Michael Horton, a reformed theologian who is a cessationist corrects Wayne Grudem another reformed theologian who is a non-cessationist. Michael Horton Refutes Grudem's Continuing Gift of Prophecy in his article Reformed and Charismatic (click to open):
Thanks for the healthy debate and interaction on the previous post. Obviously, those who believe that miraculous prophecy continues after the apostolic age should not be lumped together with radical movements like the New Apostolic Reformation. Nevertheless, it does provide an occasion to think carefully about the compatibility of Reformation theology with Charismatic emphases. This is especially the case when there have been renewed calls for a “Reformed Charismatic” synthesis in our own circles.
I’ve never been willing to die on the hill of cessationism: that is, the belief that the miraculous gifts such as prophecy, healing, and tongues have ceased. I’m still not. Nevertheless, I am convinced that non-cessationism is neither exegetically sound nor historically compatible with Reformed theology. Furthermore, the surprisingly widespread popularity of more radical views of ongoing sign-gifts, coupled with political ambition, pushes me into the unpleasant position of challenging the views even of far sounder brothers with whom I agree on so many important points.
As a Charismatic Calvinist, Wayne Grudem has been used by God to bring the doctrines of grace to many who would likely not have encountered these truths otherwise. I have immense respect for his clear defense of many cardinal doctrines of Christianity. At the same time, the Calvinism-Charismatic bridge goes in both directions and his view of continuing prophecy has contributed to a curious hybrid that in my view cannot survive in the long run. Reformed theology is a system—not one imposed on Scripture, but one that arises from the self-consistent Word of God.
Mark Driscoll, a student of Grudem’s, has recently claimed to have regular visions of the sinful—usually sexual—behavior of people he encounters. “I see things,” he says, although the gift he describes is nowhere exhibited even in the apostolic era. Also posted on his Mars Hill website is a critique of cessationism as “modernistic worldliness,” lumping this view with deism and atheism. “Functional cessationism is really about the mind, but functional charismatic theology is really about the heart.” He concludes with a plea: “…you Reformed guys, especially you who are more Presbyterian, you tend to ignore the Holy Spirit and attribute everything the Spirit does to the gospel.” Sovereign Grace Ministries, led until recently by C. J. Mahaney, has also followed Grudem’s path toward a synthesis of Calvinistic and Charismatic emphases.
There is much to admire in these men and their labors. I am not targeting these friends and brothers, but pleading with them—and with all of us—to rediscover the ordinary means of grace, ordinary ministry, ordinary offices, and to long for a genuine revival: that is, a surprising blessing of God on his ordinary ministry in our day. The false choice between head and heart, the Spirit and the Word, has been a perennial polemic of the radical wing of Protestantism. Mark Driscoll’s plea above reveals that dangerous separation of the Spirit from his Word. Only by assuming such a cleavage can one argue that Reformed theology ignores the Holy Spirit.
We have had enough “apostles,” “prophets,” and “Moses-model” leaders who build ministries around their own gifts. We need to recover the beauty of Christ alone upon his throne as the Priest-King of his church, exercising his ministry by his Spirit through preaching, sacrament, and discipline in mutually accountable communion with the wider body of Christ. Reformed theology is not just the “five points” and “sovereign grace,” but a rich, full, and systematic confession. It’s a human and therefore fallible attempt to wrestle with the whole counsel of God—in both doctrine and practice, soteriology and ecclesiology. Until we rediscover this richness, “Reformed” will mean “whatever my leader or circle believes.”
Of course, the biblical case that must be made cannot be made well in this brief space. However, I’ll focus on the question of whether the gifts of prophet and apostle have ceased. In Ephesians 4:7-16, the apostle says that offices prophets and apostles as well as pastors, teachers, and evangelists are gifts of his heavenly ascension.
Against both Rome and the radical Anabaptists, the Reformers argued that prophet and apostle are extraordinary offices, for a foundation-laying era. They are sent at key moments in redemptive history, and their writings are added to the canon of Scripture. Like the distinction between a nation’s constitution and its courts, the biblical canon is qualitatively distinct from ecclesiastical interpretation. The former is magisterial (normative), while the latter is ministerial (interpretive).
