I'd say the Heb. term is intended in both places to mean something like "eye-catching." As in "eye-catching" (flashing) sword, to been seen and avoided. And "eye-catching" tricks of the magicians, to distract from their subtlety.
The argument for cessationism seems extremely weak.
- Thread starter Ulster Fry
- Start date
- Status
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't disagree - what I am having a hard time with is the (his) italicized word in Taylor's definition: "miracles are explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory in purpose," especially in the current dispensation where the full meaning of much of the OT Scriptures has been revealed. I do think Elisha's axe recovery was a supernatural miracle, and I think it was recorded to authenticate his office as a prophet, but I don't see this act as being "explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory in purpose." I would say the same about much of the miraculous acts in Acts - these authenticated the messenger without the message being in and of itself always redemptive-historical and revelatory in purpose.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
I would be looking for acts without, above, and against God's providence - things that are not commonly observed in the natural laws and order He created and sustains.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
I like Berkoff's wider net. If I read him right, he is proposing that miracles can be specifically redemptive-historical, or generally revelatory, or any mixture thereof.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
Haven't read through all 6 pages to see if this has been posted or not, but I found this brief synopsis of the variety of cessationist views at Monergism very helpful when I was looking at the issue some years ago:
You don't have to deny the current existence of miracles to be a cessationist.
Cessationists View | Monergism
In Christian theology, cessationism is the view that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced
www.monergism.com
You don't have to deny the current existence of miracles to be a cessationist.
Confirmation of a prophet fits the criteria for explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory (Heb. 2:4). The very fact that the axe head event is recorded in Scripture is enough.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
Enough what? Are not all of the Scriptures explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory in purpose? And yet not everything in Scripture is labeled a sign or wonder. There are clearly some events that are more "miraculous" than others.
Also, are you saying that only explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory in Scripture can qualify as miracles (and thus there can no longer be any such thing as a "miracle"), or could there be explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory signs and wonders today (such as those reportedly occurring alongside the spread of the Gospel in the Southern Hemisphere)?
Enough explicitness.
I never said that being in Scripture is enough for something to be a miracle. What I said was that, with regard to the floating axe head, the fact that it is recorded in Scripture is enough explicitness to fit the criteria for my definition (in my opinion).
I believe there were miracles performed that were not recorded in Scripture (John seems to imply such at the end of his gospel). But given that the canon is closed, and we are being given no more special revelation, and we need no prophets confirmed nor purposes of God revealed, there is no longer any need for or possibility of miracles.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you for clarifying - I appreciate that your position is consistent. But would you not agree that all of the Scriptures are explicitly (though perhaps not all equally so) redemptive-historical and revelatory in purpose?
Of course, but again, the criteria for a miracle is not just that it is revelatory. That is but one criterion. It must be an extraordinary act of God, as well. So, while all Scripture is revelatory (obviously), not everything therein is a miracle. And I wouldn’t even call every extraordinary act of God a miracle. In general, I do see miracles as being normally performed through human agents. That’s the one part of the definition I’m still thinking about.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
How would God act against his providence?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
His ordinary means of providence (WCF 5.3). Like the regular procession of the sun vs. Joshua 10.13.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I meant to post these links a while back, but at the time the search engine was down. This thread has some good analyses of both sides by the late Steve Hays.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
More Steve Hays' links.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you very much.
I just want to thank Bruce for writing some things (and even going futher) that I was thinking about.
I think the issue of cessationism can distract from what ultimately sustains or edifies the Body of Christ. It's not sufficient to just talk about "miracles" in the abstract. It's like people talking about how prayer "helps" and then pointing to some sort of helth benefit regardless of the object or content of prayer.
The reason we have to go to sparse passages about whether or not healing or revelatory gifts continue or cease is that it's not really the focus of the Pauline epistles. It's not the focus of Hebrews (assuming Paul didn't write it) or other Epistles either.
It's not that I dispute that things happen in a world that is suffused with God's power over against principalities and powers in a cursed world. It's simply that the issue of healing was never the focus of the Kingdom. In fact, I think many Church's prayers are often impoverished because the only thing people think to pray about are that someone is cured of cancer or some other medical benefit. It's not that we should not pray for such things for we are soul-body and we should never completely think in natrualistic terms about our bodies anymore than we should think of our moods and sins in purely medical terms.
