by Tom PenningtonPastor-Teacher, Countryside Bible Church, Southlake, Texas
When Grace to You asked me to present the biblical case for
cessationism at the Strange Fire conference last October, I was excited
about the opportunity. Although I am a convinced cessationist and had
addressed this issue with my own congregation, I spent several months
studying the Scripture and reading the relevant literature on both sides
of this contentious issue. But it wasn’t long before my initial
euphoria turned to discouragement.
The problem was not (as some continuationists argue) because there is
insufficient biblical evidence for cessationism to preach on for an
hour. My problem was the sheer extravagance of biblical material. I
was faced with a difficult decision between equally tempting choices:
to spend the hour I was given developing one argument or to present a
brief summary of the primary arguments. Both choices were fraught with
slippery slopes and gaping chasms. If I concentrated on one argument,
the uninformed on both sides of the issue would race to the conclusion
that cessationism is a tune with only one string and one note. But if I
tried to cover all the main arguments, I would have to leave crucial
points and counterpoints on the cutting-room floor, appearing to leave
holes in an argument that has none. If you listened to
my message at Strange Fire, you know that I eventually opted for the lesser of two evils—the second.
In light of the difficulty of that decision, I have been fascinated
by the responses to the biblical case I presented. Cessationists have
written to say that the conference strengthened their confidence in the
Scripture. I have heard from practicing charismatics who had been told
there are no biblical arguments for cessationism but who were troubled
by what they saw in their churches. In God’s providence they listened
to Strange Fire, the truth they heard resonated with their hearts, and
they have since left the charismatic movement for good.
Frankly, much of the online opposition has been all heat and no
light. Some critiques have been so apparently self-defeating that they
neither require nor deserve a reasoned response. Among the mostly
gracious and careful responses to the case for cessationism,
Andrew Wilson’s critique
stands out. Several on both sides of the issue have suggested I
respond to the issues he raised. So that is what I will do here.
Surprisingly, Wilson devotes the first half of his critique to defending
the common arguments for continuationism
that I mentioned in passing in my introduction. First, he quotes the
arguments as Tim Challies summarized them, and then he defends them. So
I will quote
Challies’s summaries and the key portions of Wilson’s critique.
(1) The New Testament doesn’t say they [miraculous gifts] have ceased. But then again, it doesn’t say that they won’t either.
Wilson responds:
The burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of the one who would
place a break at the end of the New Testament period, for the simple
reason that, throughout Scripture, substantial changes in the way God
communicates with people—and cessationism posits a substantial change…
—are clearly communicated.
But there were, in fact, two huge changes at the end of the New
Testament period—changes that even most charismatics (including Wilson)
admit can be discerned from the New Testament but that are not clearly
announced in one clarion passage. Those two changes are (1) the end of
the unique apostolate and (2) the end of canonical revelation. When
charismatics state their case against cessationism as Wilson does, they
unintentionally also surrender the field to apostolic succession and
ongoing canonical revelation.
(2) 1 Corinthians 13:10
- they [continuationists] say this means that only when Christ returns
will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecies cease. This implies
that the gifts continue. But this is an uncertain interpretation.
To this argument Wilson responds:
The charismatic case here [1 Corinthians 13:10]
is immensely strong (and the overwhelming scholarly consensus in the
commentaries would confirm this). For Paul, the imperfect (prophecy,
tongues, knowledge) will cease at the arrival of the perfect (the return
of Christ, when we shall see him face to face). Not much uncertainty
there.
That is a case of both overstatement and misdirection. It is
overstatement because a survey of commentaries will reveal as many as
ten possible interpretations of what “the perfect” is. It is
misdirection in that charismatics ignore that for most of church history
this text was used primarily to argue against the continuation of the
miraculous gifts. I freely admit that some cessationists have tried to
make this text bear too much weight. But it is equally true that many
charismatics, including Wilson in the quote above, try to make it bear
too much weight in their defense.
(3) The New Testament speaks only of the church age, and so,
[continuationists] argue, the gifts that began the church age should
continue throughout it. They say we artificially divide it between
apostolic and post-apostolic eras. But they do this, too, by not
believing that the apostolic office still continues.
Wilson writes:
Actually, a huge number of charismatics don’t believe this at all.
Many believe, for reasons outlined in my recent article in JETS, that
even in the New Testament period there were eyewitness apostles (the
twelve, Paul, James) and people who never witnessed the resurrection but
were referred to as apostles anyway (Apollos, very likely Barnabas,
Silas, possibly Timothy, and so on), and that while the eyewitness
category ceased with Paul, the other category didn’t.
