The argument for cessationism seems extremely weak.

[Ulster Fry]

Here is a fact. If you believe miracles are happening, you can not be a cessationist. I am a cessationist, and after working in a hospital for 40 years I still am such. Now don’t get me wrong I could change if I saw a miracle, but it simply is not going to happen.

The last bit is nothing more than an assertion. I'm interested in a good argument in support of cessationism that deals with the biblical and historical issues involved. And as @RamistThomist mentioned above, we're talking about arguments that can refute the likes of Michael Brown, Craig Keener, J.P. Moreland, the work of Dr Joshua Brown who directs the Global Medical Research Institute, and so on.

 

[John The Baptist]

He's probably the last guy to go to on cessationism. Strange Fire was a disaster. I do give him credit for rejecting the "perfect = canon" argument in 1 Corinthians 13.

Cessationists like to say that the canon is closed, so miracles have ceased. Whether those two claims are true or not, this is a problematic argument.
1) The Bible never says the canon is closed. I think it is closed, but the Bible never actually says that.
2) Even if it is closed, the Bible never makes the argument that the closing will stop the miraculous.

I do grant that Hebrews speaks of "sign gifts" that validate an apostolic ministry. Sure. The problem is that those who aren't apostles (like Philip's daughters) also engaged in these gifts (e.g., prophesying).

The more I read and study, the less I am willing to recommend MacArthur. I do not despise the man, and am thankful for his ministry, but I am realizing with each topic (Calvinistic soteriology, cessationism, eschatology, etc.) he is simply over his head and there is a lot more going on past his point of discussion. Now, let’s not make this about MacArthur

Poythress’ article is very informative so far, and I’m going to be giving it a good couple reads. The analogy of Luke and Revelation is very helpful.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I think a biblical definition of "miracle" is crucial for this discussion. I do not believe miracles occur today. As I read Scripture, a miracle is an extraordinary providence of God, whereby he works without, above, or against nature, through a man, with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose (cf. Heb. 2:4). Are there any instances of terms like "miracle," "sign," or "wonder" being used in Scripture with reference to anything else?

Now, I do believe we see extraordinary providences. When a woman eaten up with cancer goes to her follow-up doctor's appointment, and they find no cancer whatsoever, with no apparent medical explanation, that is an extraordinary providence, I believe. But it is not a miracle; it was not performed through a man, and it had no explicit redemptive-historical or revelatory purpose.

I'm not sure I would agree that this is a confessional definition of "miracle." Consider WCF 5.3: "Section III.—God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

Robert Shaw in his Exposition on this section of the WCF states rather clearly: "The providence of God is either ordinary or miraculous. In his ordinary providence God works by means, and according to the general laws established by his own wisdom: we are, therefore, bound to use the means which he has appointed, and if we neglect these, we cannot expect to obtain the end. But though God generally acts according to established laws, yet he may suspend or modify these laws at pleasure. And when, by his immediate agency, an effect is produced above or beside the ordinary course of nature, this we denominate a miracle. The possibility of miracles will be denied by none but Atheists. To maintain that the laws of nature are so absolutely fixed, that they can in no case be deviated from, would be to exclude God from the government of the world,—to represent the universe as a vast machine, whose movements are regulated by certain laws which even the great Architect cannot control." (emphasis added)

I don't think this confessional statement on the providence of God was in any way meant to be restricted to the previous dispensation.

 

[arapahoepark]

If I recall Sinclair Ferguson in his book on the Holy Spirit makes a case for cessationism.

 

[Taylor]

I'm not sure I would agree that this is a confessional definition of "miracle." Consider WCF 5.3: "Section III.—God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

Robert Shaw in his Exposition on this section of the WCF states rather clearly: "The providence of God is either ordinary or miraculous. In his ordinary providence God works by means, and according to the general laws established by his own wisdom: we are, therefore, bound to use the means which he has appointed, and if we neglect these, we cannot expect to obtain the end. But though God generally acts according to established laws, yet he may suspend or modify these laws at pleasure. And when, by his immediate agency, an effect is produced above or beside the ordinary course of nature, this we denominate a miracle. The possibility of miracles will be denied by none but Atheists. To maintain that the laws of nature are so absolutely fixed, that they can in no case be deviated from, would be to exclude God from the government of the world,—to represent the universe as a vast machine, whose movements are regulated by certain laws which even the great Architect cannot control." (emphasis added)

