Westminster Divines were continuationists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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

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.
 
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.


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. :)

How do you know it was not?
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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,
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
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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."
 
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,
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

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.
 
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.

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top