Why is Belief in Modern Miracles Fair Game, When Belief in Miracles is Not?

A lot has been said on this subject over the last couple of months. There are good folks on both sides of the issue of modern miracles. To be specific, the issue about which I speak has to do with the claim that the gifts of miracle workers and healings are continuing in the Christian church. As a cessationist, I have my own particular way of dealing with that argument and have blogged about it a few times. It is clear that the cessationist and continuationist argument will continue for years to come, provided the Lord tarries. In this blog, I am going to attempt to point out the fallacious reasoning for the continuationist argument employed specifically by Stave Hays over at Triablogue.

Repeatedly, Hays refuses to draw any line of demarcation between the special revelation of Scripture and the general affairs of everyday life. Steve has continually argued what is good for Moses is good for us. If Paul could heal the sick, then we should be able to as well. He has gone so far as to adopt the causative-faith argument of charismatics, asserting that James 5 teaches that any prayer of faith ought to be able to produce healing. To my knowledge, he has not qualified God’s will in the process and seems to be drifting more and more toward the Charismatic camp on the issue.

In addition to this, Hays has consistently accused cessationists of employing the argument’s of atheist merely on the ground that we contend that such claims ought to be subjected to rigorous examination and proof. I have said on more than one occasion that these people are publicly claiming to represent Christ, to represent the Church, and therefore they must be subjected to the highest scrutiny. Hays doesn’t seem to think much of it. In fact, he seems far more concerned with argumentation than he does with the transforming nature of truth and the detriment done to the gospel by these false teachers and money-grabbing charlatans. That is most regrettable.

What most people do not realize is that Hays’ argument has a very basic flaw embedded in it. It is one of those flaws that is so obvious that it can slip right past you without notice. Fred Butler, in a nice analogy on UFOs hit on it the other day here.

I want to point you to three common methods of arguing in order to show that Steve Hays has employed a method in this case that is highly questionable. The following statements preclude properly basic beliefs. Hence, every belief or truth claim I reference is one that is not properly basic.

My underlying presupposition: self-justifying truth claims exist. My first premise goes like this: Every truth claim that is not self-justifying is subject to justification. My second premise: truth claims that are not self-justifying and that cannot be justified should be abandoned. My third premise: not all truth claims are justified in the same way.

Three common ways that Christians justify beliefs. The first one I want to discuss is induction. Here we are more consistent than the non-Christian, because we acknowledge the unity of the particular with the general, a unity that only makes sense in the Christian worldview. “Empirical truths – about the consequences of smoking, of the causes of cancer, and all others of that sort – cannot satisfy the standard of deductive certainty.” [Copi, Logic, 444-5] Copi tells us that the most common type of inductive argument is that of analogy. And it seems clear to me that Hays and other continuationists have called on argument by analogy often. “To draw an analogy between two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar. Hays has done this in terms of comparing biblical miracles with modern miracles as well as in his accusations that cessationists are really skeptics. Steve has reasoned that Jesus and the apostles performed miracles. Scripture does not say that miracles will cease after the apostles, therefore we should expect miracle workers to continue. Hays has also made the uncharitable argument that atheists deny miracles, and cessationist denies miracles, therefore cessationists argue like atheists. Inductive arguments never achieve certainty in their conclusions. Induction is a scientific way, the empiricist’s way for justifying beliefs. Not all truth claims can be justified by the inductive approach. For example, belief in the laws of logic cannot be justified using induction.

A second common form of argument is called deduction. “A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.” [Ibid, 164] In other words, a valid deductive argument is necessarily true if its premises are true. Deduction seeks certainty in its conclusion. Deduction is a rationalistic way for justifying one’s beliefs. However, not all truth claims can be justified using deductive reasoning. For example, you cannot justify empirical claims with deductive reasoning. In fact, the belief in the laws of logic cannot itself be justified using deductive reasoning.

You will recall a few paragraphs ago that I said that some beliefs are properly basic. I also refer to this type of belief as self-justifying. In other words, we do not need to, and in same cases we dare not, subject certain beliefs to the tests of justification. Perhaps belief in other minds would qualify as properly basic. You do not need to concern yourself with proving there are other minds because such a belief is self-evident (unless you are a highly educated philosopher who has learned how to be stupid in ways that the rest of us could never fathom). Every worldview has a chain of beliefs that is eventually anchored to something or perhaps nothing, depending on the worldview. A worldview anchored to air is one that, at bottom, provides no justification for it beliefs.

What kind of claim then is the claim that miracle workers are still present? What kind of claim is it to say that God is performing miracles today? Steve Hays and other continuationists seem to think it is an exegetical claim. They are wrong. It is not an exegetical claim. There is nothing in Scripture that provides the clear teaching that miracles will continue right up into the Parousia. Hence, this claim cannot be justified on purely exegetical grounds. However, on the flip side, the exegetical argument that God is not performing miracles today is about as weak. We cannot deny that God is performing miracles today on a purely exegetical basis. Belief in that claim cannot be justified on solely exegetical grounds. The claim is not an exegetical claim. It is an empirical claim.

How do we investigate empirical claims? Do we open our bibles to see if an empirical claim is true? First of all, we have to examine the source for the claim to determine if it meets the criteria of justification.

What are we observing? Are we actually observing miracles? We hear some reports, but what we need is something we can actually verify. Jesus healed in such a way that His miracles were self-verifying. He didn’t sneak off to someplace else, claim to perform a bunch of miracles and then come back with fancy stories about it all.

What is the difference between modern claims to miracles and biblical claims? It is simply this: the source. And the source makes all the difference in the world. Who is the source for the miracle claims of Scripture? Who is the source for the miracle claims in modern times? In the former case, the source is God Himself. In the latter case, it is fallen man.

Belief in modern claims of miracles is not self-justifying. All beliefs that are not self-justifying should be subjected to justification. All beliefs are not justified in the same way. Belief in modern miracles is empirical in nature. Empirical beliefs are subject to inductive justification. Hence, belief that a miracle has occurred should be empirically justified. Belief in the Bible as God’s word is neither, wholly empirical or entirely rationalistic. A basic Christian belief is that the Bible and all it contains is the self-justifying word of God. Hence, belief that all the contents of the word of God are true is a self-justifying belief. All biblical miracles are infallible records contained in the Bible and given by God Himself. Therefore, belief in Biblical claims of miracles is a self-justifying belief. Self-justifying beliefs are not subject to empirical or rational justification.

