History of Cessationism

[RamistThomist]

Some connect the annointing with oil to the extraordinary gifts that have ceased.

That's probably the standard 20th century cessationist view. The criticism that has been lodged against is that it is an assumption that is read into the text.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

Calvin and Poole both take James 5:14 to be connected with the extraordinary and temporary offices in the first century. One could also take it as a reference to the general medical practice of the day accompanied with prayer, similar to Paul's injunction to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Calvin and Poole both take James 5:14 to be connected with the extraordinary and temporary offices in the first century. One could also take it as a reference to the general medical practice of the day accompanied with prayer, similar to Paul's injunction to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake.

Why couldn’t it simply have been penned by men and preserved by God to be performed in all ages?

 

[Deleted member 9611]

Why couldn’t it simply have been penned by men and preserved by God to be performed in all ages?

It very well could be; however, scripture must be understood in context and under the general rules of the word and some would say that one of the views differing from your own are most consistent with that principle.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

It very well could be; however, scripture must be understood in context and under the general rules of the word and some would say that one of the views differing from your own are most consistent with that principle.

Is it not possible to overemphasize context in such a way that it greatly limits the applicability of the Word for us today?

 

[mpb]

@Blood-Bought Pilgrim I'm not able to pull the resources together at the moment to defend this position, but I'll state it anyway. I really think that the classic view in the Reformed tradition is that extraordinary works of God are for extraordinary times. They're not to be expected in every age and every circumstance, but they aren't limited to the first century, either. The modern ceasationist thesis is a 20th century response to pentecostalism, in my opinion.

Tyler is correct here. One of the first places I noticed this was when Gillespie addressed this in his Miscellany Questions.

Our forefathers did not speak in terms of cessationist vs. continuationist. They spoke in terms of ordinary vs. extraordinary relative to the offices and gifts.


Scottish Second Book of Discipline Ch 2.6
"Some of these ecclesiastical functions are ordinary, and some extraordinary or temporary. There are three extraordinary functions: the office of the apostle, of the evangelist, and of the prophet, which are not perpetual, and now have ceased in the kirk of God, ****except when he pleased extraordinarily for a time to stir some of them up again.**** There are four ordinary functions or offices in the kirk of God: the office of the pastor, minister or bishop; the doctor; the presbyter or elder; and the deacon."

"... concerning Prophets, I have before showed out of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. Jud.) that, in his days, their were still some in the church who had an extraordinary gift of prophecy, and such there have been also in other places, and at other times; of which there might be diverse instances given."
— George Gillespie, Miscellany Questions, Works, Vol. 2, Chapter 5, section 1, point 3, p. 28.

"... although such prophets be extraordinary, and but seldom raised up in the church, yet there have been, I dare say, not only in primitive times, but amongst our first reformers and others; and upon what Scripture can we pitch for such extraordinary prophets, if not upon those scriptures which are applied by some to the prophesying brethren, or gifted church members?"
— George Gillespie (Westminster Divine), Miscellany Questions, Vol. 2, Chapter 5, section 7, p. 30

"There is a revelation of some particular men, who have foretold things to come, even since the ceasing of the Canon of the Word, as John Husse [John Hus], Wickeliefe [Wycliffe], Luther, have foretold things to come and they certainly fell out, and in our nation of Scotland, M. George Wishart foretold that Cardinal Beaton should not come out alive at the Gates of the Castle of St. Andrews, but that he should die a shameful death, and he was hanged over the window that he did look out at, when he saw the man of God burnt, Knox prophesied of the hanging of the Lord of Grange, M. Ioh. Davidson uttered prophecies, known to many of the kingdome, diverse Holy and mortified preachers in England have done the like."
— Samuel Rutherford (Westminster Divine), A Survey Of The Spiritual Antichrist. Opening the Secrets Of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichrist Doctrine of John Saltmarsh (London: no pub., 1648), 42.

 

[Afterthought]

That's probably the standard 20th century cessationist view.

