The problem Rome represents to continuationists.

[Eoghan]

Having just listened to R.C. Sproul and finished reading Hodge I am struck by the challenge represented by the Roman Catholic church.

R.C. Sproul explained that at the time of the Reformation the Reformers were confronted with the authenticating miracles of the Catholic church. The Reformers replied that they had authenticating miracles for their position - in the Apostolic miracles. It does however leave a huge hole in the argument of continuationists - doesn't the Roman Catholic church with it's "miracles" represent perfect continuity?

We would say that Apostolic office ceased - the pentecostal church called the Apostolic Church would disagree. So would the Roman Catholic church!

If signs do continue to authenticate, then is the Roman Catholic church not authenticated by it's "miracles" and the Reformed churches bereft?

I was also interested to read Hodge's opinion of the roman catholic mass so long celebrated in Latin as a violation of Paul's prohibition on addressing the church in a foreign language it did not understand.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

What authentic miracles has the RCC presented?

 

[jambo]

I thnk miracles claimed by the RC church are most dubious to say the least. How many folk who visit Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorie etc are actually healed by visiting those shrines? In RC thinking to become a saint 2 miracles must be attributed to the person but if a healing takes place who is to say that it was St Theresa or St Martin or whoever or else medical science or psychology

I believe the Reformed faith believes in miracles today. That is the miracle of conversion when the dead in sin are made alive in Christ which is the miraculous working of the Trinity in a persons life. What is the greater miracle? Someone throwing their crutches away (and in all probability continuing living a sinful life) or conversion and the living out of a holy, God honouring life?

 

[Eoghan]

What authentic miracles has the RCC presented?

I would say they are pretty much on a par with charismatic claims - unconvincing!

 

[Leslie]

I thought the continuationist/cessationist controversy had to do with the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians, not with authenticating miracles accompanying the preaching of the gospel in the context of frontier missions. These are two entirely separate issues.

Many cessationists accept the occurance of authenticating miracles, on occasions when God sovereignly decides to authenticate in this way. That is not the same as continuationists' maintaining that miracles can be done by an individual who is so gifted, at will. With RC "saints" performing miracles, that is akin to continuationism; it is individual gifting.

How can Reformed theologians who believe in God's sovereignty pontificate on what God can and can't do? Either He's sovereign or He isn't. If He's sovereign, He can do what He jolly well pleases. Whether authenticating miracles occur or not should be decided on the basis of historical data, same as the basis of our believing in the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[yeutter]

The Eastern Church does seldom made the sort of miraculous claims for the saints, that the Church of Rome makes. The best argument against miracles is to examine the validity of the claims made by Rome and by the charismatics.

 

[RamistThomist]

It should be admitted that the Vatican's official position is skepticism until proven otherwise.

Also, when we say Rome and EO, what time period? Modern day Roman Catholicism? Early Medieval European Christianity? At least from an early European point of view, saying miracles happened is unproblematic. I am currently writing a book that deals with the miraculous in the reign of Olaf II of Norway. I admit there is a lot of hagiography that is fairly useless in terms of historical scholarship, but there are historical claims for miracles in the lives of these people that have a stronger warrant.

 

[RamistThomist]

Except there is a lot of miraculous in the lives of John Knox, Richard Cameron, Alexander Peden, and Donald Cargill. Blanket statements like the one Sproul made are problematic historically.

It does however leave a huge hole in the argument of continuationists - doesn't the Roman Catholic church with it's "miracles" represent perfect continuity?

Miracles aren't the same thing as gospel. Further, *which* miracles and *when?* We aren't Restorationists. Not everything in the pre-Reformation church is bad. Miracles authenticate the preaching of the gospel, not merely apostolic succession. In the book of Acts they prayed that God would authenticate the gospel by signs and wonders, not the episcopate. Further, there has to be preaching of the gospel, which we say that modern Rome lacks for th emost part. Further, Revelation 13ff says Antichrist would do miracles. Presumably that doesn't authenticate his message.

We would say that Apostolic office ceased - the pentecostal church called the Apostolic Church would disagree. So would the Roman Catholic church!

This is a fairly bald guilt-by-association tactic.

If signs do continue to authenticate, then is the Roman Catholic church not authenticated by it's "miracles" and the Reformed churches bereft?

The miracles--and again, which ones and when?-- authenticate the preaching. Is there preaching present to be authenticated? Probably not. So why are the miracles there? I have no idea. Maybe God is being merciful. Cessationist Ronald Nash freely admits that point.

 

[earl40]

I thought the continuationist/cessationist controversy had to do with the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians, not with authenticating miracles accompanying the preaching of the gospel in the context of frontier missions. These are two entirely separate issues.

