The End of Charismatic Gifts

Content

The Nine Gifts of the Holy Spirit
Various Forms of Cessationism
The Ministry of an Apostle
1. The special meaning of apostolos
2. Apostleship and the Testimony of Christ's Resurrection
The Ministry of a Prophet
Canonicity and Sola Scriptura
1. Prophecy and Canonicity
2. Sola versus Prima Scriptura
Criteria of a True Prophet
The Purpose of Other Gifts
1. The Tongues and Interpretation
2. The Gifts of Power
Objections and the Cessationist Presuppositions

Introduction

In this article, we will examine the validity of the charismatic belief, whether the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit are still present in the Church of Christ. The charismatic belief affirms that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still present, and have never ceased to be in operation from the birth of the Church on the day of the Pentecost, cf. Acts 2, till now. The gifts will continue to exist until Christ's return. The charismatic belief is referred as the continuationist view, or Continuationism. The opposite view is known as the cessationist view, or Cessationism. We will show that Continuationism is wrong by examining the important arguments that are present in the issue.

In this paper, we have briefly touched upon restorationist views about Charisma (see Various Forms of Cessationism) which do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura, but we will deal mostly with forms of Cessationism that appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

The basic and underlying assumption for the article is that the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthian 12-14 are of a supernatural character. If one tended to interpret mentioned gifts, such as the gift of prophecy or gifts of healing, in a natural sense then it is quite a deviation in the use of these biblical terms from the rest of the Bible. A charismatic continuationist understanding of gifts is quite correct, which is the very reason why we discuss this issue. The supernatural character of a true prophecy is grounded upon the fact that its direct source is God, who addresses the Church through His prophets, the bearers of the gift of prophecy. By that token, modern prophecies constitute new revelations from God, and as such opens up many issues pertaining to the question of open canonicity of the Bible, the validity of Sola Scriptura, etc. If the Corinthian gift of prophecy is understood in the natural sense then it would not raise any issues related to the canonicity of the Bible.

Cessationism presupposes the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is understood as a closed canon. The underlying theme of the article is the investigation of the logical relation between the charismatic continuationist view and the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is treated as a closed canon. The main target of Cessationist arguments is Continuationism that accepts the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scriptures is treated as a closed canon. Charismatic Continuationism is charged with inconsistency if it is committed to Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is understood as a closed canon. However, at the end of the article, we question the Cessationist presuppositions in order to see whether charismatic Continuationism is a viable position if the canon is assumed to be open.
[Return to the Content]

A. The Nine Gifts of the Holy Spirit

The reason we should regard these gifts as supernatural is the mention of prophecy, healing and miracles. It is of course a possibility to regard other gifts, like faith and knowledge in a natural sense. But it is strange to regard knowledge as a gift. To be aware of some information does not require some special talent, unless the information in question is acquired through the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. Faith is not a gift unless it pertains to announcements of extraordinary events, e.g. moving a mountain. It is this supernatural quality of faith that Paul is referring to and which is confirmed by 1 Cor 13:2, "and though I have faith, so that I could remove mountains."

The assumption about the supernatural quality of the gifts will, therefore, be taken for granted in this article. Our most concern is the validity of the continuationist claim that these gifts are present in some individuals who are members of the Church.

What kinds of gifts are mentioned in 1 Cor 12-14? There are nine gifts grouped in three groups:

These nine gifts were present and manifested through the members of the Church in the first century. They were so common that every local Church had the manifestation of all nine gifts in the service. Even the Corinthian Church had all nine gifts in spite of the problems and immaturity present in the Church. If Continuationism is true, we would expect that any local charismatic Church have all nine gifts. However, only tongues, interpretation and the gift of prophecy dominate the charismatic scene. Other gifts are very rare to find.
[Return to the Content]

B. Various forms of Cessationism

Cessationism has various forms and can be differentiated in two kinds of classifications. The first clasification is with regard to the question of reemergence of gifts and the second classification is with regard to the types of justification of Cessationism.

With regard to the possibility of reemergence (reappearance) of the charismatic gifts, we differentiate two versions of Cessationism: (i) Strong Cessationism and (ii) Moderate Cessationism. With regard to the forms of justification of Cessationism, we make distinction between Principled and Empirical Cessationism. Both strong and moderate versions of Cessationism belong to the Principled forms of Cessationism, while some restorationist views belong to the empirical form of Cessationism.

In this paper, we will not deal with restorationist views about Charisma. In general, we have two types of restorationist views: (a) Restorationist charismatic view teaching that gifts ended between the second and fourth centuries AD, but reemerged at the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century, and (b) Restorationist Eschatological view teaching that gifts ended between the second and fourth centuries AD, but will reemerge during the Great Tribulation. The Restorationist Charismatic view is a peculiar charismatic position in that it is not a continuationist view. The Restorationist Eschatological view is practically the same as a moderate cessationist view, see below. Both restorationist views differ with below forms of Cessationism in that they do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura, but rather rely on a historical research of the early Church practises and doctrines of the Church Fathers. We have chosen to ignore the restorationist views for two reasons: (1) Restorationist views are semicontinuitionist because they do not offer a Principled reason why gifts have ceased, but take the cessation of gifts as a mere contingent historical fact; gifts could have continued if certain historical circumstances found place. (2) We are interested in the argumentative strength of invoking the principle of Sola Scriptura for the justification of Cessationism. Restorationist views, thus, would not offer us this kind of insight in that they do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura for accepting Cessationism.

1. Strong Cessationism

Strong Cessationism denies the possibility of reemergence of gifts on grounds of principle, that is, the denial is on a priori grounds; i.e. no matter what, even if we met prophets or healers who prophesied/healed in the name of Jesus, a strong Cessationist would deny the possibility of existence or reemergence of genuine God's prophets and healers in the post-Apostolic age, i.e. after the first century. A strong Cessationist would appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura, insisting on three propositions:

According to the strong Cessationist, a person with a gift of power is also a prophet because healing and miracles are always signs associated with divine confirmation of the genuineness of a prophet, in the periods where God revealed new truths with respect to the doctrine. Given the above three propositions, a strong Cessationist would conclude that there would be no new prophets in the periods after the 1st century any more, as follows:

A strong Cessationist might concede that prophecies might be useful in the guidance of the Church. Nevertheless, he will insist that the Church can be perfectly guided to reach right decisions if applying principles, teachings and examples of the Bible.
[Return to the Content]

2. Moderate Cessationism

A moderate Cessationist would also deny the possibility of gifts on a priori grounds. He would deny the existence of manifestations of genuine charismatic gifts in the Church no matter what, even in the event of seeing apparent miracles or healing. However, a moderate Cessationist allows for the possibility of a new charismatic period in the future, when God would powerfully guide His people. This openness to the possibility of a new charismatic period is motivated by premillennialist eschatological expectations, where it is assumed that Christ's Second Coming will occur before the establishment of Christ's millennial kingdom on Earth. Within this premillennialist conceptual framework, the Great Tribulation is seen as a future period immediately preceding Christ's Coming. A moderate Cessationist would insist that the new charismatic period is possible only during the Great Tribulation for otherwise the genuine gifts would be in operation before the Tribulation, and, thus charismatic gifts could not be rejected on grounds of principle. Moderate Cessationism is compatible with all premillennialist positions (pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib and pre-wrath).

