# The problem Rome represents to continuationists.



## Eoghan

Having just listened to R.C. Sproul and finished reading Hodge I am struck by the challenge represented by the Roman Catholic church. 

R.C. Sproul explained that at the time of the Reformation the Reformers were confronted with the authenticating miracles of the Catholic church. The Reformers replied that they had authenticating miracles for their position - in the Apostolic miracles. It does however leave a huge hole in the argument of continuationists - doesn't the Roman Catholic church with it's "miracles" represent perfect continuity?

We would say that Apostolic office ceased - the pentecostal church called the Apostolic Church would disagree. So would the Roman Catholic church!

If signs do continue to authenticate, then is the Roman Catholic church not authenticated by it's "miracles" and the Reformed churches bereft?

I was also interested to read Hodge's opinion of the roman catholic mass so long celebrated in Latin as a violation of Paul's prohibition on addressing the church in a foreign language it did not understand.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

What authentic miracles has the RCC presented?


----------



## jambo

I thnk miracles claimed by the RC church are most dubious to say the least. How many folk who visit Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorie etc are actually healed by visiting those shrines? In RC thinking to become a saint 2 miracles must be attributed to the person but if a healing takes place who is to say that it was St Theresa or St Martin or whoever or else medical science or psychology

I believe the Reformed faith believes in miracles today. That is the miracle of conversion when the dead in sin are made alive in Christ which is the miraculous working of the Trinity in a persons life. What is the greater miracle? Someone throwing their crutches away (and in all probability continuing living a sinful life) or conversion and the living out of a holy, God honouring life?


----------



## Eoghan

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What authentic miracles has the RCC presented?



I would say they are pretty much on a par with charismatic claims - unconvincing!


----------



## Leslie

I thought the continuationist/cessationist controversy had to do with the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians, not with authenticating miracles accompanying the preaching of the gospel in the context of frontier missions. These are two entirely separate issues. 

Many cessationists accept the occurance of authenticating miracles, on occasions when God sovereignly decides to authenticate in this way. That is not the same as continuationists' maintaining that miracles can be done by an individual who is so gifted, at will. With RC "saints" performing miracles, that is akin to continuationism; it is individual gifting. 

How can Reformed theologians who believe in God's sovereignty pontificate on what God can and can't do? Either He's sovereign or He isn't. If He's sovereign, He can do what He jolly well pleases. Whether authenticating miracles occur or not should be decided on the basis of historical data, same as the basis of our believing in the resurrection of Jesus.


----------



## yeutter

The Eastern Church does seldom made the sort of miraculous claims for the saints, that the Church of Rome makes. The best argument against miracles is to examine the validity of the claims made by Rome and by the charismatics.


----------



## RamistThomist

It should be admitted that the Vatican's official position is skepticism until proven otherwise. 

Also, when we say Rome and EO, what time period? Modern day Roman Catholicism? Early Medieval European Christianity? At least from an early European point of view, saying miracles happened is unproblematic. I am currently writing a book that deals with the miraculous in the reign of Olaf II of Norway. I admit there is a lot of hagiography that is fairly useless in terms of historical scholarship, but there are historical claims for miracles in the lives of these people that have a stronger warrant.


----------



## RamistThomist

Eoghan;1031631
R.C. Sproul explained that at the time of the Reformation the Reformers were confronted with the authenticating miracles of the Catholic church. The Reformers replied that they had authenticating miracles for their position - in the Apostolic miracles.
[/quote said:


> Except there is a lot of miraculous in the lives of John Knox, Richard Cameron, Alexander Peden, and Donald Cargill. Blanket statements like the one Sproul made are problematic historically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does however leave a huge hole in the argument of continuationists - doesn't the Roman Catholic church with it's "miracles" represent perfect continuity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miracles aren't the same thing as gospel. Further, *which* miracles and *when?* We aren't Restorationists. Not everything in the pre-Reformation church is bad. Miracles authenticate the preaching of the gospel, not merely apostolic succession. In the book of Acts they prayed that God would authenticate the gospel by signs and wonders, not the episcopate. Further, there has to be preaching of the gospel, which we say that modern Rome lacks for th emost part. Further, Revelation 13ff says Antichrist would do miracles. Presumably that doesn't authenticate his message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would say that Apostolic office ceased - the pentecostal church called the Apostolic Church would disagree. So would the Roman Catholic church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a fairly bald guilt-by-association tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If signs do continue to authenticate, then is the Roman Catholic church not authenticated by it's "miracles" and the Reformed churches bereft?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The miracles--and again, which ones and when?-- authenticate the preaching. Is there preaching present to be authenticated? Probably not. So why are the miracles there? I have no idea. Maybe God is being merciful. Cessationist Ronald Nash freely admits that point.
Click to expand...


----------



## earl40

Leslie said:


> I thought the continuationist/cessationist controversy had to do with the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians, not with authenticating miracles accompanying the preaching of the gospel in the context of frontier missions. These are two entirely separate issues.
> 
> Many cessationists accept the occurance of authenticating miracles, on occasions when God sovereignly decides to authenticate in this way. That is not the same as continuationists' maintaining that miracles can be done by an individual who is so gifted, at will. With RC "saints" performing miracles, that is akin to continuationism; it is individual gifting.
> 
> How can Reformed theologians who believe in God's sovereignty pontificate on what God can and can't do? Either He's sovereign or He isn't. If He's sovereign, He can do what He jolly well pleases. Whether authenticating miracles occur or not should be decided on the basis of historical data, same as the basis of our believing in the resurrection of Jesus.