Many cessationists accept the occurance of authenticating miracles, on occasions when God sovereignly decides to authenticate in this way. That is not the same as continuationists' maintaining that miracles can be done by an individual who is so gifted, at will. With RC "saints" performing miracles, that is akin to continuationism; it is individual gifting.

How can Reformed theologians who believe in God's sovereignty pontificate on what God can and can't do? Either He's sovereign or He isn't. If He's sovereign, He can do what He jolly well pleases. Whether authenticating miracles occur or not should be decided on the basis of historical data, same as the basis of our believing in the resurrection of Jesus.

No reformed person would say God "can't" perform a miracle. The reformed say God does not perform miracles today through paticular individuals to authenticate that person as being an apostle or prophet. Also I believe The Lord would not perform a miracle through a person who is a member of a false church such as Rome is and verify Rome's claim to being a true church. In other words, any "miracle" perported by Rome is not a miracle in the biblical sense In my most humble opinion.

 

[RamistThomist]

I thought the continuationist/cessationist controversy had to do with the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians, not with authenticating miracles accompanying the preaching of the gospel in the context of frontier missions. These are two entirely separate issues.

Many cessationists accept the occurance of authenticating miracles, on occasions when God sovereignly decides to authenticate in this way. That is not the same as continuationists' maintaining that miracles can be done by an individual who is so gifted, at will. With RC "saints" performing miracles, that is akin to continuationism; it is individual gifting.

How can Reformed theologians who believe in God's sovereignty pontificate on what God can and can't do? Either He's sovereign or He isn't. If He's sovereign, He can do what He jolly well pleases. Whether authenticating miracles occur or not should be decided on the basis of historical data, same as the basis of our believing in the resurrection of Jesus.

No reformed person would say God "can't" perform a miracle.

True, but a lot of the harder, old-school cessationist came very close. They would agree for the sake of argument that God could, but he won't (Warfield, while not going so far, appears to come close). Today's cessationists realize how untenable such a position is and concede that God could do that.

The reformed say God does not perform miracles today through paticular individuals to authenticate that person as being an apostle or prophet.

A lot of continuationists would actually agree. A lot of miracles today (accounts of prophecy, etc) don't appear to have much to do either way with authenticating a teaching ministry. Further, Sam Storms and Wayne Grudem do not necessarily argue today that miracles validate apostolic office. That is not Grudem's argument, as far as I am aware.

Also I believe The Lord would not perform a miracle through a person who is a member of a false church such as Rome is and verify Rome's claim to being a true church.

Mostly yes. This is an easier judgment to make today than it was 500 years ago, since the boundaries are a lot clearer.

In other words, any "miracle" perported by Rome is not a miracle in the biblical sense In my most humble opinion.

A lot depends on the kind of miracle. Apparitions of Mary and bleeding statues and crying icons aren't really miracles that aim to benefit the body of Christ, so to that degree I agree.

 

[Eoghan]

I think we may be conflating the concepts of divine providence and miraculous intervention. The objection of the cessationists is to what is defined as 'normative', miracles are not the norm now despite the claims of charismatics and Lourdes!

 

[RamistThomist]

I think we may be conflating the concepts of divine providence and miraculous intervention. The objection of the cessationists is to what is defined as 'normative', miracles are not the norm now despite the claims of charismatics and Lourdes!

I'm very hesitant using that line of critique since it assumes David Hume's view of providence.

 

[Leslie]

A few months ago I thought that cessationists rejected anything and everything supernatural like an epiphany or physical miracle since the closing of the canon. It was through the PB and Timmopussycat in particular, that it became clear that cessationism has to do with the spiritual gifts, period. Some cessationists reject all physical miracles and epiphanies, but that is not necessary to being a cessationist.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think the OP makes a good point that seems to be lost on most.

The term Cessationist is unhelpful here. Let's just deal with the Reformed position.

The issue at dispute is the continuation of the gifts of the Apostles. Nobody disputes what happened at the time of the Apostles' ministry, the question is whether or not what was normative (in terms of signs and wonders) at the time of the Apostles remains in effect. Should we still expect someone's shadow to heal a man or was there a time and purpose for the building of the Church where it is now not part of the normal ministry of the Church.

Why does this relate to Rome?

Because the Roman Catholic Church was asking the Reformers: Where are your miracles? In this, they were asking it in the sense of the confirmation of authority. Rome was presenting signs and wonders as validation for their teaching and this continues today. The Pope declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and, Voila!, Mary appeared to someone not too long afterward saying: "I'm the Immaculate Conception." Check and mate!