I don't think this confessional statement on the providence of God was in any way meant to be restricted to the previous dispensation.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I agree with all of that. I said I believe in extraordinary providences, and I’m not seeing where the Confession is defining “miracle.” It seems to me it is just saying that God is free to work with or without means, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I agree with all of that. I said I believe in extraordinary providences, and I’m not seeing where the Confession is defining “miracle.” It seems to me it is just saying that God is free to work with or without means, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

You said "I do not believe miracles occur today. As I read Scripture, a miracle is an extraordinary providence of God, whereby he works without, above, or against nature, through a man, with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose." I'm saying that the Confession does not require an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose for something to be miraculous. An extraordinary providence of God = a miracle. You are saying such events do not exist today. That goes beyond the confessional statement, and possibly, according to Shaw, contradicts it.

 

[Taylor]

I'm saying that the Confession does not require an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose for something to be miraculous. An extraordinary providence of God = a miracle.

Where does the confession say it is defining a miracle?

 

[RamistThomist]

Is this not problematic? If Scripture is our rule for faith and practice, and if we ought not to believe or teach anything that the Bible does not say either expressly or by good and necessary consequence, then if the Bible does not say the canon is closed, why do we believe and teach it? And on what basis do you believe it is closed (i.e., never to be added to)?

The canon itself can remain open (I don't think it is) while a book in the canon can speak with self-authorizing authority. One doesn't exclude the other.

As to the canon itself, I don't believe it is currently open because several of the necessary conditions for canonicity (apostolicity, wide reception in the first century church, etc) simply don't exist any more.

 

[Polanus1561]

Kruger:
Given this distinction, the term canon may be used for books before they are corporately recognized (e.g., John ten minutes after it was written), but not for books that were never corporately recognized (e.g., lost letters of Paul). Such terminological distinctions, of course, are inevitably retrospective in nature. John was really canon when the ink was still wet on the autograph, but the church would have realized this only at a later point, after being exposed to John and recognizing it as canonical. The church could then look back, as we do, and realize that a canon really did exist in the first century even though at the time the church was not yet fully aware of it. Likewise, Paul’s other Corinthian letter was not canon in the first century, but this would not have been known at the time by the limited groups acquainted with it. Only later, when it was lost or forgotten, would it become clear that it was not canonical.

Therefore, canonical books, as we have defined them here, cannot be lost. If they are lost, then they were never canonical books to begin with. So, even if we were to discover Paul’s lost letter in the desert sands today, we would not place it into the canon as the twenty-eighth book. Instead, we would simply recognize that God had not preserved this book to be a permanent foundation for the church. Putting such a letter into the canon now would not change that fact; it could not make a book foundational that clearly never was.
------

The thread btw has gone off tangent in my opinion (surprise surprise). @Ulster Fry do you want to focus on medical miracles?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Where does the confession say it is defining a miracle?

I see the Confession allowing for the possibility of miracles throughout all of human history. I think Shaw explains it pretty well. It doesn't have to use the word "miracle" to speak of the miraculous. The Confession refers first to "ordinary providence" before referring to extraordinary works. The fact that you refer to miracles as "extraordinary providences" suggests you see this section referring to miracles, too. You also used the phrase "works without, above, or against nature" to define miracles, which parallels the confessional phrase "free to work without, above, and against [means]." Do you disagree with Shaw? Is there another commentator who interprets this section differently?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This is why we have to come up with definitions that everyone can agree on, so meaningful conversation can exist and ideas substantively exchanged.

 

[Ulster Fry]

The thread btw has gone off tangent in my opinion (surprise surprise). @Ulster Fry do you want to focus on medical miracles?

I'm happy enough to take a wider discussion on the topic, but yes, I probably had in mind medical miracles in my original post. The wider sense that has been brought in has enhanced the discussion though, rather than taken away from it.

I am keen to deal with @Jerusalem Blade's distinction between miracles and miraculous gifts. I haven't read the article yet and hope to do so before I make much of a response, but I actually think this makes it even more complicated. I am sympathetic with the distinction and would say that my current position probably is that view - that God still does/can perform miracles in the post-apostolic era, but the gifts have ended. The problem is whether the argument can be made that Paul and the apostles themselves believed such gifts would cease after the apostolic era. I'm not sure that is a natural reading of the text.

