WCF Chp 1:1

[Tyrese]

The Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 both say in chp 1:1, "those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

How do we answer people who say the confessions don't teach cessationism? How would you answer a person who teaches that it promotes continuationism?

 

[TylerRay]

Have you shown those people the passage you just quoted?

 

[Tyrese]

Y

Have you shown those people the passage you just quoted?

I have. The problem is that people are claiming this doesn't address the prophesy that Wayne Grudem teaches.

 

[au5t1n]

Y

Have you shown those people the passage you just quoted?

I have. The problem is that people are claiming this doesn't address the prophesy of Wayne Grudem.

With respect, Dr. Grudem's interpretation of prophecy wouldn't have occurred to the Westminster divines because it flies in the face of abundant Scriptural evidence that NT prophecy was verbally inspired, just as was OT prophecy. Dr. Grudem's view can be disproved with a single verse: "Thus saith the Holy Ghost" (Acts 21:11).

As far as the Standards are concerned, they teach consistently that the revealed content by which the Holy Spirit renews our minds is the Word, e.g., LC question 2.

 

[py3ak]

Point them to: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation, by Garnet Howard Milne. I imagine, though, that some people who use the cessationist label may be surprised by the complexity of the picture that emerges.

 

[au5t1n]

Point them to: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation, by Garnet Howard Milne. I imagine, though, that some people who use the cessationist label may be surprised by the complexity of the picture that emerges.

Would you mind summarizing how that is so?

 

[MW]

How do we answer people who say the confessions don't teach cessationism?

That they have an ability to make words mean anything they please.

 

[Tyrese]

How do we answer people who say the confessions don't teach cessationism?

That they have an ability to make words mean anything they please.

I agree with you. Can you be more specific? I wish I could give all of the details as to why I'm asking this but I'm not a liberty to do so. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Tyrese]

Y

Have you shown those people the passage you just quoted?

I have. The problem is that people are claiming this doesn't address the prophesy of Wayne Grudem.

With respect, Dr. Grudem's interpretation of prophecy wouldn't have occurred to the Westminster divines because it flies in the face of abundant Scriptural evidence that NT prophecy was verbally inspired, just as was OT prophecy. Dr. Grudem's view can be disproved with a single verse: "Thus saith the Holy Ghost" (Acts 21:11).

As far as the Standards are concerned, they teach consistently that the revealed content by which the Holy Spirit renews our minds is the Word, e.g., LC question 2.

Acts 21:11 is a really good verse to add to the discussion. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Tyrese]

Its also been said that because the 1689 mentions tongue's in 22:3, and private spirits in 1:10, the confession does not rule out those who hold to a continuationist view. My favorite is when people appeal to something that happened to Spurgeon.

 

[MW]

Can you be more specific?

The Confession takes up the subject three times in the first chapter. The first under the necessity of Scripture, 1.1. The second under the sufficiency of Scripture, 1.6. The third under the finality of Scripture, 1.10. The first deals with the entire inscripturation of revelation, and states that the necessity of Scripture arises because the modes of revelation have ceased. The second maintains "the whole counsel of God" is so perfectly found in Scripture that there is no basis for new revelations and regards these to be as superfluous as the traditions of men. The third states that the Spirit speaking in the Scripture must be the final court of appeal in such a manner as negates the possibility of "private spirits" providing any kind of revelatory influence. The cessationist position could not be stated in clearer language.

 

[Tyrese]

Can you be more specific?

The Confession takes up the subject three times in the first chapter. The first under the necessity of Scripture, 1.1. The second under the sufficiency of Scripture, 1.6. The third under the finality of Scripture, 1.10. The first deals with the entire inscripturation of revelation, and states that the necessity of Scripture arises because the modes of revelation have ceased. The second maintains "the whole counsel of God" is so perfectly found in Scripture that there is no basis for new revelations and regards these to be as superfluous as the traditions of men. The third states that the Spirit speaking in the Scripture must be the final court of appeal in such a manner as negates the possibility of "private spirits" providing any kind of revelatory influence. The cessationist position could not be stated in clearer language.

Well said. Especially, "The second maintains "the whole counsel of God" is so perfectly found in Scripture that there is no basis for new revelations and regards these to be as superfluous as the traditions of men."

