In Christian circles regarding film in late 2023, some of the “talk of the town” has been around the Cessationist Movie, a nearly 2-hour, well-crafted documentary that takes aim at the Continuationist movement.
In short, “Cessationism” is a doctrine taught in certain churches that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased to function at the close of the Apostolic age, once the 27 books of the New Testament were completely written. “Continuationism” is a doctrine that teaches the opposite, namely that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit are still operational today, and to be eagerly sought after.
The film, spearheaded by several groups, but primarily by the G3 Conference (Gospel-Grace-Glory), is a creation by filmmaker Les Lanphere, funded by a Kickstarter campaign. It features interviews by a wide-range of cessationist preachers, ranging from Steven Lawson of Ligonier Ministries, to Phil Johnson of Grace to You, to a popular YouTube preacher, Justin Peters. As this introduction suggests, this documentary has a polemical edge to it, but for folks on both sides of the debate the film discusses matters that are worth. pondering. Here is the film’s trailer:
Reviewing The Cessationist Movie
Let me start by noting some of the largely positive elements of the film’s critique. The movie does raise a number of concerns I actually agree with wholeheartedly. All of the following concerns explain why I am “open-yet-cautious” when it comes to claims associated with the charismatic movement:
- Praise and Worship movement: The approach to corporate worship common even in certain cessationist-leaning churches actually borrows from the emotional appeal of the charismatic movement. How much of corporate worship experiences in evangelical churches today are genuinely acts of God-honoring devotion versus a search for some emotional high driven by the music?
- Prophecy: When so-called prophets make mistakes today, are they simply responsible for making “bad prophecies,” or should they actually be disciplined and treated as false prophets?
- Tongues: Is the gift of tongues speaking in some language foreign to the speaker but understood as a known language by someone else, or is it something altogether unintelligible speech?
- Healing: What does it mean to have a gift of healing? What type of spiritual damage is done when certain claims of healing actually turn out to be fake?
I think about each one of these concerns, as I personally have spent a good chunk of time involved in charismatic churches over the years. I remain “open-yet-cautious” as a result. It is worth diving a bit more deeply into the three last concerns addressed head-on during the movie, and noting where the film considers various passages of Scripture.
The Cessationist on Prophecy
The Cessationist movie contends that there were three times when God raised up certain persons to be gifted supernaturally to perform miracles: (a) the time of Moses and Joshua, (b) the time of Elijah and Elisha, and (c) the time of Jesus and the Apostles. The purpose of those miraculous gifts was to confirm the spiritual authority of those individuals who exercised such gifts. Outside of those three time periods, God stopped extending these gifts to certain persons. One of those time periods when God stopped extending such gifts would include today.
The Cessationist contends that in order to make allowances today for on-going prophecy given by prophets; that is, with the gift of prophecy, continuationists must somehow argue that God does still raise up prophets for today, but that unlike the prophets of the biblical period, today’s prophets can still make mistakes. In other words, the prophets of the biblical period only gave prophetic pronouncements that rang true. If a supposed prophet in those ancient times made a mistake in their prophecy-making, this was a sign that the prophet was actually a false prophet, and not a true prophet. But unlike the biblical period, today’s prophets can make prophecies and not have a 100% track record in giving accurate prophecies, and that this is somehow OK.
The Cessationist movie makes a strong point here. For example, numerous so-called “prophets” back in 2020 predicted that Donald Trump would win the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, and serve two back-to-back four year terms. That clearly did not happen. Many of these “prophets” eventually repented of making their bad prophetic announcements, but there is very little evidence that there were any disciplinary consequences to their actions.
This is a huge problem within the charismatic/continuationist movement, as such failed prophetic predictions create a credibility gap for Christians, which only generates mockery of the church among non-believers.
The typical continuationist response is to say that we actually have a New Testament example of a prophet who made a prediction that partly did not come true, but who is still regarded as a true prophet: Agabus.
In the continuationist interpretation, in Acts 21:10-11 Agabus predicted that the Jews would bind Paul and hand Paul over to the Romans. But in Acts 21:27, the Jews did seize Paul, but that the Jews did not bind Paul. Rather, the Romans eventually intervened in Acts 21:33 and bound Paul themselves. In this reading, Agabus got the prophecy right in a broad sense, but that he missed it in the details.
However, the cessationist interpretation says that when Jews “seized” Paul in Acts 21:27, and then the story is later retold in Acts 26:21, whereby the Jews “seized” Paul, this seizure of Paul was actually when Paul was originally bound. Only after the Jews bound, or “seized,” Paul was he then handed over to the Romans. In other words, Agabus got the whole prophecy correct.
Frankly, at this point I am not completely sure which interpretation is the most accurate and faithful to the original apostolic tradition. But I can say that the whole idea of prophets today making mistakes does not work well in favor of the continuationist position. Perhaps someone can be a genuine prophet, only to become deceived at a later point in time. Perhaps a person can receive some prophetic insight, but to call such a person a “prophet” is a dangerous proposition, as it might lead others to look upon that “prophet” as infallible in terms of giving prophecy, when in fact, such a prophet is really a false prophet leading others astray.
Regretfully, we see this type of stuff all of the time in the charismatic movement, with very little accountability (It does not help matters when so many so-called “prophets” get caught up in moral failures, but that is an altogether different issue). From my “open-yet-cautious” position, this does not necessarily mean that the gift of prophecy is no longer for today, but it does mean that we should be very careful in evaluating the claims made by people who claim to be prophets.
The “gift of tongues” as “groanings too deep for words?”
The Cessationist on Tongues
The Cessationist movie also argues that the gift of tongues is specifically the ability to speak in another language which another person listening can understand, but which the person speaking can not understand. This interpretation is demonstrated by Acts 2:4 and 2:8, which synonymously equates “tongues” with “language,” a language or languages understood by those who heard the speaker, “each of in his own native language.”
The continuationist position tends to favor the idea that “tongues” should be understood as a Spirit-given language unknown to any human, which can only be interpreted by someone else, through yet another spiritual gift. While not excluding the possibility that an English speaker might be supernaturally given the gift of speaking something like Swahili, it is primarily some kind of heavenly form of speech; such as a private prayer language, appealing to Romans 8:26, or even 1 Corinthians 13:1: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”
The cessationist response is to say that Paul’s reference to a language “of angels” is really a hyperbolic way of saying that even if you have the highest spiritual gifts, but you lack love, then you really have nothing. In other words, there is no such thing as a private prayer language, where you can pretty much vocalize anything you like.
Again, it is not entirely clear in my mind, at least not yet, as to which interpretation is the correct one. However, I must agree with the late John R. W. Stott, that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, can not be turned on and off at will, like opening and closing a water spigot. If speaking in tongues is truly a spiritual gift, then there must be a way of evaluating whether the gift is truly from God, or simply a product of one’s own imagination and mental exercise. I have seen too many people fake “speaking in tongues,” as a means of gaining acceptance within a charismatic community. Again, I am “open-yet-cautious” when it comes to the gift of tongues.
I would add though that the Cessationist movie got slightly off-track by saying that 1 Corinthians 14:22, following Paul’s citation of Isaiah 28:11-12, is a statement from the mind of Paul:”Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.” As explained in more detail in a previous blog post, this statement is actually a quotation from the Corinthian community, which Paul precedes to refute in the following verses 1 Corinthians 14:24-25. Rather, Paul’s thought is just the opposite of verse 22. Paul’s argument is to say that tongues are a sign for believers, which according to Isaiah 28:11-12 is a sign of judgment against the people of God, when mishandled, but that prophecy is a sign for unbelievers. For when the word of God is prophetically made clear to the unbelievers, then God will bring about conviction of sin through God’s judgment through the prophetic word to bring about faith and repentance in the life of the unbeliever.
The Cessationist on Healing
The Cessationist movie points out that many so-called faith “healers” are really charlatans. What might be even more scandalous is when some otherwise sincere ministers of the Gospel are fooled by people to fake healings, in order to gain fame or material wealth for themselves.
In one particularly difficult part of the film, well-known evangelist Francis Chan tells of his going to Myanmar and reports that through his prayer he was able to witness several physical healings, which demonstrated to him that the gift of healing was and is still valid today. However, the Cessationist movie says that based on reports from church planters in Myanmar that men, women, and children are hired by promoters of such healing crusades, led by outsiders like Francis Chan, to pretend that they are deaf and/or blind, and who are then supposedly healed of their deafness and/or blindness. Such outside preachers, like Francis Chan, are left in the dark about what is really going on. In doing so, visiting preachers like Chan are tricked into believing that people are really being healed, which encourages more American preachers to come back to places like Myanmar, and bring more money into the community.
The utter tragedy to all of this is that when and if someone who claims to be a part of, or simply witnesses a healing comes to the realization that such an episode was really a fake, this can have devastating consequences in someone’s life, even to the point of encouraging someone to deconstruct their faith, or go even further to deconvert from the faith.
Yet again, as someone who is “open-yet-cautious,” this kind of tragedy does not necessarily compel me to say that the gift of healing is “not for today.” Rather, it suggests to me that a better job needs to be done to verify that such a healing actually took place. A report of healing needs to have some mechanism by which the report of healing can be vetted for authenticity and accuracy.
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
Just a few months ago, a pastor friend of mine (who will remain anonymous), told his congregation that he witnessed the resurrection of someone who had actually died. Now, I really would like to believe that this story is true. Even if the story of “resurrection” was overblown, this still suggests to me that some sort of healing might have occurred, even of a supernatural variety, and we should all rejoice in that.
But a resurrection from the dead? Now that is an extraordinary claim! Now, I want to know how this report might be verified. Were there medical personnel on hand who can demonstrate that the person had actually ceased to be living, before being resuscitated? Do we have a record of a cardiogram to establish when the person flatlined? Were there other witnesses who can substantiate what happened? …..Or are we simply relying on anecdotal information?
I want to believe that a resurrection event happened here. But it needs to be more than just “wishful thinking.” We need evidence. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.
Again, “open-yet-cautious” is what I am. In the famous words of Ronald Reagan, “trust, but verify.”
