Craig S. Keener, “Apostles Today” YouTube (October 18, 2025).

Pastor John Lathrop says: “At the link you can hear Dr. Craig Keener speak about apostles (about 42 minutes long). In part of his teaching he shares the names of people in church history that he thinks qualify as apostles using Paul’s criteria for apostles.”

James F. Linzey, “International Pentecostal Leaders Minister in Coffeyville, Kansas: ORU Scholars Step into a Century-Old Prophetic Stream in Coffeyville” Christian Newswire (November 12, 2025).

Gordon Govier, “10 Striking Biblical Archaeology Stories of 2025: Research and natural disaster uncovered exciting finds from the ancient world” Christianity Today (December 23, 2025).

Craig S. Keener, “Yes, there IS a Christian genocide in Nigeria” Bible Background (December 28, 2025).

Craig Keener introduces this 26 minute video: “I am not interested in defending the partisan right or left, and that’s not what this is about. The suffering in northern Nigeria didn’t start recently—it’s been going on for decades. I have interviewed many friends from northern Nigeria, plus I depend on reports I received already when I taught there in the 1990s. In some places, there is ‘religious cleansing’ taking place, alongside other terrorist activity.”

Image: Filip Bunkens

Craig Keener, “Differing with John MacArthur on 1 Cor 14” Bible Background (January 5, 2026).

Joy Ren, “Influential Chinese House Church Faces New Crackdown” Christianity Today (January 16, 2026).

Updated on January 21, 2026: “Two of the detained face charges of ‘inciting subversion of state power.’”

Frank Viola, “50 Things the Holy Spirit Does” Frank Viola Unfiltered (January 25, 2026).

Bonnie Kristian, “Protesting in Church Is Wrong. So Is Immigration Theater” Christianity Today (January 20, 2026).

The subtitle of this opinion piece by Christianity Today deputy editor Bonnie Kristian reads: “Demonstrators should not disrupt worship services. ICE should be competent, cool-headed, and constrained by the Constitution.”

Craig Keener, “A charismatic view of suffering?: Suffering and baptism in the Spirit in Mark’s introduction” Bible Background (March 2, 2026).

Carey Nieuwhof and James Sells, “Reclaiming the Church’s Role in Mental Health: We have a holy opportunity to return to our roots—a chance to recover the kind of care that once marked every aspect of the early church” Leadership Journal (Fall 2025).

This article is from CT Pastors, Volume 38 of Leadership Journal.

PR

From the Fall 2013 issue of Pneuma Review.

Amos Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit? A Walk with the Apostles, a Paraclete Guide (Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2011), 215 pages, ISBN 9781557256355.

Amos Yong has written a fresh and comprehensive guide concerning the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. This work has profound implications for contemporary audiences regarding the topic of the Spirit in the Acts narrative. Who is the Holy Spirit will resonate with anyone wishing to discern the winds of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

This book is divided into eight parts and thirty-nine chapters. The first part illuminates the ramifications of the Spirit’s outpouring, as well as the kingdom promise and the Spirit’s outpouring. This is followed by an overview of the economy of salvation, including the gifts, fellowship, mission, politics, and charismatic dimensions of the Spirit (part two). Part three underscores the economics of the Spirit in Judea, and part four examines the theological work of the Spirit in light of the story of the people of Israel. The fifth part addresses the movement of the Spirit into Samaria and the highways of Palestine. Part six enumerates the relationship between the Spirit and the Gentiles. Part seven, the prophetic and political overtures of the Kingdom-empire, in addition to the relationship of the Spirit to the world. The final part explores the witness, resurrection, nature, and sacramental dimensions of the Spirit.

According to Yong, the empowering witness of the Spirit outlines how to live faithfully in a pluralistic world. Whether government, society, or the global economy, the demands on our lives will consume us if we are not equipped with the power of Spirit. As Yong proposes, following Zaccheus, our response might also extend “the new economy of salvation so as to reconcile people, opposing and correcting the unjust structures of our world” (p 28). Yet as he explains, there is fellowship, warmth, and healing in the Spirit. This indeed is a sign of the messianic promise and “the redemption, reconciliation, and release long associated with the year of the Lord’s favor” (p 44). Whither the economics of the Spirit? If we fully embrace the Spirit’s power, and overcome our self-centeredness, then we will have the full embodiment of the Holy Spirit upon our lives. Above all, the Spirit filled life in the Acts narrative is about spiritual formation, or perhaps even better, transformation. There is resurrection power in the Spirit and in the Spirit the ability to traverse foes and powers of darkness.

