Chickenpox

@DrMichaelLBrown

When your little girl has chickenpox, do you bring her to the children's church on Sunday and say, "I have faith that none of the other children will be affected," or do you keep her home? I think you get the point.

https://twitter.com/DrMichaelLBrown/status/1241473584083673088

Yeah, I get the point. 

i) The problem lies not with the hypothetical example but the implied comparison. Brown uses an example that no reasonable Christian can take issue with.

The problem is not the example but what he's using it to illustrate. A more accurate analogy would be canceling all church services because a parishioner might by asymptomatically infected with chickenpox. Brown's illustration loses all plausibility when you spell out the parallel situation.

ii) Surely the irony is not lost on some readers that Brown is one of the world's most prominent charismatics, and he's not a charlatan, unlike many high-profile charismatics. But given his charismatic theology, it doesn't seems unreasonable to say "I have faith that none of the other children will be affected."

Gagnon on cessationism (expanded)

Robert A. J. Gagnon

 

I'm pulling my observations about Tom Schreiner's TGC article defending the cessationist view from their burial in a ton of comments in a previous post and making a separate post about it partly because Prof. Dr. Thomas Schreiner's article makes one of the best cases for a cessationist view, partly because I previously misunderstood his point about the meaning of "the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10, and partly because I want to expand on points that I made in the comments.

I want to make clear at the outset that neither for me nor for Tom is this a fellowship-breaking issue. It doesn't belong, and shouldn't belong, to the essentials of the faith. I also want to make clear that I think Tom is a great scholar. I use his textbook on Pauline theology when I teach that course and greatly appreciate his commentary on Romans, to name just two of his many helpful works. Not only is Tom a great scholar; he is an even greater human being, one of the greatest examples of a Christ-like life that I have ever had the providential fortune to encounter. He is brilliant, extraordinarily productive, humble, and loving, as godly a human as a human can be. I would trust him with my life. This is a relatively minor disagreement among brothers who deeply value each other.

Tom's case more or less rests on the single verse in Ephesians 2:20 regarding the church "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." While I agree that the apostolic office has ended (per Paul's "last of all" in 1 Cor 15:8), it is an unwarranted stretch to argue the same for prophets given that Paul provides no such limitations on the prophetic office elsewhere. Indeed, as we shall see, Tom admits that Paul himself in 1 Cor 13:10 entertained their presence in the community of believers till Christ's return.

Paul clearly viewed the apostolic office as restricted to a tiny minority of believers. That was not his view of prophets or the related gift of speakers in tongues. Indeed, in 1 Cor 14:1 he urges the Corinthians to "be zealous for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy." He obviously didn't think that there were any apostles in the Corinthian church; just as obviously he did believe that there were prophets and tongues-speakers in the Corinthian church. He exhorted the Corinthians to pursue the spiritual gifts, including tongues but especially prophecy; but, for obvious reasons, did not, and would not, exhort his followers to be zealous to become an apostle. Paul simply doesn't treat prophecy as a gift that belongs only to the foundation.

The existence of a group in the foundation doesn't presuppose non-existence outside the foundation. Christ himself is the church's cornerstone but his presence does not lie exclusively in the past. Paul speaks of believers in his own day as having already been built on the foundation of apostles and prophets; yet prophets are still prophesying despite the fact that the foundation to which he speaks has already been laid. Apostles too were still functioning (including Paul) and many writings that would later be assessed by the church as part of a NT canon were yet to be written. So the end of the apostolic has to be derived from some other text than Eph 2:20 (as noted, 1 Cor 15:8).

In short, Eph 2:20 just can't bear the weight that Tom places upon it.

Now, unlike most cessationists, Tom does acknowledge that "the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 refers to the Second Coming. I hope my cessationist friends will hear this. Tom knows that the evidence for that conclusion is overwhelming. All other future references in 1 Corinthians point to Christ's return and the resurrection from the dead. There is no thought at the time Paul pens this letter for a completion of a NT canon. Paul operates on the premise (though not categorical assertion, I think) that the time of Christ's return is very soon (1 Cor 7:29-31). Furthermore, Paul's description of this future event as a time when knowledge will no longer be "in part," when we will "know fully just as [we] have been fully known" by God, and will see "face to face" rather than as we know see ("through a mirror, in a riddle") is hard to link to any other time than Christ's return.