The moderate Cessationist understanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura is almost identical to the strong one. A moderate Cessationist would agree with all three propositions pr. 1-3, but with an important qualification: all three propositions are valid only in the post-Apostolic Age of the Church before the Great Tribulation, i.e. in the period after the first century until the days of the Great Tribulation. Thus, in practical terms, both strong and moderate Cessationism are the same. They differ only in eschatological terms, whether the gifts will reemerge in the last days immediately preceding the time of Christ's Second Coming. The strong Cessationist eschatological view is not a premillennialist, and, thus, does not share the premillennialist conceptual framework, such as the premillennialist view of the Great Tribulation as something belonging to the future.

Biblical grounds for moderate Cessationism is the reference to two powerful prophets of God, Rev 11:3-11. According to a moderate Cessationist, events described in Rev 11 are in the future, during the Great Tribulation. Moreover, a moderate Cessationist has a ready answer to the question why the Bible is so vague about the cessation of the charismatic gifts. The Bible is obscure on this point precisely because the gifts will reemerge during the Great Tribulation. They will absolutely end at the Second Coming of our Lord, at the end of the Great Tribulation.
[Return to the Content]

3. Principled versus Emprical Cessationism

Cessationism can be founded either a priori, on grounds of principle, or on a posteriori, i.e. on experience or empiria. Thus, we have two forms of Cessationism: (1) Principled Cessationism and (2) Empirical Cessationism.

Both strong and moderate versions of Cessationism belong to the forms of Cessationism on principle because they appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Their denial of the possibility of gifts is on a priorii grounds, or on grounds of principle. However, an empirical Cessationist denies the possibility of charismatic gifts on empirical grounds because he does not immediately discard an apparent miracle, healing or prophecy as counterfeit. He will rather first investigate the genuineness of the manifestation of the charismatic gift in question.

According to an empirical Cessationist, there is no Christian group practicing genuine charismatic gifts because, if thoroughly investigated, many healings and other "miracles" would most certainly be shown to be false. In other words, an empirical Cessationist denial is based on experience coupled with the probabilistic expectation that apparent miracles, healings or prophecies are mostly improbable.

An example of empirical Cessationism is the Restorationist view of Charisma. In general, there are two types of restorationist views: (a) Restorationist Charismatic view teaching that gifts ended sometime between the second and fourth centuries, but reemerged several times in the history of the Church, and (b) Restorationist Eschatological view teaching that gifts ended sometime between the second and fourth centuries, but will reemerge during the days immediate to Christ coming. Both restorationist views differ with Principled forms of Cessationism in that they do not presuppose the principle of Sola Scriptura, but rather rely on a historical research of the early Church practises and doctrines of the Church Fathers.

Another example of empirical form of cessationism is the view propounded by biblestudying.net. They have published a series of articles about charismatic gifts dealing with several issues concerning Charisma, such as the question of the timing of cessation of gifts. Their cessationist view is empirical because their denial of the continuation of the gifts is based on the historical research of early Church practices. Thus, their denial is on empirical grounds and not on grounds of principle, such as the appeal to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

According to their historical study, "the charismatic gifts did indeed decline and were eventually lost sometime between the second and fourth centuries AD. An interesting thing about their Cessationist view is that it is a semi-Continuationist view; that is, the gifts could have continued until Christ's return, but instead ended "sometime between the second and fourth centuries AD." The conclusion of their historical study is as follows: "Thus, we must discard the doctrine that the gifts were supposed to pass away before Christ's return. Instead, we must accept the fact that the gifts were supposed to continue as a confirmation of sound doctrine until Christ's return but were lost as the Church deviated from that sound doctrine given by Christ to the apostles and by the apostles to the early Church of the first few centuries."

On the question of the reemergence of the gifts, they would agree with moderate Cessationists that the gifts will reemerge during the final days immediately preceding Christ's Second Coming. They unofficially call their view Conditional Cessationism because, as a spokesman for this view says, "The primary feature of our position is its assertion of the conditional nature of cessation and its positing that either a) continuation or b) cessation and restoration were possible." [From e-mail correspondence with Scott McPherson, a spokesman of this view]

In this article, the term 'Cessationism' will be referred to the Principled forms of Cessationism, i.e. either to a strong or to a moderate version of Cessationism, because these both forms of Cessationism share the same biblical ground for denying the charismatic continuationist view. The rationale for the empirical Cessationism is not the biblical arguments, but rather experience or observation of counterfeit miracles, healing and prophecies. Of interest 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. This article therefore does not cover the dispute between empirical Cessationism and Continuationism. In addition, we are more interested in biblical reasons figuring in the dispute than in historical reasons. Consideration of biblical data should be the decisive factor in the resolution of the dispute concerning charisma, notwithstanding the overwhelming historical testimony we have for either the continuation or the cessation of the gifts in the early church.
[Return to the Content]

4. Cessationism - what it does not imply

A Cessationist denies the presence and manifestation of genuine supernatural charismatic gifts in our local churches. A Cessationist maintains that all nine gifts, mentioned in 1 Corinthian 12-14, are not present any more in local churches of the followers of Christ. However, we have to be clear on what the Cessationist view does not imply. A Cessationist does not deny that miracles can be seen in our churches. Neither does a Cessationist deny that God heals nowadays.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that God still speaks to His children. We, who are in Christ, have the Holy Spirit who guides us in our lives. We, as God's children, have a personal contact with our Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ. In our daily contact with the words of the Bible, we grow in His wisdom. God leads us when we read His words, which we do find in the Bible. In our prayer we can be guided by the Holy Spirit to think about certain things that will help us to grow in our spiritual life. In our spiritual growth, we also develop sensitivity to the inner voice of the Holy Spirit. God can influence our thoughts when we are in our prayer, because He is in us through His Spirit.

We are all baptized in His Spirit and we do not need tongues for the confirmation of that baptism. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, (...) and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:13) Thus, every child of God is a part of the Body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If we are in Christ, then we are baptized in His Spirit. To be saved is a sufficient condition for the baptism in God's Spirit. We do not need to have any supernatural gift confirming our baptism in the Holy Spirit. If tongues were condition for the baptism then it is strange that God says that we are all baptized in God's Spirit, but that not all speak in tongues, cf. 1 Cor. 12:13, 28-30.