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19-20).

The cessationist insists that, according to the analogy Paul employs, apostles and prophets belong to the period of the foundation, not the superstructure. That is to say, these two groups and their respective gifts were designed by God to operate only during the early years of the church’s existence in order to lay the once-for-all foundation.

At the Strange Fire conference, in his session devoted to articulating arguments for cessationism, Tom Pennington stated that “once the apostles and prophets finished their role in laying the foundation of the church, their gifts were completed,” which is to say, they ceased to function and eventually ceased to exist altogether.

But several things must be noted.

Sam Storms

The cessationist argument fails to take note of vv. 21-22 where Paul refers to the superstructure of the church as under construction, so to speak, as he speaks/writes (note the consistent use of the present tenses in vv. 21-22). In other words, the apostles and prophets of v. 20, among whom was Paul, were also contributing to the superstructure, of which the Ephesians were a contemporary part, simultaneous with their laying the foundation on which it was being built. We must be careful not to push the metaphor beyond what Paul intended by it.

To use an analogy, once a man establishes a company, writes its by-laws, articulates its vision, hires employees, and does all the work essential in laying the foundation for its future work and productivity, he does not necessarily cease to exist or to serve the company in other capacities. As Jack Deere points out, “the founding director of a company or corporation will always be unique in the sense that he or she was the founder, but that does not mean the company would not have future directors or presidents” (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, 248).

Furthermore, on the cessationist’s view, all NT prophets functioned foundationally. But there is nothing to suggest that “the prophets” in Ephesians 2:20 is an exhaustive reference to all possible prophets in the church. Why should we conclude that the only kind of prophetic activity is “foundational” in nature, especially in light of what the NT says about the extent and effect of prophetic ministry? It simply isn’t possible to believe that all prophetic utterances were part of the once-for-all foundation of the church. For one thing, the NT nowhere says they were. For another, it portrays prophetic ministry in an entirely different light from the one most cessationists attempt to deduce from Ephesians 2:20. Surely not everyone who ministered prophetically was apostolic. Therefore, the cessation of the latter is no argument for the cessation of the former.

By Scott Lencke.

Continuationists believe God still speaks today. This happens not only through the word of God in Scripture, but even through specific words or what we might term as “revelations.” These revelations can come in various manners – prophecies, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, visions, dreams, etc. – but God still communicates and speaks today. He actually never desired anything less.

However, what can get easily leveled against continuationists, from a more cessationist camp, is the idea that such revelation would no longer be needed knowing we now have the completed revelation of God in Jesus Christ, which is, of course, summarized in the full canon of Scripture. This revelation is the final word and no other such revelation is needed. And I understand the concern, especially noting such doctrines as the sufficiency of Scripture. However, I believe there is a very balanced approach that allows for the God-breathed Scriptures to maintain their authoritative place as God’s written revelation while also maintaining that God still speaks, reveals and communicates today.

Here is what I believe we need to recognize.

We must confess there is no more needed revelation from God with respect to his redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ. No more! The work of Christ and the revelation concerning this work – summed up in his life, ministry, death and resurrection – are the final word on God’s redemptive revelation and purposes. And I believe the New Testament makes this quite clear.

Yet, I do not think it is out of bounds to believe God continues to communicate in what I might term as a non-redemptive measure. This is where continuationists part from cessationists.

Again, I reiterate that it would be quite detrimental to say there is still more for God to reveal concerning the redemption of humanity through Christ and the gospel of the kingdom. Christ remains the final word on such. But, to believe God still reveals today, in a non-redemptive sense, should not be seen as harmful to a faith that looks to be grounded in Christ, the gospel and the testimony of the canon of Scripture. Matter of fact, I would argue that, to not allow for God to still directly speak and reveal today, in all his various manners, would cut us off from something very dear to the heart of God.

In all, I want to give two pointers as to why I believe in continuing, non-redemptive revelation:

1) Even while the canon of Scripture was being formed, God was always speaking para-Scripture, meaning he was speaking alongside what would be included in the canon of Scripture.

A couple examples would be found in places such as 1 Samuel 10:10-13 and 1 Timothy 1:18-19.

Is Peter Wagner right in saying the apostles are returning?

Is MacArthur right when he claims Paul said he was the last of the apostles?

What are the qualifications of true apostleship in the church today?

