Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Debunking continuationism


I'm going to comment on continuationism in relation to what I'll dub the MacArthur circle. By that designation I mean John MacArthur, Pyromaniacs, and Fred Butler.
In particular, I'm going to focus on Dan Phillips. It's a little hard to me to tell what his actual argument is, because, at least from what I've read, he so often resorts to tweets and ridicule rather than presenting a sustained argument. 
i) He seems to focus on the worst representatives of continuationism. Now, there's certainly a place for that. But if that's all you focus on, that's like debunking creationism by picking on Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, or debunking premillennialism by picking on Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, or John Hagee. 
ii) Now, perhaps he'd excuse his emphasis by saying there are no good representatives of continuationism. But that's obviously false. 
(Notice, I'm not attributing that to Dan. I don't know his rationale.)
iii) Unfortunately, he does come across as the Richard Dawkins of cessationists. Richard Dawkins has been criticized for simply ridiculing Christianity, without demonstrating a competent knowledge of what he's ridiculing, much less presenting a sustained argument. Perhaps there's more to Dan's position than meets the eye. 
iv) He also seems to resort to the following argument (if you can call it an argument):
Some (many?) continuationist make exaggerated claims. Since reality doesn't live up to their inflated claims, that disproves continuationism.
But if that's Dan's argument, then all he's proven is that continuationists who make exaggerated claims are wrong. That doesn't tell us anything about continuationists who don't make inflated claims. 
v) Let's be clear on the burden of proof. As I understand it, Dan distinguishes between miracles and miracle workers. He thinks God still performs miracles, but he thinks that after the NT era, God cut out the middle man. When God performs a miracle, he does so directly. There are no modern-day prophets, prophetesses, healers, or miracle workers. There are charlatans aplenty, but no one is the real McCoy. 
Now, I think distinguishing between mediate and immediate miracles is a valid theoretical distinction. Up to a point, I'm sympathetic to that distinction. At the same time, you have to do more than posit that distinction. You need to argue for that distinction.
vi) And this brings us back to the burden of proof. Dan's cessationism involves a universal negative. That means he's assuming a very high burden of proof. For it would only take a single exception, just one credible counterexample, to disprove his ironclad cessationism. All you'd need is one bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker between the death of St. John and today, to disprove his contention. 
vii) Put another way, what's the logical alternative to cessationism? Dan seems to think the logical alternative is a regular occurrence of miracles, miracles of a certain kind occurring at a certain rate. But that's not the logical alternative to cessationism. Logically, the alternative to cessationism doesn't select or predict for any particular outcome. Minimally, it simply allows for exceptions to Dan's universal negative. These could be few or many. Frequent or infrequent. Clustered or isolated.
viii) Perhaps, though, Dan would defend his distinction by saying you can never prove that a modern is the effect of a miracle worker. Maybe he'd say correlation doesn't prove causation. That inference commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
For instance, suppose a "healer" lays hands on a terminal cancer patient. Later that week, his oncologist can find no trace of the cancer in his patient. 
In principle, Dan could always chalk that up to spontaneous remission. Or he might say God directly healed the patient, while the involvement of the healer was adventitious. 
If Dan staked out that position in that situation, you couldn't prove him wrong. But if that's the position he always took, then that would the cessationist equivalent of unfalsifiable methodological naturalism. As one quipster recently put it:
Because the naturalist could always provide some far-fetched naturalistic explanation to explain the evidence. Consider:

Scientist: “We just discovered that fifty stars, millions of light-years away, just reformed themselves to spell ‘I am God’ in the sky and then they started blinking the same message in Morse Code. After that, the stars just disappeared!”

Naturalist: “Oh, odds are, and as Hume tells us, it is more believable that you are just lying rather than that actually happening.”

Or.
Naturalist: “Oh, that is just an advanced naturalistic alien civilization playing games with us silly humans.”
Or.
Naturalist: “Oh, it is substantially more likely that you and all the other scientists who allegedly saw that happen just hallucinated the whole episode.”
Or.
Naturalist: “Oh, we are just part of a computer simulation and our naturalistic overlord programmers are just having fun with their version of the Matrix.” 

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-haldane-krauss-argument.html?showComment=1375531136385#c6848516501722590835

Unfortuately, some cessationists rehash Humean objections to reported modern miracles. 

