https://www.christianpost.com/voices/reformed-cessationists-should-not-quote-church-history.html
I have no wish to provide comfort or aid to a false teacher such as Michael Brown, but on this issue he has a point. The Church History argument (taken by itself) is not really on the Cessationist side. This however does not mean that so-called Continuationism wins the day – it simply requires a different reading.
As BB Warfield pointed out, the claims concerning miracles, prophecies and the like did not really decrease as one moves further into Church history and away from the apostolic period. Rather, it increases and sometimes at a substantial rate. This has to be reckoned with.
But first it should be noted in unmistakable terms the so-called Charismata found in the pre-Reformation Church of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages has nothing in common with the modern movement. In fact the modern Charismatic movement has little in common with the Pentecostal movement that inadvertently spawned it. The original Pentecostals (erroneous as they might be) were (and in a few cases still are) more of a Restorationist-Fundamentalist inspired group, genuinely trying to return to the basics of New Testament Christianity. Sincere though wrong, there's something admirable in this. The Charismatic movement which emerged later is a fusion of certain aspects found within Pentecostalism unhappily wed to the worst aspects of the world-affirming Evangelical movement.
Brown, as well as not a few of the New Calvinists of the Continuationist stripe belong to the latter camp – which again has no real historical roots.
As far as the numerous appeals to Roman Catholic mystic visionaries, prophets, miracle-workers, relic-related miracles and the like – it was not the faithful Church that promoted and embraced these things, but a false Church. And the miracles they testify to are not at all on the order of what is seen in the New Testament but smack of superstition and sometimes magic.
I do not condemn all who fall under the label 'mystic' – by no means were all of them claiming some kind of special charismatic unction or the gift of wonderworking or prophecy. For some mysticism is related to questions of epistemology rather than miraculous phenomena. But the others, those who claimed visions and the like are highly suspect and the entire Roman paradigm or spectrum is to be rejected as Mystery Babylon (or at least a manifestation of it), the Whore and Antichrist which for centuries misled and persecuted the Church. The apostasy of Old Testament Israel with its false altars, false priesthood, and syncretism typify this.
So I can appreciate (in part) the likes of a' Kempis, the author of the Theologica Germanica, Nicholas of Basel, and even to some degree men like Tauler and Nicholas of Cusa – but when it comes to Teresa of Avila, Joan of Arc, or Constantine, I stand in doubt as I do the many miracles associated with relics and so forth. Understand that in some cases I'm not denying that something supernatural occurred but I don't think it was the work of the Holy Spirit. And for the record I'm willing to go a great deal further on questions of the supernatural than are many within the post-Enlightenment Reformed Confessionalist camp.
So in some respects Brown is right – that on the one hand the appeal to history not only is unfavourable to the Calvinist-Cessationist reading, but his argument carries little weight if you're going to discount Roman Catholicism altogether – as I more or less would. And yet, since the modern Charismatic understanding and framing of such gifts and manifestations is without historical precedent – that doesn't leave him on solid ground either. Either way his argument fails.
As I have discussed in articles and essays on the Medieval Dissenters or proto-Protestant groups, Biblicism was at times in competition with or overshadowed by hints of prophets and the like. And yet apart from very early groups such as the Montanists, most of the later dissenting sects found their authority in Scripture. They didn't always consistently follow it (as seen with the Lollards and Taborites) but there was a consciousness of its authority. But it must be admitted even in these contexts there were 'prophets' too – they always tend to arise in seasons of turmoil and great strife.
Though it seems counterintuitive, this phenomenon actually increased significantly with the Magisterial Reformation. For all the talk of Sola Scriptura, there were many running about claiming to be prophets. Some like John Knox were careful and cautious about what they openly claimed and yet it's clear enough he thought himself a true (and literal) Jeremiah for the sixteenth century. Others like Jan Amos Comenius were completely duped by prophets (such as Drabik) who tickled their ears by proclaiming the fall of the Habsburgs and the like. And of course the Anabaptist record on this is pretty dubious.
In times of real chaos and war we see 'prophets' appear. One also finds them among the desperate Huguenots after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) and certainly in Mitteleuropa during the Thirty Years War.
The Magisterial Reformation shattered the epistemological consensus – or at least finished the process already underway since the fourteenth century. The world of the Renaissance seemed wide open – which also generated a greater interest in the nascent sciences. The chaos fed a real or imagined occultic craze, and unleashed a new age for philosophy. It's not that surprising that in such an environment one finds prophets appearing – or those claiming to be. The world seemed as if it had been turned upside down.
One could argue that Confessionalism began to shut this process down as did the Enlightenment and yet among certain circles it continued. One finds it among some of the Pietist groups and there is a tangible and traceable connection to the prophets among the Camisards and the later rise of the Shakers in Britain. One might also mention the Quakers at this time though their style was significantly different.