Yet, while Tom acknowledges that "the perfect" here refers to the Second Coming, he thinks that Paul teaches here only that tongues and prophecy "could" last till Christ comes back, not that they "will" last till then. "1 Corinthians 13:8-12 permits but doesn’t require the gifts to continue until the second coming." [Note: Earlier I misunderstood Tom as saying that 1 Cor 13:10 could refer to the return of Christ but that it could just as well not. I apologize for that misunderstanding and am now correcting it.]

While I think this is an ingenious attempt at getting around the fact that "the perfect" must refer to Christ's return, I don't think the solution is convincing. Paul saw value in the continuance of other forms of direct revelation until Christ returns because even the witness of Scripture does not cover all circumstances in life that affect individuals and specific communities. Take the prophet Agabus, mentioned twice in Acts, as an example. To the church in Syrian Antioch, the Jerusalem prophet Agabus prophesied that there would be a great famine throughout the world (11:28). The church there took the prophecy seriously enough to plan to send relief to the churches in Judea. Later, Agabus warned Paul when he was at coastal city of Caesarea that if he came to Jerusalem he would be arrested and bound (Acts 21:10-11). These are not the kinds of revelations that Paul could have pulled from general Scripture references at his disposal.

Knowledge will always be "in part" and not "face to face" until we gain resurrection bodies. So Paul believed that prophecy and tongues were needed to fill in that gap a bit (obviously not completely) till the eschaton. I don't see how the completed New Testament canon or the end of the apostolic office renders that need obsolete. Paul's remarks in 1 Cor 13:8-13 clearly state that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will be "put out of use" and "cease" when, but only when, Christ returns. Till then these gifts remain valuable for the church.

Those who have a high view of biblical authority should not see things differently than Paul, in my view, even if the misuses and abuses of these gifts may have turned them off to their enduring value to the church in the whole time preceding Christ's glorious return.

This post should be read in conjunction with my prior post that makes the case that Paul in 1 Corinthians understood the gift of tongues to be in the first instance a heavenly language directed to God and angels, in distinction to the specialized form of manifestation at Pentecost (human languages directed to other humans).

[Note well: Although I am not a cessationist, this is not to say that there aren't some abuses of the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing in the church today (there are). Nor am I indicating that it is biblically correct to say that the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is a distinct "second blessing" as opposed to the experience that defines conversion (it isn't) or that tongues is some special indicator of spirituality that all believers should practice (it isn't). I don't speak in tongues or prophesy (at least not consciously) or have a special gift of healing so I have no dog in the hunt other than a desire to be grounded biblically; perhaps too a desire to see the church less divided over the question of charismatic gifts. If my arguments do not persuade you, perhaps you can at least acknowledge that they are reasonable positions taken by someone who views Scripture as authoritative for faith and practice.]

https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56/posts/10163307417310045

Gagnon on cessationism

Robert A. J. Gagnon Gregg Allison, here is the TGC article by Tom Schreiner to which you referred. As I mentioned, I have very high regard for Tom and count him as a dear friend. Tom has made as good a case as can be made by a NT scholar for cessationism. Nevertheless, it is not in my view a convincing case. His case more or less rests on the single verse in Eph 2:20 regarding the church "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." While I agree that the apostolic office has ended (per Paul's "last of all" in 1 Cor 15) it is an unwanted stretch to argue the same for prophets given that Paul gives no such qualifications on the prophetic office elsewhere. Paul clearly viewed the apostolic office as restricted to a tiny minority of believers; that was not his view of prophets or the related gift of speakers in tongues. He obviously didn't think that there were any apostles in the Corinthian church; just as obviously he did believe that there were prophets and tongues-speakers in the Corinthian church. The existence of a group in the foundation doesn't presuppose non-existence outside the foundation. Christ himself is the church's cornerstone but his presence does not lie exclusively in the past. Paul speaks of believers in his own day as having already been built on the foundation of apostles and prophets; yet prophets are still prophesying despite the fact that the foundation to which he speaks has already been laid. 

In short, Eph 2:20 just can't bear the weight that Tom places upon it. Tom says that "the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 could refer to the return of Christ but says that it could just as well not. Yet every future reference in 1 Cor refers to the eschaton. It is unrealistic to expect that his readers would have understood a reference to anything else.

Paul makes the hyperbole argument for 1 Cor 13:1's reference to tongues as a reference to the language of angels. This isn't convincing, for reasons that I have already stated to Tim Bates in these comments.

So while Tom is a great scholar, I think this is a case of a great scholar holding a view that is not convincing.

Credulous Christians and knee-jerk skeptics

Recently I posted a report about Francis Chan healing the sick:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/francis-chan-says-he-healed-deaf-boy-girl-in-rural-myanmar-village-my-faith-was-at-another-level.html

I didn't vouch for his claims, but I think they merit respectful consideration. On Twitter, JMac's righthand man, Phil Johnson, chimed in on the same report:

The miracles of Jesus and the apostles were routinely public, undeniable, & well-attested by multiple eyewitnesses. Even Jesus’ most determined adversaries couldn’t argue that the miracles were faked. They therefore raised doubts about the source of his power (Mt. 12:24).

Miracles such as those done by Jesus and the apostles are NOT occurring in charismatic circles today. Simple honesty SHOULD compel even the most doctrinaire continuationists to admit that no one today is doing what the apostles did in Acts 5:12; 9:33-42; 19:11-12; etc.

Yet unverified and unverifiable claims are routinely made by charismatics. Tales are regularly told that, when investigated, turn out to be false.

That’s why spiritually sane people don’t automatically swallow stories like the one Francis Chan told last week at Moody.

When someone tells a fantastic tale like “Everyone I touched was healed!”—asking for evidence is NOT sinful unbelief. (Especially when the person telling the tale is a theological drifter.)

Jesus commanded us to have that flavor of skepticism. Mt 24:24; Lk 21:8.

Yes, I saw it: Francis Chan going full faith healer at Moody Bible Institute’s Founder’s Week—on the platform of Moody Church.

I used to live in that part of Chicago. There’s a hospital close by with a full ward of terminally ill children. Do you think he’ll pay them a visit?

Several issues:

1. There's some history between Francis Chan and JMac's outfit. Francis is their most famous and popular graduate. But he's become a disappointment and embarrassment to them, so they disassociate themselves from his ministry

2. I agree with Phil that there's lots of chicanery in the charismatic movement.

3. I agree with him that we should ask for evidence and not "automatically swallow" every report. 

4. Speaking for myself, I find Francis's recent testimony credible. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe it. There's a difference between saying something is believable and saying you believe it. I think it's more than possibly true. Plausible or probable without its being compelling or altogether convincing. I'm very open to what he said. 

I'd like to have more background information about the folks he allegedly healed. Where these persistent, clearly-identified conditions? What about follow-up studies?

5. That said, Francis's testimony is evidence. Prima facie evidence in its own right. And there were multiple reported witnesses. To be sure, that's different than have separate accounts by different witnesses. It would be useful to hear from other members of his team. It would be useful to interview the folks who were said to be healed. Or their friends and relatives. 

6. Francis is somewhat lacking in theological judgment. That doesn't disqualify him as an eyewitness. There is the danger of gullibility. Maybe he's too eager to see divine signs. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss his firsthand report out of hand. 

7. As William James classically stated, there are two opposite errors to avoid:

“Believe truth!” “Shun error!”—these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may color differently our whole intellectual life. We may regard the chase for truth as paramount, and the avoidance of error as secondary; or we may, on the other hand, treat the avoidance of error as more imperative, and let truth take its chance. Clifford, in the instructive passage which I have quoted, exhorts us to the latter course. Believe nothing, he tells us, keep your mind in suspense for ever, rather than by closing it on insufficient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies. You, on the other hand, may think that the risk of being in error is a very small matter when compared with the blessings of real knowledge, and be ready to be duped many times in your investigation rather than postpone indefinitely the chance of guessing true...For my own part, I have also a horror of being duped. But I can believe that worse things than being duped may happen to a man in this world...

8. Although Francis may be credulous to a fault, Phil and Jmac are incredulous to a fault. Phil isn't consistently skeptical. He's oblivious to his own double standard. Debunkers like Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Paul Kurtz (to name a few) don't think NT miracles are undeniable. It's not as if we can use modern scanning technology to diagnose the preexisting medical conditions of individuals in the Gospels and Acts. We don't have case-histories, or before and after scans. We don't have identifiable skeletal remains to examine. 

Many dominical healings involve possession and exorcisms, but certainly possession and exorcism can sometimes be faked or misdiagnosed. And that's even assuming the Gospels and Acts are trustworthy accounts,     which skeptics deny. Phil is playing with a double-bladed sword.

9. Did Jesus visit leper colonies and cure all the lepers? For that matter, isn't Jesus still alive? But he doesn't pop into cancer wards to heal everyone in sight. It's reckless when cessationists like Phil raise objections which, if taken seriously, discredit biblical miracles.

Indeed, well-documented modern miracles lend credibility to biblical miracles. They don't only happen in old stories. 

10. Phil's objection is circular: "Miracles such as those done by Jesus and the apostles are NOT occurring in charismatic circles today…When someone tells a fantastic tale like “Everyone I touched was healed!”

On the one hand, Phil seems to be saying that when Jesus and the apostles healed people, everyone they touched was healed–yet that's a "fantastic tale" if someone today makes the same claim. What makes that a fantastic tale now but not back then?

And how does he know that "Miracles such as those done by Jesus and the apostles are NOT occurring in charismatic circles today"? His denial seems to amount to the claim that they can't be happening today because miracles like that don't happen today. I don't believe it because I know that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore, and I know that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore because it only happened in the past. 

But that's circular. It begs the question. What would count as evidence that it still happens? If it still happens, we'd expect to hear reports of it happening. Which is, in fact, what's going on. 

Phil's attitude is like saying we know a species went extinct because there are no contemporary sightings of the species. As such, we should discount all contemporary sightings because we know the species went extinct. All contemporary reports must be false. 

I'm by no means suggesting that we accept every reported miracle. But I do object to Phil's blanket preemptive dismissal. To reject every report is just as mindless as accepting every report. 

11. I believe Phil's paradigm of a healer is that God delegates the ability to heal. That's an autonomous ability which a healer can perform on anyone at any time at any place. Hence the taunt about failing to clear out a cancer ward.

But that's a very mechanical view of healing. What if God occasionally empowers a Christian to lay on hands and heal. It's not a permanent or even regular endowment, but  temporary endowment. It might only be once or twice in the lifetime of the Christian. BTW, we have examples of that in the OT, where the Spirit of God temporarily enables someone to do something extraordinary or supernatural. 

Proof of miraculous healing doesn't require a 100% success rate. The only proof necessary is a patient with a naturally incurable condition who is cured by the intervention of a Christian who, let us say, prays over them. 

Razon de la esperanza

https://razondelaesperanza.com/2014/06/29/resena-de-macarthur-fuego-extrano-por-craig-keener/

The presence of God

In traditional Catholicism you need the guidance of the magisterium to steer clear of damnable error. The claim is circular since the damnable error is dissenting from Catholic theology.

By contrast, Protestant theologians appealed to the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as a kind of epistemological shortcut. To Catholic theologians that's an ac hoc appeal, but here's a sophisticated defense:

https://www.proginosko.com/2017/01/the-internal-testimony-of-the-holy-spirit/

You also have charismatics who claim to have up-to-the-minute guidance from God. So that's another paradigm, a flawed paradigm, though no less flawed than the Catholic alternative. In addition, "the presence of God" is invoked very loosely in popular and/or folk theology. 

On a different, but related note, some Christians say they've had an unmistakable experience of God's presence. Likewise, some unbelievers say they had the same kind of experience, which was instrumental to their Christian conversion.

Unlike the loose use of the term, this refers to something overwhelming and undeniable for the person who had it. Not a visual or auditory apparition, but nevertheless a powerful, transformative encounter with God. I'm certainly not vouching for every claimant, although I think it's undoubtedly the case that God has manifested himself to some Christians or converts to Christianity in that way.

Now some paradigms I outlined conceive of divine guidance in terms of specific ongoing directives. They view the Christian pilgrimage like a dark, narrow, winding mountain road where drivers can easily veer off on either side and plunge to their death hundreds or thousands of feet below. To make it safely to heaven, you need the road to have street lights at regular intervals. Somewhat parallel to this is the charismatic belief that God gives his people signs on a regular basis. 

The presumption of the traditional Catholic paradigm is that because there are so many different ways to be damned, we need regular up-to-date warnings every step of the way. One swerve and you hurtle down the cliff. 

Of course, Protestants believe God gave us a roadmap in Scripture, and the roadmap doesn't need to be updated every year. 

But in addition to that, suppose a Christian who's at the end of his tether has an unmistakable experience of God's presence. That gives him timely confirmation that he's still on the right path. So he doesn't need to be constantly shown that he's on the right path. Rather, if he strayed, if he was now on the wrong path, he wouldn't have that confirmatory experience.

So that reverses the presumption. You're going in the right direction unless you have a sign that tells you you took a wrong turn. It's not like GPS where you're shown at every juncture which turn to make. You can read a roadmap for yourself. At best, you only need to be warned if you're about to take a wrong turn–or assuming you already got off course, have an indication of how to get back onto the right path. 

Now I'm not suggesting that most Christians experience God in that dramatic fashion. I'm just pointing out that not every Christian has the same experience. God is sovereign. And divine direction can take different forms. Scripture is fundamental. But God guides his people through the providential orchestration of events. And occasionally in more direct, individual forms. A Magisterium isn't the only paradigm. 

Debating cessationism

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-continuation-of-the-charismata

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/a-response-to-andrew-wilson

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/it-all-depends-upon-prophecy-a-brief-case-for-nuanced-cessationism

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/a-response-to-tom-schreiner

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/towards-a-definition-of-new-testament-prophecy

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-boundaries-of-the-gift-of-tongues-with-implications-for-cessationism

Intermittent miracles

One of the puzzling features of the Christian life is the uneven and unpredictable distribution of divine interventions. Why does God perform a miracle for one Christian but not another? Why does God answer the prayer of one Christian but not another? 

Cessationism and continuationism represent two competing paradigms of miracles. According to cessationism, either there are no postapostolic miracles or certain kinds of postapostolic miracles don't happen. 

According to charismatic theology, or at least the dominant version I'm aware of, the reason miracles aren't more common isn't due to God's will but our lack of faith or holiness. A human impediment blocks miracles. If we had more faith, if we were saintly, miracles would be routine among Christians. 

That's analogous to people who are color-blind. They receive the same external stimuli as people with normal vision, but due to their defective eyesight, they can't process the signals. It's there, all around them, but they can't perceive it because the receiver is malfunctioning. There's a breakdown at the receiving end of the transmission, and not the signal. 

Likewise, some animals have more than 5 senses. They can perceive things we can't. So the impediment lies in us. An internal filter that screens out the signals. The stimulus is there but the percipient lacks the necessary equipment for the signal to register. 

There's a grain of truth to that insofar as miracles are more likely to happen to people who believe in them. Atheists are generally trapped in a vicious circle. They don't pray. They don't believe in God. Their friends are atheists. So they don't move in circles where miracles or answered prayer happen.

However, that's not a complete explanation. Two equally needy, desperate Christians will pray for a miracle–one may get it and one won't. 

Here's a paradigm with more explanatory power. The Christian pilgrimage is a journey through life into death and the afterlife. But that raises two questions: how do we know that we're headed in the right direction? What if we're lost? Unless the road or trail has occasional signs, we may become disoriented. 

In addition, how do we know the destination even exists? Is there gold in them thar hills? Or is this the fabled gold at the end of the rainbow? 

What if it's a legend or tall tale, like Spanish explorers on a quest to discover the fountain of youth? A map that leads to nothing?

Miracles happen often enough, to enough believers, to encourage us that we're on the right road, that the destination is real. Like unexpected signs along the trail, around a bend, over a hill. Initials carved in a tree trunk. An old campfire. Intermittent signs to indicate pilgrims who went ahead of you. 

There are multiple lines of evidence for Christianity. Some kinds are more accessible to certain people than others. 

Is a foundation unrepeatable?

1. At the risk of belaboring Eph 2:20: a foundation has a horizontal dimension as well as a vertical dimension. Cessationists focus on the vertical dimension. I believe their argument goes something like this: according to the law of superposition, the bottommost layer is the earliest layer. The foundation goes down first, then upper stories may be erected over the foundation. The foundation is unrepeatable because it's inaccessible. The foundation is covered by upper layers. So there's an irreversible bottom-up process. 

2. But that's a fallacious inference:

i) Sometimes the foundation is exposed. Take a dirt floor. Many 1C buildings had dirt floors. Nothing was built directly on top of that foundation. Rather, there's space between the dirt foor and the ceiling. 

ii) Even if the dirt foundation is covered by tilings, that can be washed out by a flood. Cf. Mt 7:26-27.

iii) Likewise, even if a building has a rock solid foundation, an earthquake can buckle the foundation. 