In other words, anything that's not already in scripture that's being passed around as "prophesy" should be considered spurious.

 

[Edward]

How do we answer people who say the confessions don't teach cessationism?

"If you can't read and understand plain English, we have no basis for a discussion as to what the Confession clearly teaches."

 

[Eved]

How do we answer people who say the confessions don't teach cessationism?

"If you can't read and understand plain English, we have no basis for a discussion as to what the Confession clearly teaches."

 

[py3ak]

Point them to: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation, by Garnet Howard Milne. I imagine, though, that some people who use the cessationist label may be surprised by the complexity of the picture that emerges.

Would you mind summarizing how that is so?

I can't do justice to one of the most thoroughly-researched books I have ever come across in the time I have, but the providentialism of many Puritans is quite far from the attitude of many today; or consider that Milne calls the secret suggestion of angels "the usual and received explanation for the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot" (187). Because the Assembly was cessationist and we are cessationist it is easy to overlay contemporary notions onto them, without taking due account of the many ways in which their mindset was different from ours. Not everyone today is comfortable with the category of "mediate revelation as an application of Scripture to providence by the leading of the Spirit" (247). This doesn't take away from the clear cessationism of WCF 1, which Mr. Winzer just elucidated; it does mean that in contemporary discussions we aren't always aware of all the categories that the divines had available to them.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It seems this has been a perennial discussion in Reformed circles since there was in Internet.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/cessationist-no-why-2-a-525/index5.html#post127378

 

[au5t1n]

I can't do justice to one of the most thoroughly-researched books I have ever come across in the time I have

Nevertheless your summary was just what I was looking for and piqued my interest even more. I may have to add that to my ever-growing reading list.

 

[py3ak]

Nevertheless your summary was just what I was looking for and piqued my interest even more. I may have to add that to my ever-growing reading list.

I would certainly recommend it.

 

[Tyrese]

Thanks guys for your help. Please pray for me as I find myself in the position to defend what the 1689 clearly teaches.

 

[Patriot 101]

How do we answer people who say the confessions don't teach cessationism?

For those of us that are new to this, can you tell me what cessationism is.

 

[Scott1]

"Cessationism" at a high, but superficial level, is usually meant to mean that the I. Cor. 12 "spiritual gifts" (esp. speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue) have ceased when the canon of Scripture was completed.

Superficial, because the term has been made up by the other side "continuationist" and imposed back on the opposite view. It is a modern terminology, and ofttimes people do not know what exactly it means.

What is at the heart of the issue is whether special revelation ordinarily continues outside of Scripture today.

The reformed answer (and the Westminster Confession is summarizing this) is that no it does not because the foundation of our faith, built on the prophets and apostles speaking under inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:20) established it for the church until the end of the world. (Jude 1:3) is in Scripture. That is, the Holy Spirit, speaking in Scripture.

It's not so much whether those I Cor. 12 gifts have ceased, and it is NOT about whether God can still do miracles (He can).
But it is really about sola scriptura, the centrality and authority of Holy Scripture, given as the foundation for the Christian faith, until He returns.

 

[Peairtach]

How do we answer people who say the confessions don't teach cessationism?

For those of us that are new to this, can you tell me what cessationism is.

There are five revelatory gifts - prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues, healing and miracles - and three foundational offices -apostle, prophet and evangelist ( in its NT form and designation) - which have ceased, now that the perfect thing has come - i.e. the perfect Word of God - and that which is piecemeal - i.e. a revelation here, a revelation there - is done away. See e.g. I Corinthians 13.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You could always point them to a couple of primary sources who gave their on the issue:

Francis Cheynell on cessationism | Reformed Covenanter

Thomas Manton on cessationism | Reformed Covenanter

 

[Scott1]

You could always point them to a couple of primary sources who gave their on the issue:

Francis Cheynell on cessationism | Reformed Covenanter

Thomas Manton on cessationism | Reformed Covenanter

While the title "cessationism" is added by the editor, it does not appear that term is used anywhere in Mr. Manton's work.
Which goes to show that this is an almost pejorative term assigned by modern arguments on the other side....
Arguments that often make unstated assumptions about what it means.

 

[Patriot 101]

Thanks for responses. Absolutely awesome. I look forward to continued reformed growth. I have come to the right place.