This should be the last post. It is a recap in-case you missed it.
1)Discussed a little baptist history as continuationists
2)I basically argued that the puritans were continuationists.
3)I argued that the major puritan confessions supported continuationist views.
4)I said that they were not more cautious than charismatics and Pentecostals aught to be in respect to prophecy.
5) Discussed the closed cannon and how prophecy works within it.
6) Related prophecy to scriptural illuminations then both vs. special revelation to a degree.
7)I arrived at a view similar to that Wayne Grudem from the confessions by using the bible as a rule of faith.
8)Showed the bible and the gospel to be of first importance before prophecy.
9)I spoke about the puritan "open but irrelevant" position.
10)Discussed the complementary effect that prophecy may have on sanctification to reject Jonathan Edwards view of its worthlessness to mature Christians.
11)Discussed the ordinary/extraordinary distinctions that the puritans held as being without substance.
In some areas I could have be a bit clearer and concise but hopefully this series conveyed this list.
It shows that cessationism was the aberrant strain that became popular in the rejection of the 'Charismania' of certain pentecostal groups. One can see a bunch of dust fly up when fifty people are walking down a dirt road. While one person with a broom can whip up just as much dust, forgetting the whole idea of our pilgrimage to heaven.
I did not address tongues because that phenomena was never as prevalent in puritan times as it was in the early 1900s. I am not a pentecostal. Praying in the spirit can be certainly done intelligably. It is also more fruitful that way. I shall address this in a post a while from now. I feel as I have side-tracted enough for now into doctrine and natural theology. I am ready for more Christ and him crucified.
One additional thing, Cornerstone did not shape my doctrine on the existance of the spiritual gifts. The doctrine of prophecy was to a degree pre-existent and well established before CCK. I was not weirded out by it despite never having seen it in a church before. I was more weired out once or twice about holy spirit things from an overly enthusiastic person from CCK. Who shall here remain nameless.
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
The confession's Charismatic Confession part 3
In all of this we should see that the Puritans were more charismatic than we give them credit for. One can read Edwards rebuttal against prophectic visions and walk away with the knowledge that he did not deny them at all but likened these spiritual experiences to utterly worthless in constrast to the fruits of the Spirit. We arrive at a similar impression here when treating prophecy in context to these beliefs in the suffiecency of scripture. The puritans are not denying prophecy. They are putting it in a box. The Westminister and London confession denies that any new revelation can be made. One has to ask, what about old revelations being made in order to bring about a grace?
These are the sections relevant sections again:
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."
Now if one is to hold that his will is already revealed collectively for his people. Then prophecy does not reveal it but rather manifest it. This seems like cessationism but again it says nothing against this understanding. Prophecy does not reveal but rather impress true doctrine upon a group or person. Would not illumination of scripture be further revealing of God's will if very same strict standards are used in the interpretation? I have hinted at a tie before between how one treats illumination of scripture and prophecy. The tie is that they have similar indended goals. They are also both actions of grace. Furthermore, there is a fine line between objective truths and subjective truths in each. I maintain that special revelation pertains only to the objective truths as they found completely in the Bible. It is only in the objective parts that new doctrine or heresy has the chance of being found. A Charismatic could agree with this provision.
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;"
The treatment of new revelations and traditions of men relates to sources of doctrine only. It does not extend any further. This is seen in the statement afterward which allows for inward illumination. This inward illumination contrasts with new revelations, in case they be confused somehow. Now to be perfectly clear, this does not state the primary means of this inward illumination; be it Prophecy, Preaching, or scriptural reading. It does not define such illumination as just upon reading scripture. The primary cause is of course God, the Holy Spirit. This passage has less to do with excluding prophecy than it has to do with declaring a closed cannon. Again a Charismatic can subscribe to this also.
Surprisingly, The westminister and 1689 confessional has one more thing to say.
10. 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.
