Revelation and Canon: A Case for Cessationism

In this post I am going to argue that the non-cessation position has profound ramifications for the doctrines of special revelation and of a closed canon. In his debate with Mike Brown, Sam Waldron repeatedly asked Brown to discuss why believe in a closed canon. Brown never acknowledged Waldron’s question, let alone try to answer it. What was Waldron getting at with this line of questioning? I think he was hinting at what I will be discussing for the next few paragraphs: the inadvertent and adverse consequences that the doctrine of open revelation have on the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world’s development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost.[1] 

The nature of divine revelation is fundamental to Christian theism. God condescends in order to interact with His creation, to disclose, to reveal, and to relate. Christian theism teaches that God reveals on two basic levels. First, as creatures in His image, God has etched Himself upon the human conscience so that His revelation is quite naturally within each of us. There is no escaping it. Paul said, “Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” No human being is capable of escaping this natural revelation of God within the human conscience. In addition, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” The revelation of God in nature is not only within the human being, it is all around them. The revelation of God is inescapable. Not only is that revelation clearly given, it is perceived without ambiguity. Humanity knows God is there. Indeed, according to the language of Romans 1, this revelation is sufficient to make human beings culpable for their wicked behavior. From this, we have no choice but to conclude that the revelation of God we see in nature is abundantly sufficient. Revelation that is sufficient is also without question, reliable, trustworthy in every sense of the word. God’s act of revealing could never be anything but sufficient and completely trustworthy.

While the natural revelation of God is sufficient for culpability, God has purposely ensured that it is not sufficient for salvation. For salvation, man must receive additional revelation from God. Due to his sin nature, man was cut off from God. Therefore, if man is to know God truly, intimately, and not at a distance, God must intrude, break in upon the human mind, darkened and enslaved to sinful desires, as it is want to be. Christian theism calls this revelation divine or special revelation. It is necessary for salvation. One of the most grievous effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty.[2]

Failure to consider the effects of sin in the area of divine communication and of God’s revelation can lead to significant error in one’s theology and understanding of divine communication. The propensity of human sinfulness to debase and distort the revelation of God has been made profusely clear throughout the long history of revelation. This points us to the serious need for a revelation from God that is beyond the reach of human sinfulness. It points us to the need for a revelation from God that is not only well-defined, but one that is entirely reliable. A revelation from God that is neither clear, nor reliable, nor sufficient is not something one would expect from the kind of God that appears in Scripture. Because we are sinful, a clear, sufficient, and reliable revelation from God is necessary or agnosticism wins the day. If the revelation of God is uncontrolled and open, it seems to me that reliability is unattainable.

The reformers saw Scripture as the Principium Cognescendi Theologiae. “Indeed, it is the unanimous declaration of the Protestant confessions that Scripture is the sole authoritative norm of saving knowledge of God. The Reformed confessions, moreover, tend to manifest this priority and normative character by placing it first in order of confession, as the explicit ground and foundation of all that follows.”[3] 

No revelation from God outside of Scripture could ever achieve the certainty of the revelation from God we have in Scripture itself. This means that only the revelation of God in Scripture is certain, is clear, and is wholly trustworthy. Due to the sin nature, it only stands to reason that God would lovingly and, graciously provide us with a revelation of Himself and His will that is beyond doubt, that is to say, a knowledge that we may hold with certainty.

The developing revelation of God, given to us over the history of God’s redemptive plan, and only recorded in the Divine Writings, has a very conspicuous purpose, and serves an extremely significant function in the history of redemption. The historical events of revelation are necessarily unique to any other kind of history. It is fascinating to me that bloggers like Steve Hays repeatedly fail to address this uniqueness appropriately. In fact, if one reads enough of Steve Hays, they are left to wonder if he considers any event recorded in Scripture any differently than any other event. It would seem not to this writer.

Of all the attributes of canonicity, the divine qualities of Scripture are the least discussed.[4] 

Not for nothing, but why is it that scholars seem to be more fascinated with the least fascinating thing about Scripture and least interested in the most interesting thing about Scripture? The Scripture is the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church. When the Scriptures speak, God speaks. When God speaks, Scripture speaks. Is it possible that some men love to spend their time intellectual disputations rather than getting lost in those matters that are clearly revealed to the Church and simply expending their energy in application as opposed to speculation?

The self-witness of Scripture has been for centuries the cornerstone of the orthodox Christian argument for biblical authority.[5] 

Before I go any farther, it is worthwhile to say something about the authority of Scripture, not only to prepare our hearts to reverence it, but to banish all doubt. When that which is set forth is acknowledged to be the Word of God, there is no one so deplorably insolent – unless devoid also both of common sense and of humanity itself – as to dare impugn the credibility of Him who speaks.[6] 

The canon then is not just the record of some interesting historical events and teachings that are on par with events of our own. The documents of the canon represent a collection of the Divine Revelation of God Himself to His creation. God has not left us to guess if He has spoken. We can know with certainty that God has in fact spoken.

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.[7] 

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone. (Eph. 2:19-20) The point that Waldron was getting at with his question regarding the purpose of the canon is really quite simple. The purpose of a canon was to be able to distinguish truth from error, true prophecy from false prophecy, godly teachers from wolves. The Christian documents are the standard by which the Christian knows, believes, and acts upon the truth that God has revealed to His Church. By nature, it is clear, authoritative, sufficient, and reliable. What the canon teaches and records, the Holy Spirit teaches and records.