It isn't limited to that as noted by references to Calvin and Poole.

Is it not possible to overemphasize context in such a way that it greatly limits the applicability of the Word for us today?

Poole gives Scriptural references for his reasons.

"Anointing him with oil; an outward rite used in those times, in miraculous healing sick persons, which might then be kept up, while the gift whereof it was the symbol continued; but the gift ceasing, it is vainly used. These cures were sometimes wrought only with a word, Acts 9:34 14:10 16:18: sometimes by taking by the hand, or embracing, Acts 3:7 20:10; sometimes by laying on of hands, Mark 16:18 Acts 9:17; sometimes by anointing with oil, Mark 6:13: and so this is not an institution of a sacrament, but a command, that those elders that had the gift of healing, (as many in those days had), being called by the sick to come to them, should (the Spirit of the Lord so directing them) exercise that gift, as well as pray over them." --Poole

"And the prayer of faith; i.e. proceeding from faith; the cure is ascribed to prayer, the moral means, and standing ordinance, not to the anointing, which was but ceremonial and temporary; and to faith in prayer, to show that this remedy was effectual only when faith (requisite to the working of miracles) was active, viz. in a certain persuasion that the sick person should be healed."--Poole

 

[RamistThomist]

It isn't limited to that as noted by references to Calvin and Poole.

Noted

but the gift ceasing, it is vainly used.

He just asserts this. He might be correct, but he gives us no reason for thinking so. He follows with scriptural examples of various modes of healing. True, but none of those deal with the passage in question.

"And the prayer of faith; i.e. proceeding from faith; the cure is ascribed to prayer, the moral means, and standing ordinance, not to the anointing, which was but ceremonial and temporary; and to faith in prayer, to show that this remedy was effectual only when faith (requisite to the working of miracles) was active, viz. in a certain persuasion that the sick person should be healed."--Poole

It is true that the prayer of faith saves. But Poole draws the opposite conclusion: the anointing is tangential and temporary. If that is true, it seems like the apostle would tell us.

 

[Afterthought]

He just asserts this. He might be correct, but he gives us no reason for thinking so. He follows with scriptural examples of various modes of healing. True, but none of those deal with the passage in question.

"And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Mark 6:13 which Poole cites

 

[RamistThomist]

"And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Mark 6:13 which Poole cites

Yes, and Christian philosopher JP Moreland has done that as well.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't think he deals with the case of where he cast out several demons. Maybe not in this video.

 

[Afterthought]

Yes, and Christian philosopher JP Moreland has done that as well.

You said that none of the passages he cites deals with the passage in question. Clearly, this one does and needs to be taken into consideration when determining whether the annointing was extraordinary and ceased or ordinary and to be continued.

JP Moreland isn't even Reformed or so far as I'm aware even a Calvinist, is an OEC, which is an unacceptable error in the times we live, and attends a church co-led by a female pastor. He is not to be trusted in a discussion of Reformed theology or a Reformed interpretation of Scripture, nor when it comes to interpreting events, which always require a theological framework to decide what is actually going on. He has let his philosophy overrule submitting to God's revelation in Scripture, whatever true insights one might try to glean from an outsider as himself.

 

[Ploutos]

That's not exactly what he is saying. He knows about presuppositions. His point is that if you didn't operate with the assumption canon closed = no super gifts, you wouldn't come to that conclusion, especially since 1 Cor 1 says they will remain with us.

That said, I am not arguing for continuing prophecy. I blocked a ministry candidate on that point a few years ago.

If I am misreading him then I need to retract both the content and stridency of my prior remarks, for sure.

So, I took him as saying that, on a plain reading of scripture, charismaticism/continuationism in some form is more indisputably evident than a whooole range of other doctrines such as election, the end times, etc.

First, I'm not sure I agree. Second, I was countering that if we locked people up alone with Scripture for 10 years, we wouldn't even be able to safely assume Trinitarian or Christological orthodoxy on the other end of that - in which case what is he trying to prove with that hypothetical? Hence the reaction... what's the point of validating continuationist thought with an m.o. that could also give us Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th Day Adventism?

