--------------------
These are the best, according to the title. We would expect them to be devastating, the last word on the cessationism debate.
But they aren't good arguments at all. They aren't even biblical arguments, they're mostly assumptions and deductions from preconceived ideas about what someone has said about certain Scriptures.
They aren't really even arguments. They are assertions. Claims.
THREE ARGUMENTS FOR CESSATIONISM
1. The Argument from the Closing of the Canon
The apostolate was as much an unrepeatable, redemptive-historical event as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, (The author draws a parallel between two unrelated elements. However, there is no necessary connection between the mission of Christ and the idea that the apostolate ended.
It's not even a biblical argument.)
because "the announcement of redemption cannot be separated from the history of redemption itself." (Ridderbos, pp. 12-15). The apostolate was closed after the calling of Paul, since he states that Christ appeared to him "last of all" (I Cor. 15:8 - see Jones for detailed exegesis). (The apostolate was closed? Let's quote:
1Co. 15:3-9 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Our first obvious discovery is that Paul was not writing about apostolic qualifications, he was listing those to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection. Unless of course the author is prepared to admit that there were 500 apostles.
Why would the author think this was about Paul's apostleship? It is because of misunderstanding of the activities of the eleven remaining apostles when they set about to choose a replacement to Judas Iscariot:
Ac. 1:21-22 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.
The mistake is thinking that "one of these must become a witness" is a qualification for apostleship, when it is actually a duty. The replacement apostle didn't need to witness the risen Christ, he needed to become a witness to Christ's resurrection "with us."
Thus when we remove the errant idea that witnessing the resurrected Christ was a requirement for apostleship, which means we can obviously see that Paul was not proving his apostleship at all.)
The Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession has no exegetical foundation (Cullmann, pp. 207, 236).
The presence of the apostolate was a necessary condition for the production of the inspired New Testament scripture. "The redemptive-historical ground of the New Testament canon must be sought in [the] apostolic authority and tradition." (Ridderbos, p. 24). (Not all of the NT was written by apostles, and not all the apostles wrote Scripture. The author's claim seems particularly hollow.)
Therefore, like the apostolate, the New Testament scripture is an unrepeatable, unique, and completed redemptive-historical event. (Again, the author draws a parallel between two unrelated elements. However, there is no necessary connection between the closed canon and the idea that the apostolate ended.)
"When understood in terms of the history of redemption, the canon cannot be open; in principle it must be closed. That follows directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power of the apostles received from Christ… The closed nature of the canon thus rests ultimately on the once-for-all significance of the New Testament history of redemption itself, as that history is presented by the apostolic witness." (Ridderbos, p. 25). The passing of the apostolate necessarily implies the closure of the canon of the New Testament. (A logical deduction, to be sure. But the deduction is based on assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the logic will be wrong. And it certainly is wrong.
Further, the author needs to source his assumptions from the Bible. We shall not accept anything less.)
For prophecy (including tongues-see "a pivotal presupposition" above) to continue on into subsequent sub-apostolic generations of the church, beyond the foundational period, would necessarily create tensions with the closed, finished character of the canon. In fact, such a continuation would exclude a completed canon in the strict sense. (Gaffin, p. 100). Therefore, the prophetic gifts (prophecy, tongues, etc.) have been withdrawn from the church upon the closing of the NT canon. (What, exactly, does the closed canon have to do with continuing revelation? The author will never explain, so we will.
Cessationists believe that everything God says needs to be written down and included in the Bible. This means that any continuing revelation after the closing of the canon would be in violation of the closed canon.
This is false on its face, since we know that God has said much more than what it written in the Bible, and many prophecies are not recorded. In fact, many of the things Jesus Himself did were not recorded [Jn. 21:25]. So it doesn't even make sense to claim that continuing revelation violates the canon.
Lastly, there is no statement in the Bible that articulates this idea.)
2. The Argument from Ephesians 2:20
(The author will write six paragraphs about this verse but will never quote it. Astonishing.
