Upon This Foundation: Ephesians 2:20 and the Gift of Prophecy, by Jon M. Ruthven
5 For example, in Jack Deere’s influential work, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) there is a brief treatment (p. 248) with the promise of a plan to discuss Eph 2:20 in detail “in my next book.” If Surprised by the Voice of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) is that next book, the passage does not appear in the scripture index, nor am I able to discover any discussion of it. Similarly, in another major work Gary S. Greig and Kevin N. Springer (eds.), The Kingdom and the Power: Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today? (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1993), one page is devoted to Eph 2:20 in a chapter by Wayne Grudem (see below). J. Rodman Williams does not treat the cessationist view of Eph 2:20, but rather seems to affirm it, at least with respect to the “original” 13, including Paul (as opposed to “continuing”) apostles. Renewal Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 173. No real critique of the “foundational” argument appears in the extended discussion in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Ed., Wayne Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
6 First in the adaptation of his Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), 82-105.
7 Note 2, above.
8 “We all (some of Grudem’s cessationist critics and himself) agree that these [italics his] prophets are ones who provided the foundation of the church, and therefore these are prophets who spoke infallible words of God. . . . Whether we say this group was only the apostles, or was a small group of prophets closely associated with the apostles who spoke Scripture-quality words, we are still left with a picture of a very small and unique group of people who provide this foundation for the church universal.” Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1051, n. 4.
9 Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, 105. Also, his The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: 1989), 45-63 and his Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1051.
10 E.g., by F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 2:2 (Fall 1991), 165-77.
11 Michael Moriarty states this position clearly. God placed prophets in the apostolic churches to “provide doctrinal insights” only during an “interim period” in which churches “had only portions of the Bible.” The New Charismatics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 231. Farnell, ibid., 167. Gaffin appears to hold this view. He writes:
I should emphasize that, during the foundational, apostolic period of the church, its “canon” (i.e., where I find God’s word and revealed will for my life) was a fluid, evolving entity, made up of three factors: (1) a completed Old Testament; (2) an eventual New Testament and other inspired documents no longer extant (e.g., the letter mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9), as each was written and then circulated (cf. Col 4:16); and (3) an oral apostolic and prophetic voice (“whether by word of mouth or by letter” [2 Thess 2:15] points to this authoritative mix of oral and written). The church at that time lived by a “Scripture plus” principle of authority and guidance; by the nature of the case, it could not yet be committed, as a formal principle, to sola Scriptura.
“A Cessationist View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? ed. Wayne A. Grudem, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 45-46 fn. 50.
What Gaffin has essentially done is redefine the canon for the NT church. For them it contains revelation not included in the Scriptures. But now, after the completion of the NT, the canon is simply the Bible. This simply will not do. The canon is either Scripture only or all revelation. It cannot be both; one for the apostolic church and the other for the post-apostolic church. Gaffin’s argument seems to be a desperate expedient to preserve both the completion of the canon and cessationism.
12 Systematic Theology, 1050.
13 It is interesting that when choosing the four dialogue partners for the book Grudem edited, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), neither of the charismatic or Pentecostal participants affirmed the continuation of one of the spiritual gifts: apostleship! See my review in Pneuma Review of Wayne Grudem (ed.), Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views. Zondervan, 1996 in Pneuma 21:1 (Spring 1999), 155-58. Also in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (September 1999), 531-32.
14 Even today, Roman Catholic apologists appeal to Eph 2:20 as a proof text for Papal authority. Anthony Saldarini, “Chapter 2, Interpretation: Part One: The Biblical Period,” in Papal Infallibility: An Application of Lonergan’s Theological Method, ed. T. J. Teikppe (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1983), 18.
15 Marcus Barth takes a related view of this “confession-as-foundation.” “Most likely the term ‘foundation’ in 2:20 is more fully explicated by 4:7, 11; 6:19-20, i.e., by those verses in Ephesians that speak of the preaching, exhorting and warning activity of the spokesmen of God assigned to the church by Christ.” Ephesians, ABC (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 315-16.
16 A premise contradicted by K. L. Schmidt, “themelios,” TDNT, III:63.
17 On “foundation” as a deposit of doctrine, see W. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 43, esp. n. 91.
Category: Biblical Studies, Pneuma Review, Winter 2002
Followers
Fans
