The argument for cessationism seems extremely weak.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think your demand for an "argument" or "proof" is to demand that what the Westminsteer Stanadrs state about the end of the Apostolic era. Do you need proof that this era has ended or do you disput that too because nobody comes out and says so in the Scriptures?

Did anything change after the Apostles died and the Scriptures were given?

Furthermore, if you were paying attention to the issue then you'd be offering answers to what I've asked. The Scriptures never say that God stopped endowing people with the gifts of craftsmanship in the OT. If you ask me for exegetical proof and fold your arms and say: "That's weak to argue because you can't prove from the Scriptures that He stopped doing that" then I can't really offer any "poof" or a strong argument to you.

My question is this: what does my Church currently lack where we need someone speking in tonuges or given the gift of healing? What prophecies does in need. What charismatic gifts do we lack?

Or is this merely about you feeling good about some sort of "proof" that the time of the Apostles has ceased?
Look, there's no need to get personal about this and make assumptions about my intent. If you don't want to deal with the arguments, then what's the point in having the discussion?
 
Given the universal acceptance that the times of the Apostels have ceased, it is the burden of the non-cesstionist to present the case that the times of the Apostles continue.

That only works if we say that the gifts the apostles used ceased, and I am not ready to say that preaching and teaching ceased.
 
So the charismatic gifst have ceased or have they not or is it merely an academic argument for you? Does it matter whether or not the Church has something it lacks?
I don't think they ceased. I have been in churches where they prayed for healing and poured oil. I've seen God bless that. I'm not sure what you want me to say.
 
The issue isn't whether or not an argument exists. The issue is whether or not one is statsfied with the argument itself. I find it to be the counter. Given the universal acceptance that the times of the Apostels have ceased, it is the burden of the non-cesstionist to present the case that the times of the Apostles continue. That's the real issue. Do you have such an argument or do you just have bluster?
Again, please be calm and not get personal.

There's a fairly obvious hidden assumption here in your statement. You're already assuming that the spiritual gifts such as healing are those things which ceased with the apostolic era. That's the very thing being called into question. Yes, there's universal acceptance, at least amongst the churches I care about, that the apostolic era has ceased. What isn't universally accepted is the hidden premise you've snuck in, that that includes things like gifts of healing. So you haven't actually demonstrated anything.
 
Here's what is being assumed - that healings or miracles are attached to the apostolic era and these cease immediately after this era. Yet I don't see this argument biblically, I don't see it in the Early Church Fathers, and really I only begin seeing this perspective arise as a polemical argument against the Roman Catholic Church on behalf of the Reformers to deny any RCC claims to authority from miracles. But that doesn't make it true.
 
Here's another great quote from Hodge which basically sums up by position. I have never read his ST but it looks like I'll have to solve that at some stage:

'There is nothing in the New Testament inconsistent with the occurrence of miracles in the post-apostolic age of the Church. The Apostles were indeed chosen to be the witnesses of Christ, to bear testimony to the facts of his history and to the doctrines which He taught. And among the signs of an Apostle, or necessary credentials of his commission, was the power to work miracles. (Rom. 15:18-19; II Cor. 12: 12)

When the Apostles had finished their work, the necessity of miracles, so far as the great end they were intended to accomplish was concerned, ceased. This, however, does not preclude the possibility of their occurrence, on suitable occasions, in after ages. It is a mere question of fact to be decided on historical evidence. In some few cases the nature of the event, its consequences, and the testimony in its support, have constrained many Protestants to admit the probability, if not the certainty of these miraculous interventions.'

Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theolog...es&queryID=24255852&resultID=134140#highlight
 
Here's another great quote from Hodge which basically sums up by position. I have never read his ST but it looks like I'll have to solve that at some stage:

'There is nothing in the New Testament inconsistent with the occurrence of miracles in the post-apostolic age of the Church. The Apostles were indeed chosen to be the witnesses of Christ, to bear testimony to the facts of his history and to the doctrines which He taught. And among the signs of an Apostle, or necessary credentials of his commission, was the power to work miracles. (Rom. 15:18-19; II Cor. 12: 12)

When the Apostles had finished their work, the necessity of miracles, so far as the great end they were intended to accomplish was concerned, ceased. This, however, does not preclude the possibility of their occurrence, on suitable occasions, in after ages. It is a mere question of fact to be decided on historical evidence. In some few cases the nature of the event, its consequences, and the testimony in its support, have constrained many Protestants to admit the probability, if not the certainty of these miraculous interventions.'

Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3/theology3.iii.v.xiii.html?highlight=false miracles&queryID=24255852&resultID=134140#highlight

His first 150 or so pages are good Reidian epistemology. Anticipates some of Plantinga.
 
First, I'm not angry. I'm frustrated but I'm not angry. I'm completely calm. I'm not getting personal except to ask you, personally, what you are demanding as "proof".

This is what the Confession states has "ceased":
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

Do you disagree with this?

Your Hodge quote seems to me to be unremarkable. Do you actually believe that the cessationist postion is that God ceases to act supernaturally in the world?

Is this what you have been arguing for the whole time? That "miracles" still exist?
 
To also be clear, this is part of the same Westminsterian position (which is why Hodge's notes are unremarkable):
III. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.

In the organization of the Standards, Providence is how God governs the world after Creation and this includes not only ordinary providences but things we call "miracles".

Now, I know there are some who will insist that we ought to reserve the word "miracle" for something that God used in the recording of redemptive history. I am not going to argue that case. Insofar as everyone agrees that God still has the prerogative to work outside of the ordinary means (and does so), that is standard Confessional stuff.

So, again, what is hard to "prove" with respect to Cessationism?
 
First, I'm not angry. I'm frustrated but I'm not angry. I'm completely calm. I'm not getting personal except to ask you, personally, what you are demanding as "proof".

This is what the Confession states has "ceased":


Do you disagree with this?

Your Hodge quote seems to me to be unremarkable. Do you actually believe that the cessationist postion is that God ceases to act supernaturally in the world?

Is this what you have been arguing for the whole time? That "miracles" still exist?
No, I don't disagree with the Confession, but once again you're introducing hidden assumptions. We already agree that the apostolic era ceased, but you're smuggling in miracles and healing into that statement as only applying to the era in question.

Furthermore, the Hodge quote contradicts much of what has been said in this thread, given that he specifically says miracles can continue after the apostle era, and that nothing in the New Testament contradicts that. I've been told that continually that miracles can only be associated with signs and wonders appropriate to the apostolic era. So it isn't quite as unremarkable as you claim. I guess what is relevant is whether he includes spiritual gifts in this statement such as healings, but that isn't specified.

As for your 'that's what you've been arguing for the whole time?' statement, I began arguing against the strong version of cessationism that miracles no longer occur after the apostolic era (which some here do argue for) but, after some useful comments, I further clarified my position to also cover the continuation of spiritual gifts such as healing, based on 1 Cor. 13.
 
To also be clear, this is part of the same Westminsterian position (which is why Hodge's notes are unremarkable):


In the organization of the Standards, Providence is how God governs the world after Creation and this includes not only ordinary providences but things we call "miracles".

Now, I know there are some who will insist that we ought to reserve the word "miracle" for something that God used in the recording of redemptive history. I am not going to argue that case. Insofar as everyone agrees that God still has the prerogative to work outside of the ordinary means (and does so), that is standard Confessional stuff.

So, again, what is hard to "prove" with respect to Cessationism?
It's as if you're trying to shift the burden of proof unto me, but what I'm asking for is that the cessationists would provide clear evidence for their position.

This is what I want evidence for: 'Miracles, and/or spiritual gifts, ceased with the apostles'. I don't see this argument in Scripture, nor does it seem to be well attested in the Church until the polemical debates between Rome and the Reformers. In fact, a far more natural reading of what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 13, and his qualifying remarks in ch. 14, seem to suggest that Paul thinks they will continue after he is gone. There's no suggestion that Paul believes they will cease. Not that I can see anyway. But please, show me what I am getting wrong here and if you convince me, then I'll change my view. It's that simple.