We shall do so:
Ep. 2:19-22 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Now with the actual passage before us, let's consider the author's presentation.)
Technically, this is not a separate argument from the preceding one. It fundamentally relies on the same theological considerations (the uniqueness and temporary nature of the apostolate). (In other words, this argument relies on the same false assumptions as the previous argument.)
However, it is still pedagogically useful to set this argument up separately, since it is based on an explicit proof-text rather than theological deduction alone.
"The decisive, controlling significance of Ephesians 2:20 (in its context) needs to be appreciated…. I Corinthians 14 … has a relatively narrow focus and is confined to the particular situation at Corinth. Ephesians, on the other hand, may well be a circular letter, originally intended by Paul for a wider audience than the congregation at Ephesus. More importantly, 2:20 is part of a section that surveys the church as a whole in a most sweeping and comprehensive fashion. Ephesians 2:20 stands back, views the whole building, and notes the place of prophecy in it (as part of the foundation); I Corinthians and the other passages on prophecy examine one of the parts from within. Ephesians 2:20, then, with its broad scope ought to have a pivotal and governing role in seeking to understand other NT statements on prophecy with a narrower, more particular and detailed focus…." (Gaffin, p. 96)
"Eph. 2:20 associates 'prophets' with the apostles in the activity of foundational witness or word ministry." (Gaffin, p. 93). These "prophets" are not OT prophets, but the same prophets encountered throughout the NT (Acts 13:1f; 21:10f; I Cor. 12:28; 14:1-40; Eph. 4:11; Rev. 1:1-3). (Ahh, so the author does know that there were prophets in the early church. Yet with the exception of Agabus, we have none of their prophecies.
The NT writers didn't follow the rules of the cessationists!)
This is demonstrated by the fact that Eph. 3:5 uses the same phrase "apostles and prophets" in contrast with the OT revelation.
One non-cessationist scholar admits that if Gaffin's exegesis of Eph. 2:20 were correct it would indeed vindicate the Cessationist position. (What would that exegesis be? Will the author tell us, or are we forced to consult the reference for ourselves?)
He attempts to evade the force of this argument, however, by interpreting the phrase to mean "the apostles who are also prophets" (Grudem, pp. 45-64). But this exegesis cannot be substantiated by any true grammatical parallel (Wallace), and Grudem's other supporting arguments have been answered point-by-point (White).
"Tongues are tied to prophecy and stand, so to speak, in its shadow. There is at least the suggestion in the chapter [I Cor. 14] that tongues have no place in the life of the congregation apart from their coexistence and correlative exercise with prophecy." (Gaffin, p. 58). Even if the gift of tongues per se is not in view in Eph. 2:20, the evidence adduced under "a pivotal presupposition" (above) forces us to conclude that insofar as tongues were interpreted they were functionally equivalent to prophetic utterance, and would therefore partake of the foundation of the church spoken of here.
Inherent in the foundation analogy is the idea that once the foundation has been laid, all other work is but building upon that foundation (I Cor. 3:10-15). When Paul identifies the apostles and new covenant prophets as the foundation of the church, he thereby asserts their unique, nonperpetual role. (Finally the logic breaks down. He was doing so well for a minute.
Without context or evidence, the author deems the role of an apostle to be non-perpetual, presumably because they wrote Scripture. But none of these presumptions have been documented. He simple asserts them and moves on.)
Therefore, the gift of tongues was for the foundation of the church, and has consequently been "withdrawn from the life of the church along with prophecy and whatever other foundational gifts are bound up with the presence of the apostolate in the church." (Gaffin, p. 102). (How does Gaffin know that these are foundational gifts, and that they are "bound up" with the apostles?
The author's argument is developing more and more holes.)
