Sam Storms on Fallible: Point Nine

Ninth, yet another reason why I believe the cessationist is wrong on this point is the failure to recognize different ways or senses in which God might “reveal” something to us. In Philippians 3:15 he tells the church that “if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.” And in Ephesians 1:17 Paul prays that a “spirit of wisdom and revelation” would be granted to believers. “Once more,” notes Grudem, “it would not be possible to think that every time a believer gained new insight into his privileges as a Christian and reported it to a friend, the actual words of that speech would have been thought to be God’s very words. It would be the report of something God had ‘revealed’ to the Christian, but the report would only come in merely human words” (Grudem, Prophecy, 65). We see two other similar uses of the verb or noun form of “reveal/revelation” in Matthew 11:27 and Romans 1:18.

Storms’ appeal to Philippians 3:15 is simply befuddling. “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16. However, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.” Clearly Paul is not talking about the various forms and methods of revelation. He is talking about the godly attitude of pressing toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. He is talking about spiritual growth. This is the attitude we are to display. Moreover, if we display, or lack this spiritual discipline, God will reveal that to us. How does God do that? He reveals this to us through His word. To content that Paul had our subject in mind when he penned his letter to the Philippians is a complete exegetical failure.

Storms then points us to Eph. 1:17 as if this text provides some shelter for his flimsy view. But once more, we discover that Ephesians 1:17 has no bearing on our discussion. It is quite likely that Paul had in mind the Holy Spirit when he penned this letter, not the human spirit. The phrase ‘the spirit of wisdom and revelation’ could be a reference to the believer’s own spirit (RSV, NAB) to which God’s Spirit imparts understanding of divine realities. However, since the ‘revelation’ word-group always describes a disclosure given by God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or is the result of events brought about by them, it is more likely that our phrase is speaking of the Holy Spirit; hence the NIV rendering the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.^[1] 

The attached genitives, though parallel to Paul’s practice elsewhere when dealing with the human spirit (Rom 8:15; Gal 6:1; 2 Tim 1:7), involve content (“revelation”) that does not derive from the human spirit (contra Abbott, 28). Neither should the phrase be taken in parallel with the participial clause in the next verse to indicate human capacity, since there the passive voice implies a divine source. Rather, the referent here is the Holy Spirit (Best, 163; Hoehner, 257; cf. 1 Cor 2:12, 14; 12:8).^[2]

Hoehner also says, “However, this verse most likely is a reference to the Holy Spirit. [Hoehner, Harold. Ephesians, 257] I recognize that opinions on this text vary. It is for that very reason that Storms should know better than to point to it as supporting his thesis.

From this incredibly weak position, Storms points us to Matt. 11:27: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” How does the Son reveal the Father to us? He opens our eyes to the truth of the canonical revelation, God’s word proclaimed, through the gracious work of the Holy Spirit on the human heart. This argument progresses from bad to worse. If Storms has not embarrassed himself enough, he points us to Romans 1:18. This is a text speaking to the force, clarity, and sufficiency of general revelation. It has nothing to say about the subject before us.

At a minimum, Storms has engaged in complete exegetical failure, introduced a couple of red herrings, and is guilty of some of the worse scripture twisting I have witnessed in this area. There is no reason to think that NT prophets or OT prophets received hunches that God was speaking to them similar to modern Pentecostal claims. The idea that biblical prophets ever struggled to know that it was really God speaking to them is foreign to Scripture. God’s prophets knew with certainty that God was moving them to speak and they knew with certainty precisely what God was commanding them to say. There were tingles running along the spine, no gut feeling, no hunches, and no second-guessing in the sense that we see in the Pentecostal churches. Such a perspective understanding is entirely anachronistic.

---

^[1] Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 131–132.

^[2] William J. Larkin, Ephesians: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 20.

