Some Calvinists take the position that all miracles came to an end with the death of the apostles. They stake out this position on the grounds that the only function of miracles is to attest the authors of the canon.
I’m going to confine myself to three or four brief points:
1.Even Warfield, who is the leading spokesmen for Reformed cessationism, draws a distinction between a wonder-working church and a wonder-working God. Cf. Counterfeit Miracles (Banner of Truth 1983), 58.
2.Within the history and theology of Calvinism, there are numerous references to both the possibility and actuality, of postbiblical miracles of one sort or another.
Vern Poythress documents some examples in the final section of an article he once wrote:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1996Modern.htm
Here’s another example:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/prophecy/prophecy.htm
My point for now is not to evaluate the truth or falsity of these claims. Rather, my immediate point is that belief in postbiblical miracles is well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy.
We can debate the pros and cons of all these claims, but this is a point of liberty within Reformed theology.
I’d also add, in passing, that you can’t reject something just because it conflicts with Calvinism. Calvinism is not immune to scrutiny. Calvinism is not some unquestionable axiom. A Calvinist must be prepared to argue for his position.
3.Finally, there’s a problem with summarily dismissing all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles. The Bible itself appeals to testimonial evidence. And that includes fallible eyewitnesses. For example, when Paul appeals to 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:6), that is not an appeal to 500 apostles or prophets.
To peremptorily discount all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles implies a deeply skeptical view of testimonial evidence. It treats testimonial evidence as something fundamentally untrustworthy. And, in so doing, it takes a position directly at variance with Biblical rules of evidence.
Testimonial evidence is not uniformly reliable or unreliable. But to dismiss out of hand all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles could only be justified on the assumption that testimonial evidence is generally and radically unreliable. Indeed, that not a single report of a postbiblical miracle is accurate.
That degree of skepticism is both biblically and philosophically untenable. Indeed, it's ultimately self-refuting–since the skeptic must inevitability rely on testimonial evidence for most of what he himself believes.
The reason that some Calvinists back themselves into this corner is due to their reductionistic view of miracles. Believing that the only function of miracles is evidentiary, they must then disallow all postbiblical or extrabiblical miracles for fear that once you concede their occurrence, they will be invoked to attest the claims of a rival religion.
But that conclusion follows from their false premise–as I’ve discussed on more than one occasion.
1.) You're making your mistake again, that belief in Jesus is of the same category as necromancy. Let the atheists ride the hobby horse.
ReplyDelete2.) The "closing of the canon" argument is central to dispensationalism, not Calvinism, although some make this argument. Rather, both the spectacular miracles and the ongoing canon attest to the progression of the covenants leading to the establishment of the Church.
3.) Note that I said spectacular miracles. We have non-spectacular miracles all the time, but they aren't the sort of thing that provoke these debates. For example, I believe that God providentially brought me to salvation and answered my prayers. Also, we have the Means of Grace. These are mediated instrumentalities that bring us to God. Technically, these are miracles, but they aren't the sort of things that excite non-cessationists.
4.) There is some doubt as to whether "postbiblical miracles is well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy." Reformed orthodoxy is defined by confessions ("those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.") even though such things give you fits.
5.) We have an historic example of scandal erupting when cessation was seen as a "a point of liberty within Reformed theology." Many people believed that people were covenanting with the Devil looking for magic powers. This led to witch trials. Calvinists were not alone in this, but the black mark isn't going away soon. If we intend to keep the purity and peace of the Church, perhaps such liberties are not a good thing.
6.) I don't see the problem with dismissing all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles. You claim that one is selling out to the world, the flesh and David Hume, but that is not necessarily so.
For example: Miracles establish the faith. If there are miracles that do NOT establish the faith, that may indeed be evidence against the faith. If there are paranormal events going on everywhere, then maybe Biblical miracles are not special after all.
In reply to your first objection, I'll simply post my reply to that same objection, which I addressed on another post:
ReplyDelete“Briefly put, that wasn't my point. Rather, I object to this crazy implication that believing in Jesus is somehow in the same category with necromancy.”
That’s a complete misrepresentation of what I said and did. Carrier made a blanket statement: “Nor am I even arguing that ‘no resurrections now means none then’ on the false analogy that ordinary people today are like Jesus. Since Jesus was a special case, you might say, obviously his resurrection hasn't been repeated. But my argument has nothing to do with this analogy. It has to do with the fact that "no miracles now means none then’--in other words, it would not be necessary to repeat the exact same miracles of Jesus to change my conclusion. All that is needed is the demonstration that God, like the laws of nature, is a regular, functioning part of what exists today, and that he actually has powers sufficient to work a resurrection. There is, in my experience, no such demonstration of present miracle-working, of any kind, sufficient to suggest that a particular miracle, like the resurrection of Jesus, is likely to be a miracle from a god. This is actually the way everyone thinks, all the time: we do not believe stories that come to us second-hand which contradict our direct experience, because each fact presents us with two possible realities, the only evidence of one is a story, the only evidence of the other is direct observation.”
That’s the sort of thing I was responding to. I even quoted a portion.
i) Therefore, I cited testimonial evidence from the patristic era through the modern era reporting on miraculous, occultic, and/or paranormal phenomena–all of which are sufficient to falsify his claim.
ii) Whether this is in the “same” category as dominical miracles is wholly irrelevant to the point at issue since Carrier himself said “it would not be necessary to repeat the exact same miracles of Jesus to change [his] conclusion.”
iii) And my examples were hardly limited to necromancy. That’s a patently false description on your part.
iv) Finally, what you personally think believing in Jesus in analogous or disanalogous to is also irrelevant. I was merely answering Carrier on his own grounds–which is not the same as giving my own reasons for why we should believe in biblical miracles.
"The 'closing of the canon' argument is central to dispensationalism, not Calvinism, although some make this argument. Rather, both the spectacular miracles and the ongoing canon attest to the progression of the covenants leading to the establishment of the Church."
ReplyDeleteActually, the "closing of the canon" argument is one of O. P. Robertson's primary arguments for cessationism. Cf. The Final Word (Banner of Truth 2004), 56-60. I guess that makes Robertson a crypto-Dispensationalist.
"There is some doubt as to whether 'postbiblical miracles is well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy.' Reformed orthodoxy is defined by confessions ("those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.") even though such things give you fits."
ReplyDeleteSo, by your lights, even Calvin, as well as Westminster Divines like Rutherford and Gillespie are heretics.
We have an historic example of scandal erupting when cessation was seen as a 'a point of liberty within Reformed theology.' Many people believed that people were covenanting with the Devil looking for magic powers. This led to witch trials. Calvinists were not alone in this, but the black mark isn't going away soon. If we intend to keep the purity and peace of the Church, perhaps such liberties are not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteOf course, traditional Calvinists also get black marks for trying to enforce the Westminster Directory of Worship.
BTW, do you think that Cotton Mather was a heretic?
"For example: Miracles establish the faith. If there are miracles that do NOT establish the faith, that may indeed be evidence against the faith. If there are paranormal events going on everywhere, then maybe Biblical miracles are not special after all."
ReplyDeletei) That begs the question of the function of miracles. I'm waiting for an argument.
ii) In addition, you're raising objections I've already addressed in some detail. Try again.
iii) Finally, you're reasoning just like a Catholic: posit an unacceptable consequence, then deny that God would ever allow it.
"I don't see the problem with dismissing all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles."
ReplyDeleteYou don't even attempt to present a direct counterargument.
"For example: Miracles establish the faith. If there are miracles that do NOT establish the faith, that may indeed be evidence against the faith. If there are paranormal events going on everywhere, then maybe Biblical miracles are not special after all."
ReplyDeleteOf course, that merely corroborates one of my arguments: that men like you are just a short step from apostasy. You'd only need to experience one postapostolic miracle, and your faith would collapse.
I'm a Calvinist and continuationist and I appreciate this blog. Here's a short list of notable Calvinists who are also continuationists rather than cessationists.
ReplyDeleteJohn Piper (www.desiringgod.org ) Known for his books like Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist etc.
Does he really need an introduction??
**********
Wayne Grudem known for his Introduction to Systematic Theology, his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament, and his defense of the Vineyard Movement.
**********
the late J. Rodman Williams (considered the father of the modern Renewal Theology. Was theologian and Professor of Renewal Theology at Pat Robertson's Regent University in Virginia Beachand. He was a Presbyterian btw.)
