You're probably a cessationist, too - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a little over 1000 words, but doesn't contain a single word of Scripture. Astounding. The author purports to teach us about the Bible without quoting the Bible.

Well, his actual purpose is not to teach, however. He thinks he's got charismatics in a "gotcha." His "clever" idea is to negate charismatic beliefs by claiming they're not charismatics. According to Mr. Johnson, if a charismatic believes that something, anything has changed from the apostolic era to the church age it makes the charismatic a "functional cessationist."

It is unfortunate indeed that cessationists rely on substandard arguments like this. But even worse (and ironically), these arguments they can be turned back around at cessationists.

Pay careful attention: The typical cessationist would reject the "supernatural" gifts but concede (rightly) that God is free to use Christians to heal someone if He wants. If the cessationist accepts that God heals at the prayer of a saint, or that He might give a Christian spiritual insight into a someone's personal situation, or that He might even prompt a Christian to do a particular thing, even once, then the cessationist is a functional charismatic.  

This of course means that the cessationist would agree that the Holy Spirit can momentarily endow believers with miraculous powers of healing. A spiritual gift, temporarily bestowed.

So then, the real question is not if the Holy Spirit bestows "supernatural" spiritual gifts on believers, but rather for how long those gifts abide on a Christian. If the Holy Spirit endows a Christian with power, even if for a moment, then cessationists have a problem. If these supernatural endowments various only in duration, this makes cessationists "functional charismatics." 

But more to the point, it is very clear that a lot has changed. The New Covenant represents a total shift in the way God operates. Change does not equal ceased.

Salvation is no longer just for the Jews (Ro. 11:13-17), God has no longer restricted His speaking to Israel through the OT prophets (He. 1:1-2), He has dealt with sin fully through His Son rather than animal sacrifices (He. 10:3-7). The very nature of Christ's life, death and resurrection is that of a total shift of heaven and earth. So it is very nearly puerile to suggest that agreeing that things have changed makes a charismatic into a "functional cessationist." 

This sort of argument resembles the "one less god" argument atheists make. 

It is rhetorical nonsense.

Further, Mr. Johnson makes the astonishing claim that he doesn't even have to make a biblical argument for his doctrine. No serious Bible student would assert such a thing, but here we have a supposed Bible teacher writing it.

Mr. Johnson references but does not quote this Scripture as a proof text that apostles are done and gone:

2Co. 12:11-12 I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles”, even though I am nothing. 12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.

His claim from this is that there are unique "apostolic signs" that are no longer happening because there are no longer apostles. However, we can clearly see that Paul was not appealing to his signs and wonders as proof of being a part of the unique apostolic club, he was responding to the Corinthian church's charge that he was a substandard, lower level apostle, not as good as the Twelve.

Lastly, if miracles are unique a "apostolic gift," then why did Paul describe them as a spiritual gift? [1 Cor. 12:28]. Stephen wasn't an apostle, but he did "great wonders and signs." [Act. 6:8]. 

Clearly Mr. Johnson's thinking is muddled regarding this whole topic.

Oh, and one more thing. Since every spiritual gift is a supernatural empowerment, any expression of any spiritual gift requires the Holy Spirit's ministry. There is no such thing as a natural "service" spiritual gift as opposed to a supernatural "sign" gift. There are no spiritual gifts which don't depend on the Holy Spirit's power. Thus the distinction cessationists make is artificial.) 

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

If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual gifts were operative in the apostolic era only, and that some or all of those gifts gradually ceased before the end of the first century, you are a cessationist.

If you believe all the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament have continued unabated, unchanged, and unaltered since the initial outpouring of tongues at Pentecost, you are a continuationist.

It's pretty hard to find a real continuationist. Absolute non-cessationists exist only at the bizarre fringe of the charismatic movement. They are the sort of people who like to declare one another "apostles," claim (and inevitably abuse) all the apostolic prerogatives, sometimes invent fanciful stories about people raised from the dead, and twist and corrupt virtually every category of doctrine related to the gospel, the atonement, or Christian discipleship and self-denial.

