Who Argues Like Who?

It seems that the rise of continuationism (the gifts of tongues, prophecies e.t.c will not end until the return of Christ) has become a popular thing in Christianity. Here I am not speaking of the outrageous claims from the extreme Charismatics where they have mastered a warped view of pneumatology with little or no understanding of all the other ologies- Christology, anthropology, harmartiology, soteriology, eschatology e.t.c.). No, the rise seems to be with young Calvinists or those that have a sound grasp on most of the other theologies. These men have a good understanding of the doctrines of God (including His triunity), man, sin, salvation.

They seem to be on the rise and they're throwing down the gauntlet. It is becoming quite popular to hear them make claims like, "Cessationists argue like Arminians" or "Cessationism is rationalism." Some are even so bold as to claim that cessationism (the belief that the sign gifts are not for today) is "post-enlightenment deism." There is definitely a resurgence in continuationism and some of the proponents are very loud and vocal about it.

Sinclair Ferguson notes:

The most pressing difficulty of analysis arises when we consider the nature of speaking in tongues and prophecy. This is due to a paradoxical combination of circumstances on the one hand, the apparent decline of these gifts in the period following the end of the apostolic era and, on the other hand, the dramatic surge in claims of their restoration or continuation in the past century of the history of the church, but the spasmodic character of the evidence simply underlines their absence from mainstream Christian experience. 

The revival or restoration of these phenomena, claimed today, while statistically overwhelming, creates additional complexity in assessing the identification claimed between the New Testament and the contemporary phenomena, and also the differing interpretations of their significance. Contemporary restorationists, seeking an explanation for this, tend to conclude either that most Christians between the second and twentieth centuries did not exercise enough faith in an appropriate way, or that the reappearance of these gifts presages the dawning of the final days. The weakness of the former view is that it is scarcely consistent with the often-repeated testimony that, for example, the experience of speaking in tongues comes unbidden and in a sovereign fashion. (Why did not it come sovereignly throughout the ages?)*

I must be missing something since the witness of church history is that shortly after the New Testament era the miraculous gifts seemed to fall from the scene? How then can cessationism be attributed to "post-enlighten ment?" 


It makes for good rhetoric (all of which I am for so long as it can be substantiated) just like the allegation that cessationists argue like Arminians. I would appreciate such rhetoric if it were proven. If one could draw a line from point A to Z. I just don't see the connection. But two can play this game. If cessationists argue like Arminians then continuationists argue like Roman Catholics. This I hope to demonstrate. The main argument from informed continuationists is that there is no passage of Scripture which teaches that the sign gifts have ceased before the second coming of Christ our King, therefore they must continue until that day. Simply put an argument from silence (which is an interesting and ironic argument since most present day coninuationists are credobaptists and will not allow for that kind of argumentation from paedobaptists that make a similar argument that in the Old Testament the covenant people of God were commanded to include their children and have them circumcised; since baptism replaces circumcision and there is no verse or passage which rescinds the command to include children it must continue. These continuationist credobaptists will not accept  such argumentation). Is not this the same way in which Rome argues for the papacy? "Show me where in the Bible it says that Apostles have ended?" as one Roman Catholic hurled at me in his attempt to defend the Pope. No one can point any single verse which says explicitly "apostleship has ended." Rome also believes in Revelation beyond Scripture which adherents of continuationism do as well (though drastically in a different manner). The continautionist will immediately point (correctly) to Acts 1:21-26. But the continuationist is inconsistent here. If, as they teach concerning visions and dreams, why cannot the risen Christ appear to a person in a dream or vision and establish them as an apostle? See the continuationist will not accept any such vision or dream even though they believe them to be subjectively authoritative and since they cannot point to any single passage that that says apostleship has ended they must rely on a theological approach (rightly so). But again they will not allow for that hermeneutic when it comes to issue of the miraculous gifts. They simply fall back on "there is no verse in the Bible that says they have ended." Who argues like who?

"Cessationism is rationalism." Now that is just an irrational statement.

In the words of Burk Parsons:

When I am asked to explain particular passages of Scripture that, according to some people, teach that the sign gifts of the apostolic era have not ceased, I usually respond with this question: “Do you believe that Scripture is the final Word of God?” Thankfully, every answer has been in the affirmative; still, the inquirer usually presses me with another question, such as, “What Biblical evidence is there to support your view that the sign gifts have ceased?” I often respond similarly: “What Biblical evidence is there to support your view that the sign gifts have continued?” At that point, the discussion usually dives to the ground in a tailspin of emotions and fanciful maneuvering. My opponent usually relates experience after experience, with great intensity, then levels his most disparaging attack: “Are you telling me you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is still at work?”

This type of remark is quite typical, and it is perhaps the most untenable conclusion that many charismatics have made. Although we do not affirm the continuation of the sign gifts, by no means do we disavow me genuine work of the Spirit of the living God. On the contrary, through the exercise of the non-revelatory gifts of the Holy Spirit still displayed in the church—preaching, teaching, exhortation (Rom. 12:6–8)—we, who were enemies of God, dead in our trespasses, have become living sons of the living God. Indeed, the Holy Spirit has worked great wonders in our hearts, and He who established His redemptive plan before the foundation of the world has carried out His plan with great signs and wonders, and has sealed us in the Holy Spirit for our day of redemption (Eph. 4:30).*

I conclude with Calvin (on the accusation from Rome that the Reformation had no miraculous sign(s) to authenticate it), "We have no novel message. We need no novel outpouring of the miraculous."






*Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), p.211-212

*Tabletalk Magazine: April 2002. 2002 (13). Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, Inc.