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. 

The Pagan Problem of Pentecostal - Charismatic Tongues

Chrysostom writing as early as the 380s, just 300 years after Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthians says this in his comments on 1 Cor. 14:2:

“At this point he makes a comparison between the gifts, and lowers that of the tongues, showing it to be neither altogether useless, nor very profitable by itself. For in fact they were greatly puffed up on account of this, because the gift was considered to be a great one. And it was thought great because the Apostles received it first, and with so great display; it was not however therefore to be esteemed above all the others. Wherefore then did the Apostles receive it before the rest? Because they were to go abroad every where. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages. See accordingly how he both depresses and elevates it. Thus, by saying, “He that speaketh with tongues, speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth,” he depressed it, implying that the profit of it was not great; but by adding, “but in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries,” he again elevated it, that it might not seem to be superfluous and useless and given in vain.”^[1]

It is clear that Chrysostom considered the Corinthian Glossolalia genuine human languages as opposed to the claim that it was some sort of mystical prayer language. This view is in direct contradiction to widespread view in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. For the remainder of this article, I will focus on some of the more significant problems with the claim that modern tongue speaking is identical to the Corinthian Glossolalia.

In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.^[2]

Now I should mention that the phrase “do also hear” literally means, “have heard.” We cannot be sure that Irenaeus of Lyons is speaking about a firsthand contemporary account or something he heard about from history or from other communities. What we can be sure of is that he calls them languages just as Chrysostom did.

Now, I want to point to the historical fact that mystical tongue-speaking like that spoken among modern Charismatics did not originate in and is not unique to the Charismatic community. The practice of mystical-glossolalia, so called, exists in other religions, such as Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic type religions. In fact, channeling has been one of the egregious next steps that can easily be traced to the roots of Charismatic theology. It is the natural progression of mystical emphases. Suffice it to say that modern Charismatic tongues are not unique to the Charismatic version of Christianity. They are shared by several other religions. That this could be true and that Paul teaches that tongues are a sign for unbelievers remains an irreconcilable mystery. What is so amazing about a phenomenon that is commonly practiced among other religions? How could such a thing be a sign in any sense of the word sign? If other religions were experiencing the same miraculous phenomena as Christianity, then Christianity would be illogical to point to such phenomena as a distinguishing feature of its religion.

The heretic Montanus is documented by Eusebius as having some kind of ecstatic experience. Here is how he records it: “He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times.” Hildegard of Bingen, a Catholic mystic, is said to have spoken in tongues. The LDS Church has numerous historical events of speaking in tongues. Brigham Young spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirkland Temple. The Moravians are also said to have spoken in tongues. Oneness Pentecostals, who deny the triune God, speak in tongues. Appalachian snake-handlers speak in tongues. In fact, it was not until the late 19^th and early 20^th century that glossolalia become associated with Pentecostalism.

Most Pentecostals recognize Charles Parham as the leader through whom God brought the renewal of the gifts. Parham was so excited about this new move of God that he declared the movement would send out missionaries around the world to declare the gospel in their respective languages. So, as it goes, the founder of modern Pentecostalism also thought they were speaking in known languages. The idea of the speech was entirely unintelligible never crossed his mind. However, when associate A.G. Garr traveled to India to preach the gospel, he was extremely confused when he found out the Indian people could not understand his gibberish.

Now, in addition to Parham’s misguided optimism, there was a host of other, far more serious problems with Parham’s theology. Parham believed in the annihilation of the damned in hell. He believed in two separate creations. He held that Adam and Eve were a different race from us. Parham claimed that men living before the flood did not have souls. What is amazing is that even Charles Parham condemned, in no uncertain terms, the Asuzu St. Revival to which most Pentecostal denominations trace their origin.

In addition to these facts, there is the issue of William Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto. In 1972, Samarin published a study containing the results of his intensive research into the phenomena of modern tongues. He study uncovered several stunning facts that many continuationists and Charismatics ignore to this day. His study covered groups like the Appalachian Pentecostals that practice snake-handing, groups in Italy, Canada, Jamaica, and even the Netherlands. What did he discover?

·         While glossolalia resembles a language in certain ways, it is not a real language. It only resembles a language because the speaker wants it to.

·         The sounds are taken from sets of sounds already known to the speaker.

·         The sounds of speech of Glossolalia reflected the speech of the individual’s native language. In other words, English speaks speak in English syllables, Russian speakers in Russian and so forth.

·         In her book, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia, Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the US, the Caribbean, and Mexico. These groups spoke English, Spanish, and Mayan. She compared what she found in these recordings with non-Christian groups she studied from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia, and Japan. Her conclusion was there was no distinction between what was practiced in the Pentecostal communities and what was practiced in the non-Christian communities.

Paul’s concerns in 1 Corinthians 14 had to do with how the gift was inappropriately being used in the Church service. It seems that the Corinthians were operating in this gift arrogantly. Apparently, they held the gift in high esteem likely because it was the first one received by the Apostles at Pentecost. At any rate, Paul’s concerns are for the edification of the body of Christ. It should not slip one’s notice that nowhere does Paul say that tongues are for the purpose of edifying the speaker. He never says that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God, not men. However, he does say that tongues are given for a sign to the unbeliever. Now, that sentence is a purpose sentence as opposed to some of the other sentences that are simply statements.

Pentecostals interpret 1 Cor. 14:2 as if it means that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God not men. They insist that men must be taken in a universal sense. But when we read that text in the context of Paul’s concerns around edification and then in the broader context of the meaning of glossolalia, we realize a different interpretation works much better. We realize Paul is not actually saying this is how it should be or even that it is a good thing. We realize that men must be understood as men in the local Church service. We also realize that the reason the person is speaking only to God is because no one in the Church service understands the language, therefore, only God could be the hearer.

In addition, I think we need to examine what Paul means when he uses the word οἰκοδομέω, oikodomeo, which is translated edify. This word carries the sense of enablement. It means to build up or enable, to increase one’s potential. Paul then links one’s understanding of the language to its ability to edify. In other words, Paul says the reason he does not want the Corinthians to use tongues in the Church service is because they do not edify those who do not understand them. He also says if a person prays in tongues and does not understand the language they are speaking, their own understanding is fruitless. This must mean that when Paul says that praying in tongues edifies the individual, that the individual understands the language he prays in. So there is praying in tongues that is edifying because one understands it, and praying in tongues that is not fruitful, and therefore not edifying, because the speaker does not understand it. It is as this point that we must remember that this phenomenon was remarkably different from anything we have ever experienced and therefore, our understanding of exactly what was going on remains somewhat limited.

Paul tells the Corinthians emphatically and with great clarity that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. This word sign has bound up in it the idea of miracle. If an unbeliever is aware of the pagan practice of ecstatic and unintelligible noises in the practice of their religions, how could the very same practice with the very same sound distinguish the Christian practice as something supernatural? Clearly, gibberish in religious worship, be it pagan, or in the Christian service does not meet the definition of a miraculous sign.

In conclusion then, l want to make the following observations:

·         Tongues in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, and 1 Cor. 12-14 were actual languages given supernaturally to those who spoke them.

·         Pagan religions were practicing ecstatic gibberish prior to the Christian experience at Pentecost.

·         Paul states that the purpose for tongues was to provide a miraculous sign to unbelievers. Unintelligible gibberish fails to meet the standard of miracle.

·         Simon, even though he witnessed Phillip’s miracles, only offered money to have the ability to impart this particular gift of tongues. That he would have offered money for gibberish and not other miracles is simply untenable.

·         Modern tongues have their root in leaders that held to damnable heresies.

·         Modern tongues are the same gibberish spoken by various other non-Christian and pagan religions.

·         Modern tongues are bits and pieces of the respective language of the speaker. Russian Charismatics speak in Russian tongues, English in English, Spanish in Spanish and so forth.

·         If modern tongues were heavenly languages, there would be no association with one’s native language and linguistic studies would be able to capture the very same sounds across language families. There is no reason to think that heaven has more than one language. The reason humans have multiple languages is due to the curse of sin at Babel.

The fact is that Pentecostals and Charismatics have no objective way of knowing if the tongues they speak are the same one's spoken in Scripture. The practice disappeared for centuries. There is no unbroken succession of tongues-speaking from Pentecost to today. Since PC tongues are not actual languages, the PC movement has no criteria by which they can distinguish fake or demonic tongues from biblical tongues assuming they're theology is correct. In fact, they can't even validate if the other person, any other person has the same gift they do or if that person is faking it because they are limited to experience in their validation of the practice. If Benny Hinn is a charlatan, then his tongue must be fake! But there are millions of Charismatics that claim Hinn is a great man of God. Therefore, his tongues are genuine! How could we ever know? It is an array of confusion and chaos and the truth is, given their own theology, the possibility of discernment is virtually impossible. And that, ladies and gentlemen makes it abundantly clear that it cannot be of divine origin. Any practice that cannot be tested, that creates confusion and chaos, and that eliminates the possibility of discernment cannot be biblical.

---

^[1] John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Hubert Kestell Cornish, John Medley, and Talbot B. Chambers, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 208–209.

^[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 531.

Responding to Hays' Argument While Ignoring His Ad Hominem and Slander

Some MacArthurites seem to be confused about the relationship between cessationism and the argument from miracles. Of course, Ed Dingess is incapable of honesty. But let's spell out the relationship:

i) From what I've read, MacArthurites classify Biblical miracles as sign-gifts. The function of sign-gifts is to attest the message by attesting the messenger. This is divine validation that the messenger speaks for God.

ii) The identity of Biblical miracles as sign-gifts is a key plank in the cessationist argument. Once the message (i.e. the Bible) was complete, there was no further need of messengers (i.e. prophets, apostles). Once there was no further need of messengers, there was no further need of sign-gifts. So miraculous sign-gifts have an expiration date. 

iii) This, in turn, figures in the traditional argument from miracles. According to the structure of the argument, we don't primarily believe in Biblical miracles on the authority of Scripture. Rather, we believe Scripture because miracles authorize the Bible writers. Miraculous sign-gifts are compelling evidence that the Bible writers were divinely commissioned. We believe the reported miracles because miracles certify the reporter. 