That was my take. But it sounds like I may be off. In any event, I'm ready to hit the "retract" button if I'm misreading here.

 

[Afterthought]

So far as Rutherford goes, he had distinct ideas about "revelation" and which kinds continued, and he laid them out in the Spiritual Antichrist. It was quoted somewhere on the puritanboard, but I cannot find the thread. This other thread I found has some discussion and summary of what he said though: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/rutherford-the-gift-of-prophecy-and-the-wcf.27106/

 

[Phil D.]

...is an OEC, which is an unacceptable error in the times we live

Is this Old Earth Creationist, or something else?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

It isn't limited to that as noted by references to Calvin and Poole.


Poole gives Scriptural references for his reasons.

"Anointing him with oil; an outward rite used in those times, in miraculous healing sick persons, which might then be kept up, while the gift whereof it was the symbol continued; but the gift ceasing, it is vainly used. These cures were sometimes wrought only with a word, Acts 9:34 14:10 16:18: sometimes by taking by the hand, or embracing, Acts 3:7 20:10; sometimes by laying on of hands, Mark 16:18 Acts 9:17; sometimes by anointing with oil, Mark 6:13: and so this is not an institution of a sacrament, but a command, that those elders that had the gift of healing, (as many in those days had), being called by the sick to come to them, should (the Spirit of the Lord so directing them) exercise that gift, as well as pray over them." --Poole

"And the prayer of faith; i.e. proceeding from faith; the cure is ascribed to prayer, the moral means, and standing ordinance, not to the anointing, which was but ceremonial and temporary; and to faith in prayer, to show that this remedy was effectual only when faith (requisite to the working of miracles) was active, viz. in a certain persuasion that the sick person should be healed."--Poole

I see no reason to agree with the bit in bold, although I value Poole’s contributions considerably. I read it as a command for all elders, and see no reason to read it any other way. While my view may be wrong, I believe it errs to the side of caution in trying to interpret that passages in James in light of its ultimate author, that being the Lord Jesus Christ. I want to interpret the Scriptures as broadly as the analogy of faith and reasonable exegesis will allow. I believe these things were preserved for our learning, and that they weren’t merely preserved for us to learn about how things were done at such and such a time and place and culture, etc. Then again, I’m also one of the few people I know of on PB who seeks to apply the regulative principle more broadly than corporate worship. So maybe there’s a pattern here, or maybe I’m just consistent in this one respect.

I suppose “context” could also be claimed in support of the ultimate author of God’s Word being God, but I digress. The way that I’ve ordinarily seen context employed has been akin to academic handwaving.

In my walk, I’ve seen context overemphasized to such a degree that it can excuse just about about anything, from homosexuality to lady preachers. For this reason, I am extremely wary of anyone who belabors the importance of context.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

So far as Rutherford goes, he had distinct ideas about "revelation" and which kinds continued, and he laid them out in the Spiritual Antichrist. It was quoted somewhere on the puritanboard, but I cannot find the thread. This other thread I found has some discussion and summary of what he said though: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/rutherford-the-gift-of-prophecy-and-the-wcf.27106/

I wrote a paper "Scottish Pophets?" or at least notes for one, 20 years ago or so, and few months after joining PB posted extracts. Given the age it shows with no thread title in the search: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/517/page-3#post-83857

 

[RamistThomist]

If I am misreading him then I need to retract both the content and stridency of my prior remarks, for sure.

So, I took him as saying that, on a plain reading of scripture, charismaticism/continuationism in some form is more indisputably evident than a whooole range of other doctrines such as election, the end times, etc.

First, I'm not sure I agree. Second, I was countering that if we locked people up alone with Scripture for 10 years, we wouldn't even be able to safely assume Trinitarian or Christological orthodoxy on the other end of that - in which case what is he trying to prove with that hypothetical? Hence the reaction... what's the point of validating continuationist thought with an m.o. that could also give us Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th Day Adventism?

