"Tonight I watched the two Q&A sessions for the Strange Fire Conference held by John MacArthurs’ church, Grace Community. Strange Fire is the title of a new book that recently came out by MacArthur that argues the cessationist view. As I have listened to other videos these past few months, I have become vaguely aware of this debate and the arguments cessationists make. So, for the past month or so I have been quietly wrestling with this. I am always hesitant to say I believe something, if I have not given it adequate thought and study, which usually means countless hours. I have spent hundreds of hours studying, mediating on, and praying about the gender debate alone. I am confident my views on that are biblical. I am not confident my changing views on this issue are right, but fear that they are. As a Calvinist I already stand alone. How much more will I be reviled if I become a cessationist too? A reformed cessationist at a Pentecostal school is the last thing I ever thought I’d be.
Oh, how my heart breaks to think cessationism is biblical—is true. I am at a Pentecostal school! If the cessationist view is correct then many of my friends are deceived. IHOP, Bethel, and Jesus Culture are three commonly mentioned ministries at my school. I know so many people who rave about them. Oh, what am I to do? What am I to do? I can’t even begin to comprehend all that this means—all of the implications. "
Six months have passed since I wrote that; up until now I have been afraid to speak, but I am now ready to come out as a cessationist.
First, a statement of what cessationism is not. It is NOT the belief that all things are not possible with God. It is NOT the belief that God does not perform supernatural healings or acts. It is NOT even the belief that God does not leave impressions on our hearts. It is the belief that sign gifts, healing, tongues, and prophecy, have ceased. The heart of the debate is centered at the definition of these gifts, not whether they continue. Therefore, I will attempt to define each gift and give some support for it. My argument will be brief and hopefully encourage you to learn more and dig deeper to see if what I say has any basis.
1. Prophecy: A person with this gift speaks the very words of God. Numbers 35:9-10 gives a great description of what a prophet does, “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the people of Israel and say to them…”’ Whenever a prophet speaks he speaks the very words of God. I just repeated myself because herein lies the first issue. If the word of God is sufficient and no new revelation is necessary, how then can prophecy continue? How can God’s new spoken revelation have less authority or be supplemental? If God spoke, his words are just as authoritative as the canon. I do not see anyway around this. (Of course, many charismatics do not believe in a closed cannon, so for them there is not an issue.) All of this brings us to a second issue. If someone is prophet how are we to know? Deuteronomy 18:21-22 tells us, “And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.” The OT calls for this prophet to die. The prophecies of a prophet must be infallible 100% of the time because this is how to test if the prophet is true or not.
Another, way that God validated prophets was through signs and wonders. Deuteronomy 13:1 states, “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder…” Here it is implied that signs and wonders validate a man as a man of God.[1] Exodus 4:8-9 also demonstrates this, "'If they will not believe you,' God said, 'or listen to the first sign, they may believe the latter sign. If they will not believe even these two signs or listen to your voice, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground, and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground."' The story of Jesus and the blind man in John 9:16-17 also affirms this, “Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.’ But others said, ‘How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?’ And there was a division among them. So they said again to the blind man, ‘What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?’ He said, ‘He is a prophet.’” Other places throughout scripture affirm this premise over and over again.
2. Healing/Signs: This gift was given in order to validate the men of God, including the apostles, so that the Bride might know what God’s will was until the cannon was complete. Healing is one of the most confusing gifts because many fail to draw necessary distinctions. If a group of believers gathers together and prays for someone to be healed and the person is healed, no one in that group necessarily has the gift of healing. There are three distinctions I would like to draw. First, individuals that are given the gift are aware that they have it. Second, it is within their power to use it or not use. Look at Peter who said in Acts 3:6, “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” He did not need to ask God’s permission, but rather exercised the gift that was given to him. Third, the types of healings that were performed were verifiable and extravagant. Those persons today who have a medical diagnosis that verifies they cannot walk or see; are not the ones being healed. Rather, it is those who can already walk a little or have no medical record of a problem. One a side note, if anyone truly has this gift why are they in tents and not in the hospitals where the truly sick are?
3. Tongues: The gift of tongues is speaking another language, not ecstatic utterances. It is a sign to the unbeliever for this reason; they heard the gospel each in their own language. Only recently have persons begun to interpret it as a prayer language too. Early church fathers such as Augustine and John Chrysostom believed it clearly to be another language. The following is a quote from Augustine’s Homily 6 on 1 John 3:19—4:3, "This then is the Spirit of God, which saith that Jesus is come in the flesh, which saith, not in tongue but in deeds, which saith, not by making a noise but by loving." He also states in his letter On Baptism, Against the Donatists, "In the earliest times, the Holy Spirit fell upon them that believed, and they spake with tongues which they had not learned, as the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs adapted to the time. For it was fitting that there be this sign of the Holy Spirit in all tongues to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That was done for a sign, and it passed away." John Chrysostom in Homily 35 on 1 Corinthians stated, “… and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages.” So, not only does the bible, especially the book of Acts, affirm this definition, but so does virtually all of church history.
All of these gifts played a foundational role in the founding of the Church, but the foundation is only laid once. Therefore, there is no need for the continuation of the gifts because the scriptures are sufficient. What I have given is a very brief overview of the reasons I am a cessationist. There are many more subtleties within each argument that I could not address for sake of length. I hope I have provided a succinct yet, sufficiently biblical argument for cessationism, which will cause you to think more deeply about these things and decide for yourself what you believe. If you are convinced by these arguments then know you are not alone, you stand with Martin Luther,[2] John Calvin,[3] Charles Spurgeon,[4] and many more famous protestant preachers and theologians. This is a sensitive issue to be sure, but we cannot not afford to ignore it. We must study it carefully and decide for ourselves what we believe and why. As I stated in my first response to this, the implications are great, and so this is not just some theological concept with no practical application, but one with great implications on how we are to live as Christians.
[1] In this particular passage God is giving an extreme case, saying even if you have every reason to believe the prophet, but he preaches another God, do not follow him.
[2] Check Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians 4, specifically 4:6. Also, Luther’s Works, vol. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia 1959), 173-74. And, Luther’s Works, vol. 36, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia 1959), 144.
[3] See John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Calvin’s commentaries, trans. A.W. Morrison (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), III 254. (Comment on Mark 16:17).
[4] Check out Spurgeons’ sermons “The Paraclete,” “Final Perseverance,” “Receiving the Holy Ghost,” and “The Ascension of Christ.”
| |
"Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definition of terms."
- J. Gresham Machen