Cessationism versus Continuationism

Problems in the dispute

An important problem in the dispute between continuationists and cessationists is the difference in understanding key concepts relevant to the dispute, such as concepts related to the ministry of a prophet, i.e. 'prophet,' 'prophecy,' 'revelation,' etc. Further, there are different understandings of charismatic gifts, e.g. certain cessationists interpret some of the gifts, such as 'prophecy', 'the word of knowledge', 'the gift of faith' in natural terms, while others attach a supernatural character to all charismatic gifts.

Another important question is whether the principle of sola scriptura would be violated if the charismatic practice were followed. Given the significant difference in conceptual frameworks that are in play, there is a difference in understanding the logical relation between the principle of sola scriptura and the continuationist thesis: is this a relation of compatibility? Moreover, some continuationists, e.g. Charismatic Roman Catholics, do not subscribe to sola scriptura; there would not be much shared common ground for such continuationists and the principled cessationists. As such, the dispute would lose much meaning, since the whole principled cessationist rationale for the denial of continuationism would be begging the question. Appealing to sola scriptura, in the context of the discussion with a charismatic Roman Catholic, is question begging. A Charismatic Catholic would ask, "Why should we accept sola scriptura in the first place?"

Restrictions on the topics

Disputes of interest about charismata may therefore be cut back to those in which both disputants accept sola scriptura. Also of interest, however, are those disputes where cessationism is founded upon grounds of principle and not on empirical observations of counterfeit miracles, fake prophecies and similar. Proving that some cases of miracles are counterfeit does not show that all cases of miracles are inauthentic.

The following main issues then figure:

1. The question of the implications of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12
2. The question of sola scriptura
3. The question of the implications of Ephesians 2:20
4. The question of the authority and verification of modern prophecies
5. The question of non-revelatory gifts
6. Disagreements about the interpretation of historical data concerning the cessation of the gifts in the early Christian church.

Issues (2)-(5) are very closely related because they revolve around the meaning of key terms such as 'prophet' or 'revelation', and their bearing on sola scriptura.

The first two issues show the main cessationist concerns about charismata and reveal the underlying rationale for cessationism. The sections below describe what kind of disagreements emerge between cessationism and continuationism in their respective understandings of the gifts, and further issues then arising from these disagreements. Different understandings of charismata give rise to various tensions in the dispute.

1 Corinthians 13:8-12

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The principal reason for the cessationist denial of the continuation of the gifts is their appeal to the closure of the canon. Implicit in their appeal is their understanding that the closure of the canon marked the end of the manifestation of charismata. However, the main continuationist objection is that the Bible does not offer any clear (explicit) text that would support Cessationism, although some strong cessationists, such as Robert L. Thomas and Walter J. Chantry, appeal to the text of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 as a proof-text for cessationism. Therefore, the interesting question is how both camps in the dispute understand 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. In this context, the issue is how to interpret the expression in v. 10, "then that which is perfect is come …", which speaks about an event associated with the cessation of the gifts ("… then that which is in part shall be done away" is the second part of v. 10).

Continuationists understand the key expression "that which is perfect to come" as referring to the Second Coming of Christ, and, thus, the timing of the cessation of the gifts is associated with the eschatological event of Christ’s Coming. An argument for such interpretation is that our knowledge, v. 9, is in a state of imperfection (“in part”) because “that which is perfect” has not yet come, but when it does come, our knowledge will cease to be imperfect ("which is in part shall be done away"). Since the event of Christ’s Second Coming will bring forth the completion of our knowledge, a continuationist argues that Christ’s Second Coming is the candidate that best fits the description of the expression "the coming of that which is perfect". It is also pointed out that the expression "face to face" most likely refers to the state of heavenly glory.

Some cessationists, such as John F. MacArthur, would agree with the continuationists that "perfection" refers to Christ's Second Coming, but interpret "prophecy" and revelatory gifts in natural terms. Other cessationists, such as moderate and empirical Cessationists, would agree with the continuationist interpretation, but disagree with John F. MacArthur about the natural character of the gift of prophecy. A moderate cessationist would say that 1 Corinthians 13 cannot serve as a proof-text for cessationism because of its many obscurities. Their explanation why the Bible is obscure on the question of the cessation of the gifts is that the gifts will reemerge and be in operation during the Great Tribulation. Thus, the gifts, from a moderate cessationist perspective, will be in operation before Christ's Second Coming; see Moderate cessationism.