Some take private spirits to mean prophecy. It would fall in line with other potential sources of doctrine. The list is not meant to be an refutation of bad sources of doctrine. It is a merely a list of all probable sources of doctrine. Ancient writers, councils, and doctrines formed by men were not looked down upon entirely. They were to be judge. It is not a list of negative things. Private spirits seems to be synonomous with prophecy here. I cannot see any other interpretation that falls in line here as a source of doctrine that at least has potential to be judged.
We have arived at a continuationist position with respect to prophecy for Puritans. Also, the doctrine laid out in relation to the suffiecency of scripture is complementary and also arrives at the doctrine of prophecy similar to the one promoted by Grudem. I did not try to prove this doctrine from the Bible. I believe Wayne Grudem does this somewhere. I rather interrelated it with the suffiecency of the Bible and special revelation. It returns one to the same conclusion as Grudem's and also justifies the passages about testing prophecy in scripture.
The Puritans held the continued existance of the spiritual gifts to differing degrees. This still does not get over the whole "open but cautious" view. I hope it should make it clear that some Puritans were certainly as open as some modern charismatics. They definitely were not 'cautious' in accepting the occurances as being from God if they fell in line with the Bible. This is to say that they had definite framework in which to deal with the issue. They also had a definite framework that positioned them as close to being irrelevant with respect to the ordinary things that far surpass them. They held "open but close to irrelevant" view with respect to this gift. They positioned prophecy to being behind the scenes. Part 4 is up and coming shall discuss it. It will be a discussion around the usage and the extraordinary / ordinary distinctions among Puritans.
These are the sections relevant sections again:
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."
Now if one is to hold that his will is already revealed collectively for his people. Then prophecy does not reveal it but rather manifest it. This seems like cessationism but again it says nothing against this understanding. Prophecy does not reveal but rather impress true doctrine upon a group or person. Would not illumination of scripture be further revealing of God's will if very same strict standards are used in the interpretation? I have hinted at a tie before between how one treats illumination of scripture and prophecy. The tie is that they have similar indended goals. They are also both actions of grace. Furthermore, there is a fine line between objective truths and subjective truths in each. I maintain that special revelation pertains only to the objective truths as they found completely in the Bible. It is only in the objective parts that new doctrine or heresy has the chance of being found. A Charismatic could agree with this provision.
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;"
The treatment of new revelations and traditions of men relates to sources of doctrine only. It does not extend any further. This is seen in the statement afterward which allows for inward illumination. This inward illumination contrasts with new revelations, in case they be confused somehow. Now to be perfectly clear, this does not state the primary means of this inward illumination; be it Prophecy, Preaching, or scriptural reading. It does not define such illumination as just upon reading scripture. The primary cause is of course God, the Holy Spirit. This passage has less to do with excluding prophecy than it has to do with declaring a closed cannon. Again a Charismatic can subscribe to this also.
Surprisingly, The westminister and 1689 confessional has one more thing to say.
10. 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.
Some take private spirits to mean prophecy. It would fall in line with other potential sources of doctrine. The list is not meant to be an refutation of bad sources of doctrine. It is a merely a list of all probable sources of doctrine. Ancient writers, councils, and doctrines formed by men were not looked down upon entirely. They were to be judge. It is not a list of negative things. Private spirits seems to be synonomous with prophecy here. I cannot see any other interpretation that falls in line here as a source of doctrine that at least has potential to be judged.
We have arived at a continuationist position with respect to prophecy for Puritans. Also, the doctrine laid out in relation to the suffiecency of scripture is complementary and also arrives at the doctrine of prophecy similar to the one promoted by Grudem. I did not try to prove this doctrine from the Bible. I believe Wayne Grudem does this somewhere. I rather interrelated it with the suffiecency of the Bible and special revelation. It returns one to the same conclusion as Grudem's and also justifies the passages about testing prophecy in scripture.
