20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord (Eph 2:20-21).
11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers (4:11).
Eph 2:20 is a favorite prooftext for cessationism. But I'll note two problems with that inference:
i) If we equate the foundation with the apostolate, and if we say the apostolate was temporary, then the foundation was temporary. But if the foundation is temporary, the superstructure is temporary. The superstructure rests on the foundation. Remove the foundation and the upper stories collapse. So either cessationists are overworking the metaphor or they are mistaken to equate the foundation with the apostolate.
One solution is to equate the foundation, not with the apostolate, but with apostolic doctrine. Apostles were temporary, but their teaching is permanent.
ii) During the construction phase, you lay the foundation before you build the superstructure. What is under is earlier. Since the upper stories rest on the foundation, the foundation is the first thing to put in place.
If we press the metaphor, that would mean the apostles antedate evangelists, pastors, and NT teachers. But even if that's true of the Twelve, that's not true of the apostolate generally. For instance, Paul was an apostle, but by the time God commissioned Paul, the church was up and running. There were elders and evangelists who antedate Paul's apostleship. Therefore, Eph 2:20 isn't strictly chronological.
Are you saying you don't think Apostles were temporary?
ReplyDeleteActually, that's a dilemma for cessationists. If the Apostolate is foundational, and the foundation is permanent, then the apostolate is permanent. The superstructure must coexist with the foundation. The foundation must last as long as the superstructure, if the superstructure is to survive.
DeleteIronically, it's the cessationist use of Eph 2:20 which logically commits the cessationist to the perpetuity of apostles!
I then proposed an alternative. Apostles were temporary, but apostolic doctrine is permanent. That resolves the dilemma, but does so by eliminating a cessationist prooftext.
I don't see how that's a dilemma for cessationists. Yes it's the Apostles doctrine that's foundational. And now that we have their doctrine we no longer have a need for them. They've accomplished their purpose.
DeleteCessationists don't argue that apostolic doctrine is foundational in Eph 2:20. Rather, they cite that text to prove the foundational and therefore temporary nature of the apostolate. But if the foundation is temporary, so is the superstructure. If the foundation terminated in the 1C, so did the superstructure.
DeleteIt's a straightforward argument. Cessationists need to treat the metaphor consistently. They can't make the foundation temporary, but the superstructure permanent.
Of course, they can say we shouldn't press a metaphor, yet that's just what they are doing.
Why I Am a Cessationist by Thomas Schreiner
ReplyDeleteWhy I Am a Continuationist by Sam Storms
I've collected most of Steve's recent posts on cessationism and continuationism in chronological order at the following blog:
Steve Hays on Cessationism
It's good to see a cessationist of Schreiner's stature make his case. However, he doesn't use any original arguments. So it fails to advance the argument for cessationism.
DeleteIn general, I think Storms had the better of the argument.
I don't agree with his appeal to Eph 4:11-13. Frank Thielman's exegesis is superior on that passage.
And he has difficulty finessing the authority of NT prophecy.
Have you ever interacted with Storms' arguments? One of his main reasons for believing NT prophecy is fallible is that we're told to test it. That's very unconvincing since OT believers were also told to test prophecy.
DeleteSince I've discussed the permutations of prophecy in relation to the cessationist/noncessationist debate, I don't have to interact with Storms in particular. I have my own distinctions.
DeleteThe apostles did not cease to exist. They are still part of the church. And, although, physically dead (temporarily), they still speak.
ReplyDeleteThat convoluted distinction won't salvage Eph 2:20 as a cessationist prooftext.
DeleteSteve,
DeleteThe foundation, according to Eph 2:30, is the apostles, prophets, and Christ Jesus. Now if all we have seen in the roughly 2000 years of the Church are the apostles, prophets and Christ Jesus that are actually named in Scripture, would that not be enough to provide a firm foundation?
Paul said, "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Most continuationists believe there are prophets today. Many say there are even apostles, in the same sense that Peter, John, and Paul were apostles.
