Hyper-Cessationism and the WCF: Part 3

In my previous two articles (here and here), I have maintained that the word “cessationism” needs to be used in the way it was given to us by the Westminster Divines. My critics have stated that the Divines weren’t perfect here, and thus revision is in order. They seem to think the historic position could use some tightening up, and I do not.

I have argued that this tightened, more restricted version of cessationism merits the term "hyper," since it would be disingenuous to use the term in a way that is more hardline and rigid than how Westminster originally used it. This article will prove these points.

Revelation and the Sufficiency of Scripture

            The crux of the debate centers around the concept of revelation. While both sides believe God has given us an infallible, inspired, and entirely unique revelation in the Holy Scriptures, the hyper-cessationist camp has insisted that no further forms of revelation are now available. This is in opposition to the majority Puritan and Covenanter view, however. Historians such as J. I. Packer, Garnet Howard Milne, Michael Haykin, and Vern Poythress have either implied or expressed agreement that the Puritans and Covenanters believed in a type of revelation that continued to be operative in the church, such as that which is communicated through dreams, visions, prophetic impulses, and even angelic communication.

Such revelation is not inspired nor infallible in the same way the Holy Scriptures are, nor do they give us any new doctrine or ethics. It is circumstantial or personal in nature, and because it is given to non-apostolic individuals prone to sin and biases, it is always to be checked against Scripture. Ideally, it will even work in tandem with Scripture—but it is revelation, nonetheless. In a paper by Dean R. Smith published by Westminster Theological Journal (2001), Smith states: “The strict cessationist perspective of Warfield and others is a limited perspective on what the reformers and their descendants believed and practiced. If Knox, the Scottish Presbyterians, and the Covenanters were living today in the same manner that they did in the 1500s and 1600s, we would be forced to classify them more with the continuationists than the cessationists” (44).

I have given countless primary source examples in prior articles, but consider two more. The first is a statement by Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), Reformer and close friend of Calvin's. In his Philosophical Works, after a lengthy section on Augustine and Cyprian’s revelatory dreams, Vermigli states, “Therefore, a good and lawful attention to dreams is not to be forbidden; the godly are permitted to pray that they may be instructed even in their dreams” (Philosophical Works, 168).

John Flavel (1627-1691), writing in the Reformed tradition over one hundred years later, states the following in question nine of his exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

"Q. But if a man have a voice, a vision, or a dream, seeming to hint the secret will of God, may he not obey it?

1. Yes; if it be consonant to the revealed will of God in the word."

Both of these views accord with John Knox’s statements from a sermon he delivered on August 19, 1565: “I dare not deny (lest that in so doing, I should be injurious to the giver,) but that God hath revealed unto me secrets unknown to the world; and also, that he hath made my tongue a trumpet, to forewarn realms and nations; yea, certain great revelations of mutations and changes, when no such things were feared, nor yet were appearing; a portion whereof cannot the world deny (be it never so blind,) to be fulfilled, and the rest, alas!”

To call Vermigli, Knox, and Flavel heavyweights in the Reformed world would be an understatement, and yet here they are, clearly approving of lower forms of revelation for the purpose of personal or even national guidance and edification. Such revelation was never viewed as competing with the sufficiency of Scripture, but personal revelation through dreams, visions, or impulses, to name a few examples, was popular enough to be mentioned approvingly, albeit with understandable cautions.

What about the Westminster Confession?

This brings us to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Considering what has just been set forth, what do we make of the “cessationist clause” in chapter one? Does this close the door to revelation from God, even if it is of a lower order than the type of revelation given to us in the Scriptures?

            The answer is no. When we are told by the confession, “those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased,” the previous context demonstrates that what is being spoken of here is the need for special revelation when it comes to salvation. We are told that natural revelation and the light of nature can give us certain insights about God, “yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation” (1.1). That is what this section is dealing with. Only Holy Scripture can reveal to us what a man must do to be saved. The Scriptures are therefore “most necessary.”

But this is not the same thing as saying God does not communicate to His church in other ways, so long as they are consistent and even working in tandem with the Holy Scriptures, such as the Lord appeared to do with Knox. Westminster is emphasizing here that the Holy Scriptures are foundational, since anything communicated through dreams, visions, or prophetic impulses must be checked against it. This lower type of revelation which the Divines seemed to be comfortable with in no way goes beyond Christ, but rather points back to Him as He is found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are our presupposition for all religious epistemology and phenomena. The Bible is the first and primary source from which the Christian should seek guidance.

