Cessationism Versus Continuationism: Why The Pentecostal/Charismatic Attack On Reformed and Protestant Theology Fails

By Charlie J. Ray

As you may have noticed in my biographical sketch, I spent ten years or so within the Pentecostal/Charismatic camp and was a solid Arminian. However, over the years I began to feel manipulated and coerced, and any legitimate questions I had about the reality of so-called miracles and gifts, which were being claimed through stories and anecdotes, were either ignored or reprimanded by practically everyone in the movement from the top to the lowliest person in the pews. The short of it is that within the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement honest questioning of the theology, practices and "gifts" is discouraged, and anyone who dares to raise such questions is immediately shunned or "counseled" so that the "body" is not harmed.

While Pentecostals and Charismatics are advocating what they would call "power evangelism," made popular by the now deceased John Wimber of the Vineyard movement, I would contend that "power evangelism" and the signs and wonders movement actually undermines evangelism and the biblical accounts of miracles which took place in the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. If the poor quality of today's miracles and signs and wonders are the same sorts of signs and wonders recorded in the Bible, then we would have to question the resurrection, divine healing, and other biblical miracles, including the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in the coming of Jesus Christ. In fact, what we see today in the charismatic movement is a poor imitation of the genuine supernatural miracles recorded in Holy Scripture. I can say this with confidence because few if any miraculous healings performed by Pentecostal/Charismatic ministers either on the local level or on national television can be documented or substantiated. The vast majority of such miracles are either outright false or only partially true due to "evangelistic" exaggeration, as noted by Roger E. Olson, who is also a former Pentecostal and familiar with the practices of the movement. Olson comments:

"Still another aspect of Pentecostalism's dark side is its tendency to condone dishonesty on the part of influential and popular evangelists and ministers. One day I was browsing through the books at a publishers' overstock sale and came across the autobiography of a Pentecostal evangelist who held tent revival meetings in the small Midwestern city where I grew up. I remembered his rather farfetched sermon illustrations of miraculous occurrences in his life and ministry. The book contained a chapter on a miracle that supposedly happened during his revival in our town."

"When I read his account of the incident I was shocked but not surprised; I had encountered enough similar evangelistic stretchings of truth to know they are rampant in revivalist and perhaps especially in Pentecostal circles. According to the evangelist, a high wind caused by a tornado reduced buildings around his revival tent to rubble but left his tent undamaged. He even claimed that local television crews filmed the aftermath of the storm and his intact tent."

"What I vividly recall is a windstorm that sent men from our church to the tent in the middle of the night; they held it down as the winds whipped its sides. But no tornado touched down near it and no buildings around it were destroyed. I would have remembered if they had been. That evangelist is probably still traveling around telling his tall tales and whipping up fervor and offerings. Denominational leaders to whom he is accountable need to challenge his exaggerations and insist on honesty."

"To the best of my knowledge they have not done so. Playing fast and loose with truth is rampant in Pentecostal circles, and is excused and even joked about as "speaking evangelistically. " Numbers are inflated and stories of exaggerated if not invented. To be sure, many Pentecostal ministers are honest and truthful. One thinks of noted Full Gospel pastor, speaker and writer Jack Hayford, who was labeled "The Pentecostal Gold Standard" by Christianity Today. Would that all Pentecostal ministers were as squeaky clean and honest as Hayford. The movement's leaders could do more to ensure that."

"As a former insider, I know that Pentecostal leaders reading this article are defensively bristling at what they know is true about their movement. Telling it publicly either inside the movement or to outsiders is considered traitorous behavior. As one denominational leader told me, 'If you see a problem among the leaders you should pray to God about it and keep it to yourself; you have no business challenging them or making it public.' This is a common attitude among Pentecostals."

"A favorite Pentecostal saying is 'Touch not God's anointed' (a paraphrase of Psalm 105:15). The saying is meant to forbid criticism of the movement's leaders. When I was a boy the worst label my parents and Pentecostal relatives could put on a person within the movement was "critical" or "negative." Too often Full Gospel leaders insist on total, abject loyalty and uncritical acceptance of whatever they say. Too many Pentecostal organizations lack any structure for safe criticism of dysfunctional behavior, aberrant teaching or abusive practices on the part of leaders and powerful ministers." (From "The Dark Side of Pentecostalism," in The Christian Century).

I share the same experience with Olson concerning the Pentecostal movement. Any time I dared to ask questions about miracles or theology of individuals or ministries, I was immediately either ignored or brushed aside. Where is the accountability factor when testing the veracity of anecdotal claims to resurrections from the dead, missing limbs growing back, lost eyes being miraculously regenerated, deaf mutes who can now hear, etc.? None of these categories of anecdotal stories to my knowledge have been documented or verified to the satisfaction of both unbelieving and believing observers and critics. And this is precisely the problem with such anecdotal claims for miracles and healings. They are, for all practical purposes, unverifiable and therefore unfalsifiable as well. This puts such "miracles" beyond the purview of logical and reasonable examination and questioning.