Having established the bona fides of Bible writers by the argument from miracles, we can now appeal to the authority of Scripture.

iv) This is a classic evidentialist argument. At least some MacArthurites are presuppositionalists. But that generates an unresolved tension between cessationist argument from miracles, which is an evidentialist argument, and presuppositionalism. You can't just graft presuppositionalism onto that preexistent framework. 

For starters, you can decide if it is ethical for one Christian blogger to accuse another Christian blogger of being incapable of honesty or not. I want to make sure everyone understands my primary motive in this discussion. It is not to win an argument with Steve Hays or anybody else as far as that goes. My hope is that someone will hear the truth in what I am communicating and as a result of that truth, they’re life will be affected. My hope is that they will grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, and become more conformed to the image of Christ. Now, without further delay, I wish to interact with Hays’ argument. But before I do, I want to say clearly that I do not portend in any way shape or form to represent “MacArthurites” in general. I do not claim to speak for John MacArthur. I think we are mostly in agreement, but I leave open the possibility that my position and approach may differ in minor ways from other approaches within this particular brand of theology.

Concerning i), I do think Scripture itself offers this view of the miraculous and I stated that clearly in my most recent post. There is a sense of attestation found in those miracles. But the miracles themselves do not stand alone as the attestation. There is a relationship between those miracles and the inner moving of the Holy Spirit to receive them for what they are. Otherwise, how can we explain that Christ performed so many undeniable miracles and yet ended up with somewhere around 120 followers? It follows then that miracles served as signs of approval from God, validating the message and messenger, but something more is needed. The NT time was a unique period of time compared to all other periods of time in redemptive history. After all, we have the Christ event and the birth of His Church along with God’s final act of special revelation. Indeed, it was a unique period unlike anything before or since.

Now, concerning Hays’ point ii), I must confess that his argument moves from pretty clear water to very murky waters indeed. I do not think we would agree that there was no longer a need for messengers once the message had been delivered. Surely we believe that we are messengers to this day of that one message that has been once for all delivered to the saints. Once the message comes, having been validated with miracles, there is no longer any need for further validation. The authority of God revealed in the message and attested and confirmed with signs, miracles, and wonders was given to validate the “once for all message.” Since we do not have a new message, no further validation is necessary. What has been validated, has been validated. Hays’ creation on this point seems like a straw man from my perspective. It seems that this is what Hays needs us to believe in order to “win an argument” rather than Hays’ actually articulating what we actually believe.

Concerning point iii), we have more of the same from Hays. Hays is very confused as why we believe the Scripture. We do not follow the traditional argument from miracles. We believe in miracles for two very basic reasons: first, we cannot deny that we are creatures of God. This fact alone demonstrates that our very existence is a miracle. Second, we believe God intervenes, that He condescends to interact with and engage His creation and this has involved miracles in the course of redemptive history. The record for this condescension is nothing other than Scripture. Since we presuppose that Scripture is the divine revelation of God Himself, we believe all that it says and this includes what it says about miracles. Since the Bible records miraculous events throughout redemptive history, we believe that miracles can, have, and in fact do happen according to God’s divine plan.

Hays seems to be saying that we accept the Bible on the basis that the Bible itself claims that its messengers performed miracles. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, on what basis could we reject other holy books that lay claim to miracles? The answer is simple: we would have no basis whatever for rejecting any claims to the miraculous. And then we would have no option but to accept the claims that those books make about themselves. However, Hays has it exactly backwards. We accept the miracle claims of the Bible because we presuppose the Bible to be God’s divine revelation. After all, we were not there. We never witnessed those miracles. God chose to validate His new covenant message, His Messiah, and His new covenant messengers through signs, wonders, and miracles. These phenomena served as His megaphone, but more importantly, as judgment. We have no good reason, when we use good reason, to reject the miracle claims of Scripture. The historical testimony along with the more important testimony of the Holy Spirit about the nature of this divine relation known as the Bible is more than sufficient. We receive these claims because we have faith that the Bible itself is the divine Word of God. So why then do we reject competing claims? The answer is simple: we reject competing claims because when we place them under the microscope of rational and epistemic scrutiny, they reduce to absurdity. They end up collapsing in on themselves. 

Only Christian theism provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. But this takes us off into the discipline of apologetics. And we simply have no space for to go there at this time. Hays is simply wrong to accuse us of arguing that we believe the Bible is the Word of God because it has miracles in it. That is a naïve oversimplification at best and a malicious straw man at worse.

Finally, we come to Hays last point, point iv). Hays has tried to frame the argument within the context of an Evidentialist approach. But most people in this camp, as far as I know at least, are not at all evidentialists. We are, for the most part, presuppositional in our approach. We do not begin with miracles and argue for Scripture from miracles. In fact, it is just the opposite. We would claim that miracles exist because Scripture says they exist. We also acknowledge that to deny the miraculous is a denial of God. And this just will not do. All men know that God exists. All men know that God created the universe. Therefore, all men know that miracles exist and testify of God’s glorious work.