I'm legally blind and people have prayed for me but I don't seek prayer for some miraculous change that would require the complete regeneration of both of my maculae. Why? Because I don't think that this is what is needful. What is needful is that I, along with the Church, be built up in Christ.
What is most needful right now is that we, in my Church, continue to urge along and carry the family in our Church who lost their daughter to a car accident 6 months ago. We didn't pray that she be raised from the dead by some miracle at the news. We had to be reminded of the Resurreciton and what the Church is all about as those who have been set free from sin's dominion while it still ravages our bodies and the indwelling sin in us would cause us to shrink back. This is what the authors of the NT are all about.
It's rather like Paul focusing on his mssion that the Churches would first be established and then built up as they deal with the day on, stay on of battling sin both individually and corporately and then someone keeps asking him whether or not such and such or so and so was a miracle and whehte ror not we could expect future healing. He would probably be exasperated by the idea that, if the Church expected healing, what about those who died? Was it that the Church lacked the gift? Was something amiss? Was God not providing what the Church needed.?
It's absurd because the Church is supposed to realize that this present tent that we dwell in is cursed and is wasting away. I don't pray that my bones will sotp aching at 54 after a fun. I realize that my body isn't what it was years ago and don't expect things to get any better. I'm reminded that my present body is under a curse and I need not expect nor think that every thing that is going to happen to it will be reversed by some contiuing "gift".
It's rather as if people have lost the entire plot of what the Church is about when we see the constant dying around us and the evidence that the curse still exists to think that the Church's primary concern is whether or not a heling gift exists when people need to be transformed by the renewing power of the Holsy Spirit so that they might hope not in the temporary healing of this body but in the hope of the Resurreciton. That's what sustains my good friend. He's rather let his own body waste in grief over the death of his daughter even as, through nearly constant tears, knows that he will see her at the Resurrection because Christ has promised that He will put death down like a dog.
So, to be clear, asking for a "verse" or two that proves something or another reveals whether or not someone is really striving for what the Apostles were keen to have us strive toward. It's standing in the midst of suffering. It's procliaiming Christ to the dying. It is walking together and urging one another onward. Yes, in the course of things, we pray for healing but the limited horizon of our healing right now is hardly the aim of the Church and soem of the cavils in this long thread lead me to wonder whether some have lost the plot in their focus on a supporting character.
I think the issue of cessationism can distract from what ultimately sustains or edifies the Body of Christ. It's not sufficient to just talk about "miracles" in the abstract. It's like people talking about how prayer "helps" and then pointing to some sort of helth benefit regardless of the object or content of prayer.
The reason we have to go to sparse passages about whether or not healing or revelatory gifts continue or cease is that it's not really the focus of the Pauline epistles. It's not the focus of Hebrews (assuming Paul didn't write it) or other Epistles either.
It's not that I dispute that things happen in a world that is suffused with God's power over against principalities and powers in a cursed world. It's simply that the issue of healing was never the focus of the Kingdom. In fact, I think many Church's prayers are often impoverished because the only thing people think to pray about are that someone is cured of cancer or some other medical benefit. It's not that we should not pray for such things for we are soul-body and we should never completely think in natrualistic terms about our bodies anymore than we should think of our moods and sins in purely medical terms.
I'm legally blind and people have prayed for me but I don't seek prayer for some miraculous change that would require the complete regeneration of both of my maculae. Why? Because I don't think that this is what is needful. What is needful is that I, along with the Church, be built up in Christ.
What is most needful right now is that we, in my Church, continue to urge along and carry the family in our Church who lost their daughter to a car accident 6 months ago. We didn't pray that she be raised from the dead by some miracle at the news. We had to be reminded of the Resurreciton and what the Church is all about as those who have been set free from sin's dominion while it still ravages our bodies and the indwelling sin in us would cause us to shrink back. This is what the authors of the NT are all about.