In other words, Reformed Church, what right do we have denying the Immaculate Conception when a sign has been performed that demonstrates its validity? Well, if your view of the nature of Revelation and how signs accompany them is structure in a certain manner then you have no answer. In fact, given the standard by which some signs and miracles are accepted as "of the Lord" (i.e. a sovereign God can do anything) then what possible objection could there be. Here's how it goes:

Premise 1: A Sovereign God can do anything
Premise 2: Mary appearing is something
Therefore, God could have had Mary appear and declare she is the Immaculate conception.

If I have nothing other than the first notion (God can do anything) then what possible objection do I have to the Roman Catholic Church's claims? If the response is "I have Scripture" then this is the point the Reformers were making.

In other words, they referred back to the Apostles and their signs because they attested to the authenticity of the Revelation that was recorded. There is an internal consistency of the Scriptures where Paul is charging Timothy and Titus to live in light of the pattern of sound doctrine in the Scriptures that had been laid down. The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation upon which the Church's normal work, thereafter would be built upon. They were to preach what was entrusted to them. Historically, you can read that those who wrote immediately following the Apostles saw themselves in a fundamentally different class of gifting. The age when the gift of Apostleship was among the Church had passed and these men now collected the deposit of faith laid down for them and began to live life in light of the totality of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant and now the New Covenant.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think the OP makes a good point that seems to be lost on most.

The term Cessationist is unhelpful here. Let's just deal with the Reformed position.

The issue at dispute is the continuation of the gifts of the Apostles. Nobody disputes what happened at the time of the Apostles' ministry, the question is whether or not what was normative (in terms of signs and wonders) at the time of the Apostles remains in effect. Should we still expect someone's shadow to heal a man or was there a time and purpose for the building of the Church where it is now not part of the normal ministry of the Church.

Why does this relate to Rome?

Because the Roman Catholic Church was asking the Reformers: Where are your miracles? In this, they were asking it in the sense of the confirmation of authority. Rome was presenting signs and wonders as validation for their teaching and this continues today. The Pope declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and, Voila!, Mary appeared to someone not too long afterward saying: "I'm the Immaculate Conception." Check and mate!

In other words, Reformed Church, what right do we have denying the Immaculate Conception when a sign has been performed that demonstrates its validity? Well, if your view of the nature of Revelation and how signs accompany them is structure in a certain manner then you have no answer. In fact, given the standard by which some signs and miracles are accepted as "of the Lord" (i.e. a sovereign God can do anything) then what possible objection could there be. Here's how it goes:

Premise 1: A Sovereign God can do anything
Premise 2: Mary appearing is something
Therefore, God could have had Mary appear and declare she is the Immaculate conception.

If I have nothing other than the first notion (God can do anything) then what possible objection do I have to the Roman Catholic Church's claims? If the response is "I have Scripture" then this is the point the Reformers were making.

In other words, they referred back to the Apostles and their signs because they attested to the authenticity of the Revelation that was recorded. There is an internal consistency of the Scriptures where Paul is charging Timothy and Titus to live in light of the pattern of sound doctrine in the Scriptures that had been laid down. The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation upon which the Church's normal work, thereafter would be built upon. They were to preach what was entrusted to them. Historically, you can read that those who wrote immediately following the Apostles saw themselves in a fundamentally different class of gifting. The age when the gift of Apostleship was among the Church had passed and these men now collected the deposit of faith laid down for them and began to live life in light of the totality of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant and now the New Covenant.

I can agree with a lot of that, and while I do not share the optimism in many cessationist arguments, I don't necessarily hold that x,y, and z offices (or gifts, which aren't the same thing) continue today.

As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

 

[py3ak]

As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.

 

[earl40]

As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.

Maybe I will stay a TOTAL cessationist and contend God can but won't perform miracles in the post apostolic time for the exact reasons you wrote about here.

 

[MW]

When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

Show me their miracles?

 

[Free Christian]

With all their deception over the centuries, all their murders and shedding of innocent blood, with all their vile acts against children the world over, with all their lies concerning sin and salvation and the Popes standing in the place of Christ. Given that any other organisation or system on earth would have fallen long ago after committing just a fraction of their vile deeds, I think its a miracle (miracle as per one definition by dictionary standards "a wonder or marvel") they are still standing.

 

[earl40]

When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

Show me their miracles?

Or may I paraphrase....How could they tell what was to pass without saying "Thus says the Lord"?

 

[MW]

When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

Show me their miracles?

Or may I paraphrase....How could they tell what was to pass without saying "Thus says the Lord"?

