In my experience chatting with cessationists, I've noticed that a very recurrent cessationist argument against the continuation of special revelations and sign gifts is what I would call the 'closed canon' argument. Presented in a deductive form, the argument would look something like this:
Note: I think there are 5 different ways one could attempt to refute this argument: 1) show that the argument is logically invalid (i.e. the conclusions do not logically follow from the premises), 2) show that premise 1 is false, 3) show that premise 2 is false, 4) show that premise 3 is false or 5) any combination of the previous options.
- Premise 1: God only gives special revelations to His servants/apostles with the purpose of revealing information that is intended to become part of the Biblical canon.
- Premise 2: God only gives sign gifts to His servants/apostles to authenticate their authority as conveyors of inspired messages intended to become part of the Biblical canon.
- Premise 3: The Biblical canon was closed at the end of the first century.
- Conclusion 1: Therefore, special revelations ceased at the end of the first century (from P1 and P3).
- Conclusion 2: Therefore, sign gifts ceased at the end of the first century (from P2 and P3).
Note: I think there are 5 different ways one could attempt to refute this argument: 1) show that the argument is logically invalid (i.e. the conclusions do not logically follow from the premises), 2) show that premise 1 is false, 3) show that premise 2 is false, 4) show that premise 3 is false or 5) any combination of the previous options.
Last edited: