Why is Belief in Modern Miracles Fair Game, When Belief in Miracles is Not?

A lot has been said on this subject over the last couple of months. There are good folks on both sides of the issue of modern miracles. To be specific, the issue about which I speak has to do with the claim that the gifts of miracle workers and healings are continuing in the Christian church. As a cessationist, I have my own particular way of dealing with that argument and have blogged about it a few times. It is clear that the cessationist and continuationist argument will continue for years to come, provided the Lord tarries. In this blog, I am going to attempt to point out the fallacious reasoning for the continuationist argument employed specifically by Stave Hays over at Triablogue.

Repeatedly, Hays refuses to draw any line of demarcation between the special revelation of Scripture and the general affairs of everyday life. Steve has continually argued what is good for Moses is good for us. If Paul could heal the sick, then we should be able to as well. He has gone so far as to adopt the causative-faith argument of charismatics, asserting that James 5 teaches that any prayer of faith ought to be able to produce healing. To my knowledge, he has not qualified God’s will in the process and seems to be drifting more and more toward the Charismatic camp on the issue.

In addition to this, Hays has consistently accused cessationists of employing the argument’s of atheist merely on the ground that we contend that such claims ought to be subjected to rigorous examination and proof. I have said on more than one occasion that these people are publicly claiming to represent Christ, to represent the Church, and therefore they must be subjected to the highest scrutiny. Hays doesn’t seem to think much of it. In fact, he seems far more concerned with argumentation than he does with the transforming nature of truth and the detriment done to the gospel by these false teachers and money-grabbing charlatans. That is most regrettable.

What most people do not realize is that Hays’ argument has a very basic flaw embedded in it. It is one of those flaws that is so obvious that it can slip right past you without notice. Fred Butler, in a nice analogy on UFOs hit on it the other day here.

I want to point you to three common methods of arguing in order to show that Steve Hays has employed a method in this case that is highly questionable. The following statements preclude properly basic beliefs. Hence, every belief or truth claim I reference is one that is not properly basic.

My underlying presupposition: self-justifying truth claims exist. My first premise goes like this: Every truth claim that is not self-justifying is subject to justification. My second premise: truth claims that are not self-justifying and that cannot be justified should be abandoned. My third premise: not all truth claims are justified in the same way.

Three common ways that Christians justify beliefs. The first one I want to discuss is induction. Here we are more consistent than the non-Christian, because we acknowledge the unity of the particular with the general, a unity that only makes sense in the Christian worldview. “Empirical truths – about the consequences of smoking, of the causes of cancer, and all others of that sort – cannot satisfy the standard of deductive certainty.” [Copi, Logic, 444-5] Copi tells us that the most common type of inductive argument is that of analogy. And it seems clear to me that Hays and other continuationists have called on argument by analogy often. “To draw an analogy between two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar. Hays has done this in terms of comparing biblical miracles with modern miracles as well as in his accusations that cessationists are really skeptics. Steve has reasoned that Jesus and the apostles performed miracles. Scripture does not say that miracles will cease after the apostles, therefore we should expect miracle workers to continue. Hays has also made the uncharitable argument that atheists deny miracles, and cessationist denies miracles, therefore cessationists argue like atheists. Inductive arguments never achieve certainty in their conclusions. Induction is a scientific way, the empiricist’s way for justifying beliefs. Not all truth claims can be justified by the inductive approach. For example, belief in the laws of logic cannot be justified using induction.

A second common form of argument is called deduction. “A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.” [Ibid, 164] In other words, a valid deductive argument is necessarily true if its premises are true. Deduction seeks certainty in its conclusion. Deduction is a rationalistic way for justifying one’s beliefs. However, not all truth claims can be justified using deductive reasoning. For example, you cannot justify empirical claims with deductive reasoning. In fact, the belief in the laws of logic cannot itself be justified using deductive reasoning.

You will recall a few paragraphs ago that I said that some beliefs are properly basic. I also refer to this type of belief as self-justifying. In other words, we do not need to, and in same cases we dare not, subject certain beliefs to the tests of justification. Perhaps belief in other minds would qualify as properly basic. You do not need to concern yourself with proving there are other minds because such a belief is self-evident (unless you are a highly educated philosopher who has learned how to be stupid in ways that the rest of us could never fathom). Every worldview has a chain of beliefs that is eventually anchored to something or perhaps nothing, depending on the worldview. A worldview anchored to air is one that, at bottom, provides no justification for it beliefs.