Sam Storms on Fallible Prophecy: Point 8

Eighth, in conjunction with the previous point, I should also mention that the prophetic warning of Agabus, though correct in speaking of the persecution Paul would endure should he go to Jerusalem, was wrong on two points: (a) it was the Romans who bound Paul, not the Jews (Acts 21:33; 22:29); and (b) far from the Jews delivering Paul into the hands of the Gentiles, he had to be forcibly rescued from them (Acts 21:31-36). Those who insist that the NT gift is no less infallible than its OT counterpart are faced with accounting for this mixture of truth and error. To this point I have only heard that we continuationsts are being "overly pedantic" or are guilty of "precisionism." Yet it appears that the strict standards applied under the OT are now conveniently stretched in the NT under the pressure of a passage that doesn't fit the cessationist theory. Might it not rather be that NT prophecy is occasionally fallible, and therefore to be carefully judged (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19-22)? Some have objected to this reading and insist that Paul’s report in Acts 28:17 of what took place in Acts 21 is essentially the same as prophesied by Agabus. But Paul’s point in 28:17 is simply that he was transferred from Roman custody in Jerusalem into Roman custody in Caesarea. In other words, Acts 28:17 is his description of his transfer “out of” Jerusalem into the Roman judicial system at Caesarea (as found in Acts 23:12-35), and is not a description of the events associated with the mob scene in Acts 21:27-36. Agabus cannot so easily let off the hook.

Was Agabus wrong in his prophecy? Did the Jews bind Paul in Jerusalem? Acts 21:30 says the Jews grabbed hold of Paul and dragged him out of the Temple. Then in Acts 22:30, the commander who stopped the Jews from killing Paul brought him before the Sanhedrin. As Roman citizen, the only recourse the Jews would have, would be to hand Paul over to the Roman courts. After Paul’s appearance before the Sanhedrin, about 40 Jews took an oath to eat nothing until they had killed Paul. Their plot was foiled and Paul’s long journey to Rome was underway.

There are prophecies from OT Scripture that were fulfilled in stages and some still are. One has to look no further than Joel 2 and Acts 2 to recognize that prophecy is fulfilled according to God’s timetable and that there may be gaps and means by which God accomplishes His work. Storms costs himself tremendous credibility on this point. When Storms says that Paul’s words in Acts 28:17 are not linked to Agabus’ prophecy in 21:11, it is an obvious case of special pleading. Storms wants unwarranted precision in the supposedly failed prophecy scenario and tremendous generality in this instance. Paul says that he was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. This is exceptionally close to Agabus’ prophecy. It is unlikely Paul was giving a detailed historical accounting of how he got to Rome. Rather, he was recounting the inception of what brought him there their city. It is simply amazing the lengths to which these men will go in order to support a view that is simply unsupportable.

This was a short reply because point 10 looks to be more complex at least in the sense that it raises some additional sub-points that will make it a longer reply. I thought it best not to attempt to join the two. In case you do not see me around on FB, I have left the farm. My FB days are over. In the end, it seems that it is one huge waste of my time. You can always request my email address and I am happy to correspond where time permits.

Responding to Hays' Article on Critically Thinking About Miracles

Critical Thinking on Miracles - Steve Hays

i) It's striking that MacArthurites like Ed and Fred are utterly oblivious to the fact that their objection to modern charismata parrots the atheist objection to God's existence. If there is a God, why doesn't he heal amputees? If God exists, why doesn't he cure every patient in a cancer ward?

Same thing with atheists and prayer studies. If God answers prayer, then that ought to show up on double-blind experiments. 

Charismatics can respond to the cessationist objection in the same way cessationists respond to the atheist objection. If a cessationist defends himself by saying God doesn't heal amputees because it's not God's will to heal amputees, and God has a good reason for not doing so, then a charismatic can defend himself by saying God doesn't empower a modern-day Christian to heal amputees because it's not God's will to heal amputees, and God has a good reason for not doing so–either directly or indirectly. 

ii) Likewise, Jesus and the apostles didn't try to prove themselves by searching for sick people to heal. Rather, sick people came to them. 

iii) Now, bad arguments can be persuasive because they contain a grain of truth. The element of truth lends a specious plausibility to a bad argument. And that's the case here. 

