Joel McDurmon and John McArthur on "We Will Not Bow"

A lot of people have already noticed that Joel McDurmon had nothing better to do so he criticized a fabulous sermon delivered by John MacArthur recently, entitled "We Will Not Bow." I listened to it...TWICE. Yes, it was that good. I am not going to get into the convoluted arguments that underly McDurmon's theology for the simple reason that they were recently exposed by J.D. Hall in their recent debate. But I do want to take some space to point out some of the more obvious errors in some of McDurmon's statements. Sometimes our theological system can be so blinding that it even causes us to forget some of the most basic statements utter by Christ and written by His Apostles.

Obvious Error # 1
McDurmon Says, "The reason MacArthur sees such persecution as the norm for all of history is a consequent belief of the premillennial worldview: since the millennial reign of Christ lies totally in the future, Christ is therefore not reigning in any significant way in this world now."

Actually, the reason so many of us see persecution as the norm for all of history Joel is because Jesus and His Word predicts it.

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Matt. 5:11

and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away. Mark 4:17

“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. Jn. 15:20

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Rom. 8:35

Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong. 2 Cor. 12:10

Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 2 Tim. 3:12

I admit that this was a lay-up but it is a critical one. Look at how Christians are supposed to respond to persecution. Persecution is a blessing according to Jesus but not according to Joel. If the master was persecuted so too will the slave be according to Jesus but not according to Joel. Tribulation is as normal as distress, famine, peril, war, etc., according to Paul but not according to Joel. Paul was content with persecution but Joel tells us such capitulation is wrong. In fact, Paul's final words informs us that persecution is in fact the norm for the Christian life. It is not a capitulation to expect persecution but rather it is to take Christ at His word. Contrary to McDurmon, it has nothing whatever to do with eschatology and everything to do with a godly attitude toward a very specific promise of Christ: His disciples WILL BE PERSECUTED.

Obvious Error # 2
McDurom says that Satan has been bound, and that he no longer is holds the world in his power, "That judgment and casting out was an accomplished fact back then, and Christ regained total dominion over the world."

There is a simple rule in biblical interpretation that says first, the obscure must be interpreted through the clear. And second, there are no contradictions in the biblical text. Does Scripture support McDurmon's claim or can we find language in Scripture after Christ uttered these words, similar to that which MacArthur uses today?

in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 2:2) According Paul, anyone who is unregenerate still walks under the control of the prince of the power of the air, in other words, Satan.

We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 1 Jn. 5:19

Even John 12:32 cannot be taken to mean that Satan was casted down that instant any more than the world experienced final judgment. But Satan's casting down become officially sealed by the act of the resurrection of Christ. Just as there was a time in WW II that we could say, now the Nazis have been defeated, actually meaning that their demise was at some point certain before official surrender took place.

The final error McDurmon makes has to do with the question of Christians sending their children to public school. McDurmon demands that we do not allow anyone from the public school system to train our children on anything whatsoever. But can such a principle be established by Scripture? Does McDurmon offer a shred of exegesis to demonstrate that he has arrived at this conclusion biblically? He does not. The training of our children really is the job of the parent. Can an unbeliever teach my kid math? Yes! But I add that all math must be done to the glory and praise of God! I also add that God is the necessary precondition for mathematics. It isn't ipso facto compromising to place your children in public school. If you can avoid it, you would probably be wise to do so. But is it a violation of the law of God? Such a suggestion without any exegetical warrant so far as I can tell.

McDurmon is wrong to think that Christians ought to conform culture to the point that persecution is eliminated. Christ and the NT Scriptures unambiguously inform us that all those who live for His name will be persecuted. Second, McDurmon is wrong when he argues that Satan has been bound from the time Jesus uttered those words. John and Paul both used clear language that contradicts that thinking. And finally, McDurmon is wrong when he imposes his own convictions about public education on the rest of the Church. It is incredibly shocking how easy some men bind the lives of others with their own extremely narrow way of thinking about some of these issues. Where Scripture speaks clearly, we ought to speak clearly. Where Scripture speaks with some degree of ambiguity, we ought to speak softly. Where Scripture does not speak at all, may God grant us the humility not to speak with it. 

A Heart Set on God by John MacArthur

For Christians prayer is like breathing. You don’t have to think to breathe because the atmosphere exerts pressure on your lungs and forces you to breathe. That’s why it is more difficult to hold your breath than it is to breathe. Similarly, when you’re born into the family of God, you enter into a spiritual atmosphere wherein God’s presence and grace exert pressure, or influence, on your life. Prayer is the normal response to that pressure. As believers we have all entered the divine atmosphere to breathe the air of prayer. Only then can we survive in the darkness of the world.

Unfortunately many believers hold their spiritual breaths for long periods, thinking brief moments with God are sufficient to allow them to survive. But such restricting of their spiritual intake is caused by sinful desires. The fact is, every believer must be continually in the presence of God, constantly breathing in His truths to be fully functional.

Because ours is such a free and prosperous society, it is easier for Christians to feel secure by presuming on instead of depending on God’s grace. Too many believers become satisfied with physical blessings and have little desire for spiritual blessings. Having become so dependent on their physical resources, they feel little need for spiritual resources. When programs, methods, and money produce impressive results, there is an inclination to confuse human success with divine blessing. Christians can actually behave like practical humanists, living as if God were not necessary. When that happens, passionate longing for God and yearning for His help will be missing—along with His empowerment. Because of this great and common danger, Paul urged believers to “pray at all times” (Eph. 6:18) and to “devote yourselves to prayer” (Col. 4:2). Continual, persistent, incessant prayer is an essential part of Christian living and flows out of dependence on God.