And if we must have living foundations in the Church on earth today, why just apostles and prophets? What are they without Christ Jesus? The Chief Corner Stone! Do we not need a Christ Jesus in the Church today too?
Ah, but when you have these three, you have Romanism. If you are looking for modern day apostles, you need look no further. They have prophets, too; and to top it all, they have "The Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff (High Priest), and Alter Christus" right there in the Vatican. One-stop foundation shopping.
This is a very confused comment. You're jumping from one topic to another.
DeleteMore to the point, what you say doesn't begin to address Steve's original post.
rocking,
DeleteMy point is that the foundation that the apostles and prophets of old laid is none other than the life, teachings, crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They founded the church on the preaching of the Gospel. All we need for life, salvation, and godliness is recorded by them for us in the Bible.
We need no new foundation, and no new apostles or prophets today to lay it. Christ is not here with us bodily, but He still serves as the Cornerstone. Where are we going to get another? Why would we need another? The original foundation is holding!
Further, if there are apostles and prophets today, the canon of Scripture is open, and the principle of Sola Scriptura is lost.
"Ah, but," the continuationist replies, "Not all of the apostles and prophets of old wrote Scripture."
"Ah, but," I respond, "Some of them did."
If they are among us still, how can we arbitrarily assert that God will not add to Scripture through His revelations to some of them?
If the Church has apostles and prophets today, Sola Scriptura is necessarily false.
i) You're not engaging my counterargument. Are you unable to grasp my counterargument?
Deleteii) I'm responding to the cessationist argument on its own grounds. Do you comprehend that distinction? I didn't say we have to have a living foundation. Rather, I'm taking a cessationist premise to its logical conclusion.
iii) You act as if this is about the sufficiency of the NT. No, that's not how cessationists typically use Eph 2:20. Rather, here's their standard argument:
a) A foundation is laid first. A foundation is laid once
b) The apostles (as well as prophets) are the foundation
c) Hence, apostles (and prophets) came to an end. That foundational stage ceased in the 1C. The apostles are gone. Prophets are gone.
iv) Problem with that argument is that it extends to the superstructure. A building is a unit. The superstructure depends on the foundation.
Hence, by parity of argument, if the foundation is temporary, the superstructure is temporary.
Try to engage the counterargument, which parallels the cessationist argument. Make an effort to be logical.
Ex N1hilo
Delete"My point is that the foundation that the apostles and prophets of old laid is none other than the life, teachings, crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They founded the church on the preaching of the Gospel. All we need for life, salvation, and godliness is recorded by them for us in the Bible."
Your point is a non sequitur. The cessationist appeal to Eph 2:20 isn't about the sufficiency of NT teaching, but the impermanence of apostles and prophets. Cessationists infer that from the "foundational" metaphor.
But if the foundation is impermanent, so is the superstructure. Hence, the cessationist argument either proves too much or too little. You have to treat the metaphor consistently, which requires you to treat the foundation and the upper stories the same way. Without a foundation, the building will collapse.
To the extent that the relation is asymmetrical, it's the opposite of what the cessationist argument requires. A foundation can survive without a superstructure, whereas the superstructure can't survive without the foundation.
"Further, if there are apostles and prophets today, the canon of Scripture is open, and the principle of Sola Scriptura is lost."
i) I'm not arguing for apostles today. Rather, I'm pointing out that if cessationists are consistent in how they use the building metaphor in Eph 2:20ff., that would commit them to either a preterist ecclesiology or a charismatic ecclesiology. One or the other of those two extremes.
ii) The claim that prophets today would jeopardize the canon is a simplistic assertion that I've refuted on numerous occasions. Your flashcard objections don't work on me. You need to learn how to think for yourself instead of regurgitating cessationist talking points.
I don't know of any cessationists who believe that the foundation is temporary. Such a claim would entail that the Lord Jesus and his work on behalf of sinners is temporary. It's a straw man.