What kind of claim then is the claim that miracle workers are still present? What kind of claim is it to say that God is performing miracles today? Steve Hays and other continuationists seem to think it is an exegetical claim. They are wrong. It is not an exegetical claim. There is nothing in Scripture that provides the clear teaching that miracles will continue right up into the Parousia. Hence, this claim cannot be justified on purely exegetical grounds. However, on the flip side, the exegetical argument that God is not performing miracles today is about as weak. We cannot deny that God is performing miracles today on a purely exegetical basis. Belief in that claim cannot be justified on solely exegetical grounds. The claim is not an exegetical claim. It is an empirical claim.

How do we investigate empirical claims? Do we open our bibles to see if an empirical claim is true? First of all, we have to examine the source for the claim to determine if it meets the criteria of justification.

What are we observing? Are we actually observing miracles? We hear some reports, but what we need is something we can actually verify. Jesus healed in such a way that His miracles were self-verifying. He didn’t sneak off to someplace else, claim to perform a bunch of miracles and then come back with fancy stories about it all.

What is the difference between modern claims to miracles and biblical claims? It is simply this: the source. And the source makes all the difference in the world. Who is the source for the miracle claims of Scripture? Who is the source for the miracle claims in modern times? In the former case, the source is God Himself. In the latter case, it is fallen man.

Belief in modern claims of miracles is not self-justifying. All beliefs that are not self-justifying should be subjected to justification. All beliefs are not justified in the same way. Belief in modern miracles is empirical in nature. Empirical beliefs are subject to inductive justification. Hence, belief that a miracle has occurred should be empirically justified. Belief in the Bible as God’s word is neither, wholly empirical or entirely rationalistic. A basic Christian belief is that the Bible and all it contains is the self-justifying word of God. Hence, belief that all the contents of the word of God are true is a self-justifying belief. All biblical miracles are infallible records contained in the Bible and given by God Himself. Therefore, belief in Biblical claims of miracles is a self-justifying belief. Self-justifying beliefs are not subject to empirical or rational justification.

In summary then, it is easy to see the difference between cessationist beliefs concerning modern claims of the miraculous and the continuationists. The continuationist argument is guilty of applying the wrong criteria for justification of belief in modern claims of miracles. Such beliefs are empirical in nature and ethically speaking, must be subjected to inductive scrutiny. Not only is justification not unethical, as Hays seems to contend, it is morally necessary. On the other hand, the miracle claims of Scripture have a very different source and therefore are of a very different nature. These claims are made by a source that we dare not question. Scripture is self-justifying. Therefore, belief in the miracle claims of Scripture is a self-justifying belief. Plantinga tells us that any proposition is properly basic for an individual if and only if such proposition is incorrigible for the individual or self-evidence. For the Christian, Scripture is just that! Its testimony is elevated high above Hays’ fallacious argument by analogy, not to mention his sources for modern claims of the miraculous.

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.

Cessationism, Miracles, and Atheism: Understanding the Difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Hays' Criticisms Less Christian By The Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?" 

Steve Hays on MacArthrite Cessationism

Steve Hays' Criticism of the Cessationist Position on Miracles

Steve Hays continues his fascinating attempt to convince us that the Pentecostal-Charismatic miracles today are genuine. He has implied on numerous occasions that we are wrong not to take them at their word. According to Hays, if we dare not question the miracles of Scripture, then we must extend the same respect to the "Benny Hinns" of the world today and resist the evil temptation to examine modern claims of miracle workers. Steve Hays' argument continues to place modern phenomena on par with the divine revelation of Scripture. Whatever principle I have for doubting modern claims of miracle workers and faith healers, I must also apply to Scripture, according to Hays. If I doubt the claims of Benny Hinn, then for consistency's sake, I must also doubt the claims of Jesus. If I doubt that Oral Roberts actually raised people from the dead, something he claimed to have done, then I must be soul mates with the skeptic Gotthold Lessing.

Hays' argument is more than fallacious. It is more than unsound. It is more than poisoning the well, more than ad hominem, more than a straw man. It is not even close to keeping with Christian charity. It is rude, obnoxious, disrespectful, and self-serving. But I have already discussed Hays' methods and tactics before. For some reason, Hays' thinks that when Paul demanded that Christians be kind to one another and when Peter demanded that we treat even outsiders with gentleness and respect, Hays thinks that does not apply him. For some reason, he is allowed to pull out one false analogy after another and associate God-fearing, Jesus loving, truth-embracing believers any way he pleases because they have dared to disagree with him. Sooner or later, Hays will have to give an account for his lack of respect and for associating fellow-believers with atheists and skeptics simply because they disagree with his views.

The problem with Hays' current rebuttal is that he once again thinks Scripture is on par with modern claims of supposed miracle workers. Hays points out that several miracles of Scripture are private events with no outside witnesses. He then says that we have no right to demand that the PC miracle workers perform the sort of miracles that we can verify. Why? Because no one can verify that God spoke to Moses from the burning bush but Moses. So if we take Scripture at face value, we must take Benny Hinn at face value as well. If we demand that Benny Hinn perform the sort of miracles that can be verified, then we must also make the same demand of Scripture. This is the basic thrust of Hays' argument. Now he does not use the name Benny Hinn and for good reason. It would be embarrassing. I use it for good reason: logically it is impossible not to make this conclusion if one accepts Hays' faulty premise. 

Hays thinks that by placing the demand for empirical verification on modern miracles that we undermine our ability to defend the miracles of Scripture, resulting in the entire collapse of any sort of high view of Scripture. Those idiot MacArthurites have destroyed apologetics with their strange fire nonsense, if you listen to Hays' argument. But if Hays is a true presuppositionalist, he knows better than this. He knows we presuppose the truth of Scripture and that the witness of Scripture is the Holy Spirit and therefore our belief in Scripture is a basic commitment. 

Lets take a look at one of those examples that Hays uses to prove his point. God used a burning bush to reveal Himself to Moses and to make known to Moses the high calling He had for him. No one saw it but Moses and God. But when God told Moses to go to His people, Moses reasonably asked God why the people should believe his claim. Did God leave Moses without a witness? He did not. Moses performed three miracles before the Children of Israel: the staff into a serpent, the hand of leprosy, and the water into blood. And they believed he had been sent with a message from God. Now, it seems reasonable to say that when someone performs indisputable public miracles as Moses did, it is safe to say that his version of the burning bush should be accepted as legitimate as well even if the only witness was God. Hays' analogy falls extremely short of its target.

In addition to the short rebuttal on Moses, we should also understand that no miracle of Scripture comes to us without a witness. The events of Scripture did not happen in isolation of a greater concern. They are included in Scripture for all of us. In other words, no miracle of Scripture is private. God has published them to us all. In every single case, the miracles of Scripture come with the witness of the Holy Spirit. There can be no greater witness than that. Perhaps Hays may wish to point out that unbelievers reject such an argument, but they do so upon presuppositions that we Christians reject. So now we are back to talking about presuppositions. Apparently "MacArthurite"cessationism doesn't destroy apologetics after all.

Hays is simply wrong to claim that the miracles of Scripture are private and that they are on par with modern claims of supposed miracle-workers and faith-healers. Modern claims are not the product of divine revelation. They are not witnessed by the Holy Spirit and made known to all believers. Finally, there is no empirical evidence to suggest they are in fact genuine. Additionally, Hays continues to ignore my rebuttal that demands he explain to us why it is wrong for us to scrutinze these modern claims since they stand to do great harm to the Church unless we can prove them to be legitimate.