THE FREQUENCY OF PRAYER

Jesus’ earthly ministry was remarkably brief, barely three years long. Yet in those three years, as must have been true in His earlier life, He spent a great amount of time in prayer. The Gospels report that Jesus habitually rose early in the morning, often before daybreak, to commune with His Father. In the evening He would frequently go to the Mount of Olives or some other quiet spot to pray, usually alone. Prayer was the spiritual air that Jesus breathed every day of His life. He practiced an unending communion between Himself and the Father.

He urged His disciples to do the same. He said, “Keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place” (Luke 21:36).

The early church learned that lesson and carried on Christ’s commitment to continual, unceasing prayer. Even before the Day of Pentecost, the 12 disciples gathered in the Upper Room “with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer” (Acts 1:14). That didn’t change even when 3,000 were added to their number on the Day of Pentecost (2:42). When the apostles were led to structure the church so that ministry could be accomplished effectively, they said, “We will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word” (6:4).

Throughout his life, the Apostle Paul exemplified this commitment to prayer. Read the benedictions to many of his epistles and you’ll discover that praying for his fellow believers was his daily practice. To the Roman believers he said, “God … is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, always in my prayers making request” (Rom. 1:9–10; cf. 1 Cor. 1:4; Eph. 5:20; Phil. 1:4; Col. 1:3; 1 Thes. 1:2; 2 Thes. 1:3, 11; Phile. 4). His prayers for believers often occupied him both “night and day” (1 Thes. 3:10; 2 Tim. 1:3).

Because he prayed for them so continually, Paul was able to exhort his readers to pray that way as well. He urged the Thessalonians to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thes. 5:17). He commanded the Philippians to stop being anxious and instead, “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (4:6). He encouraged the Colossians to “devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving” (4:2; cf. Rom. 12:12). And to help the Ephesians arm themselves to combat the spiritual darkness in the world around them, he said, “With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints” (Eph. 6:18). Unceasing, incessant prayer is essential to the vitality of a believer’s relationship to the Lord and his ability to function in the world.

A Way of Life

As a child I used to wonder how anyone could pray without ceasing. I pictured Christians walking around with hands folded, heads bowed, and eyes closed, bumping into everything. While certain postures and specific times set aside for prayer have an important bearing on our communication with God, to “pray at all times” obviously does not mean we are to pray in formal or noticeable ways every waking moment. And it does not mean we are to devote ourselves to reciting ritualistic patterns and forms of prayer.

To “pray without ceasing” basically refers to recurring prayer, not nonstop talking. Thus it is to be our way of life—we’re to be continually in an attitude of prayer.

Famous nineteenth-century preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon offers this vivid picture of what praying at all times means:

Like the old knights, always in warfare, not always on their steeds dashing forward with their lances in rest to unhorse an adversary, but always wearing their weapons where they could readily reach them, and always ready to encounter wounds or death for the sake of the cause which they championed. Those grim warriors often slept in their armour; so even when we sleep, we are still to be in the spirit of prayer, so that if perchance we wake in the night we may still be with God. Our soul, having received the divine centripetal influence which makes it seek its heavenly centre, should be evermore naturally rising towards God himself. Our heart is to be like those beacons and watchtowers which were prepared along the coast of England when the invasion of the Armada was hourly expected, not always blazing, but with the wood always dry, and the match always there, the whole pile being ready to blaze up at the appointed moment. Our souls should be in such a condition that ejaculatory prayer should be very frequent with us. No need to pause in business and leave the counter, and fall down upon the knees; the spirit should send up its silent, short, swift petitions to the throne of grace …

A Christian should carry the weapon of all-prayer like a drawn sword in his hand. We should never sheathe our supplications. Never may our hearts be like an unlimbered gun, with everything to be done to it before it can thunder on the foe, but it should be like a piece of cannon, loaded and primed, only requiring the fire that it may be discharged. The soul should be not always in the exercise of prayer, but always in the energy of prayer; not always actually praying, but always intentionally praying (The Parables of Our Lord [Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint 1979], 434–35).

I think of praying at all times as living in continual God-consciousness, where everything we see and experience becomes a kind of prayer, lived in deep awareness of and surrender to our Heavenly Father. It is something I share with my Best Friend—something I instantly communicate with God. To obey this exhortation means that, when we are tempted, we hold the temptation before God and ask for His help. When we experience something good and beautiful, we immediately thank the Lord for it. When we see evil around us, we ask God to make it right and to allow us to help accomplish that, if it is according to His will. When we meet someone who does not know Christ, we pray for God to draw that person to Himself and to use us to be a faithful witness. When we encounter trouble, we turn to God as our Deliverer.

Thus life becomes a continually ascending prayer: all life’s thoughts, deeds, and circumstances become an opportunity to commune with our Heavenly Father. In that way we constantly set our minds “on the things above, not on the things that are on earth” (Col. 3:2).

Fellowship with God

Since the ultimate purpose of our salvation is to glorify God and to bring us into intimate, rich fellowship with Him, failure to seek God in prayer is to deny that purpose. “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also,” says the Apostle John, “that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).

Imagine spending an entire workday with your best friend at your side. You would no doubt acknowledge his presence throughout the day by introducing him to your friends or business associates and talking to him about the various activities of the day. But how would your friend feel if you never talked to him or acknowledged his presence? Yet that’s how we treat the Lord when we fail to pray. If we communicated with our friends as infrequently as some of us communicate with the Lord, those friends might soon disappear.

Our fellowship with God is not meant to wait until we are in heaven. God’s greatest desire, and our greatest need, is to be in constant fellowship with Him now, and there is no greater expression or experience of fellowship than prayer.