While some Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars and leaders are attempting to bring a more biblical balance to the out of hand theology and practices of the movement in general, such attempts wind up failing to impress the Evangelical side. The most notable of such attempts is made by Wayne Grudem and John Piper, representatives of the Reformed side of the Charismatic movement. Grudem in particular is an articulate defender of the charismatic gifts for today and has written a definitive book on the subject of prophecy, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, (Wheaton: Good News, 2000, revised edition). Be that as it may, Grudem's attempt to show that prophecy is fallible and subject to Scriptural review and judgment essentially makes "prophecy" more "natural" than supernatural. In fact, Grudem's recommendation that Pentecostals and Charismatics stop prefacing their prophecies and interpretations of "prophetic" utterances in glossolalia with, "Thus saith the Lord...," and instead say, "This is what I believe the Lord is saying...." reveals the distinction between a truly apostolic declaration/revelation, as Grudem himself admits, and something that is lesser and subject to human fallibility. The short of it is that this sort of "prophecy" could be accepted by anyone and even preaching could be considered "prophecy" by this view. It does not require any sort of "supernatural" or "miraculous" gift but instead could be attributed to natural talents or gifts that are then utilized for ministry through the Spirit.

Moreover, Grudem and other more balanced charismatics even acknowledge that the vast majority of Evangelicals he knows are "open and seeking" such experiences yet have never experienced any miraculous events. In fact, Grudem wishes to redefine regular Evangelical descriptions of divine leading as "prophecy":

"That’s a hard first question because there is no one answer that fits every church. I am in a church, Scottsdale Bible Church in Arizona, that has about 7,000 people in it. I suppose its position would be “open but cautious.” Its heritage would be more from Dallas Seminary and Calvin Seminary and Bible Church background which has traditionally been more cessationist. In fact, in people’s actual prayer lives as well as in the personal conversation of the pastor in the pulpit to the congregation, people talk about the Lord leading them and guiding them in specific ways. Sometimes in ways it sounds very much like the gift of prophecy to me, but they don’t call it prophecy. They call it prompting or leading. I am thankful for all of that and I am very comfortable being in a home fellowship group where people pray and are willing to say how they think the Lord is leading them and guiding them as they pray and what He brings to their minds. And they don’t call it prophecy. But I’m thinking, 'That sure looks like prophecy to me!'" (From Continuationism).

Well, I'm thinking that it sure looks like Grudem is grabbing for straws to find the supernatural everywhere he looks. To lower the actual miracles to common everyday judgment calls and redefining that as "prophecy" does not serve to reinforce the scriptural accounts of prophecy, rather it denigrates and lowers the biblical standard to something that is actually naturalistic. Confusing the natural with the supernatural is inexcusable in my opinion.

Even more telling, at least from my perspective, is Grudem's admission that virtually none of the Evangelicals with the "open and seeking" position have indeed experienced a divine healing or miracle:

"I encounter students and pastors all the time who say 'I’m not persuaded by the cessationist arguments from Scripture but I’ve never seen any of these miraculous things in my life.' That is the most common comment that I hear about these things from people who are in mainstream Evangelical positions. And over the years as I’ve taught not only here at Phoenix Seminary but at other seminaries - adjunct at other seminaries - by far the most common view expressed among seminary graduates is open but cautious. They say 'I’m not convinced by the cessationist arguments but I really don’t know how to put these things into practice in my own church and I’ve never seen them happen.' Tim, the cessationist argument is not winning the day in terms of exegetical arguments or persuasiveness in the books published. I think it’s appealing to a smaller and smaller group of people." (From Continuationism).

While I might agree that some of the exegetical arguments supporting the cessationist view fail, I cannot agree that the continuationist arguments are any more successful. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is silent on the issue of both cessationism AND continuationism. It is only by an extremely biased reading of the New Testament texts can anyone justify the arguments for ongoing charismatic and miraculous gifts today. Furthermore, an appeal to sheer numbers is a logical fallacy. The book of Isaiah and the epistle to the Romans both make clear that God has a faithful remnant while the majority often goes astray. Be that as it may, I seriously doubt the accuracy of Grudem's assessment that the cessationist position is losing ground.

Furthermore, Grudem tacitly admits that there is a difference between the quality of the apostolic miracles recorded in Scripture and the "fallible" gift of prophecy being practiced today. After having spent over ten years in the charismatic movement and having practiced most of the "charismatic gifts" personally, I am convinced that Charismatics and Pentecostals are merely playing church. Essentially, they are trying to reproduce biblical miracles by emphasizing human manipulation of the "gifts" and human control over the operation of the gifts. The short of it is that the Arminian and Wesleyan emphasis on human cooperation and synergy takes precedence over a truly supernatural, monergistic act of God. I would contend that any so-called "Reformed" charismatic theology is a contradiction in terms and an oxymoron. A thoroughly monergistic view of the supernatural operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit would say that the Spirit comes and goes as He pleases (see John 3:8; Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:11; Philippians 2:13) and not at the discretion of mouthy human beings who think God is at their disposal to perform miracles at their command.

A further illustration of the problem of exaggerated stories of healings and miracles comes from the recent revival services of Todd Bentley, the Canadian evangelist, in Lakeland, Florida. As is typical of Pentecostal/Charismatic miracle claims, not one of the evangelist's "miracles" could be confirmed:

"When asked to present evidence of the healings, Bentley promised to give 'Nightline' the names and medical records of three followers who would talk openly about his miracles. He never delivered. Instead, his staff gave 'Nightline' a binder filled with what he says are inspiring miracles, but with scant hard evidence. It offered incomplete contact information, a few pages of incomplete medical records, and the doctors' names were crossed out."

"When pressed further, Bentley provided the name of a woman in California who had a large tumor in her uterus that shrank after she saw Bentley. Her husband, however, told 'Nightline' that it could be a coincidence because she was still undergoing medical treatment. He said she was too tired to talk to us at the time but added that she was regaining her strength day by day.

The husband did provide some of his wife's medical records from a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, where she went for cancer treatment after being turned away by American hospitals. They, however, insisted on obscuring the clinic's name and the names of the doctors."

"Not a single claim of Bentley's healing powers could be independently verified."

"Bentley, however, remains positive. 'I believe God is real and he's showing himself to his people,' he said. 'Yes, I believe the prayer of faith will save the sick.'" (From ABC's Nightline).

This is typical evasion by Pentecostals and Charismatics. When pressed for facts and documentation even the most credible of their leaders usually cannot produce. Admittedly, Todd Bentley is one of the fringe Charismatics but he is making huge profits at the expense of those who are in need of a true miracle, not a cheap imitation.

Sadly, most of the scholars of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement make appeals to these sorts of ongoing "miracles" as proof that their continuationist exegesis of Scripture is confirmed in experience, which could not be further from the truth. Even more telling is that their attacks on the cessationist view of apostolic signs, wonders and miracles is based on an argument from silence.

When we examine the Bible we see many accounts of signs, wonders and miracles by Jesus and the apostles to confirm the Gospel message and the new covenant that God introduced at the birth of the Christian movement. However, there is not one verse that even comes close to saying that the charismatic gifts and the apostolic office accompanied by the power to perform signs, wonders and miracles would continue uninterrupted for an indefinite amount of time. The typical Pentecostal/Charismatic defense of this view actually centers on one particular passage from First Corinthians:

"8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:8-12, ESV).

While we must acknowledge that the apostolic office and apostolic miracles were still in operation in the time of Paul, it does not follow that Paul intended for all of his statements to be taken as universally applicable for all times and places. Even Pentecostal and Charismatics will acknowledge this fact when it comes to culturally conditioned statements made by Paul concerning food offered to idols, long hair by men, shaving women's heads, and women praying without their heads being covered. (See 1 Cor. 8:1ff; 1 Cor. 11:2-16). Moreover, the entire epistle of First Corinthians is dedicated to dealing with problems in the churches in Corinth. Based on chapter 4, one could reasonably determine that chapters 13 and 14 are not meant to defend the exercise of spiritual gifts but rather to correct the tendency of the Corinthians to follow the lead of the "super" apostles who were placing more emphasis on miracles and the supernatural than upon the Gospel itself. When this occurs it naturally turns the Christian faith into something more like magic or gnosticism.

