On Cessationism

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

On Cessationism

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

We need changed hearts, not miracles. (Wahshing)
Re:

Why many kept calling myJesus,a false healer,today?
Re:

It's time to come back from "Experience" to Scriptures! (Christopher Yip)
Re:

All those queries and distortions were refuted long ago!Here's more.
Re:

"Refuted"? You mean "rancour", don't you? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

I oblige You. (FrankieLee)
Re:

And I am STILL waiting ... (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Please be open and I assume you are reasonable.1. (FrankieLee)
Re:

But unfortunately, you are not. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Superficial or deep,at a glance? (FrankieLee)
Re:

Frank and Chris, pls read, thankyou (Emmanuel)
Re:

Nope. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Hi Chris, I have a question for people who cessationists (Royston Ong)
Date: 2001, Sep 06
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Hi Royston,
YOU: His reply to me, he is Charismatic Methodist like me, says that cessationists basically do not believe in the powers of the Holy Spirit moving in this day and age, which is why they do not hold onto the opinion that there is healing, prophecy, tongues. Which is also why they call themselves cessationist, meaning Ceased in the root word. Is it true?
ME: Obviously not. Those people are not cessationists, they are non-Christians.
YOU: I need your help here to see where most cessationists come from, and in so debating this issue, I think we might all be able to see more clearly from the view of people who are cessationists.
ME: That's a very positive attitude and I congratulate you on this. Non-cessationists never bother to interact with what cessationists actually say. They prefer their own straw man which is much easier to blow away. Keep up that positive attitude.
Daniel Wallace is a cessationist and the following article is clear and easy to understand. Here's the introduction:
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/continu.htm
"On any given day of the week, Christians can be found debating with one another over the "sign gifts"--that is, the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy, miracles, and healings. The debates center on a simple issue: Are they for today or not? There is no debate about whether these gifts were a part of the first-century Church. That part is assumed by all who embrace the Bible as the Word of God. Rather, the debate is whether these gifts have continued or have ceased. There is no debate that certain spiritual gifts have continued to today, such as teaching, mercy, administration, service, etc. But whether the more overtly supernatural gifts continued is a different matter. Again, the issue is not whether God is still powerful enough to work such miracles. Rather, the issue is whether he does so through individuals as special emissaries of his power. There is no debate over God's power, or even miracles. All true Christians know that miracles happen every day: every time a person places his trust in Christ the greatest miracle oc-curs, because that person's eternal destiny has just done a 180. The Spirit of God has broken through the shackles of sin and freed that person to see Jesus as he really is. That person is born again, receives a new nature, is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, and has begun a journey of prog-ress toward becoming like Christ. What greater miracle is there than that? Further, Christians know that God still performs lesser miracles, such as miracles of healing, or any number of an-swered prayers. The issue of whether the sign gifts continue or not, then, has nothing to do with God's power per se. But it has everything to do with the purpose of the sign gifts.
Continuity Vs. Discontinuity
This is more than fodder for an academic dialogue. To be sure, some theological issues are of that ilk. But not this one. If one Christian says that all tongues are of the devil and an-other says that you can't be saved unless you speak in tongues, these two obviously will not have the richest fellowship. Each one will look at the other as still unregenerate. But even less ex-treme views can produce some distancing. If one person says that tongues is not of God (what-ever its source), and another says that it is of God, then the first will view the second person's spirituality as having some illegitimate elements to it, while the second will see the first as not letting God work in his life. In coming essays I will try to deal with these very pragmatic issues. (They are especially pragmatic when husband and wife, both Christians, have differing views.) But for now, I wish simply to explore one issue: the argument from continuity vs. discontinuity. I write this knowing full well that many Christians will get angered at what I am saying. I plead with you to listen and dialogue. We can only grow if we are charitable toward one another and submit to the Word of God as our final authority.
Those who argue that the sign gifts are for today generally hold to the argument from continuity. (They are called non-cessationists; within this group are charismatics and Pentecostals.) This argument essentially says that the sign gifts of the twentieth century are simply the sign gifts of the first century, that they have continued from day one unabated until today. Part of the argument derives its theology from the book of Acts, part of it from the New Testament as a whole. The sign gifts are everywhere, it is claimed. That is normative Christianity. And to the extent that we today are not experiencing these gifts, to that extent we are not experiencing the richness of the Spirit and the spiritual life that God intends for us to have.
There are others who argue that, with reference to these gifts, there is greater discontinu-ity than continuity. (They are called cessationists or non-charismatics.) Part and parcel of this argument is the nature and purpose of these gifts. This view claims that these gifts were essen-tially poured out on select individuals for the purpose of authenticating that God was doing something new. Surely the coming of Christ and the doing away with the Law and the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles into the spiritual community was radical stuff. When Jesus cleansed the temple and when he taught, his religious opponents wanted a sign. They knew that he was challenging the status quo. He had better back up his message with some miracles. So he gave them one big miracle: his own resurrection. End of discussion. Something new was afoot in Is-rael. God authenticated his message by raising him from the dead. Jesus invested supernatural authority in his own apostles (Matt 28:16-20) to bring this good news to the world. These apos-tles and certain others in the early church had a measure of some of these gifts. Whether they represent all Christians of all time or whether theirs was a special time and a special gift is the question.
I belong to the latter group. That is, I believe in a sufficient amount of discontinuity to warrant speaking of the sign gifts as having ceased. I will argue, in fact, that every true Christian has to belong to this latter category to some degree. I will offer two theses below, followed by several specific arguments backing them up."
You should also see how a cessationist struggles with healing within a framework of cessationism when it comes to his loved ones. There is no need to give up cessationism.
Daniel Wallace: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/estsw.htm
John MacArthur: see the chapter from "Charismatic Chaos" I posted.
Unfortunately, Frank has been arguing as if cessationists do not believe in miracles and miraculous healing anymore today. He simply cannot see nor appreciate the difference. On rare occasions he gets a flash of insight into what cessationists believe but very soon, he falls back into the same argument: cessationists do not believe God can perform miracles and healings today.
I hope you do not fall into the same pit. No cessationist can remain a Christian if he thinks his God can no longer perform miracles or healings today. And cessationists do not think this. "Rather, the issue is whether he does so through individuals as special emissaries of his power. There is no debate over God's power, or even miracles" (Wallace).
And since such a claim requires investigation into such so-called faith-healers, folks like Kathryn Kuhlman, Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, et al's ministries have to be scrutinised. If their "healing" ministries are found to be fraudulent and unbiblical, then those who are still alive ought to repent. But dead or alive, our aim is not to vilify the individual but to simply point out error where they occur. I believe both MacArthur and Nolen did not vilify Kathryn Kuhlman. In fact, I believe the two did not speak ill of Kuhlman or anyone.
Be careful of those who paint cessationists as witch-hunters or grave-diggers out to tarnish the "good name" of these "saints".
Wallace has spelt out the key difference between the two positions. Burn them into your memory and you will have a very beneficial biblical exchange with cessationists.
Regards, Christopher