Commenting on this section of the WCF, Milne notes, “Means by which God had once communicated the divine will concerning salvation, such as dreams, visions, and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, were said to be no longer applicable. However, many of the authors of the WCF accepted that ‘prophecy’ continued in their time, and a number of them apparently believed that disclosure of God’s will through dreams, visions, and angelic communication remained possible” (Intro, xv). Later, Milne states, “The written Word of God was fully capable of showing the way of ‘salvation’ in its wider scope as either temporal or eternal deliverance” (Intro, xvi). Thus, to assert that the WCF 1.1 is here expressing something beyond the scope of salvation would seem to go beyond its intention. The divines believed that immediate revelation has ceased but that a lower, mediate form of revelation continued.

This idea of a lower order of revelation can be seen in WCF 1.6, where we are told that “nothing at any time is to be added [to the Scriptures], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” The confession here implies that “new revelations of the Spirit” are a live (even if infrequent) possibility, but that such revelations must not add to the Scriptures.

This is exactly the type of revelation that we have been seeing in the historical data. It is circumstantial in nature, in the sense of God dispensing revelation for the sake of certain circumstances, whether personal or national. It is also always in accordance with and even working through the Holy Scriptures. But such revelation never adds to the Scriptures since it never communicates any new doctrine or ethics. Smith in the WTJ article mentioned above agrees: “The phrase ‘whether by new revelations of the Spirit’ in the WCF 1.6 is a recognition within the Westminster Assembly that such extraordinary revelation may have existed, but that it was not equal in authority with the Scriptures. In other words, there may be new revelations of the Spirit, but the only infallible rule of faith and life is the Word of God in the Scriptures” (45).

Such a reading is consistent with the views of certain participants of the Westminster Assembly, especially Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, and William Bridge. We have also seen that such an idea is not foreign to the 17^th century Reformed worldview in general. Such a reading also means that “traditions of men” are not to be rejected outrightly, which makes sense, because the WCF is itself a tradition. Thus, it is more accurate to understand the Westminster Confession here as rejecting not revelations or traditions per se, but those revelations or traditions which would add to Scripture. The kind of revelation given by dreams, visions, and prophetic impulses are limited to certain occasions and circumstances. This is why Knox, Vermigli, and Flavel were willing to accept them as options while at the same time holding to the sufficiency of Scripture.

The other section worth looking at is WCF 1.10. We are told, “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” It is the phrase, “private spirits,” which we will take up here. Milne does not think this is a reference to private revelation, but Byron Curtis in an article in the Westminster Theological Journal (1996) compellingly argues that the 17^th century understanding of the phrase “private spirits” was “private revelation, not personal opinion.” He comes to his conclusion by researching how the phrase was used in the literature of that time. This would substantiate what we have already seen in the confession, and it would also be consistent with the viewpoints of certain of the Divines and Reformers.

Thus, although the Divines have given to us the confession from where we derive the term “cessationism,” we see how nuanced and complex the situation actually is. It is no wonder that the same people who penned the “cessationist clause” in chapter one also gave us this in WCF 5.3: “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.”

Conclusion

            As we have seen once again, there is a difference between historic cessationism and the type of cessationism that is being popularized today. Most people are unaware of this, which is why it is important that the word sounds forth. No one wants to quench the Spirit, but I fear our updated version of cessationism is doing just that. My critics want to say the Divines and Covenanters got it wrong on this one, which is fine if they think so, but my request is that they come up with another term, such as “hyper-cessationism,” in order to categorize their novel position.

When the American Presbyterians revised the WCF in 1788, they were honest enough to let everyone know what they were up to. This new form of cessationism is being passed off as if it is the same view as the Westminster Divines. We are realizing now that nothing could be further from the truth.

Ryan Denton is a Presbyterian minister and church planter (Vanguard Presbyterian Church). His work has appeared at RHB, DesiringGod, Founders, The Confessional Presbyterian, and others. He has a Th.M. from Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. You can find him on X @texaspreacher.