But evangelical charismatics (especially the Reformed variety) do not really believe there are apostles today who have the same authority as the Apostles in the early church. Some may use the term apostle, but they invariably insist that the apostleship they recognize today is a lesser kind of apostleship than the office and gift that belonged to the apostles in the first century.

Now, think through the implications of that position: By arguing for a lesser kind of apostleship, they are actually conceding that the authentic, original New Testament gift of apostleship (Ephesians 4:11) has ceased. They have in effect embraced a kind of cessationism themselves.

Note: There is no more or less biblical warrant for this view than for any other kind of cessationism.

Nonetheless, every true evangelical holds to some form of cessationism. We all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed, right? We do not believe we should be seeking to add new inspired material to the New Testament canon. We hold to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3)—delivered in the person of Christ, and through the teaching of His apostles, and inscripturated in the New Testament. We believe Scripture as we have it is complete. And those who do not believe that are not really evangelicals. They are cultists and false teachers, who would add to the Word of God.

But notice this: if you acknowledge that the canon is closed and the gift of apostleship has ceased, you have already conceded the heart of the cessationist argument.

That's not all, though. Most leading "Reformed charismatics" go even further than that. They freely admit that all the charismatic gifts in operation today are of a lesser quality than the gifts we read about in the New Testament.

For example, in Wayne Grudem's book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988)—probably the single most important and influential work written to defend modern prophecy—Grudem writes that "no responsible charismatic holds" the view that prophecy today is infallible and inerrant revelation from God (p. 111). He says charismatics are arguing for a "lesser kind of prophecy" (112), which is not on the same level as the inspired prophecies of the Old Testament prophets or the New Testament apostles—and which may even be (and very often is) fallible.

Grudem writes,

there is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic movement that [today's] prophecy is impure, and will contain elements which are not to be obeyed or trusted.

Jack Deere, former Dallas Seminary prof-turned charismatic advocate, likewise admits in his book Surprised by the Power of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), that he has not seen anyone today performing miracles or possessing gifts of the same quality as the signs and wonders of the apostolic era. In fact, Deere argues vehemently throughout his book that modern charismatics do not even claim to have apostolic-quality gifts and miracle-working abilities. One of Deere's main lines of defense against critics of the charismatic movement is his insistence that modern charismatic gifts are actually lesser gifts than those available in the apostolic era, and therefore, he suggests, they should not be held to apostolic standards.

Again, consider the implications of that claim: Deere and Grudem have, in effect, conceded the entire cessationist argument. They have admitted that they are themselves cessationists of sorts. They believe that the true apostolic gifts and miracles have ceased, and they are admitting that what they are claiming today is not the same as the charismata described in the New Testament.

In other words, modern charismatics have already adopted a cessationist position. When pressed on the issue, all honest charismatics are forced to admit that the "gifts" they receive today are of lesser quality than those of the apostolic era.

Contemporary tongues-speakers do not speak in understandable or translatable dialects, the way the apostles and their followers did at Pentecost. Charismatics who minister on the foreign mission-field are not typically able to preach the gospel miraculously in the tongues of their hearers. Charismatic missionaries have to go to language school like everyone else.

If all sides already acknowledge that there are no modern workers of signs and wonders who can really duplicate apostolic power, then we have no actual argument about the principle of cessationism, and therefore all the frantic demands for biblical and exegetical support for cessationism are superfluous. 

The real gist of our disagreement boils down only to a question of degree.

In a very helpful book, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), Thomas Edgar writes,

The charismatic movement gained credence and initial acceptance by claiming their gifts were the same as those in Acts. For most people this is why they are credible today. Yet now one of their primary defenses is the claim that [the gifts] are not the same [as those in the New Testament.] Faced with the facts, they have had to revoke the very foundation of their original reason for existence. (p. 32)

 

As for biblical arguments, in Scripture itself, there is ample evidence that miracles were extraordinary, rare events, usually associated in some significant way with people who spoke inspired and infallible utterances. It is obvious from the biblical narrative that miracles were declining in frequency even before the apostolic era drew to a close. Scripture says the miracles were apostolic signs (2 Corinthians 12:12), and therefore by definition they pertained specifically and uniquely to the apostolic era.