**********
Sam Storms (www.enjoyinggodministries.com) Has written books in defense of Calvinism and continuationist theology. Among his books are:
Chosen for Life:The Case for Divine Election
The Beginner's Guide to Spiritual Gifts
Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist
**********
Vincent Cheung controversial Calvinist apologist. In his written works he clearly rejects cessationism. Among the works included are:
Biblical Healing
Faith to Move Mountains
Teach the Nations
Cessationism and Rebellion
Cessationism and Speaking in Tongues
all of which can be found at his website (www.vincentcheung.com)
**********
Johanes Lilik Susanto
(Doctoral Thesis etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-06262008-113048/unrestricted/thesis.pdf )
Oh, and I forgot Matt Slick who is the author of the popular Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (AKA "CARM")
ReplyDelete(www.carm.org)
and
The Calvinist Corner (www.calvinistcorner.com)
He has brief biographies of early Calvinists who apparently moved in the charismatic gifts including John Knox, Robert Fleming, George Wishart.
"I cited testimonial evidence from the patristic era through the modern era reporting on miraculous, occultic, and/or paranormal phenomena–all of which are sufficient to falsify his claim."
ReplyDeleteThis is a problem for Carrier, I guess. Not for me. I have more grounds not to believe in ongoing miracles today that he does. I have an infallible standard of faith and practice, while he just has his own reason.
"And my examples were hardly limited to necromancy. That’s a patently false description on your part."
It is not false, because you clearly hint that somebody, somewhere may talk to the dead. You accept the atheist's term and concept of "paranormal," which is loaded to equate Christianity and voodoo. It is a blasphemy. You are the one letting the non-Christian concepts drive our argument.
"Actually, the "closing of the canon" argument is one of O. P. Robertson's primary arguments for cessationism... I guess that makes Robertson a crypto-Dispensationalist."
You're poisoning the well. I said that many Calvinists make the argument, although it means more to Dispensations. If you conclude I said OPR is a "crypto-Dispensationalist," then you are making things up. You have a habit of making this sort of argument. Please stop, because outsiders think you represent the Reformed faith.
"So, by your lights, even Calvin, as well as Westminster Divines like Rutherford and Gillespie are heretics."
This is more poisoning the well. If you want people to take you seriously, you should not do this. Of course, maybe you don't, for all I know.
"Of course, traditional Calvinists also get black marks for trying to enforce the Westminster Directory of Worship."
Very few people even know the WD exists. Besides, the Anglican attempt to force-feed people the BCP was the real atrocity. Every educated person knows about witch trials.
"BTW, do you think that Cotton Mather was a heretic?"
I think Cotton Mather shows the problem of people holding a theology of ongoing miracles and trying to put it into practice.
"That begs the question of the function of miracles. I'm waiting for an argument... You don't even attempt to present a direct counterargument."
Every time someone says something you disagree with, you claim they haven't made an argument.
"Finally, you're reasoning just like a Catholic: posit an unacceptable consequence, then deny that God would ever allow it."
Aren't the Salem atrocities an unacceptable consequence? :-)
"You'd only need to experience one postapostolic miracle, and your faith would collapse."
1.) You called me a apostate before, equating me with papists and Mohammedans. Now I am "a short step from apostasy." Does this mean you are lightening up?
2.) My experience holds no authority in religious matters. Your argument is like those who claimed that if one did not believe in witches, one would soon reject Christ. What kind of slippery slope nonsense is that?
3.) Again, when you run out of serious argumentation, you simply start insulting people. Do you understanding that mud-slinging only makes you look silly?
"He has brief biographies of early Calvinists who apparently moved in the charismatic gift..."
ReplyDeleteThere were early Calvinists who believed in baptismal regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and single imputation. So what? We're later Calvinists, if "we" are even Calvinists. Besides, according to Steve, Calvinism itself is just another man-made tradition.
Actually, early Calvinism had a perfectly good doctrine of cessation. They used it against Rome all the time. But they neglected to be consistent against demonic and charismatic claims.
annoyed pinoy why is vincent cheung controversial?
ReplyDelete"Actually, early Calvinism had a perfectly good doctrine of cessation."
ReplyDelete1.) I found a definition of cessationism: "the doctrine that extraordinary revelation ceased with
the close of the biblical canon." This view is inadequate.
