# Westminster Divines were continuationists?



## Need 4 Creed

What do y'all make of this? 

"In the opening chapter of the Confession, the divines of Westminster included a clause which implied that there would no longer be any supernatural revelation from God for showing humankind the way of salvation. Means by which God had once communicated the divine will concerning salvation, such as dreams, visions, and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, were said to be no longer applicable.

However, many of the authors of the WCF accepted that “prophecy” continued in their time, and a number of them apparently believed that disclosure of God’s will through dreams, visions, and angelic communication remained possible." 

Garnet Milne’s published dissertation The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation: The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-Biblical Prophecy Is Still Possible (Paternoster, 2007). Quoted in: 
The Puritans, Strange Fire, Cessationism, and the Westminster Confession | TGC


----------



## SeanAnderson

Is a moderate continuation of prophecy incompatible with cessationism?

The important difference would be: any prophecy now is not a special revelation on a par with scripture, but should instead point to the sufficient truth we already have in God's Word.

This is an interesting article about Spurgeon and prophecy.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

What is a "moderate continuation of prophecy"? 

Is it incompatible? Depends what it is.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A search will yield a lot of old threads. Here is a long one in particular from 2004-2005. Well let things run on back in the day.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/cessationist-no-why-2-a-525/index5.html#post127378


----------



## Need 4 Creed

NaphtaliPress said:


> A search will yield a lot of old threads. Here is a long one in particular from 2005.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/cessationist-no-why-2-a-525/index5.html#post127378



Cheers -- but do they deal with the specific claims in the article? 

Do the deal with claims of continuationism within puritanism etc?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Maybe not Milne; forget when he published; but like I said this has been a topic at least since the board started and I did my research maybe ten years before that.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

I had a wee glance, of that extremely long post. 

I think the OP is slightly different in that it is not inviting debate about continuationism per se. 

It is asking how we interpret historical records of on-going phenomena among the reformed and puritans. 

Take for example John Kennedy, renowned Free Kirk minister and friend of Spurgeon: 



> But is there nothing more intimate than this in God's intercourse with His people? Is this all that is implied in the secret of the Lord being with them that fear Him? Is this peculiar privilege exhausted in their receiving a saving knowledge of the covenant of grace as revealed in the gospel? Is this all the proof given of their being the favourites of heaven? Is it what is barely necessary for their salvation alone God gives to His beloved people? Giveth He no assurance to them of His love to themselves individually? Do they remain ignorant of His mind in reference to the cases which they carry to His footstool, and there spread out before Him? Is God silent when they plead for others? Does He altogether hide from them, as He does from the world, the bearings and coming issues of His providence? Surely they are deceived who think that these things are so. And yet how many there are who would evacuate the communion of the Lord with His people of all special proofs of how near and dear to Him they are, and who regard the privilege, referred to in the text, as enjoyed merely in attainment of what is essential to salvation.
> 
> It is one extreme statement that God reveals aught to His people apart from the Bible, but it is another that He makes known to them only what is there directly revealed. We must not expect to know the mind of God but by means of the written word. "The law and the testimony" must be our only guide in knowing, our only standard in judging of the things of God. To that light must we repair to examine what is of God, and to that rule to try what professes to be of Him. (Isaiah 8: 19,20) But surely God does not make known to His people what is not directly revealed in His Word; although He does not do so except by means of what is written.



See whole article here: The Secret of the Lord by Dr John Kennedy

Now, Kennedy was not a fringe mystic, he was a reformed minister. How do we interpret the presence of this kind of thing within the reformed tradition? (Just to nail my colours to the mast, I'm not arguing for continuationism).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Milne takes a moderate approach if I recall; doesn't deny it as all superstitious nonsense. I quoted on that thread what I think is going on which falls under extraordinary providence.


----------



## chuckd

> Now, Kennedy was not a fringe mystic, he was a reformed minister. How do we interpret the presence of this kind of thing within the reformed tradition?



Maybe I'm missing the quote. Continuationists and cessationists both agree the canon is closed and that God may do as he pleases. It is a matter of what the Christian today is to expect and seek from the Lord.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

chuckd said:


> Now, Kennedy was not a fringe mystic, he was a reformed minister. How do we interpret the presence of this kind of thing within the reformed tradition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm missing the quote. Continuationists and cessationists both agree the canon is closed and that God may do as he pleases. It is a matter of what the Christian today is to expect and seek from the Lord.
Click to expand...