To summarize then, the sin nature has made it necessary for God to provide man with a self-attesting, fully sufficient, clear, and reliable revelation of Himself. That revelation has been given once for all to the saints. The shape of that revelation is nothing less than the Divine Writings themselves. These writings are necessary, self-attesting, fully sufficient, clear, and unquestionably reliable. God speaks to the Church through the pages of Scripture. We have His sure word delivered to us once and for all, preserved providentially in accurate copies of His Holy Documents.

Now, what is the impact of the position of men like Steve Hays on this age-old position of orthodoxy? If Hays is right that there is nothing unique about what God did in the divine revelation, then it follows that the nature of Scripture as we have come to know it is significantly diminished. The awe inspired by God speaking to Moses or Jesus appearing to Paul is reduced by the phenomena of God speaking to Benny Hinn and Jesus appearing to Muslims. According to some, this happens all the time, and it really isn’t nearly as rare and therefore as special as orthodoxy claims it is. In this view, there is nothing unique about the record of Scripture. How God interacts with us is no different from how He interacted with Israel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, or Paul. The result of Steve Hays’ argument is a massive downgrading of the revelation of Scripture. This is unavoidable. Hays has said as much himself. He has repeatedly insisted that we are wrong to claim that Scripture is different, it is unique, that what God has given us in Scripture is nothing more than He gives some today. I contend that when God revealed to Moses, He also revealed to me that He revealed to Moses. This indicates that God has more than Moses in mind when He revealed things to Him. In fact, there is no revelation of God in Scripture that was given only to one person and not the rest of us. Even John shared the fact that God had revealed things to him that he could not tell us about, but he nonetheless revealed to us that God had shown him things. Moreover, God had a reason for revealing that much to us. God always has a reason.

Finally, the idea of an authoritative canon, a standard by which all truth could be known is completely obliterated by the idea of an open revelation. The point and purpose of a closed canon was the final sealing off of what is self-authoritative, clear, sufficient, and reliable from what is subjective, ambiguous, and questionable. You see, if the canon is closed, all God had to say, needed to say, wanted to say and all we needed to hear and know, we have in the canon of Scripture. However, if revelation is open and prophets continue, the canon cannot be closed. Either prophets are repeating what is in Scripture making their words not the product of immediate divine initiative, or they are actually the product of immediate divine initiative, which means the canon cannot be closed. God does not reveal nor speak without authority, clarity, self-attestation, or reliability.

According to the non-cessation argument, revelation and prophecy continue. This revelation and prophecy are genuinely new disclosures from God. The question we have then is related to faith and reliability. How can we know for sure that God has spoken when this speaking is not on par with Scripture? We know that Matthew’s gospel is self-attesting, reliable, and authoritative. It is binding because it is the word of God. We know this by the witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself. However, I do not have the same witness about modern claims of revelations and dreams and prophecies. Indeed, I cannot have the same level of confidence.

If Scripture is sufficient for all things pertaining to life and godliness, what need do we have for additional revelation and dreams from God? Jude referred to it as τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει. The once for all handed down to the saints faith. This once for all occurrence is a single occurrence to the exclusion of any other similar occurrences.

The problem with Hays and quite frankly, other continuation views is that they fail to preserve the uniqueness of the phenomena revealed in Scripture. God had a reason for revealing to us that He revealed to Moses, or to David, or to Daniel. Scripture is not just a record that God revealed something to someone else; it is God’s revelation to us as well. In addition, Hays’ view on prophets and prophecy violently contradicts not only the reliability and self-attesting nature of divine revelation, but also the doctrine of a closed canon. The whole point of closing the canon was fixing the divine standard by which all claims to truth and knowledge would be measured. If the canon is in fact closed, and divine revelation is fixed and sufficient as well as clear, then whatever these moderns are claiming is unnecessary. We simply don’t need it. However, one has to ask if God is in the habit of giving us revelation and dreams and prophecies we don’t need. And if we do need them, then one has to justify why we have closed the canon. If we do need them, then Scripture is not sufficient. Furthermore, someone is going to have to come up with a way for arguing how on earth it is remotely possible to defend these new prophecies as fully reliable, totally clear, self-attesting, and authoritative.

In the end, the doctrines of Scripture that have been handed down for centuries by orthodoxy are swallowed up by the modern claims of non-cessationism. The Scripture is no longer unique, it is no longer sufficient, it is no longer the fixed standard by which all other claims are tested. And if it is true that modern men can err in their revelations and prophecies, why can’t it also be true for the biblical authors. After all, is that not the basic claim of liberal theologians and has it not been their claim for a couple of centuries now? If Scripture is sufficient, then modern claims of God-speaking are superfluous at best. If modern claims are legitimate, then Scripture is not sufficient. Either Scripture gives us all we need for our spiritual growth and well-being or it does not. If it does, then we don’t need modern revelation. If we do need modern revelation, then Scripture does not give us all we need for spiritual growth and well-being. If only we invested as much energy proclaiming and applying Scripture as we do speculating about argument forms we could grow spiritually and learn a little humility for a change.

---

[1] B.B. Warfield, Revelation & Inspiration (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1932), 3.

[2] Ibid., 13.

[3] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 151.

[4] Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 125.

