Bill wrote: “But, cessationism simply isn’t taught in the bible. Sorry, but it isn’t. Not everything in the bible is clear, and some things are complex, but if you have to turn yourself inside out to make your hermeneutical point, then you need to rethink your thesis. This is exactly the same thing that those who argue for teetotalism from the bible are doing. They take a personal conviction about an issue where they see great harm being done, and force the bible to conform to their view.”

Cessationists have been around a lot longer than the modern pentecostal/charismatic movement, so I’m not sure you can say it’s a response to the harm being done by those movements, though many of its modern formulations are.

There is indeed crazy eisegesis that goes on in the name of cessationism, I agree. The way 1 Cor. 13 is often handled is out of control.

While I’d agree that there is no explicit teaching on the cessation of the miraculous gifts, I wouldn’t put it in the same camp as teetotalism, and I don’t think one has to do hermeneutical gymnastics to arrive at that position. I think Gaffin does a pretty good job of putting cessationism into a history-of-salvation framework that makes sense, and you can’t do that sort of thing with a simple legalistic moral obligation like teetotalism. (Gaffin doesn’t lean on 1 Cor. 13 to prove anything, if I recall).

And yes, I’d agree that cessationism has to do with miracle workers, not miracles themselves.

Um…am I the only cessationist in the bar?