Aye, check the quote and the link to his sermon, he teaches that the Lord shares stuff with his covenant children as they pray to Him.


----------



## MW

Need 4 Creed said:


> However, many of the authors of the WCF accepted that “prophecy” continued in their time, and a number of them apparently believed that disclosure of God’s will through dreams, visions, and angelic communication remained possible."



This is incorrect. "Prophecy" had a broader connotation which included preaching. It came to be connected with a meeting in which men would expound Scripture and make practical application. It developed these meaning because the extraordinary element was understood to have ceased.

The Scottish spoke of an insight of faith produced by the ordinary working of the Spirit, not an immediate inspiration which must be received as infallible.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

MW said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, many of the authors of the WCF accepted that “prophecy” continued in their time, and a number of them apparently believed that disclosure of God’s will through dreams, visions, and angelic communication remained possible."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. "Prophecy" had a broader connotation which included preaching. It came to be connected with a meeting in which men would expound Scripture and make practical application. It developed these meaning because the extraordinary element was understood to have ceased.
> 
> The Scottish spoke of an insight of faith produced by the ordinary working of the Spirit, not an immediate inspiration which must be received as infallible.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your input Mathew. I did wonder about the terminology of 'prophecy' employed my Milne. Having not read his work, I don't know if he uses the term to define what they are describing, or whether they use the term. My experience with the puritans has been that 'prophecy' means preaching applied. 

I'm interested in your term "insight of faith" produced by the Spirit, to describe the phenomenon -- where have you come across that phrase? Who used it and what were they referring to?


----------



## MW

Consider Samuel Rutherford: "Where faith is, it has the gift of prophesying and foresight there" (Quaint Sermons, 4).

Believers have a supernatural and special revelation of God's will in Scripture. They have the Spirit applying the precious truth of Scripture to their souls, shaping them in its mould. This gives them a spiritual sense of things.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

MW said:


> Consider Samuel Rutherford: "Where faith is, it has the gift of prophesying and foresight there" (Quaint Sermons, 4).
> 
> Believers have a supernatural and special revelation of God's will in Scripture. They have the Spirit applying the precious truth of Scripture to their souls, shaping them in its mould. This gives them a spiritual sense of things.



What would you make of Kennedy?


----------



## MW

Need 4 Creed said:


> What would you make of Kennedy?



"This surely means more than that they have the Bible in their hands. True, in it, there is a complete revelation of the will of God. It is by it, too, that God communicates all the knowledge of His mind to which men shall attain on earth. But many have the Bible in whom the fear of the Lord is not found, and to whom the secret of the Lord is not given. They who fear the Lord have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that they might know the things that are freely given to them of God. It is thus that they are made to differ."

It is the Spirit blessing and applying the means of grace in day to day life.


----------



## One Little Nail

MW said:


> Consider Samuel Rutherford: "Where faith is, it has the gift of prophesying and foresight there" (Quaint Sermons, 4).
> 
> Believers have a supernatural and special revelation of God's will in Scripture. They have the Spirit applying the precious truth of Scripture to their souls, shaping them in its mould. This gives them a spiritual sense of things.



I believe what you're saying here relates to 2 distinct things in themselves, _Firstly_ the supernatural and special revelation of God's will in Scripture, is something that is common to all believers, whilst _Secondly_ those that be given 
the gift of prophesying and foresight through faith, would be something that is more rarer or less common in its operation & those who operate in such a spiritual gift would be of a fewer number, usually Ministers of the Gospel.

Prophesy was given for Edification 1 Cor 14:4 but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Prophesy is ministerial.


----------



## whirlingmerc

There's a difference between a supernatural leading of the dream or vision type for new doctrine related to salvation which ceased and other types of leadings.

I have no problem with a Muslim having a dream pointing to Jesus. It's not new doctrine.


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> This is incorrect. "Prophecy" had a broader connotation which included preaching. It came to be connected with a meeting in which men would expound Scripture and make practical application. It developed these meaning because the extraordinary element was understood to have ceased.
> 
> The Scottish spoke of an insight of faith produced by the ordinary working of the Spirit, not an immediate inspiration which must be received as infallible.