[5] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010), 440.

[6] John Calvin, Institutues of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know Press, 1960), 1:74.

[7] Ibid.

The Argument for Cessationism from Scripture, Reason, and Science

Recently, James White hosted a debate between Michael Brown and Sam Waldron. During that debate two things stood out to me: first, Michael Brown’s view that “this is that” in Peter’s sermon reference to Joel’s prophecy was an allusion to the miraculous and Dr. Waldron’s focus on the meaning and purpose of a closed canon. While I may refer to the latter in this post, much of my time will be spent on the questions raised by Michael Brown’s assertions.

The most basic assertion that Brown made was that Peter’s sermon at Pentecost indicated that the “age of the miraculous” had begun. Having been saved in a Pentecostal church, and having spent nearly 20 years in that movement, I am very familiar with Brown’s argument. Brown equates the outpouring of God’s Spirit on all flesh with miracles, revelations, tongues, and prophecies. In Brown’s view, when Peter said, “this is that” he was saying that the “that” is the miraculous. Why is Brown’s interpretation of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost incorrect? Brown’s interpretation rests on his faulty use of grammar. Let’s look at the text to see if it is possible to understand “this is that” as something other than the signs on display during this phenomenon.

The text in question is Acts 2:16, which says, “This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel.” Is the antecedent of “this” the miraculous language-speaking ability that has accompanied the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost or is it the divine act of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit itself that is being referenced? Since Peter says “this” is the same thing essentially that Joel spoke about, then the “this” must be the same phenomenon predicted by Joel.

The event, according to Joel 2:28-30 which, contains the promise of the Spirit, begins with “I will pour out my Spirit” and it ends with “I will pour out my Spirit.” Between these two bookends, Joel points to some clear signs that God gives us as an indication that He will in fact pour His Spirit out on all flesh in the future. This future age will be known as the last days. The reason this “age” is called “the last days” is because the governing covenant enacted at this time will be the covenant under which humanity will experience the culmination of God’s plan for redemption and for judgment of all humanity. Once this covenant is enacted, there will be no other covenants in human history. The covenant governing this age is the last one, it is the last age, it is the time of the last days.

Now, here is where I think the error resides in Brown’s argument. God may give us a sign that when it happens, we know God is doing something different. He may give us a sign to indicate we have entered a new age. For some reason, Brown seems to think that the signs that accompany this new age must continue until that new age reaches its culmination, and that is simply not the case. God has indeed given us these signs so that we can know that this new age has begun, but it does not necessarily follow that they must continue in order for the new age to continue. God may point to this incident at Pentecost and say, “When you see this, then you know that I have begun a new age in which I will now include all in my covenantal relationship.” There is no necessary relationship between God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh and the continuation of the sign He gave to accompany it at the outset. These signs point to the greater event, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant. What’s more, Brown does not provide us with any compelling exegetical proof that there is a necessary relationship between the gift and the sign of the sign. He just says it is so and thinks this is enough.

If the signs do not continue throughout the age, then how can we know we are living in the age signified by the sign in the first place? In order to know this we must read on. God has graciously given us signs for the beginning of this age and signs for the end of it as well. This way we know when it began and we know when it will end. God did not leave us to guess.

Joel 2:31 clearly indicates that the signs that this age of the new covenant, of God’s Spirit-outpouring on all flesh will culminate with His final judgment. There will be signs in the heaven above, blood, and fire, and columns of smoke. Now this we did not see at Pentecost even though Peter referenced it as part of “this” which was spoken by Joel. Clearly, Peter is not speaking just about the events these Jews are witnessing on Pentecost. It is much broader than that. This comes out in the course of his sermon. If one looks at Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 we see Jesus Himself referring to this very language as He points to the final coming and judgment of the Son of Man.

It seems to me that Brown is simply allowing theological bias to create a necessary relationship between the signs at Pentecost and the new covenant age. Those signs at best show the beginning of the age. The sign that the age is over is not that these signs end, but that the other signs of the great tribulation begin, culminating in divine judgment. There are signals at the enacting of the new covenant and at the culmination of the new covenant. With this understanding in hand, we can clearly see that God is doing something profound. He is no longer only relating to the Jew. He is now in a covenant relationship with the Gentiles as well, those whom He has grafted into the Olive Tree, Jesus Christ. So the promise that Peter mentions in Acts 2 is not the promise of tongues or prophecy or miracles or revelations. It is the promise of being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and being filled with His wonderful presence daily. It is the promise of a new covenant relationship with the Father through the Son by the work of the Spirit. And this promise is to Jews and Gentiles alike without distinction.

As we study the experience of NT believers, another startling fact emerges. Not everyone in the Church experienced these gifts. 1 Cor. 12 informs us that on the one hand, they were distributed according to God’s sovereign plan and on the other hand, not everyone experienced them. In other words, God did not, contrary to Brown’s view, promise the gifts of the Spirit to everyone. Clearly, many did not receive such gifts from the Lord. But Peter tells us in no uncertain terms that God has promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to everyone that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Paul emphatically tells us that not everyone speaks in tongues, not everyone works miracles, not everyone has the gifts of healing. This is critically important to Brown’s argument. If Brown is correct, then Paul is in error. It really is that simple. If Paul is correct, then Brown is in error. It is abundantly clear that Paul believed that Christians must be filled with the Spirit and yet that these same Christians would not necessarily, even in the NT era, speak in tongues or possess these gifts. Brown is simply mistaken to argue that the gift of the Holy Spirit promised to all believers comes with the gift of speaking in tongues.

