Peter, Paul, and Murray? (Part 3)
February 23rd, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Over the last two days, we’ve looked at the question: Are there still apostles in the church today? Our answer has been “no” for the following reasons: (1) the qualifications necessary for being an apostle, (2) the uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship, (3) the authority of the apostles and the close of the canon, and (4) the foundational nature of apostleship within church history. Today we will consider a fifth and final reason why we believe the apostolate has ceased.
5. The Historical Testimony of Those Following the Apostles
In our previous point, we contended that the apostles were given for the foundation stage of the church (Eph. 2:20), and that the early church recognized this foundation stage as a specific time-period that did not continue past the first century.
But it is important to go one step further, and note that the earliest church fathers saw the apostles as a unique group of men, distinct from all who would follow after them.
(A) Those who came after the apostles did not view themselves or their contemporaries as apostles.
According to their own self-testimony, those that followed the apostles were not apostles themselves, but were the “disciples of the apostles” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 11; Fragments of Papias, 5; cf. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 6; Ignatius, Against Heresies, 1.10), the elders and deacons of the churches.
Thus, Clement (late first century) in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, notes that:
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.
Ignatius, for instance, purposely avoided equating himself with the apostles. Thus, he wrote, “I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 11; emphasis added).
(B) Those who followed the apostles viewed apostolic writings as both unique and authoritative.
Moreover, in keeping with our third point (from yesterday), it was “the doctrine of the apostles” (cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 13; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 1) that was to be guarded, taught, and heeded. Thus, the “memoirs of the apostles” were held as canonical and authoritative within the early church (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.5; Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.9). Along these lines, Justin writes:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (The First Apology of Justin, 67).
The doctrine and writing of the apostles was unique, having been written by the authoritative representatives of Christ Himself.
(C) Those who followed the apostles saw the apostolic age as a unique and unrepeated period of church history.
The fathers saw the “times of the apostles” as a distinct, non-repeateable period of church history (cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.36.54; Reply to Faustus, 32.13; On Baptism, 14.16; et al). Thus, Chrysostom wrote on the uniqueness of fellowship during the apostolic age:
I wish to give you an example of friendship. Friends, that is, friends according to Christ, surpass fathers and sons. For tell me not of friends of the present day, since this good thing also has past away with others. But consider, in the time of the Apostles, I speak not of the chief men, but of the believers themselves generally; “all,” he says, “were of one heart and soul. and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own… and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” (Acts 4:32, 35.) There were then no such words as “mine” and “thine.” This is friendship, that a man should not consider his goods his own, but his neighbor’s, that his possessions belong to another; that he should be as careful of his friend’s soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise. (Homily on 1 Thess. 1:8-10; emphasis added)
Chrysostom looked back to the deep affection that characterized the apostolic era to provide a contrast to the relative lovelessness of the church in his day. In so doing, he underscores the fact that he understood the apostolic age to be long past. One additional passage might be cited in this regard:
I know that ye open wide your mouths and are amazed, at being to hear that it is in your power to have a greater gift than raising the dead, and giving eyes to the blind, doing the same things which were done in the time of the Apostles. And it seems to you past belief. What then is this gift? charity. (Homily on Heb. 1:6-8; emphasis added)
Many more examples from church history could be given. Eusebius’s whole history is based on the progression of church history from the “times of the apostles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, introduction). Basil, in his work On the Spirit, points to previous leaders from church history (specifically Irenaeus) as those “who lived near the times of the Apostles” (29.72). Tertullian (whom we cited yesterday) spoke of events that occurred “after the times of the apostles” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 21).
Historical Conclusions
Consistently, the fathers (from the earliest times) mark the apostolic age (and the apostles themselves) as unique. Their writings were unique and authoritative. Those that followed them were not considered to be apostles. Nor were the times that followed seen as equivalent to the times of the apostles.
Thus we conclude, once again, with Grudem:
It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, the immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have. (Systematic Theology, 911)
A Final Note
Throughout these posts we have leaned heavily on the work of Wayne Grudem (specifically, his Systematic Theology). This has been intentional for two reasons: (1) he makes excellent, biblically-sound arguments (and we appreciate everything he writes, even if we don’t always agree with his conclusions); and (2) he is a well-known and respected continuationist.
It is significant, in our opinion, that (as a continuationist) he argues so convincingly for the cessation of the apostolic office and the uniqueness of the apostolic age – since this is the very premise upon which the cessationist paradigm is built.
