Steve Hays – James White Kerfuffle & RCC Says Christless, Faithless Jews Still God’s Elect

If you read much in the blogosphere, especially the reformed blogosphere, you know by now that there is a but of a kerfuffle between Steve Hays at Triablogue and James White at Alpha and Omega Ministries. There are a few things I want to say about this back and forth.

i) He keeps attacking an argument that people like me didn't make: "Islam is monolithic!" "All Muslims believe the same thing!"       

I am a little confused by this statement. I don’t think James White had Steve Hays in mind when he criticized the way the polls were done. Why Hays inserts “like me” in this particular objection is more than a little confusion. White is absolutely right to point this out to Steve and he does so in the typical, direct, James White style that I have come to love and appreciate so much.

ii) He keeps contradicting himself. He says pollsters fail to "filter out" the "nominal Muslims" from "truly religious" Muslims, "representational of the worshiping community."

This does not seem to be an honest reflection of what White is saying at all. The point that White is making is that the pollsters themselves do not understand the various ways that Muslims interpret their own holy book enough to construct meaningful polls on subjects such as this. The same is true when they parade their polls about what Christians believe or are, or what Christianity teaches about this subject or that one. I think Hays knows better.

iii) The fact that 100% of Muslims aren't terrorists is a red herring. Given the sheer number of Muslims, a fraction of the total is very dangerous. 

If you have not been paying attention so far, maybe now you should. This is not a red herring at all and the logic Hays uses is simply fallacious. A person could say, given the sheer number of Christians, a fraction of the total is very dangerous. What would we say? We would say that men that blow up abortion clinics and shoot them up as well are not Christians and do not reflect the Christian ethic in any way shape or form. Is there a basis in the Qur’an for violence? It depends on how it is interpreted. And that is precisely the point. I am not taking sides on this one. I am merely pointing out White’s point that Hays continues to miss.

The phrase about "escalating rhetoric" is amusing.

This is the sort of exchange one can expect from Steve Hays when he disagrees with you. Hays is a very bright guy. He can argue well. He is well-read. But when it comes to basic Christian virtue and the graces that ought to accompany a man who writes so much about the Jesus he loves, he sure forgets about all those texts that talk about loving, respecting, and extending kindness to your fellow brother. The truth is, Hays can be downright unloving and disrespectful in how he interacts with people on the internet and for some reason, no one seems to want to hold him accountable for it. It is entirely useless to put up a masterful argument for Christ if your behavior makes people wonder just how you see Jesus fitting in to how you talk to people, even on the internet.

What does he think domestic policy should be in reference to Muslims? Does he think the status quo is adequate? Does he think we need to make any changes on our immigration policy? In our visa policy? 

I have no idea if James White is a pacifist or not. It is irrelevant to what I am about to say. Apparently, Steve Hays thinks the Church has some sort of official duty not to take up a pacifist position on this issue. I would love to see that argument. The Christian Church has no interest in this political issue. We are interested in evangelizing Muslims, not killing them. We are interested in living in community with each other, not forming an army designed to take sides with the government in defense of the onslaught of Islam. Look at the environment in which the ancient Church operated. Look at her focus. There is more oppression than anything we have ever seen in our own culture. Did the Church take issue with Rome over this? No, she did not. She continued to preach the gospel, fueled by the blood of the martyrs. She was relentless. Hay could not be more wrong in his implication that the Church is somehow responsible for playing some part in stopping Islamic violence.

On another note today, it seems that an official commission of the Roman Catholic Church has decided that Jews are saved apart from faith in Christ. Rome believes that the apostle Paul’s message, especially that message in Romans 9-11, teaches us that the Jews are still God’s elect and that salvation belongs to then even apart from any profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

But in Rom. 10:1 Paul is praying for Israel’s salvation. Back in 9:2 this same apostle says that he has great sorrow in his heart over the condition of his kinsmen according to the flesh, Israel. If they are saved and that is what Paul actually believed, simply by virtue of being a Jew, then why the sorrow and why the prayer for their salvation? The same apostle wrote in 10:9 that one must confess Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead in order to be saved. The overwhelming majority of Jews reject this doctrine outright. Why would Paul say such a thing if we thought it unnecessary as the RCC apparently does? Paul tells us, in quoting the prophet, that God has stretched forth His hand to a disobedient and obstinate people. Clearly then, Paul was talking about the Jews.

Paul’s point in Romans 9-11 is that true Israel is God’s elect. He points it out over and over again that those who are of faith are Abraham’s seed. And the seed is Christ and the faith is Christ. In fact, Christ is the all and all. Apart from Christ, there is no faith. And apart from faith there is no hope. Therefore, apart from Christ, there is no hope. Paul wrote to the Galatians and expressed his concern over the kind of gospel Rome is adopting: his conclusion, Anathema!

Steve Hays: Shell of a Man Or Just A Tool

If case you are wondering if I have stopped going to Triablogue, the answer is "sort of." You see, a couple of years ago I began to notice something in Steve Hays writings that made me a bit uncomfortable. I noticed that Steve seemed to revel in engaging in fearless speculation concerning matters for which we have no way to ascertain their truthfulness because there is no divine revelation for them. I cautioned Steve then that undisciplined speculation concerning matters of God and divine truth is a practice we should avoid because it is dangerous. It can lead to sin if it isn't sin in and of itself. Steve seemed appalled that I would attempt to correct him and responded with vitriol and a sarcastic rhetoric not fitting for Christian conversation.

Since that time, my number of disagreements with Steve Hays and the Triablogue bloggers have continued to increase. In addition, the use of unkind and quite frankly, ungodly tactics have continued to increase. Now, if you read the ROE at Triablogue, they almost dare people to disagree with them. They are very comfortable with debate, according to their ROE. But I have discovered that Steve Hays does not actually believe in, follow, or honor their ROE. It makes me wonder why they even have them.

The last straw for Hays has apparently been the "Strange Fire" discussions. Hays has hammered away at John MacArthur, Fred Butler, Frank Turk, Dan Phillips, and yours truly. But he has run into stiff rebuttals from every quarter. My experience with Mr. Hays has been that if he does not like your arguments, and if he cannot refute them, he resorts to ad homs, and his favorite, poisoning the well. The level of equivocation he engages in with false analogies is significant. In response to my arguments, rather than try to keep up and have good sound conversation with the aim being to get to the truth of the subject and maybe reach agreement, Hays has resorted to name calling. One of his bloggers referred to the tasteless tactics of one J.P. Holding who has devoted an entire web-page filled with hateful lies about me. (Great is your reward Jesus said!) In addition to that, the same blogger at Triablogue that is, put up a pic of me calling me an internet troll. How on earth can Christians view that sort of behavior and not speak up and call even their closest friends to repentance? Should men like Steve Hays not be called out publicly? Has God given us license to speak to each other differently in digital form than He has verbally or with ink? I don't think so.

The purpose of the Word of God is to transform our lives. The reason we want to know the truth is because Jesus said it will set us free. We discuss these things because we care about helping one another on our journey of transformation into the image of Christ, not because we want something to debate. Truth matters and it matters a lot. Steve Hays leaves me with the impression that it is all about argumentation. He couldn't be more wrong.

This post is talking about a man who defends a movement that defends the health and wealth gospel, believes there is something supernatural and miraculous about speaking gibberish, has people barking like dogs, roaring like lions, and hissing like serpents all the while calling those behaviors a work of God. He has never performed a miracle but argues that the Bible promises us we can do them if we just believe. He defends the idea that miracle workers still exist in the Church but he can't produce even one. He thinks the gifts of healing are still present but cannot offer one healer who can demonstrate this gift to us so that we may glorify God.

Do I still go to Triablogue? If you look at the picture above, it is the internet site that Steve Hays' crew have redirected my IP address to when I do try to go to Triablogue. So while Hays is on his blog, spewing out criticisms of the things I write, he thinks it fair, reasonable, and Christian to make sure I cannot get to his blog in order to defend my views and perhaps respond to misperceptions about what I actually believe. Personally, such a tactic is not really being a real man about it all and as for Christian behavior, it is only a shell. When you examine the tactics employed by Triablogue bloggers, I know of not a single session of elders who would approve. Of course all the sessions I am familiar with are godly sessions for the most part. And even the one session I am not so fond of would not tolerate such unkind and unloving, disrespectful behavior. I hope Hays will read this post objectively and pause long enough to ask himself some tough questions. It simply is shameful to attack someone repeatedly and set it up so that not only can they not respond, they can't even know they are being attacked. I find such behavior not only lacking in Christian virtue, I find it downright cowardly.