In addition, it would be disingenuous to demand that continuationists provide evidence if you're determined to discount whatever evidence they provide.
Now maybe there's more to Dan's argument than I'm aware of. Maybe his followers can point me to a detailed argument.  
I should hasten to add that Fred Butler generally argues for his positions. 

38 comments:

  1. John piper seems to the best of continualism & god's sovereighnty and no goofy stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a link to my list of at least SIX well known Calvinists who are also Continuationists. I've also included relevant links to their various materials on the internet.

      http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-of-notable-calvinists-who-are-also.html

      The most well known on the list included John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms, James K.A. Smith, Matt Slick, Vincent Cheung.

      Delete
  2. Unless there were lots more miracles occurring during the Acts period that weren't recorded in Acts, miracles were pretty rare back then too. I don't know why we'd think they'd be common now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "All you'd need is one bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker between the death of St. John and today, to disprove his contention."

    Indeed...in the same way that all a starving man would need is bread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank,

      What's that statement supposed to prove?

      Delete
    2. The name's Curtis, actually--and I'm simply observing that you're correct that disproving Dan's position would only require ONE bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker. That's actually Dan's whole point: if there WERE such an individual, wouldn't we know about it?

      Delete
    3. if there WERE such an individual, wouldn't we know about it?

      How does it follow that if such an individual existed, that we would know about him/her? There are billions of people in the world. You could have several hundred legitimate miracle workers and none of them live in places that are connected to Western media outlets in a credible way, to say nothing of previous generations that were even more isolated and insular with respect to their local communities.

      I also doubt that any legitimate miracle worker is going to seek attention, and they might actively work to conceal their abilities or gifts.

      Delete
    4. LanternBright

      "The name's Curtis, actually--and I'm simply observing that you're correct that disproving Dan's position would only require ONE bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker. That's actually Dan's whole point: if there WERE such an individual, wouldn't we know about it?"

      How many apostles would we know about if we didn't have the NT?

      You're also assuming there are no known individuals who fit the bill. Once again, what are your sources?

      Delete
    5. LanternBright

      "The name's Curtis, actually--and I'm simply observing that you're correct that disproving Dan's position would only require ONE bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker. That's actually Dan's whole point: if there WERE such an individual, wouldn't we know about it?"

      You mean...like Alexander Peden?

      Delete
    6. Why would they conceal their gift? Isn't that the point of sign gifts - to be noticed?
      Did the apostles conceal their gift? Jesus?

      Delete
    7. And should I conceal my gifts if I have the gift of hospitality?

      Delete
    8. That assumes that these are only "*sign*-gifts."

      Notice how often Jesus admonished people he healed not to publicize the healing.

      Delete
    9. And how many times the targets of said admonitions obeyed His directives. :-)

      Delete
    10. And we only know that because it was written down in the NT, which was preserved by Christian scribes. Most examples would never been written down in the first place, and of the faction that were, most ancient writings don't survive the ravages of time. That's a truism of archeology.

      Delete
  4. Steve,

    "How many apostles would we know about if we didn't have the NT? "

    So we should assume that any testimony of a modern-day healer or prophet is at least as reliable as the Holy Spirit-inspired, infallible, inerrant New Testament?

    "You're also assuming there are no known individuals who fit the bill. Once again, what are your sources?"

    So now the burden of proof is no longer upon people who claim to possess or who claim to have seen individuals who possess such gifts to demonstrate such? The burden of proof is now upon every person who wishes to assert a negative proposition? On what grounds, exactly?

    "You mean...like Alexander Peden?"

    I'll admit I don't have a great deal of background information on Peden. Was he a miracle worker on the level of, say, Paul or Peter? Are there eyewitness accounts of miracles he performed the way that Luke records eyewitness testimony of the miracles of Peter and Paul? Should we lend the same credence to sources that discuss Peden's works that we owe the New Testament records? What about Foxe's Book of Martyrs, or The Golden Legend? Since those report miraculous occurrences, should we automatically assume they're correct as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LanternBright

"So we should assume that any testimony of a modern-day healer or prophet is at least as reliable as the Holy Spirit-inspired, infallible, inerrant New Testament?"

      That's a completely illogical inference from what I said. Are you even trying to be honest?

      "So now the burden of proof is no longer upon people who claim to possess or who claim to have seen individuals who possess such gifts to demonstrate such?"

      Critics like you demonstrate circular reasoning. You don't bother to inform yourself, then you accuse the opposing side of not discharging its burden of proof. But, of course, your studied ignorance of the opposing side disqualifies you from making an informed judgment in that regard.