While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.
Sorry, I just posted my response to your previous inquiries in the previous post. I won’t put it here again so as not to hog up all the space. And as for the claims you make in this post… I’ll have to deal with them at another time. Thanks so much for taking the time to cover this issue!
Nathan B.,
It occurs to me as you review the early “post-apostolic” church leaders writings, that the Roman Catholic church has a decidedly different view on this matter. For my understanding (if it is not too much of a digression), how do they (using the same church history) conserve the chain of apostolic authority to support the papacy and papal authority? Further, what is the response of continuationists to Roman Catholic reasoning?
Blessings!
Derek
Robert and Derek,
Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, I’ll be out of town (and away from my computer) for the weekend. So I won’t be able to interact. I’ll try and respond to comments on Monday when I’m back.
- NB
Robert,
Since Nate is away, perhaps we can dialogue a bit until he gets back. I’m enjoying the exchange.
As I’ve read your posts, I think you’re making a distinction between Apostles (the Twelve like Peter, John, Paul, etc.) and apostles such as Barnabas (Acts 14:14) and James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19). And, it is this latter group (or perhaps lesser office) that you believe is still active today. Let’s call these such as Barnabas and James, apostles (small “a”).
If I have this right, then you are not claiming that the Apostolic office is still active today, are you? I just don’t see how that office can be active since the qualifications cannot historically be met. For example, no modern church-planter can claim that he was an eyewitness to the resurrected Lord, or personally appointed by the Lord, or in the company of the Twelve who traveled with Jesus as Matthias was (Acts 1:21-22).
In addition, any man who claimed to be on a par with the Twelve or even Paul would have to manifest the “signs of a true apostle” that Paul mentions in 2 Cor. 12:12. He would also have commensurate authority to the NT Apostles.
For the sake of clarity, let’s use a capital “A” when identifying the Apostolic office held by the Twelve and Paul.
So, here’s an important question: Do you hold that God is still appointing Apostles?
DerekW,
You raise a very important question with regard to the continuation of the Apostolic office. I was once a Catholic, and the idea of Apostolic succession is central to the authority of the Papacy.
We don’t have the time or space to list all the theological trouble a group can get into when they claim they have Apostolic authority. Think of all the papal edicts that contradict Scripture. These were accepted by the Catholic Church because they were believed to have Apostolic authority!
In fact, the Mormon church also believes in Apostolic succession and their so-called “Apostles” have produced a myriad of heretical and sometimes bizzare doctrines which have led millions astray.
Thus, in my view, anyone who claims that there are modern day Apostles on a par with the Twelve must Scripturally prove their own position, and also overcome the strong case made by the church fathers and virtually all the Reformers for Apostolic uniqueness.
Steve,
I’m very glad that you’re interested in continuing the dialogue. All of this has been extremely helpful to me and I hope to others.
Your question is an interesting one. I feel I should first point out that I am a continuationist - so I believe that a person could still have a vision of the resurrected Christ and I believe that a person could still manifest the other signs of apostleship (small “a”?).
I do believe that the Twelve had unique authority because of Acts 1:21-22. Obviously no person today could fulfill the requirement of being with Christ from the baptism of John to his ascension. However, I also do not believe that Paul fulfilled this requirement and therefore his apostleship is of a different nature.
I do still hold out the possibility that Paul’s apostleship was unique but that is on very shaky ground. The only verse I know of that would indicate such a thing is Gal 2:7,8 where Paul parallels his ministry to the Gentiles with Peter’s ministry to the Jews. This indicates to me that, possibly, just as Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and laid the original (unique) foundation, so Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles and laid an original (unique) foundation.
However, I say this is on shaky ground because verses like Rom 1:5, Rom 11:13, and 1 Tim 2:7, all use nonexclusive language to speak of Paul’s apostleship to the Gentiles. And other verses that mention Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21, 26:17, Rom 15:16, Gal 1:16, Eph 3:1,8, 2 Tim 4:17) also do not indicate that Paul’s mission was exclusive.
As you noted, there are other apostles such as Barnabas and James. In this regard, Acts 16:36-40 is very instructive. This is interesting because it seems that if Paul’s apostleship was superior to that of Barnabas, then Barnabas should have submitted to Paul’s judgment. However, Barnabas does not do that and they separated from each other. This seems to indicate that Barnabas’ apostleship was on the same level as Paul’s.