Here, I confess, I was personally disappointed in Wilson. His
comments reveal either that he just read the paraphrased version of my
message on Tim Challies’s site or that he was careless—either of which
is troubling in a person of his intelligence and education.
If he had listened to my complete message or read the transcript, he
would have known that I acknowledged that most charismatics don’t
believe there are eyewitness apostles today. That was my point. I
specifically said that unless charismatics believe that there are
apostles today at the same level as Peter and Paul—and most charismatics
don’t—they also divide the church age. And they relegate at least
apostleship solely to the apostolic era. They have become
de facto cessationists—at least in part.
Positing a second tier of apostles as some do (which ignores any nontechnical, nontitular sense of the word
apostolos in
the New Testament) doesn’t change the point. In fact, their protest
proves the point. There was a marked difference between the apostolic
and postapostolic eras. And by agreeing that the most significant mark
of the age of the apostles—the men Jesus Himself appointed and called to
be His official proxies—ceased, charismatics tacitly accept one of the
key tenets of cessationism.
(4) 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic
experiences can’t all be wrong. But if we accept this, then logically
we should accept the miracles attested to by one billion Catholics in
the world. The truth is that 500 million-plus people can be wrong.
Wilson responds:
This is not really a fair representation of any responsible
charismatic argument. Of course billions of people can be wrong:
billions of people do not believe the gospel, and virtually no
charismatic would contest that. A fairer representation would be to say
that, in order to explain the enormous number of miraculous experiences
testified to by charismatics . . . a cessationist has to resort to an
awful lot of accusations of fraud, deliberate deceit and delusion
amongst some extremely level-headed, critical and theologically informed
individuals.
My statement is not only a fair representation of responsible
charismatic argument, it is a very common—albeit informal—argument of
reputable charismatic authors and scholars, as well as laymen. To
appeal as Wilson does to what he calls the “enormous number of
miraculous experiences testified to by charismatics” only reinforces my
point. We have to accuse more than a billion Roman Catholics of “fraud,
deliberate deceit and delusion” to reject their “miracles,” yet that is
exactly what the church has always done—and what I suspect Wilson
himself does. If charismatics want to argue that sheer numbers lend
credibility to their “miracles,” they have to own the weakness that
comes with this argument.
After spending half of his critique on the arguments continuationists
use to defend their position, to which I devoted less than five
minutes, Wilson comes to the primary arguments I presented.
I began by defining cessationism. Cessationists believe it is
neither the Spirit’s plan nor His normal pattern to distribute
miraculous spiritual gifts to Christians and churches today as He did in
the time of the apostles. Those gifts ceased being normative with the
apostles. In Scripture we find at least
seven arguments that the miraculous gifts have ceased. Again, since Wilson quotes Challies’s summary of my points, I will as well.
(1) The unique role of miracles. There were only
three primary periods in which God worked miracles through unique men.
The first was with Moses; the second was during the ministries of Elijah
and Elisha; the third was with Christ and his apostles. The primary
purpose of miracles has always been to establish the credibility of one
who speaks the word of God—not just any teacher, but those who had been
given direct words by God.
Wilson writes:
The crucial word here, which appears twice and is somewhat mysterious
on both occasions, is “primary.” Where in the Bible does it say that
the miracles of Moses, Elijah or Elisha are more “primary” than those of
Joshua (opening the Jordan and stopping the sun in its tracks isn’t
bad), or Samuel (who had the odd prophecy), or David or Solomon, or
Isaiah, or Daniel, or for that matter any of the canonical prophets
(who, by Pennington’s definition, are exercising miraculous gifts)?
First of all, the point is not about
God’s
working miracles directly—something He did as He chose in both Old and
New Testament history. Instead, the focus was on those epochs in
redemptive history when God chose to give
men
the capacity to work miracles. There is a difference between God’s
giving Moses the capacity to perform miracles and God’s directly giving
Samson superhuman strength. Samson used the strength God gave him, but
he never performed a miracle. And prophecy is a miraculous gift because
God miraculously reveals His truth to a man. But the prophet is not
performing a miracle.
When you examine the biblical record, it is clear that there were three main time periods when there were
miracle-working men.