In one of his classic works on prayer, Purpose in Prayer, nineteenth-century pastor E.M. Bounds provides us with this reminder of how we must cultivate our fellowship with the Lord:

Prayer is not a meaningless function or duty to be crowded into the busy or the weary ends of the day, and we are not obeying our Lord’s command when we content ourselves with a few minutes upon our knees in the morning rush or late at night when the faculties, tired with the tasks of the day, call out for rest. God is always within call, it is true; His ear is ever attentive to the cry of His child, but we can never get to know Him if we use the vehicle of prayer as we use the telephone, for a few words of hurried conversation. Intimacy requires development. We can never know God as it is our privilege to know Him, by brief and fragmentary and unconsidered repetitions of intercessions that are requests for personal favors and nothing more. That is not the way in which we can come into communication with heaven’s King. “The goal of prayer is the ear of God,” a goal that can only be reached by patient and continued and continuous waiting upon Him, pouring out our heart to Him and permitting Him to speak to us. Only by so doing can we expect to know Him, and as we come to know Him better we shall spend more time in His presence and find that presence a constant and ever-increasing delight ([Chicago: Moody, n.d.], 53–54).

The Ways and Means of Prayer

In Ephesians 6:18 Paul says we are to pray with “all prayer and petition.” The Greek word translated “prayer” (also in 1 Thes. 5:17) is the most common New Testament word for prayer and refers to general requests. The word translated “petition” refers to specific prayers. Paul’s use of both words suggests our necessary involvement in all kinds of prayer, every form that is appropriate.

The Posture

To pray all the time necessitates being in various positions because you will never be in the same position all day. In the Bible, people prayed standing (Gen. 24:12–14), lifting up their hands (1 Tim. 2:8), sitting (Jud. 20:26), kneeling (Mark 1:40), looking upward (John 17:1), bowing down (Ex. 34:8), placing their heads between their knees (1 Kings 18:42), pounding on their breasts (Luke 18:13), and facing the temple (Dan. 6:10).

The Circumstances

While some people today think prayer ought to be very formal, the Bible documents that people prayed in many different circumstances. They prayed wearing sackcloth (Ps. 35:13), sitting in ashes (Job 1:20–21; 2:8), smiting their breasts (Luke 18:13), crying tears (Ps. 6:6), throwing dust on their heads (Josh. 7:6), tearing garments (1 Kings 21:27), fasting (Deut. 9:18), sighing (Ezra 9:4–15), groaning (Ps. 6:4–6), crying out loud (Heb. 5:7), sweating blood (Luke 22:44), agonizing with broken hearts (Ps. 34:18), making a vow (Acts 18:18), making sacrifices (Ps. 20:1–3), and singing songs (Acts 16:25).

The Place

The Bible records people praying in all sorts of places as well: in battle (2 Chron. 13:14–15), in a cave (1 Kings 19:9–10), in a closet (Matt. 6:6), in a garden (Matt. 26:36–44), on a mountainside (Luke 6:12), by a river (Acts 16:13), by the sea (Acts 21:5–6), in the street (Matt. 6:5), in the temple (1 Kings 8:22–53), in bed (Ps. 4:3–4), in a home (Acts 9:39–40), in the stomach of a fish (Jonah 2:1–10), on a housetop (Acts 10:9), in a prison (Acts 16:23–26), in the wilderness (Luke 5:16), and on a cross (Luke 23:33–34, 46). In 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul said, “I want the men in every place to pray” For the faithful, Spirit-filled Christian, every place becomes a place of prayer.

The Time

At a pastors’ conference I attended some years ago, one man preached on the subject of morning prayer. To support his point, he read various passages that show people praying in the morning. As he did, I looked up all the Scriptures that show people praying three times a day (Dan. 6:10), in the evening (1 Kings 18:36), before meals (Matt. 14:19), after meals (Deut. 8:10), at the ninth hour (3 P.M.; Acts 3:1), at bedtime (Ps. 4:4), at midnight (Acts 16:25), day and night (Luke 2:37; 18:7), often (Luke 5:33), when they’re young (Jer. 3:4), when they’re old (Dan. 9:2–19), when they’re in trouble (2 Kings 19:3–4), every day (Ps. 86:3), and always (Luke 18:1; 1 Thes. 5:17).

Prayer is fitting at any time, in any posture, in any place, under any circumstance, and in any attire. It is to be a total way of life—an open and continual communion with God. After having embraced all the infinite resources that are yours in Christ, don’t ever think you’re no longer dependent on the moment by moment power of God.

Coincidental Attitudes

Throughout his life the believer senses his insufficiency, thus he lives in total dependence on God. As long as you feel that insufficiency and dependence, you’ll pray without ceasing. At the same time, you also know you are the beneficiary of tremendous blessings from God. That’s why Paul instructed the Thessalonians to “rejoice always” and “give thanks” in everything in their unceasing prayers (1 Thes. 5:16–18). That reflects a beautiful balance in our communion with God. While we offer specific petitions for our needs and the needs of others, at the same time we can rejoice and give thanks—not just for His specific answers, but also for the abundant blessing He pours out to us each and every day.

Sam Storms on Fallible Prophecy: Points 3 & 4

Third, although I realize that cessationists have a different understanding of 1 Corinthians 14:29, I believe Paul is saying here much the same thing as he said in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22. “Weigh” (diakrino) what is said by the prophets. That is to say, sift the word and identify what is of God and what is the human and thus fallible admixture. I find it difficult to believe that Paul would have commanded this sort of assessment if all prophetic words were by definition inerrant Scripture quality revelation from God. See more here.

