Michael:

I have just finished reading your entire series.

My first impression is that the distinction between cessationalist and continualist is fuzzy at best.

You describe yourself as a cessationalist. I would describe myself as a continualist.

However, I am not convinced there is that much of a difference between yourself and myself.

It sounds like you acknowledge that the Scriptural support for cessationalist is weak (I agree). It also sounds like you acknowledge that your are a cessationalist because you have not yet encountered anything with us Charismatic / Pentecostal types that seems genuine. I understand

I would like to point out that there is a logical difference between believing that a certain office or gifting is Scripturally impossible as opposed to not knowing any valid instances of the gifting or office in operation today.

For example, I know of no instances of the office of apostle today. However, I do not discount the possibility that (1) I misunderstand what the gift of the apostle is, (2) that the office of apostle is around somewhere in the word today and I (in my limited knowledge) am not aware of it, (3) God could restore the gift of the apostle at a future date.

It sounds to me that this is your position in regards to the sign charismatic gifts in general.

If that is the case, I sense that the only real difference between yourself and myself is that you have yet to see a baby in all of the bathwater that you have encountered while I, while acknowledging that I certainly have seen plenty of bathwater, do believe that I at times have at least seen glimpses of a real live baby.

Oh..technical issue. The whole right side of what I am typing seems to be going into some type of black hole.

Lisa -

On apostles, yes I do believe apostles exist today. In one sense, I would argue that if prophets exist today, then the logical conclusion would be that apostles exist today as well. They go hand in hand as foundation layers and equippers of the saints.

I did a series on Apostles Today. If you are interested in seeing more of my thoughts, you can click on the link.

Lisa -

Thanks for the thoughts and challenging my understanding. I don’t separate the prophetic gift from the role of the prophet. Obviously a prophet will prophesy. But consider this: just because someone prophesies, that does not make him a prophet. Another example is that just because someone shares Christ with their friend and sees them come to the Lord does not inherently make them a gifted evangelist. But an evangelist will have a great gift in leading people to Christ. I think even for someone like Saul to prophesy in the OT did not make him a prophet per se (1 Sam 10:9-13). But he still prophesied.

Still, I should probably lay out more concerning the prophetic gift. I definitely don’t want to create tiers, but I think the Bible, with the full revelation of the NT considered, does warrant three different functions, or measures, of the prophetic gift:

1) Prophet (Eph 4:11-13; 1 Cor 12:28-29) – called to equip the body of Christ to fulfill their prophetic role
2) Gift of prophecy (1 Cor 12:10) – see this gift manifest regularly in a person’s life, yet they are not necessarily equipping others in this gift
3) All may prophesy (1 Cor 14:5, 31) – Paul instructs on how we can all prophecy and do it appropriately in our gatherings

True prophecy is truly from God and carries authority. I am not an advocate that NT prophecy is ‘less than’ OT prophecy. But what I am distinguishing is the weight given to and intricate details that usually come from those who have a greater measure of prophetic gifting. One who is a prophet in the Eph 4:11-13 sense will probably see and hear more from the Lord than someone like myself who has more of a teaching gift and role, yet not to negate that I can hear a direct word from Him and speak it forth. And we will listen for those who are more prophetically gifted to bring forth a pertinent word from the Lord in situations, yet not unwilling to hear the Lord speak through each of us.

And, yes, I agree that all prophecy does ultimately relate to Christ. As Rev 19:10 says, ‘For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’ Prophecy is ultimately testifying to Christ.

Jason C on 28 Dec 2008 at 3:40 pm # Eric, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I really think your opinion is wrong. The text clearly indicates more than one nation would do the razing of Tyre, and the use of “they” rather than “he” to my mind clearly indicates that more than just Nebbie was in view here.

You may be right. I.e., the promise of the despoiling of Tyre may have been regarding the cumulative work of many nations, and Nebuchadnezzar happened not to be one of the lucky ones who was compensated in spoil for what he did or tried to do.

I’ll read it with that in mind.

Also, regarding apostles, are you indicating that there are modern apostles today? I am not sure I agree with you regarding your assessment of 2 Cor 11-12 in that this passage does not support signs and wonders and being exclusive to the apostles. But one thing I do believe is that the signs and wonders were necessary to authenticate apostleship (Acts 1:8, 22; 2:43). And the apostles being witnesses, were exclusive to the early church period.

As with the prophets, I believe the apostolic function was also to confirm the ultimate revelation in Christ and in this way, the writings of the apostles were themselves, prophetic. This supports, I believe the passage you cited in Eph 4:11 and also most notably Eph 2:20, which laid the foundation for the church. The signs and wonders were all part of this package.

Eric, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I really think your opinion is wrong. The text clearly indicates more than one nation would do the razing of Tyre, and the use of “they” rather than “he” to my mind clearly indicates that more than just Nebbie was in view here.

Scott, couple of things I’d like to challenge what you’ve said in your past 2 comments.

Regarding prophets, you said “No doubt prophets, Biblically and today, have had such things follow, but I don’t think Deut 13 or 18 gives a law-oriented prescription that a prophet has to perform such. But, also, as someone else commented, I think we need to distinguish between having the gift of prophecy and functioning in the role of prophet in the Eph 4:11 [Open in Libronix (if available)] sense.

Is it possible to separate the role of the prophet from the gift? Or more importantly, can we discard the authority of the prophet’s words as words straight from God? In other words, if prophecy is speaking for God, then that prophecy will necessarily carry authoritative function that I don’t think we can eliminate because we’re separating the role from the gift. Also, if a person is fulfilling the role of the prophet, in the early church or even today, why would they then be exempt from the requirements of a prophet?

I think this also begs the question of the role of prophecy in the NT. Just because I Corinthians 14 indicates that the role of prophecy is for edification, exhortation and consolation does that then put the prophetic function in a different class as the role of the OT prophet? I would say not necessarily. See all we have is the fact that people prophesied (chapts 11 and 14) but not what was being proclaimed. If prophecy is proclaiming the word of the Lord and based on Heb 1:1-3 the final authoritative word is found in Christ, then the prophetic function in the NT would have to support God’s ultimate revelation in Christ. In this way, the NT prophecy had no different means than OT prophecy but proclaiming a new truth, which was Christ. Perhaps, this what edified the whole church as described in I Cor, which was important as the new church was getting established.

By separating the gift from the role, I think you’re creating a tiered structure of authority that I don’t think has a biblical foundation. Prophecy in the NT sense, would have to proclaim that which is authoritative which is God’s revelation in Christ, inscribed for us in Scripture and I don’t think the foretelling of events in people’s lives.

Jason:

As worded/recorded by Ezekiel, it’s IMO a failed prophecy, and none of the explanations I’ve read re: the problem (and some commentators don’t even address it) have been satisfactory.

In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, ‘Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken; it has swung open to me. I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste,’ therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock. She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets, for I have spoken, declares the Lord God. And she shall become plunder for the nations, and her daughters on the mainland shall be killed by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

“For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground.

They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God.

Nebbie didn’t make Tyre a bare rock either. Alexander did that too, tearing down the shore city in order to build his causeway.

I really see it as a prophecy of two (at least) conquerors.

Jason C:

Ezekiel has Adonai YHWH promising the spoils of Tyre to Nebbie. But N gets nothing for his labor, contrary to E’s “Thus says Adonai YHWH….” So E gives another “thus says Adonai YHWH ” three chapters later in which Adonai YHWH acknowledges that N got nada for his efforts against Tyre (except for making a bunch of heads bald and shoulders bare), and promises him the spoils of Egypt in return.

Or so I read the text.