Lets return to the broader picture again. Puritanism was the standard of religion. It should also be mentioned that the puritans were well aquainted with Prophetic visions. They could have addressed such visions head on to support cessationism but they did not. One asks why? These visions were a known means of introducting special revelation/heresy among the Quakers. Quakers openly practiced falsehoods because of them. Why is it that they instead addressed special revelation in revealing God's will for his people over a direct cause of (false in the Quaker's case) prophetic visions? Furthermore, this is to say that they only addressed 'new' special revelation. They do not address 'old' special revelation.
Without going much further down a rabbit hole, if special revelation is not new then it is hardly fit to be called a revelation at all. The revelation of opening and understanding one's Bible contrasted against the revelation of new doctrine is entirely distinct. This distinction is entirely able to be carried over into dealing with prophecy.
Revelation in this sense is not a revealing of doctrine but rather bringing old, eternal, and appropriate doctrine to the minds of a particular group. It is from this understanding that we should claim prophecy as being illumination apart from the means of reading the written text of the Bible. The very arguments of a closed cannon and special revelation among cessationists begin to vanish.
Now this distinction in no way signifies that prophecy is beyond or above the Bible. It rather positions prophecy below. The 'revelation' (hardly)/ prophecy that is disclosed is an old doctrine. It is singular and in no way the complete revelation of the Bible. In addition. Its partialness means that it is contained within something complete. We can say with certainty that all the old, eternal, and appropriate doctrines expressed in true prophecy are found in the Bible. All Prophecy must be below the Bible for its suffiecency/completeness deems it to be so. Prophecy must merely be content in revealing a small subset of old but eternal truths. Now checking this subset against the Bible is reasonable and valid of a test for evaluating prophecy arising from this.
One may counter this approach to prophecy by saying that the application of a prophectic word is a new revelation. This is to say that the new part is the application of the doctrine for an intended group. This is cannot be fitted into 'new' revelation either because the doctrine of the prophecy with its counterpart found in the Bible has benefits for all. For all scripture god-breathed and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and teaching. We agree that the very same truth of scripture applies to all. The biblical truth in prophecy applies to all as well. The distinction is that it is meant to be impressed upon a few.
This aim differs very little from the other actions of grace. Illumination likewise impresses truth upon a few, not all. The gospel impresses the truth upon many, but not all. The very intent of any special grace is always particular. This aim cannot be said to be new. It is within the special providence of God to dole out His grace, unmerited favor, as he wishes.
You may see hints of a Charismatic theology taking root. It seems that Puritans intentionally left exceptions to prophecy while excluding is as a potential source of heresy.
See part 3 for this to be worked out further with respect to showing it in the confessions. It shall prove the exceptions clearly.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
The Confession's Charismatic Confession part 1
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689..
This is a link to the Baptist confession of 1689. It is also a good educational tool. Feel free to read it. It is doctrinally sound. There are many equivalent passages that are taken directly from the Westminister confessional. (The sectons in the BCL are strictly plagerized everywhere but in a few places.)
When I read through it, I noted two things very carefully in the first section.
If we take this as a microcosm of Puritan belief. [These sections read identical in the Westminister Confessional.] It seems that this declaration affirms cessationism. This is hardly the case. Some may have embraced cessationism but this was not the order of business for all the signers back then.
I.1"Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."
I.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. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;"
For the small group of puritans known as baptists at the time to take up cessationism would be very odd. The churches that signed this confession did not believe this as I shall show. It would be odd because many baptists like Bunyan accepted spiritual gifts like prophecy. Bunyans autobiography makes it blatantly clear! Bunyan would have certainly been the most memorable baptist to date. Many of the earliest baptists were somewhat Charismatic. This is a throw back to their fading Anabaptist roots. Furthermore, Later baptists like Spurgeon did not go out of their way to deny that these things happened. Spurgeon even had instances of calling people out based on a prophetic revelation. He did not attribute them to the devil like some of his age. Although it was not a common practice as we understand it. Most occurances were behind the scenes. It may not have been a common practice solely because the puritans sought the greater spiritual gifts first. Conversion and piety. There was little room for seeking anything else. They sought the ordinary means that were far surpassing the extraordinary gifts. There is certainly something amiss here to allow cessationism a foothold. The puritans were not close to believeing it.
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Postmodern churches
The problem I see with postmodern churches is their readiness to develop new means. They do not hold tight to any previous means or previous belief. They are more open. They are also more skeptical. This is good if the previous things were in error. It is bad if they were correct and biblical or have no substitutes for the true doctrine that they are forgetting. Traditionalism says that certain (older/timeless) means and beliefs are in fact better than new means or beliefs that are not approved by God. Postmoderns may live the way God has called them to but they would do better to live it by truth not just spirit. A believer WILL worship God in both these things. God aught to be glorified in everything and clearly some means are not as glorious.
