Calvin on the angel stirring the water during an age of cessation (John 5:3b-4)

I preached last Sunday on the opening of John 5, the healing of the impotent man at Bethesda (vv. 1-16). In his commentary on this passage, Calvin does not acknowledge the textual difficulties of vv. 3b-4 relating to the angel coming down to stir the waters. Instead, he simply accepts this passage as part of the undisputed text. He does, however, provide an intriguing explanation for the unusual circumstances, interpreting the strange stirring of the water in the pool of Bethesda as an unusual demonstration of the Lord’s intervention into earthly affairs during a time when the prophetic spirit had largely been withdrawn. So, Calvin observes:

But about the time of Christ’s coming, as they were deprived of the Prophets, and their condition was very wretched, and as various temptations pressed upon them on every hand, they needed this extraordinary aid, that they might not think that God had entirely left them, and thus might be discouraged and fall away. For we know that Malachi was the last of the Prophets, and, therefore, he closes his doctrine with this admonition, that the Jews may remember the law delivered by Moses (Malachi 4:4) until Christ appear. God saw it to be advantageous to deprive them of the Prophets, and to keep them in suspense for a time, that they might be inflamed, with a stronger desire for Christ, and might receive him with greater reverence, when he should be manifested to him.

I was intrigued by this statement with regard to recent thoughts on canon. Calvin and other Reformers reject the apocrypha, in part, because they did not see it as emerging during an age of active prophesy. This was the first of William Whitaker’s three arguments against the inspiration, and thus the canonicity, of the apocryphal books in his Disputation (see pp. 49-54; the second argument being that that these books were not accepted as canonical by the Jews, and the third that their content was non-canonical [uninspired]). Calvin sees the time between the last OT Prophet (which he takes to be Malachi) and the coming of Christ as a “dead zone” with regard to the activity of the prophetic spirit. Again, the test of canonicity for any book is not the decision of the church but the inspiration of the Spirit.

JTR

Cessationism and Consistent Confessionalism

Here are some notes adapted from the closing to last Sunday afternoon’s sermon on Cessationism from our series through the 1689 Baptist Confession:

There has been an ongoing challenge throughout the history of the church to the sufficiency of Scripture from those who crave extra-Biblical experiences.  As Solomon puts it, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecc 1:9).

In the early church there was a movement known as Montanism led by a charismatic self-proclaimed prophet named Montanus.  His followers considered themselves “the enlightened ones.”  Eusebius records it was boasted that Montanus was “the Paraclete” and that two women of his sect named Priscilla and Maximilla were “the prophetesses of Montanus.”  Eusebius’ own assessment was that they were “like poisonous reptiles” (see E. H., V.xiv).

In medieval times there were the self-proclaimed mystics.

During the Reformation period, Luther was opposed by a group of men known as “the Zwickau prophets” who claimed to be led by visions and dreams.  In an encounter with Luther, they pleaded, “The Spirit, Dr. Luther!  The Spirit!”  To which Luther replied, “I slap your spirit on the snout!” [as cited in J. P. Thackway, “Lessons from the Charismatic Movement” Bible League Quarterly (No. 467, Oct-Dec 2016):  p. 451].

In the post-Reformation period men like John Bunyan and John Owen opposed the excesses of the Society of Friends or the “Quakers,” as they were called for their frenzied movements while supposedly seized by the Spirit.  Before there were the “holy rollers” there were the Quakers and the Shakers!

In our own day, we have the modern charismatic movement, whose influence is widely felt even in conservative and evangelical churches, especially through so-called “third wave” worship music. “Contemporary” worship has become the norm and churches guided by the Regulative Principle the exception to the rule. Many have embraced soteriological Calvinism, claim to be “Reformed,” but say they are “open yet cautious” to charismatic expressions. They do not grasp, however, the fundamental contradiction in this kind of stance, given the closing words of chapter one "Of the Holy Scriptures" in the confession: “which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” Clearly the confession takes a cessationist position. Mixing continuationism with Reformed theology is like mixing oil and water. You cannot be confessional and continuationist. The framers of the confession clearly saw cessationism as essential to the defense of the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture.

JTR    

Ananias and Cessationism

Image:  Depiction of the baptism of Paul by Ananias in the Duomo di Monreale, Sicily, Italy.  The Latin inscription reads:  Hic conversus Paulus baptizatur ab Anania [Here the converted Paul is baptized by Ananias].

Last Sunday, I resumed the afternoon series through the Baptist confession with a message on the final clause of chapter one, paragraph one:  “which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will to his people being now ceased" (listen to sermon here).

I made the point in the message (1) that the extra-ordinary gifts in the apostolic age were restricted to the apostles and evangelists (apostolic associates) and (2) that those gifts have now ceased since the extra-ordinary offices have ceased.

To cinch the point, I noted that in the book of Acts ordinary Christians are not depicted as performing miracles but this is the special activity of the apostles and their associates, citing:

Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people….

