Why is it that cessationalists especially target the gift of prophecy and tongues, and apostleship, vs other manifestations of the Spirit?

Question

Why do cessationalists seem to especially target prophecy, tongues, and apostleship, as the manifestations of the Spirit that have ceased? Scripture states the manifestation of the Spirit comes in different forms: workings, gifts, services. This includes the 5-fold ministries, plus healing, administration, serving, leadership, words of knowledge, giving, etc. as well as prophecy and tongues, and nowhere does it say that any of them would or have ceased before our individual or unified perfection and fullness has been obtained, which has not occurred, and probably cannot happen in this age. On the contrary, the apostle Paul especially encourages prophecy and writes not to disallow even tongues.

Why not claim all the manifestations of the Spirit have ceased including pastors and teachers vs. just the ones they are theologically or experientially biased against? Why not just say everyone can just read their Bibles for themselves and that is enough?

I have yet to hear real Biblical evidence that the spiritual gifts have ceased or had a time-stamp on them in this age. Bible-believing Christians who take that position seem to selectively ignore verses that speak of spiritual gifts' ongoing importance, such as 1 Cor 12:4-7, 1 Cor 14:1,5,12,39-40, Ephesians 4:11-16 (with special emphasis on verse 13 word "UNTIL").

Answer 1

When something important appears to be going off-balance, garnering more attention and importance than the word of God gives it, there is usually a reaction.

It is unlikely that a "cessationist camp" would have appeared had it not been for other Christians going overboard about the spectacular gifts of the Spirit - prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues, miraculous healing, etc. Nobody in the New Testament is recorded as objecting to such public operations of the Spirit. Yet Paul began to notice an over-emphasis arising, which he had to write about. He strove to keep the matter balanced by pointing out that (what some might call 'mundane') blessings such as gifts of hospitality, administration, and serving etc. were equally gifts of the Spirit. And over and above all of them was love. See 1 Corinthians 12:1 through to 14:25.

So, if by the mid-1st century Paul was trying to tone things down regarding 'spectacular' gifts, imagine how complications arose in later centuries when superstitions got a grip. Relics and passion-plays, self-inflicted flagellation and gorgeous apparel with gold, bejewelled objects... that's what grabbed the attention of the laity. That's what became proof-positive to them as to where God's blessing lay. All of that was spiritual wonderment to them, even though it was largely just superstition. The bulk of humanity has always got excited about external displays, rather than the inward, quiet presence of the Holy Spirit.

Nowadays, within Protestantism, there has been a fresh turning to miraculous and spectacular gifts such as in the first century. Elsewhere, miraculous healing and miracles continue to be acclaimed and revered, so those who are called 'cessationists' seem to be outnumbered. Yet it remains largely the matter of imbalance that causes reactions. If many Protestants didn't make such a fuss about their claimed miraculous gifts, there would not be such a reaction.

Where do we find balance in speaking about and practicing spiritual gifts nowadays? Where is equal importance given to the less spectacular gifts amongst those who promote the spectacular ones? If that 'camp' was balanced, there would not be a 'cessationist camp' objecting to their imbalance. They are mainly reacting to a perceived imbalance.

Answer 2

I wholeheartedly agree with @Anne talking about perceived im/balances and emphases placed on various types of gifts.

I wanted to add a bit of discourse on the Corinthians passages which you brought up and flesh out some of the themes a bit more.

I think @Anne is right in pointing out that while Paul is affirming the value of gifts such as prophecy and tongues, he is very much warning them against going overboard. Similar tendencies in the modern church provoke cessationalism. This tendency of certain modern churches (especially, but by no means exclusively, pentecostalism) to promote spiritual gifts leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many.

I will also define for the purposes of this discussion (noting that these aren't real terms, I just made them up) "strong cessationalism" as the view that these gifts have stopped and "weak cessationalism" as the view that people overemphasise or misunderstand the role of gifts in Christian life. Disclaimer: I would consider myself a weak cessationalist.

The question seems to mostly address prophecy and tongues, so I will only talk about these for now.

Tongues

There is robust debate about what speaking in tongues even is. Classic modern tongues speaking is some form of Spirit inspired loss of personal control and "gibberish" (I don't say gibberish to demean but because I can't think of a better word) as an act of worship. I would very firmly suggest that this is not a biblical view of tongues speaking - one should look to Peter and the apostles in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost as the model of tongues speaking. Here it is quite literally and very explicitly other languages interpretable by speakers of those languages even though the speaker does not understand. This is why Paul specifies that there must be an interpreter in 1 Cor 14:5 and why he says "various kind of tongues" in 1 Cor 12:28.

