The argument for cessationism seems extremely weak.

[Ulster Fry]

I was wondering if someone could give me a credible exegetical, historical, and theological argument for cessationism. For a bit of background, I have been on the receiving end of the whacky stuff which left me very confused, so I jumped on the cessationist bandwagon as a response. I know there are real dangers within the charismatic church movement.

However, having done more reading, particularly reading many credible academics in biblical studies, theology, philosophy, and medicine, I am finding it extremely hard to argue against the use of miracles other than a personal aversion to it. I think the cessationist argument fails exegetically, I think it fails in the history of the church (I was given a completely different narrative on this from Reformed folk, that there were basically no recorded miracles in the post-apostolic church until the charismatics came along in the 20th century, which is just not true), and I even think it fails in terms of contemporary religious experience. There appear to be many credible claims of miraculous activity today, some of it peer reviewed by medical experts, and it is interesting that the rapid growth of the global church has much to do with the charismatic movement.

I mean, cessationism is a tidy argument - miracles in the Bible are signs pointing to Christ, and these ended after the apostolic era. But this really does seem to be an assertion with no evidence to back it up. There's nothing obvious to suggest that these were to end after the apostolic era, and there appears to be some amount of linguistic gymnastics needed to get around it scripturally.

If we don't have a strong foundation for cessationism, why hold to it? Why not just take a cautious approach but be open to the possibility of miraculous activity today?

 

[Polanus1561]

It seems you are focusing on medicine. I don’t think any church does not pray for what would be miraculous recoveries. E.g severe birth defects in the womb etc.

 

[RamistThomist]

I was wondering if someone could give me a credible exegetical, historical, and theological argument for cessationism. For a bit of background, I have been on the receiving end of the whacky stuff which left me very confused, so I jumped on the cessationist bandwagon as a response. I know there are real dangers within the charismatic church movement.

However, having done more reading, particularly reading many credible academics in biblical studies, theology, philosophy, and medicine, I am finding it extremely hard to argue against the use of miracles other than a personal aversion to it. I think the cessationist argument fails exegetically, I think it fails in the history of the church (I was given a completely different narrative on this from Reformed folk, that there were basically no recorded miracles in the post-apostolic church until the charismatics came along in the 20th century, which is just not true), and I even think it fails in terms of contemporary religious experience. There appear to be many credible claims of miraculous activity today, some of it peer reviewed by medical experts, and it is interesting that the rapid growth of the global church has much to do with the charismatic movement.

I mean, cessationism is a tidy argument - miracles in the Bible are signs pointing to Christ, and these ended after the apostolic era. But this really does seem to be an assertion with no evidence to back it up. There's nothing obvious to suggest that these were to end after the apostolic era, and there appears to be some amount of linguistic gymnastics needed to get around it scripturally.

If we don't have a strong foundation for cessationism, why hold to it? Why not just take a cautious approach but be open to the possibility of miraculous activity today?

That’s more or less my take. I’m wary of continuing prophecy, but with stuff like miracles, Craig Keener made the case

 

[Afterthought]

Gaffin's work (Perspectives on Pentecost) is good, though a tad technical.

The key is to define "miracle" in the Bible and note their purpose. That purpose being tied to special revelation, with the cessation of special revelation, so cease the miracles. The definition of "miracle" from the Bible is different than the way the term is used today to refer to an extraordinary act of God's providence, which all cessationists agree continue on, Psalm 65:5.

There is also the real phenomenon of people interpreting events in a miraculous way that were not actually miraculous and then that account getting passed around to others. Not all accounts can be received automatically.

Visible church growth alone is no sign that the church is actually growing. Papists are the largest Christian denomination. The faithful in Israel were few. If the church was truly growing, we would not see the church in such a low condition in terms of doctrinal knowledge, experiential knowledge of God, holiness, interest in spiritual things, spiritual maturity, and so on. Charistmatics bring with them a wave of doctrinal mess and destruction that some take years to recover from in areas like, e.g., assurance or their views of God as merciful or wrathful or trusting God's revelation in Scripture over their feelings and experience.

 

[Ulster Fry]

I still can't see the strong argument. It depends on defining miracles in a particular way and then adding the clause that this could only take place in the apostolic era. Yet there is no biblical or historical evidence to make that jump.