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine … (Acts 2:42)

Apostolic doctrine, therefore, is not the new and novel teachings of someone who calls himself/herself an apostle. Apostolic doctrine is the message of Jesus, His redemptive work, and His call to selfless discipleship that is found in the 27 books of the New Testament.

The “apostles’ doctrine” of Acts 2:42 is a reference to the original eyewitness accounts of Jesus by the 12 apostles. This “doctrine” consisted of their first-hand reports of His life, teachings, death, and resurrection. This was, at first, an oral message spread by the Twelve and those that heard them. It was later written down in what we know as the four gospels. Paul’s writings were later added to this original testimony and, with the addition of James, Jude, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter , 1, 2, & 3 John , and Revelation there came into existence what we know as the New Testament canon.

Canon, of course, refers to a measure or rule. As such, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament became the standard or rule against which all other teachings and revelations must be measured. Why? Because the New Testament canon contains the original, apostolic testimony and teaching. Hans Kung, the well-known Roman Catholic theologian and reformer, says,

The preaching of the apostles, as it has come down to us in the writings of the New Testament, is the original, fundamental testimony of Jesus Christ, valid for all time; being unique, it cannot be replaced or made void by any later testimony. Later generations of the Church are dependent on the words, witness and ministry of the first “apostolic” generation. The apostles are and remain the original witnesses, their testimony is the original testimony and their mission the original mission.

The Significance of the Twelve & Paul

Although there are other apostles in the New Testament, it is obvious that the Twelve chosen by Jesus are a select company and occupy a unique place in God’s purposes for the Church. This is borne out by the fact that throughout Scripture they are referred to as “the Twelve”, a set number neither to be added to nor subtracted from (See, for example, Matt. 10:2; 26:14; Mark 9:35; Luke 18:31; Acts 6:2; 1Cor. 15:5). Their uniqueness is clarified by the fact that Jesus tells them that, in the age to come, they will sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28).

Nothing has stirred more interest in Pentecostal-charismatic circles in recent years than the restoration of the “fivefold ministries” Paul mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-13: “It was [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (NIV). Although most Pentecostals refer to these as “fivefold,” others see them as “fourfold,” combining the ministries of pastor and teacher into one. These “ascension gifts,” as they are called in traditional churches, were given to the Church after Jesus ascended to the Father to extend, guide and mature the Church.

We can assume that, at the time Paul wrote, the New Testament church had a clear understanding of what these offices required, how they operated and who filled them. However, with the passing of time, the role and operation of these ministries in the everyday life of the church became less clear.

Thus, for centuries, the offices of pastor and teacher have been familiar ministries in all churches. However, only since the middle of the nineteenth century, with the success of Charles Finney and other “professional” evangelists of that day, has the office of evangelist gained a popular understanding and acceptance.

The offices of apostle and prophet have been more elusive for modern Christians. Many have accepted a belief developed throughout the centuries that the age of the apostles and prophets ended around 96 AD, about the time John, the last apostle, died. Another belief, first stated by St. Augustine (and later retracted), has been widely accepted along with this. It holds that, with the completion of the canon of Scripture, the Lord withdrew miraculous gifts of the Spirit such as tongues, prophecy and healing.

Over time, as the bishops consolidated their power in the church, the office of apostle was almost forgotten. By the second century, apostles and prophets were seen as nothing more than traveling medicine men with little or no influence or authority. In the Didache (11:3) the following rules were laid down for itinerant “apostles and prophets”: “Now, as regards apostles and prophets, act strictly according to the precept of the Gospel. Upon his arrival every apostle must be welcomed as the Lord; but he must not stay except one day. In case of necessity, however, he may stay the next day also; but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. At his departure the apostle must receive nothing except food to last till the next night’s lodging; but if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.”

John Lathrop has written an excellent survey of what is commonly called the “five-fold ministry gifts” of Ephesians 4:11, giving special attention to the ministries of the “apostle” and “prophet” since these are the most controversial in the contemporary Pentecostal\charismatic movement. He carefully examines each ministry in the light of Scripture and brings balance and clarity to what has been, in recent years, an over-emphasis on the restoration of apostles and prophets and their governmental authority.

He brings balance by showing from Scripture why these ministry gifts should be seen as ministries and functions rather than offices and titles. He clearly shows that all who function in these ministries do so as servants, not as despotic rulers. In a unique and clever way he alleviates potential concern about designating people as apostles or prophets by pointing out that these words have taken on unwarranted connotations of magnitude and importance, and reminds his readers that apostle can mean “messenger” and prophet can mean “an inspired speaker.”

