Subjectivism and Cessationism

Share this post on:

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.

There are other subjective works of the Spirit, though not all agree on what these are. Many would include illumination as the subjective work of bringing out the personal applications of an objective text of Scripture to the seeking soul. Some believe that the opposite of conviction is a Spirit-given settled state of peace within the heart, and that the Spirit provides a level of guidance through this peace. Now, it is perfectly legitimate for Christians to debate whether these subjective works take place. But this defines and delimits what we are debating about: the subjective work of the Spirit. We are not debating whether the canon is open or closed, whether apostolic signs remain with us, or whether the Spirit gives new revelation to modern-day apostles and prophets. At this level, we are conducting an intra-mural debate regarding how the Spirit uses His Word in our hearts.

Of course, genuine charismatics do believe in modern-day revelation and the miraculous. There, the battle-lines are well-drawn and cessationists and charismatics are on opposite sides. But my concern is that plenty of people on the same side think they are not because of a failure to be clear. I am fairly certain that some people call themselves continuationists simply because they believe in the subjective work of the Spirit. They think cessationism is a kind of rationalistic objectivism, an almost rabbinic intellectualism with no place for the Spirit’s work in believers. But cessationism rejects modern-day apostolic revelation and sign-gifts, not the inward work of the Spirit.

On the cessationist side, it would help to make clear that our absolute fidelity to the objective Word of God given once for all does not preclude the Holy Spirit’s ongoing use of that Word in our hearts. Cessationists are not (or should not) be allergic to the word experience, however abused it has been. We truly believe in the Spirit’s work in our hearts, showing us Christ, stirring our affections, enlightening the eyes of our hearts to truth, and convicting us of sin. We believe He uses His objective Word in human subjects, who experience this work inwardly.

On the (alleged) continuationist side, it would clarify matters if proponents used terms like “led”, “showed”, “taught”, “spoke” with the clarifying phrase “through His Word”. This helps distinguish the subjective work of the Spirit from the notion that the Spirit is giving new and additional revelation today. The first position is entirely biblical; the second is a heresy that denies the sufficiency of Scripture.

I think 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.