The Best Argument Against Continuationism

Do the gifts of prophecy and tongues continue today?  Before I answer this, I want to answer a more narrow question:  Are all of the spiritual gifts available to every Christian? In 1 Corinthians 12:29-30, Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions:

All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

Paul's position shows that not all gifts are available to everyone.  I’m urging this in support of the concept of offices, or the idea that God selected certain individuals for certain functions in the Church.  We also see this in Ephesians 4: “[Christ] gave some as apostles, and some as prophets.”  These gifts are not distributed equally.  They are not part of the broader inheritance that all Christians receive from Christ.  

Now as to whether the gifts of prophecy and of tongues continue to the present day, let's look at 1 Corinthians 13.  Here, Paul lays out the role and function of the gifts in the Church, stating they will cease when "perfection" comes. The most obvious sense of "perfection" is the eschaton, or end of times. Many charismatics take this to indicate that the gifts of tongues and prophecy will continue to the end of time, and so would I, if it were not for a parallel but more detailed discussion in Ephesians. 

In Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11-16, we have an examination of the role and duration of the gifts, a parallel to the examination Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 13-14, using very similar language, but with added detail:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

The Apostles are included in this account of gifts ("He gave..."). The Apostolic office has surely ceased. Neither were all Christians without discrimination Apostles in the beginning of the Church, nor is anyone today an Apostle ("Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle"). There is, then, one office/gift that is lumped together with the other gifts (that are given to build up the church till the eschaton), yet upon further examination we can say is both limited in scope and duration.

Now turn to Ephesians 2:20: "[the Church] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." Many on a skim reading take the "prophets" in this passage to be referring to the Old Testament prophets. However, the passage refers to the New Testament prophets (see Ephesians 3:5). The Apostles (whose office has surely ceased) and New Testament prophets are both included as the foundation laying office. The Greek use of the word for "foundation" indicates a completed action. (The other offices, such as teachers, evangelists, etc., are not included in the "foundation" laying, and will continue in duration till the end of time.)

So, we've seen that the gifts are not given indiscriminately to all (1 Corinthians 12:29-30), that some offices are limited in duration (1 Corinthians 15:8-9a), and that the prophets are classified alongside the Apostles as a foundation laying office (Ephesians 2:20). The clear cessation of Apostles, the linking of prophets with Apostles, and the use of the word "foundation" in reference to both Apostles and prophets indicates cessation of the prophetic office. The one account that seems to implicitly indicate that all gifts will continue till the end, 1 Corinthians 13, has a parallel account in Ephesians 2-4, in which Paul discusses the gifts individually and with greater detail, namely, the "foundation" detail--so Paul moved from a general account of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 13, to a more particular, detailed account in Ephesians 2-4. Ephesians 2-4 should control our discussion of the particular gifts, as it is where Paul comments on the gifts particularly.

What about tongues?

The final step in this argument is the equivalence Paul makes between the gift of tongues interpreted and the gift of prophecy:  "I wish all of you spoke in other languages, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in languages, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up." - 1 Cor. 15:5

Tongues (speaking in "other languages") becomes equivalent to prophecy (see also Acts 2:15-18 for this equivalence) when understood by others. It is inferior (and prohibited even in the foundation-laying era of the Church) insofar as it is not interpreted. So, interpreted tongues is equivalent to prophecy, which has ceased as the Apostolic office has ceased.

Or a Cessationist could take their Cessationism as a sort of working-hypothesis: "I've not seen a genuine manifestation of the gifts, so they must have ceased."  That's a weaker form of Cessationism, but does offer some supplementary support.

Doing vs Allowing

Those that object to redirecting the trolley usually do so on the basis of the doing vs allowing distinction (DAD).  To redirect would implicate one in the killings too directly, involving as it does a direct action - but merely allowing the trolley to cream into the four is just a passive action that doesn’t seem to implicate one in the death of the five.  PDE, on the other hand, demands a redirect.

Pruss offers a modified Trolley case in which the person’s breathing is what causes the trolley to redirect.  Given DAD, it seems that the person should refrain from breathing.  But what’s the purpose of the refraining?  To stop the trolley from hitting the one.  But by refraining one is also keeping the trolley on course to hit the five.  But that seems wrong.  In fact, given DAD, both actions seem wrong.  This thought-experiment seems like it should make us suspicious of DAD.