The Puritans held the continued existance of the spiritual gifts to differing degrees. This still does not get over the whole "open but cautious" view. I hope it should make it clear that some Puritans were certainly as open as some modern charismatics. They definitely were not 'cautious' in accepting the occurances as being from God if they fell in line with the Bible. This is to say that they had definite framework in which to deal with the issue. They also had a definite framework that positioned them as close to being irrelevant with respect to the ordinary things that far surpass them. They held "open but close to irrelevant" view with respect to this gift. They positioned prophecy to being behind the scenes. Part 4 is up and coming shall discuss it. It will be a discussion around the usage and the extraordinary / ordinary distinctions among Puritans.
The Confession's Charismatic Confession, part 4
I said that the puritan position was "open but irrelevant" in the last post for prophecy. This is important because it is different than a common middle position today called "open but cautious". The Puritans were not any more cautious than any continuationist or charismatic aught to be today. Some Charismatics and Pentecostals would do well to place the Bible, specifically the gospel first.
To apply this "open, but irrelevant" doctrine from the puritans would not be cessationism as we understand it today. The practice of this doctrine would rather be akin to an all-out frontal assault on the use of any prophetic microphone. It would be a siege against prophecy place in a public church service. It would not attack prophecy itself. It would not attack the content of prophecy either. Prophecy under this assault would be intended for private audiences only and meant for a select few. It would only have a few "extraordinary" exceptions. A common puritan reasoning is found in Jonathan Edwards argument against the importance of extraordinary gifts. (The most prominent being prophecy/visions not tongues in Jonathan Edwards' time.)
The ordinary sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God, are the end of all extraordinary gifts, as the apostle shows, Eph iv. 11,12,13 . . . God communicates his Spirit only in that more excellent way of which the apostle speaks, viz. charity or divine love . . . The apostle speaks of these gifts of inspiration as childish things, in comparison of the influence of the Spirit in divine love.
When the church is in an adult state, Edwards then claims, the church has no need the gifts. He plainly says —
Therefore, I do not expect a restoration of these miraculous gifts in the approaching glorious times of the church, nor do I desire it . . . I had rather enjoy the sweet influences of the Spirit, showing Christ’s spiritual divine beauty, infinite grace, and dying love, drawing forth the holy exercises of faith, divine love, sweet complacence, and humble joy in God, one quarter of an hour, than to have prophetical visions and revelations the whole year (II:275).
One must remember Jonathan Edwards eschatology. He was postmillenial. He thought the church would progressively grow until everything was subject to Christ. With this view of the gifts and the end times, the gifts like prophecy were not desirable but rather a prop until the church was mature. He wished that the end times church would be spiritually mature and by this reasoning he rejects gifts. This is akin to the "liquid food is not needed if one has solid food argument." The fault of this analogy is that 'liquid foods' remain beneficial in smaller portions with solid food. This does not mean they can fulfill the same roll of solid food. The contrast here is to say that we acknowledge the lesser importance of these things and hold fast to that which has a greater or first importance. In a like manner, prophecy of lesser importance can complement the ordinary means of scripture of greater importance. [Remember that Real prophecy is always informed by scripture. It is not scripture informed by prophecy. This certainly means that there can be now interchanging of the two.] Scripture is a primary means. Prophecy must play second fiddle to it.
Edwards even suggests himself that the ends of the gifts are the ordinary sanctifying influences. This is a just fancy word for the normal influences and power of the gospel to sanctify/change a life here on earth toward holiness. To conclude that the prophetic gifts are not needed is, in some cases, almost as if saying that the normal influences God brings to bear in sanctification and conviction are just as worthless as the prophecy that brought them. Edwards was generally carefuly to judge a tree by its fruits in this respect. Now, I cannot look into the providence of God in providing prophecy but it is certainly to his glory. It is certainly not without an effect specifically tailored to its effect.
Now, I feel as if i need to address the purpose of prophecy. In some applications, extraordinary means are beneficial beyond ordinary means. This is because ordinary means cannot reach such a person is lacking them. Many cases the lack of ordinary means is due to the extreme sinfulness of man. He actively supress the truth with unrighteousness. God could bring ordinary means back into someones life but he choose to but this does not show his sovereignty through grace. We can certainly say that this is right for God to do such from time to time.