In chapter 13, Paul is not saying that the gifts would not pass away. The emphasis of the chapter is to correct the arrogant attitude of those who are acting without love! They think they are so spiritual. They operate out of the natural man to try to reproduce the supernatural and fail miserably. 1 Corinthians 14 likewise emphasizes preaching and not some "naturalistic" and "fallible" view of prophecy as indicated by Grudem's theology in his book on prophecy in the New Testament. It seems more natural to see that 1 Corinthians 14's view of tongues and interpretation is dealing with speaking foreign human languages with an appropriate translation and not some supernatural language unknown to man. This is precisely why Paul emphasizes speaking with the mind and not in the language of angels, i.e. gibberish. It is only by an extremely convoluted exegesis can anyone justify speaking in "unknown" tongues from Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 14. In fact, when Paul says, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues," I believe he is in fact referring to foreign human languages and not glossolalia or unknown tongues. Paul is not encouraging speaking in glossolalia in the first part of the chapter, rather he is making a concession to the fanatics that if they must speak in gibberish, they should do it in their closets! Speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers because God sent conquering nations to take Israel captive. Therefore, it is not something Paul is encouraging! Those who refuse to believe God are the ones perpetuating this sort of fanatical and irrelevant theology. For Paul the priority is preaching the Gospel and this is confirmed several times over in 1 Corinthians. (See 1 Cor. 1:18-30; 1 Cor. 14:13-14). When Paul seems to be encouraging speaking in unknown tongues, he is speaking with irony because he is in fact encouraging just the opposite. It could be reasonably argued that Paul wishes to deal with the issue from an oblique angle rather than directly so that his corrections will be more easily accepted. For Paul, prophesying is practically identical with preaching.

Finally, 1 Corinthians 13 is not saying that the gifts would continue until Christ returned or until the New Testament canon would be closed. The chapter neither confirms continuationism nor cessationism since that is not the purpose or intent of Paul's comments. Rather, Paul is dealing with arrogance and a lack of love and emphasizes that love is what will endure forever, not spiritual pride! In fact, I would argue that Paul is saying that love is that which is perfect and when the perfect is come, these other "immature" imitations and partial views will pass away as unnecessary. Again, the argument Paul is making is against spiritual pride and immaturity.

That being said, it is obvious to all that the qualifications for the office of apostle can be met by no one today since there are no living witnesses to Christ's ministry and resurrection.  (Acts 1:21-26).  And even charismatics like Grudem admit this. He also admits that his view of the operation of spiritual gifts is "fallible." Therefore, Grudem is admitting that there is a distinction between what the apostolic office and ministry was authorized and empowered to do and what the average Christian is empowered and authorized to do. It is obvious to me and most other Christians that we do not have the power to do the same miracles that Jesus Christ did or what His authorized and chosen apostles did.


I could speak more of this issue and I realize that my criticism is brief and not a formal exegetical exposition of 1 Corinthians. There are places in 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul is speaking about natural languages and others where he is speaking about unknown languages. While it is difficult sometimes to follow Paul's line of thinking, the basic summary of the entire passage is that Paul prefers that we "prophesy" or "preach" in known human languages and pray in known languages, particularly in public. Everything should be done in decency and order. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 13 in no way implies that Christians would retain apostolic office or apostolic authority to perform signs, wonders and miracles until Jesus Christ returns (i.e. the parousia). And from our own experience and the historical evidence of church history this shows itself out. Modern debunking of today's miracle claims by Pentecostals and Charismatics only further destroys their credibility.


Some Pentecostals and Charismatics advocate returning to a premodern worldview to support their theology of miracles. (Charles Kraft, Peter Wagner, etc.). They blame our lack of acceptance of their theology and their anecdotal miracles on our Enlightenment worldview and the effects of Rudolf Bultmann's demythologizing exegesis of Scripture. I would contend that returning to the dark ages would only open up Evangelicalism to ignorance and superstition. It is one thing to accept the biblical miracles at face value and quite another to accept modern miracle claims at face value. The difference is that the Bible is an infallible and inerrant record of God's miracles meant to confirm Jesus Christ as His Son and the Gospel as the only way of salvation. Since we have the inspired word of God on the matter, we do not need further signs and wonders. Furthermore, we are not obligated to accept modern miracle claims because they are "fallible" and are not the inspired word of God. We should test all things by Scripture to discover what is true.


If Pentecostals are going to argue that replicating biblical miracles persuades more people today, then the opposite seems to be happening. (Luke 16:29-31).  The majority of unbelievers remain unconvinced.  In fact, pseudo miracles do more damage because when these turn out to be untrue or greatly exaggerated the credibility of the minister, the message, and the entire movement is called into question. Sometimes new converts go back on their faith because they found out they were lied to or that the miracles were not what they thought. A relationship based on a lie is no relationship at all.

Moreover, Paul says that it is the foolishness of preaching that will convert the soul of the unbeliever, not miracles!  (1 Corinthians 1:22-25; Galatians 3:1-6).  Perhaps we should follow Paul rather than the "super apostles" of today?

Peace!! 

Postscript:  Miracles apart from the propositional truth claims of Scripture lead to deception.  The way to tell truth from error is the theology of the person claiming miracles as confirmation.  The Reformed Christian, according to Calvin, needs nothing more than Scripture.   (Luke 16:31).