No reformed person would say God "can't" perform a miracle. The reformed say God does not perform miracles today through paticular individuals to authenticate that person as being an apostle or prophet. Also I believe The Lord would not perform a miracle through a person who is a member of a false church such as Rome is and verify Rome's claim to being a true church. In other words, any "miracle" perported by Rome is not a miracle in the biblical sense In my most humble opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the continuationist/cessationist controversy had to do with the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians, not with authenticating miracles accompanying the preaching of the gospel in the context of frontier missions. These are two entirely separate issues.
> 
> Many cessationists accept the occurance of authenticating miracles, on occasions when God sovereignly decides to authenticate in this way. That is not the same as continuationists' maintaining that miracles can be done by an individual who is so gifted, at will. With RC "saints" performing miracles, that is akin to continuationism; it is individual gifting.
> 
> How can Reformed theologians who believe in God's sovereignty pontificate on what God can and can't do? Either He's sovereign or He isn't. If He's sovereign, He can do what He jolly well pleases. Whether authenticating miracles occur or not should be decided on the basis of historical data, same as the basis of our believing in the resurrection of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No reformed person would say God "can't" perform a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but a lot of the harder, old-school cessationist came very close. They would agree _for the sake of argument_ that God could, but he won't (Warfield, while not going so far, appears to come close). Today's cessationists realize how untenable such a position is and concede that God could do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reformed say God does not perform miracles today through paticular individuals to authenticate that person as being an apostle or prophet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of continuationists would actually agree. A lot of miracles today (accounts of prophecy, etc) don't appear to have much to do either way with authenticating a teaching ministry. Further, Sam Storms and Wayne Grudem do not necessarily argue today that miracles validate apostolic office. That is not Grudem's argument, as far as I am aware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I believe The Lord would not perform a miracle through a person who is a member of a false church such as Rome is and verify Rome's claim to being a true church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly yes. This is an easier judgment to make today than it was 500 years ago, since the boundaries are a lot clearer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, any "miracle" perported by Rome is not a miracle in the biblical sense In my most humble opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot depends on the kind of miracle. Apparitions of Mary and bleeding statues and crying icons aren't really miracles that aim to benefit the body of Christ, so to that degree I agree.
Click to expand...


----------



## Eoghan

I think we may be conflating the concepts of divine providence and miraculous intervention. The objection of the cessationists is to what is defined as 'normative', miracles are not the norm now despite the claims of charismatics and Lourdes!


----------



## RamistThomist

Eoghan said:


> I think we may be conflating the concepts of divine providence and miraculous intervention. The objection of the cessationists is to what is defined as 'normative', miracles are not the norm now despite the claims of charismatics and Lourdes!



I'm very hesitant using that line of critique since it assumes David Hume's view of providence.


----------



## Leslie

A few months ago I thought that cessationists rejected anything and everything supernatural like an epiphany or physical miracle since the closing of the canon. It was through the PB and Timmopussycat in particular, that it became clear that cessationism has to do with the spiritual gifts, period. Some cessationists reject all physical miracles and epiphanies, but that is not necessary to being a cessationist.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think the OP makes a good point that seems to be lost on most.

The term Cessationist is unhelpful here. Let's just deal with the Reformed position.

The issue at dispute is the _continuation of the gifts of the Apostles_. Nobody disputes what happened at the time of the Apostles' ministry, the question is whether or not what was normative (in terms of signs and wonders) at the time of the Apostles remains in effect. Should we still _expect_ someone's shadow to heal a man or was there a time and purpose for the building of the Church where it is now not part of the _normal_ ministry of the Church.

Why does this relate to Rome?

Because the Roman Catholic Church was asking the Reformers: Where are your miracles? In this, they were asking it in the sense of the confirmation of authority. Rome was presenting signs and wonders as validation for their teaching and this continues today. The Pope declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and, Voila!, Mary appeared to someone not too long afterward saying: "I'm the Immaculate Conception." Check and mate!

In other words, Reformed Church, what right do we have denying the Immaculate Conception when a sign has been performed that demonstrates its validity? Well, if your view of the nature of Revelation and how signs accompany them is structure in a certain manner then you have no answer. In fact, given the standard by which some signs and miracles are accepted as "of the Lord" (i.e. a sovereign God can do _anything_) then what possible objection could there be. Here's how it goes:

Premise 1: A Sovereign God can do anything
Premise 2: Mary appearing is something
Therefore, God could have had Mary appear and declare she is the Immaculate conception.

If I have nothing other than the first notion (God can do anything) then what possible objection do I have to the Roman Catholic Church's claims? If the response is "I have Scripture" then this is the point the Reformers were making.

In other words, they referred back to the Apostles and their signs _because they attested to the authenticity of the Revelation that was recorded_. There is an internal consistency of the Scriptures where Paul is charging Timothy and Titus to live in light of the pattern of sound doctrine in the Scriptures that had been laid down. The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation upon which the Church's normal work, thereafter would be built upon. They were to preach what was entrusted to them. Historically, you can read that those who wrote immediately following the Apostles saw themselves in a fundamentally different class of gifting. The age when the gift of Apostleship was among the Church had passed and these men now collected the deposit of faith laid down for them and began to live life in light of the totality of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant and now the New Covenant.


----------



## RamistThomist

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the OP makes a good point that seems to be lost on most.
> 
> The term Cessationist is unhelpful here. Let's just deal with the Reformed position.
> 
> The issue at dispute is the _continuation of the gifts of the Apostles_. Nobody disputes what happened at the time of the Apostles' ministry, the question is whether or not what was normative (in terms of signs and wonders) at the time of the Apostles remains in effect. Should we still _expect_ someone's shadow to heal a man or was there a time and purpose for the building of the Church where it is now not part of the _normal_ ministry of the Church.
> 
> Why does this relate to Rome?
> 
> Because the Roman Catholic Church was asking the Reformers: Where are your miracles? In this, they were asking it in the sense of the confirmation of authority. Rome was presenting signs and wonders as validation for their teaching and this continues today. The Pope declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and, Voila!, Mary appeared to someone not too long afterward saying: "I'm the Immaculate Conception." Check and mate!
> 
> In other words, Reformed Church, what right do we have denying the Immaculate Conception when a sign has been performed that demonstrates its validity? Well, if your view of the nature of Revelation and how signs accompany them is structure in a certain manner then you have no answer. In fact, given the standard by which some signs and miracles are accepted as "of the Lord" (i.e. a sovereign God can do _anything_) then what possible objection could there be. Here's how it goes:
> 
> Premise 1: A Sovereign God can do anything
> Premise 2: Mary appearing is something
> Therefore, God could have had Mary appear and declare she is the Immaculate conception.
> 
> If I have nothing other than the first notion (God can do anything) then what possible objection do I have to the Roman Catholic Church's claims? If the response is "I have Scripture" then this is the point the Reformers were making.
> 
> In other words, they referred back to the Apostles and their signs _because they attested to the authenticity of the Revelation that was recorded_. There is an internal consistency of the Scriptures where Paul is charging Timothy and Titus to live in light of the pattern of sound doctrine in the Scriptures that had been laid down. The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation upon which the Church's normal work, thereafter would be built upon. They were to preach what was entrusted to them. Historically, you can read that those who wrote immediately following the Apostles saw themselves in a fundamentally different class of gifting. The age when the gift of Apostleship was among the Church had passed and these men now collected the deposit of faith laid down for them and began to live life in light of the totality of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant and now the New Covenant.