They have their end and purpose in God. These prophetic gifts highlight and glorify God's providential hand. To learn knowledge from a source without a natural cause, must be seen as the exercise of supreme omnipotence and sovereignty by an active God. It certainly could be found from the bible but the mere fact that it wasn't speaks as much as the message. It is but a reminder that our God dwells among men. It is a reminder that he is not very far away. It is a reminder that he is a good shepherd keeping all of his sheep.
Next, the description of sweet influences of the spirit is close to what we would call today "being filled with the spirit". Jonathan placed this and holiness above the gifts altogether. Furthermore, he also placed these two things as existing outside of the gifts altogether. He would not say they complemented each other in any degree. It is true that may not always be related but a Charismatic would counter that spiritual gifts often attend "being filled with the spirit".
Finally, there is one more contrast that must be brought out in the puritan belief of the prophetic gifts. They held a sharp contrast between what they thought was extraordinary and the ordinary. I cannot reach this injunction without prejudice against the puritans. Extraordinary things are done by God all the time. God regenerates, convicts ones affections, governs all things for good of believers, works in us, and even wills within us. He is entirely separate.
The thing to remember is that the normal means are ordained by God to serve as the primary means of grace. In addition, anything that is an ordinary means is there because God first ordained so. Now because God ordained something, it does not mean that he ordained other things on a particular basis. God occationally uses a secondary means like prophecy to bestow grace.
With this said, I would never consider communication from God in prayer or anything else as an extraordinary thing. I feel the burden is on the cessationists to prove that God is dead. Furthermore, if we saw miracles all day, would we still consider them extraordinary? They are none the less! If we saw statistically random events all the time, would we not want call them ordinary? When they actually are never ordinary, they are the very actions of God.
This carries over into faith. Prophecy breaks any 'ordinary' classification because it cannot fit into a box no matter how much effort is used to shove it in. There are a few things that the puritans are right about when addressing prophecy. The spiritual gift has nothing to do with salvation itself because it speaks nothing of one's trust in Christ. It also has nothing to do with divine love that one is shown from God and is shed abroad in ones heart. Paul agrees in 1 Corinthians 13. (This is the other source of their belief in the irrelevancy.) I have stated early that they are not suplements to faith or divine love. They are merely complements. They cannot replace these things, nor should any one try to replace faith or divine love as being essential.
To apply this "open, but irrelevant" doctrine from the puritans would not be cessationism as we understand it today. The practice of this doctrine would rather be akin to an all-out frontal assault on the use of any prophetic microphone. It would be a siege against prophecy place in a public church service. It would not attack prophecy itself. It would not attack the content of prophecy either. Prophecy under this assault would be intended for private audiences only and meant for a select few. It would only have a few "extraordinary" exceptions. A common puritan reasoning is found in Jonathan Edwards argument against the importance of extraordinary gifts. (The most prominent being prophecy/visions not tongues in Jonathan Edwards' time.)
The ordinary sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God, are the end of all extraordinary gifts, as the apostle shows, Eph iv. 11,12,13 . . . God communicates his Spirit only in that more excellent way of which the apostle speaks, viz. charity or divine love . . . The apostle speaks of these gifts of inspiration as childish things, in comparison of the influence of the Spirit in divine love.
When the church is in an adult state, Edwards then claims, the church has no need the gifts. He plainly says —
Therefore, I do not expect a restoration of these miraculous gifts in the approaching glorious times of the church, nor do I desire it . . . I had rather enjoy the sweet influences of the Spirit, showing Christ’s spiritual divine beauty, infinite grace, and dying love, drawing forth the holy exercises of faith, divine love, sweet complacence, and humble joy in God, one quarter of an hour, than to have prophetical visions and revelations the whole year (II:275).