Again, Wilson apparently didn’t listen to my message or read the
transcript, because the first period I mentioned was not that of Moses
but that of “Moses
and
Joshua.” And although God performed miracles directly during the
ministries of Samuel, David, Isaiah, and Daniel, where is the biblical
evidence that they were given miracle-working power in the way Moses and
Joshua or Elijah and Elisha were? Create a comprehensive list of
miracles performed by men
in Scripture—not those performed by God directly—and the resulting list
will support the point. In thousands of years of human history, there
were only about two hundred years in which God empowered men to work
miracles. And even during those years, miracles were not common,
everyday events.
Wilson adds:
Where does it say that the “primary” purpose of a miracle is always
to establish the credibility of the one who speaks the word of God? One
might have thought the primary purpose of the exodus was to lead Israel
out of slavery, and the primary purpose of the fall of Jericho was to
defeat God’s enemies, and the primary purpose of the destruction of the
Assyrians was to preserve Jerusalem, and so on. And even if the
“primary” purpose of all miracles was authenticating a preacher, which
cannot be shown, it would by no means indicate that this was the only
purpose.
When God granted Moses—the first human miracle worker—the power to
work miracles, He gave Moses only one reason: “that they may believe
that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you” (
Exodus 4:5).
I provided a number of other examples throughout the Scripture to
demonstrate that God’s primary purpose in giving men power to work
miracles was to validate them as His messengers. Of course, God used
Moses’ miracles to free Israel from Egyptian bondage. But why did God
give miracle-working capacity to Moses, rather than simply free the
Israelites Himself? According to God’s own statement, it was to
validate His messenger. At Sinai, no one doubted that Moses spoke for
God. Look up the other references I cited and you will find exactly the
same pattern.
(2) The end of the gift of apostleship. In two places in the New Testament Paul refers to the apostles as one of the gifts Christ gave his church (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4).
Most Christians, including most evangelical charismatics, agree that
there are no more apostles like the twelve or like Paul. So at least
one New Testament gift—the gift of apostleship—has ceased. That means
there
is a significant
difference in the work of the Spirit between the time of the apostles
and today, because one of the most miraculous displays of the Spirit
disappeared with the passing of the apostolic age. Once you agree that
there are no apostles today at the same level with Peter and Paul, you
have admitted there was a major change in the gifting of the Spirit
between the Apostolic Age and the post-apostolic age. The one New
Testament gift most frequently associated with miracles—the gift of
apostleship—ceased.
Wilson responds:
This argument takes us nowhere: all agree that the eyewitness
apostles have ceased, and all agree that (say) pastors and teachers have
not ceased. Only if we can show that all New Testament miracles,
prophecies, tongues and healings came via apostles—which is patently not
the case—would this hold any water at all.
Here, Wilson’s argument isn’t clear, but he seems to be relying on
an article he wrote for the
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in
which he argues for a two-tier approach to apostleship. He maintains
that the Twelve, Paul, and several others were “eyewitness apostles,”
and those have ceased. But there are lower level apostles who are the
Spirit’s ongoing gift to the church.
Wilson concludes his
JETS article with this:
Within conservative evangelicalism, it has become commonplace to
divide the apostolate into two, neat types. There are the Apostles
(capital “A”) of Jesus Christ, comprising the twelve, James, Barnabas,
possibly Silas, and then finally Paul: eyewitnesses of the resurrection,
officers of the church, personally commissioned by Jesus, and with the
capacity to write or authorise the scriptures, pioneer into new areas,
lay foundations in churches, and exercise authority over them. Then
there are the apostles (lower case “a”) of the churches, including
Andronicus, Junia, Epaphroditus, the brothers of 2 Cor 8:23,
and possibly Timothy: messengers that were sent out among the churches,
but with no eyewitness appearances or commission from Jesus, and
without the capacity to write Scripture, pioneer, lay foundations or
exercise authority over churches. On this view, although there is
occasional debate (as to which category, say, Eph 4:11 should correspond to), it is theoretically possible to dig up every occurrence of the word apostolos and put it squarely into one of these two categories.
The view that Wilson rejects above is not merely the common view of
“conservative evangelicalism.” It is the understanding of historic
Christianity and even of many charismatic theologians. Wilson finishes
his
JETS article by saying that a possible reference to Apollos as an apostle in
1 Corinthians 4:9 (which the entire article argues for but never proves) “
may . . . suggest that, according to Paul, although the appearances of the risen Jesus ceased with Paul’s encounter on the Damascus road, the
apostoloi did not” (emphasis added). In other words, maybe there is another office in the church—
Apostle, Second-Class—that continued after the death of the Paul and the twelve.