Particularly in the wake of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, this question has divided Christians into two camps: cessationists (believing that the gifts of healing, prophecy, and tongues have ceased) and non-cessationists. Non-cessationists find no exegetical reason to distinguish some of these gifts and offices from others in terms of their perpetuity. However, cessationists hold that the New Testament itself makes a distinction between the foundation-laying era of the apostles and the era of building the church on their completed foundation (1 Cor 3:10-11). Although the New Testament establishes the offices of pastors/teachers, elders, and deacons, it does not establish perpetual prophetic or apostolic offices with their attendant sign-gifts. With this in mind, we must examine each gift in question.
Paul treats prophecy (prophēteia) as preaching, which although illumined by the Spirit is (unlike the scriptures) un-inspired and therefore must be tested (1 Cor 12:29; 1 Thes 5:19-21).
Like the temporary prophesying of the elders in Moses’ day, the extraordinary gifts of signs and wonders are given to validate the sacred ministry of human ambassadors. Once that ministry is validated, it no longer requires further confirmation. (For an excellent treatment of this topic, see Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost (P & R, 1979), especially 94-95, in relation to Wayne Grudem’s contention that “prophets and apostles” in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 refer to the same group.) It would seem, then, that the gift of prophets and apostles (along with the gifts of miracles, prophecy, and tongues) was given but fulfilled its foundation-laying function. Just as Paul’s understudy Timothy is an ordinary minister, we find no evidence that his ministry was attended by extraordinary signs and wonders.
Some theologians, such as Wayne Grudem, recognize that the office of apostle has ceased, but are “unsure if this question” of the cessation of spiritual gifts “can be decided from Scripture.” [This and following Gruden quotes from his Systematic Theology, 906-912, 1031; cf. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament Today (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 226-252.]
However, I do not find Grudem’s case for continuing prophecy persuasive. He clearly distinguishes prophecy today from the prophecy that delivered the sacred oracles of Holy Scripture. This is both the strength and the weakness of his position. Grudem believes that the kind of prophecy that is ongoing in the church is distinguished from preaching and teaching by being “a spontaneous ‘revelation’ from God….” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1058):
So the distinction is quite clear: if a message is the result of conscious reflection on the text of Scripture, containing interpretation of the text and application to life, then it is (in New Testament terms) a teaching. But if a message is the report of something God brings suddenly to mind, then it is a prophecy. (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1058).
In my view, this interpretation introduces a definition of prophecy that is not consistent with its practice in the apostolic church. Nowhere is prophecy distinguished by its spontaneous quality. Furthermore, in spite of his salutary caution against raising such prophecies to the level of Scripture, this interpretation still raises the question as to whether the Spirit issues new revelations that are not already communicated in Scripture. If prophecy is defined simply as Spirit-given insight into Scripture, then is this not synonymous with preaching?
In Part Two, I want to further develop the differences between non-cessationism and cessationism by discussing temporary sign gifts and permanent service gifts.
Spiritual gifts fall into two areas: Temporary sign gifts and permanent service gifts
Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:22 states that the Jews require a sign. There have been three periods in the history of Israel when there have been sign gifts performed because Israel refused to believe God’s messengers and their God-given message:
1. Moses and Joshua (Exodus 4:1-9)
2. Elijah and Elisah (1Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37)
3. Christ and the Apostles (Matthew 8:1-18; 10:8; 12:22-32; 2 Corinthians 12:12). Just as sign gifts did not follow Moses and Joshua and Elijah and Elisha eras, sign gifts did not follow Christ and the Apostles because, in the last era, the canon of Scripture was completed.
The phrase “that which is perfect is come” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 is a reference to the completion of the canon of Scripture. The context proves that “perfect” means the completion of the canon and not the return of Christ. Paul was regulating the sign gifts until they ceased in 1 Corinthians 14.
In verse nine Paul said that the sign gifts through which God revealed knowledge were still in effect because revelation was incomplete: “for we know in part and we prophesy in part.” But in verse 10, Paul referred to the completed canon when revelation would no longer be incomplete: “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”
Also, the word “perfect” (Greek teleiov) is a neuter noun. If perfect were referring to Christ the noun would have been masculine.