Do you mean prophecy had a broader connotation in Scripture in which it meant 1. hearing/seeing & repeating God's words/vision and 2. preaching and practical application? And the former has ceased?

Or do you mean prophecy in Scripture meant only hearing/seeing & repeating God's words/vision and the Reformed redefined it to mean something much broader?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

As I am studying Early Church Doctrine, it seems interesting to note that many of the church fathers believed that the canon was in fact closed. Prophecy, in the sense of a continuation of revelation (for the sake of definition), implies that the canon is not closed. It's clear that the divines also new the canon to be closed. Therefore, I'm not quite sure what exactly the argument would be at this point. If the canon is closed, then prophecy implies preaching, not revelation. 

Something to note, this is an area the church fathers had a great deal of time with, when facing the gnostics. Their claim was secret revelation, but the conclusion was always _anti scriptura_, which further solidifies the close of the canon.


----------



## RamistThomist

Need 4 Creed said:


> Now, Kennedy was not a fringe mystic, he was a reformed minister. How do we interpret the presence of this kind of thing within the reformed tradition? (Just to nail my colours to the mast, I'm not arguing for continuationism).



Why not just say it happened, and that's that? If the hard-line Warfieldians/Macarthur types would simply acknowledge that godly Reformed people have demonstrated "the remarkable" in terms of spiritual gifts, and that's cool and maybe not the Reformed position, but it happened, they could save themselves a lot of grief. 

Jack Deere, a man I wouldn't normally endorse, backed the truck up with evidence and cleaned house in the debate that elements of the Reformed tradition had no problem with continued spiritual gifts. I agree with him. Does that make it the Confessional position? Of course not, but I don't lose sleep over it.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, many of the authors of the WCF accepted that “prophecy” continued in their time, and a number of them apparently believed that disclosure of God’s will through dreams, visions, and angelic communication remained possible."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect. "Prophecy" had a broader connotation which included preaching. It came to be connected with a meeting in which men would expound Scripture and make practical application. It developed these meaning because the extraordinary element was understood to have ceased.
> 
> The Scottish spoke of an insight of faith produced by the ordinary working of the Spirit, not an immediate inspiration which must be received as infallible.
Click to expand...


But Richard Cameron clearly prophesied in the sense of future foretellings. I know we went back and forth on this, and maybe Maurice Grant was naive and gullible, but even assuming it didn't happen, Grant is reading prophecy in a sense of future telling.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> I believe what you're saying here relates to 2 distinct things in themselves, _Firstly_ the supernatural and special revelation of God's will in Scripture, is something that is common to all believers, whilst _Secondly_ those that be given
> the gift of prophesying and foresight through faith, would be something that is more rarer or less common in its operation & those who operate in such a spiritual gift would be of a fewer number, usually Ministers of the Gospel.
> 
> Prophesy was given for Edification 1 Cor 14:4 but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Prophesy is ministerial.



This misses the point of Rutherford's statement. Faith belongs to all God's people and is a part of the ordinary Christian life. There is prophetic insight which is a part of the ordinary function of faith. See Hebrews 11:1. This is something categorically different from the prophetic word which is embodied in Scripture. The prophetic word has ceased. Faith as a part of the normal Christian life continues.


----------



## MW

ReformedReidian said:


> But Richard Cameron clearly prophesied in the sense of future foretellings. I know we went back and forth on this, and maybe Maurice Grant was naive and gullible, but even assuming it didn't happen, Grant is reading prophecy in a sense of future telling.



Where did Cameron say, Thus saith the Lord, and call upon the church to receive his utterance as the word of the Lord? If he did not do this, then he did not prophesy in the biblical sense of the term.


----------



## timmopussycat

It may be helpful when considering these matters to consider that there may be an equivocation in the way the word "prophecy" is being used in these discussion. 

On the one hand, we have hardcore hyper Reformed who assume that any prophecy must be canonical revelation (defined as instructions that apply to all Christians in all ages) despite considerable Scriptural evidence that some prophecy was not intended to be canonical, but situational.

Next, we have Milne, who reviews Rutherford and the extraordinary tradition among Scots worthies and says (correctly, in my view) that there was something there, but that whatever this was, it was not the NT gift of prophecy (on the latter point he may or may not be correct - his thesis cannot be proven either way)

On the other hand we have Pentecostals and Charismatics claiming that the NT gift of prophecy still remains operative today. Unfortunately they too often justify this with a sub biblical exegesis of the NT evidence in such a way as to allow a kind of "fallible" prophecy that the Bible does not permit for a second.