The general thrust of Storms’ entire argument is that he considers Paul to have modern Charismatic prophecy in view. In other words, Storms is simply assuming that his view that ancient prophecy was the same as modern prophecy is correct. But the descriptions we read in Scripture and the phenomenon we see among Charismatics are remarkably different. Modern Charismatic prophecy and prophets simply just start speaking at the slightest hint of an emotional sensation. They have no idea what is going to come out of their mouths. The rational mind is entirely suspended and replaced with a radical, mystical sensation and they just begin to prophesy.

Second, there is no indication in this text that the prophets are prophesying. Storms simply assumes this to be the case. There is no reason for this assumption other than his desire to grasp for something to prove his case. Paul informs the Church to have the prophets speak, one at a time, and then that their sermon is to be judged for its faithfulness to the truth they have received from the apostles and their associates.

Third, there is no indication in this context that Paul is dealing with the more narrow use of prophecy. Rather, it seems clear that he is dealing with preaching, proclaiming, teaching, and exhorting. He uses the words μανθάνω (manthano) and παρακαλέω (parakaleo) which means to learn and to be encouraged. There is no indicating that he has forth telling the future in mind whatsoever. In addition, how could anyone ever judge whether new revelation was right or wrong unless he or she compared it to what had already been revealed. How could we know that predictive personal prophecy was from God? If the event were not going to happen for years, we would simply have to wait. We could not scrutinize or examine it for years to come. However, if these speeches were objective truth claims, then the ability to examine them in light of previously given revelation would be possible.

Fourth, in 1 Corinthians 14:30-31 Paul writes: “If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.” Paul appears to be indifferent toward the possibility that the first prophecy might be lost and never heard by the church.

Storms again assumes that this revelation that has been revealed to someone takes the shape of modern claims. There is no reason to think this is the case. The ancient form of revelation seems radically different from modern claims. In modern Pentecostalism, the experience is one of a radically heightened emotion. This does not at all come into view when one examines the more detailed accounts of revelation in Scripture.

The emphasis in this text is clearly on the order of the service and the avoidance of confusion. Apparently, when the first prophet was speaking, or even perhaps prophesying, a second would just jump in and begin to do his thing as well. Paul’s concern about order and his point out that God is a God of order indicates that the typical ancient patter was not being honored. The idea that the first prophet could not resume when the second prophet had finished, and that such a position by Paul indicated some sort of disregard for the authority of the prophetic words being uttered is sheer conjecture. Paul’s point that the Spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets contradicts Storms assertion directly.

Finally, Sorms’ view that subjecting ancient prophecy to scrutiny makes is less than the Word of God encapsulated in Scripture is just plain wrong. In order to illustrate why I think this is the case, we may turn to other sections of Scripture that indicate clear why I think this to be the case. Acts 17:11 is a perfect example for this discussion and it alone is sufficient to demonstrate my assertion. Luke tells us that the Jews at Berea were more noble minded than the Jews at Thessalonica because they scrutinized Paul’s gospel proclamation by examining his arguments in light of the Old Testament revelation. The idea that we do not judge the assertions and claims of men when they say they speak for God is utterly ridiculous. Even the proclamations and arguments of Paul were judged according to prior revelation. This did not make those words any less authoritative at all. Is simply means that God is a rational God and He has not left us without a standard by which we can know when He is speaking and when He is not.

Storms’ argument cannot see the forest for the trees. He enters the conversation with a bias against the cessationist position. I was saved in the Pentecostal churches. I was a licensed minister in the Church of God in Cleveland, TN. I come to this subject with both an experiential and theological perspective. I know what Pentecostal prophecy looks like. I have experienced the experience they claim is God revealing things to them. It is highly subjective and arbitrary. It is driven by pure emotion. Angels are not standing in front of them talking to them. God is not appearing to them in dreams. They have dreams that they claim are from God but the truth is they could just as much be from Papa John’s Pizza. There is no way to really tell. When we compare modern claims with ancient facts, the two are remarkably different. Give me Scripture, give me grace to understand it, give me grace to live it and I shall know Him and the power of His resurrection. Then and only then will my soul be satisfied!

Practical Cessationism

I have been writing for a while now on the subject of the Charismata in support of John MacArthur’s conference and soon-to-be-published book, Strange Fire. The debate that has raged over this issue has been confused and convoluted on many points from my perspective. Recently, while reading Thomas Schreiner’s review of the book, Strange Fire, someone in the comments section of the review used the expression “practical cessationist” to characterize they’re position. I liked that term so much and felt like it did such a good job of capturing my own view that I thought it fitting to write a few things about it.

First of all, I continue to hear charismatics and continuationists miss a very basic point in our argument. Namely, they continue to presume that what they call supernatural gifts are the same gifts experienced by Jesus, His disciples, and the early church. Men like Steve Hays continuously extend to Charismatics the courtesy of that assumption. I, on the other hand, respectfully disagree with the view that the modern phenomena witnessed among Charismatics are in fact the very same supernatural gifts we see in the NT Church. In order for the Charismatic claim to prove true, it must be verified that what is actually being claimed today is true, and that it actually corresponds with the amazing, indisputable miracles of the first century church.

