Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK  Quote:
Originally Posted by wsw201 Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK My main question is the second one. Understanding what Rutherford believed concerning prophecy, could one believe in the miraculous gift of prophecy today and still be confessional?
I am not interested in Cessationist arguments against Oss in general but specifically his use of Rutherford to cast a different view on the meaning of WCF chapter 1 than the "prevailing" view. | No. One could not believe in the miraculous gift of prophecy today and still be confessional. The WCF is a cessationist document. Though Rutherford was quite a gifted teacher, he wasn't right about everything so one should not attempt to create a view of the Standards based on what Rutherford thought regarding prophecy. | In this section of the book, Oss is arguing against the use of the WCF as an argument for historical cessationsim. If Rutherford (and the others that Mr. Coldwell speaks of in the thread cited above) believed in the miraculous gift of prophecy, how can you state that the WCF is a 'cessationist' document? Isn't it standard practice to use the extra-confessional writings of the Divines to clarify the confession itself?
I am not arguing, just asking for some elucidation. |
One needs to be careful in using the various writings of those who were at the Assembly. No doubt that Rutherford, as well as the other Scotish attendees, were very influential, but the Standards are a consensus document. Based on the plain reading of Chapter 1.1, it would appear that the concensus was that ongoing prophecy had ended with the last Apostle. This has also been the position of the Church for quite awhile now.
Rutherford was also a supralapsarian, but I have never heard anyone argue that the Standards promote a supralapsarian view. In fact the Standards promote an infralapsarian view.