(photo credit: Getty Images, Economist magazine)
The Continuationist Response to the Cessationist Movie
It should be obvious, but many of my openly charismatic friends will be frustrated with the Cessationist movie, as it is a polemical documentary. In the late months of 2023, a number of efforts have been made to respond to the various claims presented in the film.
Continuationist Bible teacher Sam Storms, whom I respect and admire, was one of the most prominent targets of the Cessationist movie, and he has since published a multi-part blog post series addressing nearly each and every claim made in the film from a biblical perspective: #1 , #2 , #3 , #4 , #5 , #6 , #7 , #8 , #9 , #10 , #11 , #12 , #13 , #14 , and #15 .
In addition, Remnant Radio, a continuationist YouTube channel, has done their own multi-part video response to the film. I would suggest that viewers of the Cessationist film take in some of this response material in order to gain a more balanced perspective of the debate.
A Muddled Approach at Times to an “Open-Yet-Cautious” Approach to the Charismata
I have good Christian friends on both sides of this debate, both cessationist and continuationists, so in fairness I should register my own critique of where the Cessationist documentary falls short: What is perhaps the most unfair about the movie is that it paints the Continuationist movement with a very wide brush. Lanphere not only includes well-known charismatic teachers in its critique, he also includes those who supposedly hold an “open-yet-cautious” view regarding the use of miraculous gifts of the Spirit today. In other words, Lanphere (supposedly) includes “open-yet-cautious” people like me!
At a few points in the movie, Lanphere actually describes charismatic Bible teachers, like Sam Storms, as “open-yet-cautious,” which is completely inaccurate. As someone who is “open-yet-cautious,” I argue that there is no definitive teaching in the Bible that says that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer valid for today. However, I will say that we must be extra diligent in evaluating claims that someone has the gift of “X,” whereby “X” could be either prophecy, tongues, and/or healing.
Someone like Sam Storms or a Wayne Grudem has a much different emphasis in that they teach that the gifts of the Spirit should be earnestly sought after for today, whereas I lean much more on the cautious side. The film does recognize that some teachers, like Storms and Grudem, have a more “reformed” or positive approach to the Scriptures, than say a more reckless character like the televangelist Benny Hinn. But the way the documentary is framed, that distinction sometimes becomes lost. Furthermore, the film makes no effort to distinguish between continuationist Bible teachers who support the false teaching of the “Prosperity Gospel” and those who do not.
I think the movie intentionally tries to stir up the pot to generate discussion. But it does so at moments in the film in a manner which unfortunately generates more heat than light. From my vantage point, it would have been better if Lanphere had included an interview with someone who truly does represent an “open-yet-cautious” viewpoint.
But overall, the film makes a good case for cessationism, without going overboard all of the time. For example, I do find the explorations into Scripture, the examination of history, and certain critiques that the Cessationist movie offers to be very helpful. From that perspective, I would recommend Christians to see the film. Blogger Tim Challies offers a thoughtful review endorsing the cessationist viewpoint that is helpful to read.
I should also say that some of the reactions from the Continuationist side to the film have been needlessly negative. Calling “cessationism” a “heresy” seems to me just as harmful as some of the regretful tone you find every now and then in the Cessationist movie itself. In the framework suggested by Gavin Ortlund’s book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, (see my review on Veracity), the cessationist/continuationist controversy is not a first order issue that should divide Christians. For whether miraculous gifts, like prophecy, tongues, or healing, are valid for today, or not, Christianity is still true, based on the Resurrection of Jesus. So it might be best to think of the controversy as a second order issue, whereby those who hold different views of the subject may not be able to worship in the same local church, but they should still be able to embrace one another as fellow believers in Jesus Christ.
Final Thoughts
Frankly, I wish the cessationist/continuationist controversy was a third order issue, just as I wish the complementarian/egalitarian controversy (“women-in-ministry”) was a third order issue. In Gavin Ortlund’s taxonomy, a third order issue is something Christians can disagree over but still find room to fellowship together in the same local church. But unfortunately, these type of issues do indeed divide churches, and that is pretty much the situation now throughout much of evangelicalism today. For a good chunk of the 19th century, it was the baptism issue (infant vs. believer’s baptism) that typically led to church splits. In the 18th century, it was primarily Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It does make me wonder what historians looking back over the 21st century will think was the most divisive church-splitting issue really was. This is a sad note to end on, but there is a positive side to the coin: This state of affairs should encourage us as believers in Jesus to do everything we can to work towards unity within the Body of Christ whenever possible. In an age when the Internet makes it possible to connect with others so easily, we can pray and hope that conversations will be sparked to facilitate that renewed call to unity.
I first blogged on this topic in ten years ago, in 2013, about John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference. A few years later, I wrote a multi-part blog series on “the baptism of the Holy Spirit”, which explores more Scripture and church history regarding the Charismatic Movement, a brief look at a “private prayer language” and if Romans 8:26 teaches about it, a review of a book on five different perspectives on “Spirit Baptism,” and a review of a book that tries to harmonize a liturgical approach to Christian worship with a charismatic approach.
Veracity 
What do you think?