      "The burden of proof is now upon every person who wishes to assert a negative proposition? On what grounds, exactly?"

      That's exactly the sort of argument atheists use. They claim that atheists have no burden of proof inasmuch as atheism is a purely negative thesis: nonbelief in god or gods.

      However, cessationism is a truth-claim. So, yes, cessationism has its own burden of proof. A denial is still a truth-claim.

      "I'll admit I don't have a great deal of background information on Peden."

      You demand examples, then profess ignorance.

      "Was he a miracle worker on the level of, say, Paul or Peter?"

      Nice way of rigging the issue. Cessationism denies post-apostolic prophets, miracle-workers, &c. A candidate needn't be "on the level of Peter or Paul" to suffice as a counterexample to cessationism. The question at issue isn't the superlative quality or quantity of miracles, but whether some authentic miracles still occur through human agency.

      "Are there eyewitness accounts of miracles he performed the way that Luke records eyewitness testimony of the miracles of Peter and Paul?"

      The fact that you have to ask illustrates your self-reinforcing ignorance. For instance, "There is the famous Covenanter, Alexander Peden. It seems to me to be beyond any dispute that the man had the power of foreknowledge and did prophesy things that subsequently came to pass The records are authentic and they can be read in the two great volumes of Select Biographies edited for the Woodrow Society that deals with that kind of history," M. L. Jones, Healing and the Scriptures (Oliver Nelson 1987), 28.

      "Should we lend the same credence to sources that discuss Peden's works that we owe the New Testament records?"

      That's a red herring.

      "What about Foxe's Book of Martyrs, or The Golden Legend? Since those report miraculous occurrences, should we automatically assume they're correct as well?"

      Once again, you resemble an atheists who treats testimonial evidence as inherently untrustworthy. There are standard criteria for sifting testimonial evidence.

      Your knee-jerk skepticism destroys the possibility of historical knowledge.

      Delete
    2. "That's a completely illogical inference from what I said. Are you even trying to be honest?"

      It's not an illogical inference at all. Here's how your argument works:

      1. The NT documents record reports of the miraculous.
      2. The NT documents also tell us about the apostles.
      3. If you believe the NT about the apostles, you believe the NT about miracles.
      4. If you believe the NT about miracles, you should lend equal credence to other accounts of miracles.

      If that's not what you were trying to say, then I submit that actually YOU'RE the one not being honest by setting forth a patently obvious bait-and-switch.

      "So now the burden of proof is no longer upon people who claim to possess or who claim to have seen individuals who possess such gifts to demonstrate such?"

      "Critics like you demonstrate circular reasoning. You don't bother to inform yourself, then you accuse the opposing side of not discharging its burden of proof. But, of course, your studied ignorance of the opposing side disqualifies you from making an informed judgment in that regard."

      Oh, so I "dont bother to inform" myself now? I have a 'studied ignorance of the opposing side'? I'm interested in hearing what evidence you have for EITHER of those insulting assertions. Again, though, I understand how much easier it is for you to insult people than to interact in a mature, godly way.

      "That's exactly the sort of argument atheists use. "

      And that's what we call an association fallacy.

      "They claim that atheists have no burden of proof inasmuch as atheism is a purely negative thesis: nonbelief in god or gods.

      However, cessationism is a truth-claim. So, yes, cessationism has its own burden of proof. A denial is still a truth-claim."

      And this is a fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. You set forth the idea that Dan's claim was easily falsifiable, and I challenged you to thereby falsify it. Your response is to shift the burden of proof upon me. Nice sleight-of-hand, but really terrible reasoning.

      "You demand examples, then profess ignorance."

      You provide an example you refuse to defend.

      "Nice way of rigging the issue. Cessationism denies post-apostolic prophets, miracle-workers, &c. A candidate needn't be "on the level of Peter or Paul" to suffice as a counterexample to cessationism. The question at issue isn't the superlative quality or quantity of miracles, but whether some authentic miracles still occur through human agency."

      Nice way of dodging the question: What miracles, if any, did Peden perform?

      "The fact that you have to ask illustrates your self-reinforcing ignorance. For instance, "There is the famous Covenanter, Alexander Peden. It seems to me to be beyond any dispute that the man had the power of foreknowledge and did prophesy things that subsequently came to pass The records are authentic and they can be read in the two great volumes of Select Biographies edited for the Woodrow Society that deals with that kind of history," M. L. Jones, Healing and the Scriptures (Oliver Nelson 1987), 28.