The fact that we have God's Spirit leading us in our daily life implies that God does individually speak to us, that God can heal us and even perform miracles for our comfort. The crucial question is in which way God speaks to us. To repeat, a Cessationist strongly believes that God speaks to His children and that He can physically heal us when we pray to Him. Nevertheless, a Cessationist contends that God neither speaks through some special chosen prophets nor heals through some special chosen healers.

The next section deals with the first reason why we should reject the charismatic continuationist thesis.
[Return to the Content]

C. The Ministry of an Apostle

If we maintain that every gift and ministry still exists in the Church of our century, as it was in the Church of the first century, then we must maintain that we do have apostles today. But this is simply false to maintain for the following reasons.

1. The special meaning of apostolos

The word "apostle" is one of the few Greek words, which is not translated in our English Bibles. Why did we not translate this word from Greek, which means a messenger, one who is sent, a delegate, one sent forth with orders? There are many other Greek terms for expressing the meaning of someone sent as a messenger (e.g. angelo, pempo and their derivates). Angelo is translated into English messenger only when it denotes an ordinary human messenger, but it is not translated when it denotes angels, i.e. nonhuman messengers. In the case when it refers to nonhuman messengers, the meaning of the term would not be correctly conveyed under translation. The same with the term 'apostolos'. It is not translated because the term has a special meaning, not easily conveyed in languages that do not have the same concept of apostolos. ' apostolos' does not just mean an ordinary messenger, or some delegate. It is more than that. The following example will illustrate the significance of the term 'apostolos.'

Thus, Jesus' apostles were messengers with Jesus' authority. They were the foundation for the Church of the New Testament, (with Prophets, cf. Eph. 2:20).

Both the Bible and many Greek Theological dictionaries confirm this perspective of the Apostleship. What comes clear in the exegetical study of apostolos, is that above all it applies to the group of men who held the supreme dignity in the primitive church. The force of apostolos is 'one commissioned' - it is implied by Christ. Rengstorf, in particular, has elaborated the theory that it reflects the Jewish shaluah, an accredited representative of religious authority, entrusted with messages and money empowered to act on behalf of the authority (for the idea cf. Acts. 9:2); also Gregory Dix and others renowned Greek scholars have applied ideas and expressions belonging to the shaluah concept (e.g. "a man's shaluah is as himself") to the apostolate.¹ Kittel also connects the ministry of Apostleship with the Judaistic ministry of shaluah.

Saying that we nowadays have Christ's apostles around in our churches, will imply that we have persons who have the authority of Christ.
[Return to the Content]

2. Apostleship and the Testimony of Christ's Resurrection

Another important function of a Christ's apostle is that he was a Prime Witness of Jesus' bodily resurrection. The necessary condition for a person to be a Christ's apostle was that the person had seen the bodily resurrected Jesus in order to give the Prime Testimony for the truthfulness of our fundamental Christian belief. The only possibility for truthfulness of such kind of testimony was that the person had seen Jesus before His bodily death, witnessed (or knowing for sure) the fact of Jesus' bodily death and that He was able to recognize the bodily resurrected Christ, cf. Acts. 1:21-22. However today, if someone claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus, we are entitled to ask the person how he can know for sure that it is Jesus he has seen. How can a person nowadays recognize Jesus of Nazareth, who died on the cross 2000 years ago? It is obvious that the person has not seen Jesus while Jesus was walking in human flesh among us. If the person answers our question by saying that Jesus was seen in a vision, such a testimony is not reliable. The Testimony of Christ's bodily resurrection should be based on certain objective criteria enabling recognition of the resurrected Christ, and not on mere subjective criteria. A Testimony of an apostle should be of prime quality. The Testimony should have the highest quality or value as a Testimony for the fundamental Christian belief, fundamental in the virtue that the whole Christian faith is based on the Testimony for the truthfulness of the bodily Resurrection of our Lord.

The first century is, therefore, rightfully called the Apostolic Period in the History of our Church. At that time in Judea there were at least 500 persons who had truly witnessed the appearance of the bodily resurrected Messiah, and many of them were appointed by Jesus to be Prime Witnesses for His resurrection. There were two kinds of apostles.

The first important group was the circle of the Twelve, and they were the foundation of the First Church in Jerusalem. However, also other persons were appointed as Prime Witnesses of our Lord in order to spread the Gospel throughout the whole Roman Empire. Jesus Himself appointed them, e.g. Paul. We know that at least there were 83 apostles, 12-1+70+Paul+Barnabas (Luk. 10:1 about 70 more apostles; Acts. 1:26 about Matthias' replacing Judas of Iskariot; Acts. 14:14, about Paul and Barnabas). But it is clear that the Twelve had a special role, especially seen in the light of Acts 1:26; probably because they were close to Jesus during His ministry before His death.

Anyway, all Apostles were the foundation for the continuing mission to spread the Gospel for the whole world. Christianity was spreading with an exponential rate in spite of the persecutions. Already at the end of the first century, Christianity was established in the whole Roman Empire and it was also already spread in other areas outside of the Roman Empire. I believe that Christianity began to be known in Ireland, Armenia, and even in some provinces of India. It is interesting that the Apostle Thomas, according to the Christian tradition, extended his apostolate into India, where he is recognized as the founder of the Church of the Syrian Malabar Christians, or Christians of St. Thomas. The origins of the Christians of St. Thomas are uncertain, though they seem to have been in existence before the 6th century AD.

Implied in the Apostleship is the commission to witness by word and sign (2 Cor 12:12) to the risen Christ and His completed work. This witness, being grounded in a unique experience of the incarnate Christ, and directed by a special dispensation of the Holy Spirit, provides the authentic interpretation of Christ, and has ever since been determinative for the Church. In the nature of things, the office of Apostleship could not be repeated or transmitted: any more than the underlying historic experiences could be transmitted to those who had never known the incarnate Lord and seen Him resurrected. Therefore, we do not have Apostles in our age after the 1st century A.D.

Given the considerations above, we can be sure that the apostolic ministry is not present in the Church any more. If some ministries are gone, then is it not plausible to assume that some gifts are gone as well, especially those gifts pertaining to the sign of the Apostleship, cf. 2 Cor. 12:12?
[Return to the Content]

D. The Ministry of a Prophet

What about the prophets, do we have them in the 21st century? There are three considerations that lead us to the Cessationist conclusion that the prophetic ministry ended at end of the 1st century.

1. The force of the prophetic self-declaration

A prophetic speech, or prophecy, is a first person utterance, spoken in the name of the Lord. 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. This means that a prophecy functions as God's message directly addressing the Church. Usually a prophetic speech begins with a strong declaration in order to emphasize the divine source of the speech, e.g. "and so says the Lord." Because a prophet begins with such a strong declaration, we should regard the speech as infallible. Thus, a prophet, through the verbal inspiration by God, directly speaks the words of God to the Church.

