n the past, we have had some discussion here on this blog about the Westminster Confession of Faith. In a recent question about bibliolatry raised on Kamp Krusty (a very insightful and quite humorous blog), I got into a discussion with Scott Roche about the statement that the WCF gives about Scripture.
Here is the statement that Scott quoted from the WCF:
Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, to such an extent that men are without excuse, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at various times and in diverse ways, to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church; and afterward—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 this revelation wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scripture is most necessary, God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people having ceased.
This sparked some interesting back-and-forth, and Scott and I agreed to talk through this on our blogs. To that end, Scott has posted an introduction to the topic, and then his fuller thoughts about it. I’d like to take some time to respond to Scott here in this post.
First of all, I have to commend Scott for his tremendous graciousness in this conversation. No matter the outcome of this conversation, or whether or not one of us becomes persuaded by the other’s position, it’s just a joy to have this type of discussion with someone who seasons his disagreement with grace and love. Thanks, Scott! 
There are things that Scott and I both do agree on, as has been established in the conversation that has already taken place. For one, we both believe that the Bible reveals Jesus to us. We also both agree that Jesus is the object and focus of our faith. That’s enough, in my opinion, to give us plenty of room to fellowship together.
There are a couple of points that Scott made, however, that I would like to shed a different light on. Similar to how I believe that the WCF makes some statements as “fact” that maybe aren’t able to be fully determined (and therefore, in my opinion, should probably be left as opinions), I think Scott may possibly be overstating some points.
While God used a variety of means to communicate to people over the ages it always got written down, at least so far as we know.
I’m actually not sure that this can be stated, even with the disclaimer of “at least so far as we know.” I’ve used some examples in the past that seem to refute this. For example, King Saul (before he’s anointed king) joins a group of prophets and begins prophesying. Yet nothing is recorded as to what he, or any of the other prophets in that group, prophesied.
Likewise, the New Testament records that Anna (in the temple when Jesus was dedicated) was a prophetess (indicating activity prior to her entrance into the story), yet none of her statements prior to the appearance of Jesus are recorded.
And perhaps the most compelling to me is the fact that Paul took a lot of time to instruct the Corinthians in the proper use of prophecy, yet to our knowledge, none of the canonical writings were penned by anyone in the church in Corinth.
So, at best, I think it’s an overstatement to say that God always put his words down in writing. That statement seems to set up a foundation for Scott’s development of his thoughts. If, in fact, that foundation is overstated, then we have to consider the conclusions as potentially suspect or distorted.
Scott also goes on to discuss the statement in the WCF which says that the former ways of God revealing his will to us have ceased.
This is, for me, the most troubling statement in the above-quoted portion of the WCF. Troubling because it seems to serve as the justification for the stated view of scripture (the complete revelation of God to us).
We know from scripture (Hebrews 1:1-2) that God spoke in the past through prophets, and then chose to speak to us through Jesus. This is, to me, very significant, because of what it doesn’t say. Even though some of the prophecies were written down for preservation, and even though some of the words of Jesus have been written down for us, this verse doesn’t say that God spoke through writing and then continues to speak through writing.
Even Jesus said a lot of things (according to John) that weren’t written down. So the speaking to us through Jesus goes beyond words on a page. God seems to want something much more personal than written communication alone.
When God first brought the Israelites out of Egypt, he asked all of them to come to the mountain so he could speak to them. The Israelites refused, out of fear, and asked Moses to mediate for them. So, while Scott points out that the 10 commandments were written down for us, was that because that was how God desired to communicate? Or was it because Moses had to convey to the Israelites what God wanted to tell them personally?
I have long contended that what God originally created in Eden and what he consistently sought to restore after the fall of Adam and Eve was a personal relationship. Hence the eventual appearance of Jesus — Emmanuel, God with us.
So with regard to whether or not God’s methods of revelation have ceased, necessitating complete revelation being written down, I think we would have to say that the answer is that God’s methods of communication have become more and more personal over time. God spoke through Moses, spoke through the prophets, spoke face-to-face in the person of Jesus, then indwells us with his Holy Spirit. There is a progression from separation to intimate relationship. That’s the beauty of the Gospel message that Jesus came to preach!
See, it’s not even an issue of cessationism vs. continuationism. It’s not a charismatic or non-charismatic issue. It’s an issue of asking what type of relationship God desires with us, and how he has chosen to enact that relationship.
Any thoughts in response?
Until next time,
steve
Awesome! I shall expound on this tomorra. And you make a good point re: my speaking a bit broadly.
Steve,
It is very easy for us Americans to have tunnel vision when it comes to these things. If X isn’t happening to us and our circle of friends then X does not happen (or isn’t legitimate when it does).
I wrote a post a while ago about a Muslim who came to faith in Christ. She did not come to faith in Christ because of a Christian witnessing to her, she did not come to faith in Christ because of what she read in the Christian scriptures, she came to faith in Christ because of dream/vision she had of Christ. The professor who originally told me about this lady has written a dissertation on how the Muslim people are coming to faith in Christ. There are numerous stories like this from the Muslim world. As Americans, we do not see or hear about these things, so we do not think they happen. But in a culture where spirits and spiritual things are a common occurrence, they are not denied.
Of course I would say that we all have to be discerning with the stories we hear but we must be careful not to deny the work of God because it is outside of our comfort zone.
Thanks for sharing this post – great job!
