WCF Ch 1 and Cessationism

[Rescued]

Does anyone have a good reformed resource besides John MacArthur on cessationism ? I recently had an in-depth discussion/encounter with someone I've known for a long time who revealed to me that he believed in the continuation of the miraculous sign gifts. At the time of our discussion I did not know exactly what to say but I've been studying it for the past few weeks. The first chapter of the WCF confession is good but the proof texts don't seem conclusive to me. I know this issue is a big deal in our modern day and I believe men like John Piper and Sam Storms have become continuationists. It's really sad to see.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or resources.

 

[Zach]

Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. was the book that began to cement the issue for me. It's been awhile, but from what I remember what was most helpful was the force of the arguments on the basis of redemptive history that continuous special revelation (beyond the writing of the New Testament and the Apostolic era) is not necessary or to be expected. If I remember correctly, he also does a good bit of exegesis on texts that, especially when understood in light of his redemptive historical arguments, shows how they ought to be read rather than leaving you with the feeling that you were given a proof text that could demonstrate the claim but also could be read a different way.

 

[RamistThomist]

Does anyone have a good reformed resource besides John MacArthur on cessationism ? I recently had an in-depth discussion/encounter with someone I've known for a long time who revealed to me that he believed in the continuation of the miraculous sign gifts. At the time of our discussion I did not know exactly what to say but I've been studying it for the past few weeks. The first chapter of the WCF confession is good but the proof texts don't seem conclusive to me. I know this issue is a big deal in our modern day and I believe men like John Piper and Sam Storms have become continuationists. It's really sad to see.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or resources.

Poythress or Gaffin. They are aware of the nuances in a way that many in Macarthur's camp aren't. I have actually moved from continuationist to qualified cessationist. I mean that in the sense that the continuationist arguments for continuing prophecy are unstable and break down. Of course, the problem is in trying to make cessationism into a silver bullet argument. Just because the "canon is closed," it does not logically follow that x, y, and z have ceased. I do think prophecy, for example, has ceased. That has more to do with redemptive history than to the canon's being closed (something Scripture doesn't actually say).

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

 

[Eyedoc84]

O Palmer Robertson The Final Word.

I would also challenge him on the idea of “continuationism”. All the classic Pentecostals claimed to be restorationist. Throughout history, any group claiming to have gifts taught that the gifts were being restored among their group, and usually took a somewhat anabaptist approach to church history where the church got corrupted via episcopal structures in the 3rd century and utterly corrupted by Constantine, and thereby the gifts were lost.

“Continuationism” as such is a recent position and these folks try to find threads of gifts throughout church history. But it’s really like random fringy heretics here and there.

Once you see it really is a restorationist position to claim gifts today, you have to ask why did God take them and has recently restored them. Usually it has to do with some punishment/reward view, but then that demolishes the whole nature of a gift. Are they His to give or ours to earn?

Of course, we believe they were His to give, and He gave them to the apostles to authenticate the final Word of the Son.

 

[Rescued]

Poythress or Gaffin. They are aware of the nuances in a way that many in Macarthur's camp aren't. I have actually moved from continuationist to qualified cessationist. I mean that in the sense that the continuationist arguments for continuing prophecy are unstable and break down. Of course, the problem is in trying to make cessationism into a silver bullet argument. Just because the "canon is closed," it does not logically follow that x, y, and z have ceased. I do think prophecy, for example, has ceased. That has more to do with redemptive history than to the canon's being closed (something Scripture doesn't actually say).

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

Thanks I'm reading this right now. I also felt that the basic argument of cessationism was a little weak, but it is becoming helpful for me to study the purpose of supernatural gifts at historical times when scripture was being penned, which was to authenticate the message. I listened to a good lecture on this by John Gerstner. This article seems good too.

 

[Rescued]

Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. was the book that began to cement the issue for me. It's been awhile, but from what I remember what was most helpful was the force of the arguments on the basis of redemptive history that continuous special revelation (beyond the writing of the New Testament and the Apostolic era) is not necessary or to be expected. If I remember correctly, he also does a good bit of exegesis on texts that, especially when understood in light of his redemptive historical arguments, shows how they ought to be read rather than leaving you with the feeling that you were given a proof text that could demonstrate the claim but also could be read a different way.

Amen yeah my understanding so far is that the supernatural gifts of tongues, healings and prophecies were given at a certain time, and under the supervision of the apostles, in order to authenticate the message of Christ and were only to continue until the church and new testament scriptures were established. Same with the Old Testament, the miracles under Moses were authenticating and then later certain prophets worked miracles too, all in order to authenticate the scripture. But once the scripture is given, the miracles are removed. Not that God doesn't work miracles still, but the nature of them is different. More like answers to prayer. But nobody today walks around healing sick folks who simply fall under his shadow.

 

[Rescued]

O Palmer Robertson The Final Word.

I would also challenge him on the idea of “continuationism”. All the classic Pentecostals claimed to be restorationist. Throughout history, any group claiming to have gifts taught that the gifts were being restored among their group, and usually took a somewhat anabaptist approach to church history where the church got corrupted via episcopal structures in the 3rd century and utterly corrupted by Constantine, and thereby the gifts were lost.

“Continuationism” as such is a recent position and these folks try to find threads of gifts throughout church history. But it’s really like random fringy heretics here and there.

Once you see it really is a restorationist position to claim gifts today, you have to ask why did God take them and has recently restored them. Usually it has to do with some punishment/reward view, but then that demolishes the whole nature of a gift. Are they His to give or ours to earn?

Of course, we believe they were His to give, and He gave them to the apostles to authenticate the final Word of the Son.

Thank you. Good perspective on the fact that the authentic gifts were just that, gifts, not rewards. If what passes for miracles today were authentic, I would imagine they would be given to those who have truly received the grace of regeneration. Not to folks like Benny Hinn.

 

[Zach]

Poythress or Gaffin. They are aware of the nuances in a way that many in Macarthur's camp aren't. I have actually moved from continuationist to qualified cessationist. I mean that in the sense that the continuationist arguments for continuing prophecy are unstable and break down. Of course, the problem is in trying to make cessationism into a silver bullet argument. Just because the "canon is closed," it does not logically follow that x, y, and z have ceased. I do think prophecy, for example, has ceased. That has more to do with redemptive history than to the canon's being closed (something Scripture doesn't actually say).

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

I also remember Dr. Poythress' essay being very good, although less impactful personally because I read Gaffin first and that was also probably the first time I read the work of someone doing biblical theology and making largely redemptive historical arguments. I've never read Acts the same way. If I'm remembering Poythress' position correctly, some here might criticize it as not being sufficiently cessationist but I remember thinking that his comments on the work of the Spirit today actually strengthened his position by making the cessationist position less of the caricature that some make it out to be.

 

[RamistThomist]

I also remember Dr. Poythress' essay being very good, although less impactful personally because I read Gaffin first and that was also probably the first time I read the work of someone doing biblical theology and making largely redemptive historical arguments. I've never read Acts the same way. If I'm remembering Poythress' position correctly, some here might criticize it as not being sufficiently cessationist but I remember thinking that his comments on the work of the Spirit today actually strengthened his position by making the cessationist position less of the caricature that some make it out to be.

That's more or less it. Older cessationist models (many of which were knee-jerk reactions to some Roman claims) are unworkable and it is to Poythress's credit that he is able to give a more nuanced and stronger presentation of cessationism.

 

[RamistThomist]

Amen yeah my understanding so far is that the supernatural gifts of tongues, healings and prophecies were given at a certain time, and under the supervision of the apostles, in order to authenticate the message of Christ and were only to continue until the church and new testament scriptures were established. Same with the Old Testament, the miracles under Moses were authenticating and then later certain prophets worked miracles too, all in order to authenticate the scripture. But once the scripture is given, the miracles are removed. Not that God doesn't work miracles still, but the nature of them is different. More like answers to prayer. But nobody today walks around healing sick folks who simply fall under his shadow.

I would push back a bit against the miracles = authentication angle. Some miracles did authenticate; others seemed to be more of mercy.

 

[Rescued]

I would push back a bit against the miracles = authentication angle. Some miracles did authenticate; others seemed to be more of mercy.

But God is still merciful, so why doesn't he just send healers to the hospitals today to lay their hands on all the sick people? I believe Christ healed yes from a heart of mercy, but also to show that indeed He was the Messiah.

 

[RamistThomist]

But God is still merciful, so why doesn't he just send healers to the hospitals today to lay their hands on all the sick people? I believe Christ healed yes from a heart of mercy, but also to show that indeed He was the Messiah.