However, most cessationists will disagree with the continuationist interpretation and will point out that the event of Christ’s Second Coming is an instantaneous event. The Greek term used for "perfect" is teleios (Strong’s No. 5046), signifying a process of growth until completion, and not an instantaneous event. In support of this interpretation, it is pointed out that Paul’s talk of perfection is illustrated with the metaphorical image of a child’s growth unto manhood. Concerning the expression "face to face", such cessationists would compare the expression to the Old Testament usage of "face to face" and point out that the expression was used to signify the perfection of the prophetic revelation given to Moses. In other words, the prophetic revelation of God’s words through the Mosaic pact was depicted as a perfect revelation that was given "face to face". Paul similarly used the same expression to signify the coming of the perfect completion of the New Testament revelation.

The "uniformity of prophecy" argument

For principled cessationists, who reject continuationism by appealing to the principle of sola scriptura, the main issue is the logical relation between sola scriptura and the continuationist thesis. They contend that charismatic gifts would represent a second infallible source of authority for the Church, and therefore sola scriptura would not hold. Rather, the authority of the Scriptures would be regarded according to the principle of prima scriptura. A principled cessationist contends that a charismatic continuationist view subscribes to the strong sense of prima scriptura. An argument for the incompatibility between continuationism and the principle of sola scriptura is the "uniformity of prophecy" argument.

The "uniformity of prophecy" argument is a cessationist argument based upon biblical observations of how prophetic ministry was practiced and how a prophet's words were treated in the Old Testament. It is interesting for two reasons: (1) it shows the underlying reason for the cessationist denial of the gifts, and (2) it purports to be direct biblical evidence for cessationism in that the premises of the argument are not meta-biblical, but rather descriptive statements of biblical observations concerning the ministry of a prophet. An example of a meta-biblical premise is a direct appeal to the principle of sola scriptura, while an appeal to an interpretation of a set of biblical passages (biblical observations or data) would constitute, in this context, a biblical premise.

The argument makes three observations about the nature of prophetic speech.

1. the authoritative force of a prophetic self-declaration
2. the uniform authority of prophetic words
3. the divine origin of a prophecy

The first observation is that a prophetic speech begins with a strong and authoritative declaration such as "and so says the Lord", signifying the divine character of the speech, i.e. that it is spoken in the name of the Lord. The point with the first observation is that spoken prophetic words are God's direct words.

The second observation is that orally spoken prophecies were assigned the same authority as written acknowledged prophecies. Consider, for instance, the great prophets Nathan and Elijah. These two prophets were as great in authority as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Yet there are no canonical books written by Nathan or Elijah. Moreover, prophecies from such great prophets would surely not be characterized as second-rate. Thus, their prophecies could, in principle, be included in the canon, had they been written down and preserved.

The third observation is that the source of true prophecies is the same; namely they stem directly from God.

Richard B. Gaffin makes a similar observation on the extent of a prophetic authority:

The issue is the inspired, Spirit-worked origin of prophecy and its correlative authority. The words of the prophet are the words of God and are to be received and responded to as such.

He would object to the view that there is "a distinction between different levels of prophetic authority", and would agree with the three observations above.

All three observations above lead cessationists to conclude that a prophetic speech, once verified, is an infallible and divine speech, where God directly addresses people and which enjoys the same authority as written acknowledged prophecies. Thus, a cessationist’s main motive in denying the continuationist thesis is that they are not prepared to accept the authority of new prophets. A cessationist is not prepared to accept the authority of new prophets precisely because it would commit them to the view that the authority of new prophets is the same as that of biblical prophets such as Jeremiah and John.

A continuationist would not have such worries because they attach a weaker sense to the terms 'prophet' or 'prophecy' in that they limit the authority and the scope of prophecy. A continuationist would say that a prophecy would not contain new doctrinal content. They would also point out that every true prophecy given today has to be consistent with the Bible. The Bible has greater authority, a continuationist might say, because it is by the Bible that the prophecies are tested. The Bible is the paradigm of true prophecies. Furthermore, every oral prophecy has to be tested and verified, while this is not the case with the Bible; see the section: the continuationist understanding of the verification of prophecy.

Thus, in the dispute over charismata, the questions regarding sola scriptura give rise to further issues such as the authority, scope and verification of modern prophecies, covered in the next sections.

The authority of prophecy

Some continuationists, such as Wayne Grudem, make a distinction between two kinds of prophets, foundational and non-foundational prophets. The foundational prophets were those Apostles that were also prophets, while the non-foundational prophets would be prophets that were not among the Apostles. This distinction is significant in the dispute because a continuationist, by appealing to this distinction, can avoid the conclusion that modern prophecies may have content with new doctrinal import. Only foundational prophets could come up with prophecies with new doctrinal import that serve as the foundation of the Church. Grudem would agree that the apostolic and foundational prophetic ministries were gone while contending that the gift of prophecy is still in operation, because not all possessors of the gift of prophecy had the foundational ministry of a prophet. Thus, there are still non-foundational prophets in the Church because they do not add something new to the foundation in the way that prophecies with new doctrinal import would.

