The Loud Voice of Church History Against Continuationism

One of the things we notice about church history is that the church has always declared extra-Biblical revelations and continued miraculous gifts of the Spirit as serious error and an attack against the sufficiency of Scripture. Many of these movements have even been denounced as heresy. Why has it taken so long for us to see a conference like Strange Fire? Why are reformed evangelicals embracing these teachings rather than excoriating them?

While we will be dealing with continuationism more over the next several days, I think a look at church history is helpful at this point. I also understand that saying the church has always been against these teachings is a bold statement, but I intend to show you exactly what I am referring to as we continue.

The Apostles

One of the interesting things we notice when we read the Scriptures is that these signs, wonders, and miraculous gifts of the Spirit ceased even before the end of the Apostolic age. Paul mentions these gifts in 1 Corinthians, which was written around 53 A.D. We also note that these gifts are thoroughly discussed at the beginning of the book of Acts. What is interesting to note is that none of the later books even mention these gifts. Even in the book of Acts we see less and less of these signs and gifts towards the end.

The reason for this is that the signs, wonders, and miraculous gifts were meant to confirm the the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 2:3-4). When we look at the later books of the New Testament, these gifts are never mentioned at all. It's as if it was assumed that the gifts were confirmatory and temporary only (more on this when we deal with the sufficiency of Scripture).

The Montonists

After the Apostolic Era, and the closing of the Canon of Scripture, the church held firmly to the sufficiency of Scripture. It was assumed early on that God was no longer giving revelation. Once the Inspired writings were recognized and canonized, the early church fathers defended the sufficiency of Scripture against all threats.

One of the early threats against the sufficiency of the Scriptures came from the Montonists. This was a movement led by Montonus (hence the name of the movement) who taught that the Holy Spirit was still giving revelations and miraculous gifts as in the Apostolic Era. Gregg Allison commented on this movement:

This movement encouraged an eager anticipation of the Lord's quick return by appealing to new revelations given by the Holy Spirit. The church responded to this emphasis on revelation outside the Bible by underscoring the closed canon of Scripture (Allison, Historical Theology, pp. 43).

In answering the Montonists, Eusebius spoke of "the doctrine of the New Testament, to which it is impossible that any thing should be added or diminished, by one who has resolved to live according to the gospel."

According to Berkhoff, Montonus appealed to the gospel narratives for support of his beliefs. Much of the movement actually held to orthodox theology. However, "the church followed a true instinct in rejecting it, especially because of the fanaticism it involved and its claim to a higher revelation than that contained in the New Testament" (Berkhoff, History of Christian Doctrines pp. 54-55).

The Roman Catholic Church

During the Middle Ages and leading up to the Reformation, the Catholic Church taught that the Scriptures weren't sufficient, but that tradition was also necessary. One of the other things that went along with this was the notion of continued private revelations.

The Catholic Church today distinguishes between public and private revelations (the public ceased in the 1800's, the private still continues). However, during the Middle Ages and pre-reformation, they held on to tradition and postapostolic revelations as normative. This culminated in the belief that the pope can speak ex cathedra. Luther and Calvin were fighting for the sufficiency of Scripture on multiple grounds against the Catholic Church.

For Luther, "A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. As for the pope's decree on indulgences, I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture, we should reject pope and councils."

For Calvin, the "sufficiency of Scripture stood against the Roman Catholic view of apostolic tradition and other supplements to the Bible that were allegedly given to the Church by the Spirit" (Allison, pp 153):

"Whoever imagines that anything must be added to [the Apostles'] doctrine, as if it were imperfect and but half-finished, not only accuses the apostles of dishonesty, but blasphemes against the Spirit....Nothing can be added to them without doing grievous injury to the Holy Spirit" (John Calvin).

No extra-Biblical revelation, whether tradition or divine revelation, would not be acceptable. "For Calvin, a principal error of the Catholic Church was its preference for the Spirit of God over against the Word of God" (Allison). The Scriptures and the Scriptures alone were sufficient for the Reformers.

The Fanatics and Mystics

John Calvin had another group to deal with in his day touting continued revelations. This movement took their so-called revelations to the extreme by rejecting the written Word entirely. They emphasized the Spirit to such a degree that they felt the Scriptures were worthless. Calvin countered their arguments by explaining how the Spirit and the Word work together. The "Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit", Calvin exclaimed.

Calvin taught that the true ministry of the Holy Spirit is seen in that He inspired the Scriptures, preserved the Scriptures, illumines us to understand the Scriptures, and gives Scripture its authority: "The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded" (John Calvin).