I think Fred is calling the bluff of charismatics. And up to a point, there's nothing wrong with that. It's like calling a psychic's bluff by taking the psychic out of her controlled environment, where she can manipulate the variables, and putting her in a situation where she has to do cold readings. 

Notice how Fred prefaces the challenge:

if contiuationists are correct that signs and wonders are a part of the normal Christian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people, then there should be gifted individuals who should do extraordinary signs and wonders with their laying on of hands. 

And there are undoubtedly continuationists who claim that. So that's a fair challenge.

iv) However, there's no reason to think the alternative to cessationism must be believing that "signs and wonders are a part of the normalChristian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people."

v) For instance, how do cessationists define faith-healers? Let's take a comparison:

a) A Christian prays for a cancer patient. The next day, the cancer is gone.

b) A Christian lays hands on a cancer patient and prays over the patient. The next day, the cancer is gone.

Is (b) a faith-healer, but (a) is not? Is that the distinction? If not, is there some other differential factor?

vi) What if a Christian has the "gift of healing," but doesn't claim to be a faith-healer? Suppose he or she simply acquires a reputation for having the ability to heal, without doing anything to cultivate that image or advertise that fact? Is that Christian a faith-healer? 

vii) If a Christian is a healer, does that mean he or she must be able to heal anyone and everyone? If a serial killer with terminal cancer comes to her, and she lays hands on him or prays for him, and he still dies of cancer, does that mean she's a fraud? 

What if it wasn't God's will to heal the terminal serial killer? Unlike the faith-healer, God knows who this individual is. God knows what this individual will do if miraculously cured. Therefore, God blocks or withholds healing. 

viii) If someone claims to be a faith-healer or miracle-worker, then we have every right to demand evidence. That, however, is different from proposing an artificial litmus test. 

If Jesus heals a women who suffers from internal bleeding (Mt 19:18-26), but he doesn't heal someone dying of radiation sickness, the latter doesn't cancel out the former.  We should judge each case by the evidence for (or against) each case. The fact that nothing happened in one case isn't evidence that nothing happened in another case.    

ix) It's also illogical to prejudge the question of modern charismata by charismatic claims. Whether or not modern charismata occur is irrespective of what charismatics claim, one way or the other. It's undoubtedly the case that many charismatics make exaggerated claims or entertain exaggerated expectations. However, disproving exaggerating claims–which is a worthwhile exercise in itself–does nothing to disprove modern charismata. 

If a weather forecaster predicts that it will rain 5 days in a row, and it only rains 3 out of 5 days, his prediction was false. But his mistake doesn't falsify the reality that it rained 3 days out of 5. He was partially wrong, but he was partially right. The event is independent of his claims. Disproving his specific claims does nothing to disprove a weather event. 

Cessationists and charismatics can't prescribe or proscribe reality. It will be whatever it will be, regardless of their prognostications. 

Ultimately, you need to judge the question of modern miracles, not by what cessationists or charismatics claim, but by what really happens–or doesn't. If the incidence of miracles is lower than the rate which Pentecostals optimistically predict, the mismatch disproves Pentecostalism, but it does nothing to disprove the miracles which do occur–assuming they occur. It's unfortunate that so many cessationists fail to draw that fundamental distinction.

I wanted to take a moment to respond, albeit briefly, to Hays' criticism. Cessationists do not assert that God cannot or never heals cancer patients through the prayers of believers. The fact that God heals someone of cancer through prayer does not indicate that a person has the gift of healing.