In summary then, it is easy to see the difference between cessationist beliefs concerning modern claims of the miraculous and the continuationists. The continuationist argument is guilty of applying the wrong criteria for justification of belief in modern claims of miracles. Such beliefs are empirical in nature and ethically speaking, must be subjected to inductive scrutiny. Not only is justification not unethical, as Hays seems to contend, it is morally necessary. On the other hand, the miracle claims of Scripture have a very different source and therefore are of a very different nature. These claims are made by a source that we dare not question. Scripture is self-justifying. Therefore, belief in the miracle claims of Scripture is a self-justifying belief. Plantinga tells us that any proposition is properly basic for an individual if and only if such proposition is incorrigible for the individual or self-evidence. For the Christian, Scripture is just that! Its testimony is elevated high above Hays’ fallacious argument by analogy, not to mention his sources for modern claims of the miraculous.

Continuationists and Sola Scriptura

Someone clued me in that Steve Hays has been thrashing away over at Triablogue about the Strange Fire conference, miracles, me, Fred Butler, and how his opinion does no injury to the proven and veritable principle of Sola Scriptura. The goal of this post is to remind the reader of what we mean when we talk about the principle of Sola Scriptura and then to examine the principle of modern prophecy and revelation to determine if in fact one can hold to both principles at the same time without doing injustice to either. I think such an endeavor is besieged with copious exegetical and logical obstacles and I hope to show you why I think this way.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.^[1]

So says the confession.

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.^[2]

Again, the confession testifies to the principle that I seek to defend.

When God speaks, men must listen. Steve Hays and other Continuationists have repeatedly made no distinction between the acts of God in Scripture and the claims about God’s actions outside of Scripture. It is as if there is nothing special, nothing purposeful beyond the acts of God in Scripture.

In other words, my dream cannot be distinguished from Joseph’s dream in Scripture. I must admit to finding such theories repugnant. Nevertheless, realizing that sinful men are given over to pursue one mad speculation after another in an attempt to carve a spot for themselves, I realize we have no alternative but to confront their madness with sound reason and Scripture.

Steve Hays holds to the view that the continuation of revelation and personal prophecy do nothing to detract from the principle of Sola Scriptura. However, I contend that Hays could not be more wrong for one very simple and easy to understand reason: God’s word, regardless of its form is always authoritative. Man is obligated to do whatever God has directed him to do without regard for the form of that direction. The principle of Sola Scriptura teaches that all that God has commanded us to do, all that he has necessitated us to do is positioned in the Sacred Scripture and no place else. All things pertaining to life, to salvation, to godliness, to spiritual growth, to exhortation are positioned and given to the Church through the Sacred Writings. We have no need of anything in addition to the divine revelation of Scripture in order grow in grace, and in sanctification, and to please the God who has called us unto Himself.

Now, the idea of additional revelation today, be it personal prophecy, or dreams or visions, is in direct conflict with the principle of Sola Scriptura. Suppose you walk into Church today and one of your elders prophecies that you are to leave your current job and accept another job, which requires relocation. The elder says that God has plans for you to do some particular work in a specific city. You walk out of church that day and discuss this “word from God” with your wife and family. You really don’t want to go. You don’t like the company or the man to whom you would report. Is it up to you? Can you inform God that you really don’t want to take that job and simply ignore His word? In so doing, have you sinned against God? Should your church family begin the disciplinary process outlined in Matthew 18? How can we hold to the position that refusing to submit to this prophecy is nothing short of an act of blatant sin? And if it is sin, then discipline must follow.

The rejoinder might be that such prophecies are not dependable. Therefore, we cannot be morally compelled to acquiesce to them. But this position impales God on the spear of obscurity. God is perceived to be unable to clearly communicate His plan to His followers. That is not the Christian view of God. Therefore, when God speaks, His speech must be deemed unquestionably reliable and therefore authoritative. That is precisely what we have in Scripture. And it is precisely what we do not have in dreams, prophecies, and inner-self talk.

Essentially, what this view does is place Continuationists in the position of being able to sin without actually violating Scripture. It also places Continuationists in the position of needing more from God to be able to walk more perfectly in His will. The more perfect will of God is the will of God that is beyond Scripture and customized specifically to you. And you are responsible for growing to a place in Christ where God can reveal this will to you so that you can be a super-Christian, walking perfectly in God’s will for your life, marrying the right person, living in the right home, and working at the right company and in the perfect field. This is why Pentecostals are obsessed with discovering God’s secret will.

If we must have dreams, revelations, and God speaking in our minds, then the principle of Sola Scriptura is completely eroded. In essence, we need more than Scripture. Moreover, Scripture is not the sole authority. Rather, God speaking is the sole authority. And that could be in Scripture or it could be outside Scripture. The fact is that it cannot be any other way. If God speaks, we are obliged to listen. The reason Scripture is the sole authority for faith and practice is not because it is written, but because it is God speaking. It does not matter if that speech takes the form of the written word, prophecy, a dream, or an inner voice. God’s word is by nature authoritative. Steve Hays has yet to offer a seriously tenable alternative to the principle of Sola Scriptura. In addition, verbal denial that one has not abandoned Sola Scriptura does not make it so. Just because one verbally affirms Sola Scriptura that does not mean they actually affirm the principle in practice.

I will now use Steve Hays’ own method against him. Hays has repeated pointed to Cornelius and even Paul and equated their experience with the modern experience of others, like Muslims for example, who claim to have been visited by God supernaturally. So let us take Moses and Jonah as our example. God spoke to Moses extra biblically and commanded him to strike the rock once. This was not a written command. Nevertheless, Moses was obligated to keep it. And when Moses failed to keep God’s command, the consequences were severe. And again, we see Jonah the Prophet who likewise never received a written command from God to go to Nineveh. When Jonah refused, God’s wrath was quite serious. Both Moses and Jonah were under obvious obligations to obey God’s spoken word. They recognized God’s word without any doubt. They had certified commands from God to do something very specific. Since Hays likes to liken our own experiences with those of divine revelation without any distinction whatever, then it follows that modern Charismatics who hear from God on such matters had better listen. If they do not, the consequences could be severe. Under that scenario, I fail to see how one could ever take the principle of Sola Scriptura seriously. After all, more is needed to carry out God’s perfect will in the earth. God must provide specific direction by way of visions, dreams, prophecies, and the inner-voice in order to carry out His divine plan. Scripture is simply not enough.

