The Best Arguments for Cessationism (Pt. 3)

How can a cessationist explain the experiences of continuationists?

This is part three of a summary of the best arguments for cessationism. You can read part one and part two, and the best arguments for continuationism here.

Experiential Arguments

Experiential arguments are not terribly persuasive since they are limited to the experiences of the individual, and those experiences themselves must be interpreted. Yet, while lacking deductive power, they may be the most intuitively persuasive. How do cessationists respond to claims from continuationists that they have experienced the miraculous gifts today?

While spurious or demonic miracles exist (Matt 24:24), I do not think that cessationists must have a cynical posture towards every miraculous account they hear. All Christians would do well to remember that one does not need to affirm continuationism to believe that the miraculous can occur today. A charismatic Christian may claim that they received a prophetic word from God, but this does not mean that whatever they have to say is wrong or should be ignored. Perhaps God has communicated something, even if it is not (as the charismatic believes) the New Testament gift of prophecy. Sinclair Ferguson points out, “It may be helpful to distinguish between a denial of the reality of an experience and a difference in interpreting it.”¹ Revisiting the example of Charles Spurgeon might prove illustrative.

As mentioned in my article defending continuationism, Charles Spurgeon recounts receiving flashes of insight about details of parishioners’ lives with remarkable specificity, charging individuals in the congregation from the pulpit about hidden sins in their lives. Many continuationists cites these examples as proof of the continuation of the charismata, despite the fact that Spurgeon was himself a cessationist. Despite his denial of their continuation, they argue, he apparently had the gift of prophecy or words of knowledge.² This is possible, but does leave one in the unique position of claiming that a Christian can possess a spiritual gift while simultaneously rejecting that gift’s existence.³

What does a cessationist make of these claims? Surely, no cessationist wants to charge Spurgeon with lying or being demonically inspired.

But it also is possible that there is another explanation for what Spurgeon experienced that does not require us to claim that a man—who taught that prophecy had “departed from us” today⁴—actually was prophesying. It is possible for God to use another mode of communication that, while being analogous to prophecy, does not constitute prophetic revelation.

The 17th-century theologian John Owen, a cessationist, argues that while some special gifts of the New Testament have ceased, there is this principle of analogy for gifts that function today:

But although these gifts and operations ceased in some respect, some of them absolutely, and some of them as to the immediate manner of communication and degree of excellency; yet so far as the edification of the church was concerned in them, something that is analogous unto them was and is continued.⁵

Sinclair Ferguson comments:

There are, for example, important analogies between the ministry of the apostle and the ministry of the preacher. Illumination of the mind took place in the authoring of the New Testament revelation, but it also takes place in the process of studying biblical teaching: Scripture, the Spirit and the workings of the human mind are involved in both contexts. The existence of the analogy should not, however, mislead us into a confusion of the vocabulary or the concepts.⁶

Here, Ferguson makes a distinction between the gift of illumination, where the Spirit opens our minds to understand truth, and the gift of revelation, where the Spirit gives new authoritative words. Certainly, both are similar, analogous to each other; yet, are critically distinct. Paul can pray for the Ephesian church to be given “a Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of [Christ], having the eyes of your heart enlightened,” (Eph 1:17-18), so that they may know more fully the implications of the gospel. Yet, he also understands that the foundational role of “apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20) serves to provide new “revelation” to the church: “…the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which…has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,” (Eph 3:3-5). This “revelation” is distinct from the kind mentioned back in 1:17; it is not something that the church receives via the illumination of the Spirit alone, but is limited to the “apostles and prophets” who are the foundation of the church. Notice, the general church accesses this “revelation,” not immediately (like Paul did) nor through the enlightening of the eyes of their heart (as in 1:18), but through the words Paul has written, “When you read this, you can perceive my insight.”⁷ Nevertheless, it is analogous enough that Paul can still call the illumination given to the church in general “revelation.”

Back to Spurgeon

What could that analogous gift possibly be in Spurgeon’s case? Spurgeon himself often spoke of “impressions” he would receive, internal promptings or senses to say or do something that he believed were given to him by God.⁸ But this is distinct from prophecy because he always maintained that such promptings were not only rare, but could be mixed with error. Jonathan Edwards likewise spoke of the subjective experience of receiving an impression from the Lord, yet warned:

I would therefore entreat the people of God to be very cautious how they give heed to such things. I have seen [them] fail in very many instances; and know by experience that impressions being made with great power, and upon the minds of true saints, yea, eminent saints…are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven: for I have known such impressions to fail.⁹

Spurgeon and Edwards’ comments on impressions sound very similar to the way many continuationists speak of practicing prophecy today: they may be from God, yet can be mixed with error, and so must always be evaluated in light of Scripture, and should never be taken at face-value. This leads Tom Schreiner to explain: “The difference between cessationists and continuationists is in some ways insignificant at the practical level when it comes to prophecy, for what continuationists call prophecy, cessationists call impressions.”¹⁰

Thus, it is possible for Spurgeon to be given a powerful impression from God (how he himself understood those experiences), that, while analogous to prophecy, do not constitute prophecy.