I can agree with a lot of that, and while I do not share the optimism in many cessationist arguments, I don't necessarily hold that x,y, and z offices (or gifts, which aren't the same thing) continue today.

As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."


----------



## py3ak

Baroque Norseman said:


> As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."



But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.


----------



## earl40

py3ak said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.
Click to expand...


Maybe I will stay a TOTAL cessationist and contend God can but won't perform miracles in the post apostolic time for the exact reasons you wrote about here.


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."



Show me their miracles?


----------



## Free Christian

With all their deception over the centuries, all their murders and shedding of innocent blood, with all their vile acts against children the world over, with all their lies concerning sin and salvation and the Popes standing in the place of Christ. Given that any other organisation or system on earth would have fallen long ago after committing just a fraction of their vile deeds, I think its a miracle (miracle as per one definition by dictionary standards "a wonder or marvel") they are still standing.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me their miracles?
Click to expand...


Or may I paraphrase....How could they tell what was to pass without saying "Thus says the Lord"?


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me their miracles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or may I paraphrase....How could they tell what was to pass without saying "Thus says the Lord"?
Click to expand...


Yes. In the words of Thomas Manton,



> Christian religion ... is built upon matter of fact, that the Son of God came from God to bring us to God; that is to say, appeared in human nature, instructed the world by his doctrine and example, and at length died for sinners, confirming both in life and death the truth of his mission by such unquestionable miracles as showed him to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. Now, a testimony, tradition, or report is necessary in matters of fact, which of necessity must be confined to some determinate time and place. It was not fit that Christ should be always working miracles, always dying, always rising and ascending, in every place, and in the view of every man; but these things were to be once done, in one place of the world, in the sight of some particular and competent witnesses; but, because the knowledge of them concerned all the rest of the world, they were by them to be attested to others; *matters of fact can only be proved by credible witnesses, and this was the great office put upon the apostles*, Acts i. 8, xxi. 22, ii. 32, iii. 15, x. 39, 40, 41.



New miracles would require a new phase of redemptive history or a repetition of redemptive history and a new apostolate.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

jambo said:


> I thnk miracles claimed by the RC church are most dubious to say the least. How many folk who visit Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorie etc are actually healed by visiting those shrines? In RC thinking to become a saint 2 miracles must be attributed to the person but if a healing takes place who is to say that it was St Theresa or St Martin or whoever or else medical science or psychology
> 
> I believe the Reformed faith believes in miracles today. That is the miracle of conversion when the dead in sin are made alive in Christ which is the miraculous working of the Trinity in a persons life. What is the greater miracle? Someone throwing their crutches away (and in all probability continuing living a sinful life) or conversion and the living out of a holy, God honouring life?



Well obviously if you pray to St Thomas and get better...


----------



## RamistThomist

py3ak said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.
Click to expand...


2 Thess 2 says Antichrist will work signs and wonders. For that point alone, I do not worry if Rome has "miracles." Would we tell Paul, "No, that's not possible beacause God doesn't work miracles in the post-apostolic age?



> armourbearer wrote:
> 
> Show me their miracles?



The accounts given in _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of_ Scots Worthies _actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.


----------



## earl40

Baroque Norseman said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to miracles. I just can't be close-minded. When Rome says, "Where are your miracles?" I say, "See Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But whatever happened with Cameron, Peden, et al, this doesn't affect what happened with Loyola, de Sales, St. Theresa, etc., etc. So the competing truth claims must still be adjudicated on a different basis. If Peden's life confirms Reformed doctrine, in other words, what doctrine is confirmed by RCC miracles? Either you count up miracles to see who has more and better, or you turn to the supreme judge already confirmed by the signs that followed its original promulgation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 Thess 2 says Antichrist will work signs and wonders. For that point alone, I do not worry if Rome has "miracles." Would we tell Paul, "No, that's not possible beacause God doesn't work miracles in the post-apostolic age?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer wrote:
> 
> Show me their miracles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The accounts given in _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of_ Scots Worthies _actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.
Click to expand...


This clearly shows the serious problem with pointing towards any prophesy or miracle done outside those recorded in scripture. It supplants the bible being authoritative over the ministers of today.


----------



## py3ak

Baroque Norseman said:


> 2 Thess 2 says Antichrist will work signs and wonders. For that point alone, I do not worry if Rome has "miracles." Would we tell Paul, "No, that's not possible beacause God doesn't work miracles in the post-apostolic age?



That doesn't seem to contradict my point that contemporary/ecclesiastical-historical miracles are not the standard by which we judge. Unless all the miracles are demonstrably on one side, their value for settling a controversy is small.


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> The accounts given in _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of_ Scots Worthies _actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.



In other words, they are not documented miracles but a part of the hagiography. I repeat my original request -- SHOW me their miracles.


----------



## Free Christian

In 2 Thessalonians 2 it say with "power, signs and lying wonders". I take that as lies that those who are not saved believe, some may believe that something was a miracle because they were told so by, say the RC church, but it was not a miracle or prove-able, just quite simply a lie that they believed was a wonder or miracle. To those not deceived nothing really happened. Correct me if im wrong there by all means.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The accounts given in _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of_ Scots Worthies _actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they are not documented miracles but a part of the hagiography. I repeat my original request -- SHOW me their miracles.
Click to expand...


In other words, can we raise the _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, along side with scripture as the RC does with their tradition?


----------



## earl40

Free Christian said:


> In 2 Thessalonians 2 it say with "power, signs and lying wonders". I take that as lies that those who are not saved believe, some may believe that something was a miracle because they were told so by, say the RC church, but it was not a miracle or prove-able, just quite simply a lie that they believed was a wonder or miracle. To those not deceived nothing really happened. Correct me if im wrong there by all means.



