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.