Acts 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:

After the meeting several of us were discussing this point and one person asked about Ananias’ laying hands on Paul when he was blinded on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.  Would this be an example of a non-apostle performing a miracle?

Ananias is simply described as “a certain disciple of Damascus” (Acts 9:10).  He is instructed by the Lord in a vision that Saul “hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight” (v. 12).  Ananias then goes to Saul, “and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost” (v. 17).  Saul’s eyes were then opened, as if scales had fallen from them, he arose, and was baptized (v. 18).  Ananias is presumably the person who administers the baptism.

So, (1) is Ananias an ordinary disciple and (2) is the restoration of sight to Saul a healing miracle performed by him?

First, who was Ananias?

He was not an apostle.  But, was he merely an ordinary disciple?  The fact that he is sent to Saul and that he apparently baptizes him indicates that Ananias was an officer of the church.  He is in Damascus and not Jerusalem, where the apostles reside, but this does not preclude the possibility that he was sent there by the apostles.  Clearly, Ananias did not live in ordinary but extra-ordinary times.  He lived in the age of the apostles.  The Lord directly entrusted him through a vision with the important task of discipling Saul.  This is not the norm for ordinary believers (but cf. the Spirit’s direction of Philip, an apostolic associate, toward the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26, 29).  The cessationist position does not say that only apostles performed miracles or had extra-ordinary experiences.  The apostolic associates, like Stephen and Philip, also performed such deeds. Compare:

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Acts 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

So, if the restoration of Saul’s sight was a healing miracle, then Ananias might be considered an apostolic associate like Stephen or Philip.

Second, was the restoration of Saul’s sight a healing miracle?

Nevertheless, it might also be argued that the opening of Saul’s eyes was not, in fact, a healing miracle.  His temporary blindness only comes upon him after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:8-9).  Ananias is told to place his hands on Saul “that he might receive his sight” (v. 12), but the imposition of hands might have more to do with his ordination to service as “a chosen vessel” (v. 15) than to healing.  It might be that Ananias is not sent to “heal” Saul but to baptize and ordain him, upon his reception of spiritual insight into the identity of Jesus.  If this is the case, Ananias need not be an extra-ordinary officer but an ordinary one.

What did Calvin say?

A review of Calvin’s commentary on Acts 9 indicates that the great Reformer also seemed to be pondering these questions.

When discussing the Lord’s instruction to the blinded Saul (“it shall be told thee” v. 6), Calvin’s description of Ananias is as an ordinary teacher rather than as an extra-ordinary healer.  He notes:

Christ putteth Ananias in his place by these words, as touching the office of teaching; not because he resigneth his authority to him, but because he shall be a faithful minister, and a sincere preacher of the gospel.

Likewise, in his commentary on Ananias’ vision in v. 10, Calvin says, “And this vision was necessary for Ananias, lest through fear he should withdraw himself from that function which was enjoined to him, to wit, to teach Paul.”

Calvin does not describe the restoration of Saul’s sight as a healing but his focus in on the special call upon the apostle’s life:  “To conclude, Christ pronounceth that Paul was chosen unto great and excellent things” (commentary on v. 15).

Calvin even expresses this cessationist sentiment:  “If any man object that the Lord speaketh not at this day in a vision, I answer, that forasmuch as the Scripture is abundantly confirmed to us, we must hear God thence.”

Conclusion:

The description of Ananias’ ministry to Saul does not contradict the cessationist position.  First, Ananias lived in the age of the apostles, and so we should expect he might have been involved in extra-ordinary experiences even if he was not an apostle.  Second, the restoration of Saul’s sight by the imposition of Ananias’ hands does not so much call to mind a healing per se as it does an ordination (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3).

JTR

WM # 36: The Ending of Mark, Cessationism, and Apologetics

I recorded yesterday (5.1.15) Word Magazine # 36 and just uploaded it to sermonaudio.com today. The topic:  The Ending of Mark, Cessationism, and Apologetics.

WM 36 has three sections:

Part one:  A review of the May 19, 2015 “Fighting for the Faith” Podcast in which Chris Rosebrough critiques the non-cessationist position of Angela Grenig on the basis of her usage of Mark 16:17-18.  Simply put, he opposes a wrong teaching (non-cessationism) using a bad hermeneutic (denying the authority of Mark 16:9-20).  A proper hermeneutical approach to Mark 16:9-20, in fact, affirms cessationism. Grenig's bad hermeneutical approach, not bad text criticism, leads to her wrong interpretation! 