You will get both sides here. One will say they are supernatural works that lie and the correct side will say they are works that are not supernatural that also lie. I will guess what side I am on.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> In other words, can we raise the _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, along side with scripture as the RC does with their tradition?



Not really. I like a little hagiography to help balance out critical views of history. I think we can read such accounts and look at it under the category of special providence. There is no need to ascribe it to extraordinary providence.

For Brett, I agree with you that counterfeit miracles are lying wonders. God's wonders are all around us. Man himself is a wonder. A lying wonder manipulates the ordinary either in the thing or in the perception; it does not act extraordinarily.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> I think we can read such accounts and look at it under the category of special providence. There is no need to ascribe it to extraordinary providence.



Of course I would see this as an extraordinary providence....if true.  "Thus says The Lord.....such and such will come to pass".


----------



## Leslie

The scriptures make it very clear that miracles occur, both those from God and those from Satan. The prophecies of the last days reinforce that. This is also substantiated in real life. I have no problem at all with RC miracles that are documented. But the "gospel" that they authenticate tells us something about their origin. That God doesn't do miracles to support false religion is evident. But that does not obligate us to deny the reality that something happened. The documentation is not necessarily false, though it could be. It is merely a cultural anti-supernatural bias that refuses to accept documentation. There is nothing virtuous about it. 

On the other hand, the devil does not do miracles to promoste the Kingdom of God. Luke 11 makes that abundantly clear. At the present time, most of these events that I'm aware of occur in the context of frontier missions, particularly in M (ROP) ministries. About half of the ROP adherents who become Christians do so either directly or indirectly as a result of miraculous events. This is per DUdley Woodbury who collected extensive data on such conversions. I personally had a ministry for about a year with the daughter church born of one of these groups, where over 100 M men, the majority of them theologians, became Christian brothers within a matter of 3 days. In another case an ROP theologian who had studied in Saudi Arabia became a believer after being healed of terminal AIDS through the ministry of some Christians in Addis. His blood test turned from positive to negative, and he went from bedridden to fully functional. He told his story in a local church near here. His M physician also converted. We believe this since we have personally witnessed the results, using the same logic that we use to affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus: multiple witnesses and long-term consequences that cannot be explained otherwise.


----------



## earl40

Leslie said:


> The scriptures make it very clear that miracles occur, both those from God and those from Satan. The prophecies of the last days reinforce that. This is also substantiated in real life. I have no problem at all with RC miracles that are documented. But the "gospel" that they authenticate tells us something about their origin. That God doesn't do miracles to support false religion is evident. But that does not obligate us to deny the reality that something happened. The documentation is not necessarily false, though it could be. It is merely a cultural anti-supernatural bias that refuses to accept documentation. There is nothing virtuous about it.
> 
> On the other hand, the devil does not do miracles to promoste the Kingdom of God. Luke 11 makes that abundantly clear. At the present time, most of these events that I'm aware of occur in the context of frontier missions, particularly in M (ROP) ministries. About half of the ROP adherents who become Christians do so either directly or indirectly as a result of miraculous events. This is per DUdley Woodbury who collected extensive data on such conversions. I personally had a ministry for about a year with the daughter church born of one of these groups, where over 100 M men, the majority of them theologians, became Christian brothers within a matter of 3 days. In another case an ROP theologian who had studied in Saudi Arabia became a believer after being healed of terminal AIDS through the ministry of some Christians in Addis. His blood test turned from positive to negative, and he went from bedridden to fully functional. He told his story in a local church near here. His M physician also converted. We believe this since we have personally witnessed the results, using the same logic that we use to affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus: multiple witnesses and long-term consequences that cannot be explained otherwise.




Would you have a problem if they converted to the RC faith because of "RC miracles that are documented"?


----------



## Free Christian

It makes me wonder. All the miracles I hear of these days, me that is, are from places like Africa. Why do not the same miracles happen where I live in Australia? Or why don't I hear about them? And no I don't believe they are supressed here. 
Why only places like that? Seriously, does a person need to go to Africa to witness these miracles?


----------



## earl40

Free Christian said:


> It makes me wonder. All the miracles I hear of these days, me that is, are from places like Africa. Why do not the same miracles happen where I live in Australia? Or why don't I hear about them? And no I don't believe they are supressed here.
> Why only places like that? Seriously, does a person need to go to Africa to witness these miracles?



Been working at a hospital for over 30 years and have had many African patients who never were healed in a truly miraculous way such as Jesus and the apostles performed. Should we use our experiences, or lack there of, dictate what what we believe scripture teaches? Or should we let our experiences augment cessationism is true which In my most humble opinion is what scripture teaches.


----------



## RamistThomist

py3ak said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Thess 2 says Antichrist will work signs and wonders. For that point alone, I do not worry if Rome has "miracles." Would we tell Paul, "No, that's not possible beacause God doesn't work miracles in the post-apostolic age?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't seem to contradict my point that contemporary/ecclesiastical-historical miracles are not the standard by which we judge. Unless all the miracles are demonstrably on one side, their value for settling a controversy is small.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with what you have just said. I am just wary of the nigh-David Humean approach which comes very close to saying, "It can't happen because that's not how God works."


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The accounts given in _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of_ Scots Worthies _actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they are not documented miracles but a part of the hagiography. I repeat my original request -- SHOW me their miracles.
Click to expand...


I imagine we have different presuppositions about "documented." Grant's work is nothing close to hagiography.


----------



## RamistThomist

Free Christian said:


> In 2 Thessalonians 2 it say with "power, signs and lying wonders". I take that as lies that those who are not saved believe, some may believe that something was a miracle because they were told so by, say the RC church, but it was not a miracle or prove-able, just quite simply a lie that they believed was a wonder or miracle. To those not deceived nothing really happened. Correct me if im wrong there by all means.