Continuationists argue that modern prophecy is different. It is not binding like prophecy was in Scripture. This is nothing less than special pleading. Hays wants to apply a stricter standard to the word of God as written or to prophecy within Scripture than he does to prophecy today. Continuationists have no exegetical or logical basis on which to base this argument. They think it can be so simply because they said it.

The principle of Sola Scriptura is constructed upon the nature of Scripture. Scripture is God speaking to His Church through the Holy Spirit. What God says is authoritative. Without equivocation we know that Scripture is God’s word.

We have not even touched on the implications of these views on the doctrine of revelation. Bavinck tells us that “Special revelation, in distinction from the above, is that conscious and free act of God by which he, in the way of a historical complex of special means (theophany, prophecy, and miracle) that are concentrated in the person of Christ, makes himself known – specifically in the attributes of his justice and grace, in the proclamation of law and gospel – to those human beings who live in the light of the special revelation in order that they may accept the grace of God by faith in Christ or, in case of impenitence, receive a more severe judgment.” [Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. I, 350] In the view of Steve Hays and others, there is nothing really any more special about Scripture than there is about modern prophecy and revelation. They are just as much the special revelation of God as is Scripture. The fact that it did not become written down is little more than an afterthought. Hays cannot have it both ways. If Jonah’s prophecy was unwritten and binding, then so are modern prophecies equally binding! How could the word of God ever not be binding?

The concept of open revelation at best gives sovereignty and Sola Scriptura nothing more than a wink and a nod. If open revelation is true, Scripture is not the only source by which we know God’s will. In fact, we know more of God’s will through dreams, and visions and personal prophecy. If God is still speaking new revelation, then men are still obligated to listen. If God is still speaking as He did in the text, then Scripture is not enough to accomplish His purposes in the Church and in His creation. Something more than Scripture is necessary.

If we hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura, and to the view that this document is the only reliable revealed will of God for His Church, then we cannot accept the principle of open revelation. If God is revealing what was heretofore unrevealed, then that revelation is special, authoritative, and binding. And if that is true, we must release our grip on the principle of Sola Scriptura and embrace this new principle. The Scripture, which we have held to be God’s once for all revelation to all humanity, is indeed not that at all. It is simply a collection of some of God’s revelation but there is much more that God has revealed supernaturally that we do not know. If modern prophecy is not special revelation, what kind is it? It certainly isn’t general revelation.

---

^[1] The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

^[2] The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Cessationism, Miracles, and Atheism: Understanding the Difference

For what seems like dozens of posts at this point, Steve Hays has criticized John MacArthur, Fred Butler, others, and myself for rejecting the modern claims by Charismatics that miracles workers still exist in the Church today. Steve has accused us of adopting the very same presuppositions employed by naturalistic atheists and skeptics in our reasoning. Perhaps some readers actually think Hays has a good point. After all, I realize that many of the young men at Triablogue are simply eager to follow someone they think is really, really smart. And it appears that Steve Hays is really, really smart. Richard Dawkins is really, really smart too, but he constructs some of the dullest arguments I have ever read. What I want to do in this post is point one, once again, the extraordinary fallacious nature of Hays’ accusation by pointing out where the differences rest between our argument and the argument from skepticism.

In order to get started, I want to quickly look at the skepticism of the famous empiricist, David Hume. Hume argued that there are two kinds of propositions: Relation of Ideas or Matters of Fact. The first set of propositions would include things like math while the second set would include all empirical knowledge, things known through the senses. Hume was convinced that all empirical knowledge was based on the relation of cause and effect. Now, this is far more complex than it might appear. My challenge is to simplify it at the risk of oversimplification. Because Hume denied God as the cause of all things we witness in the universe, and because he was an empiricist, he was forced to conclude that the human mind could never find the cause behind the event. Hume believed that all inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning. Hence, we know that fire burns through custom, not reason. The empiricist is unable to account for the uniformity of nature based solely on his empiricism. He cannot provide an adequate account for why the universe exists, empirically speaking that is. This is why Hume concluded that we have no empirical basis to believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Empiricism, by its very nature, has no predictive power.

Empiricism can in no way predict natural phenomena because it denies that true knowledge of the relationship between the general and the particular exists. Because miracles are events that are highly improbable, no one should believe reports that they actually occur. The issue comes down to one’s procedure for how they reason from the particular facts of experience to general truths. This is called induction. Hume’s skepticism is anchored in his empiricism. Because sooner or later, every inductive generalization presupposes a proposition that can never be proved (empirically speaking), it follows that logical justification for induction is impossible. Of course Hume is engaging in inductive skepticism in order to attack the enterprise of induction. The problem with Hume’s skepticism is his epistemological presupposition that all knowledge comes through the senses. Why Steve Hays knowingly associates the cessation argument with skepticism on any level is curious to say the least. One can only conclude that Hays really doesn’t understand Hume or the role of such presuppositions in one’s worldview or he uses these tactics deliberately. The former would be an indictment of gross ignorance while the latter an indictment of malevolence.

A second form of skepticism is rational skepticism popularized by Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). Within this scheme, the argument against miracles contends that miracles are violations of natural laws. But natural laws are immutable. It is impossible to violate immutable natural laws. Therefore, miracles are impossible. But that is not what Christian theism believes, is it? The truth is that Montaigne is correct in that true knowledge is impossible in a vacuous empiricism or rationalism. The Epicureans and the Stoics were both wrong. The answer to Spinoza’s argument is easily discovered. It is wrong to think of the uniformity of nature as impersonal, natural laws. Christian theism rejects the idea that there is anything impersonal involved in the ordering of the universe from its beginning to its future end. Because it rejects impersonal natural laws, Christian theism embraces the view that the most minute activities in the universe are ordered and held together continually by the power of the omnipotent God revealed in Scriptures.

