wallace's argumentation. [Back to the text]

7 R. Fowler White, "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20 - In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis," part III. 9-10. "Apostles and Prophets in Eph 4:11" and "Apostles and Prophets in 1 Cor 12:28" [Back to the text]

8 Fowler White, "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20 - In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis," part III. 9. "Apostles and Prophets in Eph 4:11." [Back to the text]

9 Craig Simonian, "A Challenge Against the Cessation of Prophesy," section "PROPHESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT" [Back to the text]

10 Craig Simonian, "A Challenge Against the Cessation of Prophesy," section "PROPHESY and PROPHETS IN THE OT [Back to the text]

11 Ibid [Back to the text]

12 Ibid [Back to the text]

13 Ibid [Back to the text]

14 Craig Simonian, "A Challenge Against the Cessation of Prophesy," section "PROPHESY FROM THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD TO PENTECOST." [Back to the text]

15 Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 70-79, 104-5. See also Carson, Showing the Spirit, 95. M. M. B. Turner, on whom Carson is dependent, writes, "The presupposition [of 1 Cor 14:29] is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff" ("Spiritual Gifts Then and Now," Vox evangelica 15 [1985]:16 [emphasis Turner's]). A similar position is taken by D. Atkinson, Prophecy (Bramcote, England: Grove Books, 1977) 13-14, 16-17. [Back to the text]

16 Prophecies in question are those uttered in the name of the Lord, but this would also apply for prophecies given in the name of other deities. The Bible would discard such prophecies as false given the fact that the Bible deem any prophecy spoken in the name of other deities as false. [Back to the text]

17 Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 70-79, 104-5. [Back to the text]

18 R. Fowler White, "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20 - In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis," part III. 7. "Explicit Passages on Prophecy by Non-Apostles" [Back to the text]

(http://www.early-church.com/charisma.html 14November2010)

57