God used miracles as a megaphone to usher in the work and ministry of the Messiah. In addition, God used miracles, signs, and wonders to affirm the message of the Messiah and of the Messiah’s messengers. This God did because it was His prerogative to do so. If Hays’ is attempting to deny this function of miracles and if he seeks to deny that this is true, then he must explain to us what Peter meant in Acts 2:22 when he said, “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.” Paul said the resurrection was proof that God would judge the world by one man in Acts 17:31. He also said that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. Then again Paul referred to the signs of a true apostle in 2 Cor. 12:2. It is very confusing to hear Hays take this line of reasoning. We look back at the miracles, signs, and wonders and acknowledge that they passed off the scene. We mean this in the sense that there were no men moving around operating in these gifts like the apostles did. We recognize that this phenomena of miracles occurred during a time when a new message was being revealed by God to the world. We also recognize that once this message was revealed and in place, for some reason, the miraculous also vanished off the scene, at least at the levels it was operating during this transition period. We examine history just prior to the NT events and shortly after NT events and we discover a small window of time where men in history witnessed something very unusual. Nothing like these miracles before Christ and nothing like them after He and His followers passed off the scene. From this, we draw the inference we have drawn. This historical facts surrounding the miraculous coupled with the exegetical proofs mentioned in the NT serve as solid evidence that miracles served their purpose and that purpose was to validate the message once for all delivered to the saints. Now that the Scriptures have been validated once and for all, what need have we of further validation?

This moves us to the fact that now, when someone comes along claiming to possess that which the NT messengers possessed, the only prudent option is to test it. In addition, since we have been so bombarded with charlatan after charlatan, we have no choice but to listen with a skeptic’s ear until we can validate that we are indeed hearing true testimony of God’s activity. But this is really not hitting the mark at which MacArthur aims. MacArthur is concerned about the claims of continued revelation from God and the subsequent teachings and theology that make up this movement. The claim that God is telling me this or that or that a particular behavior is the power of God’s Spirit working in people’s lives. These are serious claims and if they prove false, they presume upon the Holy and that is simply not something the Church can tolerate. Certain gifts of the Spirit seem to have been especially designed for the ushering in of the New Covenant message of the gospel.

There is much more we could say here but I think we have effective refuted Hays' attempt to place the context of the cessationist argument within the framework of evidentialism. Moreover, I think we have also demonstrated that no legitimate parallel between Hume's skepticism and our desire to carefully examine all things in light of revealed truth exists. Contrary to Hays, I do think I can be honest about at least this much: Hays' argument is fallacious, borders on being uncharitable, has no exegetical support, and therefore is without warrant.

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.

Distinctions in Prophets or Prophecy and Revelation: Discussions with Hays

The saga continues with Steve Hays over at Triablogue on the subject of Pentecostal theology, revelations, and our ramblings on other matters. It is clear that Steve and I do not agree on these issues. In a recent blog, Steve introduced some new points that I think most people are likely to have a couple of questions on.

To support his claim that there is a distinction in the nature of prophecies, Hays refers us to Numbers 12:6-9. Hays explicitly tells us that this text was written to instruct us on the differences in Prophetic revelation and utterances. He says there is a broad distinction between verbal and visionary revelation. Hays further breaks down the visionary revelations into representational and allegorical visions. In addition, says Hays, “Allegorical visions employ figurative imagery. That makes them somewhat enigmatic.” It appears that Hays is telling us that God’s revelation to His prophets can be ambiguous, unclear.

The context of Numbers 12 is extremely important if we are to rightly understand what is taking place there. The whole point in Numbers 12 is one of sole authority. Moses had married a Cushite woman and his siblings, Aaron and Miriam did not approve. They both spoke against God’s prophet and God Himself convened a special conference between the three of them. The purpose of this conference was to point out the distinct calling, role, and relationship God had in Moses. The purpose of the meeting had nothing to do with different modes of revelation. It was all about the difference between Moses and all the rest of the prophets. Note that the rest of the prophets, except for Christ the prophet like unto Moses, are in the same category. Hays lifts this text out of its proper context in order to prop up a position that Scripture really does not prop up itself. This shows that if there is a distinction between OT prophets and NT prophets, Hays must look elsewhere to establish it. I wonder if Hays considers John the Baptist an OT prophet. Surely he was one.

Hays then asserts that judging prophecies in the NT was quite different from judging them in the OT. This is no doubt true. However, I am not sure that Deut. 18:15-22 is the best text to compare with 1 Cor. 14:29 given its Messianic nature. Nevertheless, we expect there to be differences between the consequences of false prophecies given the fact that they were under two different covenants. The concept of judging any prophetic utterances is present in both texts. Secondly, we cannot ignore the fact that prophetic utterances in the NT were not always predictive in nature. Hence, judging such prophecies would take on a different standard. Nevertheless, if a NT prophecy happened to be predictive, why would we expect judging the integrity of such a prophecy to be any different from one in the OT? Hays does not provide any exegetical or rational justification for his position.