One must remember Jonathan Edwards eschatology. He was postmillenial. He thought the church would progressively grow until everything was subject to Christ. With this view of the gifts and the end times, the gifts like prophecy were not desirable but rather a prop until the church was mature. He wished that the end times church would be spiritually mature and by this reasoning he rejects gifts. This is akin to the "liquid food is not needed if one has solid food argument." The fault of this analogy is that 'liquid foods' remain beneficial in smaller portions with solid food. This does not mean they can fulfill the same roll of solid food. The contrast here is to say that we acknowledge the lesser importance of these things and hold fast to that which has a greater or first importance. In a like manner, prophecy of lesser importance can complement the ordinary means of scripture of greater importance. [Remember that Real prophecy is always informed by scripture. It is not scripture informed by prophecy. This certainly means that there can be now interchanging of the two.] Scripture is a primary means. Prophecy must play second fiddle to it.
Edwards even suggests himself that the ends of the gifts are the ordinary sanctifying influences. This is a just fancy word for the normal influences and power of the gospel to sanctify/change a life here on earth toward holiness. To conclude that the prophetic gifts are not needed is, in some cases, almost as if saying that the normal influences God brings to bear in sanctification and conviction are just as worthless as the prophecy that brought them. Edwards was generally carefuly to judge a tree by its fruits in this respect. Now, I cannot look into the providence of God in providing prophecy but it is certainly to his glory. It is certainly not without an effect specifically tailored to its effect.
Now, I feel as if i need to address the purpose of prophecy. In some applications, extraordinary means are beneficial beyond ordinary means. This is because ordinary means cannot reach such a person is lacking them. Many cases the lack of ordinary means is due to the extreme sinfulness of man. He actively supress the truth with unrighteousness. God could bring ordinary means back into someones life but he choose to but this does not show his sovereignty through grace. We can certainly say that this is right for God to do such from time to time.
They have their end and purpose in God. These prophetic gifts highlight and glorify God's providential hand. To learn knowledge from a source without a natural cause, must be seen as the exercise of supreme omnipotence and sovereignty by an active God. It certainly could be found from the bible but the mere fact that it wasn't speaks as much as the message. It is but a reminder that our God dwells among men. It is a reminder that he is not very far away. It is a reminder that he is a good shepherd keeping all of his sheep.
Next, the description of sweet influences of the spirit is close to what we would call today "being filled with the spirit". Jonathan placed this and holiness above the gifts altogether. Furthermore, he also placed these two things as existing outside of the gifts altogether. He would not say they complemented each other in any degree. It is true that may not always be related but a Charismatic would counter that spiritual gifts often attend "being filled with the spirit".
Finally, there is one more contrast that must be brought out in the puritan belief of the prophetic gifts. They held a sharp contrast between what they thought was extraordinary and the ordinary. I cannot reach this injunction without prejudice against the puritans. Extraordinary things are done by God all the time. God regenerates, convicts ones affections, governs all things for good of believers, works in us, and even wills within us. He is entirely separate.
The thing to remember is that the normal means are ordained by God to serve as the primary means of grace. In addition, anything that is an ordinary means is there because God first ordained so. Now because God ordained something, it does not mean that he ordained other things on a particular basis. God occationally uses a secondary means like prophecy to bestow grace.
With this said, I would never consider communication from God in prayer or anything else as an extraordinary thing. I feel the burden is on the cessationists to prove that God is dead. Furthermore, if we saw miracles all day, would we still consider them extraordinary? They are none the less! If we saw statistically random events all the time, would we not want call them ordinary? When they actually are never ordinary, they are the very actions of God.
This carries over into faith. Prophecy breaks any 'ordinary' classification because it cannot fit into a box no matter how much effort is used to shove it in. There are a few things that the puritans are right about when addressing prophecy. The spiritual gift has nothing to do with salvation itself because it speaks nothing of one's trust in Christ. It also has nothing to do with divine love that one is shown from God and is shed abroad in ones heart. Paul agrees in 1 Corinthians 13. (This is the other source of their belief in the irrelevancy.) I have stated early that they are not suplements to faith or divine love. They are merely complements. They cannot replace these things, nor should any one try to replace faith or divine love as being essential.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)