One final point worth noting is the argument from causative faith. Brown asserted that Jesus words in John 14:12 are actually intended for every single believer. There Jesus said to His disciples, “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.” On the basis of this and other verses in the NT, Brown, along with nearly all Charismatics contends that every Christian should be able to work miracles and heal the sick. Brown refuses to consider that this text should be understood to be speaking specifically to the disciples present with Christ at this time. If Brown is actually correct, the gifts of miracles and healings are irrelevant. All one needs is faith and they can do everything a miracle worker can do. But Paul contradicts this thinking in 1 Cor. 12 as I mentioned above. So it seems that Paul believed that working miracles and routinely healing the sick required more than just faith in Christ. It required a special gift that is only distributed by the Holy Spirit according to God’s good pleasure.

In addition to this problem, we have the problem of Timothy’s ailment that God did not heal. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus. But undoubtedly Paul had faith. Why didn’t he heal Trophimus? Could it be that the signs were already beginning to dissipate? Could it be because it wasn’t God’s will? If you listen to Brown’s argument, the only viable option is because someone did not have faith. What we have here is a violent and clear contradiction.

The Charismatic argument that Peter had the signs in mind when he said “this” is what Joel spoke about is simply the product of theological bias. Joel had the actual gift of the Holy Spirit, the outpouring itself to which the signs pointed in mind. God graciously gave us a sign to let humanity know that it has entered the very last era of its existence in any temporal, physical sense. The New Covenant has been launched, God is pouring His Spirit out on all flesh, and the next sign we see from God will be the sign of judgment at the culmination of the New Covenant. Pentecost signifies the beginning of the end. There will be no more new works of God in the history of humanity. We are living in the last era of God’s dealings with man.

Finally, no prayer in the NT was ever given with the intent that we could ignore the Lord’s model prayer.And certainly there was never any intent that we could ignore the Lord’s example in Gethsemane. In both of those instances we see Jesus commanding us to always consider God’s will in our prayer and then we see Him actually considering God’s will in His own prayer. Obviously if it were God’s will to heal Timothy, He would have done so. Nothing can thwart God’s will. But this leads us to another very troubling aspect of Charismatic theology that no one is addressing at the moment. The Charismatic believes that God’s will can be thwarted by all sorts of human and even demonic activity. There is a pervasive idea in Charismatic theology that weak faith can thwart God's will for the individual believer's life. But we must save this issue for another time.

We see then from Scripture that there is no promise that the sign gifts of the NT would continue until the return of Christ. To assert that such a promise exists is more the result of theological bias than biblical exegesis. From the standpoint of reason, since no such promise exists, we must conclude that the arguments that depend on such this premise (and they all do) fall short of the standard of soundness. Finally, from a scientific standpoint, we have no empirical evidence that the modern miracles are the same kind of miracles we see in the NT and we also see that modern tongues are not languages, heavenly or otherwise. In fact, there is absolutely nothing miraculous about them. Biblically, logically, and scientifically, there is no good reason for us to accept the modern claim from Charismatics like Michael Brown that the NT gifts are continuing in our day.

Sola Scriptura and the Non-Cessationist Argument

This will be one of my shortest blog posts on the subject of cessationism. My goal is to help folks understand the fallacious argument I continue to hear from people like Mike Brown regarding their so-called proof from sola scriptura that the spiritual gifts have not ceased. So here is the argument in its most basic form.

1. Whatever Scripture teaches is true.
2. Scripture does not teach that the NT gifts will cease.
3. Therefore, the NT gifts have not ceased.

Hopefully you can see the fallacy in this argument right away. The major premise (1) is absolutely true. There is no question that all that Scripture teaches is true. (Not here to argue with skeptics on this point). Now, is the minor premise (2) true? Personally, I believe it is. I do not believe that Scripture explicitly teaches that the NT gifts will cease. However, I do not think that is enough to get to the conclusion in this argument that the NT gifts are still in operation. The fact that the NT does not teach that the gifts will cease during this age or dispensation does not mean that they will not.

This form of the argument really is missing the point. I do not argue that the NT teaches that the gifts will cease. Therefore, to attack my conclusion that the NT gifts have ceased by arguing that the NT does not teach that the gifts will cease misses the point completely. The NT does not have to teach explicitly that the gifts will cease in order for me to conclude that they have in fact ceased. All I need to arrive at my conclusion is a clear understanding of what the NT gifts were, and a clear understanding of what modern Charismatic gifts are in order to decide if the NT gifts have continued according to the Charismatic claims. Here is a sample of my personal argument, imperfectly constructed as it may be:

1. Whatever Scripture teaches is true.
2. Scriptures teaches that NT glossolalia were real languages.
3. No modern instances of glossolalia are real languages.
4. No instances of NT glossolalia have been recorded.
5. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe that NT glossolalia continues.

Perhaps it is better to conclude that there is no good reason to believe that the NT gifts have continued as opposed to stating dogmatically that they have ceased. I survey the claims of modern Charismatics and see no convincing reason to believe that the miracle gifts, the healing gifts, and the revelatory gifts continue to the present day. There are other ways to get to this place and I suppose to get here more dogmatically. But I prefer to avoid theoretical arguments on the gifts since we are dealing with concrete claims.