      That's a red herring. "

      Actually, it's not. I ask you whether there are eyewitness testimonies to Peden's work in the 17th century and you cite a secondary source from 1987. You do know the difference between primary and secondary sources, right? You DO realize that a man writing in 1987 CANNOT POSSIBLY have been an eyewitness to miracles alleged to have been performed THREE HUNDRED YEARS EARLIER, right?

      "Once again, you resemble an atheists who treats testimonial evidence as inherently untrustworthy. There are standard criteria for sifting testimonial evidence.

      Your knee-jerk skepticism destroys the possibility of historical knowledge."

      Once again, you retort with knee-jerk ad hominem arguments and association fallacies without bothering to actually answer the question.

      Delete
    3. LanternBright:

      

"It's not an illogical inference at all. Here's how your argument works: 1. The NT documents record reports of the miraculous. 2. The NT documents also tell us about the apostles. 3. If you believe the NT about the apostles, you believe the NT about miracles. 4. If you believe the NT about miracles, you should lend equal credence to other accounts of miracles. If that's not what you were trying to say, then I submit that actually YOU'RE the one not being honest by setting forth a patently obvious bait-and-switch."

      Thanks for illustrating your irrationality. What I said was "How many apostles would we know about if we didn't have the NT?" That was in response to your claim that "Dan's position would only require ONE bona fide prophet or healer or miracle worker. That's actually Dan's whole point: if there WERE such an individual, wouldn't we know about it?"

      That doesn't lend "equal credence" to extrabiblical accounts of miracles. Rather, that's pointing out that even in the greater case of the apostles, most of them would be forgotten if they hadn't been recorded in the NT, which was diligently preserved by Christian scribes. A fortiori, there's no reason to expect extant records for lesser individuals.

      "I'm interested in hearing what evidence you have for EITHER of those insulting assertions. Again, though, I understand how much easier it is for you to insult people than to interact in a mature, godly way."

      You mean, like all of the insulting comments that Frank Turk, Dan Phillips et al. dish out in reference to charismatics en masse? Why don't you try dropping the double standard.

      And, yes, if you impugn the honest of Pentecostals, that cuts both ways. If you don't like to be measured by the same yardstick you apply to others, then you have a lot of growing up to do.

      "And that's what we call an association fallacy."

      Wrong again. I didn't say you were guilty by association. Rather, you're using the same type of argument. That's more than associative. That's substantive.

      "And this is a fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance."

      Wrong again. I pointed out that you commit a popular fallacy by imagining that if a thesis can be expressed in negative terms, it carries no burden of proof.

      "Your response is to shift the burden of proof upon me."

      No, I didn't shift the onus onto you. Rather, I pointed out that you have your own burden of proof. You're the one who's trying to shirk your own burden of proof.

      "You set forth the idea that Dan's claim was easily falsifiable, and I challenged you to thereby falsify it."

      I didn't say if his claim was easily falsifiable. Rather, I drew attention to where he set the bar, and the conditions for falsifying his claim.

      "You provide an example you refuse to defend."

      What example would that be?

      "Nice way of dodging the question: What miracles, if any, did Peden perform?"

      I gave you a lead. Take it from there.

      "Actually, it's not. I ask you whether there are eyewitness testimonies to Peden's work in the 17th century and you cite a secondary source from 1987. You do know the difference between primary and secondary sources, right? You DO realize that a man writing in 1987 CANNOT POSSIBLY have been an eyewitness to miracles alleged to have been performed THREE HUNDRED YEARS EARLIER, right?"

      Are you illiterate? He gave his source: "The records are authentic and they can be read in the two great volumes of Select Biographies edited for the Woodrow Society."

      If you're curious, look it up.

      Delete
    4. LanternBright

      "Once again, you retort with knee-jerk ad hominem arguments and association fallacies without bothering to actually answer the question."

      You mean, like the way the MacArthur circles tries to discredit Pentecostalism en masse by tarring all charismatics with the antics of some charlatans? That kind of ad hominem, broad-brush treatment?

      Delete
    5. You mean, like the way the MacArthur circles tries to discredit Pentecostalism en masse by tarring all charismatics with the antics of some charlatans? That kind of ad hominem, broad-brush treatment?

      BAM!!! Truth bomb!