So even in reference to the vertical dimension, there's nothing inherently permanent or unrepeatable about a foundation. After a natural disaster, rebuilding may require a new foundation. 

iv) Now a cessationist might object that Jesus and/or the apostles didn't build the church on an unstable foundation. In a sense that's true, but it's not something you can prove from Eph 2:20. At best, you need to supplement Eph 2:20 with something else (e.g. Mt 16:18).

v) Moreover, even that has to be qualified. How many churches planted by apostles still exist? How many 1C house churches still exist? Compare the state of 1C Christianity in Greece, Asia Minor, and the Middle East with the 21C state of Christianity in those locations. The gates of hell often prevail at a local level. 

3. In addition, a foundation can have a horizontal dimension. If the original floor plan becomes too cramped for the occupants, the foundation can be extended along one or more sides. The original foundation can be expanded, adding new side rooms. Pushing walls back. A foundation has an outward dimension as well as an upward dimension. And the outward dimensions aren't necessarily confined to original floor plan. 

4. Finally, a foundation has both spatial and temporal dimensions. Foundations at different times and places. The Great Commission lays new foundations at different times and places or extends the foundation to different times and places. By itself, a foundation is a flexible metaphor–vertically, horizontally, spatially, and chronologically. 

A cessationist might object that even if a foundation, considered in isolation, can be extended or multiply laid, a foundation in combination with the apostles and prophets cannot, because that had a 1C expiration date. But in reference to Eph 2:20, that begs the question. The point of quoting Eph 2:20 in the first place was to prove the discontinuance of apostles and prophets. So that must be derived from the text rather than treated as a given. 

Is a foundation once and for all?

1. Once more I'm going to comment on Eph 2:20. This is the primary cessationist prooftext. I agree with cessationists that the Apostolate was a temporary arrangement which died out with the last apostle. Likewise, I agree with cessationists that the epoch of prophecy in the sense of public revelation is behind us. 

2. In my experience, the cessationist appeal to Eph 2:20 is circular. They implicitly argue that the foundation is once and for all time because the apostolate is once and for all time while the apostolate is once and for all time because the foundation is once and for all time. So what's the logical connection? What grounds the conclusion? 

If you think the Apostolate is unrepeatable, then by definition an apostolic foundation is unrepeatable. Conversely, if you think a foundation is unrepeatable, then by definition an apostolic foundation is unrepeatable. It seems to me that cessationists oscillate between these two criteria without clarifying the logical relation or direction of the inference. You can't use each to prove the other. If you already know, apart from Eph 2:20, that the apostolate is unrepeatable, then you might use that to establish the unrepeatability of the foundation, or vice versa. If, however, you're using this verse to establish the unrepeatability of the apostolate in the first place (or the unrepeatability of the foundation in the first place), then the appeal is viciously circular. It takes for granted the very thing you need to prove. 

3. Another issue concerns what the foundation is. 

i) I'm not posing a grammatical or syntactical question in terms of how to render the Greek phrase, but a conceptual question regarding the larger idea that Paul intends to convey. 

ii) Should we understand the claim to be that the foundation just is the apostles and prophets? Are they foundational simply in virtue of being apostles and prophets, even if they said or did nothing? Does the foundation consist of the apostles and prophets in that regard? I don't see how that makes any sense. 

Or is the phrase a shorthand expression for the foundation which they laid? Their unique activities? If so, which apostolic and prophetic activities are foundational? 

Is the composition of the NT the foundation? But that's both broader and narrower. Broader inasmuch as the apostles and prophets did other things in besides that. Narrower inasmuch as not all or even most of them contributed to the composition of the NT.

iii) Another candidate might be church-planting, witnessing to Jews, witnessing to Roman dignitaries. If so, that principle doesn't have a 1C cutoff. They only planted churches in some localities of the Roman Empire. Only witnessed to some Jews and some Roman dignitaries.

iv) On that view, the foundation may be continually or periodically extended by planting additional churches, evangelizing new people-groups. Indeed, to play with the metaphor, sometimes congregations outgrow the original foundation, so it's necessary to expand the foundation. Build additions or annexes. 

Dropping the metaphor, when, after the death of the apostles, churches were planted in N. Europe, E. Europe, Asia, N. & S. America, China, Japan, &c. doesn't that extend the foundation?

v) Conversely, some countries that were originally evangelized lose the foundation. Where's the church of Ephesus c. 2018? In that missionary sense, it will be necessary to lay a new foundation. 