In order for the continuationist argument to meet the standard of soundness, it must be demonstrated that Scripture affirms that the NT gifts will continue until the end of this dispensation. That argument looks like this:

1. Whatever the Scripture teaches is true.
2. The Scripture affirms that the NT gifts will continue until Christ returns.
3. Christ has not returned.
4. Therefore the NT gifts are still in operation.

Again, premise (1) is true. In addition, premise (3) is true. If it can be shown that premise (2) is true, then the argument would meet the standard of soundness. Can the non-cessationist argument show that the NT affirms that the NT gifts, all of them, will continue until the second return of Christ?

I will follow up this blog with a post about the exegetical argument for the continuation of the gifts as I review the Michael Brown - Sam Waldron debate moderated by James White.

Liberal Fox News Analyst is Converted to Christianity

Really, I mean it was just sort of like God…invading my life. It was very unwelcome. I didn’t like it… I started having a lot of different experiences where I just felt…God doing a lot of things in my life. It’s kind of hard to describe, but I did just have this moment of the scales falling off my eyes, and just saying, ‘this is totally true, I don’t even have any doubt’…

I am reminded of the words of the great hymn, “I once was blind, but now I see.” 

Powers was an atheist and had major hostilities toward evangelical Christianity. In essence, she was an enemy of God top to bottom. Romans 8:7 informs us that the mindset of the flesh is hostile toward God. A fleshly mindset is a worldly mindset. It is what we would call the non-Christian worldview. It is a way or pattern of thinking. Kirsten describes her experience of conversion as an invasion. I think she means she was not seeking God, answers, meaning, or anything like that. In fact, she describes the experience as unwelcome. This would describe what Jesus called in John 8:44 as divine dragging. This is the conviction of Christian truth and the pressure of the Holy Spirit bringing Powers to the realization that Christian theism is actually true.

I don’t really feel like I had any courage…when I became a Christian, I just gave in… It wasn’t courageous; I didn’t have any choice. I kept trying to not believe and I… just couldn’t avoid it. If I could have avoided it, I would have. There is nothing convenient about it in my life, in the world I live in. It’s not like living in the South or living somewhere where everybody is a Christian. I live in a world where nobody is a believer.

Notice how Kirsten describes her new-found faith. She did not go out looking for meaning in life, evaluate the truth-claims of the Christian worldview, experience pressure from her friends, family, and colleagues, and finally decide Jesus made all the sense of the world. Exactly the opposite is the case. She was a liberal democrat, a highly visible contributor on Fox News, with no hint of Christian experience in her background or especially in her present world. She had every worldly reason not to place her faith in Christ. Yet, because the call of God is efficacious, Kirsten’s battle against Christian truth was not one she could win. You see, when God opens the eyes of the spiritually blind, the see the truth of Who Jesus really is and what He has really accomplished for them. Faith finally makes sense. Christian truth becomes attractive. Jesus Himself becomes an irresistible Lord that you want to please with every aspect of your life. He is not viewed as some magical being that will save your marriage, heal your sicknesses, help you get on at work and climb the ladder, make your children more respectful and polite, and help you feel really good about yourself. What Jesus does is open your eyes to your wickedness, to your irrational rejection of all that is godly and good, and recue our miserable, rebellious heart and soul from eternal damnation. He rushes in, bringing us life and peace in Himself, but real trouble and persecution in this world.

A few weeks ago I began to notice something different about Kirsten Powers’ comments and mostly her arguments on Fox News. I was wondering if she was moving toward conservative politics. I could not tell what was going on, but it seemed to me that something was very different about her. Now I know what that something is. You see, Kirsten was dating a man who invited her to attend a church in NYC. And this was not any church. The Church that Kirsten visited was Christ Redeemer Presbyterian Church, pastored by none other than Tim Keller. Now, even though I have some serious concerns about some of Keller’s views, I do think he preaches the gospel. So Kirsten Powers very likely had her first encounter with the gospel. And sometimes, the gospel is just terribly inconvenient. It will change your life!

Kirsten’s interview, even on paper is really quite profound. I confess that it brought me to tears, hearing about how God worked in her life. I could not help but become emotional as Kirsten described the regenerative work of God as he gave her a new heart.

John MacArthur Answers Critics in Tim Challies Interview

Click here to read interview

Excellent response from John MacArthur. Enjoy!

Seeing Tongues as Languages: An Alternative Approach in Exegetical Exercise

In my series of posts regarding NT tongues, I have argued repeatedly that the NT phenomena should be regarded as real languages. To reinforce that concept, this post will perform an interpretive exercise to see if it is possible for us to read 1 Corinthians 14 with the view that every time Paul refers to tongues, he means languages. In fact, many commentators believe it is unfortunate that English versions are still translating glossolalia as tongues. Now, the game I propose is that we make an honest effort to understand every occurrence of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 to mean languages and determine if it is possible to make better sense of the verse and the chapter looking through that interpretive grid. We should remember that the Corinthian believer would have understood Paul’s instructions and statements much more clearly than we do. Moreover, there is the tendency in such communication to leave minute details out because of this presumption of knowledge. We do not have the luxury of being the in the shoes of the Corinthian believer. Therefore, Paul is likely to have assumed a certain level of knowledge among the Corinthians that unfortunately we do not possess.