It's rather like Paul focusing on his mssion that the Churches would first be established and then built up as they deal with the day on, stay on of battling sin both individually and corporately and then someone keeps asking him whether or not such and such or so and so was a miracle and whehte ror not we could expect future healing. He would probably be exasperated by the idea that, if the Church expected healing, what about those who died? Was it that the Church lacked the gift? Was something amiss? Was God not providing what the Church needed.?
It's absurd because the Church is supposed to realize that this present tent that we dwell in is cursed and is wasting away. I don't pray that my bones will sotp aching at 54 after a fun. I realize that my body isn't what it was years ago and don't expect things to get any better. I'm reminded that my present body is under a curse and I need not expect nor think that every thing that is going to happen to it will be reversed by some contiuing "gift".
It's rather as if people have lost the entire plot of what the Church is about when we see the constant dying around us and the evidence that the curse still exists to think that the Church's primary concern is whether or not a heling gift exists when people need to be transformed by the renewing power of the Holsy Spirit so that they might hope not in the temporary healing of this body but in the hope of the Resurreciton. That's what sustains my good friend. He's rather let his own body waste in grief over the death of his daughter even as, through nearly constant tears, knows that he will see her at the Resurrection because Christ has promised that He will put death down like a dog.
So, to be clear, asking for a "verse" or two that proves something or another reveals whether or not someone is really striving for what the Apostles were keen to have us strive toward. It's standing in the midst of suffering. It's procliaiming Christ to the dying. It is walking together and urging one another onward. Yes, in the course of things, we pray for healing but the limited horizon of our healing right now is hardly the aim of the Church and soem of the cavils in this long thread lead me to wonder whether some have lost the plot in their focus on a supporting character.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
What if we are continuing in godly obedience and faith and still believe that God provides miracles (based on overwhelming evidence and lack of Scriptural evidence to the contrary)? That's where I am (well, maybe not so much on godly obedience as it should be).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No one here is saying the church's primary concern is whether a healing gift exists. Rather, we are saying the cessationist argument is analytically weak.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
First, I want to express my sorrow for those tragic incidents you mention that have occurred in your own church family.
In terms of your argument, though, I’m not sure who this is directed at. I can’t see anyone here doing the things you mention. This is entirely about the case for cessationist and whether it is a good one. It’s a straw man to suggest that all non-cessationists (a) want continuationism to be true and selectively choose evidence to fit the conclusion and (b) elevate healing and miracles above other activities in the church.
Neither of these claims remotely fit my position (in fact it would be much easier for me if cessationism did have a good case) or Jacob’s, and as far as I can see we’re the only ones who aren’t cessationists here.
What I read from you and Jacob is a sort of folding of the arms regarding any Biblical data being presented as to the place of the gifts in the Church and how it was oeprative in one epoch that may not be the case today. Jacob, for instance, is epseically poor at offering any exegesis of his own on 1 Cor 14 (in contrast to Bruce) and saying: "It says it's for edification".
The purpose of my post was to outline the broad concern of the Church, even in the time of the Apostles. Though signs and wonders were present in the time of Christ and even in the days of the Apostles it wasn't as if their days were full of miracles or people receiving words of wisdom as to whether or not to go places. Some were healed in power while other Saints died. Nobody debated whether to resurrect James or Stephen or wringed their hands at whether they had faith or that healing had failed if someone sick they were praying for didn't recover. Even during the time of the Apostles people still got sick and died.
I read Poythress' article and find it interesting, but it rather misses the mark as to what the primary issues are.
I rather think that the problem you might have is that you don't really even understand what the Westminster position is and imaginge that "cessationism" (or whatever word you want to attach to it) means that a Church thinks that God doesn't heal people anymore or that unexplained and amazing things cease to happen.
The reason why Poythress' article is interesting is that he stort of argues as if what differentiates Charismatics from the Reformed is that one believes in the continuation of charismatic gifts and the other doesn't.
It's sort of how you are approaching the issue. It's as if the operative issue is that you don't like the arguments for something and then think it is weak because you hear of and talk to others who are experiencing these phenomena.
Full discolsure, I was both a Charismatic Catholic and Protestant and so I know of the claims as well as the mindset of much Charismatic thinking.
