Cessationism - by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

The author doesn't quote a single Scripture. Not one. It is astonishing to us that a supposed Bible teacher does not quote any Bible verses. No wonder his errant presentation is so easy to slip by a typical believer, for if one actually opens a Bible to consult the relevant Scriptures one would find a completely different story.

We have come to intensely dislike these pretenders who have a veneer of thoughtful Bible scholarship but are in actual fact liars. They are avoid Scripture because Scripture testifies against them. That makes them false teachers.

----------------------

“They worship that way because they don’t have the Holy Spirit.” I frequently heard that statement during my time as a Pentecostal/charismatic Christian years ago whenever we Pentecostals were talking about non-Pentecostal believers, particularly those who followed a formal liturgy. We believed that while non-Pentecostals were saved, they lacked the Holy Spirit’s anointing, as evident in their worship style that was outwardly less lively and more structured than ours. Our Pentecostal theology told us that the gifts of tongues and prophecy never ceased, so any group that did not practice these gifts and the typical outward liveliness associated with them lacked the Spirit, or at least the fullness of His presence. In our view, to believe that those gifts had ceased was to believe that the Holy Spirit is not working among His people. We were opposed to cessationism, the doctrine that the spiritual gifts that communicate or confirm divine revelation—particularly the gifts of tongues, miracles, and prophecy—ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

Honestly, much of the blame for connecting the cessationist position with disbelief in the ongoing presence and work of the Spirit lay squarely at my feet and the feet of my Pentecostal friends. We did not study cessationism in detail or talk with the position’s best representatives. (The author is certainly not a "best representative." If he is, cessationism has a real problem.)

Yet, the cessationists were not without fault. All of us knew cessationists who were cessationists merely by custom, not conviction. How is it fair to blame Pentecostal/charismatic Christians for misunderstanding cessationism when the only cessationists they know deny the abiding reality of so-called sign gifts of tongues, miracles, and prophecy more because they are afraid of the unusual than because of a well-developed, biblical argument? (We are relatively certain that we do understand cessationism, having written hundreds of posts about it, as well as an essay series which deals with cessationist arguments in depth. 

And in those hundreds of posts we have closely examined cessationist writings. Unfortunately, we have yet to find "well-developed, biblical argument" for cessationism. In general, these arguments  are invariably like the author's article:

1. Contain little or no Scripture
2. Invent or redefine terms
3. Make logical leaps
4. Denigrate theological opponents
5. Appeal to history, tradition, theologians, or contemporary practices
6. Cite extreme examples as representative

The author will employ nearly all these techniques.)

It would take an entire book to present a full case for cessationism, but the essence of the position may be stated briefly. When God delivers new special revelation, ("New special revelation," the author creates a neologism [item #2 from our list].)

He employs extraordinary methods such as prophecy and tongues to deliver that revelation and extraordinary signs such as miracles to confirm those whom we should receive (prophets and Apostles) as His inspired deliverers of that revelation. (There isn't a single instance in the Bible of an "extraordinary sign" performed to confirm a NT prophet or apostle. Not one. See our discussion here.)

Consequently, when God is not delivering new special revelation, He does not use extraordinary methods and signs; (This is a logical leap [item #3]. The author has not established that the only time God uses extraordinary methods and signs is when He's delivering "new special revelation."

Again, prophecy is not "new special revelation," nor is it extraordinary. The author is attempting to establish that the only purpose of prophecy is to deliver Scripture. He will never demonstrate this from the Bible.)

rather, He works in and through the exposition of His special revelation (Scripture) (Another logical leap. "New special revelation" [prophecy] and "special revelation [Scripture]." This means that he thinks "new special revelation" must become Scripture, thereby completely bypassing the concept of the prophetic gift. By this he can claim that all prophecy must be Scripture, and because Scripture is no longer being delivered, there can be no prophecy.

This is all based on the premise that every prophecy must be written into the Bible. But this is quite clearly not true. Many prophecies are mentioned in the Bible but not recorded there, like King Saul's prophecies [1Sa. 10:11], or Lucius's prophecies [Ac. 13:1], or Philip's four daughters' prophecies [Ac. 21:9]. We also don't have Paul's letter to Laodicea [Col. 4:16], which means the Holy Spirit chose not to include it as Scripture. The Holy Spirit even did this editing with Jesus [Jn. 21:25].

It is therefore preposterous to suggest that prophecy is "new special revelation," required to be added to the canon.)

by gifted teachers and duly appointed church elders. (Undocumented claim.)

A few biblical evidences for cessationism are worth noting. (Yes, please. Biblical evidence.)

First, God’s people have gone centuries without a prophet at various times in history. For example, God did not speak to His people by prophets—at least by prophets as we normally conceive of them—from Abraham to Moses. Moreover, first-century Jews recognized that the Lord sent no prophets during the four centuries or so between Malachi and John the Baptist. Yet, God was at work in those eras even when there were no prophets. (This is an Argument From Silence. Simply because we don't have a record of prophecies does not mean there were no prophecies. The author argues from what is not in the Bible.

In addition, the Bible itself contradicts the author:

Jer. 32:20 You performed miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt and have continued them to this day, both in Israel and among all mankind, and have gained the renown that is still yours.

Signs and wonders have never stopped from the time God delivered His people out of slavery to the moment Jeremiah wrote God's words down.

We can now deem the author as an untrustworthy Bible teacher. Actually, since he never quotes the Bible, we cannot even place him in this category.)

Second, miracles were not everyday occurrences during biblical times. They happened only when God was giving new revelation to His people that would be written down. (This is so egregiously false that we will not even comment on it. You can read our refutation of this here.)