It is astonishingly easy for Charismatic claims of miracles to be defended as legitimate. First of all, there are literally thousands of people supposedly being cured of all kinds of diseases if we are to believe the Charismatic movement. These healings are purported to be the result of miracle workers and faith healings exercising the very same gifts of the apostles and they’re associates in the first century church. Since these claims are being published in the name of Jesus Christ, a name we all care deeply about, and since there are skeptics who deny that Jesus Christ is Lord, it is only prudent for us to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt, that these miracles are authentic. It would be absurd for anyone to expect any intelligent person to simply take our word for it. After all, if we are claiming that Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit into the world and that the Holy Spirit is present in the body of Christ, performing miraculous deeds, then we should be able to provide certified documentation sufficient to prove our claims. Moreover, supplying such proof in an age such as ours with all the technology we have at our fingertips should be incredibly easy. Why would any reasonable person think it perverse in our day and our culture for someone to investigate the kind of miraculous claims being propagated in Charismania? The very suggestion that such behavior is related to atheism or skepticism or is somehow not in keeping with biblical faith or the Christian ethic is utterly ridiculous. Yet, men like Steve Hays continue to accuse cessationists of adopting a method of reasoning aligned with atheistic or skeptical thinking. There is no place in the Christian community for such nonsense.

I continue to be amazed that non-cessation adherents accuse the cessation view of not remaining faithful to the principle of sola scriptura. The argument is rather elementary and if framed in the wrong way, I can see how they might arrive at their conclusion. The first thing we have to understand is that Scripture is what defines the phenomena in question. When we allow Scripture to set the definition we are then in a much better place to evaluate the modern claims of Charismatics. Are the miracles we see in the New Testament the same kind of phenomena we see among Charismatics? As I said above, it would seem to me that modern conditions, with Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, etc. would make authentic miracles impossible to hide, let alone hard to find. When was the last time you heard about someone losing their disability because they failed the doctor’s certification? If Jesus healed you in that way, wouldn’t you plaster it all over Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube? Wouldn’t you go on Fox News to show the world what the Holy Spirit has done? Where are all the certifications? If I were a miracle worker I would demand validation for that very reason. I would want people to know that I am not a hoax. I would want nothing left to question. But apparently the Charismatic miracle workers prefer to be insulted by examination than glorify Christ by taking the initiative to offer such proof.

The truth is that modern claims of the miraculous seem to be either nebulous, generic, or in one way or another, unverifiable. This does not ipso facto prove that they are not happening. But that burden of proof is not on the cessationist. The counter-claim to the argument that miracles seemed to have ceased requires empirical proof to the contrary. After all, it is the absence of empirical evidence upon which the cessationist rests their argument. Abstract arguments only serve to muddy the waters and cloud the issue. If you don’t think this is so, check out the haze manufactured by Steve Hays over at Triablogue. Steve offers nothing of any substance to support the claim that genuine miracles are still taking place in the church. Instead, he has latched onto what he considers to be an inferior argument from cessationism and like a Pit Bull, he refuses to let go. Somehow, Hays thinks this argument is confined to the abstract. It seems to slip his notice entirely that even if he were to construct a superior argument in the abstract, he still faces the uncomfortable and in my opinion, the unsurmountable burden of authentic documentation and evidence in support of his claim.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument that the non-cessation argument is correct. Let’s suppose that miracles, according to Scripture should continue until Christ returns. It seems to me then, for the sake of the credibility of Scripture, that our non-cessation friends should be eager to validate their claims in an effort to vindicate Scripture. The argument goes like this: the Bible says that miracles will continue until Christ returns. Here are those miracles! Therefore, the Bible is true. But what happens if we are unable to validate such miraculous claims? It seems to me that the Bible would experience an extreme crisis of credibility. If the Charismatic exegete is correct, however, and the Bible teaches that miracles will continue to the end of the Church age, we must ask what are the consequences for the credibility of Scripture if we are unable validate these miracles, and vindicate the claims of Scripture. This would lead us to believe that the Bible is not true after all. Therefore, if we are to accept the hermeneutics of the Charismatic, then had better provide concrete empirical evidence for miracles. Christianity depends upon it.

The miracles of Scripture were beyond reasonable doubt and were all verified or verifiable. There was never a question about whether or not someone had been healed, cured, delivered, or raised from the dead. Modern claims dodge verification better than the national dodge-ball champion. Ancient tongues were real languages while modern tongues are not. Modern tongues are gibberish. Can God understand gibberish? Let’s examine this idea. Supposedly, the Holy Spirit prays gibberish through us back to God for us and somehow, even though we have no idea what is being said, we are edified. And there is supposedly something miraculous about it all. Really? What is miraculous about it? Why is it such a sign? Anyone can do it. Anyone can fake it and you can’t tell the difference. This means we have no mechanism for being able to know what is a true tongue and what is a false one. Does this sound like the work or mark of God? If the devil can copy it, how can we be sure that what we have is God’s genuine gift and not the fake copy offered up by Satan? Would Simon offer up boatloads of money in order to speak gibberish? He could do that without offering up big bucks. This makes no sense whatever. What, do we test it by some feeling or sensation inside us? Is that what it comes down to? Even if this made sense, it would mean we could only know that our personal gift of tongues was real and we could never ever know if the other person had the real thing or the fake gift. Paul Cain comes to mind, along with all the other charlatans. The Catholics, Oneness, Word-Faith, and other heretics sound exactly the same when they speak in tongues. Are they really Spirit-Filled? Does the Spirit fill men who deny the trinity? Are Catholics who deny the gospel really Spirit-Filled? Is Benny Hinn really filled with the Spirit? He speaks in tongues and claims to work miracles. He offers us the same evidence that every other charismatic holds up as authentic. How are we supposed to know?

Practical cessationism argues that the miracles of Scripture were radically superior to what we see in modern claims. They were and are indisputable. Their credibility is beyond any reasonable doubt. The tongues of Scripture were real languages. All one has to do is read Acts 2 and interpret the rest of Scripture in light of that very clear text. That is the hinge upon which biblical interpretation turns. The idea that prophets can speak for God but be wrong a certain percentage of the time is totally foreign to Scripture. There is nothing remotely resembling such irresponsible teaching anywhere in Scripture. Therefore, based on what Scripture teaches regarding revelation, healings, miracles, tongues and prophecy, we must conclude that God is no longer working like this. Moreover, this should come as no surprise to us. God has never, in redemptive history worked in creation for an extended period of time in such a fashion contrary to modern Charismatic claims. 