What changed in me from moving to Charismatic to Reformed was not that I stopped praying for people to be healed or doubted that God can do extraordinary things but that my central focus changed. I'd like to say I was balanced at that point but it's taken a few decades of maturity to make me more serious about the project of Christian formation in the congregation and that the most needful thing in any Church is just living ordinary, day-to-day life in the midst of suffering and drudgery.
When I see Charismatic people focused all the time on the charismatic gifts it is not merely that they believe in the continuation of the gifts but it underlines a profoundly different view of the Church and what it looks like to live life under the Cross. My children attend a local Christian Schoool where many different denominations attend and what marks Prentecostal and Charismatic kids is how infantile their prayers are. I say this with sadness and not with judgment. They are not maturely formed. They have no vocabulary or establishment in the faith. They have expereince. If you want to use Poythress' terms then everything is non-discursive for them. A "testimony" for them is that they had one leg longer than the other and someone prayed and they now have legs of the same length. Many of them will end up as my nephew and neice have - in apostasy - because their prayers never matured form the time they were 3 to the time they were 18 and when suffering and life hits a lot of peole experience is not enough.
It's not as if I'm arguing for some sort of cold, detached, intellectual Reformed orthodoxy. Such doesn't actually exist Confessionally. It may exist among those who call themselves Reformed but good orthodoxy ought to make one passionate and concerned for the Church. That's one of the reasons I get furstrated when arguments devolved to arm-folding as if the issue is one of some sort of abstract, logical issue of whether the Canon is still closed or whether one has made the open and shut case from a single text as to whether we ought to expect a "Prophet" or a "Healer" today. It's as if the issue exists in some sort of vacuum as opposed to the living Church of Christ. As an Elder I have to ask myself what "edifying" function a "Prophet" or a "Healer" would perform. The issue for me isn't whether or not God acts in extraordinary ways. I can even imaging and not argue with the idea that dreams occur or amazing things occur that we cannot explain. I think Poythress does a good job of not only showing these are extraoridnary Providences and non-dscursive things ubt he dodes so in the context of what is pretty much what the Reformed think. Nobody brough charges against Scottish preachers who spoke in such terms in the past because they didn't think of themselves as arguing that the time of the Apostles was non-distinct and that they were fulfilling the role of a Prophet.
So I suppose what I'm saying is that I'm not unconcerned about the question but I'm not sure what I'm Church is missing where we are not doing what Charismatic Churches are doing every Sunday and allowing "prophets" to stand up and say weird things (like I experienced). I'm not sure we're missing anyhthing because we don't have healders come in. I hear the same stories about claims of healing but I'm less worried about whether or not someone was healed than that they are either severely impoverished in their Christian growth or are learning downright heresy from some of these communions. "Yay, they are healed!" is what some think and I'm more concenred to think about how are they being formed in Christ by that communion. Having been in them I'd rather live my life as a cripple than go back to the view of justification and santification I learned from the run-of-the-mill Charismatic Churches I attended. The experience is that same for a couple in our Church who came out of the Prentecostal Church and feel no loos but only gain.
I'm not much interested in the debate over what constitutes a miracle vs an extraordinary Providence. I am concerned with what forms the organizing focus of the Church around the Scrptures and then how it lives life together in the Spirit on the basis. Insofar as God does things extraordinary in the ways Poythress describes then I'm cool with that. It's just that those things are extraordinary and we don't life our *ordinary* life together as if what is at the center of our existence is waiting for God to do something extraordinary. Life is lived in the ordinary and that's where ministry and ofcus is.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I did offer rebuttals to his claim regarding 1 Cor. 13. I did not offer extended exegesis on 1 Cor. 14 because I did not think I had the burden of proof to say that they ceased. Scripture never said that, so it did not seem reasonable to think they did cease.
I'm not sure who you think here is claiming that.
I think they are weak because I don't think the conclusions drawn follow from the premises.
I like to think I have the same focused. In fact, last year at this time on PB I got attacked because I promoted Michael Horton's *Ordinary* view of the Christian life. I am literally the most unexpressive, boring person in the world. I have no natural "inclinations" to charismaticism. I'm simply going by the logic of the case.
I take that for what it's worth. It's good to know. It doesn't apply to me or Ulster.