The language here seems to suggest that something-not-quite-explainable-by-modern-science happened. In Revelation 13, it's even stronger.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The accounts given in _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, Grant's works on Cameron and Cargill (these two are actually scholarly, meticulously documented works). Even more interesting, one of the earlier editions of_ Scots Worthies _actually changed some of the text to remove references to miracles. The recent Banner of Truth edition, while disagreeing with the prophecies by Knox's two predecessors, acknowledged and corrected the previous excision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they are not documented miracles but a part of the hagiography. I repeat my original request -- SHOW me their miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, can we raise the _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, along side with scripture as the RC does with their tradition?
Click to expand...


No one is claiming that. Saying a miracle happened doesn't necessarily make the statement "A miracle happened" synonymous with Scripture.


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, can we raise the _Six Saints of the Covenant_, _A Hind Let Loose_, along side with scripture as the RC does with their tradition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I like a little hagiography to help balance out critical views of history. I think we can read such accounts and look at it under the category of special providence. There is no need to ascribe it to extraordinary providence.
> 
> For Brett, I agree with you that counterfeit miracles are lying wonders. God's wonders are all around us. Man himself is a wonder. A lying wonder manipulates the ordinary either in the thing or in the perception; it does not act extraordinarily.
Click to expand...


Most people say the claims made by hagiography aren't true. But you seem to say it is a special providence, which makes it seem to be true (if irregular). How is that different from what I am saying?

(And my original point didn't rest on Six Saints, since many of the miracles reported by Wishart, Hamilton, Knox are independent of Six Saints)


----------



## Free Christian

If I relied upon my own experiences or lack of as to what I believe then what I believe wouldn't be worth much at all. My faith foundation would be self based.
I look, search, seek, listen and so on then try to weigh it up Biblically.


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> I imagine we have different presuppositions about "documented." Grant's work is nothing close to hagiography.



If you present the evidence from Grant's biographies I will carefully weigh it against the biblical criteria to see whether there was a genuine continuation of biblical miracles to confirm the word which these men delivered.


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> Most people say the claims made by hagiography aren't true. But you seem to say it is a special providence, which makes it seem to be true (if irregular). How is that different from what I am saying?



The thing that is true is not a "miracle" in the sense in which it is used in this thread. "Continuation" of miracles requires that the phenomenon which appears in Scripture reappears outside of Scripture.


----------



## Free Christian

Baroque Norseman said:


> The language here seems to suggest that something-not-quite-explainable-by-modern-science happened.


It says to me a "lying wonder". Lie, not true. Something that happens that appears to be real like a trick by a magician but is not. Seems to suggest and perhaps or could be leave open the door for too much error to creep in. That allows ones imagination too much poetic license, being how I look at things. I have read many things in the past where the writer says, perhaps God was doing this, or perhaps the apostle meant so on. I put the brakes on hard when I read things like that, and come to a halt, and stop.


----------



## MW

armourbearer said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people say the claims made by hagiography aren't true. But you seem to say it is a special providence, which makes it seem to be true (if irregular). How is that different from what I am saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that is true is not a "miracle" in the sense in which it is used in this thread. "Continuation" of miracles requires that the phenomenon which appears in Scripture reappears outside of Scripture.
Click to expand...


The following statement from Richard Cameron might help to illustrate the difference: "We are not to look for miracles, but we may look for wonders. The Lord will do great wonders for the people that own His cause, and we will not be loosed or delivered without wonders. The Lord that brought us out of Egypt is our hope and help." -- Sermons delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland, 412.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think there is some confusion, again, in what the Reformed typically think of as miracles. Matthew has noted it but it seems to be lost on some.

The Reformed have never ceased praying that God would work powerfully among us. We pray for the conversion of souls, for the healing of the sick, and even that God might deliver us from our enemies (both spiritually and, Yes, even physically). One has to be especially tone deaf to the very testimony of the Reformed confessions to miss the reliance upon God that He would continue to act in a supernatural and powerful manner among us. I pray so, desperately, every Sunday for our congregation. I pray with the sick that the Lord would heal them. I have even thanked God for things that I can only attribute to His direct hand. We are not naturalists expecting the world to be devoid of the wondrous.

Perhaps it sounds too "clinical" to note that we believe in "extraordinary" Providences. I have friends that are fond of saying: "That's such a God thing..." when some confluence of events causes us to be amazed at the workings of God. Of course, one of the things that I try to remind them (and myself) that Providence itself is actually pretty amazing. God actually is very angry at His creatures that we don't look at the "regularity" of things He upholds and thank Him for it (see Romans 1:18ff). We become dull to the created order and how the heavens and the earth utter forth speech about our great God. Do we thank Him for the sunrise and marvel that He has caused it to come up yet another day or do we chalk that up to just the ordinary? It's just Providence after all.

Yet, above and beyond the ordinary things that God does (that are worthy of our continually praise), He performs some pretty amazing things that stop us in our tracks. He hears our prayers and people are delivered from sin and sickness. He causes events to come together when we think we are doomed. He makes inroads for the Gospel when it seems the doors are shut.

And yet, I must insist, because the Scriptures are clear to me that God raised up certain offices and certain gifts for Redemptive moments in history. It's no mistake that we see "miracles" clustured around Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and then the Apostles. It's not because our forebears in the faith forgot to record other things. I'm quite certain God was healing diseased in remarkable ways or even delivering Israel from their enemies without fire coming down from heaven. Yet, the "miracles" were for a testimony to especial work He was doing in establishing foundations. He was establishing something by which we can live by - something by which we can lay hold of. Peter himself testifies to this when he states that the Transfiguration was quite remarkable but that we have a more sure foundation in the things that have been revealed.

The pattern of the Scriptures is that God raised up the Prophets and the Apostles and not one word that He desired for our establishment fell to the ground. Read Moses or Samuel or the Prophets or the Apostles on how they are wont to record these things because the Holy Scriptures are the power of God unto salvation.

Thus, let's not get distracted by the notion that the Reformed deny the continuing action of the power of God all around us. Read the Offices of Christ in our Confessions if you doubt it. It is much more powerful than any testimony of a "miracle" from today to consider that the Son of God is ruling and reigning and is using His Word to convert the hearts of sinners for His glory. 

We pray for God's continuous Hand in history but we need not pray for any more "miracles" that will give us a better foundation. The foundation is laid and we have everything we need for life and Godliness in the living and active Word that God laid down for our full salvation.