If we maintain that prophetic words do not present direct and infallible words of God, then the person in question is not entitled to say a first-person utterance in the name of the Lord by using a strong declaration, for instance "and so says the Lord." If a person comes with such a strong prophetic declaration, e.g. "and so says the Lord." If a person comes with such a strong prophetic declaration, e.g. "and so says the Lord," and begins to speak in the first person in the name of the Lord, as if God were directly speaking to the Church, then we should surely regard the speech to be direct and infallible words of God; otherwise the prophetic speech act would be deceptive. In the biblical study of the ancient prophets of both the Old and the New Testament (Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Esaias, Jeremiah, Agabus, etc.), we observe the above practise of prophetic declarations among prophets. When ancient prophets delivered their prophecies, they spoke in the name of the Lord by introducing their speech with a strong prophetic declaration about the divine character of the speech, i.e. a declaration that the speech presents direct words and message of God by saying such as "and so says the Lord."
[Return to the Content]

2. The uniform authority of prophets

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 we do not have canonical books written by Nathan or Elijah. Although some prophets, such as Moses, were greater in the clarity and reception of God's revelation, that does not imply that they were greater in authority than prophets who had less clear revelations.

The New Testament writers also recognized and acknowledged the authority of the oral charismatic tradition that flourished in Judea in the last three centuries before Christ. Much of this oral prophetic tradition was not included in the canon of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they were recognized as authoritative as the written prophecies of the Old Testament.

For instance, Matthew and Judas referred to prophecies that are extra-biblical (outside the canon of the Bible). Here follows brief comments on the passages in question.

Matthew 2:23

Notice that we are talking about spoken prophecies, referring to a charismatic prophetic tradition (notice plural "prophets"). The phrase "He shall be called a Nazarene" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that Christ's dwelling in the city of Nazareth is a fulfillment of a prophecy spoken by prophets. If the reference is to the written body of prophetic books of the Old Testament, then we should have found two or more prophetic books prophesying this event. We do not find any reference in the Old Testament.

There are some proposed solutions to explain Mat 2:23. They range from trying to find some word-play on "Nazarene" in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, to viewing this text as loosely "fulfilling" a conglomeration of the Old Testament passages that refer to a despised Messiah. For instance, the closest passages are Zec 3:8 and Zec 6:12. These passages talk about God's servant whose name is the Branch, but they are not prophecies saying "He shall be called the Branch." Besides, the expression is translated from tseh'makh, not resembling the phonetic "Nazareth". However, another word for branch phonetically similar to "Nazareth" is nay'-tser as used in Isa 11:1, "and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." However, Isa 11:1 cannot be the referred passage, as some commentators propose, e.g. John Gill. The wording is not the same and the meaning of the prophecy is not the same. Mat 2:23 is talking about the city of Nazareth, but Isa 11:1 talks about Christ's genealogical branch.

Matthew is drawing on oral tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as the ones he attributes to written prophecies of the Old Testament.

Jude 9

This incident is not mentioned in the Scripture, but has its source in some "extra-biblical" revelation in Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle. Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body.

This text provides another example of how oral charismatic tradition of the Old Testament carries the same authority as the written body of prophetic writings of the Bible. In other words, these two forms of prophecies have the same kind or form of authority, i.e. divine and infallible. In other words, both forms of prophecies are uniform in authority.

Given the above, any true prophetic speech carries the same authority as prophecies of ancient prophets of both the Old and the New Testament. Consequently, modern prophets, in the capacity of their office, would have the same authority as the ancient prophets of both Testaments of the Bible.

Jude 14-15

This passage is also found in the noncanonical book of 1 Enoch (1:9). Does it mean that 1 Enoch is a completely divine inspired book? One can at most say that the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) was written as a result of oral traditions that have preserved some of the true ancient extra-biblical prophecies.

3. The divine origin of true prophecies

From the foregoing, we have observed the strong authoritative character of prophetic self-declaration and the uniform authority of prophets. Both these features are grounded upon one biblical fact: the origin of prophecies and revelation is divine. The prophetic declaration would lose its meaning unless its source is grounded upon true revelation and inspiration from God. Precisely because the origin of all true prophecies stems from God, all prophecies enjoy the same uniform authority.

Consequently, a spoken prophecy is, in principle, of the same authority as the written words of the Bible, provided that the spoken prophecy is genuine, i.e. have its origin in God. Therefore, if we assume that there are genuine modern prophets of God, then there would not be any distinction between the authority of their prophecies and the authority of the Bible. This observation prompts the question whether the presence of genuine modern prophecies/revelations would repudiate the sufficient authority of the Bible. This is the topic of the next part.
[Return to the Content]

Corollary from biblical observations

From the examples above, it follows that God's revelations/prophecies outside the Scriptures of the Old Testament enjoyed the same authority as written revelations/prophecies in the Scripture. In practice, this means that the canon is not regarded as strictly closed as long as we have oral prophecies/revelations that enjoy the uniform authority of the canonical ones. If the canon is closed then we should not accept any new revelations/prophecies. This question of closed canonicity and its bearing to the Continuationist thesis will be thoroughly investigated in the part E, Canonicity and Sola Scriptura.

The main point with the thesis of the uniformity of prophetic authority is that modern prophets would enjoy the same authority as the ancient prophets Jeremiah or Agabus, even if we did not literally add any new book to the canon. This point is reinforced with the observation about great prophets as Nathan or Elijah. These two prophets were as great as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Yet, we do not have books written by Nathan or Elijah.

A Cessationist's main motive in the denial of the continuationist thesis about charismatic gifts is that he is not prepared to accept the authority of new prophets. A Cessationist is not prepared to accept their authority precisely because it would commit him to the view that their authority is the same as the authority of biblical prophets as Jeremiah and John.
[Return to the Content]

Foundational and non-foundational prophets

Some Continuationists, such as Wayne Grudem, make a distinction between two kinds of prophets, foundational and non-foundational prophets.³ 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. Therefore, Wayne Grudem can readily agree with Cessationists that we no longer have foundational ministries such as the apostolic and prophetic ministries, as referrenced in Eph 2:20.⁴ 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, we have 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.

The two main arguments for maintaining this distinction between prophetic ministries are the following ones:⁵

We will only look into the first argument, while the second one is discussed in the section dealing about verification of prophets.

Another consideration is to compare Eph 2:20 with Eph 4:11 and 1 Cor 12:28, where there is also a mention of apostles and prophets together with other ministries and gifts. White notes "that 1 Cor 12:28, together with Eph 4:11, establishes a burden of proof for those who like Grudem would see something other than a distinction between apostles and prophets in Eph 2:20. It remains for Grudem to produce the evidence that shifts the burden of proof from himself to those who differ with him."⁷ White's position is strengthened by his discussion of Gaffin's observation that 2:20 and 4:11 are parts of a larger context in which Paul discusses the church.