So, as Robert P. George says somewhere, the key distinction in most morally problematic cases is not DAD but the PDE.  

Further, DAD would also disallow vaccines, as it’s better to allow many to die than to save many by doing an action that results in others’ death.  But that’s a stupid conclusion. Vaccines are clearly permissible.

Another Argument for Christianity

Alexander Pruss has said somewhere that one of the reasons he believes in the Bible is that if it were false, then it would present a picture of God as loving us more than he in fact does.  But God wouldn’t let us overestimate his love for us.  So the Bible’s depiction of God and his actions is true. This argument is using a mix between perfect being theology and the content of Christian teaching.  

Recall what the author of Hebrews says in chapter 1 about the fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus, in which God, eschewing the partial and fragmentary revelations given by prophets and messengers, decides to himself come down in the person of the Son to live among us. Or recall Jesus’s statement in John about how the greatest act of love is a man laying down his life for his friends, something that Jesus promptly does on our behalf.  Christianity is unique in teaching that the perfect God deigned to to live among us and to sacrifice himself for us.  If Christianity were false, then we would be overestimating God’s love for us in believing it.  But given God’s character, he wouldn’t allow us to overestimate his love for us - he's far too good for that.  So Christianity is true.

I've been reflecting on this cute little argument over the past couple of days, and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Bogardus, Sex, and Gender

I have a tendency to forget useful figures, so I want to record Bogardus and his work for future reference.

A super useful article discussing the binary of sex.

A list of Bogardus' papers.  

And a cool quote I may use later: In this Twitch/YouTube space I've wandered into, many seem to think definitions are prescriptive, not descriptive. They're commands, so can't be true or false

At the same time, these folks offer counterexamples to show definitions are false, e.g. the dict. definition of "chair". 

There are stipulative definitions, which are commands. For example, "Henceforth let us use 'SARS-CoV-2' to refer to this virus!"

But stipulative definitions are not where the action is, philosophically. What we're looking for are "real definitions." 

 https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/philosophy/documents/faculty-documents/fine/accessible_fine/Fine_Essence-Modality.pdf

Abraham's Age

In proposing the view of Genesis  1-11 that I prefer, which is to interpret it as a proto-history with strong figurative elements, I tend to focus on fantastical elements in the narrative that seem to be (a) not the result of God’s miraculous agency and (b) that occur without explanation or surprise in the narrative.  So while I accept the possibility and reality of miracles, I think that when these elements are present that we have strong evidence that we’re in a figurative genre.  Take the dragons in the book of Revelation, for instance.  They are fantastical, do not seem to be the result of a miraculous action of God, and just seem to be a part of the narrative world.  This, along with common sense and a comparative literature analysis, shows that the Apostle John is not committed to the actual existence of dragons.

One element of the Genesis 1-11 proto-history that seems to exemplify these characteristics is the fantastic ages of the patriarchs, hitting close to 1,000 year lifespans.  It’s a natural argument to take these ages as suggestive of a figurative genre.  But there’s a problem with this.  I think, starting in Genesis 12, that the genre switches to straightforward historical narrative.  Yet the long life spans, though diminished, remain.  Abraham lives to be 175 years of age.  Isaac lives to be 180 years of age.  Jacob lived to be 147 years of age.  This is less fantastic than Methuselah’s 969 years, but still fantastic.  Moreover, these ages seem to exemplify both (a) and (b) above - so does this not show that Genesis 12 and onward are also partially figurative-history?  The author of Genesis would have known that these ages were fantastic - see Psalm 90:10.

One option is to take these numbers to refer to the “corporate personality” around the individuals.  So it’d be that each individual has a clan, or immediate family, or household, that lives beyond the man and are the actual target for the long lifespans.  So it isn’t that Abraham himself lived to be 175, but his household or clan or immediate family.  Though I do like this option, I’m still not sure.

Others have seen highly symbolic meanings contained within the ages.  There have been arguments that the listed ages of the patriarchs follow some sacred and intentional, but obscure, pattern.  Arguments for this position include a careful analysis of the frequency with which the ages occur and the factorization they exhibit, which seems to be based on numbers understood in the Ancient Near East to be special and significant.  Others have taken it that there might be multipliers at work, wherein the person's actual age is multiplied by some significant number (Kenneth Kitchen).  Perhaps the author is trying to convey some sort of theological meaning with the ages. But doesn’t this option open the floodgate and let symbolic elements creep into the narrative after chapter 12?  Wouldn’t this justify a rejection of chapters 12-50 as straightforward history?