I now want to pick up Hume’s argument where we leave Spinoza. Hume argues that we simply don’t have enough reliable witnesses, of good moral character, who testify to a miraculous event. Hume also noted that human beings love bizarre tales. Finally, Hume notices that miracles are usually reported among unenlightened people groups. Hume’s issue with miracles has nothing to do with this arrogant and obnoxious cloak. Hume denies not just miracles, but the miraculous. Because the miraculous cannot exist in empiricism, it is necessary to explain these so-called miracles. This is Hume’s way of maintaining his empiricism. It is Hume doing what Paul said all unbelievers do: they suppress the knowledge of God within and around them.

Now, what Steve Hays attempts to do is extend Hume’s argument against human testimony to the cessationist. Hume argues that the particular reports of miracles should not be believed because these men have questionable character, or, they love the bizarre, or they are simply unenlightened. The skeptic argues that enlightened men should not believe in the highly improbable. Miracles are highly improbable and therefore, enlightened men should not believe that miracles occur.

You may be asking where Hays is wrong in his accusation that cessationists are skeptics in sheep’s clothing. Hays is wrong on several accounts. First of all, cessationism does not deny the possibility of modern miracles. We believe God can perform miracles today. In fact, when presented with the right kind of evidence, rather than rejecting a miracle claim and resorting to some far-fetched naturalistic explanation, we will rejoice that God has performed a miracle. Suppose a person was cured of terminal cancer. The skeptic would conclude that mistake took place in the diagnosis or that something strange had indeed taken place but the cause must have been naturalistic even if we don’t understand it. The believer will not resort to such outlandish and foolish explanations. The cessationist will rejoice in the Lord. But there is quite a long distance between believing that God performs miracles and that miracle workers are still present in the Church today. Hays continues to forget this basic distinction.

The skeptics’ worldview and hence his presuppositions are antichrist. They are set in opposition to God at every junction. Miraculous causes and supernatural effects are precluded out of hand and exchanged in preference for outrageous naturalistic rationalizations of all varieties. The cessationist insistence that the modern claim of miracles be examined for validity has nothing to do with belief in the possibility of the miracle. Instead, it has everything to do with biblical discernment, with truth, and with the public testimony of the Christian community. In short, it has to do with the reputation of Christ Himself in the world. The fact that we witness thousands and even millions of false reports of miracles and miracle workers, in the name of Christ is sufficient cause for the Church to establish a protocol for validating when God has actually performed something extraordinary. It is a dishonor to the Christian community and to men like Steve Hays when we not only sanction, but facilitate hundreds of millions of Pentecostals and Charismatics making false and outrageous claims about the God of Scripture across the globe. False reports of miracle workers insult, defame, and scandalize the Christ we claim to know, to love, and to serve with all our heart, soul, mind, and body. What Steve Hays calls skeptics in sheep’s clothing, we call biblical discernment. 

Steve Hays' Criticisms Less Christian By The Post

Steve Hays continues to exhibit an amazing lack of courtesy and respect in his posts. I wonder what it is about these young, reformed guys that makes them think that when it comes to the internet, Christian virtue and ethics can be ignored. I admit that I will never understand this behavior. What Steve Hays fails to grasp is that his treatment of others is far worse than the poorest of poorly constructed arguments. Hays seems to elevate debating skills above simple and straightforward Christian charity and respect in communication even toward fellow believers.

Once again, Hays argues that the cessationists insistence on proof of miraculous claims is akin to atheistic philosophies, placing our names alongside John Loftus and Jeff Lowder. Would any reasonable, God-fearing person with even a hint of biblical discernment dare to place John MacArthur in the category of God-hating atheists? Is it even close to being an accurate comparison? Does Hays really think that our arguments are of the very same substance employed by these atheists? Such nonsense places Hays in either the camp of the very ignorant in terms of atheistic argumentation or worse, the camp of the extremely unkind, the mean-spirited, and the intentionally uncharitable. Either way, Hays continues to show colors here that are not in keeping with Christian virtue. There is simply no excuse, from a Christian perspective, for anyone to argue along these lines. Hays has to know better.

Concerning the paranormal, Hays knows full-well what I am referring to. It seems to me that Hays thinks that his credibility ought to lift even the most obscene claims to a level of credibility just because he says so. His fellow bloggers have even suggested that Christian apologists should construct a strategy for dealing with the paranormal. That is simply arrogant. If I follow Hays, I am left without any way whatever to verify claims of miracles, angels, visions, demons, and virtually everything that goes bump in the night. What a foolish proposition and a colossal waste of time.

Hays continues to attempt to tie cessationists to the arguments of naturalism. He knows full well that we believe in the miraculous. He knows we insist on the legitimacy and factuality of biblical miracles. He knows we are supernaturalists. For Hays to hint otherwise is simply to lie. He is no different than a Mark Driscoll. He deliberately sets up an argument we do not make, lying by saying this is our argument, and then knocks it over. Someone should remind Hays that Christians are commanded to be truthful, to speak the truth in love, to be courteous to one another. Hays seems completely uninterested in this part of Scripture. He would much rather wade into those areas where he can revel in the vague and the complex so that he can indulge his proclivities for unbridled and undisciplined speculations. I suppose it makes him feel smart, lifted up, elevated.

Hays continues to refuse to distinguish the events of special revelation from the events outside of special revelation. He continues to argue that these events should be viewed as normative Christian phenomena. In so doing, he flattens the unique nature of the biblical revelation. I have said this repeatedly and to my knowledge, Hays has simply ignored it.

Hays argues that the Bible promises the occurrence of certain types of miracles for the duration of Church history. He lists out several passages that are supposed to support his claim. Let's examine these verses to see if in fact the Bible makes such promises.

John 14:12: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
Clearly this verse makes no such promise. Jesus is speaking to His disciples who are with Him at the time. The key phrase is "because I go to the Father."

Acts 2:17-18: AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; 18  EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.

There is nothing in this verse that promises the CONTINUATION of miracles throughout the Church age.

1 Cor. 13:8-12: Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

Once again, there is no promise in this text that miracles will continue throughout the Church age. There is only the acknowledgement that these things are among the imperfect but that they are inferior the perfect state of every regenerate Christian will show this to be the case.

James 5:13-16: Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, banointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith will brestore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

And again, there is nothing in this text that promises the continuation of miracles or healings throughout the Church age.