And perhaps not all NT prophecy need be marked by an explicit "Thus saith the Lord." For in 1 Cor. 14:24,25, we have an incident where prophecy is the term used to describe the supernatural revealing of the secrets of an unbeliever's heart. Does this kind of thing happen today? It might. For I happen to have seen nearly an exact parallel to this where a Christian sister known to me was, apparently supernaturally, enabled to know a detail of someone's history that she subsequently claimed not to have learned by natural means. I have now known that sister for over 20 years and I have never seen a hint of a reason to think that her claim to ignorance of that detail before the moment of speaking was a lie. Was that incident an example of this aspect of NT prophecy? It seems to fit nearly all the criteria of the form of prophecy mentioned in those verses, save for the fact that the detail revealed came from the heart of a believer. Certainly it is a near parallel, possibly something along the order of the Scots worthies.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Richard Cameron clearly prophesied in the sense of future foretellings. I know we went back and forth on this, and maybe Maurice Grant was naive and gullible, but even assuming it didn't happen, Grant is reading prophecy in a sense of future telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Cameron say, Thus saith the Lord, and call upon the church to receive his utterance as the word of the Lord? If he did not do this, then he did not prophesy in the biblical sense of the term.
Click to expand...


I am leaving nuances and connotations of "prophecy" aside. And if that means Cameron wasn't speaking in the "biblical" sense of the term, so be it. All my claim is proving is that Cameron "told the future" and it happened. 

Among his hearers was Andrew Dalziel, a wild-fowler, who had been detained indoors by the weather and was present as an onlooker. Dalzier was known in the neighborhood for loose living, and Cameron's preaching aroused his indignation. At last he could retrain himself no longer. "Sir,' he called out derisively, 'we neither known you nor your God.'



> Cameron, musing a little, said: "You and all that do not know God in his mercy shall known him in his judgment, which shall be sudden and surprising in a few days upon you, which shall make you a terror to yourself, and all that shall be witness to your death, and I, as a sent servant of Jesus Christ, whose commission I bear, and whose badge or blaze upon my breast, give you warning.'


Grant mentions Dalziel died a few days later (Grant, _The Lion of the Covenant_, p. 188


----------



## RamistThomist

timmopussycat said:


> It may be helpful when considering these matters to consider that there may be an equivocation in the way the word "prophecy" is being used in these discussion.
> 
> On the one hand, we have hardcore hyper Reformed who assume that any prophecy must be canonical revelation (defined as instructions that apply to all Christians in all ages) despite considerable Scriptural evidence that some prophecy was not intended to be canonical, but situational.
> 
> Next, we have Milne, who reviews Rutherford and the extraordinary tradition among Scots worthies and says (correctly, in my view) that there was something there, but that whatever this was, it was not the NT gift of prophecy (on the latter point he may or may not be correct - his thesis cannot be proven either way)
> 
> On the other hand we have Pentecostals and Charismatics claiming that the NT gift of prophecy still remains operative today. Unfortunately they too often justify this with a sub biblical exegesis of the NT evidence in such a way as to allow a kind of "fallible" prophecy that the Bible does not permit for a second.
> 
> And perhaps not all NT prophecy need be marked by an explicit "Thus saith the Lord." For in 1 Cor. 14:24,25, we have an incident where prophecy is the term used to describe the supernatural revealing of the secrets of an unbeliever's heart. Does this kind of thing happen today? It might. For I happen to have seen nearly an exact parallel to this where a Christian sister known to me was, apparently supernaturally, enabled to know a detail of someone's history that she subsequently claimed not to have learned by natural means. I have now known that sister for over 20 years and I have never seen a hint of a reason to think that her claim to ignorance of that detail before the moment of speaking was a lie. Was that incident an example of this aspect of NT prophecy? It seems to fit nearly all the criteria of the form of prophecy mentioned in those verses, save for the fact that the detail revealed came from the heart of a believer. Certainly it is a near parallel, possibly something along the order of the Scots worthies.



Exactly, the Bible uses prophecy in different nuances. We often approach the text, single out one of these nuances (preferably the one that bolsters our opinion) and absolutize it at the expense of others.