It is strange to me that you're acting as if it is unreasonable to ask for evidence for this. Maybe because you've had your own bad experiences in charismatic circles this is a debate quite personal to you? If so, I've also had very bad experiences within the charismatic movement, but I'm interested in what is true, not what I most want to be true or what is easier to accept as true. Particularly when it comes to the truths of Scripture.
 
No, I don't disagree with the Confession, but once again you're introducing hidden assumptions. We already agree that the apostolic era ceased, but you're smuggling in miracles and healing into that statement as only applying to the era in question.
Now who is making personal accusaions? I haven't introduced "hidden assumptions". I was asking what you agreed with.

The reason I ask is that I'm trying to determine what you think is "weak" in terms of argumentation.

I'm not interested in how others have argued for the cessation of all things we might call miracles.

I'm trying to get a sense of what you think it entails that God's way of revealing Himself have ceased. If you agree with that, then there are entailments to certain ideas.

This article might be helfpful as to how Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians handled the issue of what it meant:

 
Talking of hidden assumptions is pointing out a fallacy in your argument; there's nothing personal about it in the least. It doesn't mean that the person is doing it intentionally, it's just a (very) common mistake in argumentation.
 
It's as if you're trying to shift the burden of proof unto me, but what I'm asking for is that the cessationists would provide clear evidence for their position.
Actually, what I'm trying to get you to do is to clearly articulate what you're concerned about. If you've ceated a strawman as to what the cessationist position actually is then I'm not interested in proving to you that your strawman position needs to be defended.

What I have acknowledged is:
1. God's Revelation has ceased.
2. God's Providence (to include acting outside of ordinary means) continues.

In other words, it is not the "cesstionist" position to argue that "miracles" (God acting in ways we can't explain) still occur. Again, I'm not going to quibble with those who prefer to use miracle only for Scripture but, for the purposes of moving the conversation forward, I'm trying to narrowly focus you upon what the "cessation" position in the Westminster Standards entails so I can defend that it is reasonable even if I can't persuade you that you agree with it.
 
Talking of hidden assumptions is pointing out a fallacy in your argument; there's nothing personal about it in the least. It doesn't mean that the person is doing it intentionally, it's just a (very) common mistake in argumentation.
But I didn't make an argument.

I asked you whether you agreed with WCF 1.1. It was a question and not an argument.

You're so defensive right now that you don't even recognize that you're being asked questions for the purpoe of clarification. It's not an accusation but merely a starting point.
 
Actually, what I'm trying to get you to do is to clearly articulate what you're concerned about. If you've ceated a strawman as to what the cessationist position actually is then I'm not interested in proving to you that your strawman position needs to be defended.

What I have acknowledged is:
1. God's Revelation has ceased.
2. God's Providence (to include acting outside of ordinary means) continues.

In other words, it is not the "cesstionist" position to argue that "miracles" (God acting in ways we can't explain) still occur. Again, I'm not going to quibble with those who prefer to use miracle only for Scripture but, for the purposes of moving the conversation forward, I'm trying to narrowly focus you upon what the "cessation" position in the Westminster Standards entails so I can defend that it is reasonable even if I can't persuade you that you agree with it.
Well, if you also quote the rest of what I said, you'll see what form of cessationism I'm targeting stated clearly. If that's what you're calling a straw man, then I don't see what we're even talking about at this stage.
 
But I didn't make an argument.

I asked you whether you agreed with WCF 1.1. It was a question and not an argument.

You're so defensive right now that you don't even recognize that you're being asked questions for the purpoe of clarification. It's not an accusation but merely a starting point.
You did make an argument above, stating the universality of accepting the apostolic era has ceased, which I don't disagree with obviously, but you had already assumed that spiritual gifts and miracles are included in that. Or, if you really want to be specific, those miracles and spiritual gifts associated with the apostolic era, in which case you would be allowing non-apostolic miracles and spiritual gifts to continue. In which case, what we are debating about?

I think we should leave it there, this isn't proving to be very fruitful.
 