A well-read continuationist would say such an objection makes the same mistake the faith-healers make. Having a gift doesn't mean you can exercise it infallibly 100% of the time. Paul, arguably the greatest mere human of all time, a man who raised the dead, couldn't even heal Trophimus.

Secondly, as Craig Keener documents in Miracles Today, sometimes that actually does happen, although healings at hospitals can be hard to verify scientifically due to a number of factors beyond the control of the healer.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Does anyone have a good reformed resource besides John MacArthur on cessationism ? I recently had an in-depth discussion/encounter with someone I've known for a long time who revealed to me that he believed in the continuation of the miraculous sign gifts. At the time of our discussion I did not know exactly what to say but I've been studying it for the past few weeks. The first chapter of the WCF confession is good but the proof texts don't seem conclusive to me. I know this issue is a big deal in our modern day and I believe men like John Piper and Sam Storms have become continuationists. It's really sad to see.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or resources.

I have seen recommended many times "The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation" by Garnet Milnes (with a foreword by Joel Beeke).

​

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Jeremy @Rescued , O. Palmer Robertson's The Final Word is excellent, especially his exegesis and close examination of words like "mystery / mysterion" and "tongues" in 1 Cor 14, etc. Also Sam Waldron's To Be Continued?: Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? (Brief summary attached below).

A paper I wrote, "Airtight" argument against continuing prophecy, also attached – "For how can falsely reporting God’s word be a capital crime in ancient Israel yet in our day be deemed righteous?"

 

[Ed Walsh]

The first chapter of the WCF confession is good, but the proof texts don't seem conclusive to me. I know this issue is a big deal in our modern day, and I believe men like John Piper and Sam Storms have become continuationists. It's really sad to see.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or resources

Hi Jeremy,

You might want to take a look at:
Samuel Rutherford and the prophecies of the Reformers

I recommend the whole thread, but don't miss post #26, which is my very cynical response to a radical cessationist on the PB.

Ed

 

[Taylor]

Hi Jeremy,

You might want to take a look at:
Samuel Rutherford and the prophecies of the Reformers

I recommend the whole thread, but don't miss post #26, which is my very cynical response to a radical cessationist on the PB.

Ed

I was getting ready to put my boxing gloves on when you called Martyn Lloyd-Jones a crackpot in that post, and then I remembered you said your post was cynical. I calmed down then. I thought I was going to have to call @Stephen L Smith and have him help me tag team you.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I was getting ready to put my boxing gloves on when you called Martyn Lloyd-Jones a crackpot in that post, and then I remembered you said your post was cynical. I calmed down then. I thought I was going to have to call @Stephen L Smith and have him help me tag team you.

That is simply hilarious, Taylor. I hope nobody misunderstands it and thinks that my cynicism was my actual opinion. Well, I guess it could be interesting however somebody understands it. I'd like to know what @Stephen L Smith thinks of how I expressed myself.

I'm no Pentecostal. And I've never had an experience like what is described in the article I referenced. But to say that God will never do anything Supernatural under any circumstance is just simply going beyond what is written.

In the passage recorded by Luke below, I do not think is common fare these days. But neither do I believe what took place here was equal to scripture somehow. I think it's also interesting that Paul did not take it as the word of God ordering him not to go to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:8‭-‬14 ESV​

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.”​

 

[Rescued]

Hello Jeremy @Rescued , O. Palmer Robertson's The Final Word is excellent, especially his exegesis and close examination of words like "mystery / mysterion" and "tongues" in 1 Cor 14, etc. Also Sam Waldron's To Be Continued?: Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? (Brief summary attached below).

A paper I wrote, "Airtight" argument against continuing prophecy, also attached – "For how can falsely reporting God’s word be a capital crime in ancient Israel yet in our day be deemed righteous?"

Excellent thank you sir

 

[Rescued]

Hi Jeremy,

You might want to take a look at:
Samuel Rutherford and the prophecies of the Reformers

I recommend the whole thread, but don't miss post #26, which is my very cynical response to a radical cessationist on the PB.

Ed

Thanks I started reading and saw that it's a bit lengthy for this morning. Will finish later but very interesting!

 

[Eyedoc84]

But neither do I believe what took place here was equal to scripture somehow. I think it's also interesting that Paul did not take it as the word of God ordering him not to go to Jerusalem.

