Pages

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Confessionalism & continuationism

Cessationism can refer to one of both of the following propositions: there is no postbiblical public or private revelation; there are no postbiblical miracles.

The Westminster Confession is often cited as a cessationist document due to a clause in chapter 1:


The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (WCF 1.10).

However, the interpretation of this clause is controversial because some Westminster Divines, and other Reformed luminaries, reputedly believed in private revelation. Whether or not the position attributed to them is correct is a matter of ongoing scholarly dispute. For instance:


However, I’d like to approach the issue from a different angle. Indeed, I’ve discussed this before, but I’ll like to make an additional point. The Confessional also says:


There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God (WCF 25.6).

Although this article has been redacted out of some modern editions of the Confession, for now I’m simply interested in the viewpoint of the Westminster Divines.

The prooftexts given for this identification are Mt 23, 2 Thes 2, and Rev 13. In his exposition of Rev 13, John Gill furnishes a more detailed illustration of this exegetical tradition. For instance:


speaking great things, and blasphemies; great swelling words of vanity; calling himself by high and lofty titles, as Christ's vicar, Peter's successor, head of the church, universal bishop, &c. promising great things to his followers, riches, honours, pleasures, pardons, and heaven itself; and uttering things of a blasphemous kind, or great blasphemies, the particulars of which are mentioned in Revelation 13:6; so the little horn, who is the same with the Romish antichrist, is said to have a mouth speaking great things, very great things, and his look more stout than his fellows, Daniel 7:8.

And I beheld another beast,.... The same with the first, only in another form; the same for being and person, but under a different consideration; the same antichrist, but appearing in another light and view: the first beast is the pope of Rome, at the head of the ten kingdoms, of which the Roman empire consisted; this other beast is the same pope of Rome, with his clergy, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, &c. before he is described as a temporal monarch, now as a spiritual lord; there he is represented in his secular character, as having the seat, power, and authority of the dragon, of Rome Pagan, engaging the attention and wonder of the whole world, and striking terror into them, and as making war with the saints, and ruling over all nations and tongues; here in his ecclesiastic character, pretending great humility and holiness, showing signs and lying wonders, obliging to idolatry, and exercising tyranny and cruelty on all that will not profess his religion: that this is the same beast with the first in substance, though not in show, appears from his exercising the same power, causing all to worship the first beast, or himself as a temporal lord, by which he is supported in his spiritual dignity; and by mention being made only of one beast, at the close of this account, and of his mark, name, and number being but one; nor is there any other but one hereafter spoken, of in this book, either as ruling, or as conquered, and as taken, and as going into perdition, and as cast into the lake…

My point is not to assess the merits of this interpretation. Rather, I’m discussing the issue from the standpoint of historical theology.

One implication of this interpretation is that it cuts against cessationism. If the pope is the Antichrist, and the papacy has the powers ascribed to the Beast in Rev 13, then ecclesiastical miracles are to be expected. Thus far, these would be confined to the Roman communion, and they would be occultic miracles.

But if we operate within this exegetical framework, then this seems to undercut cessationism on another front. If the Beast represents the papacy, what do the two witnesses (Rev 11) represent? Continuing with Gill:


And I will give power unto my two witnesses,.... By whom are meant, not Enoch and Elias, as some of the ancient fathers thought, who, they supposed, would come before the appearance of Christ, and oppose antichrist, and be slain by him, which sense the Papists greedily catch at; nor are the Scriptures, the two Testaments, Old and New, designed, though their name and number agree, and also their office, which is to testify of Christ; but then to be clothed in sackcloth, to be killed, and rise again, and ascend to heaven, are things that cannot so well be accommodated to them: but these witnesses intend the ministers of the Gospel and churches of Christ, who have bore testimony for Christ, and against antichrist, ever since he appeared in the world; and particularly the churches and ministers in Piedmont bid fair for this character; who were upon the spot when antichrist arose, always bore their protest against him, and were ever independent of the church of Rome, and subsisted in the midst of the darkness of the apostasy; and suffered much, and very great persecutions, from the Papists; and have stood their ground, and continue to this day; and have been like olive trees and candlesticks, imparting oil and light to others. Though they ought not to be considered exclusive of other ministers and churches, who also have bore, and still do bear a witness for Christ, and against the idolatries of the church of Rome: no two individual persons can be meant, since these witnesses were to prophesy 1260 days, that is, so many years, but a succession of ministers and churches…