Well, if you also quote the rest of what I said, you'll see what form of cessationism I'm targeting stated clearly. If that's what you're calling a straw man, then I don't see what we're even talking about at this stage.
I'm still confused.

Is it your contention that the Westminster Confession teaches the opposite of the Hodge qquote you provided?

I'll connect the spiritual gifts later but I want to be clear on what you think you "proved" by the Hodge quote that is different from what "cessationism" entails from the Westminster Standards.

I'm asking because I cannot defend against every form of cessationism but only whether what the WCF teaches. I'll connect the logic of spiritual gifts later but I want to be clear on this point.
 
You did make an argument above, stating the universality of accepting the apostolic era has ceased, which I don't disagree with obviously, but you had already assumed that spiritual gifts and miracles are included in that. Or, if you really want to be specific, those miracles and spiritual gifts associated with the apostolic era, in which case you would be allowing non-apostolic miracles and spiritual gifts to continue. In which case, what we are debating about?
I didn't make an argument so much as trying to connect some ideas that you seem terribly confused about. The reason why this discussion is proving to be unfruitful is that, when I back up to make some clarfications, you don't seem to recognize that I'm trying to focus the conversation.

I think the DeYoung article is helpful so I'll start there. Since you don't seem willing to interact, I'll just lay out where I think you are both being imprecise and confused. This is leading to accusations about proof for a position (in some cases) that is not entailed by the WCF.

I'll repost the link to this article for others: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-cessationism-and-the-westminster-confession/

The two excertps I posted from the WCF are 1.1 concerning the fact (which we both agree) that God's ways of revealing Himself from the time of the Apostles have now ceased along with an excerpt that God acts in ways that are not ordinary.

So, to lay aside an implicit charge, the Confessional cessationist position is not to deny the existence of miracles or healings or even "prophesy" if one makes the qualifications that the Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians did.

Getting to the issue of the contiuation of spiritual gifts in the Church, the reason I wrote a very long initial post about the nature of the Church was to set the stage upon which the Church oeprates. I wanted to describe what the Church looks like. What Paul and the other Apostles hoped for the Church. I even spoke to the spiritual gifts by pointing out that the main discussion on things like tongues and prophecy at that time come when the Church is not being edified so that the discussion describes the presence of those gifts but it's not even at the "center" of Paul's concern with Corinth to teach them about the importance of these gifts. The broader focus in the Scriptures then isn't to focus on gifts so much as the Church being established for ordinary life. Charismatic gifts (fi they are operating the same in eery Church or not) sort of disappear into the background for almost every Epistle.

The issue, then, is what it looks like now that the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets has been laid. It's not as if there is a single list of spiritual gifts presented every time they come up. Paul mentions teaching, prophsey, and tongues in one context but he mentions apostles, prophets, and teachers in another context. Deacons are never mentioned as a "gift" but GNC would teach us that their existence in the Church is from Christ Who gave gifts to the Church.

The way I have approached this argument is obliquely. It appears that I'm accusing people of disagreeing with what the Church is aobut but what I'm really trying to address is that if we agree that the Church is the Bride of Christ and as Her Prophet, Priest, and King He is ruling and providing for her with gifts then what are those ongoing gifts that are needful. He provided artisans at the tim of the Tabernacle and there is no Scriptual "proof" that this "gift" has ceased and I cannot defintively (by Scripture proof) demonstrate that God doesn't provide the spiritual gift of working with gold and precious jewels in an extrordinary spirutal gifiting. What we would be right in asking is why would Chiist "gift" the Church regularly now with something it doesn't seem to continue to need ordinarily. If someone showed up to my Church and said he had the spiritual gift of artisanship immediately from God then it would be odd. How is that building up and encouraging the Saints?

The argument for the cessation of spiritual gifts is similar to the argument for the notion that the Scriptures alone are the sole, infallible rule of faith.

How so? My Roman Catholic brother follows a typical Roman Catholic trope that the Scriptures nowhere teach that they are the sole, infallible fule of faith and that it's logically contradictory. I point out that the Scirptures teach they are God-breathed and they are, alone, God-breathed. If someone has another rule of faith that they want to argue is akin to Scripture then it's not up to me to prove that I don't accept that additonal authority.