The only thing you need to understand in order to recognize the extreme weakness in Steve's argument is the fact that we are not talking about facts here. Steve is not talking about anything real. Steve is talking about hypotheticals, speculations, what-ifs, possibilities, the abstract. Notice that Steve's healers, miracle workers, and tongue-speakers never have names. They are nothing more than components of Hays' arguments. They do not rise to the level of actuality. With all due respect to Steve Hays, what we are interested in, what I think Fred Butler is interested in, what it seems John MacArthur and the rest of us are interested in is what is actually the case. What is the actual state of affairs that have obtained in terms of the miraculous and revelatory gifts of the NT era?

In addition, Steve spends more time arguing for the possibility that these gifts have continued than he does really interacting with our very real, very pastoral, very loving concerns. It is not the case that we simply don't like this theology so we pick a fight with those who subscribe to it. That isn't it at all. What we know for sure is a clear and serious issue from Scripture is the practice of claiming that God is speaking and working in certain ways. We know this claim is incredibly serious. In other words, if anyone says God said, then God most certainly had better said! If someone says, behold! The work of God in your midst! Then it better be the work of God. In and of itself, such claims are as serious as any claim could be. In addition, the people who naively accept these claims, if they are false, are being lied to and hurt by the millions. That is a very serious matter. However, it seems to be something for which Steve Hays show little concern.

Concerning whether miracles ever occur, that is a red-herring in this argument. It is one Hays continues to parade about as if it means something. It does not. John MacArthur does not deny the possibility that God may work miracles and/or heal if such is His will. Strange Fire has never been about that! Hays, in my opinion knows better. His latest post seems more like a bit of a retraction to me than anything else. I am thinking of the current political debacle known as Obamacare. Strange Fire is concerned with the claims that faith-healers and miracle workers along with open revelation continue to this day. It is a distinguishing mark among modern Charismatics. Those who reject these views are in the small minority, a fringe element of Charismatics that are so small, they don't show up on the Charismatic radar.

What Hays needs to do if he wants to advance his argument and regain any credibility for his position is to provide some actual evidence that healings and miracles are a routine occurrence within a specific person's ministry. That would be helpful. Otherwise we are left to counter his hypothetical, non-existent miracle workers, pointing to a massive lack of any empirical evidence for his imaginary world, and that just isn't much fun nor is it much of a challenge. These are real concerns about real claims of real miracle workers and the real impact they are having on real people. That is the state of affairs we are concerned with as opposed to the imaginary miracle workers and healers that Hays loves to pretend could exist somewhere in the world. In my opinion, there is very little critical thinking in Steve's article on that subject. Steve seems to be saying the same thing as Alice:

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?" 

Steve Hays on Miracles: Exploding The Tactics and Underpinnings Of A Most Fallacious Argument

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. (1 Thess. 2:13)

Before I comment further, I want to point out the different arguments, accusations, and tactics that Steve Hays has used to defend the theoretical idea that miracle workers are still among us working miracles as God directs them. First, Hays has accused those of us in the “MacArthur” camp of using the very same skepticism employed by David Hume. I have pointed out that there is a world of difference between the biblical command to test the spirits, to pay careful attention to yourselves, to our teaching, and the skepticism of David Hume. Hays’ argument is more than a little silly. It is confusing why he would draw such a silly comparison. Few people would deny that John MacArthur has done tremendous good for the kingdom and the Church. His loyalty to Scripture has been steadfast. His credibility and character should garner only the highest respect even when we disagree with him. Hays doesn’t seem to operate with those kind of values. More about that latter.