Some Continuationists, such as Craig Simonian, do not buy Grudem's argument. "If Paul wanted to speak of the apostles who were also prophets, he most likely would have used a construction that emphasized the point."⁹ Nevertheless, they would make a similar distinction between prophecies carrying a canonical weight from prophecies that do not.¹⁰ Craig sees in Moses as "an archetype of a unique strand of prophets which was ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah as indicated in the NT."¹¹ Such archetype of prophets had a canonical authority and not all prophets were of that archetype. Other prohets received revelation via visions or dreams, and as such did not carry the foundational weight. Thus, a Continuationist do not accept the Cessationist premise of the uniform authority of prophets.

Craig 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. Numb 11:25, when elders started to prophecy; 1 Sam 10, when Saul prophesied. In these biblical reports, we observe people who were not ordinarily prophets, but who spontaneously prophesied when the Spirit of God had fallen upon them. Craig notes that "what Saul prophesied was not recorded that day and it is likely that his prophesies lacked any lasting significance."¹² Craig's additional objection against the Cessationist notion of the uniform authority of prophets is as follows:

Therefore, a Continuationist can maintain that not all prophets have a "canonical authority" by observing two strands of prophets in the OT and that this pattern continued in the NT.

Continuationists that make such distinction 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 us to test prophecies, cf. 1 Cor 14:29, 1 Thess 5:20.¹⁵ 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.

A 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 we suppose that 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? If not, why would we call their messages as prophecies? How could they be entitled to speak in the name of the Lord, if their words did not carry the weight of divine infallible authority? If we allow that non-foundational prophets can give fallible prophecies, i.e. prophecies containing error, how do we distinguish these prophets who has spoken in error from false prophets who presumptuously speak in the name of the Lord? In the logic of prophetic self-declarations, we should treat a genuine prophecy as divine and infallible. A prophetic self-declaration does not carry any weight if we treated the spoken prophecy as human and fallible. So, to Craig's question, "Should these daughters and young men have been subject to death, as per Dt. 18:20, if they had spoken in error?", a Cessationist would answer that any person who spoke presumptuously in the name of the Lord is subject to death.
[Return to the Content]

E. Canonicity and Sola Scriptura

When discussing the principle of Sola Scriptura in this context, it should be noted that the principle presupposes the closed character of the canon, that is, the body of the Holy Scriptures is closed and not open for new additions. Affirming Sola Scriptura is stronger than affirming the closed nature of the canon. One might accept that the canon is closed and deny Sola Scriptura, but not vice versa. For instance the Roman Catholic Church denies the principle of Sola Scriptura, but affirms that the canon is closed. Sola Scriptura presupposes the idea of closed canonicity because the principle makes sense only in a context where one raises the question of the sufficient and final authority of the Holy Scriptures qua an established and closed body of books. The historical background of the formulation of the principle was during the Protestant Reformation, when the central question was how authoritative is this body of Holy Scriptures: whether it is the only infallible and final authority for the Church. This question presupposed the view of the closed canon.

Would the principle of Sola Scriptura be false if the canon were open? Sola Scriptura would neither be false nor true. The very question of the sufficiency of the Bible presupposes the view of closed canonicity of the Bible. However, if the body of the Scripture was treated as growing, but not yet complete, then the already written books would be treated with the utmost respect and reverence, as holy and infallible words from our Lord, together with the living voice of the prophets and apostles. Therefore, the point of Sola Scriptura would be lost, and the point with the principle is that doctrinal truths are justified by appealing to an established and closed canon of the Holy Scriptures. The canon is not established as long as it is uncompleted. Consequently, Sola Scriptura would lose its meaning and point.

Would the presence of genuine modern prophecies/revelations repudiate the sufficient authority of the Bible? In order to investigate this question, we will deal with the following problems:

1. Prophecy and Canonicity

Assuming that there are new prophets, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a distinction between the authority of God's words uttered through some modern prophet and God's words written in the Bible. If we follow the logic of the previous part, the answer is obvious: a prophetic self-declaration, the uniform authority of prophets and the divine origin of true prophecies makes the prophecy in question as equal in the authority with God's written words of the Bible.

Nevertheless, a Continuationist would not necessarily agree with such an answer. He would point out that every true prophecy given today has to be consistent with the Bible. The Bible has a greater authority, a Continuationist might say, because it is by the Bible that we test prophecies. It is not by modern prophecies that we test the Bible, but rather the other way around: prophecies are tested by the Bible. The Bible is the paradigm of true prophecies. Furthermore, every oral prophecy has to be tested and be verified, while this is not the case with the Bible.

Verification means, in this context, 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 would a prophecy be verified (or falsified) by the Bible? A Continuationist understands the test by judging the doctrinal content of a prophetic message with the teachings of the Bible. If a prophecy, by its content or implications, contradicts with the teachings of the Bible then the prophecy in question is false.

A Cessationist would object to the above charismatic account on the matter of verification of a given prophecy. A Cessationist contends that the Bible cannot provide a sufficient verification as long as we allow that God continues to speak through prophets. The Cessationist contention is thoroughly discussed later, but suffice to say that a prophecy consistent with the Bible is not necessarily inspired by God. It is even possible that demon-possessed persons can issue true prophetic utterances which are wholly consistent with the Bible; cf. Mark 3:11, Acts 16:18, demon-possessed persons and persons with a spirit of divination have said true things about Jesus' and the apostles' ministries. The criteria of a true prophet is thoroughly discussed in part F, Criteria of a True Prophet. In the course of our discussion in part F, we will also show that a true prophecy (revelation) can also contradict with the established canon of the Holy Scriptures.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Bible provides a sufficient standard for testing prophecies. Would this establish that the Bible has greater authority? What is at most established is that the Bible is the most reliable source of knowledge of God's revelation, but not that it is greater in authority than other sources of God's revelation, e.g. new oral prophecies. The fact that the Bible is the most reliable source of knowledge of God's revelation is the result of it having been verified and testified. All prophecies and revelations in the Bible were also subjected to tests. After being verified as true revelations from God, they enjoyed great authority in the same way other noncanonical prophecies did. The point is that these other noncanonical prophecies could, in principle, also be included in the canon. The fact that they were not included does not mean they were second-rate prophecies. Nathan, Elijah and Elisha were great prophets, but their prophecies were not included in the canon. Prophecies from such great prophets would surely not be characterized as second-rate. Their prophecies could, in principle, be included in the canon, had they be written down and preserved. Therefore, given the Cessationist biblical observation of the uniform authority of prophecies, modern prophets would carry the same authority as Jeremiah or Apostle John, even if we did not add their prophecies as new prophetic books to the canon.