That was my take. But it sounds like I may be off. In any event, I'm ready to hit the "retract" button if I'm misreading here.

Right. It was just a thought experiment, not a manual for hermeneutics. I myself wouldn't have used that particular experiment.

 

[RamistThomist]

You said that none of the passages he cites deals with the passage in question. Clearly, this one does and needs to be taken into consideration when determining whether the annointing was extraordinary and ceased or ordinary and to be continued.

Gotcha. Sometimes they anointed this way, sometimes they didn't. I don't see either one has normative for the other. In any case, James isn't writing to apostles.

You said that none of the passages he cites deals with the passage in question. Clearly, this one does and needs to be taken into consideration when determining whether the annointing was extraordinary and ceased or ordinary and to be continued.

JP Moreland isn't even Reformed or so far as I'm aware even a Calvinist, is an OEC, which is an unacceptable error in the times we live, and attends a church co-led by a female pastor. He is not to be trusted in a discussion of Reformed theology or a Reformed interpretation of Scripture, nor when it comes to interpreting events, which always require a theological framework to decide what is actually going on. He has let his philosophy overrule submitting to God's revelation in Scripture, whatever true insights one might try to glean from an outsider as himself.

I'm OEC, so that doesn't really bother me. No, he isn't a calvinist, but I don't go to him for Calvinist views. I simply evaluate the scholarship as is. As to "letting philosophy overrule God's revelation in Scripture," I don't even know what that means. We all bring metaphysical assumptions to the text. Moreover, one can just as easily say cessationists are letting their own assumptions overrule the clear teaching in 1 Cor. 12-14. That's not my argument, but the same type can be used.

At the end of the day, a position is either true or false based on relevant logical (including theological) factors, not on whether someone is wrong in other areas of theology.

 

[Ploutos]

Right. It was just a thought experiment, not a manual for hermeneutics. I myself wouldn't have used that particular experiment.

I get that it was a thought experiment. But was it a valid one? Does it not require a certain set of presuppositions to put forward that assertion even as a mere hypothetical?

 

[RamistThomist]

I get that it was a thought experiment. But was it a valid one? Does it not require a certain set of presuppositions to put forward that assertion even as a mere hypothetical?

Maybe. Thought experiments are already abstract, and once we start examining what kind of presuppositions are relevant to the thought experiment, we are already two levels removed on abstraction. Short answer: I don't know.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Tyler is correct here. One of the first places I noticed this was when Gillespie addressed this in his Miscellany Questions.

Our forefathers did not speak in terms of cessationist vs. continuationist. They spoke in terms of ordinary vs. extraordinary relative to the offices and gifts.


Scottish Second Book of Discipline Ch 2.6
"Some of these ecclesiastical functions are ordinary, and some extraordinary or temporary. There are three extraordinary functions: the office of the apostle, of the evangelist, and of the prophet, which are not perpetual, and now have ceased in the kirk of God, ****except when he pleased extraordinarily for a time to stir some of them up again.**** There are four ordinary functions or offices in the kirk of God: the office of the pastor, minister or bishop; the doctor; the presbyter or elder; and the deacon."

"... concerning Prophets, I have before showed out of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. Jud.) that, in his days, their were still some in the church who had an extraordinary gift of prophecy, and such there have been also in other places, and at other times; of which there might be diverse instances given."
— George Gillespie, Miscellany Questions, Works, Vol. 2, Chapter 5, section 1, point 3, p. 28.