DeleteAre you incapable of thinking logically? I'm deriving a conclusion from two cessationist premises:
Deletei) The apostles (and prophets) are foundational
ii) The apostolate is temporary
Given that (i) equates the foundation (in Eph 2:20) with the apostles and prophets, it then follows that if the apostolate is temporary, so is the foundation.
The fact that cessationists deny the conclusion demonstrates their inconsistency.
i) Apostles & prophets are temporary
ReplyDeleteii) Apostles & prophets are foundational
iii) Therefore, the foundation is temporary
(i) & (ii) are cessationist premises. (iii) is a logical implication of (i) & (ii).
If cessationists claim the foundation is permanent, then their conclusion contradicts their premises.
The act of laying the foundation is temporary. When that is done, the foundation persists. This should not be difficult to grasp.
DeleteTo help, here is a common example that illustrates the point: When men build a skyscraper, they dig down into the bedrock and lay a foundation. The rest of the building will rest on this foundation. Now, as the building is constructed, one floor is added; then another; then another, etc; till it reaches its full height.
As one after another story is added, the same foundation supports each. There is no need to re-lay the foundation with each new new story that is added. The original foundation remains. If one were to attempt to lay a new foundation at some point, the structure would collapse.
Likewise, if we tried to lay a new foundation with each new generation of Christ's Church, the structure would fail. And, Jesus promised; that's not going to happen.
In fact, it is the proponent of a modern "apostolate" who makes the church's foundation to be temorary, and in need of periodic replacement. A dangerous point of view.
What you fail to grasp is that the cessationist appeal to Eph 2:20 is an argument from analogy. Therefore, your explanation must apply to the comparison as a whole. However you explain the foundational metaphor must be consistent with the apostolate, and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteSo, for instance, James White, in his recent debate with Michael Brown, said "the apostles are gone." And that's key to the cessationist argument. But since this is an argument from analogy, involving a comparison between the foundation and the apostolate, if the apostles are gone, the foundation is gone.
Indeed, it's really a three-way comparison. There's the foundation/apostle comparison as well as the foundation/superstructure comparison.
It won't do for a cessationist to artificially separate these analogues, then treat them in isolation. Rather, it's incumbent on the cessationist to present a unified interpretation that applies across the board. That's your challenge. And your myopic animosity towards continuationism blinds you to the nature of the challenge.
And Steve, what you are missing is that it is not only apostles and prophets that are involved in the foundation, but Jesus Christ. Now, if the physical earthly absence of apostles and prophets entails the loss of the superstructure; then by the same reasoning, the physical absence of Jesus Christ would also entail the loss of the superstructure.
ReplyDeletei) Christ's presence and ministry on earth were temporary
ii) Christ is foundational
iii) Therefore, the foundation is temporary
(i) & (ii) are premises no Christian would deny. (iii) is a logical implication of (i) & (ii), given Steve's interpretation of Eph. 2:20-21.
If you, Steve, claim the foundation is permanent, then your conclusion contradicts your premises.
ExN1hilo said:
Delete"Now, if the physical earthly absence of apostles and prophets entails the loss of the superstructure..."
1. I don't see how this helps your case. If your argument is valid, then it's all the worse for cessationism. It doesn't undercut what Steve has said. Rather, it would seem to double down on Steve's point.
2. At any rate, I'm afraid it seems you're missing Steve's point again. As I read him, Steve doesn't predicate his point on cessationists denying "the physical earthly absence of apostles." Rather, I would think temporary has reference to, well, that which is temporal. That is, Steve's point is primarily in reference to time.
So whether the apostles are physically present or absent as such is really besides the point, I think. The real question is, does the apostolate still continue to the present? According to cessationists the answer is no. And that's all that needs to be conceded by cessationists for Steve to make his point, no?
3. By the way, the Eph 2 passage talks about Christ not merely as foundational but as the cornerstone. Cornerstones may be foundational too, but there's also a distinction between the cornerstone and the rest of the foundation. So your analogy doesn't entirely work if one wants to be pedantic about it.