This is the fundamental problem for the charismatic continuationist perspective if we grant that the canon of the Bible is closed. This is not a problem for groups or churches that regard the Bible as an open canon, such as Latter-day Saints or Mormons. Mormons are quite consistent with their doctrine that the presence of new revelations and prophecies implies that the canon of the Bible is open. No wonder that they venerate their prophetic books with the same authority as the books of the Bible.

Some Continuationists misconstrue the Cessationist appeal to the closure of the canon as if Cessationists do not acknowledge non-canonical revelations and, then, try to show that the Bible makes clear of the existence of non-canonical revelations. [Don Codling, Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts, pp. 63-70]. However, the Cessationist question regarding non-canonical revelations is about their authority. The Cessationist appeal to the closure of the canon does not imply that Cessationists are blind for the existence of non-canonical revelations. The Cessationist point is rather that new prophecies and revelations would enjoy the same authority as the canonical prophecies and revelations of the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, non-canonical revelations could, in principle, be included in the canon, had they be 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. [As an example of such Cessationist concern, see Richard Gaffin, "A Cessationist response to C. Samuel Storms and Douglas A. Oss," in: Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?, pp. 293-294 (Zondervan, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1996)]

Another continuationist approach is to limit the scope of modern prophecies. A Continuationist might say that prophecies do not provide new doctrinal content. He would maintain that prophecies are more concerned with "edification, and exhortation, and comfort of the Church", cf. 1 Cor 14:3-5, 12. Given the limited scope of the prophecies, modern prophecies do not present an addition to the established canon.

The above continuationist approach is question-begging. "Why limit the Spirit's work?" a Cessationist would ask. Why would modern prophecies be different from the prophecies of ancient times? Edification of the church also involves doctrines of God, and there is no scriptural evidence that the gift of prophecy was so limited in its scope. The Old Testament prophecies are full of doctrinal import, and there is no reason why this would not apply to the New Testament prophecies.

Christ's Church is built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles; no other foundation is allowed.

If we have the gift of prophecy in operation nowadays, then the prophetic foundation is in work today and was not completed by the end of the first century. Therefore, modern prophecies could, in principle, add a new doctrinal content to the Scriptures; new doctrinal elements not necessarily in contradiction with the Scriptures.
[Return to the Content]

2. Sola versus Prima Scriptura

The principle of Sola Scriptura is the principle teaching that the Scripture is the sole infallible authority in the Church. The Scripture presents both the necessary and sufficient infallible authority in all matters pertaining to Christian doctrine and practise. Another formulation of the principle is as follows:

The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the leaders in the Church are subject to correction by the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final and infallible authority in matters of faith and practice.

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 we therefore cannot consistently maintain Sola Scriptura as the only infallible authority for the Church. Rather, we would regard the authority of the Scriptures according to the principle of Prima Scriptura.

The principle of Prima Scriptura is a principle teaching that the Scriptures is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, the principle acknowledges that there are other authoritative guides in the Church, such as tradition, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, etc. Prima Scriptura is unproblematic if one does not understand other guides as infallible. In this weak sense of the term, Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura are not necessarily contradicting each other. However, Prima Scriptura is problematic if understood in a stronger sense of the term. In the strong sense of the term, other authoritative guides are treated as infallible. The strong sense of the Prima Scriptura is problematic for principled Cessationists because it would contradict to Sola Scriptura. A principled Cessationist contends that a Continuationist view subscribes to the strong sense of Prima Scriptura. The crucial question is whether a Continuationist can insist on Prima Scriptura on biblical grounds instead.

Does the Scriptures teach one of these principles? The Continuationist Prima Scriptura is not a coherent principle with respect to the gifts of inspiration and gifts of revelation. The arguments from the force of the prophetic self-declaration, the uniform authority of prophets and the divine origin of true prophecies show that there cannot be a "first" or an "above all" source of divine revelation. Revelation is revelation; they have the same divine infallible source. A teaching that is incoherent cannot be true. Consequently, it cannot be a principle derived from the teachings of the Scriptures. Note also that the three above cessationist principles are taught by the Scripture. Thus, Prima Scriptura, with respect to the charismatic gifts, is implicitly denied by the Scripture.

Does the Bible support the idea of Sola Scriptura? The Scriptures teach us implicitly about the sufficient authority of the Scriptures. 2 Tim 3:16-17 teaches that the Old Testament is inspired by God and is capable of guiding us.

The New Testament teaches us that we shall respect apostolic teachings, either oral or written, cf. 2 Thess 2:15.

In other words, the Bible teaches us implicitly that our only authority is God's revealed word, be it through prophets or apostles. So, if we do not have prophets or apostles any more, it follows that we only have their writings as their authority. Given 2 Tim 3:16-17 and 2 Thess 2:15, both the OT and the NT is our authority. In other words, we have the truth of Sola Scriptura.
[Return to the Content]

F. Criteria of a True Prophet

A Continuationist maintains that the Bible is sufficient for testing truthfulness of prophecies. There are three main reasons why the Bible is not sufficient for the testing purposes.

Continuationists insist that the Bible is a sufficient guide in testing new prophecies.¹⁶ A Cessationist might counter by asking: "How did the early Christians, in the period of the formation of the New Testament, test prophecies given the fact that the churches at that time did not have all the books of the New Testament in their possession?" It is obvious that using the Holy Scriptures was not a sufficient guide, but that other methods of discernment were also employed. Furthermore, did not God give new revelations about the doctrine at that time given the fact that the New Testament was not complete, such as the doctrine of the obsolesce of the Old Ritual Mosaic Law, justification by faith, etc.? Therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that these new revelations were conveyed through prophecies as well. If it were granted that prophecies given in the first century could contain new doctrinal content (which is a very plausible interpretation given all the biblical data in its support), why would not modern prophecies have this as well? Why would the fact that we have the complete Bible of Holy Books be a reason for limiting the scope of modern prophecies? God's sovereign Spirit, who inspired ancient prophets, is the same one that would inspire modern prophets as well, if the gifts had not ceased.

We have to examine what the Bible says about testing the prophets. Let us first begin with Paul's relevant instruction found in 1 Cor. 14:29, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."

The Scriptures command us to test prophecies, cf. 1 Cor 14:29, 1 Thess 5:20, but do they imply that a prophecy can be a mixture of both true and false elements, as Grudem would say?¹⁷ 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. How can a prophet be entitled to declare "and so says the Lord" and utter false statements, as if the Lord were a liar?