Lathrop is not only Biblical and theological in his approach, but also practical. He is very thorough in delineating what a modern apostle or prophet will look like and what they will not look like. He also shows from Scripture that women may also function as prophets, apostles and pastors and points out that, apart from Jesus, no Christian leader in the New Testament is referred to as a pastor.

Overall, I consider this an excellent work and I highly recommend it to anyone who desires to better understand the five-fold ministry in the Church today, especially that of apostles and prophets.

Reviewed by Eddie L. Hyatt

Publisher’s page: www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/bookdetail.php?PB_ISBN=9781606474594

Preview this book: books.google.com/books?id=UmOHZYHbgegC

Stephen W. Hill, “Would the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?: The truth about apostles, authority and the kingdom of God” Ministry Today (Jan 2009), p. 68-72.

This rather brief article is an attempt by Stephen Hill to question the pre-eminence given to apostles in churches today. Hill begins this task by recalling for the reader a story of, what he views as dishonorable, introductory comments of a leading apostle standing as the main speaker at a recent apostolic conference. He uses this as a platform to question the contemporary understanding not only of the role of the ‘Apostle’ but also the role of all church leaders. What proceeds is a passionate argument whereby Hill insists that the abuse of apostolic authority is an issue that is at the center of a widespread misunderstanding of true leadership in God’s kingdom. The argument concludes with a proposal of a solution to this problem to be found by adopting a church structure of ‘functional ministry’ whereby there is no hierarchical leadership in place but instead each believer takes on the mutual responsibility of serving ‘one another’. This review will present the strengths and weaknesses of the key elements of Hill’s reasoning and briefly suggest how such elements could open further areas for discussion regarding church leadership.

An obvious strength of Hill’s argument is his willingness to address problematic areas of ethical leadership—an issue that seems to be of growing concern in the church today. Arguing for a re-ordering of the understanding of true leadership within God’s kingdom, Hill asserts that leadership authority should be given by invitation. Likewise, leadership should always be exercised by example in order to ensure that leaders sustain a heart of servanthood. Hill states his reason for this model is that God always desires obedience through “free conviction rather than any form of coercion” (p.69).

However, instead of developing his ideas regarding ethical leadership within the church, Hill quickly divides his focus between discussing how leaders are meant to lead and what a leader should be in the first place. Evidence for this distraction can be seen from the outset in the tone of his writing. Also, while Hill’s criticisms of an unnamed apostle and an unnamed apostolic body seem to implicate ‘apostles’ in general, we would do well to remind ourselves that this correlation is not necessarily the case.

In equating the concepts of apostleship and kingship, Hill makes the mistake of using one aspect of inappropriate leadership as justification for questioning the position of apostles, and all leaders in general, and their overall place in God’s kingdom. The resulting anachronistic ‘mixing’ of the terms and definitions for kingship and apostleship (it is not immediately obvious how these terms relate to each other to form a leadership model) leaves the reader searching for their relevance to the practicality of church leadership. Hill argues that apostleship should not be based on an Old Testament model of kingship because true theocracy is based on the authority of the priest and prophet. In other words, kingly authority is essentially a “benevolent dictatorship” that controls by coercion and oppression whereas the authority of the prophetic and priestly office is supposedly inspired by the Spirit of God. But this does not entirely agree with biblical evidence. In the Old Testament, priests had the responsibility of teaching God’s law (Lev 10:11, Mal 2:6-7), yet in the book of Hosea we find a situation where the more the priests increased, the more sin increased among the community. As a result, God blamed the priests for the people’s lack of faithfulness (Hosea 4:7). Likewise, even though kingship is an example of an ungodly use of leadership authority (as argued by Hill) we find that David’s main purpose as Israel’s king was to shepherd God’s people (Psalms 78:70-72). If the importance of this notion of kingship in the establishment of God’s Kingdom was ever in doubt, one may find that the Davidic covenant (established in 2 Samuel 7) is of utmost importance in the prophetic foretelling of the coming of the Messiah as the ultimate fulfillment of a King who will be the ultimate Shepherd over His people. Furthermore, while Hill seems to disproportionately favor a New Testament perspective over an Old Testament one in determining the proper characteristics of godly leadership (p.71-72), he would do well to note that a number of dishonorable characteristics can be found among the leadership of the early church, which proves His argument to be inconsistent (Acts 15:36-41; Galatians 2:11-14; 2 Timothy 4:10, 16; Philemon 1:14, 17-21). Hill’s logic, therefore, is scripturally imbalanced.

