Sorry for my flip-flopping on this argument. Frankly, I don’t totally understand Ruthven’s argument, so I’m not sure why I went there, other than the fact that he seems to share my perspective on apostleship.

So instead of creating more confusion let me just say briefly what I hear when I read Eph 2:19-22. I hear that those Ephesians who Paul is writing to have indeed been built on the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets. And based on everything else I see in the New Testament, this construction method seems ideal.

What hits me next is, “therefore, all bodies of Christians should be built on an apostolic foundation.” I mention the church in China because that seems to have happened there. I don’t believe that it has happened here in the US. We certainly have great teachers (Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield) as a foundation, but no apostles (or prophets for that matter).

I say that your interpretation of the text sounds Roman Catholic only because your vision of the “structure” here is so, “we-received-this-from- apostles-and-it-is-still-uncorrupted” ish.

Obviously, in my mind, the reason the early church fathers called the apostles their “foundation” is because that is exactly what they were. I think the Reformers (and Catholics for that matter) were mistaken to consider themselves to be on an apostolic foundation.

Certainly we have the mind of the apostles represented in Scripture, and we are as wise as could be to examine everything according to it (especially potential apostles). But, as you pointed out, apostleship is a Spirit-empowered office, not simply a Scripture-writer. In light of that, the foundation of the apostles is necessarily something relational and something having to do with personal influence, not simply a foundation of Scripture.

I should also note (since you brought it up), the office of “the twelve” has certainly ceased due to the additional requirement of Acts 1:21-22. However, the apostolic office that Paul filled is still available. The “last of all” of 1 Cor 15:8, I believe, means “last of all” in the list he is forming, not “last of all” in history.

I am aware that my view is rare, but once again, I believe that reading Scripture as plainly and straightforwardly as possible leads to the conclusion I have formed.

I believe the error in your article is your initial assumption that since there aren’t apostles running around, apostleship has ceased. Even if there had been no apostles since the early church, I would still be led by Scripture to believe that it is an office that God desires to restore for the founding of his church. Oh how desperately we need it!

Robert

(sorry this comment is so long)

Thanks for your comment. I’ll have to respond to more of it tomorrow, but I wanted to make one critical point (primarily in response to Ruthven).

Ruthven assumes that the cessationist viewpoint, which associates the apostolic age with the “foundation” period of the church, comes from a flawed approach to Ephesians 2:20 by the Reformers. Thus, he says, “It seems that the Evangelical cessationist tradition underlying this understanding of Eph 2:20 has been uncritically shaped by the polemics of the Reformers against the Papacy.”

But this is not an accurate portrayal of the origins of the cessationist position. The cessationist interpretation of “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20 does not originate, in history, with the Reformers. Or with the Roman Catholic Church.

This can be seen by a survey of the ante-Nicene church fathers, who consistently viewed the apostolic period as the “foundation” period of the church. This foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past.

Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):

“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).

Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine:

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as reposes its Christian faith in the Creator.

Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:

But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed.

Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians).

The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over.

The patristic evidence alone, in my opinion, dismantles Ruthven’s case. This is also why, I believe, a continuationist like Dr. Grudem finds no option but to agree with the cessationist understanding of “foundation.” Overall, I believe Grudem’s approach is more honest with the exegetical and historical data than Ruthven’s.

Thanks again for your interaction.

NB

Good points – my position on apostleship is certainly not well developed (it’s not exactly something you run into everyday!). I have read the Jon Ruthven article and his premise seems the same as mine, although I still have to iron out the implications.

Basically, I just don’t see how a good reformed protestant can hold that the apostles are foundational in the sense that you do – it harkens back to Rome’s doctrine! First, there is the issue of the placement of the cornerstone.

Honestly, the most natural interpretation is that Christ is the top cornerstone, which explains how we are being built into him, and which continues the image Paul is using in the context. If this were the case then obviously your interpretation of “foundation” as a stage in church development would not work at all. Christ is not even in the foundation!

But if Christ is the bottom cornerstone a similar problem remains. Because we are all being built into him. But that would make us all a part of the foundation. Which obviously can’t be, if, as you say, the foundation is a stage in church development and the apostles and prophets have ceased.

But even more than this, I just worry at how this demonstrates a cessationist’s view of apostles as some “repositories of unwritten Scripture” as Ruthven put it (that is, if you indeed hold, as a cessationist would, that Scripture is the real foundation). I can understand very well how if this were one’s view, he or she should like to do away with such an office.

But again, this is not consistent with Scripture. Apostles were fallible just as others were. What is more, not all apostles wrote Scripture and some that were not apostles did. Once again, would you then exclude that Scripture from being foundational?

Ruthven has an excellent point when he says that the foundation that all the church is built on is the Spirit-revealed confession that Jesus is Lord. Which (to borrow your words), based on the exegetical evidence, is exactly what a continuationist would expect.

This was great, I totally missed Eph. 2:20 as a great argument for cessationists.

Interesting, to know how many people here agree with White and Wallace on “pastors and other teachers” interpretation vs “pastor-teacher.”

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your desire for simplicity. But I would disagree that the simplest interpretation is always the best. Many of the people of Jesus’ time, for instance, thought there would only be one coming of the Messiah (in victory and power). While this is a simpler interpretation, it is obviously not correct. The goal of Bible study then must be precision and accuracy first, simplicity second.

In reality, the cessationist argument is really not complex at all. It asserts (1) that the miraculous gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (and other passages) are the same in kind as the miraculous signs in Acts; and (2) that those miraculous signs ceased shortly after the apostolic age. Sometimes the amount of exegetical data used in the discussion can feel a bit overwhelming. But this would be true no matter which position one holds.

That said, you should know that I agree in principle with your understanding of 1 Corinthians 13. Parts 4, 5, and 6 of this series discussed that passage. Viewing the “perfect” as heaven does not, in fact, necessarily mitigate against a cessationist position.

Thanks again for your comment.
NB

Thanks for your comment. Most commentators do not believe that the OT prophets are included in verse 20, because they are excluded (in the context) by 3:5.

Also, it would be strange (though not impossible) for Paul to list the OT prophets in a way that was chronologically out of order (since the apostles came after the OT prophets, not before).

Anyway, for what it’s worth…
NB