According to the Cessationist perspective, we are commanded to test prophets by observing their fruits, and this would involve both their words and actions, cf. 1 John 2:18-19 with 1 John 4:1-6, Matt 7:15-20 with Matt 12:33-37 and Matt 24:23-26. According to 1 John, false prophets could be in the Church trying to deceive the elected. Thus, Paul instructed Corinthian Christians to test the prophets. As White notes,

We have to be clear on the meaning of the word "prophet" and the "gift of prophecy," as it is used in the Bible. A prophecy does not necessarily mean to foretell the future. Nevertheless, a prophecy has a supernatural quality and it is not an ordinary speech. The sign of a prophetic utterance, as a confirmation of its divine origin, was usually to give information such that a prophet could not possibly acquire it in a natural way. The main point with this ministry was that God spoke directly to the Church. The biblical notion is that God speaks directly through such person to edify, to exhort or to teach something of importance to the Church. But edifying, exhortation and admonishing the Church could be done also through simple preaching or teaching by teachers and preachers. So, some distinction existed between edifying the Church through a prophecy and edifying the Church through simple teaching or preaching. What was the distinction? The distinction consisted in the peculiarity of God's speaking. God spoke directly His words through the prophet, while through a teacher/preacher He spoke indirectly.

Therefore, the gift of prophecy has a supernatural element in the virtue of God's direct way to speak with His people through such a gift. God spoke directly through prophets to His people, otherwise it is meaningless for a prophet to declare "and so says the Lord." A prophet gave a direct speech of God, otherwise he was not entitled to announce a prophetic self-declaration in the name of the Lord.

How should we test such a prophet? How did Corinthian Christians understand Paul when he wrote to them "let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge"? They could not use the scriptures for testing purposes because in that time they had not the whole New Testament complete. They had only some gospels and a few other letters by Paul. How could they use the Bible as a sufficient test when the canon of the New Testament was not yet complete? They could not. How could they judge then? The answer is very simple: they judged a prophecy by the supernatural quality of the prophetic utterance. This test was strong and very reliable. If we use this test then many modern prophecies spoken in the name of our Lord would easily be revealed as empty speeches. This test has a biblical basis. The Bible tells us very clearly how we should test prophets.

To repeat our question: "when Paul said to the Corinthians that they should judge prophets (1 Cor 14:29), how would they judge when they had not the whole Bible?" But they surely knew how to test a prophet by their knowledge of Deut. 18. On the basis of Deut. 18, they tested a prophet by observing whether what was said would be fulfilled. Let the Scripture interpret the Scripture. Thus, we cannot apply 1 Cor. 14:29 to mean that we nowadays shall test a prophet only by the Bible. A false prophet can even speak totally consistent with the Bible, but speaking through another spirit. However, prophesying in the name of the Lord about something that will not be fulfilled would expose a prophet who speaks presumptuously in the name of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18 precisely guarantees this.
[Return to the Content]

G. The Purpose of Other Gifts

What about the non-revelatory gifts, such as the gift of tongues and the gifts of power? How would these gifts violate the principle of Sola Scriptura?

We will briefly touch upon the question of other gifts, whether they have also ceased after the completion of the canon. The Gifts of Revelation will not be discussed here because much of what was said about the gift of prophecy is equally valid for the Gifts of Revelation. We will examine the question of other gifts by examining the purpose of these gifts. If their purpose was fulfilled then they have obviously ceased at the fulfillment of their purpose.

1. The Tongues and Interpretation

The tongues and interpretation were closely associated gifts of inspiration. Interpretation has its place only if the tongues are in operation. To repeat the definition of the gift of interpretation from the section dealing with the Gifts of Inspiration.

Thus, we see that interpretation would have ceased if the purpose of the tongues have come to their end.

Why did God give tongues to the early Church and what were those tongues? A person spoke in tongues when the speaker could praise and pray to God in a language the speaker had not previously learned to use. Therefore, this gift was also supernatural, as other gifts mentioned in 1 Cor. 12-14. This sign was very common in the early Church. The important truth about the gift of tongues can be read in 1 Cor. 14:21-23.

In the exposition of 1 Corinthian 14:22 I am greatly indebted to G.-F- Rendal and his book I Speak in Tongues More Than You All. G.-F- Rendal says something interesting in his exposition:

This exposition erases the contradiction and confirms that the sign of tongues was reserved for this people, the Jews, in order to bring them to believe that the Gentiles were grafted into the body of Christ which is the Church. Thus, the gift of tongues had a twofold purpose:

That is why God did not choose another supernatural sign, e.g. the gift of invisibility or tele-transportation, as the common gift among the children of God. Because of the gift of tongues Peter could understand that Cornelius had been accepted by God, even if Cornelius was not a Jew, cf. Acts 10:44-48. Jews could understand, through tongues, that the Gentiles were also saved if they believed in the truth of the Gospel. Both of these purposes had already been fulfilled by the end of the first century. Isaiah 28:11-12 had been fulfilled, since Caiphas, the high priest at the time, did not accept Jesus' messiahship. The Temple was then destroyed in 70 AD. It became an acceptable truth that other nations could be saved in Christ. Gentiles in the beginning did not know this fact, and it was necessary that the first converted Jews understood the truth and to encourage the Gentiles to accept Christ. Nowadays it is a widespread and accepted truth that everyone, no matter nationality, can become a Christian. As early as the first century AD, Christians were established in other countries, outside the boundaries of Israel. Speaking in tongues only made sense where Jews were present because the sign was for them. Recall that it was a Jew who demanded signs but a Greek who sought after wisdom, ("For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom", cf. 1Cor. 1:22.

Given the fact that the twofold purpose of the gift of speaking in tongues was fulfilled at the end of the first century, a principled Cessationist concludes that the gift ceased once its purpose had been realized.

The second reason for the belief that tongues had ceased has to do with the prophetic dimension of tongues. The gift of speaking in tongues and the gift of prophecy belong to the same type of gifts, namely to the Gifts of Inspiration (tongues, prophecy and interpretation). As such, God speaks directly through the speaker. So, in some sense, speaking in tongues are prophecies as well when the gift of interpretation is in operation. Therefore, the gift of speaking in tongues ended at the same time when the gift of prophecy ended. Since prophecies came to its end after the completion of the Bible, we do not have anymore gift of speaking in tongues. Moreover, the whole idea of the Charismatic movement is that God is manifesting His Grace through the gifts of the Spirit in the same way He did in the Apostolic period. Anyway, if some gifts are not present in the Church nowadays, e.g. gift of prophecy, why should we then expect that the gift of speaking in tongues is present at all? The problem is readily seen in the third reason below.

A third reason has to do with the universal manifestation of charismatic gifts. The Churches in the apostolic days had manifested all occurrences of the nine gifts, distributed among many persons in the Church. Every gift was like a member of the body, so every gift was important, for edifying the Church. If gifts did not yet end, then why do not all nine gifts manifest in the local charismatic (Pentecostal) churches? Personally, I have only seen tongues and "prophecies", (gifts that is very easy to fake), but never a person who has the gift of healing. Unless gifts ceased indeed, then every Church should manifest all nine supernatural gifts, as was the case in every apostolic Church in the first century. Even the Church of Corinth had all nine gifts of the Spirit, in spite of the immaturity of many members in the Church. The point is that we should either have all gifts manifested in equal measure, or none at all.
[Return to the Content]

2. The Gifts of Power

According to principled Cessationists, as we have noted in addressing the strong Cessationist perspective, a person with the gift of power is also a prophet. This is because 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.