Duly noted, but no one here is doing that.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And since we are going by anecdotal experiences and outlooks, here's mine: I don't like charismatic (or even some Reformed) claims of a "great revival." I'm pretty burned out by the idea of revival.
What premises? This is the problem I have with the way you argue. You can't break the Chrsitian life down completely into a syllogism.
When I read you argue that we can't know for certain that the Canonis closed then I realize that you and I operate on a completely different plane of what the Christian walk is about.
If you're serious about the idea that the Refomed communion in the main gets the issue of the cessation of charismatic gifts wrong then what is it missing in terms of the spiritual gifts that Christ the Head is trying to offer it but it refuses. Where is that commuion on this Earth present where those gifst are present and the other Biblical emphases are present?
Or is this merely some sort of absract issue of whether or not someone has presented a syllogism that you cannot refuse?
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
This isn't remotely where I'm coming from. I feel like you're having a separate debate with someone else or attaching someone else's views onto my own.
The bottom line for me is that I don't think there's a good argument being made for cessationism. I don't think it is historically consistent or exegetically warranted. I do not see clear evidence that the specific spiritual gifts in question have indeed ceased and the burden of proof is on the cessationist to demonstrate this. I'm not making any other claim, I'm not defending charismatics or anything else.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Um, okay. I assumed there were premises. I know the Christian life is more than a syllogism, but neither should it be irrational.
I never said that.
I don't know. I usually don't visit churches outside my local church.
Not really. Either a position is true or it isn't.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
I mean, it should be a given that the side promoting a particular view should actually be able to present a good argument for their position. Particularly when it calls a large proportion of the Christian communion wrong on something. I wouldn't expect a Baptist to just agree with me if I said I don't need to present a good argument for my position, and nor should they.
I should say I've noticed this a fair bit on PB on various issues, and it isn't healthy. Rhetoric and bluster might sway the masses, but at the end of the day it doesn't really tell us anything about what is true or false. People should be expected to make good arguments in support of their position rather than pithy statements that earn an 'Amen!' emoji. We won't always hit that standard obviously but it's something we should be aiming for. Especially when we have to convince those who do not agree with us. Attacking them for not getting it or not having your particular view is just silly.
I should say I've noticed this a fair bit on PB on various issues, and it isn't healthy. Rhetoric and bluster might sway the masses, but at the end of the day it doesn't really tell us anything about what is true or false. People should be expected to make good arguments in support of their position rather than pithy statements that earn an 'Amen!' emoji. We won't always hit that standard obviously but it's something we should be aiming for. Especially when we have to convince those who do not agree with us. Attacking them for not getting it or not having your particular view is just silly.
I think your demand for an "argument" or "proof" is to demand that what the Westminsteer Stanadrs state about the end of the Apostolic era. Do you need proof that this era has ended or do you disput that too because nobody comes out and says so in the Scriptures?
Did anything change after the Apostles died and the Scriptures were given?
Furthermore, if you were paying attention to the issue then you'd be offering answers to what I've asked. The Scriptures never say that God stopped endowing people with the gifts of craftsmanship in the OT. If you ask me for exegetical proof and fold your arms and say: "That's weak to argue because you can't prove from the Scriptures that He stopped doing that" then I can't really offer any "poof" or a strong argument to you.
My question is this: what does my Church currently lack where we need someone speking in tonuges or given the gift of healing? What prophecies does in need. What charismatic gifts do we lack?
Or is this merely about you feeling good about some sort of "proof" that the time of the Apostles has ceased?
The issue isn't whether or not an argument exists. The issue is whether or not one is statsfied with the argument itself. I find it to be the counter. Given the universal acceptance that the times of the Apostels have ceased, it is the burden of the non-cesstionist to present the case that the times of the Apostles continue. That's the real issue. Do you have such an argument or do you just have bluster?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Maybe we can reframe the issue another way: are there any sufficient defeaters against some form of continuationism?
Let's ask the question this way: when JP Moreland and Craig Keener give documented (and in Keener's case, medically verified) cases of healing, is it okay to accept that as God's providing his church with mercy?
You got me on that one.
So the charismatic gifst have ceased or have they not or is it merely an academic argument for you? Does it matter whether or not the Church has something it lacks?
- Status