Hays then accuses me of being egalitarian by attempting to connect Philip’s prophesying daughters with apostolic authority. Apparently, because I believe that God’s word is binding and authoritative regardless of who said it, that means that I somehow collapse the biblical principle of male leadership. I confess that this point is difficult to take seriously. It doesn’t matter if the Devil himself passed on a word that was actually God’s word, it would absolutely be no less authoritative and binding. The authority of Scripture or revelation does not rest in the apostolic office. It rests in God Himself. That Philip had four virgin daughters that prophesied is very interesting, but we know very little about the details of this situation. God deliberately made the decision not to give us more facts around this piece of history. Nevertheless, Hays statement that I am egalitarian because of my views regarding OT and NT prophets being without any material difference is just that, a statement. It is not an argument and it does not contain an argument. The fact remains that when anyone brings us the Word of the Lord, that Word is authoritative not because of the one bringing it, but because of what it is by nature, the Word of the Lord.

Finally, Hays points us back to Agabus, arguing that several scholars “defend the veracity of Agabus.” I have responded to Hays’s reference to Agabus already. Apparently he has refused to consider my view. Perhaps he will hear Polhill’s comments, “This was not so much a warning on Agabus’s part as a prediction. Unlike the Christians of Tyre, he did not urge Paul not to go. Rather, he told him what was in store for him. This was all the more certain when one considers the nature of such prophetic acts in the Old Testament. The act itself set into motion the event it foretold. It established the reality of the event, the certainty that it would occur. Agabus’s act prepared Paul for the events to come and assured him of God’s presence in those events.” [Polhill, NAC, Acts] There is no reason to think that Agabus was counseling or advising Paul against going to Jerusalem. That is an unjustified imposition on the text.

In summary, Hays’s categories for prophecy, while interesting and intellectually stimulating fail to find support in the text. Numbers 12 has been wrenched out of context and used to support an argument it was clearly not intended to support. The subject was the distinct nature of God’s relationship and use of His servant Moses.

Second, the Word of God is not infused with authority by the apostles. It is exactly the opposite. My use of Scripture no more entitles me to apostolic or eldership authority any more than it would have Philip’s daughters. Hays’s egalitarian charge is reduced to absurdity.

Last, Hays’s interpretation of Agabus is far wide of the mark. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Agabus was issuing advice, counsel or even a warning. Luke records this event and the words of Agabus as a straightforward prophecy in a very similar fashion to OT prophecies. Any attempt to say that Paul played fast and loose with Agabus prophetic utterance is a gross misunderstanding and misreading of a text that is fairly easy to interpret as far as I can tell.

The back and forth of this discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. Healthy, respectful dialogue on subjects like this in the Spirit of Christian charity and out of a concern for Christian truth and within the confines of the Christian ethic can be extremely productive. I am a bit uneasy about the tone of these discussions. I especially worry about my tone. I know my passion for truth can sometimes come across as proud and arrogant. And no doubt, I am guilty of those dispositions at times. In our passion for Christian truth, we sometimes forget that our first aim is to serve our Christian brothers and sisters. Our goal, after all, is to convince others of the truth that we are convinced us because we think it is in their best interest to embrace it and because it honors our Lord. We do little to advance the Christian message when our desire to win an argument eclipses our sincere love for each other and for God’s truth. Not only is the Christian community looking on to see how we treat one another, so too is the world. 

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.

The Gifts that Are Not and Extra Biblical Revelation in Pentecostal Theology

We keep hearing about John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference coming up in November and how all the Pentecostal folks and their sympathizers are distressed over the issue of the continuation of certain gifts within the Christian Church. I have written a few blogs about this controversy and have had an opportunity to interact with Steve Hays over at Triablogue on the subject. I categorize Hays as a sympathizer of Pentecostal theology given his statements and his apparent theological paradigm.

There are two basic issues I want to point out in this blog. One concerns the question of spiritual gifts in the body of Christ and the other considers that nature of revelation, extra biblical and otherwise.

First of all, I think it is necessary to point out that there are a number of gifts that God has placed in the body of Christ, all for her spiritual growth and edification. The spiritual gifts are mentioned in a number of passages in the New Testament. Romans 12:6-8 lists out the following: prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and mercy. Paul lists more in 1 Cor. 12:8-10: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, effecting of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. Paul lists out apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in Eph. 4:11. So we have a list of gifts that God has placed in the Church in order to produce the kind of change and perform the kind of work He desires to perform within this community.

Now that we can see that God has placed gifts in the Church for the overall purpose of her spiritual growth and maturity, the next question naturally leads to specific gifts. What are these gifts? What were they designed to accomplish? As an example, let’s look at the gift of diverse languages. It is a mistake to interpret “tongues” as some supernatural language. The Greek word to describe this phenomenon is the same Greek word used to describe languages. It is used 50 times in the NT, 168 times in the LXX, 13 times by the Apostolic Fathers, 101 times in Philo, and hundreds of times in the Classics. While it does not always mean languages that is its predominant sense. Acts 2 clearly informs us that the languages spoken on Pentecost are real languages. The gift of tongues is not unintelligible broken syllables that no human can understand. In addition, any human being is capable of producing or mimicking this modern phenomenon practiced by Pentecostals. There is nothing miraculous about it. That is to say that it does nothing to set God apart or prove anything that intelligible language cannot do a superior job of proving itself. In addition, the practice is highly irrational. It simply makes no sense. But it is supposed to be edifying. How does speaking gibberish edify me? 

