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.

The Cessationist View of Scripture: Refuting the Unorthodox Views of Steve Hays

In my last post, I pointed out that all knowledge is revelational in nature. In addition, I made a distinction not only between natural revelation and special revelation, but also between how regenerate and unregenerate men receive natural revelation. I stated that the Christian teaching known as total depravity asserts that unregenerate men uniformly and without exception, willfully suppress the knowledge of God they have within and about them. Paul’s teaching on this subject is unencumbered. That some men hold to a different interpretation of that text is no proof that Paul was ambiguous. If that reasoning were employed consistently to the whole text, the entire doctrine of perspicuity would be eclipsed by postmodern agnosticism. Orthodoxy has always had competing interpretations and she always will. However, Christians can fully rely on the work of the Holy Spirit to guide them into the revealed truths of Scripture. That is a primary function of His work.

What is the nature of this book we have called the Bible? What is Scripture? Why do we have Scripture? How should we view Scripture? How should we see the historical events in Scripture? Is the Bible different? Are the acts of God as recorded in Scripture different? Was God acting in typical fashion or is there a sense in which the acts of God in Scripture were special? When God spoke to Moses, was it a special event? By special, I mean can we or should we expect God to do the same thing with us? According to bloggers like Adam Hays and others, the answer is no. The events we read about in Scripture are not special in any sense. We should all expect God to visit us the same way He visited the prophets, the disciples, and others in Scripture. What happens if we accept such postulations? Does it even matter? I think it does.

The Scripture and the Spirit

A primary role of the Holy Spirit is to apply the word of God to the human heart. He is the great Teacher. Jesus said He will teach you (the disciples) all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (Jn. 14:26) Again, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.” (Jn. 16:13-15) “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.” (1 Jn. 2:20) “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” (1 Jn. 2:27) Clearly there is a clear relationship between the Spirit and the Word. The Word is called truth in John 17:17. The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth in Jn. 16:13. The Spirit’s role is to take that which has already been given and to proclaim it to us. He did this with the disciples directly and He takes the same information given to the disciples, which has been encapsulated on the page, and illumines our understanding. The role of the Holy Spirit is indispensable to understanding Scripture. And the role of the Word is indispensable to discerning the spirits. They are inseparable. It is right to call Him the Spirit of the Word!

The Concept of A Sufficient Word from God

We toss around the phrase “sufficiency of Scripture” all the time and I fear without much regard for all that it implies. The view of that God has given us what is sufficient for faith, life, and godliness is as old as the Church. The Sacred Writings have always carried a prominent place in Christianity, at least until recently. In recent times many in the Church have felt quite at home handling the Scripture with no more fear than they do a pile of dung. There is no pause, no second or third thought about what it is they are actually touching. There is little to no consideration for the potential judgment they place themselves in when they take up the Holy Writ and mangle it to suit their own unbridled, undisciplined otiose speculations. We walk under the banner of a disfigured, manufactured, and humanistic view of grace and do as we please with the hallowed Documents. It as is if the Word of God was given to satisfy our intellectual lust for vain arguments designed to show off our debate skills rather than to transform our wicked hearts and lives into the image of the God we are sworn to serve! We smash the hearts of others without regard for the damage we do all in the name of “defending the faith” or of “doing apologetics.” The Word of God was given to change us, not so that we could have something to debate.

The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture means that we have all we need in Scripture in order to walk in the perfect will of God. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 could not be any clearer. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. The Greek word adequate means to be proficient and complete to perform some function. What function would that be? It would be the function of performing the good works of righteousness that result in the glory and honor of God the Father.

Now, let’s test this against the modern Pentecostal view. First of all, I am talking to the broad Pentecostal audience. This audience holds to a view known as the libertarian freedom of the will. The Pentecostal believes that God’s perfect will can be thwarted. The Pentecostal, for all intents and purpsoses, denies that God is absolutely sovereign over the state of affairs that have obtained. God has given to man the freedom to go his own way and to effectively resist His will. Moreover, men do this all the time according to the Pentecostal.