3. The Argument from Tongues as a Sign
Paul states that tongues as tongues (that is, apart from their revelational content when interpreted) were given as a sign of God's judgment against unbelievers (I Cor. 14:20-22). In a way analogous to Jesus' parables (Mark 4:12), tongues were given primarily (but not exclusively) ("Primarily but not exclusively." We would ask the author to tell us some of the other functions of tongues.)
to harden Israel in unbelief. This function "is bound up inseparably with the decisive transition from old to new and final in covenant history, a transition which issues in the founding of the church." (Gaffin, p. 107)
Characteristic of the NT's use of the OT, Paul's citation of Isaiah 28:11-12 intentionally brings to mind the broader context of Isaiah 28, particularly, v. 16 ("Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed"). (The only actual Scripture quote we will see.)
"In the NT this verse is prominent in the church-house passages; it is quoted in I Peter 2:6 (cf. v. 4) and evidently underlies the imagery of Ephesians 2:20 (cf. I Cor. 3:11). Christ as the church's foundation is the fulfillment of this prophecy. But it is also cited in Romans 9:33 (cf. 10:11), where it is applied to the offense taken by unbelieving Israel (cf. 9:31f) at Christ and the gospel. The judgment on Judah foretold by Isaiah, including God's alien speech, is fulfilled by the foundation-laying realized in Christ and the apostles (and prophets). The time of God's (once-for-all) activity of laying a foundation in Zion is also the time of terminal judgment on the unbelief in Zion provoked by that activity." (Gaffin, p. 108)
"Within this larger framework of prophecy and fulfillment, then, Paul's point in I Corinthians 14:21f is that tongues are the sign of God's judgment at the inauguration of the new covenant and the founding of the church. Tongues are the sign correlative with this (foundation-laying) activity which occasions (primarily Jewish) unbelief and the eschatological judgment attendant on it." While we should not restrict tongues as a sign exclusively to unbelieving Jews (since I Cor. 14:22 seems to apply it to all unbelievers), it remains true that it was specifically Jewish unbelief that led to the abrogation of the old covenant order and the establishment of a new covenant foundation. Besides, we know from Acts 18:1-17 that Jewish opposition to the Gentile mission was quite strong in Corinth.
"It should not be overlooked that, whatever the significance of tongues as a sign, Paul clearly teaches that this function as a sign is an integral characteristic of tongues, present wherever the gift is exercised." (Gaffin, p. 109). Therefore, since tongues as a sign belonged to a transitional period of redemptive history when the old Israel was being rejected and the new Israel was being founded, they are no longer needed today. (??? What about the glaring exception acknowledged by the author? The author notes the primary function of tongues, proclaims it over, but never discusses other functions of tongues!
And what about tongues as a sign to present day Jews? The author leaves so many loose ends.)
An agnostic note on I Corinthians 13:8-13
Some Cessationists, looking for the silver bullet argument against the continuance of tongues and prophecy, have attempted to identify "the perfect" with the completion of the NT canon. However, the better Cessationist exegetes admit that this interpretation cannot be sustained exegetically. The coming of "the perfect" (v. 10) must coincide with the coming of Christ, for it is only then that we will know even as we are known (v. 12).
If this is admitted, are we then forced to the opposite conclusion - that tongues and prophecy will continue until the Parousia? Not necessarily. "Paul might well have also mentioned inscripturation as a mode of revelation" which, like prophecy and tongues, is a "partial" mode of knowing God which will be superseded by "the perfect" at the Parousia. "But inscripturation has ceased. And if that be granted, then it is gratuitous to insist that this passage teaches that the modes of revelation mentioned, prophecy and tongues, are to continue functioning in the church until Christ's return." (Gaffin, p. 111) "The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basis of other passages and considerations." (Gaffin, p. 111) (Well, the author supplied three of his best arguments, and they fell profoundly short. Sad.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Mark R., ed. Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers. Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993.
Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.
Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979.
Gillespie, Thomas W. The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.
Grudem, W. A. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988.
Jones, Peter R. "I Corinthians 15:8: Paul the Last Apostle." Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985) 3-34.
Ridderbos, Herman N. Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. Second Revised Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988 (originally published 1963).
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today.
Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993.
Wallace, D. B. "The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament." Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983) 59-84.
White, Fowler R. "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationists Exegesis." Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) 303-20.
Copyright © 2002 By Lee Irons
No comments:
Post a Comment