The NT phenomena and the modern phenomena are clearly not the same. This is where we begin to answer our question whether or not these gifts are still being given in the Church. If we no longer see them in use, we might ponder the purpose of these gifts when they were in operation. For instance, an apostle had a completely different function and purpose than an elder. Apostleship is no longer a gift that men receive. There were a select few given that gift, called to that office. This would naturally lead to the question of what purpose that office served given the fact that it no longer exists. The same is true of any of these gifts.

Another issue with modern tongues is the notion that it is the evidence that one has been filled with the Holy Spirit. Exegetically speaking, this is not difficult to prove in the ancient Church. The correlation is undeniable. If Pentecostal theology is right, there are a lot of us who claim to know Christ but who are not even filled the Spirit. Are the continuationists prepared to go down this road? Of course they’re not. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to argue for the continuation of the gifts but also argue that Pentecostal theology is wrong about tongues. I’m sorry, but they can’t have it both ways. When NT believers were filled with the Spirit, they spoke in tongues. Why don’t we speak in tongues when we are filled with the Spirit? The continuationist who is also non-Pentecostal is left to do extreme exegetical gyrations in their typical answers.

I simply draw your attention to this issue to point out that most of the Christian Church has always believed that some gifts were permanent while others were temporary. The argument over how we arrive at which gifts are permanent and which ones are temporary is really one of semantics from my perspective. Tongues mysteriously stopped happening for some reason. From the beginning, the individual never acquired this ability. The individual passively received this supernatural ability to speak in other languages. The event was initiated by God. No one was going around seeking to speak in tongues, praying for this to happen to them. God was in charge of the process end to end. And for some reason, God stopped endowing people with this gift. What are we supposed to say? Did the Church just decide she would no longer accept this ability from God? The same is true with miracles and faith healers. For some reason, the ability vanished. This isn’t to say that God stopped healing people entirely. That is not the argument at all. But that men like Paul, Peter, and others would come into a town and perform numerous undeniable miracles and healings continued to happen throughout Church history is simply contrary to the facts.

So the argument for the continuation of these gifts has first to establish what these gifts actually were. As far as I can tell, Pentecostal theology has it wrong when it comes to their most basic gift, tongues. They make numerous hermeneutical leaps in their effort to defend this phenomenon. We simply cannot accept the claim that the modern Pentecostal practice is equivalent to the one experienced in the ancient Church. In addition, if it is accepted that modern tongues are in fact the same as those in the ancient Church, we are then left with no recourse, but to accept the Pentecostal teaching that it is the initial evidence that one has been filled with the Spirit. You see, we cannot cut the debate off in the abstract. We must also examine the experiential side of the equation if we are to discover the truth regarding this question. This is why we demand proof that healings and miracles are in fact legitimate. Method is critically important in this discussion. We are not arguing for Christian theism. We are not asserting the existence of the non-material God who is our Creator. Our method is very different for examining the truth claims of Pentecostal theology.

The argument coming from sympathizers like Hays is filled with contradictions and I am certain that most Pentecostals would tell Hays NOT to do them any favors. Steve Hays desires to defend Pentecostal theology but he doesn’t want to have to speak in tongues to be Spirit-filled. He wants to argue, in theory that healings and miracles have continued without missing a beat even though he has never encountered a faith healer or miracle worker himself. Based off that sort of reasoning, we are left without any recourse, but to accept the claims of alien abductions as well. Those who argue this way want to defend the on-going practice and possibility of tongues, healings, and miracles but without having to subject it to empirical verification. However, we cannot leave out empirical verification because it is essential to understanding the phenomena and comparing it to what we see in Scripture. The men that Hays and I both would call charlatans, most Pentecostals defend as prophets, apostles, and men of God. The excesses that Hays mentions, most Pentecostals call Spirit-filled worship. Very few Pentecostals see the practices of the larger segment of Pentecostalism as excesses. Hays is missing his target. In addition, Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology naturally lead to what Hays and others call excesses. The subjective nature and experiential orientation of Pentecostal theology is powerless to offer a critique of such practices. Once you open the door to such experiential leanings and to extra biblical revelation, just about anything can walk in under the guise of a “movement of God.”

Extra Biblical Revelation

The Westminster Confession states, “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” It was the fall of man that made way for the need of a special word from God. The consequences of sin amputated man from fellowship with and hearing from His God. Man, by nature, corrupts the revelation of God given to him in nature and in conscience. He does this willingly and naturally. He is a natural born enemy of God. The revelation of God comes to him clearly, and his reaction to that revelation is to pervert, to corrupt, and to reshape it. Two things are needed if man is to relate to His God rightly. Man needs a change of nature, and God must speak to Him. Otherwise, man is hopelessly lost without any hope of truly knowing and relating to God.