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> I pray so, desperately, every Sunday for our congregation. I pray with the sick that the Lord would heal them. I have even thanked God for things that *I can only attribute to His direct hand.*



This In my most humble opinion would be a miracle in my thinking just like the ones Jesus and the apostles performed. I see the same, and in each and every case I can attribute the healing to Our Lord working in a wondrous way through ordinary providence. If we pray for someone to be healed of sickness and they appear to be healed in a "supernatural" way would you classify this as a miracle? Is it just because we have no explanation on how God worked in an ordinary way?

Or am I missing something in that the healing you see is done differently than Jesus and the apostles?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pray so, desperately, every Sunday for our congregation. I pray with the sick that the Lord would heal them. I have even thanked God for things that *I can only attribute to His direct hand.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This In my most humble opinion would be a miracle in my thinking just as Jesus and the apostles healed the sick supernaturally. I see the same, and in each and every case I can attribute the healing to Our Lord working in a wondrous way through ordinary providence. If we pray for someone to be healed of sickness and they appear to be healed in a "supernatural" way would you classify this as a miracle? Is it just because we have no explanation on how God worked in an ordinary way?
> 
> Or am I missing something in that the healing you see is done differently than Jesus and the apostles?
Click to expand...


That's what I'm trying to point out is that there is some equivocation of terms going on. The Scriptures don't really have a single word for miracle and we tend to have a widely varying way of using the term.

C. Everett Koop wrote an article for Modern Reformation a number of years ago titled "Faith Healing and the Sovereignty of God". In it he writes:


> I don't know how many operations I performed in my surgical career. I know that I performed 17,000 of one particular type, and 7,000 of another. I practiced surgery for thirty-nine years, so perhaps I performed 50,000 operations. I was successful, and patients were coming to me from all over the world. And one of the things that endeared me to the parents of my patients was the way my incisions healed. No one likes big scars, but they are especially upsetting to mothers when they appear on their children. So I set out early on to make my scars small, as short and as thin as possible. These "invisible" scars became my trademark. But was I a healer?
> 
> The secret of thin scars is to make the incision precise-no feathered edges-and in the closing, to get the edges of the skin in exact apposition. I would do this by sewing the stitches inside the skin, but not through it, and the knots were tied on the bottom. All you have to figure out is how I crawled out after doing that.
> 
> I was the one who put the edges together, but it was God who coagulated the serum. It was God who sent the fiberblasts out across the skin edges. It was God who had the fiberblasts make collagen, and there were probably about fifty other complicated processes involved about which you and I will never know. But did God come down and instruct the fiberblasts to behave that way? In a sense, he did. But he did it through his natural laws, just the way he makes the grass grow, the rain fall, the earth quake. The question, then, is not, Does God heal? Of course he heals! We are concerned with this question: Granted that God heals, is it normally according to natural laws or an interruption of those laws (i.e., a miracle)?


You see that Koop touches on a point I was trying to make earlier is that God is always the healer. Those that have a strong dividing line for the "laws of nature" and what they term "miracle" are actually revealing that they tend to see "normal" things as occurring as a law unto themselves. Ironically, it's not the Reformed that often belie a naturalist streak but those that divide up the world between "laws of nature" and "things God does".

For the sake of your question, however, if I just adopt the term "miracle" for anything that violates the "laws of nature" (what a scientist could not predict) then I don't think anyone is arguing against "miracles" in that sense of the term.

By that standard, the Book of Esther is one huge "miracle" but Israel is not delivered by a pillar of fire. The reason so many struggle with God not being mentioned in Esther is that it is hard for some to imagine anything being of God unless there is a flash bang.

The issue the Reformers were wont to defend (and we continue to defend) is that there were spectacular signs _that attended the offfices of certain men_. These men were in key Redemptive moments of history. It was not mere coincidence (or because Moses was an especially faith-filled fellow) that signs and wonders attended to the time of Moses when the Law would be recorded. The signs and wonders were as a testimony to the work of God. As Vos and others have pointed out, then, there is a period of inscripturation that captures the details of those Redemptive events and gives explanation to it. God's relationship to Israel in the Law is forever thereafter shaped by the fact that He is the God that "...brought them out of Egypt and through the Red Sea...." 

Each period of these special offices being raised up is accomponied by signs and wonders to denote that the man is of the office and that God intends to build upon the foundation preiouvsly inscripturated.

The problem with very loose definitions about "miracles" is that the "extraordinary-ness" of God's special acts in history is lost as is the fact that there was something special and timely about the men He raised up for certain tasks. Ephesians 4 says that He gave us Apostles for the building up of the Church. That's important. That's worth setting apart. If I pray that my friend is healed and he is healed then I thank God but I don't think that it rises to the level of laying another stone in the foundation of the people of God. I don't think that his healing signals to me that God is about to inscripturate something new by which the Church may be more fully equipped for life and Godliness.

Put more simply, I don't have any reason to doubt that some pretty amazing things happen by the hand of God that I cannot explain (nor need to). That said, there is nothing (outside of Christ's return) that I need to be looking at in terms of new foundations. Why? Because all those who have reports of healings and miracles are, in my mind, nothing to be compared to the witness I have of a Man who rose from the dead. I also have the documentation of those whom He gave authority to teach and perform wonders in His name. I'll believe His and their reports, thank you very much. All the other reports are interesting but they have nothing to teach me of greater authority than the men Christ commissioned to complete the foundation upon which all life and Godliness depends.

It's easy to throw out slogans like "I'm putting God in a box" or "I don't believe God can do anything" but I see things differently. Hath God really said? It's the oldest trick in the Book to _seem_ to be arguing for something good when you're really arguing against what God revealed. Increasingly, when I tell people what I believe about a thing being guided by the Word it's sort of met with the skepticism that I haven't really thought through the issue. Yesterday, for instance, I was asking that we pray for a man who is "waiting on the Lord" to tell him what to do. He has forsaken his vows to Church but is convinced that the Lord is not "leading him" to join any Church in the area.

When I simply pointed out that the Word plainly teaches us that we're supposed to be a part of a Church there was a certain amount of reticence. Why? Because the man and his family are very nice. But they are disobeying the Word of God. I have the ability for great liberality of thought. It's not that I cannot think of a way in which the fellows' behavior might be justified. In fact, might someone argue that I'm "putting God in a box" because maybe, just maybe, God is speaking to this fellow and telling him that, in spite of what the Word says, he really shouldn't be joining any Church until He feels an immediate leading from the Lord.