Introduction

Cessationists,¹ those who argue that certain gifts of the Spirit have ceased, are increasingly using an argument-from-analogy from Paul’s epistle to the believers in Ephesus.

This paper offers a biblical rebuttal to the cessationist use of Ephesians 2:20 as an argument for the cessation of prophecy, and, by extension, the other so-called “miraculous” gifts of the Holy Spirit. After a statement of the issue itself, this paper examines the only significant “anti-cessationist” response offered so far, that of Wayne Grudem, and then goes on to offer some alternative responses of its own.

Ephesians 2:19-22 [NKJV]
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Status of the Problem

One of the few remaining New Testament texts to which cessationists appeal for support of their position is Eph 2:20.² The argument-by-analogy is along these lines: since apostles and prophets appear as the “foundation” of the “temple” or church, and since each course of stones in this temple metaphorically represent successive generations of believers throughout church history, then these “foundation” gifts necessarily passed away before the second generation of Christianity.³

From the frequency and extent this argument is made in cessationist circles,⁴ one would assume that there would be a serious reply from their theological dialogue partners, the Pentecostals and charismatics. Pentecostal or charismatic scholars generally have failed to adequately treat this cessationist argument to any significant degree.⁵

Wayne Grudem’s Rebuttal to the Cessationist Use of Ephesians 2:20

Wayne Grudem is the only non-cessationist scholar I can discover who deals with the cessationist argument from Eph 2:20 in any detail.⁶ Quite reasonably, then, Grudem’s response stands as the default Pentecostal/charismatic position recognized by cessationists,⁷ along with their perceptions about its strengths and weaknesses.

Though he presents his position as an attempt to mediate between charismatics and cessationists, it appears that Grudem’s defense on this point shares traditional cessationist presuppositions about the nature of apostles and of the “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20. Grudem seems to agree with cessationists who argue against the continuation of the gift of prophecy in that the gift is somehow identical with the first generation (“foundation level”) of Christian prophets: that necessarily when these particular prophets died, the gift of prophecy died with them. The same, he would also agree, would be true of apostles.

Grudem, however, ingeniously tries to deny the death of prophecy by claiming that only a special category of prophets is described in Eph. 2:20, namely, that they are “foundational,” and hence, cease because these particular prophets are in fact, apostles! He also offers an alternate possibility that perhaps these “foundational” prophets were an elite group that received and uttered apostolic-level revelation. He agrees, then, with cessationists that apostles, at least the original twelve (or thirteen, depending on how Paul is included) stood to be unique in that they are seen as the authoritative bearers of foundational Christian doctrine, which they wrote into scripture. Accordingly, Grudem sees the apostle/prophets of Eph 2:20 as the equivalent of the canonical prophets of the Old Testament, whose pronouncements and writings also held ultimate religious authority in that they later became scripture.⁸

On this view, and to preserve the continuation of Christian prophecy, Grudem must then define NT prophecy in two categories. 1) Agreeing with traditional cessationists, the first class of prophecy, which was to cease within the first generation, was a kind of interim canon awaiting its written form, while, 2) the second class of prophecy was represented by the “less authoritative type of prophecy indicated in 1 Corinthians.”⁹

Understandably, this novel defense has received a heated response from cessationists, who wish to deny any “two-level” gift of prophecy that Grudem describes.¹⁰ Without going into their argument in detail, they seek to prove that all manifestations of the gift of prophecy in the first generation will cease together, since prophecy is divine revelation, and such revelation must necessarily be enscripturated.¹¹

Grudem therefore finds himself in an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, it is crucial to restrict this class of men to the “foundational” and unrepeatable. This is because he sees apostles (and this first class of NT prophets) as the New Testament counterparts of Old Testament prophets. Therefore they “were able to speak and write words that had absolute divine authority,”¹² that is, in the canon of scripture. Because of the central apostolic role as scripture writers, and because the canon of the NT is closed, the gift or “office” of apostleship must necessarily cease.¹³ On the other hand, “apostleship” is seamlessly listed along with the other “miraculous” spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11, gifts which Grudem insists must continue in the church! In short, Grudem’s views of apostleship, prophecy, revelation and scripture leave him vulnerable to the charge that he is fatally inconsistent in his defense of continuing spiritual gifts.