      Delete
  5. Matt,

    "How does it follow that if such an individual existed, that we would know about him/her? There are billions of people in the world. You could have several hundred legitimate miracle workers and none of them live in places that are connected to Western media outlets in a credible way, to say nothing of previous generations that were even more isolated and insular with respect to their local communities."

    Is there something in the New Testament that would lead you to believe that God would so favor the preaching of His gospel in some geographic locales over others that He would attest His Gospel with miraculous signs and wonders in certain places while refusing to do so in others?

    "I also doubt that any legitimate miracle worker is going to seek attention, and they might actively work to conceal their abilities or gifts."

    Do any of Paul's mentions of the spiritual gifts suggest that they're only given to certain select, elite groups or favored locations and not to be used in order to serve the church at large? Does Paul encourage people who possess miraculous gifts to hide them so that the global church can't see them? Does he anywhere encourage the idea that since displays of the miraculous would attract attention they should be kept under tight wraps (you know, so we don't have too many people getting too terribly interested in the very Gospel whose proclamation those gifts were intended to authenticate)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you're addressing my initial question. There's a disconnect between your premise ("if there WERE such an individual") and your conclusion ("wouldn't we know about it?"). It's not obvious how that logically follows. It's not as if you or other Americans are omniscient or have access to large networks of information--at least of the kind that would be interested in discovering or documenting miraculous gifts.

      I never said anything about actively hiding them from the global church or being limited to an elite. My comment has to do with our ability to traverse great distances for relatively little cost, and so any miracle worker would have to consider the aims and purpose of his ministry against the undue attention from celebrity culture:

      Let's say someone is a miracle worker in a rural region of France and regularly serves his local church with his gift. Let's say he has an opportunity to speak to a group of reporters on the issue and demonstrate a healing or two. He has no obligation to do this as it could very well entail tens of thousands of people turning his local village into a tourist attraction and hunting him down for healings. His town would be disrupted and his ministry efforts hampered by every wealthy, desperate person--believer or not--seeking some physical solution to a physical problem. Even Jesus reduced his contact with the crowds--and thus opportunities for miracles--when they threatened to blunt his ministry goals.

      Delete
    2. I hear you, brother, but I do wonder at how realistic that is.
      Look at the way it worked with Jesus. He told lots of recipients of miraculous healings not to tell anyone but they did anyway and the news about Him spread everywhere. And that was before Twitter.
      How do you see that working in real practical life today?

      Delete
    3. Sorry, Matt, but I still think it's actually on you to explain why, if the apostolic gifts remain operative today, they can only be found where no one can report on them. See, that's the difference between the miracles Jesus performed--which testified to His unique authority and showed that He was ushering in the Kingdom of God--and the miracles the apostles performed, which seem to have been intended to authenticate the proclamation of the Gospel. In other words, the apostolic miracles were intended specifically to attract the attention of unbelievers. (This also seems to be true of certain of the spiritual gifts that Paul catalogues in 1 Corinthians, by the way.) So it actually DOES follow that if miracles were intended to exist within the church to serve as signs for unbelievers, then we'd expect to continue seeing them wherever the Gospel is preached, rather than only in tiny pockets of Christendom. Surely unbelievers in the media-saturated West don't need the gospel LESS than those unbelievers in rural France, do they? Again, then, I think it's on you to explain why we'd only see those sign gifts active in places untouched by the ever-more ubiquitous smartphone.

      At this point I really can't resist posting this: http://xkcd.com/1235/

      :-)

      Delete
    4. Notice how this artificially confines the function of miracles to "sign-gifts."

      You need to learn how to think for yourself, rather than letting the MacArthur circle frame the issue for you.

      Delete
    5. Most church history took place before the age of telecommunications.

      Delete
    6. Ah, yes--when you don't have a valid response, by all means insult the questioner. You stay classy, Steve Hays!

      Delete
    7. "Most church history took place before the age of telecommunications."

      Oh man. You've just succeeded in COMPLETELY DEBUNKING CESSATIONISM with that statement. I'm...I'm FLOORED.

      Your rhetorical acumen continues to astound.

      Delete
    8. Notice how this artificially confines the function of miracles to "sign-gifts."

      But isn't that the topic of contention? I don't think anyone disputes that God grants the gift of hospitality to some, today.
      And since we are talking about why these giftings aren't known far and wide, I think it's a valid question. Sign gifts are supposed to be that - a sign. I know several people myself with the gift of hospitality. I don't know any (that I know of) with the gift of miraculous healing. And if I knew one of the latter, I doubt they'd be a secret known only to my church body or whatever, b/c people are much more spectacularly interested in such things, moreso than hospitality.
      Does that make sense?

      Delete
    9. LanternBright

      "Ah, yes--when you don't have a valid response, by all means insult the questioner. You stay classy, Steve Hays!"

      As a matter of fact, I drew attention to a flawed assumption of yours (i.e. your narrow classification of miracles as "sign-gifts"). That's called a valid response, comprehend?

      "Oh man. You've just succeeded in COMPLETELY DEBUNKING CESSATIONISM with that statement. I'm...I'm FLOORED."

      Was that my aim? No. You see, you're no more honest than the charlatans you deride.

      The question at issue was whether there's an expectation that if a genuine prophet, miracle-worker, or exorcist existed, we should have heard of him. That's how you yourself framed the issue. Remember? Or is it asking too much to hold you to the terms of your own challenge?

      So, in response to *that*, I point out that your expectation is unrealistic prior to the age of telecommunications. Which is most of church history.

      Are you now able to follow the argument, or do I need to spell it out for you in even more excruciating detail?

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. If Calvinism is true then God has a Redemptive plan that includes a limitation of evidence for His existence so that the non-elect are not coerced into believing THAT God exists (which could lead to belief IN God). God ordains both ends and means even in the psychology of people. There's a place in Reformed theology for some doctrine of the Hiddenness of God (Here's mine). In which case, the sign gifts are not intended by God to bring about the greatest amount of people to a belief in His existence (much less belief/trust *in* God). So it makes sense for God to geographically distribute the gifts in ways that doesn't frustrate His plans.

      The sign gifts may be intended by God to be used in situations that are evangelistic rather than apologetic. And toward groups that are relatively "neutral" to Christianity rather than positively and/or actively hostile to Christianity as it's often the case in the Western World. The Biblical principle is that God mocks/opposes/resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). We have to also factor in the secularization of the West and its effect of making its people (including Christians) incredulous and skeptical about miracles. If sign gifts are still being given by God, then they would exist among Christians who believe in them and have expectations to operate in them. Not those who have a theology that specifically rejects their current operation (i.e. cessationism).

      Also, the West has already had the Gospel preached to it centuries ago. It may be the case that like persons, societies that have had their evils spirits casts out may have 7 times as many spirits return if the society ends up rejecting Christ later on and isn't filled (or remains filled) with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:43-45). Missiologists speculate that one reason why the miraculous is happening in some countries and not in others is that where they are happening it's often the case that the Gospel is arriving there for the first time (or the first time in full). The historical ripple of Christ's first coming is only now arriving on those shores and lands.

      There's also the principle of God's general preference in saving the "foolish", the weak and the base rather than the mighty, the wise and the noble (1 Cor. 26-31). Many in the West (and definitely it's culture) does see itself as the intellectual, scientific and financial elite (though, the reality behind that perception is fading and moving elsewhere in the 21st century).

      For myself, as a Calvinistic continuationist (yes, even a "charismatic") I do believe there are some ministers who genuinely operate in the charismatic gifts. I could name a number of people who I strongly suspect do. One example would be Roger Sapp.

      Delete
    12. Curtis,

      I'm having trouble following your comments--at least as a substantive response to how you've decided to articulate the terms of the discussion. You seem to have some sort of expectation that we should have documentation of miracles given the prevalence of modern technology. What drives this expectation I can only infer since you do not outright say what it is you think demonstrates the move from you first premise to your conclusion.

      1. It's not clear that your standard is a reasonable one. The multiplication of camera phones does not seem to have any bearing on whether a miracle worker could demonstrate a miraculous act. Suppose I was horribly injured in a car crash. Suppose in a moment of morbidity, I took out my cheap phone and snapped a fairly low-quality, blurry picture of my mangled and injured body before passing out in agony. Later, at the hospital, I awake completely healthy. My wife testifies that a man claiming to be a miracle worker laid hands on me and healed me. Then I take a picture of my healed body in the hospital, and post it to a blog. I include video testimony from myself and my wife about the event and the miracle worker.

      Do you honestly think this would convince you or anyone else? Wouldn't you say that it was photoshopped, that God miraculously healed me, or that the original picture is of someone else, or that the "healthy" photo was taken at a much later date, but the part about the miracle worker was a sham or a mistake? And wouldn't a lot of secular atheists question my credibility and generally mock me?