The prophecy didn’t command Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Not sure what you mean by “not equal to scripture.”

 

[RamistThomist]

The prophecy didn’t command Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Not sure what you mean by “not equal to scripture.”

That's the crux of the debate in a nutshell. A continuationist would agree that no, Agabus didn't command Paul. That's why it's not equal to Scripture. Here's my problem: I would ask them then if I would be sinning if I ignored the prophecy. Presumably, I would be sinning. So for all practical purposes it is a command. They need to call it as such.

 

[Ed Walsh]

The prophecy didn’t command Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Not sure what you mean by “not equal to scripture.”

Only that not all prophecy became Scripture. Related, but a different case only slightly to the point, not all of Paul's epistles became Scripture. Not everything the OT Prophets said became Scripture. And we can know that all their prophecies were true, or lease they would be false prophets.

 

[RamistThomist]

Only that not all prophecy became Scripture. Related, but a different case only slightly to the point, not all of Paul's epistles became Scripture. Not everything the OT Prophets said became Scripture. And we can know that all their prophecies were true, or lease they would be false prophets.

That's a very good point. I'm not a continuationist anymore, but there is a tendency in cessationist circles to think all prophecy is the same as Scripture, when most prophecies in the NT weren't recorded.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I was getting ready to put my boxing gloves on when you called Martyn Lloyd-Jones a crackpot in that post, and then I remembered you said your post was cynical. I calmed down then. I thought I was going to have to call @Stephen L Smith and have him help me tag team you.

That is simply hilarious, Taylor. I hope nobody misunderstands it and thinks that my cynicism was my actual opinion. Well, I guess it could be interesting however somebody understands it. I'd like to know what @Stephen L Smith thinks of how I expressed myself.

I will put my boxing gloves on and join Taylor in 'punishing' you Regarding the term crackpot, remember the saying 'it takes one to know one'

I have to say I greatly love the ministry of MLJ and he was instrumental in me coming to Reformed convictions. But I disagree with him on the Baptism of the Spirit. I think he was right in urging Reformed Christians to reflect more on the power of the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thess 1:5. However his views on the Baptism of the Spirit have caused confusion.

Iain Murray's book "Martyn Lloyd:Jones: messenger of grace" of grace is very helpful. Murray devotes a chapter showing why MLJ views on the power of the Holy Spirit are sorely needed today. He also devotes a chapter critiquing his Baptism of the Spirit,.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Only that not all prophecy became Scripture. Related, but a different case only slightly to the point, not all of Paul's epistles became Scripture. Not everything the OT Prophets said became Scripture. And we can know that all their prophecies were true, or lease they would be false prophets.

Not all prophecy became scripture but it was no less authoritative for those to whom it was intended. The modern case for prophecy is that it is in a different category (see Steve’s post above). It is somehow less authoritative than scripture or can be mistaken. So you have God’s word in scripture which is absolutely authoritative, and then God’s word in some prophetic dream or whatever that is not as authoritative. How can God say something that isn’t authoritative?

 

[Andres]

Signs of the Apostles by: Walter Chantry
A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness by: Bruner

 

[Ed Walsh]

Not all prophecy became scripture but it was no less authoritative for those to whom it was intended. The modern case for prophecy is that it is in a different category (see Steve’s post above). It is somehow less authoritative than scripture or can be mistaken. So you have God’s word in scripture which is absolutely authoritative, and then God’s word in some prophetic dream or whatever that is not as authoritative. How can God say something that isn’t authoritative?

Warning: I did a lot of rambling on this one. So don't laugh. I'm just kidding. Laugh all you want.

I'm not prepared to argue this point since I am no authority, and I'm not even sure if any of the things I put forth. I was saying that other respected men believed this. I've only said that a lot of really cool guys—Puritans, Covenantors, a lot of them, claim that prophecy is something that can and sometimes does happen in extraordinary times. I don't know what they thought of how authoritative they were, nor have I studied what they claim were prophecies. But I think it's intriguing that a bunch of more capable and respected Reformed men of the past believe in something strongly that these days many (most?) Reformed men deny is possible.

I've been studying in the early church through the end of the third century, when it was commonly believed that Spiritual gifts were still in effect, to some degree in some places. Given the poor state of religion in our time, I think it is wise to be extra careful about what we say God can and can't do, or rather, will or will not do.

