Answering the Cessationists’ Case against Continuing Spiritual Gifts, by Jon Ruthven

We turn now to probably the most prominent biblical argument used by cessationists today.

2. “Ephesians 2:20 shows that the ‘foundational gifts’ of apostle and prophet have ceased.”

The argument by analogy based on the metaphor of apostles and prophets as foundational to the church (Eph. 2.20 and 3.5) does not support the cessation of “miraculous” spiritual gifts. Some cessationists have approached Eph. 2.20 as the authoritative flow chart of the universal church. The apostles and prophets serve as a “foundation” in the sense that they collectively represent a kind of oral “interim New Testament,” their gifts and functions being extinguished when normative doctrine is set down in writing within the first generation or two of the church.¹³ Generally, this argument is framed against the mindset of Reformation‑era polemics and Enlightenment rationalism, with unexamined premises about Popes, apostolic succession and authority, miracles, “ordinary and extraordinary” spiritual gifts, and even the essential nature of the gospel itself. There are at least four premises in this argument.

1. The metaphor of “foundation,” to support cessationism, requires that the distinctive function of apostles and prophets is to establish the parameters of church doctrine, particularly as it appears in the New Testament. Hence, when their collective function is complete, the gifts of apostleship and prophecy necessarily pass from the scene.

Recent advocates of cessationism are sensitive to charges that this argument is anachronistic, that it reads much later theological ideas back into the New Testament. They also recognize that it is unlikely that the “foundational” apostles and prophets involved were at all aware of their role as an interim New Testament. Nevertheless, the argument remains essentially unaltered: these “foundational” gifts are strictly limited to this brief, transitional function.

The problem with this view is that not only does the New Testament nowhere explicitly state that this is the only role for apostles and prophets, it does not even state that this is one of their roles. In Ephesians, the explicit roles given for apostles and prophets are that they are to work in concert with evangelists, pastors and teachers in equipping the saints until ultimate unity and Christian maturity is achieved in all. If the duration of the gifts is necessarily connected with their function, as these cessationists argue, then clearly the task of apostles and prophets is not complete until every single member of the church reaches the same level of Christian maturity as Christ himself (Eph. 4.13). Most cessationists would agree with St. Paul (Phil. 3.12) who does not have the audacity to make the claim that he has attained that level. Certainly we have not yet reached “unity of the faith” even on the issue of cessationism. To claim that the only function of apostles and prophets in the New Testament is to formulate doctrine for inclusion in the Bible is in itself unbiblical. But if there are other roles for them, then the “foundational” argument fails.

2. If the charismata were only for “foundational” purposes, then the apostles and prophets were Protestant Popes. That is, they served as the unique receivers and articulators of Christian revela­tion, a role that no one may subsequently share. However, it can be argued that the New Testament sees these gifts as first and definitive, but certainly not un-repeatable.

These “foundational gifts” actually serve as prototypes, or as role models for others to follow. It is true that the original experience of Christ’s revelation is “epochal,” or “pioneering.” It is also true that these experiences are offered as a model for others to follow. Just as Lindberg’s crossing of the Atlantic was “foundational” or “epochal” it was so only because other similar flights followed; Lindberg opened a new era of a repeatable action.

Tags: answering, case, cessationists, continuing, gifts, spiritual

Category: Pneuma Review, Spirit, Spring 2000