From what I can see, post-Nicene Church Fathers believed that the miraculous gifts or speaking in tongues etc were lessened somewhat in their day compared to the earlier church. But they still maintained these things were happening to some degree.

 

[Taylor]

I see the Confession allowing for the possibility of miracles throughout all of human history. I think Shaw explains it pretty well. It doesn't have to use the word "miracle" to speak of the miraculous.

This is only true given a certain definition of “miracle,” which is the whole point. All the Confession is saying is that God can work with, without, or above means, with which I entirely agree. I believe he works in such ways today. But the Confession is not saying that is the definition of a miracle.

The fact that you refer to miracles as "extraordinary providences" suggests you see this section referring to miracles, too. You also used the phrase "works without, above, or against nature" to define miracles, which parallels the confessional phrase "free to work without, above, and against [means]."

That is because, in my definition (and I think the Bible's, too), a miracle is a subset of extraordinary providence, hence why my definition does not stop there but adds the crucial element of having an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose.

Do you disagree with Shaw? Is there another commentator who interprets this section differently?

Sorry, I did not read Shaw carefully enough a moment ago. Yes, I do disagree with him, but only his definition. If we define a miracle as any extraordinary act of God, then yes, I do believe miracles still happen today. But that is not how I define a miracle, and that is not how the Bible uses the term and its associated terms. Furthermore, the Confession itself makes no assertion as to whether "miracle" is identical to "extraordinary providence." So, neither my definition nor Shaw's definition of "miracle" contradict the Confession, because the Confession offers no definition. All it says is that God can work with, without, or above means, which is true regardless of how one defines "miracle."

Our disagreement here is only one of definition. Both of us believe that God works powerfully and sometimes extraordinarily today; we just call them different things.

 

[Ulster Fry]

This is why we have to come up with definitions that everyone can agree on, so meaningful conversation can exist and ideas substantively exchanged.

Okay, here is my working definition for this thread, in terms of what people typically mean when discussing the existence of miracles in philosophy of religion or in a scientific sense:

An act or event that can only be explained through non-natural means, typically following an act of prayer.

It seems to me that the cessationist will limit such things to the apostolic era and had a particular function relevant for that time. The cessationist position is defeated if even one such act or event has taken place in the post apostolic era. The question I'm interested in is whether the cessationist is justified in his/her position that miracles ceased after the apostolic era.

 

[Polanus1561]

An act or event that can only be explained through non-natural means, typically following an act of prayer.

In the medical realm, it is so challenging to say 'x happened through non-natural means outside of biological natural occurences'. Because this presupposes medical statistics at hand are comprehensive and reliable. And also that we have a complete knowledge of biology as to determine X is happening outside of normal biological processes.

 

[Taylor]

@Northern Crofter Just a note: I had a significant typo in my post above where I said, "Furthermore, the Confession itself makes no assertion as to whether a miracle is an extraordinary providence." It was supposed to say "any extraordinary providence." Still, I corrected it just now to make it even clearer with regard to my meaning.

An act or event that can only be explained through non-natural means, typically following an act of prayer.

But is this a biblical definition? Where does the Bible use "miracle," "sign," "wonder," or any associated term with reference to an extraordinary act of God commonly preceded by prayer?

 

[Ulster Fry]

In the medical realm, it is so challenging to say 'x happened through non-natural means outside of biological natural occurences'. Because this presupposes medical statistics at hand are comprehensive and reliable. And also that we have a complete knowledge of biology as to determine X is happening outside of normal biological processes.

Fair point, I would adjust it then to read 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'to the best of our knowledge' that it can only be explained through non-natural means. At the end of the day, this really is the best we can do in any arena of knowledge as one can always argue we do not know enough about x or y to say for certain. There's peer reviewed medical research in which such claims are made which are not easily dismissed.

Again though, we are tying this to the claim of Scripture that such events have occurred in the past and possibly can occur today. So the argument is whether such events can occur today or have ended after the apostolic era.

 

[Ulster Fry]

But is this a biblical definition? Where does the Bible use "miracle," "sign," "wonder," or any associated term with reference to an extraordinary act of God commonly preceded by prayer?

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 seems to attach miraculous powers as a work of the Spirit in the church 'for the common good', which in the context appears to be linked to mutual edification. However, I'm neither a bible scholar nor a pastor, so I don't want to claim any expertise.