----------



## One Little Nail

MW said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe what you're saying here relates to 2 distinct things in themselves, _Firstly_ the supernatural and special revelation of God's will in Scripture, is something that is common to all believers, whilst _Secondly_ those that be given
> the gift of prophesying and foresight through faith, would be something that is more rarer or less common in its operation & those who operate in such a spiritual gift would be of a fewer number, usually Ministers of the Gospel.
> 
> Prophesy was given for Edification 1 Cor 14:4 but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Prophesy is ministerial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This misses the point of Rutherford's statement. Faith belongs to all God's people and is a part of the ordinary Christian life. There is prophetic insight which is a part of the ordinary function of faith. See Hebrews 11:1. This is something categorically different from the prophetic word which is embodied in Scripture. The prophetic word has ceased. Faith as a part of the normal Christian life continues.
Click to expand...



There's no doubt Faith as a part of the normal Christian life continues or that it belongs to all God's people, this I do not or have not denied. My statement was in regards to the one stated of Rutherford that


One Little Nail said:


> "Where faith is, it has the gift of prophesying and foresight there" (Quaint Sermons, 4).


 which I take you mean what you've just said " There is prophetic insight which is a part of the ordinary function of faith " sure Faith's Assurance of Hope may have a "prophetic insight" in the most broadest convoluted sense but I would stop well short of saying it has "prophesying and foresight",


----------



## One Little Nail

ReformedReidian said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Richard Cameron clearly prophesied in the sense of future foretellings. I know we went back and forth on this, and maybe Maurice Grant was naive and gullible, but even assuming it didn't happen, Grant is reading prophecy in a sense of future telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Cameron say, Thus saith the Lord, and call upon the church to receive his utterance as the word of the Lord? If he did not do this, then he did not prophesy in the biblical sense of the term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am leaving nuances and connotations of "prophecy" aside. And if that means Cameron wasn't speaking in the "biblical" sense of the term, so be it. All my claim is proving is that Cameron "told the future" and it happened.
> 
> Among his hearers was Andrew Dalziel, a wild-fowler, who had been detained indoors by the weather and was present as an onlooker. Dalzier was known in the neighborhood for loose living, and Cameron's preaching aroused his indignation. At last he could retrain himself no longer. "Sir,' he called out derisively, 'we neither known you nor your God.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cameron, musing a little, said: "You and all that do not know God in his mercy shall known him in his judgment, which shall be sudden and surprising in a few days upon you, which shall make you a terror to yourself, and all that shall be witness to your death, and I, as a sent servant of Jesus Christ, whose commission I bear, and whose badge or blaze upon my breast, give you warning.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grant mentions Dalziel died a few days later (Grant, _The Lion of the Covenant_, p. 188
Click to expand...



I agree wholeheartedly with you, on this issue many Reformed folk, even Presbyterians are more than quite willing to disregard, excuse or worse, ignore their own heritage on this matter, that there was genuine *Non-Canonical* Prophecy
that was uttered by various Men during Reformation times, I myself do hold Reformed Presbyterian Covenanter Principles on most things, and what little knowledge or reading I have done on this has, in way of contrast, has produced ample 
evidence to suggest that there were Presbyterian Prophets, Non-Canonical but Ministerial who had the gift of extraordinary predictive prophesy, men like Knox, Welsh & Peden to mention a few. 

Just as a side note there was a great seer in the Reformed Church of South Africa who is said to have had a marvelous Gift of Prophesy called Van Rensburg the Prophet of the Boer's.


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Richard Cameron clearly prophesied in the sense of future foretellings. I know we went back and forth on this, and maybe Maurice Grant was naive and gullible, but even assuming it didn't happen, Grant is reading prophecy in a sense of future telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Cameron say, Thus saith the Lord, and call upon the church to receive his utterance as the word of the Lord? If he did not do this, then he did not prophesy in the biblical sense of the term.
Click to expand...


Why would he use a sense of the term other than biblical? It seems to create confusion.


----------



## earl40

timmopussycat said:


> It may be helpful when considering these matters to consider that there may be an equivocation in the way the word "prophecy" is being used in these discussion.
> 
> On the one hand, we have hardcore hyper Reformed who assume that any prophecy must be canonical revelation (defined as instructions that apply to all Christians in all ages) despite considerable Scriptural evidence that some prophecy was not intended to be canonical, but situational..




