I recently read your article, “The Ultimate Anti-Christ Doctrine,” and I have some questions on the topic.

Do you consider continuationism as an article of biblical faith? If so, could you provide some verses that explicitly affirm that the apostles believed that the miracles they were performing would be done by other Christians ages in the future?

I don’t think many cessationists have a problem with God revealing himself through apparitions or by prophecy. The problem is any kind of spiritual revelation under continuationist logic is fallible. The revelation is infallible, but God does not give the recipient infallible understanding of it. This could pose many problems, so opponents against it simply opt for the biblical revelations, which were perfectly interpreted. Do you think the fallibility aspect is too detrimental to rely on it in any way? If it’s fallible, why bother?

[1]

You probably did not intend it to be so, but this is a trick. You made up a problem that should never have existed, and then you throw it over to me and expect me to unravel it. It is a loaded question, and I am not falling for it. A number of creeds include cessationism as an article of faith, making not-cessationism a heresy. For example, the Westminster Confession makes cessationism a function of the completion of the Bible. However, as I have shown in my writings on the subject, the fact that believers in Christ can wield miraculous powers by faith is a function of the existence of God and the gospel of Christ. But creeds do not make the continuation of the existence of God into its own doctrine. They would say that God lives forever to indicate his eternal nature, but not to address some controversy about the cessation of God.

This whole category of the cessationist controversy is fraudulent. I refuse to engage the issue in fraudulent terms that are imposed on me. Thus I would not make “continuationism” as such into an article of faith, because there should be no such artificial doctrine. If God promised something, such as salvation on the basis of the atonement, then the burden of proof is on those who claim that this benefit of the atonement has ceased. It would be ridiculous to put the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that the effects of the atonement continue. Of course I can do it, but I would be the fool if I play along without protest. I will not silently allow people to make me work for one thing after another when this is an evasive tactic to avoid answering for their own position. I will not be tricked by the loaded categories. It is disappointing that people have gotten away with this for so long.

If we allude to the controversy in our creeds, we must declare cessationism as anti-Christian heresy. We must remain true to Scripture and insist that Christians can wield miraculous powers by faith according to the basic gospel promises and commands, but I would not say that these “continue,” just like I would not say the gospel continues. It just is. So ask me instead: Should the gospel be an article of faith? Yes. Also, I would not call these miraculous powers the gifts of the Spirit, because the Bible almost never refers to them like this. Rather, the Bible portrays the miraculous powers as native abilities of those who have faith in Jesus Christ and who have received the Holy Spirit. The gifts refer to only one of several ways miracles can happen through people. Along with the deceitful categories of cessation and continuation, overuse of the “gifts” language has also distorted the discussion through the centuries.

There are many texts in the Bible that explicitly promise miracles would happen to Christians and by Christians. It is not a matter of whether this ceases or continues, but this is simply what it means to be Christians. It is the gospel. The burden of proof is on the cessationists to show that God has died, that God has lied, or that God has somehow legitimately altered the gospel after he has permanently finalized the gospel.

If we insist on asking, the Bible indeed guarantees that Christians will continue to receive and perform miracles. Some of the strongest texts are in fact used by cessationists, because they are idiots, and their opponents are also idiots when they fail to notice the abuse. For example, see “The Worst Text for Cessationism.” It shows that 1 Corinthians 13 refutes cessationism, and out of this text I deduced seven rebukes against those who affirm this satanic doctrine.

Then, consider Peter’s first sermon after the resurrection of Christ — the apostolic platform for the entire gospel ministry. People miss the fact that he talks about salvation only as a way to obtain the Spirit. The sermon begins when people asked about speaking in tongues, and is intended to answer their question. He concludes by asserting that the Spirit is a gift for all future generations (Acts 2:39), and the only reception or baptism of the Spirit that Peter knows is the one that he describes in the same sermon from the prophecy of Joel. It is one that comes with visions, dreams, prophecies, and all kinds of signs and wonders.