Looking at Scripture as a whole, (When are we going to look at Scripture at all, sir?)

we see three great periods of miracles: during the eras of Moses, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and His Apostles. New special revelation from God characterized each period. Moses received the law and was made mediator of the old covenant. Elijah and Elisha represent the formal institution of the prophetic office and the many oracles the prophets would give. Jesus and the Apostles instituted the new covenant and provided instruction necessary for the new covenant era. Given that even biblical miracles were so limited, there is no reason to expect that there will be people in every generation who are gifted to do miracles. (Again, an Argument From Silence. The author make pronouncements based on what is not written.)

Third, Hebrews 1:1–4 (Our first mention of a Bible verse! Let's quote it, since the author can't be bothered:

He. 1:1-4 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Now with the passage before us, let's see what the author has to say about it.)

tells us that God’s final Word (The author deceives us. The verse does not contain the word "final." The passage does not imply "final." 

The writer of Hebrews is illustrating to us the superior position of the Son, and contrasts that with the prophets of old who spoke to the Jews ["our forefathers"]. Thus the Word who is Christ is so much superior to the OT prophecies, because His speaking is directly to the apostles while on earth, the prophetic office in the early church, and the gift of prophecy which has been with us ever since the outpoured Spirit.

And, the word "spoken" is  ἐλάλησεν, to utter or form words. "Speaks," not "spoke:" So, ...in these last days he speaks to us by his Son... We are still in the Last Days [Ac. 2:17], so He still speaks.)

to us is His Son and that His manner of speaking through His Son—and thus through the Apostles who spoke with His authority to the church (Um, no. 

• Jesus spoke directly to many people ["us"] while He was on earth [Mt. 13:34, Mt. 22:1, Jn. 3:12]. 

• He also spoke after His Ascension, which at first was directly [Ac. 1:3, Ac. 9:17]...

• ...then via prophecy [Ac. 11:27, Ac. 13:1, Ac. 15:32, Ro. 12:6, 1Co. 12:10]. 

He also provided the prophetic office in Ephesians 4, and He provided the spiritual gift of prophecy. Neither of these have anything to do with "new special revelation." So Jesus "speaks to us" both directly and via prophecy, and not just to the apostles but to many people.)

 —is not the same as the various ways He spoke before the coming of Jesus. Given that Jesus is our Prophet and that the first-century Apostles exercised a prophetic ministry, the difference between Jesus and His Apostles and the old covenant prophets is not that Jesus and His Apostles employed new methods in teaching but that they spoke with decisive finality. They laid the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:18–22), so we do not expect ongoing revelation, for a foundation is laid only once. There is no need for Jesus to offer guidance through prophets and Apostles any longer. (A couple of astounding leaps to arrive at this conclusion. First and most obviously, much prophetic expression in the NT was not foundational, and much prophecy was not spoken by the apostles. Second, laying the foundation does not equal no more prophecy. Third, guidance is not the only purpose of prophecy.)

Finally, when we look at the instruction that Jesus and the Apostles give for the post-Apostolic period, we do not find any calls for the church to look for prophets (Where in the entire Bible is there such a command to look for prophets, let alone in the "post-apostolic period?" What instruction is contained in Scripture that addresses the "post-apostolic period?" Where does the Bible mention this "post-apostolic period?")

or to expect people to do miracles (1Co. 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles...)

or to search for tongues speakers (1Co. 14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy.)

to give a new message or guidance from the Lord. (1Co. 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.)

Especially pertinent here are texts such as Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 and the final letters written by Apostles before they died, including 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus from Paul and 1, 2, and 3 John from John. What do these texts command the church to do? To hold fast to the tradition—the Apostolic teaching—that the church has already received, not to look for new revelation. (Argument From Silence.)

In light of all this, and given the very high doctrine of Scripture in Reformed theology, (The author appeals to his theology, not the Bible.)

it is no wonder that cessationism has been the standard Reformed position. In fact, to believe that the gifts of tongues, prophecies, and miracles have ceased is so wrapped up with the confessional Reformed understanding of the inscripturated Word of God and the declarative power of the post-Apostolic church that it is really impossible both to be Reformed and to believe the aforementioned gifts continue. If divine special revelation has not ended, if prophecy and related gifts continue, we have no choice but to record this revelation and follow it, (Ah, so what was hinted at before is now plainly stated. But as we noted, it is an unbiblical to claim that prophecy is or must be Scripture.)

for God demands that we keep and follow His Word. If divine special revelation has not ended, God has not spoken finally in His Son, and the closed canon of Scripture cannot be our final rule of faith and practice. To combine with Reformed theology the continuationist position that the gifts of prophecy, miracles, and tongues continue is to produce an unstable and irreconcilable mixture of contradictory elements. (Indeed, from his false claim comes a plethora of problems.)

But that does not entail that cessationists deny the ongoing presence and work of the Holy Spirit. We cessationists do not believe that the Spirit is unable to speak through prophets today, but only that He has chosen not to. We cessationists believe that the Spirit can and often does heal people in unexpected ways when we pray for them. We believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the sound exposition of His Word. We believe that He opens and closes doors for us and even arranges providential “coincidences” in our lives. In fact, I contend that traditional Reformed cessationism has a higher view of the Spirit’s power and freedom than traditional continuationism. This is because we confess that the Spirit must bring dead souls to life in order for us to believe; that He must do so without our asking, for in our spiritually dead state outside of Christ we will not ask for new life; and that He does so for only those whom He freely chooses and at the moment of His own choosing. (Once again we fail to find a "competent" Bible teacher who can adequately explain cessationism.)