I am one of those hyper Reformed guys that understands that the life of faith is in no way the same as prophesy in the biblical sense of the term, which is no loger happening today.




timmopussycat said:


> For I happen to have seen nearly an exact parallel to this where a Christian sister known to me was, _apparently supernaturally_, enabled to know a detail of someone's history that she subsequently claimed not to have learned by natural means. I have now known that sister for over 20 years and I have never seen a hint of a reason to think that her claim to ignorance of that detail before the moment of speaking was a lie. Was that incident an example of this aspect of NT prophecy? It seems to fit nearly all the criteria of the form of prophecy mentioned in those verses, save for the fact that the detail revealed came from the heart of a believer. Certainly it is a near parallel, possibly something along the order of the Scots worthies.



It appeared to be was supernatural but in reality it was not.


----------



## RamistThomist

chuckd said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Richard Cameron clearly prophesied in the sense of future foretellings. I know we went back and forth on this, and maybe Maurice Grant was naive and gullible, but even assuming it didn't happen, Grant is reading prophecy in a sense of future telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Cameron say, Thus saith the Lord, and call upon the church to receive his utterance as the word of the Lord? If he did not do this, then he did not prophesy in the biblical sense of the term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would he use a sense of the term other than biblical? It seems to create confusion.
Click to expand...


My larger point was not whether Cameron had the specific, Pauline gift of prophesy (I actually think he did, but no matter). Perhaps "word of knowledge" is more precise. All I am trying to point out was that Cameron had access to knowledge not attainable by human means. Call it what you will.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be helpful when considering these matters to consider that there may be an equivocation in the way the word "prophecy" is being used in these discussion.
> 
> On the one hand, we have hardcore hyper Reformed who assume that any prophecy must be canonical revelation (defined as instructions that apply to all Christians in all ages) despite considerable Scriptural evidence that some prophecy was not intended to be canonical, but situational..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am one of those hyper Reformed guys that understands that the life of faith is in no way the same as prophesy in the biblical sense of the term, which is no loger happening today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> For I happen to have seen nearly an exact parallel to this where a Christian sister known to me was, _apparently supernaturally_, enabled to know a detail of someone's history that she subsequently claimed not to have learned by natural means. I have now known that sister for over 20 years and I have never seen a hint of a reason to think that her claim to ignorance of that detail before the moment of speaking was a lie. Was that incident an example of this aspect of NT prophecy? It seems to fit nearly all the criteria of the form of prophecy mentioned in those verses, save for the fact that the detail revealed came from the heart of a believer. Certainly it is a near parallel, possibly something along the order of the Scots worthies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appeared to be was supernatural but in reality it was not.
Click to expand...


How do you know it was not?


----------



## MW

ReformedReidian said:


> All my claim is proving is that Cameron "told the future" and it happened.



So did unbelievers. The Scottish belief in second sight was widespread.

At any rate, if the claim is not for biblical prophecy, then it is irrelevant to bring it up in the midst of a discussion on the "continuation" of biblical prophecy.



ReformedReidian said:


> Grant mentions Dalziel died a few days later (Grant, _The Lion of the Covenant_, p. 188



Did he make actual "predictions," or was he speaking in accord with the moral judgements of divine providence? Did everything he "predicted" come to pass, or was it just the occasional prognostication? Have the earlier accounts been told in light of the "prediction," or are the events validated in their own light?

The validation of prophecy is stringent in the Scriptures, and there were grave consequences for the person who falsely prophesied. Cameron knew this, and I therefore doubt seriously that he considered himself to be prophesying.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> but I would stop well short of saying it has "prophesying and foresight",



If one prays in accord with the will of God and seeks the return of prayer; if he is absorbed in the revelation of God's will and notes the way God deals with men; if he is a wise observer of providence; if he has a sound judgment of human character -- it would be very surprising if there were not some foresight which bears a likeness to the ordinary features of the prophetic message even while it falls short of the extraordinary elements. Some things are simply a matter of knowing the God who holds the future and therefore knowing what comes next.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Given the tendency to a bit of hagiography, one cannot simply assume every account in Presbyterian history is true (like some of the stories about Gillespie at the Westminster Assembly; eg the statement by Selden and that G was the source for SC 4). Covenanter history and tales are not infallibly to be received. But I don't think that explains everything of this sort. I think on balance Matthew explains what another Gillespie has said earlier, cited by Johnston,