Perhaps to some extent.  There are figurative elements in the text, even after chapter 11.  But that’s not too surprising - genres can contain subgenres.  Luke is overwhelming an historical narrative, but contains parables.  Should we therefore classify Luke as a parable?  Nah.   So even if there are figurative elements after chapter 11, it still remains the case that there is a significant genre switch starting in chapter 12, per WLC’s and other’s arguments.

Besides, admitting figurative elements in these later chapters does not endanger the historicity of the miracles mentioned therein, such as the floating pot that sealed the covenant.  For the floating pot, though fantastic, fails to satisfy (a) and (b), and thus seem to be intended by the author as an historical event.

One potentially potent objection to this line of reasoning is the purported explanation given in Genesis 6:3 itself for the patriarch's long lifespans.  I'll let McLatchie answer: One may object to the arguments adduced here that God, in Genesis 6:3, shortly before the deluge, stated that from henceforth man’s lifespan would be limited to 120 years: “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” Many take this to suggest that the ages before this point were typically more than this. This interpretation of Genesis 6:3, however, runs into problems given that the individuals listed in Genesis 11 (and even individuals described later on in Genesis, such as Abraham) are said to have lived for much more than 120 years. Another very plausible interpretation of this text, though, is that God was giving a countdown until the flood — that is, God was announcing that the deluge would take place in 120 years.

Amyraldianism

“He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.” 1 John 2:2

“For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” 2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Amyraldians say that Jesus died for everyone and thus embrace universal atonement.  But if Jesus died for everyone, then why does anyone go to hell?  Because not everyone believes.  But doesn’t this mean that Christ did not die for every sin, namely, unbelief?  It looks like the Amyraldian must say that Jesus died for everyone, but not for every sin.  Jesus did not die for the sin of unbelief.  But doesn't this imply that the atonement only saves us potentially, and not actually - contingent upon us supplying faith?  This is the line the Arminians takes.  But Amyraldians can resist this reasoning.

Calvinists want to say that Jesus accomplished our actual salvation on the cross and not merely our potential salvation.  If we further grant that not everyone is saved, it must be that Christ died only for the elect, for otherwise everyone would be saved.  Any universal atonement seems to make the accomplishment a mere potential one, contingent on a person’s belief or deeds - unless, of course, one bites the bullet and just embraces Universalism.

Here's one move to counter the above dialectic:  Christ died in different respects for the reprobate and for the elect.  For the elect, he accomplished our actual salvation.  No conditions whatsoever.  But for the reprobate, he accomplished their potential salvation, conditional on their acceptance of the gospel.  None do accept it, of course.  This is a type of Amyraldianism in the vein of Edmund Calamy, one of the divines present at the Westminster Assembly.  It requires that God had a dual intent in providing the atonement for mankind.

Why hold to this rather complicated view?  First, it seems to cohere well with the universal nature of God's love for mankind - Christ did die (in different respects) for everyone.  It also supports the genuineness of the offer of the gospel - if the reprobate believed apart from election, they would be saved.  I of course don't think that's possible for a myriad of reasons; but that the atonement was not intended for them and did not pay for them is not one of those reasons.   This complicated view also seems to further justify the torment of the reprobate because they reject the infinite God's free offer.

Arminians say that the atonement does not work unless we believe, and that’s something that we contribute ourselves.  Arminians think that faith is a requirement for salvation, a condition of it, and *not* a result of it.  Arminians think that faith causes salvation.  They're committed to the atonement providing only potential salvation.

Calvinists think that the atonement accomplished our actual salvation, contingent on nothing else.  Faith will be supplied of course, but it’s not a condition of salvation, it’s a result of it.  Calvinists think that salvation causes faith.  Calvinists are committed to the atonement achieving the actuality of the elect's salvation alone.

Amyraldians think that the atonement is both actual and potential in its effects: 

Actual: For the elect, the atonement accomplished actual salvation.  He died for all of their sins and will supply their faith to them.

Potential: And for the reprobate, the atonement accomplished potential salvation.  He died for all of their sins *except* the sin of unbelief. 

Lee Gatiss has done some good historical work on this position.