      All this serves as a disincentive for people to post pictures of miracles. So I am not surprised, for yet another reason, that these things are not so well-documented as you think they must be.

      2. Your objection has in mind a certain number of miracles workers relative to the overall population. I have no idea what that number might be, although you seem to think it is sufficient enough to reach some verifiability threshold. It could very well be low enough that it happens to be a miniscule amount, so as either to be lumped with (and thus explained away as) a hoax or mistake, or otherwise explained away as a naturalistic encounter.

      3. I don't understand your objection based on who is "deserving" of the Gospel. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression Jesus and the disciples didn't preach to every town in Israel, and they did various levels of signs in various towns and locations. Sometimes it seemed that the Gospel was presented with very few signs, and public presentations, such as Paul's various arguments and testimonies, seemed devoid of miracles at the time of presentation. So the objection strikes me as inchoate. Perhaps you can refine it?

      By the way, what books on logic have you read? Comparisons do not constitute a fallacious appeal to guilt by association.

      Delete
    13. I also have to say that there is information overload in the media now. It's not like when there were only 3 television networks. Since everything can and is being uploaded or discussed on the internet, it's more difficult for interesting topics that go against conventional expectations to rise to the top of people's discussion and awareness. This happens both in the secular and Christian world. By nature reporting is selective since you can't report on absolutely everything. Yet, because SO MUCH IS being reported now it makes it difficult to choose and there's the pressure to choose what's safe and uncontroversial.

      Also, the truth is that people's circle of influence is really not as wide as people think. There are cliques and Sub-sub-cultures even in Christianity. For example, many of John MacArthur's people are Calvinists and yet many Calvinists have never heard about or read anything of Steve's or Paul's blogs on Calvinism. Another example, the average listener of Dr. James White's Dividing Line who agree with him wouldn't be able to explain what libertarian free will is and why understanding it would be important in defending Calvinism.

      If that kind of lack of dissemination goes on WITHIN a sub-culture that's internet savvy, how much more between differing sub-cultures?

      Everyone knows about Benny Hinn and similar TBN like tele-evangelists, but there are other charismatics who aren't flashy and don't strive to "be someone" (i.e. famous). But rather strive to be faithful to God in their ministering to God's people. Some ministries intentionally try to remain relatively small in staff and operation to keep costs down and in order not to go into debt (which they believe dishonors God). And in order not to have to depend on sleezy tactics to shear the sheep (i.e. the people of God) in order to maintain "the ministry".

      Also, it shouldn't be surprising that God would manifest more Redemptive Grace in the form of healing (and other similar phenomena) to people who have lesser access to God's Common Grace. People who have the benefit of living in countries where there's a hospital on (nearly) every corner and where health insurance comes with most jobs won't be as desperate and dependent on God's grace for healing than those people who live in areas where the nearest hospital is thousands of miles away and where the roads aren't paved but rocky and pass through hostile jungles, wildernesses and bands of Gorilla soldiers.

      Delete
    14. And those people who do live in hostile situations would not be in a position to document or publicize or broadcast the extraordinary things God has done in their midst. At best only verbal testimonies can come out of those circumstances being passed on from person to person till by the time it get to the people in the West it's a 10th or 30th hand account of the miracle.

      Delete
    15. LanternBright

"Is there something in the New Testament that would lead you to believe that God would so favor the preaching of His gospel in some geographic locales over others that He would attest His Gospel with miraculous signs and wonders in certain places while refusing to do so in others?"

      Well, it took a long time for the Gospel to reach North America, South America, sub-Saharan African, &c. 

"Do any of Paul's mentions of the spiritual gifts suggest that they're only given to certain select, elite groups or favored locations…"

      Actually, there's evidence both in Acts and the Pauline epistles that Paul strategically aimed for urban centers and the power elite.

      "…in the very Gospel whose proclamation those gifts were intended to authenticate)?"

      Begs the question by assuming miracles only happen to authenticate the Gospel. That's clearly reductionistic if you bother to read the multifaceted purpose of miracles in the NT. That's a popular cessationist paradigm, but it grossly oversimplifies the NT data.

      Delete
  6. Alan, I addressed the classification of miracles as "sign-gifts" in my post on Dan Wallace's argument for cessationism. That was yesterday.

    ReplyDelete