Hays’ second argument was to accuse MacArthur folks of being guilty of circular reasoning. We believe in the Bible because of miracles and we believe in miracles because they are in Scripture, or so goes Hays’ portrayal of our approach. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on Hays’ part. Framed this way, it is not difficult to see the problem with the argument. But Hays is wrong in how he frames our argument, and I think he should have known better. Most MacArthur folks are presuppositional in their approach. No one came along, told us the Bible is the Word of God, and then performed miracles to authenticate their statement. Moreover, I don’t know of anyone who reads the Bible, sees its miraculous claims, and concludes, well then, it must be true because it claims to have miracles in it. Again, this is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous argument and it is a little less than charitable for Hays to paint us in this light. Then again, is there any indication that Steve Hays cares, really, truly cares about the people he disagrees with? If we are to go on his actions, how he deliberately misrepresents their positions to make his argument look superior and that he does this with the highest degree of consistently, one would have no choice but to doubt that he really does care about the person behind the opposing argument.

Hays continues by accusing me of using the same methods an atheist uses to argue against God. What Hays refuses to acknowledge, even though he knows it is true, is that my presuppositions are fundamentally different from the atheist and therefore, my conclusions are radically different. The truth is that human reasoning will use similar methods along the way. Those of us who are presuppositional in our thinking know this. But we also know that the fundamental different is in the fundamentals. That is to say, our real disagreement rests in our radically opposing presuppositions, our basic commitments about reality, knowledge, and ethics. Hays know this as well.

What Hays has repeatedly attempted to do is poison the well. He began by attempting to associate us with Hume. Then he attempted to frame up our argument in the most absurd manner, accusing us of circular reasoning. He then placed us in the Evidentialist camp. Finally, he claims that we employ atheistic tactics. All of this kind of argumentation is not really offering counter points to the claims that we make for our position. It is a tactic to smear, to discredit, even to slander, and to distract others from the real problem of his own argument. What is that problem, you ask? The real problem for Hays’ argument is that he can offer no tangible evidence that miracle-workers exist today. Therefore, he keeps the argument theoretical. He desperately needs to reject the empirical argument that asserts that we lack any good and credible evidence showing that miracle-workers actually are active today. He would prefer that we be forced to prove there are no miracle-workers. That is a fallacious approach even if it is a clever tactic. We cannot prove there are no unicorns in the universe. We could spend lots of energy attempting to prove it, but such an endeavor would be fruitless. We could travel to country A, and examine everyone there and find no miracle-worker. We could then move to country B and find the same, only to have Hays retort that the miracle-worker was in B when you examined A, and A when you examined B. If Hays is going to argue that miracle-workers are present today, then he needs to produce one. If he cannot produce one and no one else can produce one, why should we believe him? What evidence can he offer, other than empirical evidence, to prove his point?

Hays will retort that he can offer Scripture as sufficient evidence or the historical method. No he cannot! There is nothing in Scripture that affirms that miracle-workers will be present in the Church until the return of Christ. But, he may say, there is nothing in Scripture that says they will not be present either. However, that does not qualify as proof that they are present. It only gets him to the state of possibility. Is that what Hays is really arguing? Is Hays spending all this intellectual energy to argue that it is possible that miracle-workers exist today. Okay, I will play Hays’ game. I do think it is possible that miracle-workers could exist today. But I also think, based on that same methodology that it is possible the universe could contain unicorns. But I also think that possibility is infinitesimally small. And the only reason I think it is possible is not because of the claims of these charlatans. It is because I think it is possible that I could be wrong in my view about the purpose for miracles in the NT era. The construction of my theological system is by inference from one exegetical examination to another and then to historical phenomena. I think my position is exceptionally strong. But because I am finite, fallible, and sinful, my knowledge is imperfect. Revelation is not as clear on the subject as it is on other subjects, like the resurrection for example. Therefore, I have to leave open the possibility that I could be mistaken.