Responding to Steve Hays' Well-Poisoning Arguments Once More

SOUL MATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Hays Responding to Butler

Steve Hays is at it again with his at-a-distance pie-in-the-sky non-falsifiable theory that God continues to work miracles in a manner not at all materially different from how He has always worked miracles. Hays’ argument is really an argument from silence. What I mean by that is that Hays’ argument appeals to claims of miracles far, far away, in a distant land in order to defend his position. From my perspective, it seems that Hays is more interested in a debate than he is in settling the truth of the matter. His strategy, if accepted, keeps adding fuel to the fire, keeping the debate open indefinitely. Perhaps this is what Hays really seeks in the first place. Hays’ wants a debate of the theoretical when the issue that John MacArthur is dealing with is one of reality, one of theology, one of actual consequences. In his response to Butler, Hays accuses those of us in the opponent’s camp of having something in common with the skepticism of Hume, saying,

“I never used that argument. Rather, I've pointed out that MacArthurites often resort skeptical tactics to dismiss modern miracles which are indistinguishable from the tactics of Hume and secular debunkers. That doesn't suggest or imply that MacArthurites have to be influenced by Hume.” 

Can Hays sustain this argument? I don’t think so. In the first place, we have never said that God cannot or does not heal or perform miracles today. Hume’s form of skepticism is fundamentally different. Hays is an educated philosopher and he knows better. What we object to is the view that the “gifts” of healing and miracles as they operated in the early Church are present today. That is a fundamentally different question. In addition, it is not a commitment to philosophical skepticism or any component of if that leads us to this conclusion but rather, our observation that they simply are not occurring. If someone claims to be a miracle worker, we simply demand some form of clear and acceptable proof. Had someone been able to supply such a certification, perhaps the contours of the debate would shift. To date, all we have so far are vague stories about unverifiable reports of supernatural events in distant lands far, far away.

Hays goes on to accuse Butler of circular reasoning:

What about Fred's digression? His response is circular. Remember that MacArthurites classify Biblical miracles as sign-gifts whose function is to certify the messenger. So although Fred believes in Biblical miracles because he believes in the Bible, his position also commits him to believing in the Bible because the Bible was attested by sign-gifts. Therefore, he can't simply exempt Scripture from testimonial evidence in general. On the one hand he believes in Biblical miracles because the Bible attests them. On the the hand, he believes in the Bible due to miraculous attestation. So his cessationism ironically creates some parity between the case for Biblical miracles and the case for modern miracles, given the function which cessationism assigns to miracles (i.e. to accredit the messenger). Given that paradigm, you can't discount the one without discounting the other.

It seems to me that Hays misses the point. It is not our position that Christians believe the Bible because it contains miracles. We believe that miracles occurred because they are contained in the Bible. Moreover, we know that miracles are real because we know that God exists and that we are His creation. Now, did God use miracles to usher in the unique nature of the Christian message to those living at the time of that event? I think Scripture has something to say about that. Peter preached the following: “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.” That word attested means “to cause something to be known as genuine, with possible focus upon the source of such knowledge—‘to demonstrate, to show, to make clearly known.” Clearly, NT miracles were designed for a very specific purpose. The resurrection from the dead was a miraculous sign given by the prophets and fulfilled by Christ. These miracles demonstrated that Christ was the messiah and that the message of His apostles was divine. They operated with the authority of the Son of God Himself. Paul said, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” Moreover, Paul said that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.