"Cessation" is a bad term that implies a Dispie reading of salvation history: that certain gifts were free-floating in the Church until they did or did not stop. This whole reading is wrong. In fact, I will go so far as to say the standard "closing of the canon" argument is not enough. Rather, miracles are special acts initiated by God to support His covenant.
2.) In fact. we DO have miracles today. Regeneration is a miracle. The Eucharist is a miracle. So is ordinary answered prayer. What we DON'T have are sensational events that thrill a wicked and adulterous generation seeking a sign.
3.) I don't call myself a cessationist, even though I do not believe in sensational miracles. I call myself a follower of covenant theology. Once you understand what God is doing in history, as revealed in the progress of redemption, these questions are easier to answer.
4.) Both the cessationist and non-cessationist stock arguments imply a Baptist-pietist view on the metaphysical relationship between God and man, commonly known as soul competency. Man supposedly has a right to approach God as a naked soul, unmediated by the means of grace. As a result, those looking for miracles today are implicitly denying the sufficiency and the finality of the Covenant of Grace, which includes sola scriptura. Simply standing on the promises of God's Word is "quenching the Spirit," therefore we're supposed to look for something else to complete our faith.
4.) At least the charismatics believe God uses miracles to help his people. Steve appears open to the possibility that the Devil is allowed to run around scaring random people and driving them crazy. If there was real poltergeist activity out there, what point would it serve? Are we to believe that demons are running around like Islamic terrorists, hurting people here and there to make a point?
"annoyed pinoy why is vincent cheung controversial?"
ReplyDeleteChueng writes loosely worded defenses of Gordon Clark's philosophy, which creates shrieking and hysteria in some circles. Since he is a quasi-charismatic, I guess he is acceptable now.
JAMES VANDENBERG SAID:
ReplyDelete“It is not false, because you clearly hint that somebody, somewhere may talk to the dead.”
Like Samuel, Moses, and Elijah.
And you also fail to distinguish between what’s possible and what’s permissible.
“You accept the atheist's term and concept of "paranormal," which is loaded to equate Christianity and voodoo. It is a blasphemy. You are the one letting the non-Christian concepts drive our argument.”
Parapsychology simply studies a certain type of phenomena. It didn’t invent the phenomena. Rather, it examines a range of things that occur, or apparently occur, in the world around us. The same world that God made and put us in. It’s no different than any other historical or scientific investigation of mundane events.
Moreover, some paranormal phenomena overlap with miraculous phenomena in Scripture. There is nothing unscriptural about this.
“You're poisoning the well. I said that many Calvinists make the argument, although it means more to Dispensations. If you conclude I said OPR is a ‘crypto-Dispensationalist,’ then you are making things up. You have a habit of making this sort of argument. Please stop, because outsiders think you represent the Reformed faith.”
Robertson is a leading proponent of Reformed cessationism.
“This is more poisoning the well. If you want people to take you seriously, you should not do this. Of course, maybe you don't, for all I know.”
To the contrary, I’m answering you on your own terms. I cited material involving Calvin, Rutherford, and Gillespie to document my statement about what falls within the parameters of Reformed orthodoxy. You, in turn, challenged by statement.
So, then, if you think that falls outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, then that commits you to the proposition that Calvin, as well as Westminster Divines like Rutherford and Gillespie, fall outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy. Therefore, you must regard them as heterodox.
It’s simple logic from a premise that you yourself supplied. If you lack the emotional maturity to deal with someone who responds to you on your own grounds, then you need to grow up.
“I think Cotton Mather shows the problem of people holding a theology of ongoing miracles and trying to put it into practice.”
You’re ducking the question. Was he a heretic?
“Every time someone says something you disagree with, you claim they haven't made an argument.”
Which is just another conspicuous attempt on your part to dodge the burden of proof.
“Aren't the Salem atrocities an unacceptable consequence? :-)”
Now your resorting to the same tactics which Hitchens and Dawkins use to discredit the Christian faith.
“You called me a apostate before, equating me with papists and Mohammedans.”
I equated your mindset with papists and Mohammedans. And you never miss an opportunity to corroborate my comparison.
“Your argument is like those who claimed that if one did not believe in witches, one would soon reject Christ. What kind of slippery slope nonsense is that?”
