Continuationists and Sola Scriptura

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

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

So says the confession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Cessationism, Miracles, and Atheism: Understanding the Difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Hays' Criticisms Less Christian By The Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charismatic Fringe or Charismatic Foci

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

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

Charismatic Fringe or Charismatic Foci