You still don't get it. As I already explained, I'm responding to the cessationist appeal on cessationist grounds. This is not about the consequences for my own position.
ReplyDeleteIronically, your new objection simply aggravates the previous dilemma for the cessationist appeal to Eph 2:20. That's a problem for your own position. That's a consequence of your premises rather than mine.
OK. According to you guys, cessationism as teaches that "if the apostolate (whatever that means) is impermanent; and it IS impermanent; then the church must likewise be impermanent."
ReplyDeleteI doubt you will find a cessationist that will agree such a statement; which makes the statement a misrepresentation of the cessationist position.
Ex N1hilo said, "I doubt you will find a cessationist that will agree such a statement; which makes the statement a misrepresentation of the cessationist position"
DeleteSteve Hays earlier said: "I'm taking a cessationist premise to its logical conclusion."
Steve hasn't said he is representing cessationist teaching; he said he is showing an implication of their position that they have overlooked or not considered. In view of the implication they have missed in holding they must either rethink their interpretation of the passage or stop using the passage as a prooftext.
Rocking and Steve,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind spending a little more time trying to further my education; then please tell me precisely where i err in the argument that I spelled out above. (And I agree this is an argument, that, if sound, would devastate cessationism.)
To reiterate:
Premise 1) Christ's presence and ministry on earth were temporary. (That is, His presence among us does not continue to this day; He is not on earth, emptied of His glory; He is no longer preaching in the streets of Capernaum; He is not still being crucified--as the RCC claims; He is no longer in the tomb; the process of His rising from the dead is done, not continuing. We see an empty tomb; not one in which Christ's resurrection is now occurring. The crucifix that our RC loved ones wear does not represent Jesus as He is right now. All these things were temporary.)
I don't believe you could find a cessationist anywhere who would disagree with this.
Premise 2) Jesus Christ and what he has done to save us (as detailed in part above) is foundational to the church.
Again, given Eph 2:20-21 and 1 Cor. 3:10-11, I do not believe that any cessationist could deny this.
Conclusion) The foundation of Jesus Christ is temporary.
Again, this is an argument AGAINST cessationism. I understand that if it is a valid argument; and if its premises are true; then cessationism is wrong and a contradiction lies at its heart. Even worse, it is probably to be considered heresy.
Only, I don't take this to be a valid argument. I cannot see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Can anyone help me to understand how the conclusion must follow from the given premises?
Hi ExN1hilo,
DeleteHm, all you did was take Steve's reply to you, substitute "Christ" for "apostles," and imply this would lead to an absurd conclusion, no?
For one thing, I'm not sure why you're asking others to make your own argument for you. Why ask the other debater(s) to debate your side of the argument as well as his/her own? That's a bit unreasonable to say the least!
For another, all we have to do is agree with your argument. Yes, we could say, it would lead to an absurd conclusion. If so, then that's a problem for cessationists. As Steve and Ian D. Elsasser have already pointed out, it's a logical implication of their position.
rockingwithhawking wrote:
DeleteFor one thing, I'm not sure why you're asking others to make your own argument for you. Why ask the other debater(s) to debate your side of the argument as well as his/her own? That's a bit unreasonable to say the least!
You and Steve have already made my argument for me. But I was curious to see how far you would go in demolishing your own position.
@ExN1hilo
Delete"You and Steve have already made my argument for me."
1. Your "argument" is a riff of what Steve said. All you did was substitute "Christ" for "the apostles."
2. Moreover, your argument actually worsens the situation for cessationism. If your argument works, then it hurts your position. You're shooting yourself in the foot.
"But I was curious to see how far you would go in demolishing your own position."
1. Sorry, but it's hard not to chuckle. Your statement is actually quite amusing because it's precisely what you're accomplishing for yourself without grasping that's what you're accomplishing.
2. Anyway, no need for me to belabor the point. It's easy enough for readers to read what Steve and others have written as well as your replies and decide for themselves what's happening. Ho hum.