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

 

[Taylor]

The canon itself can remain open (I don't think it is) while a book in the canon can speak with self-authorizing authority. One doesn't exclude the other.

As to the canon itself, I don't believe it is currently open because several of the necessary conditions for canonicity (apostolicity, wide reception in the first century church, etc) simply don't exist any more.

This doesn't really seem to solve the problem. Where does the Bible speak of apostolicity, wide reception, etc., as necessary conditions for canonicity? How do we avoid the charge of arbitrariness?

 

[Ulster Fry]

@Jerusalem Blade I have read your article. First, I much appreciated the Socratic dialogue format. Second, I agree with much of what you say, and would worry if someone referred to themselves as a 'prophet' meant in the biblical sense. Though, to go back to your distinction between miracle and gift, what about the example of someone who did not claim to be a prophet, yet he believed to have received some sort of vision or what they took to be God speaking to them, say, to go and do x in place y? I'm not sure I can automatically rule out that such a thing can occur in the post apostolic era, and some missionaries have made such claims as these. I have to be convinced of cessationism to just automatically reject the claim, and I'm not.

Even aside from the miracles/gifts distinction, I still find it hard to argue that Paul himself knew that such gifts were only applicable to the apostolic era and would cease when he and the other apostles were gone. It just doesn't seem to be a natural reading of the text.

 

[John The Baptist]

Okay, here is my working definition for this thread, in terms of what people typically mean when discussing the existence of miracles in philosophy of religion or in a scientific sense:

An act or event that can only be explained through non-natural means, typically following an act of prayer.

It seems to me that the cessationist will limit such things to the apostolic era and had a particular function relevant for that time. The cessationist position is defeated if even one such act or event has taken place in the post apostolic era. The question I'm interested in is whether the cessationist is justified in his/her position that miracles ceased after the apostolic era.

So you’re saying the cessationist believes in no miracles? Not simply the ending of apostolic gifts? Seeking clarification

 

[Taylor]

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 seems to attach miraculous powers as a work of the Spirit in the church 'for the common good', which in the context appears to be linked to mutual edification. However, I'm neither a bible scholar nor a pastor, so I don't want to claim any expertise.

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Of course, I agree that the working of miracles comes from the Spirit and is given for edification of some sort. That is not new to the New Testament. I am unsure how this supports your definition of "miracle."

 

[Ulster Fry]

So you’re saying the cessationist believes in no miracles? Not simply the ending of apostolic gifts? Seeking clarification

That distinction has been made on here, though I am typically referring to examples in which individual miraculous events of healing appear to have taken place following prayer. Some cessationists will reject such events. If I'm not mistaken, it seems that some cessationists claim that these events may take place but cannot be called miracles, which have a very particular function in the apostolic era. I'm not sure such a narrow definition is warranted, however.

I guess the important point in terms of gifts is that some churches claim that if these gifts are given to us as the church, we ought to make use of them. So the cessationist would have to argue why the Bible is clear such gifts have ended.

 

[Polanus1561]

I guess the important point in terms of gifts is that some churches claim that if these gifts are given to us as the church, we ought to make use of them. So the cessationist would have to argue why the Bible is clear such gifts have ended.

Which churches are you having referring to?

 

[Ulster Fry]

Of course, I agree that the working of miracles comes from the Spirit and is given for edification of some sort. That is not new to the New Testament. I am unsure how this supports your definition of "miracle."

Well, it is an example in which Paul is using the term miracle without explicitly referring to a sign. I'm just not convinced by this narrow definition of miracle. When people talk about miracles, they are going to have in mind things like a withered hand being made whole, someone being raised from the dead, walking on water, exorcising demons, etc. People will typically take those things to mean an act or event that is inexplicable in terms of natural causes.

There are also examples in which both Paul and James associated praying for healing for sick members of the church. According to your definition, this is not a miracle. But then would you accept such non-miraculous healings take place, then? They would still fit my definition, presumably, though you would not want to use the term 'miracle'.

I'm not convinced the bible takes this narrow definition itself. Otherwise, you seem to be arguing that what normal people call miracles aren't miracles, and they mean something completely different. So what would we call what they are talking about?

 

[Ulster Fry]

Which churches are you having referring to?

