The Perils of “Open But Cautious” Cessationism: A Call for Doctrinal Clarity - by Virgil Walker

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------

The author will refer to the sufficiency of Scripture nearly a dozen times, as well as adding modifiers to the word "apostolic" (-gifts, -era, -age, -authority), and the danger of how contemporary prophecy would re-lay church's foundation. But he never explains any of this.

He does this over and over again. It's as if he seeks to establish his assertions as true by sheer repetition. 

As we read we were left wondering if he has some sort of secret knowledge about something that he's not telling us. 

So the author never tells us how he knows what he knows. He does not tell us why believing in healing is a danger to the Bible or the church. He doesn't tell us why an undefined emotionalism is antithetical to Bible truth. We never find out how prophecy dilutes Bible doctrine.

The author does quote some Scripture, but most of those quotes are not about documenting his assertions. A couple of his Bible quotes do speak to his points, but he either misinterprets them or misrepresents them.

This is truly Bad Bible Teaching.

-------------------------- 

In recent years, a growing number of Christians have embraced what is often called “open but cautious” cessationism—a middle-ground approach that acknowledges the possibility of miraculous gifts like prophecy and healing, while remaining wary of their abuses. While this position may appear balanced, I contend that it introduces significant theological confusion, neither fully rejecting nor affirming the cessation of apostolic gifts. (There is no such thing as "apostolic gifts." The author uses his premise as evidence, employing this phrase six times without explaining or documenting it.)

This ambiguity undermines the sufficiency of Scripture (We await the biblical explanation of this.)

and opens the door to doctrinal error. (We await the biblical explanation of this.)

Cessationism, rooted in Scripture (Actually, rooted in an interpretation of Scripture, which we expect the author to explain and defend. From the Bible.)

and upheld by theological stalwarts like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and B.B. Warfield, (Appeals to authority and history. This is not the biblical case.)

affirms that the miraculous gifts of the apostolic age ceased with the completion of the New Testament canon. Calvin famously stated in The Institutes of the Christian Religion:

“Assuredly, the Holy Spirit is still present with the people of God; without his guidance and direction, the Church of God cannot subsist. For we have a promise of perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to him, that they may drink living water. But those miraculous powers and manifest operations, which were distributed by the laying on of hands, have ceased. They were only for a time.”

Calvin warned against expecting ongoing revelations or miraculous signs, asserting that such gifts served a specific purpose during the early church’s foundational period. Yet, despite this clarity, “open but cautious” cessationism continues to blur the lines, weakening the church’s doctrinal integrity. (How? Please explain.)

In an age increasingly driven by emotionalism and personal experience, it is vital that believers stand firm on the sufficiency of Scripture (Modern-day prophecy does not impact sufficiency.)

and the finality of God’s revealed Word. (Modern-day prophecy does not impact the finality of "God's revealed Word.")

The Historical Foundation of Cessationism

Cessationism is neither a modern concept nor confined to the theological insights of a specific group of Reformers. Throughout church history, prominent voices have supported the cessation of miraculous gifts. (Yes, yes, yes. But what does the Bible say?)

For example, Augustine of Hippo, (The author starts his history 3 1/2 centuries after Christ?)

an early church father, initially believed that miracles continued, but later in his life, he acknowledged that the miraculous signs accompanying the apostles had ceased:

“In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost 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 there behooved to be that betokening 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 thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.”

This view aligns with the broader historical understanding that the extraordinary gifts were for the church’s foundational period and not meant to continue indefinitely. (Yes, yes, yes. But what does the Bible say?)

By the time of the Reformation, Calvin and other theologians echoed these same convictions, solidifying the cessationist position as a critical aspect of Reformed theology.  (Yes, yes, yes. But what does the Bible say?)

Misunderstanding Cessationism

One of the core issues with “open but cautious” cessationism is its fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional cessationist position. Cessationism is not a denial of God’s power to heal or perform miracles. It is not an argument that God has ceased intervening in His creation. Instead, cessationism asserts that the miraculous gifts (All spiritual gifts are miraculous by definition.)

—specifically, the gifts of healing, prophecy, and other apostolic signs (Presuming his premise again.)

—ceased with the end of the apostolic era. (What is the "apostolic era?" Did it really end?)

The critical point is that while God can and does heal according to His sovereign will, (Hmm. Does God heal in answer to a Christian praying for someone? Then the Holy Spirit gifted that person, if only temporarily. This means the argument is not about if the "miraculous" gifts continue, since clearly they do. The argument is now about how long the "miraculous" gift lasts once bestowed.)

no one today possesses the apostolic gift of healing, enabling them to heal at will. In other words, healing and miracles are, by definition, extraordinary acts of God, not normative or expected practices. The same applies to prophecy: while God has revealed His will through Scripture, there is no longer a gift of prophecy whereby individuals receive new, direct revelations from God. The authority of the apostles and prophets, upon whom the church’s foundation was built, is complete (Ephesians 2:20).

Those in the “open but cautious” camp often conflate God’s sovereign ability to work in miraculous ways with the claim that certain individuals possess ongoing miraculous gifts. This is a dangerous confusion, as it opens the door to manipulative practices and false claims of power. The Bible warns us to be discerning in such matters: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Many will claim to perform wonders in Christ’s name, but are far from the truth: “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:22-23).

Engaging with Continuationists

A common argument from continuationists and “open but cautious” cessationists is that because God is immutable—He does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8)—His methods must remain the same throughout the ages. They claim that if God performed miracles and gave miraculous gifts in the past, He must continue to do so today. (Is this really the best defense offered by the author's adversaries?)

However, this line of reasoning confuses God’s unchanging character with His methods of working throughout history. While God’s nature remains constant, His actions in human history vary according to His redemptive plan. For instance, God’s ultimate revelation came through His Son, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1–2), signaling a shift in how He interacts with His people. The miraculous gifts served a temporary purpose in affirming the message of the apostles during the foundational period of the church. (Undocumented assertion.)

Once that foundation was laid, there was no longer a need for such signs to validate the truth of the gospel, (Undocumented assertion.)

as Scripture now stands complete and sufficient. (What does the spiritual gifts have to do with the sufficient Scripture? Will the author explain?)

Apostolic Authority and Laying the Foundation

Cessationism is rooted in the recognition of apostolic authority. Miraculous gifts were tied directly to the apostles’ ministry and served a specific purpose—to validate the gospel message during the church’s foundational period. Paul himself emphasized that signs and wonders were the marks of a true apostle: “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Corinthians 12:12). Furthermore, Ephesians 2:20 asserts that the church is built “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” This foundation is not to be relaid, (How does prophecy re-lay the foundation? Will the author explain anything?)

and the apostolic gifts were uniquely tied to this time of laying that foundation. (The author reasserts this without explaining.)

Once the New Testament canon was completed and the church established, these gifts ceased, as they had fulfilled their purpose. (Another bare assertion. Where does the Bible tell us this?)

The writer of Hebrews confirms this: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2). There is no longer a need for ongoing revelations or miraculous signs to affirm God’s Word. (???? What? We must have missed something. How does this passage tell us anything about gifts or miracles?)

John Calvin, in his Commentary on Hebrews, explains this further:

“And when he speaks of the last times, he intimates that there is no longer any reason to expect any new revelation; for it was not a word in part that Christ brought, but the final conclusion. It is in this sense that the Apostles take ‘the last times’ and ‘the last days.'” (Well, the writer of Hebrews was not writing about the cessation of revelation, but rather, the preeminence of Jesus has the Father's highest revelation. His speaking is the highest, and this voice continues to present day: He. 1:3 ... sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Calvin greatly errs in what this passage means.) 

This is the essence of sola scriptura—Scripture alone is sufficient.

The Problem with “Open but Cautious” Cessationism

“Open but cautious” cessationism, in its attempt to avoid taking a firm stance, introduces doctrinal ambiguity. This middle-ground approach not only blurs theological lines but also allows for the acceptance of modern-day claims of miraculous gifts. This presents a dangerous problem: when believers are encouraged to expect ongoing miracles or new revelations, it can diminish their reliance on Scripture. (Really? The author is developing a caricature, that God speaking today is the opposite of relying on Scripture. This is a false binary equation.)

It subtly suggests that God’s Word is insufficient and that something more is needed. (The author himself doesn't believe God's word is sufficient. He most certainly reads commentaries and Bible dictionary. He listens to sermons, reads articles explaining doctrine, and likely values the ministry of the saints as they encourage one another. The author is himself not Sola Scriptura.)

As someone who has seen firsthand how emotionalism and experiential theology (New terms, which the author will not explain.)

lead people away from the sufficiency of Scripture, (Anecdotal evidence. We will not accept the author's limited experience.

Why is it bad to be led away from the sufficiency of Scripture? Maybe the problem is actually the author's undefined use of the word "sufficiency.")

I can tell you that this isn’t just a theological issue—it’s a soul issue. When believers are taught to seek ongoing revelation or miraculous signs, they are slowly led away from the unshakable foundation of God’s Word and toward a faith built on sand. (The Bible is not the unshakable foundation, Jesus is [1Co. 3:11]. No wonder the author is so hapless in presenting his case. He doesn't understand basic theological concepts, let alone what his adversaries believe.)