Conclusion

I have previously argued before that there are strong reasons for believing that the gift of apostleship and prophecy have ceased. Further, the performing of miracles, signs, and wonders were relatively rare in Scripture and usually were provided to authenticate a messenger of God. Since we live in a land where there is an abundance of churches already, we should not anticipate these sensational gifts to be normative today.

Cessationists, however, must not deny that God can freely perform the miraculous at any point, lest we become anti-supernaturalists. God can spontaneously heal, give visions and dreams, send angels, free someone from demonic oppression, or give someone the ability to speak a never before known language. He can provide powerful impressions to lead us and even give us insight into things we would not normally know (as was the case with Spurgeon). These may not be normative in the church, and are always subservient to Scripture, but they are not inherently forbidden by the cessationist position.

And, of course, I could be wrong! The arguments for continuationism are formidable and should not be casually dismissed, even as we affirm the strength of the arguments for cessationism.

1. Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, p. 232

2. Sam Storms, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, p. 203

3. Can one possess a spiritual gift while denying those spiritual gifts still function? Many times continuationists will explain that the reason we do not see the same levels of miraculous gifts today is due to a lack of faith in the continuation of the gifts. They will then usually cite Jesus’ experience in His hometown, Nazareth: “And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief,” (Matt 13:58). Sam Storms points to this argument for explaining why there were long periods of history in the Bible where there is a lack of miraculous activity: “The point is that the comparative isolation of the miraculous in certain periods…could be due more to recalcitrance of God’s people than to any supposed theological principle that dictates as normative paucity of supernatural manifestations,” (Sam Storms, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, p. 187). Yet, Storms also claims that “Spurgeon exercised the gift of prophecy (or some might say the word of knowledge, [1 Cor]12:8), but he did not label it as such,” (p. 203). Can one claim that one reason we see a dearth of spiritual gifts is lack of belief in their continuation while also affirming an individual—who denies their continuation—can experience them?

4. Charles Spurgeon, “Receiving the Holy Ghost” preached July 13, 1884

5. John Owen, A Discourse on Spiritual Gifts, in The Works of John Owen, vol. 4, p. 475

6. Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, p. 233

7. This does not mean that all revelation given by prophets or apostles must necessarily be inscripturated, but only illustrates the fact that Paul’s revelation as an apostle is distinct from the revelation given the church in general.

8. Is there any Biblical precedent for this idea of “impressions”? It is difficult to prove, since Scripture gives us certainty that the subjective leading of the church experiences comes from the Spirit. When Philip is given an impression that he should approach a chariot on the road, Luke tells us it is because, “The Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot,’” (Acts 8:29; cf. 8:26). Paul goes through Phrygia and Galatia because he was “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia,” (Acts 16:6), and then moves on to Macedonia because he receives a vision in the night, certain that “God had called” him to preach the gospel there (Acts 16:10). More examples could be cited, but the disconnect between these examples and the current day experience of “impressions” is that, of course, we do not have a Spirit-inspired author providing authoritative interpretations of our impressions the way Luke is in Acts.

9. Jonathan Edwards, “Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God,” in The Great Awakening, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 4, p. 282

10. Tom Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, p. 119. Schreiner goes on, “Is the debate on prophecy, then, just semantic? I don’t think so, for it is important to accurately define terms that are in Scripture. In my estimation, what modern-day charismatics practice isn’t the same thing as the gift of prophecy in Scripture, and it is important to have scriptural clarity on the nature of prophecy, especially since the charismatic view opens up the church to the danger of false prophets. Furthermore, many charismatics don’t have the careful reservations and qualifications in defining prophecy that we find in excellent scholars like Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms, and these less careful charismatics sometimes use their so-called prophecies in a way that endangers the final and sole authority of Scripture. The claim to have a prophecy can be used as a club or even a form of abuse over those who are naive or immature. Impressions should not, therefore, be confused with prophecy.” (p. 119-20).