Other continuationists, such as Craig Simonian, make a similar distinction between prophecies carrying a canonical weight from prophecies that do not. Simonian sees in Moses as "an archetype of a unique strand of prophets which was ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah as indicated in the New Testament." Such archetype of prophets had a canonical authority and not all prophets were of that archetype. Other prophets received revelation via visions or dreams, and as such did not carry the foundational weight. Thus, a continuationist does not accept the cessationist premise of the uniform authority of prophets.

Simonian cites several biblical observations supporting the distinction between canonical (foundational) and noncanonical (nonfoundational) prophets. Some of these biblical observations are reports of people who began prophesying after the Spirit of God had fallen upon them: e.g. Numbers 11:25, when elders started to prophecy; and 1 Samuel 10, when Saul prophesied. In these biblical reports, it is observed that people spontaneously prophesied when the Spirit of God had fallen upon them, although they were not ordinarily prophets. Simonian notes that "what Saul prophesied was not recorded that day and it is likely that his prophesies lacked any lasting significance."

The verification of prophecy

A continuationist will further point out that the Bible is an indispensable guide for the verification of prophecies. Verification in this context means an evaluative conclusion by some reliable test that something is true. Falsification, on the other hand, means an evaluative conclusion by some reliable test that something is false.

How is a prophecy verified (or falsified) by the Bible? A continuationist understands the test by judging the doctrinal content of a prophetic message against the teachings of the Bible. If the content or implications of a prophecy contradict the teachings of the Bible, the prophecy in question is false.

In addition, most continuationists would further contend that a prophecy given by a non-foundational prophet can contain both true and false elements, and for that reason the Scriptures command Christians to test prophecies (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:29, 1 Thessalonians 5:20). Thus, a continuationist concludes that modern prophecies do not represent an infallible source of authority for the Church and, as such, the principle of sola scriptura is not violated.

Disputes concerning the authority of prophecies

Both cessationists and continuationists agree that Christ’s Church is built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles; no other foundation is allowed. This means that the doctrines of the Church are built upon the apostolic and prophetic foundation as well (cf. Ephesians 2:20).

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.

Thus, the cessationist concludes, if the gift of prophecy is in operation nowadays, then the prophetic foundation is in effect today and was not completed by the end of the first century. Therefore, modern prophecies could, in principle, add new doctrinal content to the Scriptures – new doctrinal elements not necessarily in contradiction with the Scriptures.

What one sees above is how the cessationist notion of prophecy plays here. The continuationist notion would not reach the cessationist conclusion precisely because the continuationist scope of modern prophecies is limited, i.e. it holds that they are not of foundational character. Continuationists, such as Wayne Grudem can readily agree with cessationists that we no longer have foundational ministries such as the apostolic and prophetic ministries, as referenced in Ephesians 2:20. These ministries ended at the beginning of the second century. Nevertheless, the gift of prophecy is still in operation because not all possessors of the gift of prophecy had the foundational ministry of a prophet. Thus, there is a distinction between foundational and non-foundational prophetic ministries. A non-foundational prophetic ministry would not involve prophecies with new doctrinal import and, as such, would not contribute anything to the foundation of the Church.

Some continuationists, such as Craig Simonian, make a similar distinction between canonical and noncanonical prophets. They would maintain that not all prophets have a "canonical authority" by observing two strands of prophets in the Old Testament (see the section "Continuationist Understanding") and that this pattern continued in the New Testament.

Cessationists would have a different interpretation of biblical data and not reach the same continuationist conclusion concerning the non-foundational authority of "lesser prophets". A cessationist would concede that some prophets, such as Moses, were greater in the clarity and reception of God's revelation, but not conclude that they were greater in authority than prophets who had less clear revelations. A cessationist would raise many questions concerning these "lesser prophets": Although there were occasions that the Spirit had fallen upon some persons, who were not ordinarily prophets, why would their prophecies had a lesser authority? Were not their words spoken in the name of the Lord? Would not this imply that, at the moment of their prophetic speech act, they were the very mouthpiece of God? Would not their word be infallible in the virtue of being God's word?

A continuationist would disagree and explain why a non-canonical oral prophecy, even though it is inspired by God, is nevertheless fallible. The question of fallibility of noncanonical prophecies is dealt in the section "Disputes concerning the verification of prophecies".

