Hermeneutics of Cessationism

[Afterthought]

In arguing that miracles are always signs to confirm the legitimacy of the one giving divine revelation, it seems one argument for the case is built by noticing that miracles always occur along with prophecy in the Bible. My question: Is merely noticing that something always occurs with another in the Bible sufficient warrant to prove something?

So in the example scenario above: Is it sufficient to prove that miracles are signs of confirmation by noticing that they always occur with prophecy/or (when it is possible to tell the purpose of the miracle) in that manner/for that purpose when prophecy occurs? Or is there another premise needed to complete the argument? And of course, why/why not/what makes the above sufficient/or does not?

As a possible counter-example to the reasoning presented being sufficient, I note that the Lord's Supper took place at evening, yet we are able to tell that is not enough to show that it must always take place at evening; another possible counter-example is if we noticed that all miracles occured in the morning, would we legitimately conclude then that all miracles only occur in the morning?

 

[Leslie]

Another assumption of this argument for cessationism is that authentication of the messenger is not a requirement during the current era.

 

[Afterthought]

Another assumption of this argument for cessationism is that authentication of the messenger is not a requirement during the current era.

I don't think it is an assumption, but rather an implication of this argument. This argument is that miracles are used to confirm that the messenger is indeed giving new divine revelation (not simply messengers who are working with divine revelation that had already been given), which is different from our age since the former ways of God's revealing His will have ceased. That is actually the major implicit assumption of this argument (or maybe it's actually the minor premise...too late out for me to sort that one out): it is that we have no new divine revelation coming during our era.

 

[Scott1]

Remember, the Word, which is the special revelation of God was built on the apostles and prophets- unique roles. The former required being an eyewitness of our Lord's resurrection (obviously not true for modern day persons who might want to presume that role).

Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

II Peter 1
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Remember, Apostle, means "sent" and was used to describe those who saw the resurrected Lord Jesus and were sent by Him to establish the church, built upon what the prophets had done.

So, modern day claimants, who have not seen the resurrected Lord are not sent in this unique way, have no apostolic authority, and no basis for claiming to lay the Holy Spirit inspired doctrine for the church until the end of the world.

 

[Afterthought]

Thank you. I do agree with all that. However, I was mostly interested in the interpretive principle as expressed in the argument of the OP and its bearings on that cessationist argument, rather than arguments for or against cessationism itself. Especially considering that such an interpretive principle could be used elsewhere, and the claim it seeks to prove has more general implications and applications than just cessationism.

 

[Scott1]

One other aspect of the interpretation is that it implicitly is against sola scriptura, and all that entails. Very significant error, opening the door to much disorder.

 

[Afterthought]

One other aspect of the interpretation is that it implicitly is against sola scriptura, and all that entails. Very significant error, opening the door to much disorder.

Yes, that certainly seems to be true about non-cessationist positions.

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping.

 

[sevenzedek]

Is it sufficient to prove that miracles are signs of confirmation by noticing that they always occur with prophecy/or (when it is possible to tell the purpose of the miracle) in that manner/for that purpose when prophecy occurs? Or is there another premise needed to complete the argument?

Perhaps the premise for which you are searching can be found in:

Hebrews 2:3-4, "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"

We could add to Hebrews 2 the words of God concerning the purpose of the miracles performed by Moses.

It is not as though we are led to assert the premise by mere conjecture. The scriptures seem to inform us when it is okay to make such a leap.

I am not familiar with entire cessation argument. Perhaps there is more that can be said that can fully seal the premise.

 

[Afterthought]

It is not as though we are led to assert the premise by mere conjecture. The scriptures seem to inform us when it is okay to make such a leap.

Thank you! It appears then, that you would say that what I had presented above is not enough to make the conclusion, but we need information from Hebrews and elsewhere to see that the pattern we see in Scripture is actually a general principle or rule (the general principle being, of course, that miracles are used to confirm new revelation). I myself wasn't sure of the matter: since the Scriptures are the rule of faith, I was wondering whether the pattern we see is enough to warrant believing it, and if it was, how it could be distinguished from similar matters where there are circumstantial things mixed within patterns of events. Of course, as mentioned, it appears you would deny such is sufficient, so I could very well be wrong.

I am not familiar with entire cessation argument. Perhaps there is more that can be said that can fully seal the premise.

Actually, I probably should have worded the OP better. My mistake! I think the cessationist case can be proven sufficiently from Hebrews 1 and 2, since it shows such miracles were a part of the history of salvation, confirming the last message of God to men. However, there are various other arguments that can be adduced to make the case stronger, e.g., 1 Cor. 13, noting that miracles were "signs of the apostles" in various places, noting the contexts in which the gifts were given, and of course, noting the general principle that miracles confirm new revelation. Some of these various other arguments are sufficient in themselves; others require taking the arguments together. I think the "general principle" argument is sufficient of itself, provided, of course, that one also holds to a closed canon.

 

[sevenzedek]

Of course, as mentioned, it appears you would deny such is sufficient, so I could very well be wrong.

While I am still in the process if learning to see the cessation argument with my own eyes, the premise we are discussing seems to be a very strong argument for cessation. However, using such logic to arrive at such a premise seems to be warranted only because we have taken our cue from God's words. The pattern is good but does not stand on its own.