God’s Glory,
Lew
The historical fact is, there was not even any debate over cessationism back when the WCF was written–it was the universal position in the european church at the time. And the men who wrote the WCF were Calvinists–Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans. They all held the view that the Holy Spirit works ONLY through the written Word. That view remained dominant clear through the early 1900s. There are still conservative Presbyterians who hold this position today (some of us had some lengthy discussions with one on the H2H forum last spring).
A lot of other things came along with the rise of Enlightenment rationalism, like disbelief in demons and miracles–especially in Europe and America. Cracks arose in the structure during the 1900s. By the 1930s at least American missionaries were casting out demons in Asia (my wife’s great aunt was one), but it took years for word to get back to the folks over here. Azusa Street and the Pentacostal revival dealt it a major blow (although Cane Ridge in 1801 had some lively stuff too).
The problem I see with almost all of the old confessions of faith and creeds is that they are human attempts to explain or summarize what God has revealed to us. As such, they are not divinely inspired as Scripture is. And at worst, they sometimes take on the characteristics of boxes–and God isn’t always that cooperative about staying in human-built boxes. (As C.S. Lewis put it so well, he’s not a tame lion.)
The WCF and the others may have some uses, but they are not Scripture, they may contain errors in some points (remember, at that time they had only had the Bible in modern languages for a little over a hundred years, but they had a thousand years of church traditions to get over!) and they are limited by the understandings of the writers. The standard I would apply is the same as for a lot of other things–LOOK AT THE FRUIT!
Phil
“The WCF and the others may have some uses, but they are not Scripture, they may contain errors in some points (remember, at that time they had only had the Bible in modern languages for a little over a hundred years, but they had a thousand years of church traditions to get over!)â€
Just 1000 years? As near as I can tell, there is well over 1500 years of tradition for them to get over. When I read the writings of the early church fathers, they strike me as much more Catholic/Orthodox than Calvinist. It’s a good thing modern man has good Greek/Aramaic dictionaries and understand what the NT really means. Guys like Ignatius had to rely on what they remembered the apostle John saying to them.
MB
“I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.â€
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, ch. 7
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.vii.html
“And this food is called among us Εá½Ï‡Î±Ïιστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.â€
Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, ch. 66
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxvi.html
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Iranaeus, Against Heresies, v. 3, ch. 3
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
August 30, 2007
Dear most kind Sir,
REF: I have just reviewed the current posting above.
SUBJECT: Your much valued help.
If the Trumpets pictured in Rev. are not sounding, then we have common ground to discuss this very important issue.
But, if the Trumpets are in fact sounding today, then God’s grace is seen in an entirely different light.
Could the Trumpets be blowing today?
Jack Atkins
jack.atkinns@gmail.com
Jack, I have to admit I am completely baffled by your comment. Could you kindly elaborate on your point and question?
Volley!
Steve, thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my plea for help in this very important area of God’s precious Word, and your thoughtful care to my earnest attempts to understand the Truth of God’s Word, which is so above my head. So far in fact, it’s difficult to detect errors in my own understanding of it.
Kind Sir— 1st paragraph: yes, plenty, sufficient providence, etc. in O.T. necessary for salvation; the nation Israel declined into apostasy, etc. Not to ‘declare His will’, but raised up Judges & Prophets to get Israel back into the will of God.
(‘…Scott and I agree…â€) When two agree ‘the bible reveals Jesus to us’, we need always go to Rom. 1:16,17. Remembering foremost—the Truth of the gospel message, is that which Paul is not ashamed; for in this is one Truth—the power of God is revealed unto salvation, to everyone believing in Truth—therein is righteousness revealed. (One Eternal Truth), there are many Jesus’ out there. This is where you and I along with Scott, are all wrong, and God’s Sacred Word is True.
(“…we both agree that Jesus is the object and focous…’) Great!—translations aid in revealing the Word to us. It deals with God’s Son, Jesus Christ, our LORD Rom. 1:3,4. The person of (his) Son Heb. 11:2 is one specific Jesus specifying in connection with “Scripture†as follows: God spoke in the person of the prophets—God spoke in the person of His Son: God the real speaker, the prophets and the Son where the persons employed by God; what theses uttered God uttered! Now we have not only the correct Jesus, but also God’s Son which wasn’t properly stated. This is the LOGOS who became flesh [Jn. 1:14, Now having spoken in the person of His Son, we have ultimate Word & revelation of God.] The eternal deity of His Son = God-man Jesus is revealed. (Scriptures explaining Scriptures, we have the Word).
We must in everyway, and in everything be reliant upon God’s Power through the Word cut in Truth, elevating the Word above us—seeking heartfully and Truthfully the salvation wrought by God in His Son, otherwise, most kind sir, atonement for sin has not been made, as we are still in our sins, rejecting the Truth of God’s gracious gift by not trusting the Word in Truth, rejecting the Truth of His revelation; that is; we are rejecting the Testimony the exalted Lord Jesus Christ, has left us to keep inviolate, until He should return. (Sorry to you be so forthwith, but theses are our souls, and I just care too much for you along with the others here; we all need to know and understand the Active Covenant God in Truth—eternal ramifications)
(“…I’m am baffled by your…â€) Sadly, you have totally unknowingly altered and diluted both the Old and New Testaments; confirming the TRUMPETS are blasting away. The Trumpets in Revelation are WARNINGS to the Church of their Apostasy, and are successively progressive delusions, with increasing intensity the further we get away from the Truth of God’s Word. Hence, the relationship God requires is now measured at Rev. 11:1,2. Those getting through the Trumpets, not altering and diluting the Word.
Am I seeing this right? Please, I am “refutable†per II Tim 3:16,17. Thank you so much.
Jack Atkins
jack.atkinns@gmail.com