"... although such prophets be extraordinary, and but seldom raised up in the church, yet there have been, I dare say, not only in primitive times, but amongst our first reformers and others; and upon what Scripture can we pitch for such extraordinary prophets, if not upon those scriptures which are applied by some to the prophesying brethren, or gifted church members?"
— George Gillespie (Westminster Divine), Miscellany Questions, Vol. 2, Chapter 5, section 7, p. 30

"There is a revelation of some particular men, who have foretold things to come, even since the ceasing of the Canon of the Word, as John Husse [John Hus], Wickeliefe [Wycliffe], Luther, have foretold things to come and they certainly fell out, and in our nation of Scotland, M. George Wishart foretold that Cardinal Beaton should not come out alive at the Gates of the Castle of St. Andrews, but that he should die a shameful death, and he was hanged over the window that he did look out at, when he saw the man of God burnt, Knox prophesied of the hanging of the Lord of Grange, M. Ioh. Davidson uttered prophecies, known to many of the kingdome, diverse Holy and mortified preachers in England have done the like."
— Samuel Rutherford (Westminster Divine), A Survey Of The Spiritual Antichrist. Opening the Secrets Of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichrist Doctrine of John Saltmarsh (London: no pub., 1648), 42.

What is most interesting to me about this is the way that they retain the distinction very clearly without totally denying the reality that God may at certain times stir up the gifts again. Seems to avoid ditches on both sides of the modern debate very well.

 

[Ploutos]

Maybe. Thought experiments are already abstract, and once we start examining what kind of presuppositions are relevant to the thought experiment, we are already two levels removed on abstraction. Short answer: I don't know.

Ok. I will reconsider my earlier statements.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

At the end of the day, a position is either true or false based on relevant logical (including theological) factors, not on whether someone is wrong in other areas of theology.

I agree with this and I wish we saw a bit more of it. Instead of letting iron sharpen iron, many are content to talk about how their iron is just fine as it is. But we’re all off on something, that’s the thing. So if we can’t chew the meat and spit out the bones to some degree then we’re all going to starve.

 

[RamistThomist]

And if I were at a church where people started speaking in tongues or prophesying, I'd probably be weirded out. Not going to lie. That's not a logical or exegetical argument, to be sure. And I've never really experienced "super miracles." I kind of want to, but God hasn't seen fit to bless/gift me with those. I understand others have, and unless guys like Keener and others are superb con men, I tend to think they are probably telling the truth.

 

[Afterthought]

I'm OEC, so that doesn't really bother me. No, he isn't a calvinist, but I don't go to him for Calvinist views. I simply evaluate the scholarship as is. As to "letting philosophy overrule God's revelation in Scripture," I don't even know what that means. We all bring metaphysical assumptions to the text. Moreover, one can just as easily say cessationists are letting their own assumptions overrule the clear teaching in 1 Cor. 12-14. That's not my argument, but the same type can be used.

At the end of the day, a position is either true or false based on relevant logical (including theological) factors, not on whether someone is wrong in other areas of theology.

While the last sentence is true in some ways, it is also spiritually naive. When we ignore the clear teaching of Scripture in favor of other things, including and perhaps especially our philosophical projects, we will go astray in other areas. Sanctification is necessary to the right interpretation of Scripture: it is not a mere matter of logic; the Lord reveals as he will and the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him. But even that aside and considering it from a logical perspective, it is obvious that going astray in foundational areas means we go astray in lesser areas, since our framework or canon of interpretation is wrong. We should not let this man disciple or teach us, especially on Reformed thinking, anymore than we would let a Papist who said true things. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with his arguments or take whatever truths he has to offer, but this man is no friend to truth.

Gotcha. Sometimes they anointed this way, sometimes they didn't. I don't see either one has normative for the other. In any case, James isn't writing to apostles.

James isn't writing to apostles, but that does not remove the weight of connecting the annointing with oil from the gifts of healing.

Is this Old Earth Creationist, or something else?

Yes, old earth creationist. It is unacceptable error for someone of his learning and stature to be holding to that.

I believe these things were preserved for our learning, and that they weren’t merely preserved for us to learn about how things were done at such and such a time and place and culture, etc.

If this were the case, you would have to be a continuationist who believed in continuing revelation, 1 Cor 12-14, practice foot washing, and greet with a holy kiss among other things. The things in Scripture are preserved for our learning, but they are for our learning in different ways. Some things reflect practices of the time, and we learn from them the things that we must do today based on whatever moral principle they were giving. Going to the elders to pray with them would be the application from this passage to today if one believed the gifts of healing were done and the annointing with oil was connected to such.