So there’s a sense in which the two witnesses are the counterpart to the Beast. If the Beast represents the false church (i.e. Rome), then the two witnesses represent the true church. If the Antichrist of Rev 13 is the pope, then the two witnesses of Rev 11 are the godly remnant, who stand opposed to the apostate church of Rome.

(Incidentally, most modern scholars agree with Gill that the two witnesses represent the church.)

But this, in turn, requires another parallel. Both the Beast and the two witnesses perform miracles. If we literally ascribe lying wonders to the Antichrist, which we equate with the papacy, then, by parity of argument, we should literally ascribe counter-miracles to representatives of the Protestant church.

Once again, my immediate point is not to evaluate this exegetical tradition, but to analyse the text of the Confession on its own terms, including the exegetical traditional undergirding the Confession. Within that framework, the Confession seems to commit adherents to continuationism.

19 comments:

  1. Arguably the strongest place in the WCF suggesting strict cessationism is where it says, "..which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

    But when the WCF says that "private spirits" are to be judged by the supreme and highest authority of Scripture, it suggests to me that the framers of the Confession were acknowledging that there are (or can be) such private (i.e. not public, non-infallible, and non-universally binding) revelations that sometimes really do come from God (either immediately or mediately via angels). Otherwise, why include "privates spirits" along with "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men" which are to be judged/tested?

    If they were taking a strong stand for strict cessationism, then there would be no point, or at least lessened reason, to include private spirits to be judged, since they would have a priori ruled out of hand the possibility of their having come from God.

    Also, I think there is a good case for 1. some of the framers of the WCF, 2. their contemporaries, 3. those who immediately preceded and 4. immediately came after them to have had such private revelations. So, at the very least I think (some of) the WCF framers' spiritual experience happened to be broader than their Creed/Confession allowed for; leading to a happy inconsistency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chapter 1 section 6
      The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

      This passage rules out post-Biblical inspired revelation on par with Scripture which can be added to Scripture. But it doesn't necessary rule out private revelations that are not public and which are not to be considered on par with Scripture. Whereas the statement in chapter 1 section 1 could be interpreted to bar the reality/possiblity of private revelations where it says, "...those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

      Delete
    2. Reading what Steve linked to, Wayne Grudem wrote:
      I may add a personal note at this point: When I first found this material in Baxter, I photocopied these two pages and sent them to J. I. Packer, whose doctoral dissertation at Oxford was on Baxter's work. Packer sent back the following note:

      By the way, some weeks ago you faxed me an extract from Baxter about God making personal informative revelations. This was the standard Puritan view, as I have observed it—they weren't cessationists in the Richard Gaffin sense.15
      [bold added by me]

      WOW!!!!!!!!! What a quote. That's coming from Packer who's well know for being well versed in the writings of the Puritans. The quote is not in my copy of Grudem's book which is a first printed edition, but it is in the revised edition (as it is on Amazon.com HERE).

      Delete
    3. Annoyed Pinoy,
      Can you give an example of private revelation in your own life?

      Delete
    4. starkle, private revelations can be very private. Hence the name (heh). I can't think of a private revelation or any other kind of supernatural experience that I've had that I feel comfortable sharing in this medium. Not all have been "revelatory" per se (though some have been). I have Christian friends (and friends of friends) who've had even more extraordinary experiences than I have and some of them have gone to cessationist Bible institutes like Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL) or have graduated from seminaries like Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL), or Biblical Theological Seminary (Hatfield, PA).