Disputes concerning the verification of prophecies

An important issue concerns the question of the verification of prophecies. The Scriptures command Christians to test prophecies (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:29, 1 Thessalonians 5:20). Would this imply that a prophecy can be a mixture of both true and false elements? Most continuationists would answer positively to this question.

From the cessationist perspective, however, it is odd to say that a prophecy given by a genuine true prophet, i.e., a prophet who was inspired by God's Spirit, can be a mixture of both false and true statements. A cessationist would question the inteligibility of such notion of true prophecy. How can a prophet be entitled to declare "and so says the Lord" and utter false statements, as if the Lord's words were deceptive?

A continuationist reply is that an oral prophecy might be fallible due to the human fallibility. C. Samuel Storms gives an explanation of how can prophecies be fallible.

The key is in recognizing that with every prophecy there are four elements, only one of which is assuredly of God: There is the revelation itself; there is the perception or reception of that revelation by the believer; there is the interpretation of what has been disclosed or the attempt to ascertain its meaning; and there is the application of that interpretation. God alone is responsible for the revelation. (...) It is infallible as he is. It contains no falsehoods (...) Error enters in when the human recipient of a revelation misperceives, misinterprets and/or misapplies what God has disclosed. The fact that God has spoken perfectly does not mean that human beings have heard perfectly.

A cessationist would be skeptic towards such a continuationist theory of inspiration due to the following problems:

First, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 teaches that a false prophet, who speaks presumptuously in the name of the Lord, is exposed by discovering falsehoods in his prophetic predictions. Deuteronomy 18 is about oral prophecies, and thus, it is about noncanonical prophecies. If it is allowed that true prophecies contain error, a cessationists contends that it would not be possible to distinguish true prophets from false prophets who presumptuously speak in the name of the Lord.

Second, there is no ground for restricting the continuationist theory of inspiration only to noncanonical prophecies. Consequently, canonical prophecies might be fallible as well. If fallibility of canonical prophecies is allowed, a cessationist would point out that the continuationist theory of inspiration would violate the principle of sola scriptura because sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures is the only infallible authority for the Church.

In the logic of prophetic self-declarations, a genuine prophecy is treated as divine and infallible. A cessationist, thus, concludes that a prophetic self-declaration does not carry any weight if the spoken prophecy is treated as human and fallible.

Implication of the closure of the canon

According to the cessationist perspective, the fundamental problem of continuationism can be formulated as a following question:

Let us assume that we have tested a prophetic utterance and are certain that it is true: God is the source of the prophecy. Why should not this prophecy enjoy the same authority as the canonical prophecies of the Bible?

The above problem concerns the question whether new prophecies would enjoy the same authority as the canonical prophecies of the Bible. According to cessationists, the canon would be open if the gift of prophecy is still in operation. Some continuationists misconstrue the cessationist appeal to the closure of the canon as if cessationists do not acknowledge noncanonical revelations and, then, try to show that the Bible makes clear of the existence of noncanonical revelations. However, the cessationist question regarding noncanonical revelations is about their authority. The cessationist appeal to the closure of the canon does not imply that cessationists do not acknowledge the existence of revelations not included in the canon. The cessationist point is that such noncanonical revelations would enjoy the same authority as the canonical. Consequently, new prophecies and revelations would likewise enjoy the same authority as the canonical prophecies and revelations of the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, noncanonical revelations could, in principle, be included in the canon, had they been written and preserved. The cessationist main concern is how would modern prophetic speech differ in authority from the inspired speech of canonical prophets and apostles.

A continuationist reply to the cessationist challenge is to appeal to the distinction between canonical and noncanonical prophecies, but at the same time downgrade the authority of noncanonical revelations.

Thus, the dispute concerning the implication of the closure of the canon revolves around two related issues regarding noncanonical revelation:

1. Is the continuationist differentiation of degrees of prophetic authority valid?
2. Is the cessationist thesis of the uniform authority of prophecies valid?

The question of the non-revelatory gifts

A continuationist would question the cessationist rationale as a general ground for maintaining cessation of all gifts. What about the non-revelatory gifts, such as the gifts of power? How would these gifts violate the principle of sola scriptura? According to most cessationists, a person with the gift of power is also a prophet. From cessationist perspective, healings and miracles were always signs associated with the divine confirmation of the genuineness of a prophet in periods when God revealed new truths with respect to the doctrine. Within cessationist framework, miracles and healing are signs of apostleship and prophethood, and, thus, are seen in the context of the formation of new doctrines, cf. Acts 2:43, 2 Corinthians 12:12.