The Holy Spirit's ministry was so tied to the Word of God, that to deny the Word as the "fanatics" and "mystics" did, is tantamount to blaspheming the Spirit.

The same thing could be said of Luther in dealing with this group. Luther understood that one of the main ministries of the Spirit is to help us understand the Word:

"No one can correctly understand God or His Word unless he has received such understanding immediately from the Holy Spirit" (Luther).

For the fanatics who said that the Scriptures were unnecessary because we have the on-going ministry of the Spirit was actually to misunderstand the ministry of the Spirit and actually dishonor Him by rejecting His Word. Beyond this, we don't know much about these minority groups because they didn't write hardly anything down. Their so-called private revelations were sufficient to them, and so there isn't much information on them.

However, Calvin did not fail to call this group out in his institutes (see the chapter titled, "All the Principles of Piety Subverted by Fanatics, Who Substitute Revelations for Scripture"):

What an infatuation of the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture,, which conducts the sons of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use? Again, I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our Savior promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instill the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of-revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

For Calvin, on-going private revelations detracted from the Word of God, and came from mad men who claimed they had the Spirit. Yet Calvin questioned whether they had the Spirit at all.

In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit," he does not carry them aloft to empty speculations apart from the word; he immediately adds, "Despise not prophesying" (1 Thess. 5:19, 20). By this, doubtless, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesyings fall into contempt. How is this answered by those swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea only true illumination consists, in carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to the word of God, while, with no less confidence than folly, they fasten upon any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung in their minds? Surely a very different sobriety becomes the children of God. As they feel that without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of truth, so they are not ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the illumination of the Spirit is dispensed. They know of no other Spirit than the one who dwelled and spoke in the apostles--the Spirit by whose oracles they are daily invited to the hearing of the word. 

 Once again, Calvin understood that to claim a higher, newer revelation than that of verified Scripture, was to claim folly which sprung the own imagination. Not only that, but to do so would be to quench the Spirit who works in and through the revealed revelation, rather than giving new revelations. Yet Calvin answered some of the possible objections thrown at him:

Since Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority can the Spirit have with us if he be not ascertained by an infallible mark? And assuredly he is pointed out to us by the Lord with sufficient clearness; bu these miserable men err as if bent on their on destruction, while they seek the Spirit from themselves rather than from Him. But they say that it is insulting to subject the Spirit, to whom all things are to be subject, to the Scriptures: as if it were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a perfect resemblance throughout, and be in all respects without variation consistent with himself. 

True, if he were subjected to a human, an angel, or to any foreign standard, it might be thought that he was rendered subordinate, or, if you will, brought into bondage, but so long as he is compared with himself, and considered to himself, how can it be said that he is thereby injured? 

To say that the Spirit works in and through the already revealed Scriptures is not to limit the Spirit, for He Himself is the author of Scriptures and has chosen to work in and through them. Calvin points out that without a firm and fixed foundation like the Scriptures, we have no way to combat Satan and error.

The Zwickau Prophets

During the time of reformation when Luther and Calvin argued that the Scriptures were sufficient, a man named Thomas Münzer objected to this idea. He taught that experience was more important than Scripture, and taught his followers to expect private revelations and dreams which were equal to (if not greater) than the Bible. Münzer would sometimes even mock the Bible, and claim the Spirit was better.

This was a small minority group around the same time as the fanatics ad mystics. This group may be the same group Calvin referred to in his institutes. Once again, though, there isn't much information beyond that. Münzer's teachings were rejected as the sufficiency of Scripture was already being defended by Calvin and Luther.

The Quakers

During the time right after the reformation, John Owen had to deal with the Quakers. Elizabeth Fletcher and Elizabeth Leavens were the main leaders of this movement at its beginning. These early leaders, who desired such a revival of the Spirit that they pranced around town half naked, for obvious reasons, was not well accepted and did not last long. However, a few years later, there were other leaders who taught similarly.

They taught that each person has an "individualized inner light", and that the Spirit moves us "by the secret inspiration of his Spirit in our hearts" in worship. They also taught of baptism "by the Spirit and fire" and rejected any other practice of baptism. They taught that revelation and dreams were to be expected.

