A Nobody Responds to Tom Pennington's Case for Cessationism, Part 2

In part 1 of my 3-part series, I took issue with Pastor Tom Pennington's critiques of certain continuationist arguments.  In this section, I will take a look at the first three points of his sevenfold case for cessationism.

Rebuttal to Argument #1:  The Unique Roll of Miracles

Pastor Pennington's first argument is centered around the proposition that there were only three periods in biblical history where miracles were prevalent: The Exodus and Conquest period, the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and that of Christ and the Apostles.  It is implied that outside these periods, miracles were either very scarce or non-existent.  This is a very old and common argument and, in fact, one that has been refuted many times over and so I'll not spend too much time on it.

Firstly, this argument fails to account for the numerous biblical examples of miraculous and prophetic activity outside these time periods.  Jack Deere in his excellent book Surprised by the Power of the Spirit uses an illustrative table in Appendix C (pages 253-266) to show this very fact.  I won't reproduce that table, but only point out a small handful of obvious examples of miracles outside the aforementioned time periods:

-The prophetic ministry and rapture of Enoch (Genesis 5:24; Jude 14,15)
-The Flood
-The Lord's appearances to Abraham and the plagues upon Pharaoh's house and his subsequent dream after he attempted to take Sarah as his wife.
-The destruction of Sodom and Gommorah
-The miraculous conception of Isaac
-Joseph's dreams
-The miracles performed by, in, and through the Judges, including Gideon and Samson
-Hannah's womb is miraculously opened to conceive Samuel
-None of Samuel's words would fall to the ground (1 Samuel 3:19-21)
-The tumors that strike the Philistines
-God's presence in the Temple (1 Kings 8:10)
-Hezekiah's life is extended (2 Kings 20:5)
-The miracles and prophecies involving Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

This is only a sampling that Deere produces to maintain that many miraculous signs occurred throughout OT history, thus contradicting Pennington's thesis.  Jack Deere also points out two other Scriptures in the OT that point to miraculous intervention throughout the period of the OT.  First, we are brought to Jeremiah 32:20:

You have set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, to this day, and in Israel and among other men; and You have made Yourself a Name, as it is this day. 
NKJV

This passage explicitly tells us that miraculous signs had occurred at least from the time of the Exodus to at least the time of Jeremiah's prophetic ministry. 

Secondly, consider Psalm 74:9.  Here, the psalmist writes, We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet; nor is there any among us who knows how long.  For whatever reason, signs and wonders were not all the prevalent, but instead of seeing this as God's normal way of dealing with His people, the Psalmist laments this fact as something abnormal.  The context of Psalm 74 is dealing with the anger of God against the sheep of His pasture (v. 1) and in the face of defeat from God's enemies.  Clearly the absence of signs and wonders is seen as an unusual occurrence owing to divine displeasure rather than the usual program of God in periods of giving revelation.  This would imply that signs and wonders were a regular part of God's gracious activities among His people, and thus not exclusively a means of authenticating His special messengers.

None of this is to deny that one purpose of miracles is authentication.  Of course it is.  However, there are other reasons miracles are done such as bringing glory to God and as an act of compassion.  Consider the account of Jesus raising up the son of the widow of Nain:

 Now it happened, the day after, that He went into a city called Nain; and many of His disciples went with Him, and a large crowd.   And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her.   When the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.”   Then He came and touched the open coffin, and those who carried him stood still. And He said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.”   So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. And He presented him to his mother.  Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.”   And this report about Him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region.  (Luke 7:11-17 NKJV)

Here, in this passage, in addition to calling attention to Jesus' identity, this miracle also served a powerful doxological purpose (v 16) and as an expression of God's heart of compassion for a widow who would otherwise have been left in extreme poverty.  I conclude then, that miracles had and still have other purposes that are just as relevant today as they were then.

