The Argument for Cessationism from Scripture, Reason, and Science

Recently, James White hosted a debate between Michael Brown and Sam Waldron. During that debate two things stood out to me: first, Michael Brown’s view that “this is that” in Peter’s sermon reference to Joel’s prophecy was an allusion to the miraculous and Dr. Waldron’s focus on the meaning and purpose of a closed canon. While I may refer to the latter in this post, much of my time will be spent on the questions raised by Michael Brown’s assertions.

The most basic assertion that Brown made was that Peter’s sermon at Pentecost indicated that the “age of the miraculous” had begun. Having been saved in a Pentecostal church, and having spent nearly 20 years in that movement, I am very familiar with Brown’s argument. Brown equates the outpouring of God’s Spirit on all flesh with miracles, revelations, tongues, and prophecies. In Brown’s view, when Peter said, “this is that” he was saying that the “that” is the miraculous. Why is Brown’s interpretation of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost incorrect? Brown’s interpretation rests on his faulty use of grammar. Let’s look at the text to see if it is possible to understand “this is that” as something other than the signs on display during this phenomenon.

The text in question is Acts 2:16, which says, “This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel.” Is the antecedent of “this” the miraculous language-speaking ability that has accompanied the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost or is it the divine act of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit itself that is being referenced? Since Peter says “this” is the same thing essentially that Joel spoke about, then the “this” must be the same phenomenon predicted by Joel.

The event, according to Joel 2:28-30 which, contains the promise of the Spirit, begins with “I will pour out my Spirit” and it ends with “I will pour out my Spirit.” Between these two bookends, Joel points to some clear signs that God gives us as an indication that He will in fact pour His Spirit out on all flesh in the future. This future age will be known as the last days. The reason this “age” is called “the last days” is because the governing covenant enacted at this time will be the covenant under which humanity will experience the culmination of God’s plan for redemption and for judgment of all humanity. Once this covenant is enacted, there will be no other covenants in human history. The covenant governing this age is the last one, it is the last age, it is the time of the last days.

Now, here is where I think the error resides in Brown’s argument. God may give us a sign that when it happens, we know God is doing something different. He may give us a sign to indicate we have entered a new age. For some reason, Brown seems to think that the signs that accompany this new age must continue until that new age reaches its culmination, and that is simply not the case. God has indeed given us these signs so that we can know that this new age has begun, but it does not necessarily follow that they must continue in order for the new age to continue. God may point to this incident at Pentecost and say, “When you see this, then you know that I have begun a new age in which I will now include all in my covenantal relationship.” There is no necessary relationship between God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh and the continuation of the sign He gave to accompany it at the outset. These signs point to the greater event, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant. What’s more, Brown does not provide us with any compelling exegetical proof that there is a necessary relationship between the gift and the sign of the sign. He just says it is so and thinks this is enough.

If the signs do not continue throughout the age, then how can we know we are living in the age signified by the sign in the first place? In order to know this we must read on. God has graciously given us signs for the beginning of this age and signs for the end of it as well. This way we know when it began and we know when it will end. God did not leave us to guess.

Joel 2:31 clearly indicates that the signs that this age of the new covenant, of God’s Spirit-outpouring on all flesh will culminate with His final judgment. There will be signs in the heaven above, blood, and fire, and columns of smoke. Now this we did not see at Pentecost even though Peter referenced it as part of “this” which was spoken by Joel. Clearly, Peter is not speaking just about the events these Jews are witnessing on Pentecost. It is much broader than that. This comes out in the course of his sermon. If one looks at Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 we see Jesus Himself referring to this very language as He points to the final coming and judgment of the Son of Man.

It seems to me that Brown is simply allowing theological bias to create a necessary relationship between the signs at Pentecost and the new covenant age. Those signs at best show the beginning of the age. The sign that the age is over is not that these signs end, but that the other signs of the great tribulation begin, culminating in divine judgment. There are signals at the enacting of the new covenant and at the culmination of the new covenant. With this understanding in hand, we can clearly see that God is doing something profound. He is no longer only relating to the Jew. He is now in a covenant relationship with the Gentiles as well, those whom He has grafted into the Olive Tree, Jesus Christ. So the promise that Peter mentions in Acts 2 is not the promise of tongues or prophecy or miracles or revelations. It is the promise of being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and being filled with His wonderful presence daily. It is the promise of a new covenant relationship with the Father through the Son by the work of the Spirit. And this promise is to Jews and Gentiles alike without distinction.

As we study the experience of NT believers, another startling fact emerges. Not everyone in the Church experienced these gifts. 1 Cor. 12 informs us that on the one hand, they were distributed according to God’s sovereign plan and on the other hand, not everyone experienced them. In other words, God did not, contrary to Brown’s view, promise the gifts of the Spirit to everyone. Clearly, many did not receive such gifts from the Lord. But Peter tells us in no uncertain terms that God has promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to everyone that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Paul emphatically tells us that not everyone speaks in tongues, not everyone works miracles, not everyone has the gifts of healing. This is critically important to Brown’s argument. If Brown is correct, then Paul is in error. It really is that simple. If Paul is correct, then Brown is in error. It is abundantly clear that Paul believed that Christians must be filled with the Spirit and yet that these same Christians would not necessarily, even in the NT era, speak in tongues or possess these gifts. Brown is simply mistaken to argue that the gift of the Holy Spirit promised to all believers comes with the gift of speaking in tongues.

One final point worth noting is the argument from causative faith. Brown asserted that Jesus words in John 14:12 are actually intended for every single believer. There Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.” On the basis of this and other verses in the NT, Brown, along with nearly all Charismatics contends that every Christian should be able to work miracles and heal the sick. Brown refuses to consider that this text should be understood to be speaking specifically to the disciples present with Christ at this time. If Brown is actually correct, the gifts of miracles and healings are irrelevant. All one needs is faith and they can do everything a miracle worker can do. But Paul contradicts this thinking in 1 Cor. 12 as I mentioned above. So it seems that Paul believed that working miracles and routinely healing the sick required more than just faith in Christ. It required a special gift that is only distributed by the Holy Spirit according to God’s good pleasure.

In addition to this problem, we have the problem of Timothy’s ailment that God did not heal. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus. But undoubtedly Paul had faith. Why didn’t he heal Trophimus? Could it be that the signs were already beginning to dissipate? Could it be because it wasn’t God’s will? If you listen to Brown’s argument, the only viable option is because someone did not have faith. What we have here is a violent and clear contradiction.

The Charismatic argument that Peter had the signs in mind when he said “this” is what Joel spoke about is simply the product of theological bias. Joel had the actual gift of the Holy Spirit, the outpouring itself to which the signs pointed in mind. God graciously gave us a sign to let humanity know that it has entered the very last era of its existence in any temporal, physical sense. The New Covenant has been launched, God is pouring His Spirit out on all flesh, and the next sign we see from God will be the sign of judgment at the culmination of the New Covenant. Pentecost signifies the beginning of the end. There will be no more new works of God in the history of humanity. We are living in the last era of God’s dealings with man.

Finally, no prayer in the NT was ever given with the intent that we could ignore the Lord’s model prayer.And certainly there was never any intent that we could ignore the Lord’s example in Gethsemane. In both of those instances we see Jesus commanding us to always consider God’s will in our prayer and then we see Him actually considering God’s will in His own prayer. Obviously if it were God’s will to heal Timothy, He would have done so. Nothing can thwart God’s will. But this leads us to another very troubling aspect of Charismatic theology that no one is addressing at the moment. The Charismatic believes that God’s will can be thwarted by all sorts of human and even demonic activity. There is a pervasive idea in Charismatic theology that weak faith can thwart God's will for the individual believer's life. But we must save this issue for another time.

We see then from Scripture that there is no promise that the sign gifts of the NT would continue until the return of Christ. To assert that such a promise exists is more the result of theological bias than biblical exegesis. From the standpoint of reason, since no such promise exists, we must conclude that the arguments that depend on such this premise (and they all do) fall short of the standard of soundness. Finally, from a scientific standpoint, we have no empirical evidence that the modern miracles are the same kind of miracles we see in the NT and we also see that modern tongues are not languages, heavenly or otherwise. In fact, there is absolutely nothing miraculous about them. Biblically, logically, and scientifically, there is no good reason for us to accept the modern claim from Charismatics like Michael Brown that the NT gifts are continuing in our day.

Judging by Behavior: A Response to Steve Hays’ Judging by Appearances

Steve Hays is at it again. One of the tactics employed at John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference was the use of several You Tube clips from Pentecostal-Charismatic (PC) worship services. These clips were used to illustrate the bizarre behavior that goes on in the PC churches and events. Steve Hays has taken exception to the clips and titled his response “Judging by Appearances.” Now, first of all, Hays employs his standard debate technique. This technique seeks, from the start, to poison the well. We all know that we are not to judge by appearances and it is easy to understand that such behavior must be avoided. But when Hays describes Strange Fire leadership as Judging by Appearances, he immediately sets a very negative and unfair tone. These tactics are not only unethical, they represent some of the most fallacious arguments on the Web. The shocking thing is that Hays claims to be a conservative reformed kind of guy. Over the last year or so, I am not so sure what kind of guy Hays is. I know that his arguments seem to lack pastor concern, genuine love, and humility, and are quite totally lacking in gentleness and respect for others. I have prompted Hays several times to change his tone to no avail.

Hays Point One

i) One problem is the fallacious extrapolation from examples like that to charismatics in general, much less charismatic theology in general. When MacArthurites use these YouTube clips to discredit charismatic theology in principle, they are encouraging others to draw a blatantly fallacious inference. They need to demonstrate that this behavior is representative of charismatics. They also need to demonstrate that this behavior is a logical outcome of charismatic theology. 

Response

First of all, Hays assumes that these behaviors are not fair representatives of the PC movement in general. I spent years in the movement and was a licensed minister in the Church of God, the movement’s oldest Pentecostal denomination. I can say that while not everyone in the PC movement behaves in this manner during worship, a high percentage do, and, that percentage has grown over the years, and the ones that do not are afraid to criticize it because they are afraid of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The fact is there are very, very few in the PC movement who actually see these behaviors as a problem.

Secondly, if you are open to dreams, visions, and open revelation in general, by what standard could you ever criticize this behavior? If your entire theological system is built off a radically subjective view of open revelation and you believe that you can feel God and the Holy Spirit, how can you criticize the behavior? Have you ever had someone use the argument that we can’t put God in a box? Take a guess who made that foolish argument so incredibly popular today: that is correct, it was the PC movement telling us that God can do whatever He wants because we can’t put God in a box. If Hays cannot understand how PC theology leads logically to this kind of behavior: it is not the fault of poor argumentation on the part of cessationism.

Hays Point Two

ii) It's spiritually hazardous to treat these YouTube clips as an implicit standard of comparison. I'm reminded of obese people who complain that they are one of the few remaining groups it's socially acceptable to make fun of. 

Response

This is one of the silliest analogies I have seen from Hays. It is a perfect exemplar for non-sequiturs if ever there was one. Hays’ tactic is easy to spot even if he thinks it is not. He takes one behavior that is obviously in poor taste and then says the other behavior is the same. The purpose of the PC video clips was not to make fun of anyone. The purpose was to let others see what is really going on in PC worship services and events. Most people who are not PC have no idea that this is the kind of stuff going on in the movement. Moreover, the objective was to show that these behaviors are not out there on the fringe. They are in the mainstream of the movement. Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland and other prominent leaders have led the way. Michael Brown was a tenacious defender of the laughing revival which is still going on. To my knowledge, he has never recanted.