If Hays is correct and these are in fact promises, then why aren't they happening? When was the last time you actually witnessed a genuine miracle? I don't mean you heard of someone who knew someone that told you about this person that got healed. Moreover, how often do the elders in your church pray over someone and witness the cancer drying up and going away? Do our elders even believe in God? Why aren't people getting healed? When was the last time Steve Hays laid his hands on a blind man and prayed for him and healed him? Why isn't Steve Hays down at the hospital working these miracles like Jesus and the apostles did? Hays must not have much faith. If he did, then he would stop being such a windbag and start actually doing some of these things the Bible supposedly promises. If Steve Hays' exegesis is accurate, then none of us have genuine faith because we simply don't see these miracles in any of our churches. There is one other possibility I suppose. If Hays' exegesis is accurate, and Hays really does believe, then the Bible must be false. Since Hays isn't healing anyone or working any miracles or doing anything that the Bible promises he could do if he believed it, then the Bible must be a farce. Oh, I almost forgot; there is one more possibility. Maybe Steve Hays' exegesis and argumentation is a farce. If Hays' exegesis is a farce, then that would explain why the Bible can be fully reliable and why we simply don't see these amazing miracles in modern times. I don't know which option you will choose, but as for me and my house, we choose to believe the Bible and reject the foolish abstractions of a man who has never worked a miracle in his life and yet expects us to just take him at his word that he can. After all, this is the logical conclusion of his argument.

Charismatic Fringe or Charismatic Foci

I have argued in previous posts that those who accuse John MacArthur's "Strange Fire" of painting the mainstream charismatics (whatever that is) with a fringe brush do so without any evidence whatever. In fact, I have argued that all the evidence suggest that men like Carson and Grudem are the ones on the fringe while the mainstream is busy speaking gibberish, barking like dogs, and singing the praises of Benny Hinn and Joel Olsteen. Well, Fred Butler has shared a post by Mennoknight over at "Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely" that I think you might find enlightening.

The argument from bloggers like Hays simply does not comport with the facts. If these freaks were not the mainstream, how is it that they have such large followings, live such lavish lifestyles, and are able to sell so many books and have so many people watching their programs? The only way this many Charismatic leaders can rise to such prominence and live such lucrative lifestyles is because they are supported by the mainstream of the Charismatic movement. There is no other plausible explanation. But I am sure Steve Hays will do his best to find one...even if it costs him what little remains of his credibility at this point.

Charismatic Fringe or Charismatic Foci

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 MacArthrite Cessationism

Steve Hays' Criticism of the Cessationist Position on Miracles

Steve Hays continues his fascinating attempt to convince us that the Pentecostal-Charismatic miracles today are genuine. He has implied on numerous occasions that we are wrong not to take them at their word. According to Hays, if we dare not question the miracles of Scripture, then we must extend the same respect to the "Benny Hinns" of the world today and resist the evil temptation to examine modern claims of miracle workers. Steve Hays' argument continues to place modern phenomena on par with the divine revelation of Scripture. Whatever principle I have for doubting modern claims of miracle workers and faith healers, I must also apply to Scripture, according to Hays. If I doubt the claims of Benny Hinn, then for consistency's sake, I must also doubt the claims of Jesus. If I doubt that Oral Roberts actually raised people from the dead, something he claimed to have done, then I must be soul mates with the skeptic Gotthold Lessing.

Hays' argument is more than fallacious. It is more than unsound. It is more than poisoning the well, more than ad hominem, more than a straw man. It is not even close to keeping with Christian charity. It is rude, obnoxious, disrespectful, and self-serving. But I have already discussed Hays' methods and tactics before. For some reason, Hays' thinks that when Paul demanded that Christians be kind to one another and when Peter demanded that we treat even outsiders with gentleness and respect, Hays thinks that does not apply him. For some reason, he is allowed to pull out one false analogy after another and associate God-fearing, Jesus loving, truth-embracing believers any way he pleases because they have dared to disagree with him. Sooner or later, Hays will have to give an account for his lack of respect and for associating fellow-believers with atheists and skeptics simply because they disagree with his views.

The problem with Hays' current rebuttal is that he once again thinks Scripture is on par with modern claims of supposed miracle workers. Hays points out that several miracles of Scripture are private events with no outside witnesses. He then says that we have no right to demand that the PC miracle workers perform the sort of miracles that we can verify. Why? Because no one can verify that God spoke to Moses from the burning bush but Moses. So if we take Scripture at face value, we must take Benny Hinn at face value as well. If we demand that Benny Hinn perform the sort of miracles that can be verified, then we must also make the same demand of Scripture. This is the basic thrust of Hays' argument. Now he does not use the name Benny Hinn and for good reason. It would be embarrassing. I use it for good reason: logically it is impossible not to make this conclusion if one accepts Hays' faulty premise. 

Hays thinks that by placing the demand for empirical verification on modern miracles that we undermine our ability to defend the miracles of Scripture, resulting in the entire collapse of any sort of high view of Scripture. Those idiot MacArthurites have destroyed apologetics with their strange fire nonsense, if you listen to Hays' argument. But if Hays is a true presuppositionalist, he knows better than this. He knows we presuppose the truth of Scripture and that the witness of Scripture is the Holy Spirit and therefore our belief in Scripture is a basic commitment. 

Lets take a look at one of those examples that Hays uses to prove his point. God used a burning bush to reveal Himself to Moses and to make known to Moses the high calling He had for him. No one saw it but Moses and God. But when God told Moses to go to His people, Moses reasonably asked God why the people should believe his claim. Did God leave Moses without a witness? He did not. Moses performed three miracles before the Children of Israel: the staff into a serpent, the hand of leprosy, and the water into blood. And they believed he had been sent with a message from God. Now, it seems reasonable to say that when someone performs indisputable public miracles as Moses did, it is safe to say that his version of the burning bush should be accepted as legitimate as well even if the only witness was God. Hays' analogy falls extremely short of its target.

In addition to the short rebuttal on Moses, we should also understand that no miracle of Scripture comes to us without a witness. The events of Scripture did not happen in isolation of a greater concern. They are included in Scripture for all of us. In other words, no miracle of Scripture is private. God has published them to us all. In every single case, the miracles of Scripture come with the witness of the Holy Spirit. There can be no greater witness than that. Perhaps Hays may wish to point out that unbelievers reject such an argument, but they do so upon presuppositions that we Christians reject. So now we are back to talking about presuppositions. Apparently "MacArthurite"cessationism doesn't destroy apologetics after all.