Typically churches of charismatic persuasion. I had in mind arguments made by Dr Michael Brown to this effect.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Okay, here is my working definition for this thread, in terms of what people typically mean when discussing the existence of miracles in philosophy of religion or in a scientific sense:

An act or event that can only be explained through non-natural means, typically following an act of prayer.

It seems to me that the cessationist will limit such things to the apostolic era and had a particular function relevant for that time. The cessationist position is defeated if even one such act or event has taken place in the post apostolic era. The question I'm interested in is whether the cessationist is justified in his/her position that miracles ceased after the apostolic era.

As definitions go, I would propose sticking to what I believe the Confession is proposing as the distinction between (1) God's ordinary works of providence in making use of means, and (2) His extraordinary working without, above, and against them. I see the providence of God is either ordinary or miraculous - what other options are there?

(1) In ordinary providence, God works by means according to the general natural laws He established and man can observe as in Romans 1.20. (As an aside, l like Shaw's comment: "we are, therefore, bound to use the means which he has appointed, and if we neglect these, we cannot expect to obtain the end" i.e. don't neglect the ordinary means and hope for a miracle - perhaps like the woman in Luke 8 who had issue of blood for twelve years long, had spent all her money on physicians, and could not be healed, and then came to Christ for healing?)

(2) In extraordinary providence, God suspends or modifies natural laws, producing an effect man can observe as above or beside the ordinary course of nature.

However, there are many complicators:

(a) There is no singular word in the Greek (or Hebrew) for "miracle" - there are at least 4 in Greek: works (ergon), wonders (teras), powers (dunamis), and signs (semeion). Sometimes the word "miracle" is used in translation, but this is, in the English, a transliteration of the Latin miraculum ("object of wonder") which I am going to guess is brought over from the Vulgate in most if not all instances;​

(b) Relying on human observation of something above or beside the ordinary course of nature is dependent on our limited understanding of the ordinary course of nature (especially relative to medicinal knowledge and healing), and the need to make a judgment in such matters can lead to Roman Catholicism's definition of a miracle and what that can lead to: "the Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church, which sums up the church’s teachings, defines [a miracle] as “a sign or wonder such as a healing, or control of nature, which can only be attributed to divine power.” In the canonization process, a miracle almost always refers to the spontaneous and lasting remission of a serious, life-threatening medical condition. The healing must have taken place in ways that the best-informed scientific knowledge cannot account for and follow prayers to the holy person." https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/3570/what-is-a-miracle/​

(c) Are instances where God uses ordinary means in extraordinary ways (such as Luther getting caught in a terrifying thunderstorm) always a "miracle"? (I would say "no" - see e. and f. below)​

(d) If Luther's experience with a lightning bolt affected him in a special way but did not so effect a farmer a few hundred yards away, is that really a miracle? (I would say "no" - see e. and f. below)​

(e) Is it a miracle if only witnessed by one person? (I would say "no")​

(f) Is it a miracle it only benefits one person? (I would say "no" - is this perhaps what @Taylor means by "with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose"?)​

Whatever the definition, for it to be accepted, everyone would have to first agree which events in Scripture were "miraculous" and then see if the definition "works" in each instance.

​

 

[Polanus1561]

Typically churches of charismatic persuasion. I had in mind arguments made by Dr Michael Brown to this effect.

Isn't his argument tied to apostles being a valid office today?

 

[Taylor]

Well, it is an example in which Paul is using the term miracle without explicitly referring to a sign.

In that case, since we have the use of the term without the accompanying act, it doesn't really tell us much of anything other than that some people are given the gift of performing miracles. Paul uses the term but does not define it, I assume since he already has the entirety of the scriptural witness lying back of his writing. This leads us back to the original question: Is there any instance in the Bible where we have an act being labeled as a miracle/sign/wonder/etc. that is not an extraordinary providence worked by God for an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose?

 

[Ulster Fry]

Isn't his argument tied to apostles being a valid office today?

I'm not sure if it is, but it would be easy to detach that for our purposes anyway. No such connection is made in Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 12, so it is conceivable that one could believe that the apostolic office ceased while miracle working or the gift of healing remained. Interestingly elders seem to have some rule with regards to the gift of healing, as they are called on to pray for and anoint the sick with oil.

The options then seem to be (a) these gifts which can be performed by those not holding apostolic office cease after the apostolic era or (b) these gifts continue today.