That sounds pious to so many people but it is not. God commands the exact opposite and I just don't understand people that look sideways at those who say: "Yeah, but I'll take what I'm confident the Word says over what my gut says or what that guy with a story about somebody who saw a modern miracle says."

We used to commend Evangelicals who stood on the Word and wouldn't allow _anything_ to be placed on par with it. Now we accuse men and women who are skeptical of those who want to place modern signs and wonders on par with Scripture as somehow missing something. Even the term "cessationist" is somehow taken as if Protestants have believed in a God they can box up. The reality, historically, is that the arguments of the Charismatics against the historical Protestant position are just a variation on the theme of how the Roman Catholics assailed confidence in standing on the Scriptures alone. They may be unwittingly embracing the same arguments but the net result is that the historic confidence in a sure foundation is subtly undermined.


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people say the claims made by hagiography aren't true. But you seem to say it is a special providence, which makes it seem to be true (if irregular). How is that different from what I am saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that is true is not a "miracle" in the sense in which it is used in this thread. "Continuation" of miracles requires that the phenomenon which appears in Scripture reappears outside of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The following statement from Richard Cameron might help to illustrate the difference: "We are not to look for miracles, but we may look for wonders. The Lord will do great wonders for the people that own His cause, and we will not be loosed or delivered without wonders. The Lord that brought us out of Egypt is our hope and help." -- Sermons delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland, 412.
Click to expand...


When Richard Cameron prophecied the deaths of several reprobates, is that a "miracle?" Given your answers to previous posts, I think we do not disagree substantially, only on terminology. If so, that's all I have to say.


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> When Richard Cameron prophecied the deaths of several reprobates, is that a "miracle?" Given your answers to previous posts, I think we do not disagree substantially, only on terminology. If so, that's all I have to say.



He did not claim God was speaking through him to the church, so it was not prophecy in the biblical sense; hence there is no "continuation."

The problem is not over terminology, but over the claim that "continuationism" receives some kind of support in the Scottish Reformed tradition. If one is going to make such claims one should be prepared to support it with something more than anecdotal evidence.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Richard Cameron prophecied the deaths of several reprobates, is that a "miracle?" Given your answers to previous posts, I think we do not disagree substantially, only on terminology. If so, that's all I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not claim God was speaking through him to the church, so it was not prophecy in the biblical sense; hence there is no "continuation."
> 
> The problem is not over terminology, but over the claim that "continuationism" receives some kind of support in the Scottish Reformed tradition. If one is going to make such claims one should be prepared to support it with something more than anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...


Would the only difference between this wonder of foretelling the future, and a prophesy be that the wonder is not recorded as scripture?


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> Put more simply, I don't have any reason to doubt that some pretty amazing things happen by the hand of God that I cannot explain (nor need to).



May I ask if you saw someone who you knew was dead raised would you not proclaim or "explain" a miracle took place? In other words, the "amazing" things the people who witnessed Jesus and the apostles saw In my most humble opinion rose above anything we now see. We see The Lord working through means such as antibiotics or fine surgery such as Dr. Koop spoke about. My definition of a miracle is more than something science cannot explain now or ever. My definition of a miracle would be the direct Hand of God intervening against the laws of nature.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put more simply, I don't have any reason to doubt that some pretty amazing things happen by the hand of God that I cannot explain (nor need to).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask if you saw someone who you knew was dead raised would you not proclaim or "explain" a miracle took place? In other words, the "amazing" things the people who witnessed Jesus and the apostles saw In my most humble opinion rose above anything we now see. We see The Lord working through means such as antibiotics or fine surgery such as Dr. Koop spoke about. My definition of a miracle is more than something science cannot explain now or ever. My definition of a miracle would be the direct Hand of God intervening against the laws of nature.
Click to expand...


I know we're talking in "What if's" here. If I had some way of finding, for instance, that Jesus did not, in fact, rise from the dead then that would change everything.

The question is not so much what I would call a relative being raised from the dead as to what it would _signify_. Is it a "sign" for something. Does it signal that God has raised up someone for some new work?

Notice that every time the Apostles healed someone it was to draw attention not to the sign itself but to what it _signified_. It testified to the truth that Christ had, indeed, risen from the dead and their power was a testimony of that. Jesus stated that a wicked generation looks for signs because they're interested in the show. Meanwhile, He was standing right in front of them (what the signs pointed _to_) and they were more interested in seeing more signs. They were not satisfied with the Person but wanted the satisfaction of seeing the extraordinary.

Such signs don't just "hang" for no reason. They don't go without any accompanying explanation as to what we're supposed to understand they are pointing to. The reason I wouldn't put it in the same category as the signs of Christ and the Apostles is that they clearly explained what the signs were for.

In other words, in order to be a sign (in the Biblical sense) there needs to be revelatory explanation of that sign - here is what you are to understand; this is why the Lord has done this.

Absent that Revelatory aspect, I do not consider anything - however remarkable - to be in the same category.


----------



## Mushroom

As an aside, I've met a number of men who have claimed to have seen visions, either visually or in a dream, that are the basis of their calls to ministry in Reformed Presbyterian Churches. I'm curious as to how should one respond to something like that?


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> The question is not so much what I would call a relative being raised from the dead as to what it would _signify_. Is it a "sign" for something. Does it signal that God has raised up someone for some new work?
> 
> Notice that every time the Apostles healed someone it was to draw attention not to the sign itself but to what it _signified_. It testified to the truth that Christ had, indeed, risen from the dead and their power was a testimony of that. Jesus stated that a wicked generation looks for signs because they're interested in the show. Meanwhile, He was standing right in front of them (what the signs pointed _to_) and they were more interested in seeing more signs. They were not satisfied with the Person but wanted the satisfaction of seeing the extraordinary.
> 
> Such signs don't just "hang" for no reason. They don't go without any accompanying explanation as to what we're supposed to understand they are pointing to. The reason I wouldn't put it in the same category as the signs of Christ and the Apostles is that they clearly explained what the signs were for.
> 
> In other words, in order to be a sign (in the Biblical sense) there needs to be revelatory explanation of that sign - here is what you are to understand; this is why the Lord has done this.
> 
> Absent that Revelatory aspect, I do not consider anything - however remarkable - to be in the same category.