4. In sum, I think the cessationist appeal to Eph 2:20 fails. That doesn't mean cessationism is wrong. It's always tempting to settle a theological dispute by appeal to a single trump card. That's very convenient, if available. But many theological positions resist refutation at one stroke. They have multiple justifications. Nowadays, for instance, it's customary for sophisticated cessationists to mount an argument based on redemptive-historical theology. A whole paradigm rather than a single decisive prooftext.  

Is a foundation unrepeatable?

[God's household is] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). 

1. This may be the central prooftext for cessationism. Here's how a leading cessationist put it:

Ephesians 2:20, then, indicates that the apostles had a temporary, noncontinuing role in the life of the church. Their place was in the important foundation-laying phase of the church's history. Their function was to provide revelatory, infallibly authoritative, canonical witness to the consummation of salvation history in Christ's finished work. That function was fulfilled. It does not belong to the superstructure-building period to follow. It instead provides the completed foundation on which Christ continues to build the superstructure of the church...Ephesians 2:20 itself states one such implication—an important one. It affirms that the prophets, along with the apostles, have a foundational role...Ephesians 2:20 clearly implies that prophecy was a temporary gift, given for the foundation-laying period of the church. Therefore, along with the apostles, the New Testament prophets are no longer a present part of the church's life.

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH02/01d.html

Here's one way to summarize the argument:

i) The canon is complete

ii) The canon is complete because there are no more prophets or apostles

iii) There are no more prophets and apostles because a foundation is laid once for all time. 

Here's another way:

i) Scripture is unrepeatable

ii) Scripture is unrepeatable because prophets and apostles are unrepeatable

iii) Prophets and apostles are unrepeatable because a foundation is unrepeatable

2. In my view, the argument is invalid. A fallacious argument is different from a false argument. A fallacious argument can have elements of truth, but the elements of the argument don't follow from each other by logical implication. For instance, I agree that the canon is complete. And I agree that there are no more apostles.

3. In fairness, I think there's a problem with how both sides (cessationists, charismatics) frame the issue. Revelation is separable from prophecy in the sense that, in principle, you don't have to be a prophet or have the gift of prophecy for God to reveal something to you. God could just speak to a Christian or send him a revelatory dream. It might be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. 

4. Although apostles and scripture intersect, they don't coincide. On the one hand, not all apostles wrote scripture. On the other hand, not all NT authors were apostles. So the argument comes apart at that point. 

5. There's some circularity to the argument because they're using foundation, apostles, prophets, and scripture as mutually defining. Scripture is unrepeatable because prophets and apostles are unrepeatable. Prophets and apostles are unrepeatable because they belong to the unrepeatable foundation. The foundational phase is defined by prophets and apostles. Prophets and apostles are foundational in principle. 

But to say scripture and/or prophets and apostles belong to the foundation doesn't imply that the foundation is inseparable from prophets and apostles. For instance, Chinese immigrants had a foundational role in the transcontinental railroad. But that doesn't mean you can't lay new railroad tracks unless you employ Chinese immigrants.

6. Is a foundation unrepeatable? There are cultures that used to be more Christian, but they've become increasingly secularized. The foundation which missionaries laid in that country has eroded. There are situations where you have to lay a new foundation for a new generation, because the old foundation is gone. So there are times where, in the very same place, it's necessary to re-lay the foundation–not because the original foundation was defective, but because cultural gains aren't static. What one generation believed or took for granted may be lost to a newer generation.

It may be objected that to lay the foundation again implies the continuation of apostleship and/or scripture. But that objection suffers from equivocation (4-5).

7. Foundations are geographically variable as well as chronologically variable. Just because a foundation was laid in once place doesn't entail that it can't be laid in another place. When missionaries move into virgin territory, they lay a Christian foundation for the first time in that area. The fact that a Christian foundation was laid in parts of the 1C Roman Empire doesn't mean it was laid in India, China, Japan, the Americans, &c. 

It may be objected that to lay a new foundation again implies the continuation of apostleship and/or scripture. But that objection suffers from equivocation (4-5).