Likewise, the argument for the idea that someone does not still have the office of apostle or prophet or the spiritual gift of healing has to do with what the nature of the Church is at this point in redemptive history. Since they are "gifts" then we ask ourselves what function they served the Church as they were given at the time of the Apostles. We then ask ourselves whether or not the Church still "needs" them and, if She does, then we do not doubt that Christ will provide them. So, it's right for me to ask someone who insists that a person who has been immediately gifed as an apostle, prophet, or healer then what need is this fulfilling that the Church lacks? It's not up to me to prove that Paul said that certain gifts would cease (in fact some believe the office of Apostle continues for that reason), but to poitn out what the nature of the Churh is under Christ and question why the person thinks the Church still needs those who have the spritual gift of healing, apostleship, prophecy, toungues, etc are edifying the Church. If they continue to exist as spiritual gifts that edify the Church then it is not an ureasonable demand to udnerstand what ongoing need exists that God has immediately gifted them with this continuing gift.

Now, to be claer, this has nothing to do with the idea that Elders will still annoint the sick. It has nothing to do with the idea that God may perform things we might call miracles. It has to do with the idea that "gifts" as such are inexorably connected to a "purpose". This is why I asked the question of others as to how it operates on the ground in some Churches. It's not enough to see pockets of people in a Charismatic commuion claiming to be prophets and tongue-spekers where the Church is otherwise a theological and eccleiological train wreck. I want to know, as an Elder, what it looks like to have all the gifts in operation (Pastors, Elders, Deacons, helps, etc) in a healthy Church teaching the whole counsel of God where no-kidding, bona-fide "gifts" of prophecy and tongues are in operation. What does that look like?

I suppose, in the end, I guess I believe that Christ is taking care of the Church I'm in. I'm in a good (fi sometimes contentious) denomination of the Reformed faith. I've gorwn in grace with my family. I've been supported through medical issues in my own family and prayed for throughout. I've never thought: "If only we had someone speaking in tonuges then this Church would be healthier." "If only we had a person with the gift of healing then we would grow in grace". "If only someone with the gift of prophecy...."

But, perhaps, I don't know what I need and they would be good for me and for the Church but then why isn't our Prophet, Priestt, and King gifiting us with them? Is it because the Reformed Churches are apostate and He's only giving them to the fruitful Charsimatic Churches? If that's the case, then where are these fruitful and mature Churches and what am I missing out on?
 
First, you are the one who keeps using the scary word 'proof'. I've asked for evidence, and good arguments, for cessationism. It's a sincere request, and I received many good replies.

More importantly, once again, very little of what you say here has anything to do with what I or Jacob have been saying. The reason that I've lost interest in engaging with you, to be frank, is that you seem unable to make a single comment without some sort of snide jibe. You basically accused Jacob of having a faulty view of the Christian faith because he cares about good arguments, you've made all sorts of assumptions about me and why I am asking for evidence for cessationism, and you are clearly trying to patronise me by calling me 'terribly confused' etc. I don't think you've come across very well at all in this discussion and I'm not interested in continuing it (pun not intended).
 
First, you are the one who keeps using the scary word 'proof'. I've asked for evidence, and good arguments, for cessationism. It's a sincere request, and I received many good replies.

More importantly, once again, very little of what you say here has anything to do with what I or Jacob have been saying. The reason that I've lost interest in engaging with you, to be frank, is that you seem unable to make a single comment without some sort of snide jibe. You basically accused Jacob of having a faulty view of the Christian faith because he cares about good arguments, you've made all sorts of assumptions about me and why I am asking for evidence for cessationism, and you are clearly trying to patronise me by calling me 'terribly confused' etc. I don't think you've come across very well at all in this discussion and I'm not interested in continuing it (pun not intended).
It wasn't a jab to state that you're terribly confused but an observation.

You've asked for evidence of the cessationist position but, when you seem to define it, you don't seem to know what the cessationist position is that you believe has a weak case.