I hear and agree with you. I know we both believe God can do anything He wills to perform immediately without a mediate. I think we may simply disagree if God does indeed do such today. So when I see the word "wondrous" or "extraordinary" I see this a precursor to what Our Lord and the apostles did in their miraculous works. Of course when I read accounts of such I am almost completely skeptical to not believe they occurred as a supernatural immediate work of God.


----------



## earl40

Mushroom said:


> As an aside, I've met a number of men who have claimed to have seen visions, either visually or in a dream, that are the basis of their calls to ministry in Reformed Presbyterian Churches. I'm curious as to how should one respond to something like that?



As a layman I hope these dreams were not considered in the vetting process UNLESS it was simply showing a strong desire to be a pastor.


----------



## timmopussycat

Eoghan said:


> It does however leave a huge hole in the argument of continuationists - doesn't the Roman Catholic church with it's "miracles" represent perfect continuity?
> 
> We would say that Apostolic office ceased - the pentecostal church called the Apostolic Church would disagree. So would the Roman Catholic church!
> 
> If signs do continue to authenticate, then is the Roman Catholic church not authenticated by it's "miracles" and the Reformed churches bereft?
> 
> I was also interested to read Hodge's opinion of the roman catholic mass so long celebrated in Latin as a violation of Paul's prohibition on addressing the church in a foreign language it did not understand.



No, continuationists (i.e., Reformed leaning charismatics) will have no trouble with such arguments for they will reply with two solid answers. First, the real question is not do the biblical gifts of the Spirit continue, but "which contemporary manifestations of the biblical spiritual gifts are true and which are counterfeit?" The answer to that question is provided in the biblical criteria for judging claimed manifestations of the gifts. Second, re the Apostles: the apostles cannot continue for a) a qualification for the office, that of seeing the Lord, cannot now be met by any living human and b) the essential function of their ministry was to lay the foundation of the church in the canon, something now completed. (1 Cor. 3:10,11; Eph 2:20).


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Richard Cameron prophecied the deaths of several reprobates, is that a "miracle?" Given your answers to previous posts, I think we do not disagree substantially, only on terminology. If so, that's all I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not claim God was speaking through him to the church, so it was not prophecy in the biblical sense; hence there is no "continuation."
> 
> The problem is not over terminology, but over the claim that "continuationism" receives some kind of support in the Scottish Reformed tradition. If one is going to make such claims one should be prepared to support it with something more than anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...


For all practical purposes, he predicted the future with knowledge he normally wasn't supposed to have. 

As to anecdotal evidence--and I will try to dig up the Grant references--I fear that any evidence I respond with you will simply label as "anecdotal."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> continuationists (i.e., Reformed leaning charismatics)


It may be the case that those who "lean" in the Reformed direction (whatever that means) might be a bit more sober-minded about the issue but that is such a minuscule subset of Charismatics that it hardly qualifies to speak for whether the group has a unified answer to the problem. I would also add that the group of "Reformed leaning charismatics" can hardly be nailed down in terms of what their "Confession" is on the issue.




timmopussycat said:


> First, the real question is not do the biblical gifts of the Spirit continue,





timmopussycat said:


> Second, re the Apostles: the apostles cannot continue


These two statements are contradictory. The Apostolic office is, itself, a gift (Ephesians 4). Consequently, the real issue is not whether but _which_ of the spiritual gifts continue. If the question of the _extent_ of the gifts that continue is not first answered properly then the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles will be improperly applied to the current Church.


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> For all practical purposes, he predicted the future with knowledge he normally wasn't supposed to have.



As he had (1) the prophetic word of Scripture to understand the moral government of the world, and (2) faith in exercise, which is the substance of things hoped for, it is not surprising that he could speak about future events as if they were certain. It is also the case that his supporters have to be very charitable to him in order to find a future fulfilment to his statements because they did not all come to pass exactly as he stated.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Would the only difference between this wonder of foretelling the future, and a prophesy be that the wonder is not recorded as scripture?



No. Prophecy is divine. Like the word which created all things prophecy creates the future it foretells. Outside of the prophetic movement of redemptive history there is no genuine foretelling of the future; just a prognostication based on insight.


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all practical purposes, he predicted the future with knowledge he normally wasn't supposed to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As he had (1) the prophetic word of Scripture to understand the moral government of the world, and (2) faith in exercise, which is the substance of things hoped for, it is not surprising that he could speak about future events as if they were certain. It is also the case that his supporters have to be very charitable to him in order to find a future fulfilment to his statements because they did not all come to pass exactly as he stated.
Click to expand...


What Cameron did is considered future prediction by almost anyone's standards. If I prophecy quite specifically that God will destroy FEMA in the near future (Cargill was amazingly accurate concerning the timing of a Christ-hater's death), and then God does destroy FEMA, then 9 out of 10 people will call that prophecy, future prediction, foretelling, etc. I do understand what you mean by things that haven't happened yet. Particularly the burning of Rome. But then again, time hasn't ended, either.


----------



## davdavis

jambo said:


> I thnk miracles claimed by the RC church are most dubious to say the least. How many folk who visit Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorie etc are actually healed by visiting those shrines? In RC thinking to become a saint 2 miracles must be attributed to the person but if a healing takes place who is to say that it was St Theresa or St Martin or whoever or else medical science or psychology



Don't forget the holy house of Loretto!


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> What Cameron did is considered future prediction by almost anyone's standards.



You have to force the "fulfilment" to fit the "prediction." Consider John Howie's "fulfilment" of Cameron's prediction concerning the house of Stuart. The words as spoken are general, and taken in this general sense Cameron's prediction did not come to pass, but as interpreted by Howie the words are made to fit the event.

If one digs a little deeper it will be seen that Cameron's "predictions" were motivated by his situation. In order to accredit these as "prophecies" one has to validate his moral stance towards Church and State. This turns the biblical order on its head. By this means a person could be led to adopt any course of action irrespective of a Scriptural judgment.


----------