This argument against postmodernism is a strikingly similar frame as the argument between the Lutheran and Calvinists. The difference in the Protestants is that they opted for less Tradition so the Bible could become the rule of faith. It was so that what was unnecessary was not the main attraction. It differs because Postmoderns opt for no Tradition,(even biblical traditions) but by nature of the uncertainty of postmodernism they have no rule of faith to supercede it. Not evil the Bible anymore.
This similarity fits with idea of postmodernism because Protestants sought a different set of witnesses, or chosen associates, other than just catholic tradition. Namely, the Bible, at the top of those witnesses. Protestants wished to move sideways. Postmoderns have no where to go but downwards since they do not claim any existing rule of faith like Protestants do. There is no new Bible that they can hold as truly inspired. They say it is only about relationship to Jesus Christ. The problem, which Christ? Unfortunately, faith is now only subjective. This new rule of faith will always fall back onto natural (subjective) desires. The progress is also hindered in such a community because uncertainty of truth in any degree is the antithesis of a trusting belief in a truth, faith itself.
First In the "man-centered" world, the exercise of faith is superceded by ineffective excess to do that which seems good (ie entertaining to man) but this is in a medium that is low in content. It has too little words for a too little gospel.
Next, In the "community-centered" postmodern world, the exercise of faith will make some progress together, but not beyond that of the community. When assimilated into that group, there is less novelty in complete skepticism but there is still the equal uncertainty. I venture to say that many of the better Postmodern churches intuitively stress community since they recognize that it is binding on a true Christian. It aught to be truth that binds them. Non-Christians can have such fellowships without meaning. They are called knitting circles. In the "culture-centered" world, the (emerging church) EC creates their own subculture. It is similar to the community centered idea. It links postmodernism to house churches since they both act as a subculture which rethinks everything they do especially the means.
Now lets get into something that the EC needs to pick up, some Confessionalism. They need a belief and doctine. Anything that spreads and propagates without a purpose is a virus. The idea of confessionalism vs evangelical vs liberal is strange thing that has arisen. Some people place confessionalism into its own camp of Christians. I disagree, Confessionalism has benefits in evangelical circles. (Liberal circles are too far gone to mention anything about their confessions. They deal little with faith and too much with social action.) Confessionals are best considered to be premodern balance put in place by churches to fight postmodernism and liberalism. It places a testimony of the beliefs of their shared faith into a believer's hands. I see it as more of a method that would help fight decay than a separate camp. Bible illiteracy is at a all-time-high. At least in a confession, besides the Bible, you know that it is also heavy in content and truth. (Yet not inerrant). Perhaps this is putting too much in the hands of fallible christian men, but at least I trust them more than the Devil's. There are plenty of churches that have not moved despite a lack of a confession. A church should know exactly where to look to refute errors. A confession can be a reference.
The SBC seems to be doing a little better with their recent stress on the BMF and particularly biblical inerrancy at the seminaries. It is still nowhere near a true confessional for them. Some confessionalism is suited for dealing with postmodernist decay. The church's claim can stand solid before any skepticism by a postmodern. The problem with postmodernism is that everything is equally uncertain. With no adversary in writing, anything can be subjective and made to succumb to postmodernism.
The truth proclaimed in writing is also a very good tool to educate. Their is plenty of importance for this even if the confession is not considered binding. The church I attend is nonconfessional but strong in its beliefs with its polity and theology in order. In this they might get some benefit from the 1689 London confession by the Baptists because it is more condensed. They have drawn up documents that complement what is out there but they could do with some more. Part of the Westminister confessional/catechism with scripture references could fill such a gap. I should inqure about this in the Children's ministry.
In additon, A postmodern would need a little more earnestness. It has many implications to postmodernism. I tend to agree with Spurgeon on the necessity of earnestness in a preacher. You can't preach truth to a postmodern if you don't earnestly believe it to be true. You must be so earnest that they know that you do believe it is. You can't preach well if you don't earnestly feel for them, especially in their situation of boundage in sin. Nor can you preach well if you will not go as far as to plead for them to be reconcilled with God. Counterfeits are spotted. There needs to be some more plain speaking in churches today. Less oratory more conviction. This would do the most to impress truth upon people.
Let a preacher when he says that God became man say it with the full conviction as he would have with seeing Jesus himself. Let a preacher when he says Jesus died to save sinners say it with the full force of the angelic hosts. Let a preacher when he says that God poured out his wrath on our sins say it as if it happened yesterday. Let a peacher when he says that God's arm is not so short that it cannot save mean that for even the most vile sinner, even a mass murder!!! Was not the great Apostle Paul such. The wonderful deeds and doings of God cannot be forgotten in Evangelism. Yes, the glory and the power of God himself must be envoked. It cannot be something that is left to mold on rye toast. It cannot be something that is rejected just because it is but another shade of the rainbow of religion.