In other words, I'm not sure you know what the Confessional "cessationist" position that you are asking for strong evidence.

That you don't understand that my reply is evidence of the Confessional position is further evidence of your confusion.

I may be the wrong person to try to hep you to understand the vantage point from which to understand it is but right now you are not asking the question from the standpoint of the Confessional understanding you are trying to internally critique as being "weak".
 
Here, after a quick google search, is what one prominent biblical scholar says of his cessationist position:

'Over the years I’ve become convinced that some of the so-called charismatic gifts are no longer given and that they aren’t a regular feature of life in the church. I am thinking particularly of the the gifts of apostleship, prophecy, tongues, healing, and miracles (and perhaps discernment of spirits).'


And here's what I stated as the cessastionist position:

'Miracles, and/or spiritual gifts, ceased with the apostles'

I'll let the reader decide if I've badly misrepresented cessationism and am as terribly confused as you make out.
 
Can you define Continuationism and articulate the place in the Confession that you believe argues insufficiently against it?

Following the 4 Views Book, I list a continuum of options:
1) Cessationism: Miracles have ceased.
2) Open but Cautious: ministry of apostle has ceased, but the so-called supernatural gifts can still be in operation and evidence suggests they are.
3) Third Wave: Vineyard, Grudem, Moreland
4) Pentecostalism.

I am somewhere between (2) and (3).

The confession articulates positions. It does not generally *argue* for them. It is not expected to.
 
And here's what I stated as the cessastionist position:

'Miracles, and/or spiritual gifts, ceased with the apostles'
Which is a very confused defintion of the Reformed cessationism position since:

1. Our Chapter on Providence acknowledges the continuation of extraordinary providences (aka miracles in some vocabulary).
2. Spiritual gifts continue in the Church. The question, again, is what gifts continue for the edifying of the Church.

I'm content to let the reader decide. It's very easy to demonstrate where you are imprecise and confused in this long thread. Even when I try to connect broader themes you don't even detect the organic connection to what the Church is to the question itself and miss the signifcance to the overall question.

I'm sorry I couldn't help you. I apparently insulted you at one point. For that I apologize, but I still believe my first post is most germane to setting the stage at which the quesiton has to be answered and understood and not abstractly on "evidence" that certain gifts have ceased. The "evidence" is that they aren't operative in the Church.

By they way, just to clear up another thing you were confused about lest your charge go unanswered, but the issue with the Roman Catholics and the Reformers was not that the latter denied that miraculous events could occur. Again, this is in the sense that nobody doubted God did things by extraordinary providence that some call miraculous. The issue was (and still is) that Rome claims proof for their doctrines by pointing to miracles. The Immaculate Conception is bunk? Not so fast, Mary appeared to somoene and said: "I am the Immaculate Conception" as a more modern example. The Reformers answered that the evidence of their doctrine of Scriptural authority and rejection of Rome's was on the basis of the Apostle's miracles establishing the foundation upon which they stood. The point was to deny the supposed continuing Revelation that Rome was claiming by their miracles and saying that their sure foudnation were the miracles that God performed to authetnicate the Apostles and Prophets who laid the foundation.
 
The Immaculate Conception is bunk? Not so fast, Mary appeared to somoene and said: "I am the Immaculate Conception" as a more modern example. The Reformers answered that the evidence of their doctrine of Scriptural authority and rejection of Rome's was on the basis of the Apostle's miracles establishing the foundation upon which they stood. The point was to deny the supposed continuing Revelation that Rome was claiming by their miracles and saying that their sure foudnation were the miracles that God performed to authetnicate the Apostles and Prophets who laid the foundation.
That's why the apostles said "test the spirits" and test prophecy. The claim is whether God still does this today. It is not what Rome means by so-called miracles. When Antichrist arises, he will do dark miracles.
 
The claims from Moreland and Keener, two academic scholars, suggest he is gifting us with them.
So, are you a member of a commuinon that benefits from these gifts? Can you tell me who has the spritiual gifts and how htey are building up your Body? What am I missing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top