Teleiov has a wide semantic range in meaning. One of the common meanings of teleiov which fits this context well is “complete” as in Hebrew 5:9. Christ was made complete in His incarnation to be our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. When the canon was complete, the sign gifts were no longer necessary as a means of revelation.
Now for the explanation of specific sign gifts not operative today
1. The gift of apostleship was foundational for the early church (Eph. 2:20; 2 Cor. 12:12) but not needed today. Through the preaching and writing of the apostles, we have the Scriptures. To be an apostle one had to have seen the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1) which is no longer possible after the ascension of Christ.
2. The gift of prophecy was a gift of the first century when God was giving revelation which included the mystery of the Church (Eph. 3:5). In 1 Corinthians 13:10 this gift ceased with the canonization of Scripture as explained before.
3. The gift of miracles was performed by the official apostles who witnessed Christ in His resurrection body and that office is no longer in existence as argued earlier. In Mark 16:17-20, after the ascension, the apostles went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with miraculous signs following.” But in Hebrews 2:3-4 the author stated the confirmation of the apostles with the gift of miracles was past.
4. The gift of healing is no longer operative today because this gift also was an apostolic sign gift which has ceased like the other apostolic sign gifts. The apostolic gift of healing included the ability to raise the dead (Acts 9:36-43; 20:6-12). The dead are not being raised today by faith healers who claim to possess the gift of healing.
5. The gift of tongues. Paul declared that “whether there be tongues, they shall cease.” As argued before the Jews require a sign. God is temporarily no longer dealing with the Jews as a nation according to Romans 13:11-18 and therefore signs are not necessary today. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul was only regulating the legitimate gift of tongues until that gift ceased with the passing of the official apostles and the canonization of Scripture which church history confirms as happening.
Non-cessationists (or continualists) believe the sign gifts (tongues, healing, and prophecy) are still active today. Examples of non-cessationists are Wayne Grudem, Sam Storm, John Piper, John Wimber, and Jack Deere. This is the position that Michael Horton refuted.
Cessationists teach that the sign gifts were foundational to the new people of God, the church, and were temporary until the passing of the apostles. Advocates of cessationism are John MacArthur, Michael Horton, Robert Thomas, and Daniel Wallace.
“Hard” and “Soft” Cessationism
I (Dr. White) would add that this debate over the gift of prophecy is not only divided into the two camps of cessationism and non-cessationism but has further divided cessationism into two camps of “hard” and “soft” cessationism. Daniel Wallace distinguishes between “hard” and “soft” cessationism.
“Soft” or concentric cessationists believe the sign gifts may be operative when the gospel is presented for example, for the first time in third-world countries. As the gospel moved out from the first century, “like the rippling effect of a stone dropping into a pond, in a space-time expanding circle away from first century Jerusalem, the sign gifts will still exist on the cutting edge of that circle.” This view is also known as the “open-but-cautious” belief held by Robert Saucy and D. A. Carson. Soft cessationists would be more skeptical of sign gifts in ‘worked over’ areas as here in the States.
“Hard” or linear cessationists would take “a chronological approach that the sign gifts” ceased at the end of the first century. Wallace stated: “I take a hard line. What I affirm about the Holy Spirit’s ministry today should not be perceived as being generated from a closet charismatic.”
Michael Horton states that non-cessationism is neither exegetically sound nor historically compatible with Reformed theology (White Horse Inn.org). Horton warns against the call for a Reformed Charismatic synthesis in his circles. Daniel Wallace in a lecture at the Evangelical Theological Society’s regional meeting in 1994 identified himself as a hard cessationist in his article The Uneasy Conscious of a non-Charistmaic evangelical (click to open).
Kevin Bauder reminds us that The Third Wave was marked by theological change. Leaders such as John Wimber and C. Peter Wagner no longer grounded healing in the atonement or tongues in Spirit baptism. Instead, they shifted the doctrinal basis for miraculous gifts toward inaugurated eschatology. On their view, the presence of the kingdom required the presence of kingdom authority, which was manifested especially through power encounters (healings, exorcisms, and even resurrections).
The same arguments against non-cessationism, that the sign gifts were foundational and temporary, must be used against soft cessationism. If sign gifts are operative even in remote parts of the world, then sign gifts are still valid today which include healings, exorcisms, and raising the dead.