Yes. In the words of Thomas Manton,

Christian religion ... is built upon matter of fact, that the Son of God came from God to bring us to God; that is to say, appeared in human nature, instructed the world by his doctrine and example, and at length died for sinners, confirming both in life and death the truth of his mission by such unquestionable miracles as showed him to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. Now, a testimony, tradition, or report is necessary in matters of fact, which of necessity must be confined to some determinate time and place. It was not fit that Christ should be always working miracles, always dying, always rising and ascending, in every place, and in the view of every man; but these things were to be once done, in one place of the world, in the sight of some particular and competent witnesses; but, because the knowledge of them concerned all the rest of the world, they were by them to be attested to others; matters of fact can only be proved by credible witnesses, and this was the great office put upon the apostles, Acts i. 8, xxi. 22, ii. 32, iii. 15, x. 39, 40, 41.

New miracles would require a new phase of redemptive history or a repetition of redemptive history and a new apostolate.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

I thnk miracles claimed by the RC church are most dubious to say the least. How many folk who visit Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorie etc are actually healed by visiting those shrines? In RC thinking to become a saint 2 miracles must be attributed to the person but if a healing takes place who is to say that it was St Theresa or St Martin or whoever or else medical science or psychology

I believe the Reformed faith believes in miracles today. That is the miracle of conversion when the dead in sin are made alive in Christ which is the miraculous working of the Trinity in a persons life. What is the greater miracle? Someone throwing their crutches away (and in all probability continuing living a sinful life) or conversion and the living out of a holy, God honouring life?

Well obviously if you pray to St Thomas and get better...

 

[RamistThomist]

As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.

2 Thess 2 says Antichrist will work signs and wonders. For that point alone, I do not worry if Rome has "miracles." Would we tell Paul, "No, that's not possible beacause God doesn't work miracles in the post-apostolic age?

armourbearer wrote:

Show me their miracles?

The accounts given in Six Saints of the Covenant, A Hind Let Loose, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of Scots Worthies actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.

 

[earl40]

As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."

But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.

2 Thess 2 says Antichrist will work signs and wonders. For that point alone, I do not worry if Rome has "miracles." Would we tell Paul, "No, that's not possible beacause God doesn't work miracles in the post-apostolic age?

armourbearer wrote:

Show me their miracles?

The accounts given in Six Saints of the Covenant, A Hind Let Loose, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of Scots Worthies actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.

This clearly shows the serious problem with pointing towards any prophesy or miracle done outside those recorded in scripture. It supplants the bible being authoritative over the ministers of today.

 

[py3ak]

2 Thess 2 says Antichrist will work signs and wonders. For that point alone, I do not worry if Rome has "miracles." Would we tell Paul, "No, that's not possible beacause God doesn't work miracles in the post-apostolic age?

That doesn't seem to contradict my point that contemporary/ecclesiastical-historical miracles are not the standard by which we judge. Unless all the miracles are demonstrably on one side, their value for settling a controversy is small.

 

[MW]

The accounts given in Six Saints of the Covenant, A Hind Let Loose, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of Scots Worthies actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.

In other words, they are not documented miracles but a part of the hagiography. I repeat my original request -- SHOW me their miracles.

 

[Free Christian]

In 2 Thessalonians 2 it say with "power, signs and lying wonders". I take that as lies that those who are not saved believe, some may believe that something was a miracle because they were told so by, say the RC church, but it was not a miracle or prove-able, just quite simply a lie that they believed was a wonder or miracle. To those not deceived nothing really happened. Correct me if im wrong there by all means.

 

[earl40]

The accounts given in Six Saints of the Covenant, A Hind Let Loose, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of Scots Worthies actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.

In other words, they are not documented miracles but a part of the hagiography. I repeat my original request -- SHOW me their miracles.

In other words, can we raise the Six Saints of the Covenant, A Hind Let Loose, along side with scripture as the RC does with their tradition?

 

[earl40]

In 2 Thessalonians 2 it say with "power, signs and lying wonders". I take that as lies that those who are not saved believe, some may believe that something was a miracle because they were told so by, say the RC church, but it was not a miracle or prove-able, just quite simply a lie that they believed was a wonder or miracle. To those not deceived nothing really happened. Correct me if im wrong there by all means.

You will get both sides here. One will say they are supernatural works that lie and the correct side will say they are works that are not supernatural that also lie. I will guess what side I am on.

 

[MW]

In other words, can we raise the Six Saints of the Covenant, A Hind Let Loose, along side with scripture as the RC does with their tradition?

Not really. I like a little hagiography to help balance out critical views of history. I think we can read such accounts and look at it under the category of special providence. There is no need to ascribe it to extraordinary providence.

For Brett, I agree with you that counterfeit miracles are lying wonders. God's wonders are all around us. Man himself is a wonder. A lying wonder manipulates the ordinary either in the thing or in the perception; it does not act extraordinarily.