Hays is simply wrong to claim that the miracles of Scripture are private and that they are on par with modern claims of supposed miracle-workers and faith-healers. Modern claims are not the product of divine revelation. They are not witnessed by the Holy Spirit and made known to all believers. Finally, there is no empirical evidence to suggest they are in fact genuine. Additionally, Hays continues to ignore my rebuttal that demands he explain to us why it is wrong for us to scrutinze these modern claims since they stand to do great harm to the Church unless we can prove them to be legitimate.

Summary

• The miracles of Scripture are not private contrary to Steve Hays' claim. They have been published by the Holy Spirit for all believers to see.
• Unbelievers are obligated to believe the claims of Scripture. Therefore the miracles of Scripture serve as one more indictment upon their unbelief.
• The Holy Spirit is witness to every miracle of Scripture. Therefore, no miracle of Scripture is private.
• The miracles of Scripture are not on par with the modern claims of supposed miracle-workers and faith-healers. They are superior in every way.
• There is no indication anywhere in the NT that the miracles of Christ and His followers were reasonably disputable. There is no contemporary contestation of a Biblical miracle. The Jewish conspiracy concerning the resurrection was not based on genuine doubt.
• It is not consistent with skepticism to insist that modern claims of miracles be empirically verifiable.
• To presuppose the truth of Scripture in all it teaches concerning miraculous events does not logically require one to presuppose the truth-claims of modern miracles.
• To doubt the claims of modern faith-healers does not logically require one to doubt the biblical claims of faith healings.
• Phenomena within the Biblical revelation is distinguished by the impeccable witness of the Holy Spirit and distinct from all other phenomena by the nature of God's express purpose for that revelation, which is the expression of His truth, His light, His glorious gospel to the world.
• To claim that skepticism toward modern miraculous claims is logically equivalent to the miraculous claims of Scripture indicates that one does not accept the unique character of the self-attestation of Scripture.
• Rejection of the self-attesting nature of Scripture is equivalent to rejecting the self-authoritative nature of Scripture. 

To accept the claims of Scripture regarding ANYTHING it says does not require that we accept similar claims of modern charismatics in any way, shape, or form. It is a fallacious argument from top to bottom. But then again, Steve Hays has posted a lot of things regarding paranormal phenomena, so I think we could be dealing with someone whose views may be shifting outside the norm of good reason and Christian orthodoxy. I am monitoring Triablogue for that very purpose. To spill so much digital ink searching for testimonies of people going to heaven and talking to Jesus, as far as I am concerned is a colossal waste of time. Let us turn our attention to the one revelation we have and learn how to handle it better, accurately, and honor God in so doing. Instead of attempting to find ways to allow for the radically subjective, and the undisciplined experiential, let us heed Paul's words to Timothy:

 "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you." 2 Ti 1:13–14. 

Responding to Steve Hays' Well-Poisoning Arguments Once More

SOUL MATES

Ed DingessYou will reply that you personally don't know of any faith healers to whom we can turn for healing. Have you ever witnessed an indisputable, certified genuine miracle? One for which there were no natural explanations?
LessingMiracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have the opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another. I live in the eighteenth century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies;that reports of miracles are not miracles. 

The purpose of this blog is to provide a very simple and short response to Steve Hays' argument regarding whether or not we cessationists are justified in demanding proof that miracles workers exist before believing the claim that they actually do exist. Perhaps Hays has really misunderstood this assertion. My argument, while it makes the same conclusion as my cessationists friends, takes a somewhat different path. I reject the claim that miracle-workers are continuing to operate in the Church on the ground that no one has offered proof to the contrary. Hays thinks this debate can be confined to exegesis. In truth, so do many cessationists. I respectfully disagree. I think the best argument moves from empirical observation to exegesis and back again. The bottom line really is quite simple. If Steve Hays wants us to believe that there are still miracles workers in the Church, all he needs to do is provide some proof, some sort of evidence. That evidence has to be credible. I have heard and read many charismatics report that miracles are happening but in every case where those reports were actually investigated, the evidence simply did not support the claims in the reports.

I have had my own family members visit these men: men like R.W. Schambach, Ernest Angsley, and R.W. West. They have been prayed for and proclaimed healed at the conference. But the healings never happened. My grandmother passed away with sugar. Another family member passed away before she was 40 with breast cancer after having been proclaimed healed. Fred Price broke his foot and hobbled around for months in a cast just like the rest of us.

So here it is in a nutshell. Reports of miracles contained in Scripture, in fact, any event in Scripture comes to us with impeccable testimony that is irrefutable. We do not test nor question it because it is the witness and testimony of God Himself. Therefore, I accept the testimony of miracles from Scripture. I dare not put God’s word to the test. I think Gotthold might take a fundamentally different approach. So much for being soul mates. Steve’s Christian kindness precedes him. He is such a respectful debater.

Scripture is not merely a historical record of what happened at that time. It is much more than that. Those events are part of God’s revelation for a reason. Our personal experiences are not! The nature of extra-biblical history is fundamentally different from biblical history. If Steve Hays does understand this, then that is would explain his inability to understand our argument.

I want to be clear that I am not arguing that God does not or cannot perform miracles or heal the sick should He will to do so. I am not even arguing that God is not doing this today. If Hays thinks I am, then he sorely misunderstands my position. I am contending that I have no good evidence to believe the Pentecostal Charismatic idea that miracle workers and healers are active in the body of Christ today. That is my argument. My argument is based on empirical and exegetical proofs even though I emphasize the lack of empirical evidence as the greater obstacle for accepting the claims.

Now, let’s follow Steve’s argument to its logical end. If we are under obligation to believe there are miracle workers, where does Steve draw the line? Do we have to believe everyone who claims to be a miracle worker or claims to have the gift of healing? When some guy claims to have raised the dead, over there, far away, are we really supposed to just be amazed and take him at his word? If the answer is yes, then we just surrendered the biblical mandate to test those who claim to be God’s messengers but are not. If the answer is no, then the next question is by what standard can we determine the genuine from the false. Why is it a bad practice for Christians to demand that miracle-workers be tested and verified? After all, they are in the public spotlight professing to represent all that is Christianity. It seems to me that we should want to ensure that their claims are legitimate if for no other reason than the credibility of the Christian community is at stake.