I believe Hebrews 1;1 ff which says that "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath [past tense] appointed heir of all things. And that the Canon of Scripture ended with the end of the Revelation.

We're living in a time that many Reformed Christians don't really believe in the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit. Granted, it is rare but genuine and desperately needed in our time. Very recently, I read Perkins, Flavell, Bunyan, and Owen on the subject of prayer, who all seem to agree that apart from the supernatural filling of the Holy Spirit as the needed aid in prayer, we might as well save our breath because we do not know how to pray as we ought.

It took me 40 years to get to where I finally gave up on my own abilities. For the last six or seven years, I pretty much don't pray unless I have a real sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit leading me. When I am totally cold on my own, I pray for warmth and help from God, but I don't go much farther than that except for lamenting His absence\ and pleading for His presence. Flavel and others make it abundantly clear that there is no way to sense God in His essence; that would be a weird belief. But we can and must discern his presence in his acting upon our hearts and bringing them into subjection to his will and the Holy Scriptures with everything pointing solely to the glory and majesty of our wonderful Holy God. We are 100% unable to wadge war in the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

We are nothing in ourselves; He is everything. And I feel sorry for the massive number of Christians praying in their own strength, not being satisfied, not having their prayers answered and just plain not having a good time with our beautiful Triune God.

In the triumphant ending of Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal, we have these astonishing words.

1 Kings 18:38-39
Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

I am sure that "all the people [that] saw it," included many Baal worshipers, who were about to meet their doom.

Many Reformed men think that that kind of thing just doesn't happen anymore. But they're wrong.

Corinthians 14:24-25
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

He is the God; He is the God.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This is from the intro to the paper I attached above (in post #14), " 'Airtight' Biblical argument against continuing extra-Biblical revelation".

SUMMATION [of what follows]

According to the prophet Joel, and quoted by Peter, in the last days – which began at the time of Christ and His apostles – God will pour out His Spirit on His people and they shall prophesy (cf Acts 2:16-18), and in the mouth of Joel this prophesying referred to that infallible speaking the words that came “out of the mouth of the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:16), nor could it mean anything less coming from an Old Testament prophet under the law of Moses, by whom God said, “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die” (Deut 18:20).

It is admitted by proponents of so-called contemporary New Testament prophesying, “a ‘prophet’ in New Testament churches is not assumed to be someone who speaks the very words of God” (Wayne Grudem). In other words (they say), NT prophets are not the same as the writers of Scripture, Old and New, but may be fallible in their interpretations or presentations of prophecy, of speaking God’s words.

They freely admit they are not equal to Old Testament prophets and prophecy, nor are their words equal to the canon of Scripture, the true and infallible word of God. They also agree to what is written, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov 30:6), for the Scriptural canon of prophetic and apostolic words is closed. They say this in order to exempt themselves from the strict Old Testament standards for prophecy, claiming theirs is prophecy of another category than the Biblical.

But this they call normative for these days is a “category” which would have been punishable by death under Moses – by the LORD’s decree. In other words, when they say of the new “prophecy” – which is (wrongly) normative in many churches – it is godly, and at the same time certainly would have been subject to capital punishment in ancient Israel, the disparity between these two types of prophecy reveals what is obvious: the fallible “prophecy” can only be false. For how can falsely reporting God’s word be a capital crime in ancient Israel yet in our day be deemed righteous?​

That said, there may have been rare occasions when a person so discerned the mind of the LORD that he (small h) spoke and what he said came to pass. But the gift of prophecy ended shortly after the completion of the canon of God's authoritative word, as the Bible alone is the word of God.

 

[FivePointSpurgeonist]

The Puritans, Strange Fire, Cessationism, and the Westminster Confession

Without a doubt, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches cessationism, but it is a cessationism which requires considerable nuance and allows for supernatural surprises so long as they are working with and through the Word of God.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

 

[RamistThomist]

The Puritans, Strange Fire, Cessationism, and the Westminster Confession

Without a doubt, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches cessationism, but it is a cessationism which requires considerable nuance and allows for supernatural surprises so long as they are working with and through the Word of God.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

That's a very good article. It avoids some of the shrill over-reaction of the Strange Fire guys while maintaining the strengths of what cessationism is getting at.