These practices offer false hope and leave believers spiritually adrift, searching for validation that Scripture already provides. (We are growing weary of these endless undocumented claims.)

This mirrors the problem seen in soft complementarianism, (Guilt by association, based on an irrelevant tangent.)

where traditional gender roles are softened to allow for modern reinterpretations that are foreign to Scripture. Both positions represent a compromise that dilutes biblical doctrine (??? How does believing in contemporary prophecy do this?)

in favor of broader cultural acceptance. (Whaaaat? We are just about at the end of our tolerance of this man's baseless accusations and vague insinuations. Believing in these spiritual gifts is evidence of looking for cultural acceptance? If anything, such beliefs are substantially rejected by contemporary society.)

In both cases, the sufficiency of Scripture is undermined by a reliance on ongoing revelation or subjective experiences rather than the unchanging Word of God. (How does this happen? Will the author explain anything?)

Apostolic Gifts: Completed with the Foundation of the Church

Tom Pennington, in his book The Case for Cessationism, powerfully argues (We examine Mr. Pennington's sermon with the same title here. Needless to say, Mr. Pennington's "powerful arguments" aren't any better than the author's.)

that the apostolic gifts were tied to the laying of the church’s foundation. (This is at least the fifth time the author has asserted this issue of the church's foundation, and he uses the word "foundation" more than a dozen times. He has yet to explain what the church's foundations have to do with contemporary prophecy and believing in miracles.)

Just as a foundation is laid only once, so too the miraculous gifts were for a specific time and purpose. Once the foundation was complete, there was no need for ongoing miraculous signs. (The author continues to make undocumented assertions, and repeats them over and over as if they were true. But he doesn't bother to explain anything.)

This is not a denial of God’s ability to work providentially in the world. It is simply an acknowledgment that the extraordinary gifts given to the apostles served their purpose during the early church’s development. (How many times has the author made this assertion without explaining why he thinks this or where in the Bible we find it?)

Today, God speaks to us through His Word, which provides everything we need for life and godliness: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3). (Now we have arrived at a deliberate and obvious error. The author tells us we are provided with all we need through the Word, then quotes a Bible verse that tells us His divine power does this. 

The author is a false teacher.

We can tolerate no more. We are done.)

The Dangers of Emotional Appeals

One key tactic of “open but cautious” cessationism is the use of emotional appeals. Stories of miraculous healings or modern-day prophecies can be compelling, but they often appeal more to feelings than to sound doctrine. It is easy to be swayed by emotional accounts, especially when trusted pastors or leaders share them. However, such emotional appeals can obscure the biblical truths that should guide our faith and practice.

Throughout church history, emotionalism has led to significant theological error. Movements like the modern Charismatic and Word of Faith movements rely heavily on personal experiences and emotional appeals to validate doctrines that are at odds with Scripture. The New Apostolic Reformation, with its emphasis on modern-day apostles and prophets, has introduced widespread doctrinal confusion. These movements have thrived because emotionalism often clouds judgment, diverting believers from the clear teaching of God’s Word.

Practical Implications of Relying on Modern Revelations

The practical dangers of “open but cautious” cessationism extend beyond theological confusion, affecting the daily lives of believers. This approach embodies third-wayism—a compromise that attempts to preserve a facade of orthodoxy while embracing continuationist concepts. This approach is dangerous because it weakens the church’s witness and doctrinal integrity. In striving to avoid offending anyone, it sacrifices clarity and conviction.

When believers rely on modern-day prophets or healers, they unintentionally undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead of turning to the Bible for answers, they seek new revelations or miracles, which can lead to spiritual instability. Furthermore, a constant pursuit of miraculous experiences distracts from the ordinary means of grace—prayer, Scripture, and the ordinances—which God has ordained for the spiritual growth of His people.

Conclusion: Standing Firm on Cessationism

The rise of “open but cautious” cessationism represents a dangerous trend toward doctrinal compromise. By failing to stand firm on the sufficiency of Scripture, this position opens the door to continuationist errors and weakens the church’s ability to uphold sound doctrine. As Tom Pennington argues, the cessation of apostolic gifts is not a matter of opinion but a biblical truth rooted in the completed canon of Scripture.

Believers must reject the temptation to compromise biblical doctrine for the sake of inclusivity or emotional appeal. The authority of God’s Word is final and sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. As Richard Baxter wisely observed, “It is not he that debates most, but he that prays most, that will prove the victor in the day of judgment.” Our victory lies not in compromise but in a steadfast commitment to doctrinal clarity, biblical truth, and the sufficiency of Scripture.