Summary

• The miracles of Scripture are not private contrary to Steve Hays' claim. They have been published by the Holy Spirit for all believers to see.
• Unbelievers are obligated to believe the claims of Scripture. Therefore the miracles of Scripture serve as one more indictment upon their unbelief.
• The Holy Spirit is witness to every miracle of Scripture. Therefore, no miracle of Scripture is private.
• The miracles of Scripture are not on par with the modern claims of supposed miracle-workers and faith-healers. They are superior in every way.
• There is no indication anywhere in the NT that the miracles of Christ and His followers were reasonably disputable. There is no contemporary contestation of a Biblical miracle. The Jewish conspiracy concerning the resurrection was not based on genuine doubt.
• It is not consistent with skepticism to insist that modern claims of miracles be empirically verifiable.
• To presuppose the truth of Scripture in all it teaches concerning miraculous events does not logically require one to presuppose the truth-claims of modern miracles.
• To doubt the claims of modern faith-healers does not logically require one to doubt the biblical claims of faith healings.
• Phenomena within the Biblical revelation is distinguished by the impeccable witness of the Holy Spirit and distinct from all other phenomena by the nature of God's express purpose for that revelation, which is the expression of His truth, His light, His glorious gospel to the world.
• To claim that skepticism toward modern miraculous claims is logically equivalent to the miraculous claims of Scripture indicates that one does not accept the unique character of the self-attestation of Scripture.
• Rejection of the self-attesting nature of Scripture is equivalent to rejecting the self-authoritative nature of Scripture. 

To accept the claims of Scripture regarding ANYTHING it says does not require that we accept similar claims of modern charismatics in any way, shape, or form. It is a fallacious argument from top to bottom. But then again, Steve Hays has posted a lot of things regarding paranormal phenomena, so I think we could be dealing with someone whose views may be shifting outside the norm of good reason and Christian orthodoxy. I am monitoring Triablogue for that very purpose. To spill so much digital ink searching for testimonies of people going to heaven and talking to Jesus, as far as I am concerned is a colossal waste of time. Let us turn our attention to the one revelation we have and learn how to handle it better, accurately, and honor God in so doing. Instead of attempting to find ways to allow for the radically subjective, and the undisciplined experiential, let us heed Paul's words to Timothy:

 "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you." 2 Ti 1:13–14. 

Responding to Steve Hays' Well-Poisoning Arguments Once More

SOUL MATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Strange Fire Conference - John MacArthur Initiates Another Battle for Truth

The Strange Fire Conference

Click the link above to visit the "Strange Fire Conference" webpage. There will be live streaming of the event beginning tomorrow.

John MacArthur does it again. He has refused to sit back and say nothing about a movement that routinely displays some of the highest arrogance of any movement I can think of in terms of the movements claiming to be distinctly Christian. I am convinced that Dr. MacArthur's attempt is one of the most loving things he could ever do for the Christian community. Part of the issue with the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement is its amazing congruence with the hedonistic, materialistic modern advanced cultures and its wildly successful ability to generate temporal, fleshly hope in cultures where little hope exists. The tactic is about as cruel as one can possibly be. The number of people jumping on the bandwagon and signing up for this movement is very high. But the reasons are as sinful in many cases as they are erroneous. 

• People feel very special when God talks to them directly. They want what the early Church and the prophets had: direct, divine revelation from God. In fact, they demand it. This movement gives them dreams, visions, and personal prophecy.
• People want a life of material gain. This movement promises that they can have it.
• People do not want deal with being sick or getting a disease. This movement teaches that healing was provided for in the atonement.
• People want to see God's miraculous power. This movement claims to have miracle workers.
• People want their best life right now. This movement tells them that God wants the same thing for them.
• People want success in marriage and career, fulfillment, personal happiness, to be elevated. This movement promises them all their hearts desires.
• People do not want to suffer or do without. This movement promises them they do not have to.

The Strange Fire Conference is not a conference strictly dealing with abstract theological disputes over cessationism. It is much more than that. It goes to the very heartbeat of why continuationism is such a problem. This conference has at its core, pastoral concerns. People are living in error and being taking advantage of. The Christian message has been contorted into something very dark and demonic in many cases. The range of teaching in Pentecostal-Charismatic movement moves from simple error to insidious blasphemy. Someone has to say something! Thank God Dr. MacArthur sees the true threat and danger of a movement that for the most part, and with few exceptions here and there, is a blight on the Christian community.