Pentecostal Claims, Biblical Discernment, and the Nature of Evidence: Another Response to Steve Hays

i) Notice how Ed's knee-jerk skepticism about testimonial evidence repristinates the position of Hume and his followers. Yet the Bible places great stock in the value of eyewitness testimony.

ii) Ed acts as though you can only assume one of two attitudes towards testimonial evidence: blind credulity or reflexive incredulity. He acts as though every witness is equally trustworthy or equally untrustworthy. But there are standard criteria for sifting testimonial evidence. 

This is one of the basic problems besetting some members of the MacArthur circle. Their cessationism commits them to radical skepticism regarding the possibility of historical knowledge. They're like the minimalist school in Biblical archeology (e.g. Hector Avalos). That's what happens when you adopt a purely reactionary posture. 

Steve raises a legitimate question on the nature of evidence. After all, evidence is an important component of any claim to true knowledge. Does it follow that a call for rigorous examination of testimonial evidence for modern signs and wonders is parallel to Humean skepticism? Is Hays right to conclude that the Bible would place great stock in the value of these sorts of testimonies coming from the Charismatic/Pentecostal camps? Let’s answer this first charge before moving on to the others.

David Hume was an empiricist and a skeptic. Hume’s non-Christian worldview coupled with his philosophical empiricism led him to skepticism. The basic problem with empiricism is it’s self-referential incoherence. When I say that all knowledge comes through the senses, I am required in the first place to be omniscient and in the second place to show how this specific knowledge came through my senses. Hume’s empiricism is one more worldview that cannot establish the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility of human experience. Chance plus empiricism equals skepticism and irrationalism in every case. Is this the kind of skepticism we display when we insist that empirical claims of signs and wonders must be tested empirically as well as exegetically? I do not think any objective reader of these Ping-Pong blogs would agree. In the first place, my skepticism is not a knee-jerk reaction. Hays is forgetting that I spent years in this stuff and was a blind advocate of these phenomena for some time. My position is anything but a knee-jerk. The old saying, “been there, done that” applies in my situation. That rules out the possibility of any knee-jerk reaction on my part.

Second, does the Bible place as much stock in eyewitness testimony as Hays implies? Numbers 35:30 points out that one witness of a murder is considered insufficient for capital punishment. This is again reaffirmed in Deut. 19:15. A single witness is simply not enough to bring a man to judgment for his iniquity. Scripture is replete with the need for multiple witnesses. Even Jesus Himself said, If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true (Jn. 5:31) It seems clear then that a single eyewitness testimony was always viewed as insufficient where Scripture is concerned. In addition, eyewitness testimony is only as reliable as the witness giving it, is credible. What we are saying is that we have had enough false reports by faith healers and miracle workers and we have, to my knowledge, no verifiable credible reports from them that we cannot help but begin on skeptical ground, so far as empirical testing is concerned. Given enough of Benny Hinn’s failed prophecies and it only seems reasonable that one would probably be wise to pay little attention to that man as soon as his lips begin moving. How many professed faith healers and miracles workers do we have to show to be frauds before we establish the view that when a man comes along making the same claims that dozens of frauds before him have made, that he is likely one of these fellows given that he has so much in common with them. That Hays would buy into the manufactured nonsense that modern prophets are different that ancient prophets and that false prophecy today is viewed by God differently than it was in ancient times is most outrageous and egregious. Such foolishness destroys any rational and biblical standard for discernment. While Satan is very pleased to create a framework where discernment is impossible, such a state of affairs is contrary to Christian theism at its most basic levels.

In addition, and for the record, cessationists do not assert that healings or miracles are beyond the pale of possibility. We admit that they can and sometimes they do occur. We glorify God for his marvelous grace and mercy when He heals the sick and injured. What we assert is that there is no credible or reliable evidence to suggest that genuine “faith healers” and “miracle workers” are walking among us in contemporary times. Not only does the empirical evidence support our conclusion, but biblical exegesis shows this to be the case as well.

I agree with Hays that there are criteria for sifting the evidence to support empirical claims of signs and wonders. We need credible eyewitnesses, and we need more than one. That would be helpful. The report needs to contain the details of the miracle that took place. These details need to disclose the person’s name and the ability of some credible investigator to examine the case. The person must have been certified to have this condition by a doctor or multiple credible witnesses familiar with the person. We must be able to rule out natural explanations for the cure. The condition must be demonstrable. A physician must certify that the person no longer has the condition. In order for this kind of testimony to support that there is in fact a “faith healer” among us, we require a number of stories just like this one and that such stories surround this person’s ministry and life as a matter of routine. If we could get to this point, we could at least make some progress. But like a plane with far too great a payload, she flies down the runway but never leaves the ground. So it is with these arguments and claims for modern faith healers and miracles workers. Claim upon claim is accompanied by one obscure story after another, lacking just those components necessary for reliability and credibility. Craig Keener writes a book, but in the process fails to seal the deal by leaving out precisely those things we desperately to need to put a punctuation mark at the end of the story!