The final argument Hays makes is that MacArthur accuses the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement of being purveyors of a false gospel. Hays then says that MacArthur himself might have been guilty of this very thing…20 years ago. This is an utterly ridiculous objection and seems to be more of an attempt out of desperation, and a desire to smear and slander John than it is to get at genuine truth. MacArthur was corrected in his error; he recognized it by the gracious working of the Holy Spirit and repented, uh, 20 years ago. Yet Hays thinks it is relevant to the discussion. Does Hays care that a brother was caught up in a sin 20 years ago, was confronted, repented, and as a result has grown in Christ since that time? Who among us can claim that we were born again with a perfect and mature understanding of the gospel? Apparently, Hays does not care that MacArthur is a human being, a sinner saved by grace! What Hays seems to be more interested in than anything is winning this argument. And that is Hays’ signature. It is his burning passion. He must win, at all costs. I have experienced it personally with him. MacArthur has experienced it. James White has experienced it. Fred Butler has experienced it. Dan Phillips and Frank Turk have experienced it. Others on the internet have experienced it. It seems to me that Hays has no regard for the biblical mandate NOT to slander others. He plows ahead thinking that slander is permitted when it is committed against people with whom he disagrees. This is a very bad reflection on Christianity, on Christian unity, on love. But it seems to be common practice over at Triablogue. What’s more, any attempt to point it out this ungodly practice is only met with additional slander. Moreover, it is one of the topics that Hays absolutely refuses to debate. Apparently, Hays thinks himself above such nonsense. Any discussion at all about godly behavior is met with derision and anyone attempting to raise the issue is attacked as a self-righteous hypocrite just for bringing it up.

The reason I point this out is because I believe it has everything to do with Hays’ participation in this particular discussion. Some guys just like the argument. They love the debate. They really aren’t interested in the word of God working in hearts to sanctify people by the truth it imparts. They just like the rush of winning an argument. Not so long ago, Chris Pinto was caught up in a well-known controversy. He engaged in what many called slanderous behavior. I compared several blogs with Triablogue on the subject because I was curious about my suspicions. Every other blogger was concerned about the sinful behavior involved and spoke to the need for repentance, for obedience, for proper treatment among brothers and for reconciliation. This was not the case with Triablogue. They were more interested in the poor form of Pinto’s argument. That is where they spent their time. What is more important? The form of one’s argument, or the fact that they are in sin? When we care about one another, we are more interested in their sanctification than we are in the fact that their argumentation is a little off.

The reason we care about this topic has nothing to do with winning the argument or carrying the day. We do not live in the world of ideas and possibilities, which is where it seems to me, Hays loves to spend his time. We see the real effects of the theology behind the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. We hear people claiming to speak for God. We see people claiming to be faith-healers and miracle-workers. We observe what they do with Scripture and how that impacts their followers. We see the confusion these charlatans bring into the body of Christ simply because they are so visible in our culture. We recognize the harm they do to the gospel, to the character of our Lord, to the reputation of the Church, to their followers and we raise our voice in hopes that we can reach some who will benefit from what we have to say. We stand for the truth of Scripture because we care. We care about our Lord, about the Church, about the gospel, about those who are being duped by these wolves. We acre about the kind of message the world hears from the visible Church.

There are less than 100 incidents of miracles recorded in the Old Testament. For 400 years there was none. And then all of the sudden, Christ appeared via a miracle. And during a very short window of time, there were miracles once again. In the NT we have less than 50 incidents. Now an incident could include numerous miracles at that time. There has never been a time in history when miracles were as commonplace as most in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement claim. Think about this, we have less than 100 miracles recorded over a 4,000 year period. That is less than one miracle every 40 years. In the NT we cover a period of around 40 years. In this case we see incidents of miracles dramatically increase to more than one per year. Now, keep in mind that many of these miracles in the Old and New Testament were squeezed together in blocks. The plagues, the wanderings of the Israelites, Elijah, Elisha, etc. In addition, most of the NT incidents were performed by Christ Himself over a 3 ½ year span. One needs to examine the significance of these blocks of miracles to see what else was going on in redemptive history in order to understand and appreciate the miracles.