Among the many places that I address this, see “The Miracle Majority” and “The Promise of the Spirit.” Both Joel and Peter so closely associate calling on the name of the Lord for grace and receiving the Spirit of the Lord for power that the two stand or fall together. This is the grace to obtain salvation, and after that, the power to perform miracles. If one continues, the other continues. And if you reject one, you disown the other. On the basis of the sermon, if you fail to affirm that you should experience miracles by the Spirit, you have no warrant to affirm that you should experience salvation by Jesus Christ. They remain two distinguishable blessings (Acts 8:15-16), but they constitute one irreducible gospel (Acts 2:17, 21; 2:38a, 38b).

So this is another text. It shows not only that the miraculous continues — or just is — but also that it is the gospel. Even the most skilled theological surgeon (most theologians are not preachers, but surgeons) cannot excise only this part of the gospel and leave the rest intact, because it is not really a part of the gospel, but it is the gospel. It is the soul of the gospel, as much as the atonement is the gospel. To remove this part, which is not really a part, amounts to a wholesale rejection of the gospel, and renunciation of Jesus Christ. The cessationist points his filthy finger in the face of God and screams “LIAR!”

There are so many more. When we talk about miracles, remember that the powers available to Christians are not all about revelations, but also healing, and as Jesus promised multiple times, even miracles of nature, if we will have faith (Mark 11:23). A text like James 5:15, which promises healing by faith, has no place for a discussion on whether it continues or not. It just promises that if you pray in faith, the Lord will heal. If something “ceases,” it must be either the Lord has died, or someone’s faith has died. I think it is the faith, but the cessationist maintains that he has faith, so the only alternative is that he thinks God has died, and that he has faith in his own invention. He believes in a cessationist deity that the Bible never talks about and that is unknown to the religion of Christ.

[2]

Cessationists are in fact against visions and prophecies today, but I know the kind you are thinking of. They slither around as serpents of heresy and deception. They shift as they are challenged by biblical evidence and logical argument. Their doctrine requires them to be against these things, but some claim that they are not against them and still call themselves cessationists. Some cessationists morph into charismatics even while you are talking to them, and still insist on calling themselves cessationists. Sometimes they are left with only the label, when they seem to have become only charismatics with very pathetic faith. Instead of cessationists and continuationists, two better categories would be smartists and stupidists. If you claim one thing and believe another, or if you just want the label regardless of what you believe, you are a stupidist. You are a straight-out moron. Anyway, when you say they allow these things, you are either being unfair to them, or to me, or to both. But I will go along with this.

I would like to grill you on this “continuationist logic” you speak of. What the John MacArthur is it? Pardon the vulgar language. If you are referring to a certain charismatic perspective on prophecy, not everyone subscribes to it, and it might not apply to me. It would be foolish of you to slip this into the question and expect me to take responsibility for it. If you agree with what I said about “cessationist logic,” which unlike you, I did explain, would you be asking me all of this? I have clearly stated the cessationist doctrine (which is anti-Christ), and its logical result (which is more anti-Christ). If you disagree, then where is your refutation? Why ask me about the “continuationist logic,” when you have said nothing about the “cessationist logic,” as if the burden is still on me? But I will go along with this as well.

Now suppose atheists believe in the God of the Bible, in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Bible as his infallible word, even more than I do, then they can call themselves anything they want. They can call themselves Magic Glitter Rangers. They can call themselves Donut Heroes. I don’t care. Perhaps they believe in God, but their only problem is with “Christian” hypocrites like the cessationists, or that they cannot tell who the real Christians are? Tell me, is this how you define atheism? Are atheists just Christians who are concerned about human fallibility? Or are they atheists because they really disbelieve in God? If you are going to ask this question about fallibility, explain what you think about these strange atheists. Are you on their side or not? Why? If you do not define atheism this way, then you are obviously making an excuse for the cessationists. It is absurd and dishonest.

If cessationists claim that they have no problem with visions and dreams, but they are cessationists because they are concerned about false interpretations, then they have completely destroyed their own interpretations of the Bible, unless they maintain that their interpretations of the Bible are infallible, in which case I would have a different kind of fun with them, or watch them murder one another over their hundreds of different interpretations. If they use this excuse of fallible interpretation, they destroy all of their doctrines, including the existence of God, the atonement of Christ — and of course, the doctrine of cessationism. If it’s fallible, why bother, right? So let’s not bother with cessationism. Let’s leave their churches and seminaries. Let’s take away their positions and salaries. Let’s drive them out of our lives! Also, if their interpretations of the Bible are fallible, then perhaps their interpretations of the charismatics or continuationists are also fallible. They have taken themselves totally out of the debate.

The Bible tells us to judge prophecies and appearances, but the doctrine of cessationism wipes them out as a matter of principle. The doctrine of cessationism in fact prevents people from obeying the Bible, which commands us to judge these things by the word of God. It is an advanced form of defiance. It teaches rebellion before the fact. When cessationists turn their doctrine into something else, they wish to portray the effort as defense against straw man attacks. The truth is that they are losing, and the defense is an act of retreat. This is the same stupid move that some atheists use when they claim that they do not really assert that there is no God, but that they do not know, or cannot know, or that their view is more like unbelief or non-belief. I have addressed this in “Atheism as Non-Belief.” This is when you point your finger straight at them and scream “LOSER!” I can say more about this, but I am laughing so hard that my hands are shaking.

You say that the cessationists “opt for biblical revelations.” This is a lie. What do the “biblical revelations” say? They tell us to receive visions, dreams, prophecies, tongues, healings, miracles, and all kinds of signs and wonders. So we are back to having revelations and miracles all over the place. You can “opt for” being a billionaire, but how much money do you really have? If you have ten dollars, you are not a billionaire. It is not as if you call yourself that because you have faith for it, because that would be the prosperity gospel, right? Cessationists are against God’s promises in that area as well.

If the cessationists “opt for biblical revelations,” then they would believe, and teach, and produce what these revelations say. They would receive visions and dreams, they would prophesy, and they would heal the sick and cast out demons, and work all kinds of miracles. They would talk about these things as a matter of routine, with miraculous demonstrations before the people. They would attack the “real” cessationists, or whatever we should call them. But no, the truth is that they “opt for” their own doctrines, their own traditions and theories, turning people against the gospel of Jesus Christ, while pretending to be its faithful teachers and defenders. They are the most sinister religious charlatans and hypocrites. They can “opt for” calling themselves Christians, but if they are cessationists, then…well, let’s just say that they should be careful.

If the so-called cessationists declare they believe that visions, dreams, prophecies, tongues, healings, and other miracles have never ceased, that they continue to happen to Christians and by Christians as a matter of guarantee, secured by covenant right, according to gospel promise, on exercise of faith, and then demonstrate these signs and wonders preferably so often that miracles are taken for granted, and if they will condemn cessationism as a counterfeit gospel and a non-Christian religion, then our disagreement ends, and they can call themselves whatever they want. They shall be my Donut Heroes.

However, no version of cessationism comes close to this minimum biblical standard. No version amounts to even the core, center, foundation, or beginning of the gospel. Every variation condemns the true gospel. Every variation preaches a false gospel. Cessationists complain about straw man attacks when they are losing the debate. The truth is that they keep using straw man defenses. They falsely allege misrepresentation as a way to avoid answering for their heretical doctrine. Thus they also bear false witness against their opponents. I see through them every time, and I will not let them escape. No one should let them escape.

In fact, I have repeatedly shown that cessationists are the ones who misrepresent those they criticize. This is not a straw man defense — I do not need to whine about a straw man to defend my view — because over and over again, I have demonstrated that I could often accept the misrepresentations for the purpose of discussion and still win. Just as those who murdered Jesus could not support their accusations even with false witnesses, cessationists cannot advance their arguments even with lies about the followers of Jesus.

When cessationists say that they believe, they lie, and they lie because they cannot defend their actual doctrine. But they still cannot defend what is left of their doctrine even after multiple modifications. Any retreat on their part is not enough for me until they obediently surrender to the minimum standard I just stated. I refuse to compromise with them. I am right about this, and I will always win. All Christians have the duty to pursue them, and exterminate every trace of their counterfeit gospel of unbelief and tradition.

If they wish to nullify everything by appealing to an issue of fallibility, then I have answered this above. They are defeated even before we discuss how to address human error when it comes to spiritual operations. They have not only removed themselves from this debate, but from all debates on all topics, and they have cut themselves off from Christ. It would not be an act of refutation, but an act of self-damnation. Some people would rather burn in hell than to believe in God.

From: email