Rebuttal to Argument #2:The End of the Gift of Apostleship


In part 1, I kind of already tackled this one, so I'll only point out one thing.  Pastor Pennington asserts with all cessationists and even some continuationists (Wayne Grudem for example), that we cannot have apostles today because to be an apostle one had to meet three requirements:  (1) You had to be an eyewitness to the resurrection of Christ, (2) you needed a personal commission from Christ, and (3) You had to be able to work miracles.

However, this fails on several levels.  Working in reverse order, number 3 is patently false.  The ability to work miracles did not and does not make one an apostle.  It is true that the apostles worked miracles, but so did many others.  Stephen and Philip worked miracles and neither were apostles.  First Corinthians 12 lists workings of miracles as one of the charismata being given to the church at large, not just the apostles.  Lastly, there is John 14:12, Most assuredly, 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 My Father.  Even a casual glance at the context will show that the works being referenced by our Lord are His miracles which He did while on earth.  Amazingly, Christ is saying that believers will be empowered to perform miraculous signs because of His soon departure to the Father and the resultant sending of the Holy Spirit.  Everywhere else in John's gospel, the phrase "he who believes in Me" refers to all believers everywhere.

Point 2, is also false.  While most of the Twelve and Paul did receive a personal commission from Christ, one of the Twelve did not, namely Matthias.  Certainly God, in His sovereignty chose him through casting lots to replace Judas, but that's not the same as a personal commission from the resurrected Lord.  If one, needed a commission from Jesus in person, one might assume Matthias would have been chosen to replace Judas prior to Jesus' ascension.

Relatedly, is point three; that one must have been a witness to Christ's resurrection to be commissioned an apostle.  This one is the strongest point, but also fails to take into account all of the data.  First, it should be noted that Matthias was replacing Judas among the Twelve Apostles whose names are written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem, but in Ephesians 4:11, Paul lists the gifting of apostleship among the gifts of Christ's ascension.  Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that to be one of the Twelve, one needed to have been an eyewitness to the resurrection, but to be an apostle of the ascension, spoken of in Ephesians, obviously one does not.


Rebuttal to Argument #3:The Foundational Nature of the New Testament Apostles and Prophets

This one is related to point 2 above and I have already somewhat addressed this issue already so I'll not belabor the point.  However I will spend some time refuting another common cessationist argument.  Ephesians 2:20 is a favorite passage among cessationists of both the reformed and dispensational stripes.  They believe the argument is bulletproof.  The argument goes like this; in context, Paul is laying out the nature of the Church as the union of Jews and gentiles in one body.  The apostles and prophets laid the foundation of the NT church.  Since you only lay a foundation once, there would be no more need of apostles and prophets subsequent to laying this foundation. 

In reply, it could be argued that this passage, being written to a specific local church is applicable at the local level.  It could then follow that all local churches should be built on apostolic and prophetic foundations.  I think there is some merit to this idea, but I wouldn't die on a hill for it, and even if it does refer to the Church universal, I will only draw attention to the verb tenses in verses 20-22.  Verse 20 uses the past tense, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while verses 21 and 22 use the present tense. 

In other words, by the time Paul wrote Ephesians, the once-for-all foundation for the Church was already fully laid and the superstructure already underway, yet apostolic ministry was still occurring and was even occurring past the time Paul wrote.  Apostles and Prophets form the superstructure just as much as the foundation.  How do I know this?  After Paul's ministry, we know the apostle John ministered in Ephesus where he likely wrote his gospel and epistles and even after John was exiled to Patmos and was receiving Revelation, the Ephesians were testing apostles (though in this case, finding them liars; but if apostles would have ceased after laying the foundation, then the Ephesians wouldn't have needed to test apostles; they would have known not to expect anymore).  Clearly, the Ephesians themselves didn't take Paul's words in Eph. 2:20 as implying the cessation of the apostolate and, in fact, Paul tells them (and us) to expect more apostles (4:11-16).

That concludes Part 2.  Soon, I hope to respond to arguments 4-7 of Tom Pennington's presentation.

-Christian