It’s a logical consequences of a premise which you yourself supplied.
“Again, when you run out of serious argumentation, you simply start insulting people. Do you understanding that mud-slinging only makes you look silly?”
I present arguments. You present assertions and denials. I then point out that your modus operandi is irrational.
I hold you to the same standards as I hold a papist or atheist to. And, thus far, you’ve proven yourself to be no improvement. Indeed, some papists and atheists do a better job than you have.
“Besides, according to Steve, Calvinism itself is just another man-made tradition.”
That’s a deliberate caricature of my position. Since you’re impotent to mount a counterargument, you retreat into straw man attacks. But that’s fine. That’s a tacit admission that you lost the argument.
“Steve appears open to the possibility that the Devil is allowed to run around scaring random people and driving them crazy.”
Like King Saul.
“Reformed orthodoxy is defined by confessions (‘those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.’) even though such things give you fits.”
That’s reflects a very simplistic grasp of Reformed identity. It’s ultimately up to presbyteries and general assemblies to interpret, apply, and enforce Reformed confessions, creeds, catechisms, &c.
Reformed identity is not reducible to a piece of paper. It requires a living church. Creeds and confessions are not self-defining.
"For example: Miracles establish the faith. If there are miracles that do NOT establish the faith, that may indeed be evidence against the faith. If there are paranormal events going on everywhere, then maybe Biblical miracles are not special after all."
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t that objection apply, with equal force, to demonic miracles–the occurrence of which you admit?
"Wouldn’t that objection apply, with equal force, to demonic miracles–the occurrence of which you admit?"
ReplyDeleteGod decreed all that comes to pass in history, Demonic miracles are part of this and therefore they held establish the covenant as well. Since redemptive history is closed, so are the miracles.
"I equated your mindset with papists and Mohammedans. And you never miss an opportunity to corroborate my comparison."
You know, you say you make all these great arguments for your position, then I see mud-slinging like this. What's the use?
"That’s a deliberate caricature of my position [on Calvinism]."
Your attacks on confessional identity are constant and predate me showing up here. They are best ignored.
"Now your resorting to the same tactics which Hitchens and Dawkins use to discredit the Christian faith."
More mud-slinging. Am I supposed to take this seriously?
"I present arguments."
You poison the well. You call names. You make slippery slopes. These are not arguments. We call this verbal abuse and it is no more justified when a Christian does it than when an a pagan does. In fact, I expect heathen to behave this way. What's your excuse?
I find it amusing that you can dish it out, but are so thin-skinned ourself. If you want to be churlish, you better believe someone will throw back.
JAMES VANDENBERG SAID:
ReplyDelete“God decreed all that comes to pass in history, Demonic miracles are part of this and therefore they held establish the covenant as well. Since redemptive history is closed, so are the miracles.”
God decreed all that comes to pass in history, toothpaste is part of this and therefore toothpaste helps to establish the covenant as well. Since redemptive history is closed, toothpaste came to an end with the death of the apostles.
“If there are paranormal events going on everywhere, then maybe Biblical miracles are not special after all.”
ReplyDelete“God decreed all that comes to pass in history, Demonic miracles are part of this and therefore they held establish the covenant as well.”
God decreed all that comes to pass in history, paranormal events are part of this and therefore they help establish the covenant as well.
“You make slippery slopes.”
To the contrary, I draw conclusions from premises which you yourself supply. By contrast, you resort to slippery slopes arguments–such as the following:
“We have an historic example of scandal erupting when cessation was seen as a "a point of liberty within Reformed theology." Many people believed that people were covenanting with the Devil looking for magic powers. This led to witch trials. Calvinists were not alone in this, but the black mark isn't going away soon. If we intend to keep the purity and peace of the Church, perhaps such liberties are not a good thing.”
LonelyBoy said... annoyed pinoy why is vincent cheung controversial?
ReplyDeleteHe holds to a modified form of Clarkian Scripturalism and Axiomatic (AKA Dogmatic or Deductive or Rational) Presuppositionalism.
Both Steve and Paul have criticized his approach on this blog. As well as Aquascum (whoever that masked superhero is).
http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/
Some Calvinists take the position that all miracles came to an end with the death of the apostlesReally? I've never known anyone to take that position. Can you name some?
ReplyDelete