For example, in 1 Cor. 12, Paul seems to be using miracles and healings in the sense of something that takes place in the church without any indication that it will cease after the apostles. Both Paul and James in James 5 say that anyone in the church body who is sick should call on the elders to pray for them and anoint them will oil. We would look on any church doing that today as whacky, yet to me this is as clear a statement of something the church ought to do as it gets. And I see zero indication that this was only to take place in the apostolic era. In fact, it is explicitly the elders who are given this job, not the apostles.

Again, I think the burden of proof is on the cessationist to provide a strong defeater against both what appears to be clear scriptural teaching, the testimony of church history, and also the experiences of Christians who have purportedly experienced such things. There is no indication that the early church thought that miracles/healings ended after the apostles were gone.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is no indication that the early church thought that miracles/healings ended after the apostles were gone

And the overwhelming evidence that it continued, like with Gregory Thaumaturge

 

[Polanus1561]

The James 5 example is not as simple as it seems. Someone could believe in earnestly praying for the sick to recover and yet believe the medicine to be particular to the ancient church as of medicinal value (right or not, this is not the point) and thus refraining from it.

One thing you can study is people like John Piper, who do desire such gifts. But yet he does not have a Corinthians like ministry.

you still have to state, what is it about “Reformed cessationism” are you pushing back against? What is one practical thing Reformed churches should do that they are not doing?

(Btw I’m not seeking to shut down your arguments, just provoking questions to sharpen presentation of your concern )

 

[Polanus1561]

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

Something interesting to read for anyone. @RamistThomist you may be interested

 

[RamistThomist]

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

Something interesting to read for anyone. @RamistThomist you may be interested

Yes, it is the best article on the subject. Poythress makes the charismatic take account of some linguistic factors, but he also shows that the standard cessationist arguments simply don't work.

 

[RamistThomist]

One thing to note about James 5. James, like Proverbs, is wisdom literature. There is not a universal cause-and-effect. If it were, then when Paul couldn't heal Trophimus, he should have just poured oil on him.

That said, I have been in churches where we poured oil as in this situation, and for what its worth, God used it.

 

[Ulster Fry]

The James 5 example is not as simple as it seems. Someone could believe in earnestly praying for the sick to recover and yet believe the medicine to be particular to the ancient church as of medicinal value (right or not, this is not the point) and thus refraining from it.

One thing you can study is people like John Piper, who do desire such gifts. But yet he does not have a Corinthians like ministry.

you still have to state, what is it about “Reformed cessationism” are you pushing back against? What is one practical thing Reformed churches should do that they are not doing?

(Btw I’m not seeking to shut down your arguments, just provoking questions to sharpen presentation of your concern )

I'm not making a practicality argument, and as I do not hold church office I would not be qualified to make any such suggestions. I'm pushing back against the cessationist argument itself as I think it is extremely weak. I do not see any good reason to suggest, biblically, historically, or experientially (not necessarily mine, but the experience of other Christians) that miracles ceased after the apostolic era.

The burden of proof is on the cessationist to provide those reasons, and to argue why it would be wrong for someone to be open to the reality of miracles today. It's a red herring to point to the dangers of miracle claims (which I myself have suffered from) as there were also false miracle workers in the apostolic era, nor does it follow that we can definitively say that miracles do not take place today.

 

[John The Baptist]

I thought there was a difference between the belief that miracles have ended (hyper cessationism) and that the miraculous gifts have ended (tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.-cessationism)

Can someone straighten me out?

 

[RamistThomist]

I thought there was a difference between the belief that miracles have ended (hyper cessationism) and that the miraculous gifts have ended (tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.-cessationism)

Can someone straighten me out?

That's the standard cessationist view today. My only question with it is I think people are overreading the words "gift" and "office." Was there a local church office of "healer?" I don't really think there was. In any case, that office isn't relevant in situations like James 5.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Phil,

Perhaps it is the way you define "Cessationism" that is a bit problematic. For I do believe that God still works miracles, and that He still heals. It is the sustained gift of working miracles and the sustained gift of healing that have stopped – as they were for confirming / authenticating – the Messiah-hood of Jesus, and the Gospel truth of the apostolic company's proclamation.