I find it curious that Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) has been claimed by many modern Continuationists – especially among the New Calvinists. I do not believe he would endorse them nor do I think they would have enjoyed sitting under his ministry. His statements on this issue should provide them little comfort. He leaves the door open (as it were) but I have yet to be convinced that he would find such Charismatic practices (such as tongues) to be either acceptable or normative. He's approaching the issue from a rather different vantage point and has been largely misunderstood.
And I must begrudgingly admit Brown has a point when it comes to Augustine – but again, not the one he would make per se. There are issues regarding Augustine's theology vis-à-vis the Early Church Fathers, but mores there are real issues with regard to Augustine and the Magisterial Reformers. Their decretalism was not that of Augustine who retained a strong 'means' theology including a view of sacramental efficacy that Calvinists find contradictory and heretical. Was the Bishop of Hippo merely inconsistent as some argue or was his theological scope and spectrum simply much larger than what the Reformers and especially the later Scholastics could comprehend within their epistemological framework? It should be noted, that Lutheranism while dropping Luther's views of predestination did maintain a theology that is in some respects more compatible with Augustine and one could obviously point to Jansenism as another example, though the movement was deemed heretical within the Roman Catholic fold.
The argument for cessation has always been Redemptive-Historical and as such is quite different than the theological methodology relied upon by many. The nature of the argument and debate is directly related to other controversies over issues of law and so forth. I would take someone to the opening chapter of Hebrews for a start but I realize that would mean little to those who want a proof-text spelled out in propositional terms. As such, many of the arguments are quickly sidetracked. The real problem is one of prolegomena – what is the Bible and what is the nature of theology? What purpose does prophecy serve? And finally how does Christocentricity define this issue?
Paul for his part elaborates this in clear enough terms in 1 Corinthians as to why the signs appeared and hints at why they are secondary and temporary. 2 Corinthians is critical in understanding the nature of the apostolic office and (by implication) its relation to what the New Testament Scriptures in fact are. And in this vein, the epistle sheds light on the nature of some of the final proclamations made by the likes of not just Paul, but John and Peter as well. They were concerned with the apostolic written word and the preaching of the gospel – not the signs and wonders. In the end the Charismata were a temporary manifestation connected to the advent of the New Covenant and the Final Prophet – Christ.
The ministry of Christ extends to and through the apostles and as such the special signatory gifts began to wane with their passing at the end of the first century. This is not to say they immediately passed. There is no clear-cut line. There often isn't when it comes to history.
It seems clear that by the fourth century there were new forces at work in the Church and it was undergoing a transformation – mostly in the direction of apostasy. Superstition was clearly creeping in and the door of authority was kicked wide open when Constantine initiated the massive paradigm shift in the early fourth century. At this point in time it would seem that wonder-working exploded and it is during this period we also see the rise of monasticism and many other innovations.
Like the examples given in the Old Testament, there were always outliers, sons of the prophets (as it were), and individuals who maintained the faith – often imperfectly given their confused and sometimes impossible contexts. So it is today.
The Magisterial Reformation contained many positive aspects but it was not a second Pentecost nor was it anything like the great revival it's made out to be. It certainly was not a return to New Testament Christianity but in many respects it was a permutation – an outgrowth of many theological, philosophical, political, and socio-economic forces already at work. Theologians like Schaff and Nevin celebrate this progressive aspect and prioritize it over and against any kind of Primitivist or Back-to-Scripture narrative associated with Protestantism.
I prefer to take the Magisterial Reformation for what it is – another chapter in Church History, one that leads to both positive and negative developments. It is not the standard and it is admittedly somewhat ludicrous when figures connected to a Neo-Evangelical movement like New Calvinism try to 'claim' it as their own. As far as traditional and confessional Reformed Christianity, the case for cessation can be made but not if you want to embrace Western Medievalism which is inseparable from Roman Catholicism. The attempt to selectively choose the supposed good bits when it comes to this question is simply naive and at times disingenuous.
As far as the history goes – I grant Brown that he's right – but he's still utterly wrong. But I will also grant that the contemporary approach (once less common) that is so keen to claim all of medieval history is not friendly to the cessationist cause. Rome itself rests on continuationist claims – the Papacy and Magisterium are guided by the Holy Spirit and have the power to reinterpret, change, and reveal new doctrine and sanction miracles, prophecies and the like. That very fluidity (which vexes so many at present) is after all the logical end of such a paradigm.
The Magisterial Reformation is rather sloppy – I'm afraid the glory narratives so often presented in a Sunday School class or in some of the popular histories put out by Reformed presses are a romanticised whitewash. Things began to solidify under the regime of Confessionalism – which in some respects didn't last all that long. And secondly this narrative is problematic for those who want to present the seamless narrative between the sixteenth century Reformation and the present. They can only do so by glossing over the ugly bits.
A great many contemporary proponents of the Magisterial Reformation are on shaky ground when they try to 'claim' Church History as supporting their views just as Brown builds his doctrinal house on an unbiblical foundation of sand.