NaphtaliPress said:


> The following is cited in Treasury of the Scottish Covenant by Johnston:
> "œI acknowledge the instances that have been published in Fleming´s "œFufilling" and in other books seem a specious plea that one kind of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit still continues. I think Mr. Gillespie of Carnock has given a satisfying answer. Human sagacity by attending to the operation of natural and moral causes may form shewd conjectures." John Erskine


Other things such as choosing the right path by letting the horse lead (as in Blair's case) may be called extraordinary or at least remarkably 'providential' providences. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/cessationist-no-why-2-a-525/index5.html#post127378


----------



## MW

chuckd said:


> Why would he use a sense of the term other than biblical? It seems to create confusion.



Prophesying can have a normal function of making known the will of God. The prophets of the Old Testament were not always predicting. Usually they were applying the blessings and curses of the covenant. Once it is accepted that predictive prophecy has ceased, it is natural to take the biblical exhortations related to prophecy and apply them to the ordinary exercise of making known God's will.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> All my claim is proving is that Cameron "told the future" and it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did unbelievers. The Scottish belief in second sight was widespread.
> 
> At any rate, if the claim is not for biblical prophecy, then it is irrelevant to bring it up in the midst of a discussion on the "continuation" of biblical prophecy.
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grant mentions Dalziel died a few days later (Grant, _The Lion of the Covenant_, p. 188
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he make actual "predictions," or was he speaking in accord with the moral judgements of divine providence? Did everything he "predicted" come to pass, or was it just the occasional prognostication? Have the earlier accounts been told in light of the "prediction," or are the events validated in their own light?
> 
> The validation of prophecy is stringent in the Scriptures, and there were grave consequences for the person who falsely prophesied. Cameron knew this, and I therefore doubt seriously that he considered himself to be prophesying.
Click to expand...


I don't know what else to say. You say "Cameron knew this and doubt seriously that he prophesied." I say he knew that and did prophesy. In both cases we are playing psychologist and reading into Cameron. I happened to point out a rather specific incident. True, it wasn't prefaced with the words, "And here in this case, please note, I am engaging in prophesy."


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Given the tendency to a bit of hagiography, one cannot simply assume every account in Presbyterian history is true (like some of the stories about Gillespie at the Westminster Assembly; eg the statement by Selden and that G was the source for SC 4). Covenanter history and tales are not infallibly to be received. But I don't think that explains everything of this sort. I think on balance Matthew explains what another Gillespie has said earlier, cited by Johnston,
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is cited in Treasury of the Scottish Covenant by Johnston:
> "œI acknowledge the instances that have been published in Fleming´s "œFufilling" and in other books seem a specious plea that one kind of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit still continues. I think Mr. Gillespie of Carnock has given a satisfying answer. Human sagacity by attending to the operation of natural and moral causes may form shewd conjectures." John Erskine
> 
> 
> 
> Other things such as choosing the right path by letting the horse lead (as in Blair's case) may be called extraordinary or at least remarkably 'providential' providences.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/cessationist-no-why-2-a-525/index5.html#post127378
Click to expand...


I grant what the point about hagiagrahy, but that doesn't explain why Peden is called "The Prophet of the Covenant." If "prophet" simply means applying Scripture, then most of us are probably prophets.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

ReformedReidian said:


> If "prophet" simply means applying Scripture, then most of us are probably prophets.




Apparently this is how Knox viewed himself: Orthodox Presbyterian Church


----------



## chuckd

MW said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he use a sense of the term other than biblical? It seems to create confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophesying can have a normal function of making known the will of God. The prophets of the Old Testament were not always predicting. Usually they were applying the blessings and curses of the covenant. Once it is accepted that predictive prophecy has ceased, it is natural to take the biblical exhortations related to prophecy and apply them to the ordinary exercise of making known God's will.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but a prophet or seer was called such because they heard God's voice or saw a vision from God and relayed that information to his people. The information was not necessarily predictive, but it was certainly different from simply making known the will of God by Biblical exposition. Do you mean a minister today prophesies each sermon?


----------