What I understand Cessationism to mean is the ceasing of the revelational gifts: prophecy, and tongues (interpreted), after the completion of the canon of God's word. And from what I gather, this is the real issue of the day: Is God still verbally speaking directly to humans apart from Scripture?. Here is a brief article I put together on it: 'Airtight' argument against continuing prophecy:

 

[Ulster Fry]

Hello Phil,

Perhaps it is the way you define "Cessationism" that is a bit problematic. For I do believe that God still works miracles, and that He still heals. It is the sustained gift of working miracles and the sustained gift of healing that has stopped – as they were for confirming / authenticating – the Messiah-hood of Jesus, and the Gospel truth of the apostolic company's proclamation.

What I understand Cessationism to mean is the ceasing of the revelational gifts: prophecy, and tongues (interpreted), after the completion of the canon of God's word. And from what I gather, this is the real issue of the day: Is God still verbally speaking directly to humans apart from Scripture?. Here is a brief article I put together on it: 'Airtight' argument against continuing prophecy:

Thank you very much Steve, I'll give this a read later. If I'm understanding you correctly here, you accept that God performs/may perform miraculous healings today, but there are no particular people with some sort of healing/prophetic gifts? Is that right?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

That's right, Phil.

 

[retroGRAD3]

That's right, Phil.

I also agree with this view

 

[Taylor]

I think a biblical definition of "miracle" is crucial for this discussion. I do not believe miracles occur today. As I read Scripture, a miracle is an extraordinary providence of God, whereby he works without, above, or against nature, through a man, with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose (cf. Heb. 2:4). Are there any instances of terms like "miracle," "sign," or "wonder" being used in Scripture with reference to anything else?

Now, I do believe we see extraordinary providences. When a woman eaten up with cancer goes to her follow-up doctor's appointment, and they find no cancer whatsoever, with no apparent medical explanation, that is an extraordinary providence, I believe. But it is not a miracle; it was not performed through a man, and it had no explicit redemptive-historical or revelatory purpose.

 

[Ulster Fry]

Wouldn't all miracles, regardless of definition, count as acts of God's providence? I suppose the distinction I'm making here is a non-natural explanation for some event that takes place, e.g. an unexplained recovery from cancer after an act of prayer. That would be an act of God's providence of course, but wouldn't it still be considered a non-natural event? I think that's the debate, at least in philosophy of religion - whether these things can be explained through natural means or not, and whether such acts can be tied to prayer.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think a biblical definition of "miracle" is crucial for this discussion. I do not believe miracles occur today. As I read Scripture, a miracle is an extraordinary providence of God, whereby he works without, above, or against nature, through a man, with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose (cf. Heb. 2:4). Are there any instances of terms like "miracle," "sign," or "wonder" being used in Scripture with reference to anything else?

Now, I do believe we see extraordinary providences. When a woman eaten up with cancer goes to her follow-up doctor's appointment, and they find no cancer whatsoever, with no apparent medical explanation, that is an extraordinary providence, I believe. But it is not a miracle; it was not performed through a man, and it had no explicit redemptive-historical or revelatory purpose.

If that's how you are defining miracle, then I don't think they happen today. That's an extremely restrictive definition, though. And if James 5 does include some sort of miracle for healing, then it isn't clear how that ties in with redemptive history.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'll say this. It's known I am fairly harsh critic of James White, but I'll give him this. He is one of the few cessationists actually willing to debate Michael L. Brown. The problem with cessationism today is that we have spent the whole time at low-hanging fruit. We like to attack Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar. We laugh at stories of how God healed my flat tire or brought my chicken back to life. They are funny and we should laugh at those stories. But if you can't engage Michael Brown, Craig Keener, and JP Moreland on this topic, then your cessationism might not be all that defensible.

 

[Taylor]

If that's how you are defining miracle, then I don't think they happen today.

In my view, it really mostly depends on definitions, which is why, in this conversation, I would like to have definitions out front and dealt with first. Otherwise, it is likely to go nowhere. As J. C. Ryle so helpfully said:

It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words.​

—John Charles Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman, 10th ed. (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 1.​

That's an extremely restrictive definition, though.

