The Westminster Confession is often cited as a cessationistdocument due to a clause in chapter 1:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion areto be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers,doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whosesentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in theScripture (WCF 1.10).
However, the interpretation of this clause is controversialbecause some Westminster Divines, and other Reformed luminaries, reputedlybelieved in private revelation. Whether or not the position attributed to themis correct is a matter of ongoing scholarly dispute. For instance:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-2476.html
However, I’d like to approach the issue from a differentangle. Indeed, I’ve discussed this before, but I’ll like to make an additionalpoint. The Confessional also says:
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord JesusChrist: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is thatAntichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in theChurch against Christ, and all that is called God (WCF 25.6).
Although this article has been redacted out of some moderneditions of the Confession, for now I’m simply interested in the viewpoint ofthe Westminster Divines.
The prooftexts given for this identification are Mt 23, 2Thes 2, and Rev 13. In his exposition of Rev 13, John Gill furnishes a moredetailed illustration of this exegetical tradition. For instance:
speaking great things, and blasphemies; great swelling wordsof vanity; calling himself by high and lofty titles, as Christ's vicar, Peter'ssuccessor, head of the church, universal bishop, &c. promising great thingsto his followers, riches, honours, pleasures, pardons, and heaven itself; anduttering things of a blasphemous kind, or great blasphemies, the particulars ofwhich are mentioned in Revelation 13:6; so the little horn, who is the samewith the Romish antichrist, is said to have a mouth speaking great things, verygreat things, and his look more stout than his fellows, Daniel 7:8.
And I beheld another beast,.... The same with the first,only in another form; the same for being and person, but under a differentconsideration; the same antichrist, but appearing in another light and view:the first beast is the pope of Rome, at the head of the ten kingdoms, of whichthe Roman empire consisted; this other beast is the same pope of Rome, with hisclergy, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, &c. before he isdescribed as a temporal monarch, now as a spiritual lord; there he isrepresented in his secular character, as having the seat, power, and authorityof the dragon, of Rome Pagan, engaging the attention and wonder of the wholeworld, and striking terror into them, and as making war with the saints, andruling over all nations and tongues; here in his ecclesiastic character,pretending great humility and holiness, showing signs and lying wonders,obliging to idolatry, and exercising tyranny and cruelty on all that will notprofess his religion: that this is the same beast with the first in substance,though not in show, appears from his exercising the same power, causing all toworship the first beast, or himself as a temporal lord, by which he issupported in his spiritual dignity; and by mention being made only of onebeast, at the close of this account, and of his mark, name, and number beingbut one; nor is there any other but one hereafter spoken, of in this book,either as ruling, or as conquered, and as taken, and as going into perdition,and as cast into the lake…
My point is not to assess the merits of this interpretation.Rather, I’m discussing the issue from the standpoint of historical theology.
One implication of this interpretation is that it cutsagainst cessationism. If the pope is the Antichrist, and the papacy has thepowers ascribed to the Beast in Rev 13, then ecclesiastical miracles are to beexpected. Thus far, these would be confined to the Roman communion, and theywould be occultic miracles.
But if we operate within this exegetical framework, thenthis seems to undercut cessationism on another front. If the Beast representsthe papacy, what do the two witnesses (Rev 11) represent? Continuing with Gill:
And I will give power unto my two witnesses,.... By whom aremeant, not Enoch and Elias, as some of the ancient fathers thought, who, theysupposed, would come before the appearance of Christ, and oppose antichrist,and be slain by him, which sense the Papists greedily catch at; nor are theScriptures, the two Testaments, Old and New, designed, though their name andnumber agree, and also their office, which is to testify of Christ; but then tobe clothed in sackcloth, to be killed, and rise again, and ascend to heaven,are things that cannot so well be accommodated to them: but these witnessesintend the ministers of the Gospel and churches of Christ, who have boretestimony for Christ, and against antichrist, ever since he appeared in theworld; and particularly the churches and ministers in Piedmont bid fair forthis character; who were upon the spot when antichrist arose, always bore theirprotest against him, and were ever independent of the church of Rome, andsubsisted in the midst of the darkness of the apostasy; and suffered much, andvery great persecutions, from the Papists; and have stood their ground, andcontinue to this day; and have been like olive trees and candlesticks,imparting oil and light to others. Though they ought not to be consideredexclusive of other ministers and churches, who also have bore, and still dobear a witness for Christ, and against the idolatries of the church of Rome: notwo individual persons can be meant, since these witnesses were to prophesy1260 days, that is, so many years, but a succession of ministers and churches…
So there’s a sense in which the two witnesses are thecounterpart to the Beast. If the Beast represents the false church (i.e. Rome),then the two witnesses represent the true church. If the Antichrist of Rev 13is the pope, then the two witnesses of Rev 11 are the godly remnant, who standopposed to the apostate church of Rome.
(Incidentally, most modern scholars agree with Gill that thetwo witnesses represent the church.)
But this, in turn, requires another parallel. Both the Beastand the two witnesses perform miracles. If we literally ascribe lying wondersto the Antichrist, which we equate with the papacy, then, by parity ofargument, we should literally ascribe counter-miracles to representatives ofthe Protestant church.
Once again, my immediate point is not to evaluate thisexegetical tradition, but to analyse the text of the Confession on its ownterms, including the exegetical traditional undergirding the Confession. Withinthat framework, the Confession seems to commit adherents to continuationism.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder