The debate between real cessationism and real continuationism is an important one. But, as in politics, it’s important for the party supporters to know what their party truly believes, and what the opposing party believes. If that’s done, some might find they’re members of the same party.

Christians often talk past each other. That is, they disagree without first agreeing on exactly what they disagree about. As long as two parties keep putting words in their opponents’ mouths, the debate becomes an exercise in perpetual misunderstanding.

This is seen clearly in the debate between cessationists (i.e. non-charismatics) and continuationists (a term that needs some clarifying). One evidence of this talking past one another is that those who apparently oppose cessationism are often quite cessationist(ic?) in their churches. That is, they do not call for public prophecy, they do not speak in tongues, they do not claim additional revelation – but they will argue vehemently that they are not cessationists and that cessationism denies some truths they believe. What then do they oppose in cessationism? And what is the practical difference between their continuationism and cessationism?

My suggestion is that cessationists and these kinds of (alleged) continuationists do not distinguish clearly enough between the subjective (inward) work of the Spirit and the revelatory and prophetic work of the Spirit. When cessationists deny that the Spirit works as He did in the apostolic era, some continuationists understand this to mean that cessationism teaches that the Spirit has no continuing, inward work within a believer, even today. Similarly, when some continuationists speak of the inner work of the Spirit, they sound to the ears of some cessationists as if they are speaking of additional revelation. Clearly defining terms will go a long way to minimise talking past each other.

Very few people deny the subjective work of the Spirit. For example, almost everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit does a work of conviction in the heart. But no one thinks that this work of conviction is merely the human brain coming to new conclusions about Scripture. As objective as the truth is, conviction is an inward work of the Spirit, using Scripture and the conscience to produce the inner experience of discomfort, guilt, shame, or sorrow. This experience is subjective. By subjective, we do not mean unreal, arbitrary, or lacking in fixed truth. We simply mean the experience takes place within the human subject, and is an inward work. One cannot verify or quantify conviction with the precision of studying the meaning of an objective text of Scripture. This does not make the experience less real or true.

Read More