Calvin says regarding God and Scripture, “…what we ought to think of him is set forth there, lest we seek some uncertain deity by devious paths.” [Institutes] What we think about God, how we see Him, who He is, what He is, what He is like, is all set forth for us in plain view in sacred Scripture. A right understanding of Scripture is essential to a right understanding of God. A poor hermeneutic has continually led men to heresy more than any other single factor. Pentecostal hermeneutics are highly subjective, based on individual experience. The Pentecostal looks at Scripture through the grid of experience and interprets the experiences and teachings in Scripture through the grid of their own experience. This has continually led to devastating error and even heresy in Pentecostal denominations.

Calvin continues, “Hence the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard.” [Institutes] To the liberal, this is utter folly. To the Pentecostal, Scripture is clearly not enough. The experience of extra biblical revelation is in every case to be sought. Why? We have the miracle of the text! The Pentecostal wants Paul’s experience for himself. He is not satisfied to take from Paul what Paul took from the hand of Christ. That just won’t do!

God alone is sufficient witness to Himself in His Word. He needs no other witness to defend His own truth. The Holy Spirit seals this truth upon the hearts and minds of God’s children. God is His own witness and His witness is sufficient in itself. If this is true of the revelation of Scripture, then reasons the Pentecostal, it is true of God’s revelation to me. And they are right! If in fact God reveals to men today, then that revelation is just as self-justifying, and self-authenticating, and authoritative as Scripture. And this is the crux of the problem. Open this door and anything may slither in among the saints to consume, to deceive, and to devour.

The Revelation of Scripture is absolutely necessary if man is to know and relate to God. Turretin makes a keen observation to this end, “It was necessary for a written word to be given to the church that the canon of true religious faith might be constant and unmoved; that it might easily be preserved pure and entire against the weakness of memory, the depravity of men and the shortness of life; that it might be more certainly defended from the frauds and corruptions of Satan; that it might more conveniently not only be sent to the absent and widely separated, but also be transmitted to posterity.” [Institutes] How can we know that Benny Hinn did not receive a legitimate revelation that God has disclosed to him but to no one in Scripture? If we affirm the possibility of extra biblical revelation, I do not see how we can judge the claims these men make, to be false without at the same time engaging in a level of arbitrariness foreign to all rational thought. Even if we arbitrarily assert that all new revelation must be examined in light of Scripture, there is enough not revealed in Scripture that enormous error could ensue and we would have no exegetically rational way of refuting it. This development is both intellectually unappealing and spiritually perilous.

Deut. 29:29 informs us that the secret things, the things that are unrevealed, belong to God but the things revealed to us are ours forever. What is revealed? In this case, it was the written Law of Moses. The implication is that what is written is what is revealed, and what is not written is not revealed. Moreover, what is not revealed is secret. And if it is secret, it belongs to the Lord. Our concern is with what has been revealed, not what has been kept back, kept secret. God has told us that what He did not reveal belongs to Him. Everything that has not been given to us in the sacred writings belongs to this class of unrevealed, secret things that belong to the Lord, not to us. That is a fact of revelation, a principle of revelation that we must humbly recognize with all sincerity.

This whole question is a question of epistemology. How do we know and what is our final authority for knowing? Either we have a closed canon and a final authoritative revelation that serves as the basis for knowing truth or we do not. There is no middle ground. The cessationist can say that what we must be concerned with is understanding and rightly interpreting the revelation of God in Scripture. That is our guide. It is our final answer to every question. If the thing we seek is unrevealed, then it belongs to the Lord. Who can know it but God alone? The word of God was given to sanctify, to perform a work in us by revealing to us the Will of our Heavenly Father. It is enough that this revelation should occupy our thoughts, that we should read it, absorb it, understand it, and live it.

If I allow the extra biblical principle in Pentecostal theology, I am indeed in quicksand without any escape from any of the outrageous claims that supposedly come through those revelations. A man may hear that God wants him to divorce his Baptist or Presbyterian wife and marry a fellow Pentecostal who will follow him in his supposed Holy Ghost filled ecstatic utterances. Who are we to say he is wrong. We may say you cannot divorce her because of Paul. He will retort that Paul was speaking of a general situation where the man never heard from God. But I have heard from God and therefore, I must obey! How shall we respond to this person? They have a word from God as sure as any word from God written down in Scripture.

I have said that our method for examining this question is both exegetical and empirical. It is exegetical from the standpoint that we must understand the nature of the gifts given in Scripture and how the Church used those gifts for ministry and for edification. It is empirical in the sense that these claims are physical in nature and can be subjected to empirical testing. We can see if a healing has taken place or if a person can actually speak in a foreign language supernaturally. I have also said that when we remove the ultimate authority of Scripture, which is itself divine revelation, and allow for extra biblical revelation apart from Scripture, we nullify the final authority of Scripture and land in a sea of arbitrariness and subjectivity. We lose our ability to distinguish true extra biblical revelations from false ones.