I agree, but I am deliberately trying to restrict my usage of the term to biblical usage. I am happy to amend the definition, but I have never seen terms like "miracle," "sign," or "work" used in Scripture of anything other than events such as I defined. James 5 includes none of those terms.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Taylor,

According to your definition, would you accept OT examples, such as Jonah and the whale, the destruction of Sodom, the confusing of tongues at Babel, and such like – done without man – and in the NT, the killing of Herod (Acts 12:23), the conception of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the rending of the temple veil when Jesus died, the freeing of Peter from prison by the angel (Acts 12:7 ff) – none of these done by men.

Are these not in accord with this definition of yours, apart from terminology, "a miracle is an extraordinary providence of God, whereby he works without, above, or against nature, through a man, with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose"?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think a biblical definition of "miracle" is crucial for this discussion. I do not believe miracles occur today. As I read Scripture, a miracle is an extraordinary providence of God, whereby he works without, above, or against nature, through a man, with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose (cf. Heb. 2:4). Are there any instances of terms like "miracle," "sign," or "wonder" being used in Scripture with reference to anything else?

Now, I do believe we see extraordinary providences. When a woman eaten up with cancer goes to her follow-up doctor's appointment, and they find no cancer whatsoever, with no apparent medical explanation, that is an extraordinary providence, I believe. But it is not a miracle; it was not performed through a man, and it had no explicit redemptive-historical or revelatory purpose.

The proper definition really is the nub.

The popular and erroneous idea around "miracles" seems to begin with the notion that the world (from the dawn of creation) is constantly charged with supernatural as well as natural and ordinary conditions and providence. In consequence, men seek to move the levers of the supernatural realm the way they do the natural. Even prayer, in this view, is something more akin to expecting "faith" to summon supernatural power; than what it ought to be: a humble request for God to act extraordinarily for aid.

It's important that we not "mix" the realms of natural and supernatural, because that's basically a pagan way of thinking about creation. Supernaturally invoked, humanly engaged activity that takes place within the bounds of the true faith, OT & NT, is treated by mixers as a true "miracle" of God; whereas similar supernaturally invoked, humanly engaged activity outside the bounds of the true faith is regarded as "magic." The term "magic" is conferred both on the works of charlatans and sleight-of-hand artists, and dabblers with demons. The term "miracle" gets assigned to every solution found and work alleged to come of divine/angelic assistance; and "miracle worker" is a title taken by those who claim to make such works a part of their "ministry" (more of a priesthood).

We need a correct appraisal of our human, earth-bound condition. We need to understand what prayer is, and its true power, and God's freedom when it comes to his replies. We need to learn to judge a "minister" not by his credentials, and not by the rumors of his powers; but by the gospel he proclaims. I'm reminded of how often Jesus' response to requests/demands for a sign was met by him with a sermon instead. All the signs in Scripture were meant to point people ultimately to him.

People today who are wrapped up in modern day miracles often sound to me like those ancient Galileans and Judeans who heard about the signs of Jesus, and came to him (i.e. the sign did its job)--but not for what he had to say, rather to get their own miraculous experience. During the Reformation, Calvin remarked on the same phenomena: that the papists derided those determined to get a church reformed, by mocking this church's "lack" of miracles, with which they claimed their communion abounded. Calvin's reply was to the effect: that our miracles (in distinction from theirs) were none other than the stupendous acts recorded in the Scriptures, far and away most impressive. And they did what signs are supposed to do: they point people to Jesus.

 

[Taylor]

Hi Taylor,

According to your definition, would you accept OT examples, such as Jonah and the whale, the destruction of Sodom, the confusing of tongues at Babel, and such like – done without man – and in the NT, the killing of Herod (Acts 12:23), the conception of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the rending of the temple veil when Jesus died, the freeing of Peter from prison by the angel (Acts 12:7 ff) – none of these done by men.

Are these not in accord with this definition of yours, apart from terminology, "a miracle is an extraordinary providence of God, whereby he works without, above, or against nature, through a man, with an explicit redemptive-historical and revelatory purpose"?

Steve,

Thanks, this is helpful. Perhaps I need to amend my definition to exclude "through a man." I don't think anything is lost without it, for by far the most important aspect of a miracle is not the agency but the purpose, which is always explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory.

