The following is from Douglas A. Oss' contribution to the book "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today: 4 Views"

Is Oss' understanding of Rutherford's writings correct?
If so, does that change the "prevailing cessationist interpretation" of the WCF?

__________________

That sounds accurate as to what Rutheford worte. See this thread from 2005.

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Don't the Steelites believe in continuing prophecy of some sort?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Yes; I think at least some do; but I believe the thread is about Rutherford.

They claim to be the true heirs of Rutherford, thus that is where they say get there ideas from...maybe I should put an smile in.

Right Ken, is the argument basically that new revelations of the Spirit are okay just as long as they are not added to the text of Scripture. To me this is strange; if there are new revelations, then why can't they be added to the text of Scripture?

I believe that ideas such as this are facilitated by people not holding that the canon was closed before 70 AD. IMHO, the canon of the New Testament must have to have been completed before the Old Covenant system was finally abolished.

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.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I think the Steelites would argue "yes" you could as long as you are not inscripturating your new "revelations".

However, I tend to agree with Wayne's comments above; Rutherford held a number of things that were unbiblical - such as denying the absolute necessity of the atonement - hence we cannot impute all his opinions to the Westminster Divines per se.

What??

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

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.

versus

Chris can probably highlight some materials on the PB to substantiate this. However, if you look at John Owen's A Dissertation on Divine Justice, in volume 10 of his works, he takes issue with Rutherford and William Twisse for teaching that God could (not did) have devised some other means for the redemption of sinners other than the death of Christ. This is nonsense, because how could God's justice be satisfied apart from Christ's atoning work? The answer, as Owen demonstrates, is that it could not; and so due, to the death of Christ, God saves sinners in a manner consistent with His justice. Hence Paul could say that God is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26).

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.

It was not just Rutherford's view, and while they may have said more about it (maybe the problem is they said to much?), I think it is also found in English Puritanism; maybe some one can document that. My pov is that this was a dearly held Scottish position and that if the Scottish Kirk thought the view was precluded by the WCF, they would have had something to say about it. It was as far as I know not officially debated at the Assembly, though the fact Gillespie addresses it as a topic in his Miscellany, made up of what one has theorized as study papers, may indicate some discussion of it amongst divines took place, or it at least was a topic that occurred to him while at the Assembly (which, and I may be wrong, I believe is where most of the papers in the Miscellany were written).

Chris: question, but was it done by a majority vote for the WCF? In an instance like this, there had to have been talks even if not recorded since Rutherford and the scots were so prevalient in other areas, when they "lost" their opinion, was it settled under contention?

Supralapsarianism for instance, Twisse was hardcore, you mentioned Rutherford, and there were many others. Why was there such a spirit of compramise for the document, yet their private writings are against what they actually signed. Am I missing something or can you or anyone else enlighten me.

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

No dissenting votes were noted; and again, if this had been understood as disavowing this view, it would have caused some discussion in Scotland for sure. I do not think Rutherford and Gillespie who both wrote on this topic I think during the Assembly (Gillespie in his Miscellany papers and Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist was published in November 1647 according to Thomson's copy; he crossing out the 8 of 1648 in his copy, which is strange but I suppose Thomson would know what year he bought his copy even though the book stated 1648), believed their view was crossway with WCF 1.1. I do note that it was at the very beginning of the debate on chapter one that the following was decided by the assmbly: "That Mr Reynolds, <Mr Herle, Mr Newcomen> be desired to take care of the wording of the Confession of faith as it is voted in the Assemby [fo. 78v] <from time to time and to report to the Assembly when> they thinke fit ther should be any alteration in the words. They are first to <consult with> the commissioners from the church of Scotland <or one of them> before they report to the Assembly." VanDixhoorn, volume 6, p. 145. Given how highly involved the Scots were in any word changes, I think if the Scots had seen this view as forbidden doctrinally they would have made as big a stink about this as they did over the Directory and the use of a table in communion, and we'd have something to read about as we do in that case.

I think that the confessional language is broad enough to be understood as allowing for Rutherford's views. Here is one reformed church's session's detailed defense of why those views are consistent with the Confession: A Reformation Discussion of Extraordinary Predictive Prophecy Subsequent to the Closing of the Canon of Scripture.

I know Richard Baxter has a section in his Christian Directory on how to distiniguish true from false prophecy. He takes the same approach as Rutherford on this. Seems like this view may have been common.

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

Mr. Coldwell, do you still hold to this view from you post in that thread from 2005?

If so, then perhaps the disagreement is a matter of semantics? Mr. Wylie believes the WCF is a 'cessationist document'. But the Scots did not seem to hold to the same kind of 'cessationism' that Mr. Wylie holds to. Could we say the the WCF is cessationist in that it does not agree with a 'miraculous gift' of prophecy, but leaves room for 'extraordinary providential illumination' or something like that?

The test for canonization is broader than whether something is inspired. A lot of special revelation was not inscripturated. The Holy Spirit preserved what he willed for the Church. Canonical revelation is that body of revelation that was meant for the Church throughout time. With other special revelation, God had more specific purposes aside from edifying the entire Church. Think of it as the difference between a father's letter to his entire family and a father's letter to his daughter. The first letter is for a broader audience and the second is for only one person.

While this is not what Wayne means, it is correct to say that the WCF is cessasionist in terms of the canon.