At the end of the day it is really easy to verify legitimate and credible reports of miracles. If I were Pentecostal and I had been diagnosed with an illness or I had been blind and now I was cured, you better believe that I would be providing verifiable documentation of it to anyone who asked without flinching. I would not be offended if someone asked for the evidence. I would be all too happy to prove to them what Christ had done for me. After all, this would be a great opportunity to give them the gospel. But for some reason, Steve Hays and others seem to think we should just naively accept these accounts without question. Hays even places them on par with Scripture. Moreover, they are offended and we are criticized because we think it prudent to examine such incredible claims just to be sure the integrity of the Christian community remains intact. Hays’ position that accepting the miracle claims of Scripture logically means that we cannot question modern miracle claims is just plain silly. There is simply no other way to say it. Why Hays thinks it is a bad practice for us to demand verification for these claims so that the Church may be protected, as far as I am concerned, remains a mystery.

Judging by Behavior: A Response to Steve Hays’ Judging by Appearances

Steve Hays is at it again. One of the tactics employed at John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference was the use of several You Tube clips from Pentecostal-Charismatic (PC) worship services. These clips were used to illustrate the bizarre behavior that goes on in the PC churches and events. Steve Hays has taken exception to the clips and titled his response “Judging by Appearances.” Now, first of all, Hays employs his standard debate technique. This technique seeks, from the start, to poison the well. We all know that we are not to judge by appearances and it is easy to understand that such behavior must be avoided. But when Hays describes Strange Fire leadership as Judging by Appearances, he immediately sets a very negative and unfair tone. These tactics are not only unethical, they represent some of the most fallacious arguments on the Web. The shocking thing is that Hays claims to be a conservative reformed kind of guy. Over the last year or so, I am not so sure what kind of guy Hays is. I know that his arguments seem to lack pastor concern, genuine love, and humility, and are quite totally lacking in gentleness and respect for others. I have prompted Hays several times to change his tone to no avail.

Hays Point One

i) One problem is the fallacious extrapolation from examples like that to charismatics in general, much less charismatic theology in general. When MacArthurites use these YouTube clips to discredit charismatic theology in principle, they are encouraging others to draw a blatantly fallacious inference. They need to demonstrate that this behavior is representative of charismatics. They also need to demonstrate that this behavior is a logical outcome of charismatic theology. 

Response

First of all, Hays assumes that these behaviors are not fair representatives of the PC movement in general. I spent years in the movement and was a licensed minister in the Church of God, the movement’s oldest Pentecostal denomination. I can say that while not everyone in the PC movement behaves in this manner during worship, a high percentage do, and, that percentage has grown over the years, and the ones that do not are afraid to criticize it because they are afraid of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The fact is there are very, very few in the PC movement who actually see these behaviors as a problem.

Secondly, if you are open to dreams, visions, and open revelation in general, by what standard could you ever criticize this behavior? If your entire theological system is built off a radically subjective view of open revelation and you believe that you can feel God and the Holy Spirit, how can you criticize the behavior? Have you ever had someone use the argument that we can’t put God in a box? Take a guess who made that foolish argument so incredibly popular today: that is correct, it was the PC movement telling us that God can do whatever He wants because we can’t put God in a box. If Hays cannot understand how PC theology leads logically to this kind of behavior: it is not the fault of poor argumentation on the part of cessationism.

Hays Point Two

ii) It's spiritually hazardous to treat these YouTube clips as an implicit standard of comparison. I'm reminded of obese people who complain that they are one of the few remaining groups it's socially acceptable to make fun of. 

Response

This is one of the silliest analogies I have seen from Hays. It is a perfect exemplar for non-sequiturs if ever there was one. Hays’ tactic is easy to spot even if he thinks it is not. He takes one behavior that is obviously in poor taste and then says the other behavior is the same. The purpose of the PC video clips was not to make fun of anyone. The purpose was to let others see what is really going on in PC worship services and events. Most people who are not PC have no idea that this is the kind of stuff going on in the movement. Moreover, the objective was to show that these behaviors are not out there on the fringe. They are in the mainstream of the movement. Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland and other prominent leaders have led the way. Michael Brown was a tenacious defender of the laughing revival which is still going on. To my knowledge, he has never recanted.

Hays then uses another analogy as if it clarifies his point, but it only serves to introduce more confusion. Hays says, “For instance, I never attended a Mormon service, but I imagine that Mormon services are very staid and respectable. Nothing sensational or embarrassing usually happens. Everyone behaves themselves.” Does Hays really think that PC worship run amok is a mere appearance? If Steve Hays does not understand that these behaviors do not occur in a vacuum, he really should excuse himself from the discussion.

Why do PC people engage in and tolerate these behaviors on the You Tube clips? The answer is very simple: they believe God moves in his church and in His people in precisely this way. They think that their duty as Christians is to focus on God and “enter into His presence, or enter into His Spirit” in order to have the premium worship experience they are supposed to have. They are taught that when they open up and let go and just enter God’s presence that God does things in them that He does not do at other times. They think He heals their marriages, gives them what they need to grow spiritually, and that it will even result in career advancement and material success. This “entering into God’s presence” is common among all those in the PC movement. The enemy of PC worship is often portrayed as rational thought. PC adherents are constantly encouraged not to try and understand God’s moving with your mind. Do not think about what is happening, they are told. Just let go and jump in. Do you feel that urge or tingle? That’s the presence of God. That is the Holy Spirit trying to work on you! Let Him in. Do not quench the Spirit!

Michael Brown states it this way, “What is revival? It is God “stepping down from heaven” and baring His holy arm. He comes and acts and speaks. There is a holy presence and a word on fire. God is in the midst of His people. The Lord is shaking the world. That is revival! It is a time of visitation.” Leaders in the PC movement would say that these clips are people “responding” to the presence of God as He “moves” among His people. If Hays cannot see the theology behind it, that is no fault of the Strange Fire Conference. It is the fault of his own unwillingness to give the conversation the kind of respect and appreciation it deserves. After all, we are talking about the very character and reputation of the Christian religion and even more than that, we are talking about the God of all that is and how He is being represented to an unbelieving world. Finally, we are talking about millions of people who think this is Christianity when it clearly is not!