Does this process for verifying miraculous claims in the name of Jesus Christ really place those who make it in the position of radical skepticism when it comes to historical knowledge? I think that such a statement is more than a little extreme. Is it true that I must accept the claims of every Charismatic faith healer I see on TV if I am to avoid radical skepticism? Is it true that my method for examining the evidence for these claims must be the same as my method for examining the phenomena of history? The credibility of the witness plays a very large role in second-hand testimony be it current affairs or the facts of history. The gospel of Thomas is a perfect example. According to this witness, Jesus made live birds from His clay ones. In another case, He smote a child with death. In another case, Jesus strikes critics of his parents with blindness. How are we to think about these claims? Are we even open to the possibility that they could be correct? When we first encounter them on the page, are we not repulsed and do we not find them repugnant? And we do so even without bothering to examine the evidence. How can we do this? We can do this because we already have enough evidence before us that has proven itself reliable and therefore we know that any counterevidence must be false.

Empirical evidence for an empirical truth-claim is after all something that any rational human being would expect. It seems reasonable enough to me. We are not, like Hume, ruling out the possibility of the miraculous based on some presupposition. We are Christian theists, after all, presupposing the truth of God. Hence, we not only argue for the possibility of the miraculous, we argue for its actuality. Hays’s attempt to associate our view with Hume is clearly an ad hominem. Hays would claim that we are ruling out miracles based on our theological bias. But that would not quite be true either. It would be closer to say that we rule out “faith healers” and “miracle workers” based on theological bias. But one would have to ask if that is really true. Let’s say that genuine faith healers and miracle workers continued in unbroken fashion down to present day. Would Hays presume that cessationists would hold to their view despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary? The Bible is true. To deny such irrefutable evidence would be irrational and incongruent with Scripture. It would make Scripture out to be a lie. 

There is a remarkable difference between being good discerners, being good critical thinkers, and being radical skeptics. Hays loves to muddy the water with such techniques and tactics when he argues. Perhaps this is why one writer says arguing with him is like arguing with a 4-year old. I would not go that far, but I would say that these discussions should always be in a spirit of Charity and mutual respect. That does not mean we should avoid pointing out the nature of the error and its consequences. But it does mean that we should not resort to name-calling, to straw men, or to comparing God-fearing men to radical God-hating skeptics like David Hume. I am certain that such behavior between Christians, even on a blog is a clear violation of Christian principles. And if you can’t defend Christian truth and your own position without violating such simple Christian principles, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to defend them at all.

Apostolic Sign Gifts: An Inadequate Hermeneutic Generates Inferior Exegesis

“Noncessationists and other fringe evangelical subgroups who have been uneasy with trying to defend their systems from the Bible have taken advantage of the new hermeneutical subjectivism to present for the first time a biblical defense for what they believe. That is why so many new “isms” like noncessationism are cropping up among evangelicals. The new “isms” are difficult to deal with because evangelicals have as yet to isolate the root cause of the deviations: a change in principles of interpretation.” [Thomas, The Hermeneutics of Noncessationism, TMS Journal]

The question that has served as the topic of interest as of late is one that has been asked and answered before. That question is approached quite differently today by some in the neo-reformed camp. These men, having been influenced by modern hermeneutics, unwittingly rush to the defense of a system that places the entire foundation of the Christian Church at risk. The bedrock of human knowledge rests upon a distinctly Christian epistemology. Any belief that touches on this area has the potential to influence Christian thought at its most basic level. Since a distinctly Christian epistemology is revelational in nature, any shift in how Christian theology understands the nature of revelation will unavoidably touch the Christian’s views on epistemology. I am hopeful that this will become even more apparent as I deal with some of Steve Hays’s defense of Pentecostal theology.

The impact of Hays’s hermeneutic on his exegesis is felt immediately in how he reads 1 Cor. 15:8. Hays says, “By his [Paul] own admission, his apostleship was somewhat anomalous.” Hays interprets a passage that deals with resurrection appearances as one that supposedly treats Paul’s apostleship. Concerning this text, Anthony Thiselton writes,

The emphasis lies not simply on Paul’s place among the witnesses, and it is not primarily, if at all, a defense of his apostleship as such (against P. von Osten-Sacken; with Murphy-O’Connor and Mitchell). The emphasis lies in the undeserved grace of God (explicated further on v. 10), who chooses to give life and new creation to those reckoned as dead, or, in Paul’s case, both a miscarried, aborted foetus whose stance had been hostile to Christ and to the new people of God. [Thiselton, NIGTC, I Corinthians]

Hays takes 1 Cor. 12 to mean that any “garden-variety Christians could work miracles.” But is this what Paul said? Surely it is not! Paul’s focus is not on individual gifts but on the purpose and source of these gifts. They are given by the Holy Spirit for the corporate body of believers. He says nothing about who the recipients are or can be, only that the dispersing of them is under the sovereign discretion of God. It is evident that a modern attitude, influenced by modern hermeneutics and in this case, Pentecostal theology, are driving Hays’s exegesis.

Hays points out that we must recognize that the terminology of “signs and wonders” is tied to the deliverance of Israel. For Hays, these miracles serve as a model of sorts. But this is odd coming from Hays. Such a model seemingly lends itself to the cessationist position. The New Covenant is ushered in with the sign of Joel the prophet, like a trumpet sounding God’s new program. The significance of the Apostolic period is that Christ had ushered in the New Covenant and God provided irrefutable evidence to that end by signs, and wonders, and miraculous events. But these signs pointed to something far greater. They were the trumpet that sounded the new message, the message of hope, of life, the message that Messiah had come and redemption had arrived. Failure to interpret these works of God through this grid does irreparable harm to the entire plan of God’s redemptive acts in history.

Hays then asserts,

“There's also the matter of how cessationism needs to define its terms or classify the charismata. Cessationism denies modern prophecy. That includes God speaking to people or through people as well as revelatory dreams and visions. So cessationism must define or classify prophetic phenomena of this sort as miraculous signs or sign-gifts.”

Hays’s problem seems to rest with his hermeneutic. He is lost in the forest when what he needs to do is ask higher-level questions about the purpose and timing of the charismata, rising above the tree tops and looking down to see what is going on in terms of God’s redemptive program at this time in history. He seems to want to view this period through the same grid with which he views his own. Such an approach can only result in unfortunate error, as is becoming more and more evident.

Hays contends that cessationism must index the sign-gifts to the apostles in order for them to terminate when the apostles die off. This is simply not true. That men were gifted with sign-gifts who were not apostles is clear. That these gifts continued until their own death is likely, even if that death occurred after the apostles died. What is asserted is that the gifts ceased to function soon after the last apostles died because those who had been sanctioned under the apostles died. Can you imagine if God endowed men who were outside apostolic sanction to perform the identical miracles of the apostles and the two groups advertised contradictory doctrine or messages? How would such a state of affairs not produce utter chaos? These are exactly the kind of concerns that Hays disregards because they advance unresolvable difficulties that continuationists are scarcely prepared to remedy.

Hays argues that the fact that other men were endowed with these gifts ipso facto means that they were not unique to the apostles and therefore there is no logical way to argue they disappeared or should have disappeared after the apostles passed off the scene. What Hays seems to forget is that this scheme for understanding the gifts was brought about by the historical fact that this is in fact what happened. A driving factor for this interpretation is the fact that historically speaking, these gifts passed off the scene. This puzzling historical fact contributed to our understanding of the purpose for these signs in the first place. Understood through that context, it makes perfect sense. Does Hays think that we adopted this interpretation because we don’t like miracles or healings or that we would not like to be able to give the gospel in perfect French without having to study it? It is the facts of history and the truth of Scripture that drives us to these conclusions, not some predisposed rejection of the possibility of miracles.

Hays makes another strange argument,

“A related problem with the cessationist claim is that NT miracles aren't confined to "sign-gifts." For instance, revelatory dreams and visions are private rather than public revelation. Only the individual recipient is directly privy to this experience. As such, you can't say the only function of miracles is to legitimate the message or the messenger. For divine authentication would only work if the accreditation process was open to public inspection.”

But there are no such private revelations given that we know about. Why is this? Because all of them that we know about are recorded in Scripture and as such, they are public revelation and this means they are signs. And if they are truly private, then we don’t know about them. Hays’s reasoning in this regard is indeed puzzling. Mary’s encounter with Gabriel was private to her at the time, but we all know about it. And we know about it for a reason! God made sure of it. When God reveals private things, such as dreams to someone and that fact is recorded in Scripture, they are no longer private. Hays’s hermeneutic takes on a hyper-individualistic flavor here. He focuses on the individual encounter when what he should focus on is God’s program. Why did God do this and for whose benefit? Why is it recorded in Scripture? Moreover, is the individual perspective the one we should focus on or is it the fact that God has acted in this manner in order to reveal His works to the community of believers at large? This is group-think versus the individual. Hays continues to focus on the individual and I think this is the product of American culture.

It is interesting that Hays would interpret Warfield the way he does. He interrupts Warfield as if to force a view onto Warfield that Warfield himself is plainly contradicting. And then he accuses Warfield of skating over the counterevidence. If Hays hopes to argue for no distinction between the signs wrought by apostles and those wrought by non-apostles, the Samaritan account dashes his hopes to shreds. The ability to impart the Holy Spirit, Who is the sign and seal of the New Covenant, seems to be something that only the apostles were capable of doing. (Acts 8:14-17) In addition, Hays makes a false distinction between apostles and non-apostles. It is better if we make the distinction between apostolically sanctioned versus non-apostolically sanctioned. The nature of the relationship between the signs and wonders of NT ministry and the NT faith, the tradition, the message, what came to be the sacred writings, cannot itself be overemphasized. We have a new message authenticated by the miracles of the Messiah's closest disciples. Jesus came on the scene demonstrating His own divinity, and He selected exactly these men to hear and proclaim His message. He enabled these men and their trusted delegates to signify the authoritative nature of their message with signs and wonders. These were not ordinary men carrying an ordinary message. Quite the contrary! While we cannot draw dogmatic conclusions about the apostolic imparting of the gift of the Holy Spirit, we must at a minimum acknowledge that Luke recorded this event for a reason and that God reveals it to us all for a reason. 

The signs wrought in the NT, beginning with Christ, to and beyond Pentecost are best understood in light of the initiation of the New Covenant. They were not to draw attention to themselves, which is what most Pentecostals think. They were not given to entertain or to leave the crowd dazzled, which is again, how many Pentecostals think. The “signs and wonders” were predicted to be the phenomena that would signify the ushering in of a New Covenant. God would now pour out His Spirit on ALL flesh. Salvation would be provided for ALL races in Christ. Redemption in Christ through faith for all men would now be the message proclaimed by God’s Holy Messengers. With the New Covenant comes a new standard, a new revelation by which we are all to know, and live and trust the Messiah. The Apostles were entrusted with that message as God’s authoritative messengers. The sign of tongues was given to the 120, then to the Samaritans, the Gentiles, and finally John’s disciples as a sign that ALL races would be saved without distinction. The same gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles and Jews was given to the other groups. Why tongues? In truth, we cannot be sure. We may say that God’s great curse of the races centered on the sign of language creating division, and now His great blessing of unity across the races centered also on the sign of language. There is more that could be said about that, but such is beyond the scope of this post.

We must see the NT age in light of God’s program from Genesis to Revelation. God gives us a revelation that brings with it objective clarity. There is no radical subjectivity, or arbitrariness, no hedonistic focus on the individual. God is doing something new at Pentecost and it is the last time He will do so until He does something new and permanent at the Parousia, when His Kingdom appears once and for all.