In short, the only individuals I think of as Apostles are the Twelve (and perhaps Paul). All others are apostles. And I believe that even the apostles, including any modern day apostles, had to fulfill all the requirements of apostleship. (signs and wonders, directly appointed by Christ, eyewitness to risen Christ, among several others that I believe are in Scripture)
If you know of any passage that would indicate how apostles could be called apostles without fulfilling all of these requirements, I would be interested in studying them.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Robert
Derek,
If you read my previous post, it should answer your question concerning the continuationist (or perhaps I should say hyper-continuationist, since main stream continuationists hold traditional views of apostleship) response to Roman Catholic reasoning.
The response is simply that apostles must fulfill the Scriptural requirements of apostleship such as signs and wonders (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4) and personally witnessing the resurrected Christ(Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8), among others.
Obviously popes do not meet these requirements. They have received their apostleship from men not from the Lord, contrary to Gal 1:1. Therefore, they are false apostles.
Hope that answers your question.
Robert
@ Robert
What do you make of-
2 Corin 11:5 “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.”
I like the translation “super apostles.”
In this chapter, Paul is defending his Apostleship, versus the other Apostles and claiming equal authority with them.
I include, James the Brother of Jesus, as one of the Apostles, but from Galatians 1:19 etc. But unlike Barnabas, James is pointed out as an Apostle, whereas Barnabas is not (only small “a” apostle). What I’m saying is that James should be an Apostle, and should not really be included with Junia and Barnabas. He is singled out in 1 Corinthians as someone who Christ appeared to, called a pillar, and compared with the other Apostles Peter and John. Barnabas, some one who no doubt had gifts, but was never held up or called to be an Apostle and his apostleship comes only with connection to Paul. Having James be an apostle strengthens your case, but I think that he should be an Apostle which I believe would weaken yours. In fact I’m not really sure why James is not an Apostle.
cf Galatians 2:9
and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Notice he did not say “us” he said the pillars gave recognized his Apostleship.
Regarding the issues brought up in this post,
First, I love the fact that I, a continationist, who is accused by many to deny the sufficiency of Scripture, could wave the flag of sola scriptura here and be completely justified. However, because I want to deal with the most robust form of your argument and not shoot down a straw-man, let me address the historical data.
Point (A): It is right that those following the apostles did not regard themselves as apostles since they did not manifest the signs of apostleship.
Point (B): The writings of the original Apostles are unique and authoritative. Again, modern-day apostles, in accordance with Scripture (i.e. the writings of the first Apostles) will not write in the way that the first Apostles did, rather they will rely fully on what has been written (2 Tim 3:16,17).
Point (C): The words quoted here in no way deny that more apostles may come in the future. In fact, Chrysostom articulates my sentiment quite well - missing the days of the apostles and longing for a day when the church will again be like that.
The only other thing I noticed about the post that I found disagreement with is the last phrase of Grudem’s quote, he writes: “more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have.” This seems clearly unbiblical. If the Bible vests apostolic authority in individuals then clearly it is not more than they should rightfully have.
However, I certainly echo his sentiment, and that of others, that we must be extremely cautious when assessing claims to apostleship and not just throw it on any person. And even once apostleship is acknowledged, everything, everything must be tested by Scripture.
Robert
John,
I believe you are correct about James the brother of Jesus being in the big “A” Apostle category.
Your point from Gal 2:9 is a good one - they only mention Paul. However, you should note that the case for Barnabas’ apostleship (Acts 14:14) is stronger than the case for Junia’s (Rom 16:7). In fact, I think the ESV translates Rom 16:7 accurately so as to exclude Junia from apostleship. When Barnabas is identified as an apostle, it is in the same breath as Paul.
2 Cor 11:5 isn’t referring to the the Twelve, rather it is referring (perhaps mockingly, or perhaps using a self-granted title) to other men who were coming into the Corinthian church and usurping authority, claiming to be apostles (2 Cor 11:12-13).
Another telling passage concerning Paul’s Apostleship is 1 Cor 3-4, where “us” in 4:1 seems to apply to Paul and Apollos (who would then be indicated as being an apostle) and then Paul tells the Corinthian Christians to regard Apollos and Paul as the same: “as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” But again, a reply could be made concerning Paul’s uniqueness from 4:15.
All this is to say, I’m still willing to label Paul a big “A” Apostle, although, again, there is some evidence to the contrary. And James, I believe, is another big “A” Apostle.
Robert
Robert,
I’m going to be tied up today and I’ll need some time to study your post to make a cogent reply. I’ll try to get back to you this evening if I can.