Today, the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement makes claims that miracles and healings occur like they have never occurred at any other time in history to include redemptive history. If we multiply the number of claimers by the number of crusades, we end up with claims of tens, no hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of miracles every year. That is staggering. One would think that in our age, with our technology, if these miracles were legitimate, and if there were authentic miracle-workers active today, not only would we know it and be able to prove it, I submit that no one would be to hide it even if they wanted to. But for some bizarre and strange reason, these miracle workers who can heal the worst of human diseases with their great power from God remain unable to provide solid proof that they can do these things. They have the power to heal the sick and raise the dead, just not the power to be able to prove they can do these things. How strangely fascinating is that?

Interacting with Steve’s Hays’s Defense of Pentecostalism

For the record, I come to this subject uniquely qualified to speak about it. I was converted in a Pentecostal Church some 34 years ago. I was a licensed minister in the Church of God, Cleveland TN. This is the oldest Pentecostal denomination in the world. I did my pastoral studies with Lee College, which is now Lee University, the flagship school of the Church of God. I have been to the healing crusades, miracles services, Holy Ghost revivals, and yes, even tried the snake handler’s service on one occasion just to see what they did in there. Why did I leave? Someone once asked me to consider the question, “what if I’m wrong?” Do I really want the truth or do I want the truth to be what I want it to be? As difficult as it was, I opened my mind to the possibility that my theology could be wrong. Over several months I studied other views and eventually realized I was wrong. The purpose of this blog is to interact with Steve Hays’s criticism of Dan Philips and Frank Turk on the question of Pentecostalism in the context of John MacArthur’s conference on Strange Fire. So, here goes!

Hays’s comments

i) There's a fundamental difference between attacking an individual representative, and attacking the belief-system he represents. If the Strange Fire conference wants to attack Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, et al., more power to them. However, that no more disproves charismatic theology or hermeneutics than the example of Paul Hill disproves Presbyterian theology.

RESPONSE: It disproves charismatic theology if it can be shown that the error of these men is directly related to core theological teachings of Pentecostal theology. Core to Pentecostal theology is that extra biblical revelation is legitimate and that causative faith produces great miracles, to include physical as well as financial ones. Even conservative Pentecostals are left without any cogent manner in which to criticize or hold these men accountable. They have no basis from which to judge their behavior. Once you open the door for extra biblical revelation, there is no way to close it. Once you accept the view that “x” amount of faith will get you what you ask for, there is no way to close it.

In this respect, Frank Turk and Dan Phillips are just as dishonest as Joseph Smith and Paula White. Dishonest in a different way. They are cutting corners on the truth by acting as if they can discredit charismatic theology by discrediting some Pentecostal charlatans. That tactic is glaringly fallacious.

RESPONSE: Pentecostal theology naturally produces charlatans by permitting extra biblical revelation and the prosperity doctrine in conjunction with each other. Moreover, Pentecostals don’t consider Benny Hinn a charlatan. The overwhelming majority of Pentecostals support men like Hinn. That is the whole point. To non-Pentecostals with non-Pentecostal theology, he is NOT a charlatan. To most Pentecostals, he is an amazing man of God, a prophet with the fire of the Holy Spirit in him. In fact, we could work through a list that we consider charlatans and the overwhelming majority of Pentecostals would be offended because what we consider a charlatan, most Pentecostals see as prophets and men and women of God. 

If you're going to make an honest case against charismatic theology, you need to critique the best representatives as well as the worst representatives. And you need to critique arguments. It's morally and intellectually incumbent on you to engage the best exegetical case for charismatic theology, viz.  Craig Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power, or Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Likewise, you need to engage important mediating positions, viz. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14. Dan and Frank keep doing this bait-n-switch, as if attacking a charlatan is any substitute for engaging serious charismatic scholarship. 

RESPONSE: The linchpin of Pentecostal theology is its epistemology. Its view on extra biblical revelation denies the sufficiency of Scripture, placing more weight on mystical encounters and subjective feelings than on the objective revelation given to the Church in Scripture.

ii) What does Frank mean by "policing their own?" Has Gordon Fee been "silent" on the excesses of Pentecostalism? Is Frank even aware of Fee's classic exposé: The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels? Isn't that a good example of "serious and sober Charismatics" policing their own? 