Moreover - how can you claim that a loss of control of your faculties is the work of the Spirit when Paul firmly asserts that the Spirit gives self-control (Gal 5:22-23). No, the Spirit gives us words, real words, to speak. When Jesus foretells the coming of the Spirit in John 14:15-16:15 he says that he will give us understanding of God's word (14:26), help us to testify about Jesus (15:26-27), convict us of sin and righteousness (16:8), guide us into truth (16:13), glorify Jesus not by worship but by the things listed above (16:14).

I have never witnessed someone accurately speaking a language they do not know, but I agree with the premise of the question that I see no biblical argument as to why this gift has ceased. I might tentatively suggest that we should consider something as 'mundane' as the delivery of a faithful sermon, tongues (as Peter gives in Acts 2), regardless of the language it is given in.

Prophecy

Regarding prophecy, it is also a matter of debate what it entails. No one can debate that at its core, prophecy is some sort of revelation or message from God. A narrow view would suggest that this must come directly from God, a more expansive view would suggest that it could come in the form of insight into the already written word of God.

This is the only gift I can think of where a robust argument can be made for a strong cessationalist view that it has stopped entirely. Hebrews 1:1-2 would suggest that there is no more prophecy because there is nothing more to reveal. I would tend to look at anyone claiming the gift of prophecy in the traditional, foretelling the future way with suspicion but not outright dismissal.

In my opinion, the only way you can say that prophecy exists today is if you take the more expansive view, including insight into the written word of God. Hebrews 1:1-2 precludes the idea that we can come up with new revelation of information never before revealed, but understanding of the words spoken to us only comes by the Spirit.

Conclusion

I agree that scripture doesn't point to an end date to the gifts given to people (asides from Christ's return). But this doesn't mean people practise gifts the way they were intended. The overemphasis and/or malpractise of gifts necessitates correction. I think strong cessationalists recognise this but overreact by saying that all gifts have stopped.

Regarding gifts, the overwhelming theme of New Testament is clearly that they should be used in love to build up and strengthen the church. This is clear from the passages you referenced. The public and sensationalised practice of gifts (particularly tongues, prophecy, and healing) is invariably aimed at glorifying the individual and not God. This is not how Paul said they were to be used. The testimony I have heard from people who have left churches that overemphasise gifts (but who are still very faithful Christians) is that they were made to feel lesser Christians because they, ostensibly, did not have certain gifts. This is quite the opposite of what gifts are for! see 1 Cor 12:29-30. So not only does the sensational practice of gifts glorify man and not God, it erodes the church rather than building it up.

Answer 3

Prophets and apostles were the conduit between God and man prior to the completion of the Bible. Part of Paul's purpose was to "fulfill the Word of God".

Colossians 1:25

Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

The tongues, knowledge, and prophecy that Paul describes having "in part" would "vanish" once God would unveil the "abundance" of revelations to him.

2 Corinthians 12:7

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

1 Corinthians 13:8-12

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

There is no longer a need for "prophets" or "apostles", as we think of them in their biblical context, as God's Word to mankind is now perfect (complete).

There is certainly a need for teachers of God's Word, as we today with God's completed Word are to "study" it, but not a need for more 'words' themselves in addition to what we have already been given through "that which is perfect".

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

We gain spiritual knowledge through study.

It is not through tongues, apostles, or prophets that we gain spiritual discernment. It is through study that we will "lack nothing".

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12

And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; 12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

Answer 4

This answer will look narrowly at the question of whether the gift of apostle has ceased. One facet of the debate not mentioned by the other answers is the definition of an apostle. The definition matters.

Some insist that an apostle is one who:

• Walked with Jesus as a disciple before his crucifixion and been an eye-witness of the resurrection, a criterion derived from Acts 1 (sole exception being Paul, who had a singular encounter with Jesus post-resurrection and later in Acts was later accepted by the other Apostles)
• Spoke or wrote words some of which became authoritative Scripture
• Could teach with authority and establish church doctrine
• Prophesies future events

Other people subtract from this definition of apostle. They must either sacrifice a closed canon and permit modern apostles to add to the Bible or remove the requirement that Apostles must produce new Scripture. They must either remove the requirement that the person lived during the time of Christ and saw the resurrected Christ or supply some special ecstatic experience as a Damascus Road analog. Thus this question is tied up with how many facets of church doctrine fit together: Sola Scriptura versus acceptance of church tradition, closed versus open canon, and whether Apostolic succession is a real thing or not.