By the way, can you identify some modern Christian who claims apostolic authority? How did they come to this conclusion about themselves? Just curious because virtually all of those I’ve heard of were members of groups who held abberant doctrinal positions that neither you nor I would hold as orthodox.
See you later.
Steve,
I do not know of any modern Christians who claim the title of apostle except for a few, as you said, whose theology is not orthodox, so obviously I do not believe them to be apostles in any sense.
The only person I am aware of that might qualify as an apostle is Brother Yun, previously of China. If you read his book The Heavenly Man I’m sure you will see how I could come to that conclusion. There are also men that worked around him that might also meet the requirements for apostleship. However, I should note, that to my knowledge he never claimed the title of apostle, nor the level of authority that comes with it.
I would also like to say that my position certainly does not entail that there are any apostles in the church today. My position is only that there can be and should be. In fact, given my position, it would make sense that there are no apostles in the church today because I think that apostleship is something that must be sought after (1 Cor 12:31), and clearly, this has not been done in the Western church.
Another reason that I believe there are no apostles in the Western church is because it seems that suffering or persecution is another necessary qualification of apostleship (1 Cor 4:9, 1 Cor 11:23-29), and obviously in the liberal West Christians do not have the opportunity for such suffering. The day is coming though, be sure of that (Matt 24:9)! (And with that, perhaps the day for apostles is coming again too.)
Robert
Just a note on Rom. 16:7:
Robert said:
However, you should note that the case for Barnabas’ apostleship (Acts 14:14) is stronger than the case for Junia’s (Rom 16:7). In fact, I think the ESV translates Rom 16:7 accurately so as to exclude Junia from apostleship.
Of the main translations noted below the ESV is the only one to change “of note / outstanding” to “well known”
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. ESV
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. NIV
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. NAS
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. KJV
The Greek word for “of note” is episemos (ep-is’-ay-mos). According to Strong’s it means -”remarkable, that is, (figuratively) eminent: - notable, of note.”
Thayer’s
2) marked
2a) in a good sense
2a1) of note, illustrious
2b) in a bad sense
2b1) notorious, infamous
The only other occurance of this word is in Matt. 27:16 “And they had then a notable (episemos) prisoner, called Barabbas.” (NAS - notorious)
The Greek word “en” is translated as “among” more times (105) than as any other word. In the KJV it is never translate “to”.
I think the KJV/NAS/NIV translations have it right. Young’s Literal Translation also agrees with this.
If this is true and I believe it is then Junias and Andronicus are apostles. This is very interesting because they obviously are not of the 12 so the term “the apostles” would have to refer to a larger group of apostles that just the 12. This indicates that there could have been more apostles known to Paul than just those we know about. This adds credibility to the idea that there could be other apostles who are not of the 12.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Sorry, the quote from Robert in the above post is only the first paragraph. My remards start after that.
Riley
Nate said:
While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.
Riley:
The problem here is that it’s just an opinion of man. The Bible doesn’t say there are any more apostles or that there are not any more apostles. Even if there are not the Bible also doesn’t say that this means other gifts have ceased. The whole discussion degenerates into my opinion vs. your opinion and nobody is convinced or changes their mind. Cessation or continuation is not proved one way or another.
Let me go in a different direction on this and point out five verses that I believe make a strong case for continuation. These are all things the Bible does say and the Bible does not say anywhere that these things have ceased.
1.) Faith has not passed away.
Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
“All things” still means “all things” and would include all of the miraculous things in the Bible. Notice that I didn’t quote Matt. 9:26 or Luke 1:37 that say that with God all things are possible. Nobody disagrees with that. This verse says that people who believe can do all things. Do you believe it? A case could be made I suppose that “all things” would not include cosmically omnipotent things the Bible never states that anyone can do. But it surely would include everything supernatural and miraculous that the Bible does say that men can do.
2.) You can do the miraculous works that Jesus did.
John 14:12 …he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also…
The word “works” is used by Jesus and John in the Gospel of John to refer to the miraculous works of Jesus like healing the sick and casting out demons.
If anyone is inclined to mistakenly try to reinterpret “he that believeth on me” to mean apostles only, they should look at John 6:47. This verse has the same entire phase from the first “Verily” to the “on me…” It is identical to the first part of John 14:12 in both the English (KJV) and the Greek. This verse shows that “he that believeth on me” simply refers to everyone who has received eternal life by believing in Jesus. In other words John 14:12 means that you as a believer, with the kind of faith that Mark 9:23 quoted above talks about, can do the miraculous works that Jesus did. (I’ll give you a hint: You’ll need Acts 1:8 too.)