Keener/Horton dialogue on cessationism

http://www.craigkeener.com/very-friendly-dialogue-between-craig-keener-and-michael-horton/

Public and private revelation

One of the dividing lines between cessationism and continuationism is the distinction between public and private revelation. However, I don't find standard definitions of these terms in Protestant theology, so I'll take a stab at providing my own definition:

Public revelation: 

i) Directives to and for the church, the Jews, or humanity in general. 

ii) Revelation that obligates second parties to believe and act accordingly.

Private revelation:

i) Directives to and for particular individuals. Topical, one-time guidance, for a particular date at a particular place. 

ii) Not obligatory for second parties. 

In some cases, a private revelation might be veridical for the recipient or even some second parties. Suppose the recipient has a premonition that comes true. Suppose he shared his premonition with some friends or family before it happened. In that case they'd have evidence it was true. That would make it convincing or highly credible.

But in other cases they just have his word for it. There's no corroborative evidence. A second party didn't have his purported experience. It can't be verified, so there's no compelling reason to believe it. Mind you, if this comes from a trusted individual, they might believe him. 

By contrast, public revelation is obligatory for all concerned parties. In some cases there's corroborative evidence, viz. miracles, fulfilled prophecy. 

In a roundabout sense, private revelations become public revelations when recorded in Scripture, for the benefit of posterity. But there's still a difference inasmuch as posterity is not to emulate these directives–unlike the original recipients. 

Although the Bible is public revelation, containing many examples of public revelation, the Bible contains many examples of private revelation as well. For instance:

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife” (Gen 20:3).

Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen 37:9).

9 So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph and said to him, “In my dream there was a vine before me, 10 and on the vine there were three branches. As soon as it budded, its blossoms shot forth, and the clusters ripened into grapes (Gen 40:9-10).

2 And the word of the Lord came to him: 3 “Depart from here and turn eastward and hide yourself by the brook Cherith, which is east of the Jordan. 4 You shall drink from the brook, and I have commanded the ravens to feed you there” (1 Kgs 17:2-4).

8 Then the word of the Lord came to him, 9 “Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to feed you” (1 Kgs 17:8-9).

“And you, son of man, take a brick and lay it before you, and engrave on it a city, even Jerusalem. 2 And put siegeworks against it, and build a siege wall against it, and cast up a mound against it. Set camps also against it, and plant battering rams against it all around. 3 And you, take an iron griddle, and place it as an iron wall between you and the city; and set your face toward it, and let it be in a state of siege, and press the siege against it. This is a sign for the house of Israel.

4 “Then lie on your left side, and place the punishment[a] of the house of Israel upon it. For the number of the days that you lie on it, you shall bear their punishment. 5 For I assign to you a number of days, 390 days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment. So long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel (Ezk 4:1-5).

Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.” (Jonah 1).

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law (Lk 2:25-27).

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place (Acts 8:26).

10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight” (Acts 9:10-12).

3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” 4 And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. 6 He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea” (Acts 10:3-6). 

19 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them” (Acts 10:19-20).

And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16:19).

NT prophecy

I'd like to briefly discuss two related issues:

1. Some charismatics (e.g. Grudem) contend that while OT prophecy is infallible, NT prophecy is fallible. But is that the distinction? With respect to visionary revelation, prophecy can be a three-stage process:

i) God inspires the seer by giving him revelatory dreams and visions.

ii) God inspires the seer to verbalize what he saw. 

iii) God inspires the seer to interpret what he saw. That's especially pertinent to allegorical dreams and visions.

(i) is something that OT and NT prophecy share in common. 

(ii) may be confined to OT prophets and NT apostles. 

(iii) Some revelatory dreams and visions include an inspired interpretation (e.g. Joseph, Daniel) while others are just a verbal record of what the seer experienced (e.g. Ezekiel, Zechariah, the Apocalypse). That's why ordinary readers as well as commentators puzzle over the meaning of apocalyptic books. 

2. The traditional inerrancy position affirms the plenary verbal inspiration of scripture. However, a critic might object that paradigm-cases of biblical inspiration are confined to the prophetic genre rather than historical narratives, &c. There are, however, examples of OT prophets who function as historians. So that's analogous to the Gospel writers: 

29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer (1 Chron 29:29).

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chron 9:29).

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer? There were continual wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (2 Chron 12:15).

22 The rest of the acts of Abijah, his ways and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chron 13:22).

22 Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, from first to last, Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz wrote (2 Chron 26:22).

32 Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chron 32:32).