      Delete
  2. Steve Hays: "Once again, my immediate point is not to evaluate this exegetical tradition, but to analyse the text of the Confession on its own terms, including the exegetical traditional undergirding the Confession. Within that framework, the Confession seems to commit adherents to continuationism."

    Interesting argument. If I recall correctly, R.C. Sproul is a Confessionalist and he's also speaking at the 2013 Truth Matters conference which will tackle the theme of Charismaticism this year.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The first lecture at THIS LINK Sproul relates the following story (which I'll recall from memory, though I haven't listened to it in a while). If I recall the story correctly, Sproul said when he was young he was once in a situation where he didn't know whether to go work for another seminary where he was offered a job or stay where he currently was at. So he decided to have an intense night of prayer (and I think fasting) with his wife and friends (who were either there or praying on their own). They were praying that if possible God could make it clear whether he should go or not; using, if necessary some unusual way. Then in the middle of the night (2 AM) he woke up and answered a phone call from a childhood friend/acquaintance. The son of a friend of his mother. He hadn't spoken to this person in years. What surprised him was what his friend said. His friend said that for the past hour (or more) he'd been frantically trying to contact him (trying to find someone who had R.C.'s phone number) because that night he was suddenly struck by an urgent sense that God was telling him to tell Sproul he should take the new job. It's funny how Sproul admits his complete befuddlement as to what to do with strange occurrence and how to respond. If anyone wants to know what happened, they can listen to the story themselves. heh heh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oops, this was supposed to be a reply to TUAD's post.

      Delete
  4. Is that the contention of cessationism? Isn't the point of cessationism that miraculous gifts have stopped, not that miracles in themselves have ceased? That, at least, is how I've always understood it, with particular emphasis on tongues and prophecy.

    Annoyed Pinoy, have you seen the debate between Ian Hamilton and Wayne Grudem on prophecy ("private revelations")? Hamilton (cessationist) argues that prophecy is a revelation from God which binds the conscience, which seems to put it on par with the Bible. Given that the immediate context of the NT is the OT, should we not understand prophecy in the NT as being the same thing as in the OT- an authoritative revelation from God which binds the conscience of the one who receives it, as well as any who hear it? Obviously this has implications for the idea of canonical closure. If that's the case, then R. C. Sproul would have been sinning had he failed to heed the prophecy received by his friend, no, were prophecy still around?

    Here's the link: http://vimeo.com/37169587

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas Keningley

      "Is that the contention of cessationism? Isn't the point of cessationism that miraculous gifts have stopped, not that miracles in themselves have ceased? That, at least, is how I've always understood it, with particular emphasis on tongues and prophecy."

      i) First of all, I think cessationists have a general objection to postbiblical "private revelations", whether dreams, visions, auditions, angelic apparitions, &c. It wouldn't have to be a "gift" to be revelatory, and therefore verboten.

      ii) I framed my discussion in terms of Westminster view of the papacy. Doesn't that implicitly ascribe occultic miracles to the papacy? That would make it "official." Tied to the person or office of the papal Antichrist.

      Delete
    2. Steve: Yes, I would agree that there is an objection to private revelations en toto within cessationism, being a special case with regard to closure of the canon. So I think that kind of cessationism would be somewhere between your two definitions- it's not just public and private revelations have stopped, but also certain miraculous gifts within the church (e.g. tongues).

      Yes I suppose Westminster would do that, although one could simply say that the Antichrist is a special case, and precisely is supposed to stand out and be significant amongst the world and church and gain followers by impressing people with his miraculous powers, which would be rather less impressive on continuationism. I don't think accepting his working occultic miracles would defeat cessationism in principle, as cessationism is framed around the normal working of the church, not significant eschatological figures.

      Delete
    3. Thomas Keningley

      "I don't think accepting his working occultic miracles would defeat cessationism in principle, as cessationism is framed around the normal working of the church, not significant eschatological figures."

      Except, as I point out, that there's an ecclesiastical counterpart in the two witnesses.