Hays concludes his criticism saying, “Don't be so quick to judge by appearances. Jesus reminds us that some of the worst sins are sins of the heart.” Thinking he has made his point, he issues a final indictment. The Strange Fire conference is guilty of judging by appearances. Does Hays really think that men of the caliber of Phil Johnson, Steve Lawson, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur would not set out to understand both the theology and practices of the PC movement before putting on a conference like this? Does Hays not realize that John MacArthur is a pastor in the middle of where this movement actually started just over 100 years ago? Is Hays oblivious to the fact that Pastor MacArthur is likely to have encountered more PC people than he himself ever will and that these encounters have resulted in a depth of experience with the movement and its people that uniquely qualifies him to address the errors? Apparently all these facts seem to be missed by Hays as he puts on display his morbid interest in abstract, perpetual debates about one subject after another without the slightest display of genuine concern for the Church or for those who are being harmed by a movement whose theology ranges from small error to heresy to overt blasphemy.

Having spent years in the movement and having served as a licensed minister and pastor in the PC movement, I can speak with authority and credibility on the Strange Fire conference. The conference is exactly correct in its assessments. My journey out of the PC movement was due to my willingness to consider that I was wrong about tongues, about “feeling God,” about how God moves, about open revelation, about prosperity and success being tied to faith in Christ. I admit that I rejected certain aspects earlier on, but my shift out of the movement took several years. I can honestly say that from my perspective, Hays’ comments come from what appears to be a serious lack of experience with the movement and a significant lack of interaction with PC theology at any degree of depth. I hope Hays will reconsider his apparent propensity for intellectual pugilism and his desire for what appears to be a life defined by one debate after another. I am all for standing for truth. But there is a difference between seeking to allow the Word of God to perform its work in us and seeking to win an argument. When we become so obsessed with winning the argument that we forget about the edification of the people involved, and we forget that we must seek to represent our Father well before a dark world, then we become the very darkness against which we fight, blinded by our own insatiable lust for intellectual dominance instead of humbled by the life-transforming truths that we proclaim and defend.

Responding to Hays' Fallacious Poisoning the Well Argument

Some typically confused comments from Ed Dingess:Steve Hays is at it again with his at-a-distance pie-in-the-sky non-falsifiable theory that God continues to work miracles in a manner not at all materially different from how He has always worked miracles. Hays’ argument is really an argument from silence. What I mean by that is that Hays’ argument appeals to claims of miracles far, far away, in a distant land in order to defend his position.
 i) I've never said modern miracles only occur in Third World countries. Rather, I've objected to how MacArthurites dismiss reports from Third World Christians out of hand. ii) Notice, though, how Ed's argument is indistinguishable from how atheists attack Biblical miracles:  at-a-distance pie-in-the-sky non-falsifiable theory...claims of miracles far, far away, in a distant land
 Isn't that exactly how secular debunkers discount Biblical miracles? "You Christians appeal to conveniently unfalsifiable miracles from the distant past."  If someone claims to be a miracle worker, we simply demand some form of clear and acceptable proof. Had someone been able to supply such a certification, perhaps the contours of the debate would shift.
 Even when medical corroboration is provided, MacArthurites fold their arms say that's not "on the level of undeniable miracles in the NT." 

I offer just a brief response because that is really all that is required. First of all, note that Hays engages in the logical fallacy of poisoning the well by interjecting Hume and attempting to claim that cessationist borrow from Hume's skepticism. He also accuses my of using atheist tactics, which I think is a real howler. No one should be able to read what I have said or how I have argued and conclude that there is any hint of atheistic or Humean tactics or doctrine.

i) I never said that Hays only points to third world countries. What Hays needs to do, quite simply is offer some proof. If miracle workers exist, produce one. Give us a name and let us carefully examine him. That is the very best way to end this debate. If Hays is so confident that we are wrong and that this argument is not one of theory and abstractions, give us a real, flesh and blood miracle worker here in THIS country then or any country as far as that goes, and let us move the debate down the road. I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about this. But, you see, I just have not been given a single solitary reason at this point, to think I am. The burden of proof on those who claim miracle workers are real and still moving around in society is squarely on them.

ii) This challenge stands. I will not back off from it. It is nothing like how atheists attack the Bible because they begin with a God-less presupposition and without good reason (anti-supernatural viciously circular reasoning) they reject solid historical claims while accepting others. In other words, the atheist method is violently inconsistent. They pick and choose what they will accept from history based on their anti God bias. They allow their atheism to set the standard for what is historical and what is not.

It is true that we cannot show the miracle claims of Scripture to be empirically verifiable. But not everything that is true can be empirically verified. I feel no obligation whatever to accept such silly nonsense. The claim that everything should be empirically verifiable is not itself empirically verifiable. Do we really need to go down this road? Is this the same as modern miracles? Not at all. We do not place the claims of Scripture in the dock of human reason. But we can, we do, and we should place modern claims of men who say they speak for God in the dock and test them with both Scripture and human reason. Can we test these modern claims empirically? You better believe we can. Should we? We most certainly should. Were the miracles of Scripture empirically verifiable at the time? The most certainly were. The way in which Jesus and the early Christian leaders performed miracles left no doubt whatever that a miracle took place. The miraculous phenomena of the ushering in of the New Covenant message and gospel was undeniable and indisputable. Hays seems to equivocate and confuse methods for testing truth claims. He seems to want to apply empirical testing to ancient claims and historical testing to modern claims when he should be doing it the other way around. I know that Hays realizes this. I just don't understand why he argues the way he does. It really is pretty simple how those of us in this camp argue.

Once again, my hope is that some readers will take these comments and carefully examine them. That they will look at these modern claims differently or at least launch an objective investigation of the matter in search for the truth. I hope the result is a new and fresh appreciation for what it means to publicly stand in Christ's place, claiming to represent Him, and how what we say and do everywhere, to include on the internet, is a reflection on Him. When we claim to be a mirror of Christ and we slander one another, we tell others that slander is ok. We tell others that Christians slander each other when they cannot agree on these issues. I hope we grow to the place where we can passionately defend the truth and call a lie a lie without calling each other names or engaging in obvious fallacies designed to paint our detractors in the worse possible light.

Daniel Wong's Testimony: A Biblical Perspective of Providence and Inner Promptings

Perhaps this will help others recognize what it is "MacArthurites" really think about God's providence and immanence in the world and in the lives of His people and one small way he accomplishes His purpose in the earth.