Hays then uses another analogy as if it clarifies his point, but it only serves to introduce more confusion. Hays says, “For instance, I never attended a Mormon service, but I imagine that Mormon services are very staid and respectable. Nothing sensational or embarrassing usually happens. Everyone behaves themselves.” Does Hays really think that PC worship run amok is a mere appearance? If Steve Hays does not understand that these behaviors do not occur in a vacuum, he really should excuse himself from the discussion.

Why do PC people engage in and tolerate these behaviors on the You Tube clips? The answer is very simple: they believe God moves in his church and in His people in precisely this way. They think that their duty as Christians is to focus on God and “enter into His presence, or enter into His Spirit” in order to have the premium worship experience they are supposed to have. They are taught that when they open up and let go and just enter God’s presence that God does things in them that He does not do at other times. They think He heals their marriages, gives them what they need to grow spiritually, and that it will even result in career advancement and material success. This “entering into God’s presence” is common among all those in the PC movement. The enemy of PC worship is often portrayed as rational thought. PC adherents are constantly encouraged not to try and understand God’s moving with your mind. Do not think about what is happening, they are told. Just let go and jump in. Do you feel that urge or tingle? That’s the presence of God. That is the Holy Spirit trying to work on you! Let Him in. Do not quench the Spirit!

Michael Brown states it this way, “What is revival? It is God “stepping down from heaven” and baring His holy arm. He comes and acts and speaks. There is a holy presence and a word on fire. God is in the midst of His people. The Lord is shaking the world. That is revival! It is a time of visitation.” Leaders in the PC movement would say that these clips are people “responding” to the presence of God as He “moves” among His people. If Hays cannot see the theology behind it, that is no fault of the Strange Fire Conference. It is the fault of his own unwillingness to give the conversation the kind of respect and appreciation it deserves. After all, we are talking about the very character and reputation of the Christian religion and even more than that, we are talking about the God of all that is and how He is being represented to an unbelieving world. Finally, we are talking about millions of people who think this is Christianity when it clearly is not!

Hays concludes his criticism saying, “Don't be so quick to judge by appearances. Jesus reminds us that some of the worst sins are sins of the heart.” Thinking he has made his point, he issues a final indictment. The Strange Fire conference is guilty of judging by appearances. Does Hays really think that men of the caliber of Phil Johnson, Steve Lawson, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur would not set out to understand both the theology and practices of the PC movement before putting on a conference like this? Does Hays not realize that John MacArthur is a pastor in the middle of where this movement actually started just over 100 years ago? Is Hays oblivious to the fact that Pastor MacArthur is likely to have encountered more PC people than he himself ever will and that these encounters have resulted in a depth of experience with the movement and its people that uniquely qualifies him to address the errors? Apparently all these facts seem to be missed by Hays as he puts on display his morbid interest in abstract, perpetual debates about one subject after another without the slightest display of genuine concern for the Church or for those who are being harmed by a movement whose theology ranges from small error to heresy to overt blasphemy.

Having spent years in the movement and having served as a licensed minister and pastor in the PC movement, I can speak with authority and credibility on the Strange Fire conference. The conference is exactly correct in its assessments. My journey out of the PC movement was due to my willingness to consider that I was wrong about tongues, about “feeling God,” about how God moves, about open revelation, about prosperity and success being tied to faith in Christ. I admit that I rejected certain aspects earlier on, but my shift out of the movement took several years. I can honestly say that from my perspective, Hays’ comments come from what appears to be a serious lack of experience with the movement and a significant lack of interaction with PC theology at any degree of depth. I hope Hays will reconsider his apparent propensity for intellectual pugilism and his desire for what appears to be a life defined by one debate after another. I am all for standing for truth. But there is a difference between seeking to allow the Word of God to perform its work in us and seeking to win an argument. When we become so obsessed with winning the argument that we forget about the edification of the people involved, and we forget that we must seek to represent our Father well before a dark world, then we become the very darkness against which we fight, blinded by our own insatiable lust for intellectual dominance instead of humbled by the life-transforming truths that we proclaim and defend.