I also want to suggest that we interpret this NT experience in light of other NT experiences. Is it possible to understand the phenomena of tongues as real languages and nothing more without doing damage to the text of Scripture? In other words, is it safer to interpret Corinthians in light of Acts 2 and 10 without resorting to the practice of inventing an entirely new kind of tongue that is nowhere else mentioned in Scripture? Is it necessary for us to invent the PC “prayer language” position in order to give sound and adequate interpretation to 1 Corinthians 14? From the standpoint of the literary context, can we glean Paul’s main points in that chapter without inventing the “prayer language” idea? I believe we can. The best way for you to practice this exercise is to replace tongues with languages and to replace interpret with translate. Remember, resist the urge to return to modern tongues. Glossolalia means languages and diermeneuo means translate. When the Corinthian heard these words, that is the definition that came to mind.

The first text that demands our attention is 1 Cor. 14:2, “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.” Notice the word “For,” which is an epexegetical. What this means is that we have to step back at least to the previous verse in order to understand why the “for” is there for. Paul begins this chapter with the command to pursue love and desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. The reason for this command is that Paul is concerned with those gifts that edify the body. This is the central concern of 1 Cor. 14. We must read 1 Cor. 14 with the understanding that Paul’s message to the Corinthian believer is that they’re goal is to edify one another. Now, with this understanding in mind, we can recognize that Paul is not describing the universal practice of tongues in general. He is dealing with tongues in Church. More than that even, he is specifically dealing with tongues in the Corinthian worship service. He begins by commanding them to seek out the gifts that edify and then he says “For” the one who is speaking in this language in your worship service is not speaking to men (because they can’t understand him) but to God (because only God can understand him). To miss the epexegetical in this verse is a serious literary misstep and it results in serious interpretive deviation. One misses the contextual meaning and significance of what Paul is getting at. This is reinforced by the next verse, which begins with the logical contrastive “but.” So we see that it is in fact possible to read 1 Cor. 14:2 with the understanding that “tongues” in this verse is a real language. Moreover, not only is it possible, it actually makes better sense than the alternative non-cessationist interpretation.

Now we turn to v. 4: “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.” This is not a good thing. Paul is after the edification of the church. In addition, can we read this as a real language? I think so. How can someone speaking in this language also engage in self-edification? The presumption is that they and only they can interpret it. In this case, edification takes place but only for the individual who is also interpreting the language. Those who cannot understand the language are not edified at all. And this is why Paul wants the practice to stop. Notice in the next verse that Paul makes sure he is guarding against a bad knee-jerk reaction where the pendulum swings to the other extreme. God gave the gift of tongues for a very specific reason and it is not to be neglected. What Paul wants is that it be used in the way God intended. Therefore, we can see how it is reasonable to interpret this verse to mean real languages.

Paul makes it clear in verse 9 that God is a rational communicator. He goes on to illustrate that the use of languages that others do not understand is indeed a waste of time. Others will think we are barbarians, or foreigners who do not understand our language. Then in v. 12 he once again restates his main concern, “So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.” This is the central focus of Paul’s concern. Paul concludes that everyone that prays in tongues should also pray that they might be able to interpret it, or translate it. The better word for διερμηνεύω (diermeneuo) is translate. It means to translate from one language to another. You cannot translate a non-language. There is nothing to translate. The whole idea is to take what is being said in one language and translate it into another language. If some speech is non-language, there is no meaning there to translate. Our English bibles really should render the word “tongues” as languages and the word “interpret” as translate. That would go a long way to help mitigate the confusion introduced by the PC movement on this subject.

Now we come to another Pentecostal favorite in 1 Cor. 14:14, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” The PC movement claims that the purpose for tongues is so that they can pray directly to God. But can we take this verse to mean the supernatural ability to speak in a real language? I think we can. If I pray in the spiritual-gifted language, I don’t do so from my mind but from my spirit. My mind cannot generate this language because it was not acquired by the mind. Therefore, in this sense, my mind is unfruitful. What should I seek to do then? I should seek the gift of translating this language. So, as Paul says in the next verse, “What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.” Paul is saying, I will pray in the gifted language and I will seek to translate it. Why does Paul speak this way? We understand why when we read the very next verse; “Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?” This indicates that v. 15 deals not with private prayer, but public prayer and the Corinthian must translate any prayers or songs that he gives in his gifted language(s). That is the principle theme that continues to occupy Paul’s thought.

Paul then issues the most ignored principle among Pentecostals-Charismatics in v. 19. He says that he would rather speak 5 intelligible words in Church than ten thousand in the gifted languages so that others would be edified. I can tell you that PC Churches ignore this statement completely, arguing that Paul is not talking about the prayer language here, but rather the gift of tongues, which is different. Such an argument is completely arbitrary. It is interesting to note that Paul issues a pretty stern rebuke in v. 20 as one gets the sense that he is very annoyed with this subject: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.” It is apparent that Paul thinks the Corinthians should have been able to figure this out without his instructions.