Miracles and healing were first and foremost signs of apostleship and prophethood and should always be seen in the context of the formation of new doctrines, cf. Acts 2:43, 2 Cor 12:12. God always used miracles and healing to establish a prophet who came with radically new revelations. In the apostolic period of the Church, the Gifts of Power were expected to be made manifest in order to establish new prophecies and revelations in the formation of the doctrines and practices of the Church. The Church in the apostolic period was still young, and the doctrines were not yet fully formed. By the end of the first century, the Church was well established and had a completed canon of Holy Scriptures, and was no more in need of the Gifts of Power.
[Return to the Content]

H. Objections and the Cessationist Presuppositions

An objection against Cessationism, worth mentioning, is that the Bible does not tell that gifts of the Holy Spirit will come to their end before Christ's Second Coming.

It is true that the Bible does not say clearly that prophecies shall end. Even if 1 Cor. 13:8 speaks about the cessation of gifts, it does not say clearly when this will happen. Why does not the Bible tell us more clearly that gifts will end after the death of the last apostle? There are two reasons, assuming that Cessationism is true (here it is quite legitimate to assume that Cessationism is true because the charismatic objection is targeting the coherence of Cessationism, and thus, we have to evaluate it within the framework of Cessationism).

Cessationism presupposes the principle of Sola Scriptura where the body of Holy Scriptures is treated as a closed canon. The next objection addresses exactly this presupposition: why should we accept the principle of Sola Scriptura and the closed canonicity of the Bible?

A Cessationist concedes that the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Bible is treated as a closed canon, cannot be proven in non question-begging terms. It is matter of a choice between, (A) accepting that God still reveals His Holy Will through prophets and (B) insisting only on the sufficiency of the Bible. However, a Cessationist would point out that neither a Continuationist have biblical grounds in denying cessationist presuppositions. The point is that a Continuationist have no clear proof texts for Continuationism. Moreover, a Cessationist contends that it is safer to choose the cessationist alternative (B) than the continuationist (A).

It is much a serious error in accepting new prophecies if the cessationist thesis is true, than rejecting new prophecies if the cessationist thesis is wrong. Given a Cessationist's conviction about the strong authority of prophecies, i.e. their authority is equal to the authority of the Scriptures, a Cessationist is not prepared to accept the authority of modern prophets. A Cessationist, therefore, chooses to reject them in his fear of not degrading the authority of the Scriptures. Now, if the cessationist choice is wrong, then it is not so serious compared to the possibility of choosing wrongly the charismatic alternative, given the fact that many Christians who have prophesied in the name of Jesus will end in Hell. Jesus warns us about multitudes of lost charismatic Christians.

Notice that Jesus talks about a large group of charismatic Christians because it is about people who practice charismatic gifts in the name of Jesus. Among this group is also people who falsely prophesied in the name of the Lord. Prophesying falsely is also a form of iniquity because it breaks the Law of Moses concerning prophethood, i.e. it is a grave sin to speak presumptuously in the name of the Lord. It is interesting that they believed that their prophecies were true, for otherwise why would they appeal to their prophetic ministry ("have we not prophesied in thy name?")? Nevertheless, they were never gifted with the genuine gift of prophecy because they were never saved; Christ's emphatic statement "I never knew you (v. 23)" shows that they never belonged to Christ. Their prophecies and miracles were not a result of the genuine charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, for how is it possible that someone have the gift of prophecy or the gift to perform miracles, but is not saved? Moreover, it is difficult to point out which large group of people satisfies the criteria of Mat 7:22-23, unless we concede that Mat 7:22-23 refers to modern Christian charismatic movement.

A Cessationist would not be lost for doubting new prophets if he lives a righteous life in Christ, respecting His words as revealed in the Scriptures. However, even if we assume that Continuationism is true, gifts cannot guarantee salvation (cf. Mat 7:22-23), while obedience to the Lord's moral teaching, living in His righteousness by walking in His Spirit, guarantees our salvation even if we wrongly insist on the sufficiency of the Bible.
[Return to the Content]

Conclusion

We have seen that charismatic Continuationism is not a viable position if it is committed to the principle of Sola Scriptura, where the Scripture is understood as a closed canon. Charismatic Continuationism is likewise problematic even if the Cessationist presuppositions are denied because the Continuationist presuppositions are not clearly taught by the Bible. We are then confronted with the hermeneutic choice between open canonicity or sufficiency of the closed canon. It has been shown that the Cessationist choice is much more prudent.

Charismatic Continuationism would have been attractive if there were still apostles who manifest the signs of apostleship. If there were such apostles, the open canonicity of Scriptures together with the charismatic continuationist view would be more plausible. It is either all or nothing. Most Charismatics are in between, not totally consistent. Few would say that we have such apostles. So, if the ministry of apostleship has ended, why then insist that we still have prophets in the Church?
[Return to the Content]

ENDNOTES

¹ A. F. Walls, the dictionary entry APOSTLE: New Bible Dictionary, (Intervarsity Press, Second edition, 1982), p. 59. [Back to the text]

² the dictionary entry Apostolos: Kittel's Greek Theological Dictionary [Back to the text]

³ Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, in his exposition of Eph 2.20 [Back to the text]

⁴ Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today [Back to the text]

⁵ Wayne Grudem gives twelve reasons for the distinction in his exposition of Eph 2:20. R. Fowler White's article "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20 - In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis" discusses Grudem's twelve arguments. We do not have much space to dwell on all Grudem' twelve reasons, but are considering only two of these that we deem as worth mentioning. [Back to the text]

⁶ R. Fowler White, "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20 - In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis," part III. 1. "The Semantic Range of the Syntax in Eph 2:20." White's quotation of D. B. Wallace, "The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament," Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983) 59-84, esp. 70-79, 82-83. See also footnotes 20, 22 commenting on Wallace's argumentation. [Back to the text]

¹⁵ Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 70-79, 104-5. See also Carson, Showing the Spirit, 95. M. M. B. Turner, on whom Carson is dependent, writes, "The presupposition [of 1 Cor 14:29] is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff" ("Spiritual Gifts Then and Now," Vox evangelica 15 [1985]:16 [emphasis Turner's]). A similar position is taken by D. Atkinson, Prophecy (Bramcote, England: Grove Books, 1977) 13-14, 16-17. [Back to the text]

¹⁶ Prophecies in question are those uttered in the name of the Lord, but this would also apply for prophecies given in the name of other deities. The Bible would discard such prophecies as false given the fact that the Bible deem any prophecy spoken in the name of other deities as false. [Back to the text]

¹⁷ Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 70-79, 104-5. [Back to the text]