To the philosophers at Mars Hill Paul thundered that God was going to judge the world by one man, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. Clearly, the NT gift of miracles in Scripture served a very specific and high purpose. Why Hays doesn’t seem to recognize this fact is puzzling. It does not seem to me to be a stretch to assert that inspired history really is quite different from uninspired history. Events that are part of divine revelation really are special events that deserve their own category. They are special events in redemptive history given to the Church for very specific reasons. To place these events in the same category as obscure claims to the same phenomena in modern times seems to me to be driven by desperate bias on the one hand, or extreme naiveté on the other.

Hays then launches into some fairly sympathetic remarks concerning Amie Semple McPherson, John Wimber, and the Catholic claims to miracles. McPherson was a first-rate charlatan. To begin with, she was a female preacher, something Scripture explicitly prohibits. She faked her own kidnapping in order to carry on an adulterous affair. She claimed to hear directly from God. She was obsessed with the “slain in the Spirit” phenomenon that has become very popular in PC circles. She died of a drug overdose in 1944. If you can believe it, John Wimber was even worse. He began his ministry by pulling a group of people together and announcing himself as pastor. He talked about a new breed of manifest sons of God. He was a strong proponent of the laughing movement and called it the third wave move of God. He taught dominion theology and that without His body, the Church, Christ was incomplete. Wimber even believed that Christians could be demon possessed. Wimber’s teachings were deceptive, his methods were a disgrace because of their repeated failures coupled with his claim to serve Christ, Who never fails. Moreover, his anti-intellectual, check your brain at the door kind of rhetoric destroys the very idea of critical thinking.

If I follow Hays’ logic, I am left with some pretty serious problems. First, what basis do I have for rejecting the miracles claimed by Islam? If I must accept obscure and vague testimony from people in distant lands without question, then on what basis can I reject other miracle claims of competing belief systems? Second, Hays’ view that we accept the Bible because of the miracles has it exactly backwards. We believe in miracles because God reveals to us in Scripture that they happened. In addition, all men know that they are the product of the miracle of God’s handiwork. We also know that God lies in back of creation, another fantastic miracle. The miracles contained in Scripture are special events attached to a very special purpose, not only for the sake of that audience at that place and time but also for our sake, for the purpose of spiritual growth and edification. Such historical phenomena are in a category distinctly different from historical phenomena that is not part of God’s miraculous and special revelation. If Hays refuses to acknowledge that such a material difference exists between experiences in Scripture and claims of similar experiences outside of Scripture, what can we say but that the problem must be located somewhere in Hays’ theology.

Hays and others sympathetic approach is detrimental to the testimony of the Christian community. After all, we have charlatans moving around within the visible Christian community making outrageous claims that God speaks to them, that God is healing and working miracles through them, building empires, teaching heresy and doing tremendous harm to the Church, to her position as light in the world, and to countless souls the world over. For some reason, we are more concerned to protect such practices and we are more interested in debating the subject than we are in protecting the flock, protecting the truth, and purging these wolves from the pastures of God’s sheep.

Finally, when Hays and others compare our acceptance of miracles in Scripture with our rejection of miracle claims in modern times, he says we are being inconsistent. If we accept the miracles of Scripture, it seems, we must accept modern claims on the same basis. Otherwise, we are being logically inconsistent. Hays’ reasoning contains a very fundamental flaw. The basis for our belief in the miracles of Scripture is the testimony of God Himself. God the Holy Spirit has made it known to us. The writer to the Hebrews says that we intellectually grasp that the world was made by God from nothing, by faith. That is to say that we possess this knowledge by faith. We know the testimony of Scripture is true, by faith. The activity of God is involved, not only in bringing a revelation, or in giving a revelation, but in our receiving it. If Hays thinks that this process is no different from everyday experiences we have now, he is sorely mistaken. The problem, it seems to me, is not just one of argumentation, it is one of serious theological error. I do not know what kind of theology concludes that modern claims from the PC movement are not materially different from those found in Scripture, but I DO know that it is not the product of sound biblical exegesis. And that is enough for me to say that it should be avoided.

Interacting with Steve’s Hays’s Defense of Pentecostalism

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

Hays’s comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to see an example: Rodney Howard Brown 

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

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

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

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

I want some new wine

Ken Hagin

Ken Copeland

Let the Bodies Hit the Floor

Pentecostal Service

Speaking in Tongues

Thats the Holy Ghost

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

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

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