A Brief Response to Dr. Michael Brown’s Comments on Hyper-Cessationism
Last week, Dr. Michael Brown, a charismatic author and radio host, tweeted something that many cessationists responded to in a way that I think was unwarranted. As a cessationist myself, I wanted to give a brief but hopefully more charitable response. Dr. Brown made the claim,
“I believe hyper-cessationists” are doing just as much damage as hyper-charismatics. Both are way off doctrinally and practically”.
He then followed that statement with a tweet saying,
“For the record, I would define a hyper-cessationist as someone who is not just a cessationist but also aggressively anti-charismatic, always trying to disprove reports of the contemporary moving of the Spirit and focused on attacking charismatic leaders”.
It is necessary for me to first respond to the follow up statement because the definition he is working with to make the main assertion is faulty. What he describes could be characteristic of someone who is hyper-cessationist, but those traits don’t necessarily make them one. If you have ever heard a charismatic poorly attempt to define cessationism, making a caricature or straw man of it, it’s likely you are unintentionally familiar with hyper-cessationism. It is a rejection of all modern miracles. A cessationist might claim that the sign gift of healing has ceased, but a hyper-cessationist would assert that all miraculous healing has ceased. As a cessationist, I don’t believe that someone like Dan Bohi or Rob McCorkle (more locally known NAR hyper-charismatics), or someone like Bill Johnson or Benny Hinn, have the gift of healing people like we see in the early church during the apostolic age. However, I do believe that God still heals people today when it is His will to do so, and that miracles happen. It looks more like what one sees when they read James 5:14,
“Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
There is a clear distinction between the two. I have never met anyone personally that claims to be a hyper-cessationist (unless you count the last time I had a Red Bull), but there are people that probably functionally fit this category I imagine. The only hyper-cessationist that I could think of as an example would be B.B Warfield as he argues for it in his book, Counterfeit Miracles: A History of Fake Miracles and Healing in the Christian and Catholic Traditions, with Arguments in Favor of Cessationism. Although, I don’t agree with Warfields argument, I still recommend this book as it is helpful in identifying many of the charismatic falsehoods and false claims. Another neat thing about it is the way he argues the cessationist position from the stand point of church history. Again, even if I don’t agree with the extent of his conclusion, its helpful in many regards such as this.
In regards to the other characteristics Dr. Brown lists, some would consider me aggressively anti-charismatic. I would probably agree with them. Mind you, I’m not aggressively anti-continuationist. I’m not really anti-continuationist at all if they are cautious and discerning. There’s plenty of fine continuationist arguments. I just think there are better cessationist ones. The rest of what he says is really all subjective for the most part. “Always trying to disprove reports of the contemporary moving of the Spirit”. What does he mean by always? This one doctrine didn’t scratch the surface of Warfields ministry. I always reject the “reports” when the “contemporary moving of the Spirit” is really just a blasphemous manipulation. I believe in a truly Spirit filled life. Why would I be okay when someone tries to conjure something artificial, as if they have that authority anyway? His last comment on attacking charismatic leaders is likely personal, as he is one who is often attacked. It isn’t in some noble way as if he is being persecuted for standing up for truth. He is called out for defending charlatans and wolves.
All that said… if his definition of hyper-cessationism was correct, his main point would be as well. Hyper-charismatics and hyper-cessationists are indeed both way off doctrinally. He would also be correct in saying they do just as much damage. This is true because their wrongdoing is the same. They blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Hyper-charismatic theology is a pestilent blot on the Church. Hyper-cessationist theology, wherever it is, if as unfortunately popular, would be the same. Anything that presents a false view of the Holy Spirit, whether by circus level mockery or degradation of His work (which is both views properly conceptualized) is an outright blasphemy. It is to be in very serious error. Aside from his pity party/fit guised as a really bad definition of hyper-cessationism, Dr. Michael Brown is right on this one.
I will write more soon (not about this unless it needs elaborated on). I’m working on a thing about the defense of biblical inerrancy in the 20th century and also writing a couple of hymns right now.