Part two:  A review of Nicholas P. Lunn’s nine doubts against the modern idea that Mark was originally intended to end at Mark 16:8 from his excellent new book:  The Original Ending of Mark:  A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (Pickwick, 2014).  Here are the nine doubts (from pp. 6-18):

1.  Early Christian kerygma

2.  Early Christian creedal formulations

3.  The shape of the other canonical Gospels

4.  Resurrection predictions in Mark

5.  The acceptability of the final clause

6.  The contrast with the beginning

7.  Lack of historical interpretation

8.  Lack of anti-Christian polemic

9.  The objections of modern scholarship

Part Three:  I played part of a Muslim apologetic video which presents a portion of a 2006 debate between James White and Shabir Ally, pointing out that Muslims are glad to see evangelical Christians denying the traditional ending of Mark and using this as evidence to downgrade the authority of the Bible and to deny the resurrection of Jesus.  Here’s the video (from which I played the first few minutes):

John Owen: Adversus Fanaticos

I just finished reading John Owen’s “A Defense of Sacred Scripture Against Modern Fanaticism” (published as an appendix in John Owen, Biblical Theology:  The History of Theology from Adam to Christ [Soli Deo Gloria, 1994]:  pp. 769-854).  This is Stephen P. Westcott’s English translation/interpretation of Owen’s original Latin work which appeared under the title, “Pro Sacris Scripturis Adversus Huius Temporis Fanaticos Exercitationes Apologeticae Quattuor.”

Owen published this work in 1659 along with two others which addressed the nature of Scripture:  “Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures” and “A Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testaments.”

In this work, Owen’s primary opponents are those “commonly called ‘quiverers’ or ‘Quakers’” (p. 777), though he also takes exception with others, whether they be “Jews, Romanists, Enthusiasts, pseudo-friends or open enemies of the Christian religion” (p. 817) who, in his view, deny the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Owen’s rebuttal of Quakers (the “charismatics” of his day) necessarily involved his affirmation of cessationism in light of the sufficiency of Scripture:

We believe and confess that the Bible is the complete and perfect rule, delivered to us by God that we might achieve our salvation and His greater glory, and thus, since the completion of the canon of Scripture (as scholars call it), there have been no new revelations concerning the common faith of the saints or the due worship of God, and so none are to be expected or admitted (p. 826).

For Owen, the Quaker appeal to the “inner light” or to experience challenged both the authority and sufficiency of Scripture as the final arbiter of questions of doctrine and practice:

By what rule?  Shall men be allowed to make their own spirits the touchstone, and judge the spirits by their own spirits?  Who then would find any limit to the heap of interpretations that would arise?  No, there must be some common rule for the testing of spirits and settling of controversies, or the former will be unrestricted and the latter unending.  And I have already shown that the Bible is just such a rule….  It is a necessity to have our faculties trained by practice to “discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14), and in what other school or gymnasium may spiritual discernment be nurtured?  Where else can we go but to the Word of God? (p. 813).

You get the sense that Owen would not suffer long with evangelical new Calvinists who want to be “open yet cautious” towards continuationism.  Westcott is on target when he says that Owen was “supremely the theologian of the infallible Bible” (p. 772). 

Reymond: The "Blackout" Argument and the "Canonical" Argument Against Non-cessationism

I am still enjoying reading Robert Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology for our weekly CRBC Men’s Study. We are slowly working our way through the opening chapters on the doctrine of Scripture. I just finished reading chapter three on seven attributes of Scripture, including its “necessity.” Reymond’s position is consistent with the Reformed creeds (e.g., The Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession 1689 argue for Scripture’s necessity “those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased”). In the discussion of this point Reymond makes some strong arguments against non-cessationism (the belief held by charismatics that extraordinary gifts, experiences, and revelation continue today as in apostolic times). Two of these arguments we could call (1) the “blackout” argument and (2) the “canonical” argument (see p. 58, n. 7):

1. “Blackout” Argument: The concept of the canon being closed and of “the cessation of special revelation with the passing of the apostles” is consistent with what we learn of the typical process of revelation in the Bible itself. Namely, “The revelatory process never came in an unbroken continuance but rather, in nontechnical language, in ‘spurts.’” From Genesis 49:1-27 to Exodus 3:4 there was a “blackout” of divine communication that lasted “over four hundred years.” After Malachi there is a span of four hundred years when “revelational activity ceased.” In addition, after Malachi the OT canon was closed. The typical charismatic position imagines “the unbroken continuance” of special revelation that does not comport with the Bible’s view that this typically takes place in “spurts.” The norm is for there to be long periods of “blackout.” As with the period after Malachi, we are in a period when the New Testament canon has closed (along with the OT now completing the Christian canon), and we should not expect further special revelational activity as we await the end of the ages.

2. “Canonical” Argument: Reymond argues that the only way one can consistently hold to the canon of Scripture being closed is if he also holds to cessationism:

One final note: most, if not all, of the Biblical scholars and theologians who insist upon the final reality of continuing revelation today are apparently also willing to affirm that the Bible is a “closed canon.” For this affirmation I am genuinely glad. On the other hand, they seem not to appreciate that the argument for a closed canon, which they affirm, is also the argument for the cessation of revelation, that the two stand or fall together, and that if the revelatory process has in fact continued to this day, then there is no such thing as a truly closed canon.

JTR