Lee, I regret having injured your feelings in any way. I placed the moderator warning after addressing both you and Dennis, and in moderator tags, so it would be clear it was not part of my interaction with the substance of the thread, but a reminder to keep everyone within the boundaries.
That said, though, our confession does reject private revelations: if someone is going to use that language, it is their responsibility to prevent misunderstanding by making plain that they do not intend the term in the same way that the confession does.
As to the substance, Prufrock has already addressed it very well, but let me just highlight the point he made earlier: it is clear in the case of Paul (Ephesians 2:20) and John (1 John 1:3) that they conceive of their work, including their work of writing, as fundamental. Now it is in the nature of a foundation that it cannot perpetually be under construction - not if you're ever going to get to the superstructure, at any rate. So the apostles know that they are mortal; they know that their work is fundamental; they must also know that at some point their work will be finished and come to an end. And they are aware that no other foundation can be laid. Thus a denial that they were aware of being engaged in a fundamental work for the remainder of the church for all time would necessarily seem to arise more from a lack of attention to NT statements than from actual knowledge of the apostles' thought-processes. It is not necessary to consult 1 Corinthians 13 to see that they knew they were writing authoritative Scripture, and it is only necessary to attribute to them basic intelligence to see that from the facts incontrovertibly on display in their writings they had wherewithal to conclude that this process would not continue indefinitely.
That said, though, our confession does reject private revelations: if someone is going to use that language, it is their responsibility to prevent misunderstanding by making plain that they do not intend the term in the same way that the confession does.
As to the substance, Prufrock has already addressed it very well, but let me just highlight the point he made earlier: it is clear in the case of Paul (Ephesians 2:20) and John (1 John 1:3) that they conceive of their work, including their work of writing, as fundamental. Now it is in the nature of a foundation that it cannot perpetually be under construction - not if you're ever going to get to the superstructure, at any rate. So the apostles know that they are mortal; they know that their work is fundamental; they must also know that at some point their work will be finished and come to an end. And they are aware that no other foundation can be laid. Thus a denial that they were aware of being engaged in a fundamental work for the remainder of the church for all time would necessarily seem to arise more from a lack of attention to NT statements than from actual knowledge of the apostles' thought-processes. It is not necessary to consult 1 Corinthians 13 to see that they knew they were writing authoritative Scripture, and it is only necessary to attribute to them basic intelligence to see that from the facts incontrovertibly on display in their writings they had wherewithal to conclude that this process would not continue indefinitely.