The weight of proving this novel idea falls on charismatics. Wilson’s conclusion that the best evidence he can muster “
may suggest”
a two-tiered apostolate is hardly enough to overturn two millennia of
Spirit-enabled interpretation. The argument for cessationism based on
the end of the gift of apostleship stands.
(3) The foundational nature of the New Testament apostles and prophets. The New Testament identifies the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20-22).
In the context, it is clear that Paul is referring here not to Old
Testament prophets but to New Testament prophets. Once the apostles and
prophets finished their role in laying the foundation of the church,
their gifts were completed.
Wilson:
This [argument] runs aground on the sandbanks of Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14
in particular, in which it is assumed that local churches experience
prophecy in their meetings, yet without such prophecy serving as
foundational for the church for all time, or being written down in the
canon. Clearly, there is a foundational role for the apostles and
prophets of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6), but this in no
way implies either that all prophecy has now ceased, or (obviously) that
tongues or healings have now ceased.
Most charismatics admit that the New Testament “prophets of whom Paul
speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6)” play “a foundational role.” But then
without any clear scriptural support, they assume that the prophecy
mentioned in Romans and 1 Corinthians must be lower level prophecies.
However, if there are not two levels of prophecy—which remains
unproven—then Ephesians 2 is definitive. Both the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, and their roles were never intended to last.
(4) The nature of the New Testament miraculous gifts.
If the Spirit was still moving as he was in the first century, then you
would expect that the gifts would be of the same type. Consider the
speaking of tongues. At Pentecost, the languages spoken were already
existing, understandable languages. The New Testament gift was speaking
in a known language and dialect, not an ecstatic language like you see
people speaking in today. Prophecies (which were then infallible) and
healings are also different in character today from the NT period.
Wilson writes:
Again, this hits serious problems when it comes to 1 Corinthians 12-14,
which scholars widely agree refers to ecstatic speech rather than known
earthly languages, and to prophetic revelation which needs to be
weighed or judged, rather than instantly being added to the infallible
canon of scripture.
Contrary to what Wilson implies, there are many scholarly works and
commentaries that do not support the view that 1 Corinthians 14 refers
to ecstatic speech. But even more important is the analogy of
Scripture. When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he knew what Paul had
written six or seven years earlier in 1 Corinthians 14. Moreover, Luke
knew what was actually happening in the church in Corinth. Yet without
any caveat, Luke defines speaking in tongues as “we hear them speak in
our own language” or our own dialect (
Acts 2:7-8).
Wilson:
To say, further, that healings are different in character is to beg
the question: there are numerous testimonies out there (I have heard
many personally) of blind eyes seeing, deaf ears opening, the lame
walking and even the dead being raised, unless one prejudges the
veracity of such testimonies by assuming cessationism (or, of course,
naturalism).
It is important to remember that all Christians believe God can cause
blind eyes to see, open deaf ears, and even cause the lame to walk
again. But the key issue is whether God still distributes
to people
the miraculous ability to heal others. When it comes to the supposed
modern miraculous gift of healing, there are always “testimonies out
there” and those who believe them “have heard many personally.” But
there are rarely firsthand accounts, and there is never
verifiable evidence of the miraculous gift of healing—much less of the ability to raise the dead!
(5) The testimony of church history. The practice of
apostolic gifts declines even during the lifetimes of the apostles.
Even in the written books of the New Testament, the miraculous gifts are
mentioned less as the date of their writing gets later. After the New
Testament era, we see the miraculous gifts cease. John Chrysostom and
Augustine speak of their ceasing.
Wilson:
There are two errors here. The first is that miracles are mentioned
less in New Testament books that are written later; the book of Acts is
certainly written after the books of 1 Thessalonians and James, and very
probably after the other Paulines and Petrines, yet contains far more
miracles (and John, among the latest books, has one or two miracles in
it as well!).
I was not speaking of the working of miracles by the apostles (
2 Corinthians 12:12)
as Wilson seems to imply, but rather of the miraculous gifts given to
individual Christians other than the apostles. When you trace the
practice of the miraculous gifts by those other than the apostles
against a time line of New Testament history and its letters, you will
find that the miraculous gifts decline in their mention and use even
during the apostolic period.
Wilson continues:
The second [error] is that we see the miraculous gifts cease after
the New Testament; again, this begs the question by assuming that
subsequent accounts of and responses to miraculous or prophetic
activity, from the Didache and the Montanists onwards, are inaccurate or
exaggerated. . . . In any case, this sort of argument—that, since
something gradually disappeared from the church over the course of the
first two or three centuries, it must therefore be invalid—should strike
any five sola Protestant as providing several hostages to fortune.”
