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?
Steve Hays has an unwritten creed that exists only in his head. Anyone who disagrees with him on any point is to be attacked ferociously, whether Christian or not. He also, as you says, poisons the wall, throws insults, and other cheap tactics. His blog is good reading because he finds interesting articles, but don't take Hays too seriously.
ReplyDelete