We are kidding ourselves if we think for a minute that the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement would be what it is today if you took away the above promises and paced the gifts in a much more conservative environment. If we removed the prosperity gospel, the promises of career advancement and personal fulfillment, and we removed the personal prophecy, the dreams, and visions, and we placed the gifts in an environment that taught the truth, the movement would be unnoticeable. It is not the gifts themselves that motivate people to be in this movement, but the sensations they get, the hope they experience, and the lifestyle they think they can achieve that makes it so very attractive. It leads to ungodly desires for wealth that somehow become sanctified and right. It makes promises it cannot and does not keep. But hope is a funny thing. Hope will deceive you. Take a failed relationship for example. If a person has hope that the relationship can be restored, that hope, even if it is false, will cause them to continue to yearn for something that will never be realized. This false hope keeps the PC adherent in the movement, hoping that eventually their ship will come in. But the only hope that matters is that blessed hope that we have in the work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, to be satisfied by the hope that He offers, by the experience of knowing Him even if nothing else goes as we had hoped, that hope will sustain our joy more than anything man could ever hope to conjure up. I hope you will be stirred to avoid misplaced hope, and discover the faith and hope that is Christ Jesus.

Responding to Hays Responding to Butler

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

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

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

Hays goes on to accuse Butler of circular reasoning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pentecostal Claims, Biblical Discernment, and the Nature of Evidence: Another Response to Steve Hays

i) Notice how Ed's knee-jerk skepticism about testimonial evidence repristinates the position of Hume and his followers. Yet the Bible places great stock in the value of eyewitness testimony.

ii) Ed acts as though you can only assume one of two attitudes towards testimonial evidence: blind credulity or reflexive incredulity. He acts as though every witness is equally trustworthy or equally untrustworthy. But there are standard criteria for sifting testimonial evidence. 

This is one of the basic problems besetting some members of the MacArthur circle. Their cessationism commits them to radical skepticism regarding the possibility of historical knowledge. They're like the minimalist school in Biblical archeology (e.g. Hector Avalos). That's what happens when you adopt a purely reactionary posture. 

Steve raises a legitimate question on the nature of evidence. After all, evidence is an important component of any claim to true knowledge. Does it follow that a call for rigorous examination of testimonial evidence for modern signs and wonders is parallel to Humean skepticism? Is Hays right to conclude that the Bible would place great stock in the value of these sorts of testimonies coming from the Charismatic/Pentecostal camps? Let’s answer this first charge before moving on to the others.

David Hume was an empiricist and a skeptic. Hume’s non-Christian worldview coupled with his philosophical empiricism led him to skepticism. The basic problem with empiricism is it’s self-referential incoherence. When I say that all knowledge comes through the senses, I am required in the first place to be omniscient and in the second place to show how this specific knowledge came through my senses. Hume’s empiricism is one more worldview that cannot establish the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility of human experience. Chance plus empiricism equals skepticism and irrationalism in every case. Is this the kind of skepticism we display when we insist that empirical claims of signs and wonders must be tested empirically as well as exegetically? I do not think any objective reader of these Ping-Pong blogs would agree. In the first place, my skepticism is not a knee-jerk reaction. Hays is forgetting that I spent years in this stuff and was a blind advocate of these phenomena for some time. My position is anything but a knee-jerk. The old saying, “been there, done that” applies in my situation. That rules out the possibility of any knee-jerk reaction on my part.

Second, does the Bible place as much stock in eyewitness testimony as Hays implies? Numbers 35:30 points out that one witness of a murder is considered insufficient for capital punishment. This is again reaffirmed in Deut. 19:15. A single witness is simply not enough to bring a man to judgment for his iniquity. Scripture is replete with the need for multiple witnesses. Even Jesus Himself said, If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true (Jn. 5:31) It seems clear then that a single eyewitness testimony was always viewed as insufficient where Scripture is concerned. In addition, eyewitness testimony is only as reliable as the witness giving it, is credible. What we are saying is that we have had enough false reports by faith healers and miracle workers and we have, to my knowledge, no verifiable credible reports from them that we cannot help but begin on skeptical ground, so far as empirical testing is concerned. Given enough of Benny Hinn’s failed prophecies and it only seems reasonable that one would probably be wise to pay little attention to that man as soon as his lips begin moving. How many professed faith healers and miracles workers do we have to show to be frauds before we establish the view that when a man comes along making the same claims that dozens of frauds before him have made, that he is likely one of these fellows given that he has so much in common with them. That Hays would buy into the manufactured nonsense that modern prophets are different that ancient prophets and that false prophecy today is viewed by God differently than it was in ancient times is most outrageous and egregious. Such foolishness destroys any rational and biblical standard for discernment. While Satan is very pleased to create a framework where discernment is impossible, such a state of affairs is contrary to Christian theism at its most basic levels.