This argument against postmodernism is a strikingly similar frame as the argument between the Lutheran and Calvinists. The difference in the Protestants is that they opted for less Tradition so the Bible could become the rule of faith. It was so that what was unnecessary was not the main attraction. It differs because Postmoderns opt for no Tradition,(even biblical traditions) but by nature of the uncertainty of postmodernism they have no rule of faith to supercede it. Not evil the Bible anymore.
This similarity fits with idea of postmodernism because Protestants sought a different set of witnesses, or chosen associates, other than just catholic tradition. Namely, the Bible, at the top of those witnesses. Protestants wished to move sideways. Postmoderns have no where to go but downwards since they do not claim any existing rule of faith like Protestants do. There is no new Bible that they can hold as truly inspired. They say it is only about relationship to Jesus Christ. The problem, which Christ? Unfortunately, faith is now only subjective. This new rule of faith will always fall back onto natural (subjective) desires. The progress is also hindered in such a community because uncertainty of truth in any degree is the antithesis of a trusting belief in a truth, faith itself.
First In the "man-centered" world, the exercise of faith is superceded by ineffective excess to do that which seems good (ie entertaining to man) but this is in a medium that is low in content. It has too little words for a too little gospel.
Next, In the "community-centered" postmodern world, the exercise of faith will make some progress together, but not beyond that of the community. When assimilated into that group, there is less novelty in complete skepticism but there is still the equal uncertainty. I venture to say that many of the better Postmodern churches intuitively stress community since they recognize that it is binding on a true Christian. It aught to be truth that binds them. Non-Christians can have such fellowships without meaning. They are called knitting circles. In the "culture-centered" world, the (emerging church) EC creates their own subculture. It is similar to the community centered idea. It links postmodernism to house churches since they both act as a subculture which rethinks everything they do especially the means.
Now lets get into something that the EC needs to pick up, some Confessionalism. They need a belief and doctine. Anything that spreads and propagates without a purpose is a virus. The idea of confessionalism vs evangelical vs liberal is strange thing that has arisen. Some people place confessionalism into its own camp of Christians. I disagree, Confessionalism has benefits in evangelical circles. (Liberal circles are too far gone to mention anything about their confessions. They deal little with faith and too much with social action.) Confessionals are best considered to be premodern balance put in place by churches to fight postmodernism and liberalism. It places a testimony of the beliefs of their shared faith into a believer's hands. I see it as more of a method that would help fight decay than a separate camp. Bible illiteracy is at a all-time-high. At least in a confession, besides the Bible, you know that it is also heavy in content and truth. (Yet not inerrant). Perhaps this is putting too much in the hands of fallible christian men, but at least I trust them more than the Devil's. There are plenty of churches that have not moved despite a lack of a confession. A church should know exactly where to look to refute errors. A confession can be a reference.
The SBC seems to be doing a little better with their recent stress on the BMF and particularly biblical inerrancy at the seminaries. It is still nowhere near a true confessional for them. Some confessionalism is suited for dealing with postmodernist decay. The church's claim can stand solid before any skepticism by a postmodern. The problem with postmodernism is that everything is equally uncertain. With no adversary in writing, anything can be subjective and made to succumb to postmodernism.
The truth proclaimed in writing is also a very good tool to educate. Their is plenty of importance for this even if the confession is not considered binding. The church I attend is nonconfessional but strong in its beliefs with its polity and theology in order. In this they might get some benefit from the 1689 London confession by the Baptists because it is more condensed. They have drawn up documents that complement what is out there but they could do with some more. Part of the Westminister confessional/catechism with scripture references could fill such a gap. I should inqure about this in the Children's ministry.
In additon, A postmodern would need a little more earnestness. It has many implications to postmodernism. I tend to agree with Spurgeon on the necessity of earnestness in a preacher. You can't preach truth to a postmodern if you don't earnestly believe it to be true. You must be so earnest that they know that you do believe it is. You can't preach well if you don't earnestly feel for them, especially in their situation of boundage in sin. Nor can you preach well if you will not go as far as to plead for them to be reconcilled with God. Counterfeits are spotted. There needs to be some more plain speaking in churches today. Less oratory more conviction. This would do the most to impress truth upon people.
Let a preacher when he says that God became man say it with the full conviction as he would have with seeing Jesus himself. Let a preacher when he says Jesus died to save sinners say it with the full force of the angelic hosts. Let a preacher when he says that God poured out his wrath on our sins say it as if it happened yesterday. Let a peacher when he says that God's arm is not so short that it cannot save mean that for even the most vile sinner, even a mass murder!!! Was not the great Apostle Paul such. The wonderful deeds and doings of God cannot be forgotten in Evangelism. Yes, the glory and the power of God himself must be envoked. It cannot be something that is left to mold on rye toast. It cannot be something that is rejected just because it is but another shade of the rainbow of religion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)