As Beeke and Jones point out in A Puritan Theology,

Numerous individuals, many of them raised in a Puritan environment with its emphasis on radical depravity and the need for the sovereign, converting work of the Spirit, had begun seeking for a work of God to bring peace to their souls in the midst of the massive upheaval of the times (the turmoil of the English Civil War 1642-1651). Some of these so-called Seekers longed for a restoration of the charismatic vitality and simplicity they believed to be characteristic of the apostolic church. As J.F. McGregor points out, they regarded the sign of a true church of Christ to be 'its possession of the grace given to the apostles and demonstrated through miracles.' Since none of the Puritan congregations claimed to be in possession of such charismatic or extraordinary gifts, the Seekers felt that they had to withdraw from those churches and wait for what they hoped would be a new divine dispensation. For many Seekers, that divine dispensation appeared with the advent of the Quakers and their message (A Puritan Theology, pg. 431).

John Owen flatly rejected the teaching of the Quakers because it denied the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture. He declared that the Scriptures are "sufficient with respect to the end of the revelation itself...sufficient into the end for which it is designed—that is, sufficient to generate, cherish, increase, and preserve faith, and love, and reverence, with holy obedience, in them, in such a way and manner as will assuredly bring them unto the end of all supernatural revelation in the enjoyment of God" (John Owen).

Owen was an avid defender of the sufficiency of Scripture and he flatly rejected any continuing revelation. Once again, Owen denounced further revelations:

"The Scriptures are the settled, ordinary [as opposed to extraordinary], perfect [it cannot be improved upon], an unshakable rule for divine worship and human obedience, in such a fashion that leaves no room for any other, and no scope for any new revelations whereby man may be better instructed in the knowledge of God and our required duty.”

No further revelations for Owen; rather, the Scriptures are sufficient. For more on Owen and the Quakers, Beeke has eleven and a half pages on the subject in A Puritan Theology, and Steve Lawson's message on Owen and the Quakers from Strange Fire conference was superb.

Schleiermacher and Liberalism

Although there is a hundred years or so between the Quakers in England (1600's) and Friedrich Schleiermacher in Germany (1763-1834), much of what he believed and taught was quite similar.

He emphasized the subjective experience of the believer over against the Scriptures or anything else: "No external authority, whether it be Scripture, church, or historic creed statement, takes precedence over the immediate experience of believers" (Schleiermacher).

While he did not seem to emphasize the Spirit or teach the continuation of revelation, he believed that each believer was the true revelation. When a true believer was illuminated by the Spirit when reading the Scriptures, they were inspired as opposed to the Scriptures themselves. Schleiermacher denied all of the core doctrines of the Christian faith in order to cling to his emphasis on experience instead of Scripture. This laid the foundation for many to emphasize experience and downplay the Scripture over the next hundred years.

In dealing with the Liberalism of Schleiermacher and others, J Gresham Machen wrote in the late 1800's against the emphasis on experience and their disregard for Biblical truth: "The real authority, for Liberalism, can only be 'the Christian consciousness'  or 'Christian experience.'"

He asked how this authority for the Christian could be established. Not "by a majority vote in the organized church", Machen asserted. Perhaps it could be established by "individual experience." But "this is no authority, as each mans experience is different from another." For the Liberals, personal experience was the arbiter of truth, rather than the sufficient Word of God.

It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men (Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pg. 78-79).

For Machen, Liberalisms emphasis on experience over against Scripture was a denial of its authority and sufficiency.

The Modern Charismatic Movement

We have seen that the church has always recognized the Scriptures as being sufficient, which excludes any notion of further revelation. This not only contradicts the Pentecostal movement, but also the Charismatic and the reformed Continuationists. We cannot hold to the sufficiency of Scripture if we believe in continued revelation. The true ministry of the Spirit is to work in conjunction with the written Word. The true church has always recognized this, and this is why the church has always rejected on-going revelation.

To be a Continuationist is to open up Pandora's box to the Montonists and the Fanatics and the Quakers of our day. For the most part, the only ones who believed in continued revelation and miraculous gifts after the Apostolic age were groups and movements like the ones we just surveyed. While much more could be said on each of these groups (and others), the overwhelming voice of church history that revelation has ended, the gifts of the Spirit ceased with the end of the Apostolic Era, the Scriptures are sufficient, and that the ministry of the Spirit is to work with the written Word is simply staggering.

Strange Fire

I am glad that the Strange Fire conference has taken place, and I look forward to reading the book Strange Fire by Dr. John MacArthur. It is sad that it took so long for the church to recognize and denounce this fanaticism. However, at least someone took the time to stand up for the truth. May the Spirit be honored and glorified as we point everything back to His Word, and more specifically, to the Incarnate Word revealed in the Inscripturated Word. And I hope those who are Continuationists will look honestly at the arguments against continuationism and not respond emotionally, or flippantly. But rather examine all things by the Scriptures.