At the same time, of the examples you gave, which in Scripture are properly labeled miracles/signs/wonders/etc.?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Steve,

Thanks, this is helpful. Perhaps I need to amend my definition to exclude "through a man." I don't think anything is lost without it, for by far the most important aspect of a miracle is not the agency but the purpose, which is always explicitly redemptive-historical and revelatory.

At the same time, of the examples you gave, which in Scripture are properly labeled miracles/signs/wonders/etc.?

You might reply that the exceptions prove the rule. Or that Jesus is a man (his humanity). Or that, in the case of the angelic judgment visited on Herod or Peter's release, as the manner of God's acting is inevitably supernatural when traced back to him: these are not-properly within the definition of a sign (or else everything in existence is a miracle, thus nothing is unique). We know what God did in those cases, and in countless other instances of his acts in Scripture, and how precisely they were taught to his people for their interpretation because they were explained to men via his prophets.

 

[John The Baptist]

This thread is very edifying for me. My family attends charismatic churches-an Assemblies of God church that is more non-denom and a Wayne Grudem/John Piper like Calvinistic charismatic Baptist. This is very helpful in knowing how to interact with them and their beliefs.

The only cessationism I am familiar with is the MacArthur like stuff and it never felt like there was a solid case. But, because of abuses I’ve seen, I leaned that way.

Thank you OP for bringing this up and everyone else for your thoughtful comments.

 

[RamistThomist]

The only cessationism I am familiar with is the MacArthur like stuff and it never felt like there was a solid case. But, because of abuses I’ve seen, I leaned that way.

He's probably the last guy to go to on cessationism. Strange Fire was a disaster. I do give him credit for rejecting the "perfect = canon" argument in 1 Corinthians 13.

Cessationists like to say that the canon is closed, so miracles have ceased. Whether those two claims are true or not, this is a problematic argument.
1) The Bible never says the canon is closed. I think it is closed, but the Bible never actually says that.
2) Even if it is closed, the Bible never makes the argument that the closing will stop the miraculous.

I do grant that Hebrews speaks of "sign gifts" that validate an apostolic ministry. Sure. The problem is that those who aren't apostles (like Philip's daughters) also engaged in these gifts (e.g., prophesying).

 

[Taylor]

The Bible never says the canon is closed. I think it is closed, but the Bible never actually says that.

Is this not problematic? If Scripture is our rule for faith and practice, and if we ought not to believe or teach anything that the Bible does not say either expressly or by good and necessary consequence, then if the Bible does not say the canon is closed, why do we believe and teach it? And on what basis do you believe it is closed (i.e., never to be added to)?

 

[earl40]

I was wondering if someone could give me a credible exegetical, historical, and theological argument for cessationism. For a bit of background, I have been on the receiving end of the whacky stuff which left me very confused, so I jumped on the cessationist bandwagon as a response. I know there are real dangers within the charismatic church movement.

However, having done more reading, particularly reading many credible academics in biblical studies, theology, philosophy, and medicine, I am finding it extremely hard to argue against the use of miracles other than a personal aversion to it. I think the cessationist argument fails exegetically, I think it fails in the history of the church (I was given a completely different narrative on this from Reformed folk, that there were basically no recorded miracles in the post-apostolic church until the charismatics came along in the 20th century, which is just not true), and I even think it fails in terms of contemporary religious experience. There appear to be many credible claims of miraculous activity today, some of it peer reviewed by medical experts, and it is interesting that the rapid growth of the global church has much to do with the charismatic movement.

I mean, cessationism is a tidy argument - miracles in the Bible are signs pointing to Christ, and these ended after the apostolic era. But this really does seem to be an assertion with no evidence to back it up. There's nothing obvious to suggest that these were to end after the apostolic era, and there appears to be some amount of linguistic gymnastics needed to get around it scripturally.

If we don't have a strong foundation for cessationism, why hold to it? Why not just take a cautious approach but be open to the possibility of miraculous activity today?

Here is a fact. If you believe miracles are happening, you can not be a cessationist. I am a cessationist, and after working in a hospital for 40 years I still am such. Now don’t get me wrong I could change if I saw a miracle, but it simply is not going to happen.