Many scholars believe the original version of the Didache was
probably written during the apostolic age, so it proves nothing about
the continuation of the miraculous gifts after the time of the
apostles. There are scattered reports of the miraculous throughout
church history, but many of them are connected to groups and leaders
whose doctrine was seriously aberrant in some way. And in spite of
Tertullian’s connection to the Montanists, the church eventually spoke
with one voice against them.
The consistent testimony of the church’s key leaders is that the
miraculous and revelatory spiritual gifts ended with the Apostolic
Age—they didn’t “gradually disappear” over several centuries. I
provided a sampling of quotes from across church history as proof. John
MacArthur cites many others in his book
Strange Fire. The
consistent testimony of the Christian church’s key leaders across church
history poses a huge problem for our continuationist friends. As
Sinclair Ferguson expressed it, continuationism provides no convincing
theological explanation for the disappearance of certain gifts during
most of church history.
(6) The sufficiency of Scripture. The Spirit speaks
only in and through the inspired Word. He doesn’t call and direct his
people through subjective messages and modern day bestsellers. His word
is external to us and objective.
Wilson responds:
This is not so much an argument for cessationism as a restatement of
it. Suffice it to say that James and Paul, to mention just two apostles,
envisage Christians being given wisdom by God, experiencing the Spirit
crying out “Abba!” in their hearts, and being given spontaneous
revelation during church meetings, none of which conflict with their
high view of the scriptures.”
I intentionally did not develop this point, because I knew Steve Lawson planned to address this issue in his message on
sola Scriptura. You can listen to or read Steve’s excellent defense
here.
(7) The New Testament governed the miraculous gifts.
Whenever the New Testament gift of tongues was to be practiced, there
were specific rules that were to be followed. There was to be order and
structure, as well as an interpreter. Paul also lays down rules for
prophets and prophecy. Tragically most charismatic practice today
clearly disregards these commands. The result is not a work of the
spirit but of the flesh.
Wilson writes:
I’m not qualified to comment on whether this is true of “most”
charismatics, rather than “some,” but to the extent that this is true, I
wholeheartedly agree with Pennington that miraculous gifts need to be
governed and practiced wisely, in line with the New Testament. Clearly,
however, this is not an argument against using charismatic gifts—it is
an argument against using charismatic gifts badly.
To his credit, Wilson decries the unbiblical practice of the
charismatic gifts. And I would agree that there are a few charismatic
churches making valiant efforts at following Paul’s directives. But he
is too well read and informed not to know that charismatics claim to be
500 million strong. Of that number, more than 125 million are Roman
Catholics who have embraced a false gospel. And of the remaining
number, even charismatic writers estimate that close to 40 percent of
the 500 million are involved with the prosperity gospel (other estimates
have the percentage as high as 90 percent). Add in the huge audiences
watching charismatic television programs and services where the biblical
directives are not followed, and
far
more than 50 percent of a movement that claims to be a work of the
Spirit is either preaching a damning gospel or completely disregarding
the Spirit’s clear New Testament commands regarding practice of the
gifts. That is more than a few charismatics behaving badly. Instead,
it demonstrates that the movement as a whole can claim neither the
Scripture nor the Spirit.
Wilson concludes his critique: “I think that the cessationist
position is biblically distorted, theologically confused and
historically exaggerated.” Sadly, it is the charismatic position that is
out of step with the Scripture, with historic theology, and with the
key figures of evangelical church history. The biblical case for
cessationism still stands.
If you want to read more on charismatic issues, see the brief bibliography below.
A Brief Bibliography of Books Arguing for Cessationism
- John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos.
- John MacArthur, Strange Fire.
- Samuel Waldron, To Be Continued?.
[Best brief work on the issue for laymen]
- Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit.
[Best work on the role of the Holy Spirit, and a helpful defense of cessationism]
- Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Perspectives on Pentecost.
[Recommended]
- B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles.
[Classic historical defense of the end of the miraculous but not a biblical defense; recommended]
- Robert Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today?[Recommended; deals primarily with the gift of tongues but also addresses the issue of cessation; out of print]
- Larry Pettigrew, The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit.[Helpful work on the roles of the Spirit in the Old Testament & New Testament; section on cessation and tongues is helpful]
- Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles.
[Helpful but a bit dated]
- Robert Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts.
[Great exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14]
- Robert Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement.
- R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit.
- Arthur Johnson, Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism.
- Graham Cole, He Who Gives Life: the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