We move to verse 22, which is the culmination or summary of Paul’s argument regarding the use of Tongues in the NT Church. Paul informs us in no uncertain terms of God’s purpose for tongues: “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.” It is easy to see now how this phenomenon of tongues had to be divinely gifted languages. There is no way that unintelligible gibberish could meet the definition of sign. It is simply untenable to contend that the modern gibberish we witness in the PC movement could be some sort of sign from God for unbelievers. How could it? Anyone can do it. Non-Christian pagan religions do it. Anyone can copy it. There is nothing supernatural about it. It has no distinguishable miraculous features. Therefore, Paul had to be speaking about a real language in this context. In addition, it is fool-hardy to attempt to arbitrarily claim here that Paul means the gift of tongues, but in the previous section he means the prayer language. PC Churches weave their way back and forth in this chapter, bending the text to mean whatever they need it to in order to support their modern practice of tongue-speaking. The Scripture becomes literally, putty in their hands.

We now come to the very next verse, which seems somewhat confusing and contradictory. Verse 23, “Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?” The only way to take this is that Paul means in one sense, men who do not understand the language but in the other, some men do understand the language. Tongues can only serve as a sign for those who actually speak that language. So then, tongues are a sign to unbelievers as was demonstrated in Acts 2. But if men do not understand those tongues, then they will think you are mad. This is also a response we see in Acts 2. Paul’s point is that everything in the Church should be done with the goal of edifying the body. Tongues clearly do not do that. Tongues would typically be used outside the Church service in evangelism of the unbeliever. In this way it can serve as a sign. In the Church however, you should refrain from such practices, seeking to edify the other. Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever. They only edify when they are translated into an intelligible dialect, be it for the speaker or for the hearer.

I am not so naïve as to think that I have cut a new path through the maze of the ancient practice of glossolalia. I fully recognize that my interpretation is not without its difficulties. However, I have yet to investigate an interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 that was without difficulties. They are all filled with difficulties. The difficulties are the result of the distance of time, the distance of culture, and the distance of experience. However, I do think my interpretation has the following advantages:

·         It allows me to retain the more descriptive definition of tongues given by Luke in Acts 2.

·         It avoids the arbitrary and baseless view that invents a new kind of tongue known as the “prayer language.”

·         It does no violence to the text of 1 Corinthians even if it might leave some things open for discussion.

·         It contains no contradictions.

·         It retains the basic purpose of tongues given by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:22 as a sign for unbelievers.

·         It avoids the lack of distinction between the Christian phenomenon and the pagan parallel.

·         It avoids the conclusion of linguists that modern PC tongues are no different from tongues in other non-Christian mystic cults and religions.

From my perspective, it seems only reasonable that we hold this interpretation until better evidence can be given for why we should conclude that the tongues in 1 Corinthians were somehow different from the tongues mentioned in the rest of the NT text. This latter view is anachronistic, looking at ancient tongues through the grid of modern tongues. The fact that modern tongues are not real languages in any since of the word is not a legitimate reason for us to postulate that the same is true of ancient NT tongues at Corinth. The contrary should be our response. Why it is not is nothing short of baffling.

If it were true that modern tongues are the heavenly language mentioned in 1 Cor. 13, then linguists should at least be able to connect American tongues with Chinese tongues with Russian tongues, and with all tongues across all dialects. It should be something uniquely differently even if not entirely explicable. The Russian sounds should be the same as the Americans and the Chinese and the French and everyone else who speaks in tongues. The reason is that heaven has only one language. Moreover, that language is rational the same as our own. Man was created speaking that language if you remember. It wasn’t until the curse at Babel that that changed. No matter how you slice it, modern PC tongues is remarkably different from what was witnessed and experienced in the NT Church.

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' Article on Critically Thinking About Miracles

Critical Thinking on Miracles - Steve Hays

i) It's striking that MacArthurites like Ed and Fred are utterly oblivious to the fact that their objection to modern charismata parrots the atheist objection to God's existence. If there is a God, why doesn't he heal amputees? If God exists, why doesn't he cure every patient in a cancer ward?

Same thing with atheists and prayer studies. If God answers prayer, then that ought to show up on double-blind experiments. 

Charismatics can respond to the cessationist objection in the same way cessationists respond to the atheist objection. If a cessationist defends himself by saying God doesn't heal amputees because it's not God's will to heal amputees, and God has a good reason for not doing so, then a charismatic can defend himself by saying God doesn't empower a modern-day Christian to heal amputees because it's not God's will to heal amputees, and God has a good reason for not doing so–either directly or indirectly. 

ii) Likewise, Jesus and the apostles didn't try to prove themselves by searching for sick people to heal. Rather, sick people came to them. 

iii) Now, bad arguments can be persuasive because they contain a grain of truth. The element of truth lends a specious plausibility to a bad argument. And that's the case here. 

I think Fred is calling the bluff of charismatics. And up to a point, there's nothing wrong with that. It's like calling a psychic's bluff by taking the psychic out of her controlled environment, where she can manipulate the variables, and putting her in a situation where she has to do cold readings. 

Notice how Fred prefaces the challenge:

if contiuationists are correct that signs and wonders are a part of the normal Christian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people, then there should be gifted individuals who should do extraordinary signs and wonders with their laying on of hands. 

And there are undoubtedly continuationists who claim that. So that's a fair challenge.

iv) However, there's no reason to think the alternative to cessationism must be believing that "signs and wonders are a part of the normalChristian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people."

v) For instance, how do cessationists define faith-healers? Let's take a comparison:

a) A Christian prays for a cancer patient. The next day, the cancer is gone.

b) A Christian lays hands on a cancer patient and prays over the patient. The next day, the cancer is gone.