Once again, it looks as if Frank and his cohorts suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance. They accuse the "serious and sober Charismatics" of failing to police their own, but seem to be willfully uninformed of what "serious and sober Charismatics" have actually done in that respect.

If so, then this is just another instance of how Frank and his cohorts are no more honest than the charlatans they deride. Hypocrites chiding other hypocrites. 

What makes hypocrisy an insidious sin is that hypocrites don't view themselves as hypocritical. That wasn't the self-image of the Pharisees. They were only hypocritical to outsiders. Hypocrisy can blind you to your own hypocrisy. 

RESPONSE: Hays points to a tiny portion of Pentecostals, a very tiny portion as if the presence of this infinitesimally small number is really a better representation of Pentecostal theology than Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Ken Hagan, Ken Copeland, Fred Price, etc. The critics of Pentecostal theology are concerned with those people who are silly enough to carry the consequences of that theology consistently into how they live, think, and preach. And this reflects most Pentecostals.

iii) "Policing" is a catchy metaphor, but it's not as if the "serious and sober Charismatics" can place a gag order or stop-work order on the antics of charlatans. 

RESPONSE: As if any effort has been made to that end. Just look around. We see the healing crusades, the health and wealth nonsense, the laughing revival, and on and on I could go.

Click here to see an example: Rodney Howard Brown 

iv) Finally, the church has always been a mess. The NT church is no exception. Just read 1-2 Corinthians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 1 John, Rev 2-3, &c. 

The church will always be a mess, both because Christians are sinners, and also because the visible church is, to some ineluctable degree, a mixed multitude of true and nominal believers. 

RESPONSE: Maybe someone should have told Paul this. The Church is a mess, she will always be a mess, so save your energy and stop this nonsense of trying to straighten the Church up. This position is absolutely preposterous.

Why should we criticize Pentecostal theology? I can think of a few reasons:

I want some new wine

Ken Hagin

Ken Copeland

Let the Bodies Hit the Floor

Pentecostal Service

Speaking in Tongues

Thats the Holy Ghost

You may think that the examples that I have linked to are extreme and represent only a small fringe of Pentecostal Churches. While there may be some Pentecostal Churches that are more laid back that these, two facts remain: one, most Pentecostal Churches either behave this way or see this behavior as a powerful move of God's Spirit working in His people. Two, even the small number of Pentecostals that do not like this behavior know that they have no basis for judging it to be wrong because of their theology. Once you open the door to extra biblical revelation, and the mystical view of feelings, impressions, emotions, and proceed along those lines, you cannot judge what others experience. How could you?

Pentecostals are completely obsessed with dreams, visions, prophecies, God speaking to them, healings, miracles and such. This thinking occupies most of their focus. If Hays is unaware of this, then it means he doesn't know a lot of Pentecostals. Most is not all, I realize. But I have been around Pentecostals for years over a broad geographical range. To deny this is to display one's ignorance of the Pentecostal community.

The truth is that we have not even scratched the surface of the multiple errors within Pentecostal theology. The fact is that there are so many false teachings within Pentecostal theology that it is overwhelming. And remember, I speak as a former insider. I know what they believe, what they teach, and how they think. The differences between traditional Christianity and Pentecostal theology are wide-ranging and in many places, very fundamental. I might also add that Michael Brown, mentioned at the beginning of Hays's article was the foremost apologist for the laughing revival you see in a couple of these links. He defended this blasphemy as a genuine and miraculous move of the Holy Spirit when in fact, it was a great scourge and a mockery of Christ and all that He is. Let us make sure that a theological movement does not result in multiplying blasphemy against God before we go and give the appearance that we are defending it as possibly credible or just superficially different.