Fallen Ministers and the Scandal Objection¶

The objection¶

It is usually stated with moral force rather than historical detail, and it goes something like this:

Look at the leaders of the healing and prophetic movement. One is exposed for financial fraud. Another leaves his wife for a mistress and announces that God told him to. A revival collapses into chaos. A "prophet" gives a word that fails, then another, then another. If these men had the Spirit, their lives would look different. The fruit is bad, so the tree is bad. Whatever is happening in those meetings, it is not the Holy Spirit.

This is not a frivolous objection. It is often raised by people who have been hurt. They watched a family emptied by a "seed faith" appeal. They saw a woman told her cancer was caused by hidden sin and her healing was blocked by doubt. They saw a leader anointed last year and disgraced this year. Their instinct — that something is deeply wrong — is often right about the person.

But an instinct about a person is not an argument about a gift. The objection bundles four different claims, and they need to be separated before any of them can be assessed.

Four claims in one¶

The man is a sinner. True of every man. This proves nothing about the gift.
The man is a fraud — he knows the healing did not happen and says it did. This is a claim about his honesty, and it needs evidence. Where it is true, it is damning, and the casebook does not defend it.
The phenomenon is psychological — suggestion, expectation, adrenaline. This is a claim about mechanism, and it is sometimes true. It is not a claim anyone can make from the outside about every case.
The phenomenon is demonic — a real power, but not God's. This is a claim about the source of the power, and it is the most serious of the four.

The popular objection slides from 1 to 4 without stopping at 2 or 3. "He fell," therefore "it was fake," therefore "it was demonic." Each step needs an argument that the objection does not supply.

The logic is invalid, and Scripture says so¶

The inference from a flawed vessel to a false gift is a genetic fallacy: it attacks the source rather than the claim. And Scripture is explicit that the two can come apart.

Balaam. A prophet who hired himself out to curse Israel, who counselled Moab into seducing Israel into idolatry (Numbers 31:16; Revelation 2:14), and whom the New Testament calls a man who "loved gain from wrongdoing" (2 Peter 2:15) — and the words he spoke over Israel were true prophecy, so true that God put them in the Bible (Numbers 23-24). The vessel was corrupt. The oracle was not.

Saul. The Spirit rushed upon him and he prophesied (1 Samuel 10:10-12; 19:23-24), while he was already a disobedient king under judgment. The proverb "Is Saul also among the prophets?" is a joke about exactly this incongruity.

Judas. Jesus gave him authority over unclean spirits (Mark 6:7-13), and Judas went out with the Twelve and cast them out. He was a thief (John 12:6) and a traitor, and the authority was real while he exercised it.

The seventy. They returned rejoicing that the demons were subject to them. Jesus did not say, "You imagined it." He said, "Do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (Luke 10:17-20). He affirmed the power and redirected the joy.

The workers of Matthew 7:22-23. "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name do many mighty works?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" The point of the passage is not that the deeds were fake. It is that the deeds do not save. Jesus' answer is about relationship — "I never knew you" — not about power.

And Paul's principle in Philippians 1:15-18 is the same: some preach Christ "from envy and rivalry," not sincerely, and Paul rejoices anyway, "for Christ is proclaimed." The power of the message is not tied to the purity of the messenger. If it were, no sermon would ever be valid.

The converse test¶

Here is a simple way to see that the objection proves too much.

Cessationists sin. They commit adultery, defraud their churches, abuse their children, cover up scandals, and split congregations. Does that falsify cessationism? No — and no honest cessationist would say it does. The doctrine is judged by Scripture, not by the worst life that holds it.

The same rule must run in both directions. If a fallen continuationist disproves continuationism, then a fallen cessationist disproves cessationism, and there is no position left. The argument from character is not a test of doctrine. It is a test of discipleship, and it fails for every tradition.

The "demonic" version¶

The fourth claim deserves its own answer, because it is the one most often made in serious cessationist writing.

Scripture does warn of counterfeit signs: false christs and false prophets who "show great signs and wonders" (Matthew 24:24), the lawless one with "all power and false signs and wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9), the beast who "works great signs" (Revelation 13:13). Counterfeit is real.

But four things follow, and they cut against the objection:

First, a counterfeit implies a genuine. The existence of forged banknotes is evidence that money is real. If every claimed miracle were demonic, the category "counterfeit" would have nothing to counterfeit. The New Testament consistently assumes a genuine gift and a false imitation side by side (1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 4:1-3).

Second, Scripture gives criteria, and "the vessel sinned" is not one of them. The tests are doctrinal and moral: does the spirit confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3)? Does it say "Jesus is Lord" by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3)? Does it lead to obedience (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)? Is the fruit of the teacher's life good (Matthew 7:15-20)? Is the prophecy true and does it build up (1 Corinthians 14:3, 29)? Those tests are demanding. They are not the same as "the man fell, so the power was Satan."

Third, attributing the Spirit's work to Satan is a grave charge. When the Pharisees saw a real healing and said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons," Jesus warned them about blasphemy against the Spirit (Matthew 12:22-32). The warning is not a prohibition on discernment; it is a warning about the direction of the accusation. A person who attributes to the devil what may be the Spirit's work is in more danger than the person who is merely wrong about a gift.

Fourth, the "demonic" explanation is unfalsifiable as usually deployed. It explains every case equally: the healing, the failure, the fraud, and the genuine. A hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing. It is not a discernment test; it is a way of avoiding one.

What the objection does prove¶

The objection is wrong as an argument against the gifts, but it is right about several things, and the casebook should say so plainly.

Celebrity culture corrupts. The bigger the platform, the less accountable the man. That is a fact about institutions, not about charismata.
Money and healing are a dangerous mixture. The New Testament itself warns about teachers who serve their own bellies (Romans 16:18) and about greed in the ministry (1 Peter 5:2).
The church has been slow to discipline. The scandals are often known for years before anything is done. That is a failure of obedience to Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5, not evidence that the gifts are false.
Much of what is claimed is not a gift. Some is suggestion, some is exaggeration, some is fraud, and some is genuine. The church's job is to test, not to advertise.
Victims must be cared for. A defense of the gifts that leaves the wounded behind is not a Christian defense.

What the objection does not prove¶

It does not prove that the gifts have ceased. It does not prove that any particular healing was false. It does not prove that a movement is demonic. It proves that sinners handle holy things, which is the story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation — and the reason the cross was necessary.

The right response to a fallen healer is not to conclude that healing has ended. It is to do what the church should have done in the first place: test the claim, discipline the man, care for the wounded, and keep asking the Lord of the harvest for workers who are both gifted and holy.

What this does and does not prove¶

It proves: that the character of the vessel is not the measure of the gift; that Scripture records genuine gifts through wicked men; and that the scandal argument, applied consistently, would destroy every Christian doctrine.

It does not prove: that the accused are innocent, that fraud does not exist, or that character is irrelevant to ministry. It proves that the argument from scandal is not an argument from Scripture.