I have also said that if we measure extra biblical revelation by the standard of Scripture, contending that such revelations must always be in line with Scripture, they become superfluous at best. On the other hand, if extra biblical revelation is not superfluous and God really is participating in on-going revelation, the canon should never have been closed and we are now faced with the impossibility of falsifying any of these claims. In other words, the Pentecostal claims to extra biblical revelation and the revelations themselves are in the last word, not defeasible. This is a real dilemma for theology. In fact, how is theology even possible if such a state of affairs has truly obtained? 

Steve Hays on Extra Biblical Revelation

In response to my statement that my extensive experience within the oldest Pentecostal denomination in the world places me in a unique position to comment on Pentecostal theology, Steve Hays says this:

Of course, the traffic goes both ways. Does that mean Sam Storms is uniquely qualified to speak about cessationism?

Would Hays deny that a person reared in the Muslim faith is in a unique position to comment on Muslim theology? Would he deny that a Mormon practitioner is also uniquely qualified to comment on Mormon theology? He can if he wants but he would be foolish to do so.

Hays then comments about all the extra biblical revelation that is actually contained in Scripture itself. It is a theological howler to try to claim that the bible contains extra biblical revelation. The whole point is that this revelation is the content itself of revelation. Extra biblical means that we have revelation taking place outside of the content of Scripture itself. This argument is baffling, but more than that, it is dangerously foolish. I will show why this is the case below.

It may not occur to a careless reader to classify these revelatory dreams as extrabiblical because we read about them in Scripture. In that secondary and derivative sense, they are "biblical."

Hays then creates some artificial categories in hopes of showing that his reasoning is valid and sound. There is nothing secondary about the revelation that is Scripture. To separate the revelation in Scripture from the revelation of Scripture is utterly ridiculous and impossible. It would be like trying to separate the Trinity. 

Does Ed think these extrabiblical revelations were illegitimate? That's the problem for people like Ed. They pride themselves on their fidelity to Scripture, but they aren't really beginning with the witness of Scripture. Rather, they begin with their preconceive theory. 

I reject the classification of these revelations as extra biblical. You see, extra biblical has a very specific meaning in our context. Surely Steve knows this. By extra biblical, we mean revelations from God apart from the authoritative revelation of Scripture. Perhaps a reference to this authoritative revelation might be in order: God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. (Heb 1:1–2).

Finally, I never said that the Prosperity Doctrine and extra biblical revelation were logically connected. They are connected in Pentecostal theology, if not directly by statement, then indirectly by their universal view of causative faith.

Once again, Steve accuses me of being an unscrupulous critic of unscrupulous Charismatics. But what Steve calls unscrupulous, the overwhelming majority of Pentecostals call prophets and prophetesses of God. 

ROFL. So what then is Steve's basis for current, modern, Pentecostal "revelations" NOT being included in Scripture? If revelation continues, why is the canon closed? If all revelations are equal, what about my revelation that says that canon should remain open? Essentially, we should still be writing the Bible. The canon expands with each new generation and their own respective revelations. 

I am sorry, but to argue that the content of Scripture itself is extra biblical revelation is frankly a foolish and absurd proposition. The authoritative revelation vanishes under the umbrella of a radical subjectivism that swallows it whole.

Finally, to compare the genuine revelation of Scripture and in Scripture with modern Pentecostal revelation might make for stimulating conversation to some people, the fact is that it is just plain ridiculous. 

Triablogue continues to vacillate on something as basic as sola scriptura. How on earth can these men defend Sola Scriptura against the Roman Catholics, and then travel across town and defend the nonsense of extra biblical revelation in Pentecostal theology? The contradiction is obvious for all to see.

How many types of revelation are there? Natural....Special...???? God's revelation is authoritative not because it was written down, but because God said it. Hence, Pentecostal theology's idea that God is still speaking outside of Scripture necessitates that we no longer have one final authority in Scripture. We have as many final authorities as we do revelations!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about emptying Scripture of ALL its power.

By what standard do we judge these supposed revelations? Well, we cannot judge them! They are the words of God. Who are we to judge God's word? Unless these revelations are failed prophecies, it seems we can't judge them. In addition, we may not be able even to judge failed prophecies because God may have changed His mind. In Pentecostal theology, God is allowed to do that you know. The understanding of human free will is far worse than you could imagine in that system. You see, God's revelation is equal being, by nature, God's revelation. If a person has a revelation from God that Roman Catholicism is a genuine branch of Christianity, by what standard can we determine its truthfulness? You say by Scripture. The Pentecostal says that their revelation is from God, the same as Scripture. What are we to do? If you say that Scripture is all we need to determine truth, then Pentecostal revelation becomes superfluous at best. If you say that Pentecostal revelation is legitimate, then that makes it necessary since it is an act of God. And if it is necessary, then Scripture is not sufficient. You are left with a choice: If Pentecostal revelation is legitimate, then Scripture is not sufficient and sola scriptura collapses. On the other hand, if every Pentecostal revelation is measured by Scripture for its truthfulness, then that revelation is superfluous. Is it right to charge God with superfluous revelation? This debate, like it or not, takes us back to the reformation. The players may be different, but the core principle of sola scriptura is exactly what is at stake.