Is (b) a faith-healer, but (a) is not? Is that the distinction? If not, is there some other differential factor?

vi) What if a Christian has the "gift of healing," but doesn't claim to be a faith-healer? Suppose he or she simply acquires a reputation for having the ability to heal, without doing anything to cultivate that image or advertise that fact? Is that Christian a faith-healer? 

vii) If a Christian is a healer, does that mean he or she must be able to heal anyone and everyone? If a serial killer with terminal cancer comes to her, and she lays hands on him or prays for him, and he still dies of cancer, does that mean she's a fraud? 

What if it wasn't God's will to heal the terminal serial killer? Unlike the faith-healer, God knows who this individual is. God knows what this individual will do if miraculously cured. Therefore, God blocks or withholds healing. 

viii) If someone claims to be a faith-healer or miracle-worker, then we have every right to demand evidence. That, however, is different from proposing an artificial litmus test. 

If Jesus heals a women who suffers from internal bleeding (Mt 19:18-26), but he doesn't heal someone dying of radiation sickness, the latter doesn't cancel out the former.  We should judge each case by the evidence for (or against) each case. The fact that nothing happened in one case isn't evidence that nothing happened in another case.    

ix) It's also illogical to prejudge the question of modern charismata by charismatic claims. Whether or not modern charismata occur is irrespective of what charismatics claim, one way or the other. It's undoubtedly the case that many charismatics make exaggerated claims or entertain exaggerated expectations. However, disproving exaggerating claims–which is a worthwhile exercise in itself–does nothing to disprove modern charismata. 

If a weather forecaster predicts that it will rain 5 days in a row, and it only rains 3 out of 5 days, his prediction was false. But his mistake doesn't falsify the reality that it rained 3 days out of 5. He was partially wrong, but he was partially right. The event is independent of his claims. Disproving his specific claims does nothing to disprove a weather event. 

Cessationists and charismatics can't prescribe or proscribe reality. It will be whatever it will be, regardless of their prognostications. 

Ultimately, you need to judge the question of modern miracles, not by what cessationists or charismatics claim, but by what really happens–or doesn't. If the incidence of miracles is lower than the rate which Pentecostals optimistically predict, the mismatch disproves Pentecostalism, but it does nothing to disprove the miracles which do occur–assuming they occur. It's unfortunate that so many cessationists fail to draw that fundamental distinction.

I wanted to take a moment to respond, albeit briefly, to Hays' criticism. Cessationists do not assert that God cannot or never heals cancer patients through the prayers of believers. The fact that God heals someone of cancer through prayer does not indicate that a person has the gift of healing.

The only thing you need to understand in order to recognize the extreme weakness in Steve's argument is the fact that we are not talking about facts here. Steve is not talking about anything real. Steve is talking about hypotheticals, speculations, what-ifs, possibilities, the abstract. Notice that Steve's healers, miracle workers, and tongue-speakers never have names. They are nothing more than components of Hays' arguments. They do not rise to the level of actuality. With all due respect to Steve Hays, what we are interested in, what I think Fred Butler is interested in, what it seems John MacArthur and the rest of us are interested in is what is actually the case. What is the actual state of affairs that have obtained in terms of the miraculous and revelatory gifts of the NT era?

In addition, Steve spends more time arguing for the possibility that these gifts have continued than he does really interacting with our very real, very pastoral, very loving concerns. It is not the case that we simply don't like this theology so we pick a fight with those who subscribe to it. That isn't it at all. What we know for sure is a clear and serious issue from Scripture is the practice of claiming that God is speaking and working in certain ways. We know this claim is incredibly serious. In other words, if anyone says God said, then God most certainly had better said! If someone says, behold! The work of God in your midst! Then it better be the work of God. In and of itself, such claims are as serious as any claim could be. In addition, the people who naively accept these claims, if they are false, are being lied to and hurt by the millions. That is a very serious matter. However, it seems to be something for which Steve Hays show little concern.

Concerning whether miracles ever occur, that is a red-herring in this argument. It is one Hays continues to parade about as if it means something. It does not. John MacArthur does not deny the possibility that God may work miracles and/or heal if such is His will. Strange Fire has never been about that! Hays, in my opinion knows better. His latest post seems more like a bit of a retraction to me than anything else. I am thinking of the current political debacle known as Obamacare. Strange Fire is concerned with the claims that faith-healers and miracle workers along with open revelation continue to this day. It is a distinguishing mark among modern Charismatics. Those who reject these views are in the small minority, a fringe element of Charismatics that are so small, they don't show up on the Charismatic radar.

What Hays needs to do if he wants to advance his argument and regain any credibility for his position is to provide some actual evidence that healings and miracles are a routine occurrence within a specific person's ministry. That would be helpful. Otherwise we are left to counter his hypothetical, non-existent miracle workers, pointing to a massive lack of any empirical evidence for his imaginary world, and that just isn't much fun nor is it much of a challenge. These are real concerns about real claims of real miracle workers and the real impact they are having on real people. That is the state of affairs we are concerned with as opposed to the imaginary miracle workers and healers that Hays loves to pretend could exist somewhere in the world. In my opinion, there is very little critical thinking in Steve's article on that subject. Steve seems to be saying the same thing as Alice:

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"