1. Where in any of the historic confessions does it teach cessationalism? Or Forbid the belief in any form of continualism?

2. Cessationists often put up Hebrews 1:1 as their cheif text but taken at face value that not argue against the gifts or further revelation as defined by the more moderate charismatics (grudem, piper, ect...). What texts would you point too that clearly speak to the issue (and lets not debate the meaning of perfected).

__________________
J. P. Grigoletti II * Lay-man * Église Réformée du Québec
Québec, Québec Canada * Member: Église Reformée St. Marc
http://Grigoletti.blogspot.com - blog
<<There are three things necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily: the first, how great your sins and miseries are; the second, how thou may be delivered from all thy sins and miseries; the third, how thou shall express thy gratitude to God for such deliverance.>>

2. I don't think there are any proof-texts or clear verses that speak to this. Rather, it is an understanding of biblical patterns and the nature of what these miraculous gifts are. We understand that the nature of such gifts and miracles is to authenticate a message or divine approval; thus, Jesus was to perform many miracles, and those whom he sent out in his name also did such, Christ thereby bearing witness that he sent them.

Without NT scripture, it was the apostles' words against everyone else's: the signs and wonders thus served as authentication. We teach, however, that scripture is self-authenticating, or rather that the Holy Spirit bears witness in the hearts of his people that these are his words, his teaching. Thus, scripture being completed, nothing else is needed to authenticate what is canonical teaching. And when the purpose of something is completed, why should we expect the thing itself to remain?

We don't point the specific texts, but harmonize the teachings which are explicitly stated in scripture, and by good and necessary consequence make such evaluations. Thus, a strict reading of Hebrews might not, in itself, require cessationalism -- but when we read Hebrews in light of the pattern of redemptive history, we see more than just the bare intent of those isolated words.

Does that help at all? Also, someone please correct me if I've completely missed something here. Thanks.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

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

You may find helpful one of the previous threads on this:
The WCF and the Cessation of Special Revelation -- Milne

The search function at the top is a good resource for finding topics like this that come up regularly on Puritan Board.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

I hope this is not hijacking the thread too much, but I would like to ask something.

I have heard the whole argument of miracles=authenticity of the apostle's words. The question I have is if this is indeed true, why is it that such a large portion of the NT is written by non-apostles?

No one states that Luke or Mark were ever apostles, but their writings are still canonical. The church still saw them as authentic and straight from God.

__________________
Boliver
Future Chaplain
EPC
Hankamer, TX

John 17:20, there is a clear demarcation of the apostles from those who believe on their word. Eph. 2:20, the Jew-Gentile temple is built on apostles and prophets. Heb. 2:3, 4, the message of salvation is first taught by the Lord, then confirmed by those who heard Him, and it is to these that God bore witness by signs, etc.

On the subject of Mark and Luke being non apostles, a firm case can be made for understanding them as "prophets" who were associated with the apostles. Eph. 2:20 and 3:5 indicate that "apostles and prophets" were the medium of NT revelation.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Was the cessationist/continualist debate an issue in the 17th century? Romanism was, thus it was addressed.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

You might also find helpful the PCA pastoral letter on this topic. It is very carefully written to say no more, no less than Scripture says.

PCA Historical Center: PCA Pastoral Letter on the Expeience of the Holy Spirit in the Church Today

I don't think it was an issue at that time. It became an issue in the early 20th century, in my opinion, for two reasons:
1. The development of modern science and at the same time the higher criticism of the Bible during the 19th century turned Western culture to a naturalistic mindset. The supernatural was minimized and people increasingly thought that all truth and reality ran strictly by Newtonian physical prinicples. The theological liberals desupernaturalized all of history, including the scriptural history, while the theological conservatives desupernaturalized only the post-apostolic centuries, maintaining that reality changed with the closing of the canon.

2. Against this backdrop, the pentecostal movement arose in the early 20th century, followed by the charismatic movement that took many of the mainline denominations. These movements sought to accept supernatural phenomena for both the past eras and present reality.

With reading church history it amazes me how in the centuries previous to the nineteenth miraculous phenomena were simply reported from time to time. Continualism vs. cessationism was a non-issue.

Does anyone have another view of this?

__________________
Mary Vanderkooi
Kale Heywott Church (KHC)
Soddo, Ethiopia

Those Scottish Covenanters reported strange happenings of providence and some were said to have uttered prophecies.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

True. Some of these accounts were edited out of more recent histories. Before Newtonian science achieved such an exalted status, it was a matter of historical evidence (not Newtonian physics) whether one accepted that an event happened or not. One looked at the pre-event and post-event conditions, the credibility of witnesses, the harmony of what the various witnesses said, and coroborating evidences. If the historical evidence was strong, then it happened; the lack of a naturalistic explanation was totally irrelevant.

After the scientific revolution it became acceptable to negate anything smacking of the supernatural, regardless of the historical evidence. On the basis of Newtonian physics, "scholars" could tell from two continents and nineteen centuries away that a particular well-documented event didn't really happen, e.g. the resurrection of Jesus. The facts were adjusted to fit the theories.

Are you saying that Christianity, and even the Reformed, have been affected by Enlightenment thinking?

Absolutely, myself among them. I grew up in a Reformed church and kicked over Christianity at age 17, largely because of Enlightenment thinking. I was enamored with science so the resurrection had to go--my arrogance knew no bounds.

It appears to me that whether an event has taken place is a historical question, first, last, and only. It is neither a scientific question nor a theological question. Once one decides whether an event has happened, then natural science can bear witness whether it is explainable by natural law or not. If it is supernatural, then believers should look at the fruit thereof to decide if it is from God or His enemy. My own experiences contain a large fact/event file labelled "Stuff I'll never understand." After being omniscient and all-wise at age 17, I'm becoming progressively ignorant as the years pass.

ha...yep, I get dumber every year too and my issues get more gray....