Don’t be deceived into thinking you can use the next phrase of John 14:12 as an excuse not to do this part. “Greater works” does not refer to getting people born again. Getting people born again is the most important thing but the word “works” must have the same meaning in both phrases and it refers to Jesus miraculous works. Greater works then would simply be greater miraculous works in scope and number since “greater” surely can’t mean “better” than the works the Jesus did. Until you have at least done the same “works” of the first phrase there’s no need to worry about what the “greater works” even are. And since the phrases are connected by “and” you’re supposed to be doing both anyway.
By the way, the word “works” does not refer to his sacrifice. Only Jesus could do that.
3.) You can do “all things whatsoever” that Jesus commanded the apostles to do.
The Great Commission says that all believers (that’s you) should be taught to do everything that Jesus taught the twelve apostles to do.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The “you” refers to the apostles and other disciples to whom Jesus is speaking. The “them” refers to all of us who have heard the message and have believed in Jesus.
Here is an sample of what Jesus commanded his apostles to do. Those in the ministry are supposed to be teaching everyone in their congregations to do all these things.
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them,… (see also Mat 11:1)
Mat 10:7 …preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:…
This does not mean that other necessary things should not be taught also. It just means that the Great Commission is not being completely fulfilled if people are not being taught to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils, and raise the dead as well as preach the gospel. Thus the Great Commission teaches us to fully preach the Gospel. (“Full Gospel” see Rom. 15:19)
4.) The fullness of the Holy Spirit enables “he that believeth on me” to have a ministry that flows out like a river. (Notice that it’s the same phrase used in John 14:12.)
John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
The same phase “he that believeth on me is used here and in John 14:12. This implies that the fulness of the Spirit in our lives enables an overflow of ministry like a river that would include doing the miraculous works that Jesus spoke of in John 14:12.
I don’t believe that this is the same thing that is referred to in John 4 talking about a “well of water springing up into everlasting life”. That’s talking about being saved where “up” speaks of our vertical relationship with God. In John 7:37 it’s talking about being filled to overflowing where it flows “out” horizontally in ministry to others. And it’s not just a well but a whole river flowing out.
5.) Miraculous signs should follow them that believe
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name …
…shall they cast out devils Mk 16:17
…they shall speak with new tongues Mk 16:17
…they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover Mk 16:18
If you doubt this verse here’s a link for you:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
I will point out that this verse is in complete agreement with the other verses here listed. The phrase “them that believe” is functionally equivalent to “he that believeth on me” in John 14:12 and 7:38. If signs are to follow believers as this verse states and not just apostles, the whole paradigm of apostles have ceased therefore gifts have also ceased collapses.
All these verses talk about believers doing supernatural things. Taken together they make a strong case for the continuation of supernatural gifts and miraculous works and the Bible never negates this.
If you have a scripture that literally abrogates, negates, or causes to cease any of these things let’s hear it. In I Cor. 13:12 where it talks about the perfect coming, if I’m not mistaken, Nate and I both agree that it’s referring to a time in the future when we see God face to face (Rev. 22:4) so where’s your scripture? It’s as if this whole cessationist “Theology of Excuses” is like the emperor who has no clothes. The theology has no scriptures. I mean literal and direct scriptures that specifically negate any of these supernatural things.
If I say we should prophecy, the Bible says ,”they shall prophesy.” Acts2:18
If I say we can do what Jesus did, Jesus himself said, “the works that I do shall he do also.” John 14:12
If I say we can heal the sick, the Bible says, “they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Mk 16:18
If I say that visions are still possible, the Bible says, “your young men shall see visions.“ Acts 2:17
These are direct and literal statements. I could go on but you get my point. Show me your direct and literal scriptures of cessation.
In conclusion I believe that my continuationist beliefs stand on a far better scriptural foundation than anything I’ve heard from the cessationist side. At least I can point to verses that literally say what I believe.
As for me I will continue to seek to be a doer of all these scriptures without reducing the full impact of their words. I refuse to allow myself to reduce them to an intellectually comfortable level or to the level of my own experience. If you wish to continue to concoct an elaborate “Theology of Excuses” to excuse yourself from being a doer of these verses and numerous others that speak of supernatural things even though the Bible never literally negates any of them I guess that’s your choice.
Yours in Christ,
Riley