      Delete
    4. Annoyed Pinoy, have you seen the debate between Ian Hamilton and Wayne Grudem on prophecy ("private revelations")? Hamilton (cessationist) argues that prophecy is a revelation from God which binds the conscience, which seems to put it on par with the Bible.

      Thanks for the link. I watched it yesterday. I thought Grudem sufficiently answered Hamilton's objections. Grudem says more in his books in defense of his view. Here's a LINK to my current (and changing) views on OT prophecy that indirectly addresses that criticism. I'm not dogmatic in my answer. Grudem thinks there was one kind of OT prophecy, while NT prophecy is two tiered (though sometimes he says there's one kind of NT prophecy, but that Apostolic prophecy is infallible and conscience binding in a way that local congregation prophecy isn't). There's even one theologian who argues that both NT AND OT prophecy was two tiered. My current view is similar to the later view. Two tiers where one can move from the lower tier to the higher tier by building a reputation as an accurate prophet (with the obvious requirement for being doctrinally orthodox and morally upright). See my comments in my link above. I believe the OT command of the death penalty for false prophecy applied to those who claimed to speak directly and infallibly from YHWH in a conscience binding way over everyone. There are OT examples of people whom God spoke to (either via direct voice, dream, vision, angelic visitation and message etc.) who didn't claim to be the kind of infallible Prophet (capital "P") who can bind people's conscience. For example, Manoah and his wife received a visitation of the Angel of the LORD (probably the pre-incarnate Christ) who spoke in YHWH's name a message which Manoah and his wife were free to repeat to others without fearing that if it was discovered that the message was later proved false that they would be stoned.

      Delete
    5. My point is that God could speak to anyone in the OT no matter how seemingly insignificant they were without fear of being stoned to death if the message proved false. Can you imagine Manoah and his wife keeping secret the Angelic visitation least they be stoned to death if the prophecy of a birth proved false? Could you imagine them wringing their hands if they had accidentally or intentionally told someone of the angelic prophecy (which they believed ultimately came from God)? There was no time limit as to when they would bear a son. So, it could have been years later. But if one of them died before the other, then the survivor would end up being a false prophet worthy of death if the traditional understanding of OT prophecy were true. Obviously, anyone in the OT could receive a revelation from God. I believe the same is true under the New Covenant. If you think about it, the greatest available spiritual gift in the NT was not teaching (cf. the warning in James 3:1), nor was it the gift of speaking in tongues (since Paul seems to place it at the bottom of the list if not interpreted). Rather it's the gift of prophecy. Repeatedly Paul encourages EVERYONE to earnestly/eagerly seek that spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1; 5; 24; 39 cf. Acts 2:17-18). Imagine the Corinthians responding back to Paul saying, "You may encourage ALL of us to seek the gift of prophecy Paul, but nah, we pass on that. We don't want to be excommunicated for accidentally giving false prophecies." Excommunication of course being the NT counterpart to OT execution for false prophecy. If the traditional understanding (e.g. Ian Hamilton) of NT prophecy is correct then there would be no point in Paul's admonition to test prophecies and hold fast what is good (1 Thess. 5:21). Notice that if Hamilton's understanding were correct, then it should have said "hold fast HE who is good." That is, judging a good prophet from a bad prophet, rather than a good prophecy from a bad prophecy. All prophets and prophecies (including those who in the past were acknowledged by all to be genuine) were supposed to be tested. No one was exempt. Not Peter (Ga. 2:11), nor Paul (Gal. 1:8). See also Rev. 2:2. Acts 17:11 was the method by which anyone claiming a prophecy or word from God was to be tested. Obviously the Bereans were not yet sure that Jesus was the Messiah and that Paul was one of His apostles. But the same testing applied even afterwards.

      Delete
    6. BTW, just because the Apostles were not exempt from being tested doctrinally, that doesn't mean they couldn't bind the conscience of believers because each Apostle was accountable to and (ideally endorsed by) the other Apostles so that if (hypothetically) an Apostle went rogue, he could be corrected (Gal. 2:11) or excommunicated.c It took a while for Paul to go up to Jerusalem to get endorsed by the other Apostles because he believed (rightly in this case) that he was specially commissioned by Christ. However, neither he (Gal. 1:8; 2:2d) nor any other Apostle was exempt from correction. Also, each of the Apostles, while they were the NT equivalents to OT Prophets (capital "P"), were nevertheless conscious of the fact that their authority was subordinate to the OT prophets as they speak through their Canonical writings (i.e. the indisputable, inspired, inerrant, infallible, supremely authoritative Holy Scriptures). To the degree the Apostles were faithful to the OT Scriptures, and the teaching of the Messiah (who was prophesied by the Scriptures) whom they claimed *sent* (i.e. "Apostled") them, they were able to bind the conscience of the people of God.


      typo correction: Can you imagine Manoah and his wife keeping secret the Angelic visitation [LEST] they be stoned to death if the prophecy of a birth proved false?

      I retract the following statement in light of 1 Cor. 14:5.
      "...(since Paul seems to place it at the bottom of the list if not interpreted)..."

      Delete
    7. I said, "My point is that God could speak to anyone in the OT no matter how seemingly insignificant they were [e.g. "nobodies" socially, religiously, or politically speaking]..." and earlier "I believe the OT command of the death penalty for false prophecy applied to those who claimed to speak directly and infallibly from YHWH in a conscience binding way over everyone. That is, someone claiming to speak to the entire nation of Israel as a God appointed Prophet who had the authority to bind the conscience of others (indeed everyone). God's OT theocratic rule over Israel was direct and once someone was recognized as a Prophet of God (via the process I mentioned above and in the link), they were the voice of God on earth. Whereas, the NT comes on the heels of 400 years of intertestamental silence on God's part. John the Baptist being the first prophet to come on the scene to break the silence. Jesus, being the the greatest prophet of all (indeed God in the flesh), He spoke with absolute authority on God's behalf. But an authority that wasn't really recognized for what it fully was until after the the resurrection and ascension. The Apostles were Christ's ambassadors and representatives in an incarnational way (rather than the direct way the OT Prophets were theocratically). That's another reason why the Apostles saw themselves as subordinate to the OT Prophets even though they were their NT counterparts.

      Delete
    8. I believe anyone could receive a revelation from God in the OT, but few were warranted to expect a revelation from God. That's in stark contrast to the NT/New Covenant where Christians can have a personal and intimate relationship with God who speaks to them. Jesus said, "It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me..." (John 6:45); "My sheep hear my voice..." (John 10:27a); and John writes "But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you...his anointing teaches you about everything..." (1 John 2:26). Just as it was prophesied in the OT "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD..." (Jer. 31:34).

      To be a prophet/Prophet in the OT was an extremely high calling. Yet in contrast to that, in the NT EVERYONE was encouraged to prophesy. How then could anyone say that OT prophecy by a nationally recognized Prophet (capital "p") (e.g. Isaiah) was the exact same kind of prophecy as found in the NT??? I mean, prophets were so common that one man had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). As Grudem points out, not one prophecy from a local congregation has been recorded in Scripture. That really only makes sense if there was a distinction between Apostolic prophecy and the prophecies of local church prophets (as Grudem pointed out).

      Delete
  5. Steve: Yes, but given the apocalyptic language I'm not sure why we should take the miracles performed by the witnesses as being literal- it seems to be referring back to Elijah and Moses. Indeed, the miracles that they perform hardly seem analogous to the kinds continuationists claim- gifts of healing, tongues, private revelation as opposed breathing fire and calling down some pretty serious plagues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not discussing what I personally think is the correct interpretation. Rather, I'm pointing out that if we accept the traditional Westminster interpretation of Rev 13 vis-a-vis a papal Antichrist, then, by analogy, we should interpret the two witnesses along the same lines. Either both cases involve the ability to work miracles, or neither does.

      Delete