Now, to keep it simple, how does the Pentecostal idea of open revelation impugn the Sufficiency of Scripture? I am going to create a typical Pentecostal. Let’s call him Adam, well, because Adam is a common name. I have a son named Adam. I like that name. Let’s say that Adam, like nearly every other Pentecostal believes that God has a plan for his life. In fact, God has a perfect will for his life. If Adam could discover this perfect will for his life, this would mean he would be really doing more than the average Christian to honor and glorify God. He would be super close to God. He would be walking in nearly perfect obedience to God. When you reach this state in your Christian walk, God does special things in, through, and with you. But how can Adam get to that special place? How can Adam know the perfect will of God? Well, he has to pray, to fast, to give, and whatever else he can sacrifice to show God just how much he really loves him. God will help Adam get to this place by giving him dreams, visions, and prophecies and even speak to him directly.

Suppose Adam is thinking about getting married. Suppose he notices this very intelligent and attractive young lady that he thinks would make a great wife. Now suppose Adam wants to know if this is the woman God has for him. Adam will pray, and maybe even fast to get an answer. Adam may think that God has given him a dream that she is the one or not. Someone may prophesy that Adam should marry the girl. What happens if Adam does not marry the girl? What if Adam marries someone else? As far as the Pentecostal is concerned, God had another wife appointed for Adam, planned for Adam and now Adam has ruined God’s perfect plan. Adam is now not walking in God’s perfect will. In addition, what if God tells Adam that he is supposed to be a missionary but Adam refuses? Is Adam living in rebellion?

Pentecostal theology is based upon Arminianism theology. The reason the Pentecostal needs continued revelation is because they do not think the Bible in and of itself is enough. They need direction for their lives specifically that is not found in Scripture. It is not enough that God gave His word to the Church and therefore to us because we are the Church. The Pentecostal has an insatiable appetite to make everything about the individual. They want to know who to marry, where to live, which job to take. They believe that spiritual growth is based on experience. The closer they get to God, the more they will hear from Him outside of the Word. These ecstatic experiences will continually increase and this will show everyone else just how spiritual they are and how close to God they are, and how full of the Holy Spirit they are. They reject the orthodox teaching of sovereignty. They deny that God controls all things. They insist that man must find his way to God in addition to what Scripture teaches. The Bible is just the basics as far as the Pentecostal is concerned. It gets you moving toward a loftier goal. If you do things correctly (in the Spirit), God will talk to you directly, give you dreams, visions, and prophecies. You will find God’s perfect will and become a super saint.

In other words, since the Bible does not reveal to me God’s perfect will for my life, it isn’t enough. It isn’t sufficient to move me along to those deeper levels of walking in the Spirit. The Pentecostal may admit that the Bible is sufficient to save and maybe sufficient to get you into heaven. But the Bible, through these gifts, points one to a deeper, closer, more perfect walk with God. And this idea is a direct contradiction of 2 Tim. 3:16-17. The Scriptures are sufficient to bring the Christian to the place where they need to be spiritually. Nothing more is needed. Either the Scriptures adequately equip the believer to do all that God requires of them or they do not. Either God has revealed all we need to know in His word or He has not.

John Webster wrote, "What Scripture is as sanctified and inspired is a function of divine revelatory activity, and divine revelatory activity is God's triune being in its external orientation, its gracious and self-bestowing turn to the creation." [Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. 9]

As for bloggers like Steve Hays, perhaps he is struggling because he has fallen on his own sword of contradictions or maybe he just has a propensity to one up everyone else. That his arguments have become wildly incongruent is obvious for all but his most biased fans to see. Webster says it like this, "If the doctrine of revelation has stumbled and fallen, it has not only been because Christian theology was tongue-tied in trying to answer its critics to their satisfaction; it has also been because Christian theology found itself largely incapable of following and deploying the inner logic of Christian conviction in its apologetic and polemical undertakings." [Ibid. 11]

Finally, to end the post, one more excellent quote from Webster: "In these form, the argument to be out here may be stated thus: revelation is the self-presentation of the triune God, the free work of sovereign mercy in which God wills, establishes and perfects saving fellowship with himself in which humankind comes to know, love and fear him above all things." [Ibid. 13]

Continuationists and Sola Scriptura

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

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

So says the confession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Steve Hays' Criticisms Less Christian By The Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.