We determine such not arbitrarily but by thinking through what was commanded and in what context and then considering whether such things are more universally applicable beyond it.

I do get it though with regards to the annointing with oil, and I do not fault someone here for desiring to play it safe. I do not intend to make a full argument for connecting the annointing with oil in Mark to that in James, but I wished to bring it up as an alternative of our Reformed fathers that was being ignored or dismissed.

 

[RamistThomist]

When we ignore the clear teaching of Scripture in favor of other things, including and perhaps especially our philosophical projects, we will go astray in other areas

Whether x is the clear teaching of Scripture or not is precisely the issue under consideration.

We should not let this man disciple or teach us, especially on Reformed thinking, anymore than we would let a Papist who said true things.

Anselm prayed to Mary. Should I discount his teaching on the doctrine of God? We won't even get started on Aquinas. Anyway, Moreland isn't "discipling" me.

If this were the case, you would have to be a continuationist who believed in continuing revelation, 1 Cor 12-14, practice foot washing, and greet with a holy kiss among other things. The things in Scripture are preserved for our learning, but they are for our learning in different ways. Some things reflect practices of the time, and we learn from them the things that we must do today based on whatever moral principle they were giving. Going to the elders to pray with them would be the application from this passage to today if one believed the gifts of healing were done and the annointing with oil was connected to such.

These statements might be true, but as they stand they are merely assertions and assume--and only assume--the truth of your position.

 

[RamistThomist]

Back to the OP: as linked above, if anyone can find James Bradley's essay in Brill on the early church and charismatic gifts, that would be your answer.

As to so-called offices of healings or whatever, the early church called such individuals "Thaumaturge," wonder-working, which is actually close to the Greek of the NT. Gregory Thaumaturge, a key early witness on divine impassibility, was one.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If this were the case, you would have to be a continuationist who believed in continuing revelation, 1 Cor 12-14, practice foot washing, and greet with a holy kiss among other things. The things in Scripture are preserved for our learning, but they are for our learning in different ways. Some things reflect practices of the time, and we learn from them the things that we must do today based on whatever moral principle they were giving. Going to the elders to pray with them would be the application from this passage to today if one believed the gifts of healing were done and the annointing with oil was connected to such.

We determine such not arbitrarily but by thinking through what was commanded and in what context and then considering whether such things are more universally applicable beyond it.

I do get it though with regards to the annointing with oil, and I do not fault someone here for desiring to play it safe. I do not intend to make a full argument for connecting the annointing with oil in Mark to that in James, but I wished to bring it up as an alternative of our Reformed fathers that was being ignored or dismissed.

It’s both funny and fitting that you mention some of these things. I, for one, think we probably should have held onto foot washing, and wouldn’t rule out a holy kiss. But I don’t believe in continuing revelation on account of Hebrews 1:1-2 and other texts, such as the bookend in Revelation. As for gifts, I’m far more interested in the Giver.

We disagree on this point, but I do appreciate the discussion, and your charity overall.

 

[Afterthought]

Whether x is the clear teaching of Scripture or not is precisely the issue under consideration.

Male pastors and Calvinism are not the clear teaching of Scripture? Moreland shows he lacks spiritual discernment on basic things that cannot be attributed to the orthodox's errors of the times. You may be an elder and I but a layman, but I think you need to slow down and take a deeper meditation on the things you are saying and the teachers you are promoting in this thread and distinguish things that differ. If you disagree with Reformed theology and its system, well, that's another matter. Aquinas has tons of junk too, and I would not recommend him as a teacher in the church; give a good Protestant scholastic instead any day.

These statements might be true, but as they stand they are merely assertions and assume--and only assume--the truth of your position.

I was pushing him to hermeneutical consistency in an attempt to show him why some could take the annointing with oil to have ceased without the downsides that he mentioned