In addition, and for the record, cessationists do not assert that healings or miracles are beyond the pale of possibility. We admit that they can and sometimes they do occur. We glorify God for his marvelous grace and mercy when He heals the sick and injured. What we assert is that there is no credible or reliable evidence to suggest that genuine “faith healers” and “miracle workers” are walking among us in contemporary times. Not only does the empirical evidence support our conclusion, but biblical exegesis shows this to be the case as well.

I agree with Hays that there are criteria for sifting the evidence to support empirical claims of signs and wonders. We need credible eyewitnesses, and we need more than one. That would be helpful. The report needs to contain the details of the miracle that took place. These details need to disclose the person’s name and the ability of some credible investigator to examine the case. The person must have been certified to have this condition by a doctor or multiple credible witnesses familiar with the person. We must be able to rule out natural explanations for the cure. The condition must be demonstrable. A physician must certify that the person no longer has the condition. In order for this kind of testimony to support that there is in fact a “faith healer” among us, we require a number of stories just like this one and that such stories surround this person’s ministry and life as a matter of routine. If we could get to this point, we could at least make some progress. But like a plane with far too great a payload, she flies down the runway but never leaves the ground. So it is with these arguments and claims for modern faith healers and miracles workers. Claim upon claim is accompanied by one obscure story after another, lacking just those components necessary for reliability and credibility. Craig Keener writes a book, but in the process fails to seal the deal by leaving out precisely those things we desperately to need to put a punctuation mark at the end of the story!

Does this process for verifying miraculous claims in the name of Jesus Christ really place those who make it in the position of radical skepticism when it comes to historical knowledge? I think that such a statement is more than a little extreme. Is it true that I must accept the claims of every Charismatic faith healer I see on TV if I am to avoid radical skepticism? Is it true that my method for examining the evidence for these claims must be the same as my method for examining the phenomena of history? The credibility of the witness plays a very large role in second-hand testimony be it current affairs or the facts of history. The gospel of Thomas is a perfect example. According to this witness, Jesus made live birds from His clay ones. In another case, He smote a child with death. In another case, Jesus strikes critics of his parents with blindness. How are we to think about these claims? Are we even open to the possibility that they could be correct? When we first encounter them on the page, are we not repulsed and do we not find them repugnant? And we do so even without bothering to examine the evidence. How can we do this? We can do this because we already have enough evidence before us that has proven itself reliable and therefore we know that any counterevidence must be false.

Empirical evidence for an empirical truth-claim is after all something that any rational human being would expect. It seems reasonable enough to me. We are not, like Hume, ruling out the possibility of the miraculous based on some presupposition. We are Christian theists, after all, presupposing the truth of God. Hence, we not only argue for the possibility of the miraculous, we argue for its actuality. Hays’s attempt to associate our view with Hume is clearly an ad hominem. Hays would claim that we are ruling out miracles based on our theological bias. But that would not quite be true either. It would be closer to say that we rule out “faith healers” and “miracle workers” based on theological bias. But one would have to ask if that is really true. Let’s say that genuine faith healers and miracle workers continued in unbroken fashion down to present day. Would Hays presume that cessationists would hold to their view despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary? The Bible is true. To deny such irrefutable evidence would be irrational and incongruent with Scripture. It would make Scripture out to be a lie. 

There is a remarkable difference between being good discerners, being good critical thinkers, and being radical skeptics. Hays loves to muddy the water with such techniques and tactics when he argues. Perhaps this is why one writer says arguing with him is like arguing with a 4-year old. I would not go that far, but I would say that these discussions should always be in a spirit of Charity and mutual respect. That does not mean we should avoid pointing out the nature of the error and its consequences. But it does mean that we should not resort to name-calling, to straw men, or to comparing God-fearing men to radical God-hating skeptics like David Hume. I am certain that such behavior between Christians, even on a blog is a clear violation of Christian principles. And if you can’t defend Christian truth and your own position without violating such simple Christian principles, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to defend them at all.